MPs Fault Dartmoor Prison Lease as a Costly Misstep
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has warned that the decision to sign a £4 million-a-year lease for HMP Dartmoor represents a needless waste of taxpayers’ money. The prison has stood empty for 18 months, raising questions about the logic and governance surrounding the lease and its expected benefits.
The PAC’s intervention highlights a broader concern: when state bodies commit to long-term contracts for assets that do not immediately generate value, the public purse bears the risk. In Dartmoor’s case, the lease was intended to preserve capacity and operational flexibility at a time of shifting priorities for the Prison Service. However, MPs say the arrangement failed to justify itself, given the ongoing vacancy and the associated costs of maintaining an idle facility.
Overview of the Lease and Its Consequences
According to the committee’s findings, the lease agreement was signed by HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) and the department’s oversight did not adequately challenge the underlying business case. The lease price translates into millions of pounds each year, money that could have funded other priorities within the Criminal Justice System, from frontline staffing to rehabilitation programs that reduce recidivism.
Officials already tailored the Dartmoor arrangement to address contingencies, but the 18-month vacancy has persisted without delivering tangible capacity relief or revenue. The PAC notes that this undercuts the rationale for tying up funds in a long-term contract for a facility sitting idle.
What the PAC Recommends
The committee is not merely critiquing a single lease; it is calling for stronger governance, better cost-benefit analyses, and clearer accountability before future real estate commitments. Specific recommendations include:
- Rigorous scrutiny of business cases for all future prison property deals, including sensitivity analyses for vacancy scenarios.
- Better alignment between asset strategy and funding decisions, ensuring leases do not inadvertently crowd out essential operating spending.
- Transparent reporting to Parliament on the financial and operational impact of idle facilities, with a clear timetable to bring vacancies to a managed conclusion.
- Clear delineation of responsibilities among departments for approving high-value contracts, to reduce the risk of misaligned incentives.
Public accountability hinges on whether such contracts deliver long-term public benefits. The PAC’s stance is that, in this case, the expected advantages did not materialize quickly enough to justify the cost, especially while the vacancy persisted.
Implications for Taxpayers and Policy
For taxpayers, the Dartmoor lease underscores a broader debate about value for money in public procurement. When a facility is not in use, continuing payments can appear indefensible, particularly in a sector where funding streams are under pressure. The committee’s scrutiny signals a push for more prudent, evidence-based decision-making, with a bias toward flexibility and cost containment.
Policy-makers may respond with tighter controls over long-term commitments, stronger external validation of business cases, and improved oversight mechanisms to prevent repeat scenarios where vacancies drain resources without proportional benefits.
Looking Ahead: What Needs to Change?
As Parliament weighs the Dartmoor case, several questions lie ahead: Will the lease be renegotiated, terminated, or salvaged through operational use? What governance reforms will be enacted to prevent similar missteps in future property deals? And how will the Prison Service demonstrate accountability for capital decisions that tie up funds in idle assets?
Ultimately, MPs want a system where decisions about prisons and other critical infrastructure are driven by clear, demonstrable public value, not by optimistic projections or insufficient challenge to the status quo. The Dartmoor episode could become a turning point—pushing for reforms that safeguard taxpayers while ensuring the justice system remains capable, adaptive, and financially responsible.
