Self-harm at HMP Buckley Hall had risen sharply and was still climbing, HM Inspectorate of Prisons found. Inspectors also found that drugs were easy to get, even though most other safety measures compared well with similar prisons.
The inspectorate’s report, published in May 2024, followed fieldwork that ended in February 2024. It was the first full inspection of the Rochdale prison since 2019.
Buckley Hall is a category C training prison for adult men. Training prisons exist to give men education, work and courses that prepare them for life after release. The prison held 465 men at the time of the inspection, against an operational capacity of 469. In effect, it was full.
Most men there serve long sentences. The report said 95% were serving more than four years, and about 70% presented a high or very high risk of harm. Only about seven men a month left the prison for the community.
How inspectors graded Buckley Hall
The inspectorate assesses prisons against four healthy prison tests: safety, respect, purposeful activity and preparation for release. Purposeful activity covers education, work and time out of cell. Each test receives one of four grades: good, reasonably good, not sufficiently good or poor.
Inspectors rated Buckley Hall reasonably good for safety and for respect. They judged purposeful activity not sufficiently good. Preparation for release scored good, the highest grade.
In 2019, inspectors had rated the prison good for safety, respect and preparation for release. Purposeful activity was not sufficiently good then too. The new grades therefore show a step down in two tests and no change in the others.
Charlie Taylor, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, described a “slow but perceptible decline” over recent years. He added that the problems were clearly identifiable and could be put right. A new governor had recently arrived, and leaders wanted to restore the prison’s earlier high performance.
Inspectors raised 10 key concerns, five of them priorities for immediate action. They also recorded eight examples of notable positive practice, an unusually high number.
There was evidence of a slow but perceptible decline at the prison over recent years, but the problems were clearly identifiable and easily arrestable.
Charlie Taylor, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
Self-harm, violence and drugs
Rates of self-harm stood much higher than at the last inspection. Inspectors said the prison had only a limited understanding of what might lie behind the rise.
Violence and use of force had also increased, although little of the violence was serious. Prisoners spoke well of their treatment on arrival, and most safety indicators compared favourably with other category C prisons.
Drugs posed the biggest exception to that picture. Nearly half of prisoners told inspectors drugs were easy to get. Random testing suggested that well over a quarter were taking drugs at the time of the inspection.
Some drug work impressed inspectors. Fourteen officers had completed enhanced training in substance misuse and worked on the recovery and substance-free living units. Twenty-seven men received a long-acting injectable form of buprenorphine, an opioid substitute, which reduced the risk of medicines being stolen or misused.
Health care showed strengths, including a well-being area called the Hive that prisoners greatly valued. But men who needed a Mental Health Act assessment waited too long. They then faced significant delays before transfer to hospital.
Relationships, living conditions and time out of cell
The report put much of the prison’s success down to excellent relationships between staff and prisoners. Four full-time key workers each supported a caseload of around 40 men. These included young adults, care leavers and men serving indeterminate sentences for public protection.
Yet weaknesses in basic processes undermined that culture. Consultation with prisoners, complaints and applications no longer worked as well as before. Inspectors also said the prison needed to give fairness and inclusion greater priority.
The grounds looked well kept, but many buildings were ageing badly. Inspectors said the prison service had not invested enough in the fabric of the jail. Too many men lived in cramped cells, and cells on the induction unit were grubby. Major repairs to boilers and showers took unreasonably long.
Men typically spent between five and eight hours a day out of their cells, depending on whether they worked. That compared well with many similar prisons. Even so, inspectors found 31% of men locked up during the working day, which they judged too many for a training prison.
Ofsted, which inspects education in prisons, rated the overall effectiveness of education, skills and work as requires improvement. That is its second lowest grade. Inspectors concluded that the prison was not fulfilling its core role as a training establishment.
There were not enough education, work and training places for the population. Leaders had been too slow to fix weaknesses in the industrial workshops. Instructors there did not routinely help men improve their English and maths or support those with learning difficulties well enough.
Strong work on families and release
Preparation for release was the prison’s strongest area. Inspectors found good work to support family ties and to manage sentences. Leaders also understood the treatment needs of the population well.
Leaders met families regularly to hear about their experience of visiting. These forums included lunch, a tour and a social visit at the end. Inspectors listed this among the notable positive practice.
The report called the support for the few men released from Buckley Hall very good, even though the prison has no formal resettlement role. Courses to tackle offending behaviour remained quite limited, however.
The prison had not yet met the expectations it had raised among men serving life sentences. Inspectors pointed in particular to the dedicated Aspire unit, which was not yet working properly.
Public protection arrangements for high-risk men also fell short. Inspectors found cases where staff did not monitor phone calls or mail when they should have. Attendance at the key risk meeting was inconsistent.
Mr Taylor wrote that the effective partnership culture and excellent relationships would help leaders to turn the prison around. He also called for a more systematic and sophisticated use of data.
About this story
This story is based on HM Inspectorate of Prisons’ report on HMP Buckley Hall, published on 20 May 2024, following an inspection that ended in February 2024. All figures and judgements are the inspectorate’s. Read the full inspection report · See the prison’s profile in our directory.
