Richard Kirkham, Principal Investigator, SALIENT Programme
Mike Lewis, Co-Investigator, SALIENT Programme
On the 1st July 2026, the UK Government launched an independent review of the prison system. It will be led by the former Home Secretary, the Rt Hon. Amber Rudd. There was a degree of inevitability surrounding this announcement; the prison system has been ‘running hot’ for a considerable amount of time and the commissioning of an independent report to understand the ‘why’ tends to be the ‘go-to’ for governments of all colours – some notable examples include:
- The Woolf Report, commissioned in the aftermath of the disturbances at HMP Strangeways (1991)
- The Woodcock Report, an enquiry into the escape of six prisoners from the Special Security Unit at HMP Whitemoor (1994)
- Jonathan Hall KC’s Independent review of Separation Centres (2026) following attacks on prison officers at HMP Frankland
Left to right: i) HMP Gartree, ii) HMP Strangeways Riots and iii) the ‘infamous’ Paxman/Howard interview (HMP Whitemoor Escapes)
The ‘Rudd Review’ is notable because it doesn’t have a single event that serves as its starting point; instead, it is rooted in a series of events that collectively highlight the underlying issues we discussed a recent SALIENT blog. While the ‘Rudd Review’ may ultimately be seen as a typical ‘machinery of government’ response to persistent challenges within the prison system, one critical question remains: what new insights will this review provide beyond what we already know?
The terms of reference for the ‘Rudd Review’ indicate that ‘the prison system faces ongoing and future challenges that are not widely understood,’ shaped by pressures related to capacity, safety, decency, security, and rehabilitation, as well as the age, condition, and configuration of the prison estate. The assertion that these ongoing and future challenges are not well understood has raised some concerns, especially when considering the recent annual reports from the Independent Monitoring Boards and HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. The former reports that ‘system-wide population pressures have stalled prisoners’ progression, destabilised prisons, and exacerbated safety issues.’
‘Reviewing reviews’ and lessons-learned
In April 2025, Ben Paxton and Jill Rutter published a report through the Institute of Government (IfG) examining the role of independent reviews in the policy-making process. They argue that these reviews can introduce expertise, enhance credibility, and create political distance, which can aid in addressing complex or contentious issues.
However, they also recognise that not all reviews lead to tangible benefits. Some fail to adequately assess the political landscape, which is essential for generating the momentum needed for reform. Additionally, Paxton and Rutter suggest that independent reviews may sometimes serve as political tools used to “kick the can down the road.”
It is noteworthy that the current Labour Government has commissioned at least 14 independent reviews, covering topics such as adult social care, water sector regulation, new towns, and sentencing. The latter is particularly relevant to the Rudd Review, especially in light of reported release errors associated with the early-release scheme (known as SDS40), introduced to address prison overcrowding, as highlighted by the Victims Commissioner.
How effective are independent reviews in engaging with the individuals who are most affected by the issues they seek to address? From a SALIENT perspective, the question is ‘how can a “human-centred systems approach” be achieved in this process?’
In our next blog, we explore this further in the context of the role and value of the arts and humanities as enablers of change.
In summary
- The appointment of Amber Rudd follows a pattern – i.e. previous Ministry of Justice reviews were (at least partly) about building public consensus for unpopular decisions, e.g. appointing a former Conservative Justice Secretary (the Rt. Hon. David Gauke, Sentencing Review) is meant to create cross-party ‘cover’.
- Across the 66 sampled reviews in Paxton and Rutte’s report, lived experience appears just once in Josh MacAlister’s children’s social care review, singled out because care-experienced people distrusted government. Elsewhere, ‘stakeholders’ tends to mean government, the Treasury, opposition parties, businesses and reviewers; there is no category for lived or community experience.
- The “no guarantee of implementation” section in the Paxton and Rutter report states that cost is the key reason why reviews get shelved. The ‘Rudd Review’ terms of reference indicate that there is no new funding, and that the Ministry of Justice will absorb costs. The review is also tasked with finding efficiencies. On IfG evidence, a review constrained to no new money before it starts is heading “for the shelf”. Also, it warns that what’s “ruled out from the start” can “fatally flaw the review.” The ‘Rudd Review’ terms of reference cover adult prisons only, no delivery plans, no new funding, and a security-first framing, etc. The ‘security-first’ framing reminds me of issues that were explored in the excellent Channel 4 dispatches documentary ‘Voices from Long Lartin’ – it is well worth a watch in the context of the Rudd Review.