Introduction: a costly holdover from a controversial decision
The Ministry of Justice has spent a startling £100 million maintaining Dartmoor prison in a state of readiness even though the facility has not and cannot house inmates. A Public Accounts Committee investigation has highlighted that the department signed a 10-year lease for the site, knowingly leaving it underutilised and “radioactive” in effect. This is not just a budget line item—it raises fundamental questions about how public assets are managed and how decisions made years ago continue to burden taxpayers today.
The background: why Dartmoor stayed open
Dartmoor Prison, located in southwest England, was historically valued for its secure design and capacity. However, concerns about its condition, suitability for modern operations, and safety protocols led MPs to scrutinise why the MoJ would keep a facility that could not function as intended. The committee found that the lease was signed despite clear awareness of risks and limited prospects for utilising the site in the future. The decision effectively tethered the property to a timetable that no longer matched the department’s needs.
What does “radioactive” mean in this context?
Public accounts terminology described the facility as “radioactive” not in the literal sense of radiation, but as a metaphor for a project that had become a political and financial liability. The description underscores the mismatch between the asset’s potential value and the costs of keeping it operationally idle. Energy and safety concerns, combined with the ongoing maintenance and security requirements, contributed to a situation where money was spent to hold a facility in a state of readiness rather than to serve a clear, immediate purpose.
The financial impact: £100m and counting
Analysts told MPs that the MoJ’s commitment to the Dartmoor lease has locked in costs for a decade, irrespective of whether the site is used. The £100m figure represents not just rent, but the cumulative expense of maintaining infrastructure, security, utilities, and safety compliance. Critics argue that this level of expenditure on a dormant asset diverts funds away from frontline priorities such as staffing, repairs at other prisons, and rehabilitation programs for inmates who actually require secure housing and support services.
The policy and governance questions
The committee’s findings point to broader questions about due diligence, risk assessment, and the governance processes that underpinned the lease agreement. If the MoJ anticipated limited utilisation but proceeded with a decade-long commitment, what checks and balances were in place? How can government departments improve decision-making to avoid similar sunk costs in the future?
Consequences for taxpayers and public accountability
Maintaining a largely unusable asset is a clear example of opportunity costs in public budgeting. The MPs emphasised the need for greater transparency around long-term leases and asset management. The public has a right to know whether such decisions are driven by strategic planning, political expediency, or a combination of both. For residents and stakeholders, the ongoing Dartmoor situation raises questions about how the state prioritises safety, efficiency, and value for money in its custodianship of crucial facilities.
The road forward: potential options and reforms
So what should happen next? MPs have called for a rigorous review of the asset’s status, a plan to either bring the site back into use or to exit the lease with minimum financial disruption, and a tighter framework for future investments in open facilities. Key considerations include aligning asset strategies with actual operating needs, ensuring flexible lease terms, and implementing independent oversight to prevent similar scenarios. The overarching aim is to ensure that taxpayer money is spent on assets that actively contribute to safety, rehabilitation, and justice, rather than on maintaining dormant properties.
Conclusion: learning from a costly misstep
The Dartmoor lease controversy is more than a single public finances issue; it is a case study in how long-term commitments can bind government policy and budgets. As MPs push for accountability and reforms, the focus remains on delivering value for taxpayers, improving governance, and ensuring that future decisions about prisons and related assets are guided by clear, evidence-based needs rather than past assumptions.
