The National Audit Office (NAO) has issued a stark warning regarding the planned expansion of electronic tagging in England and Wales, highlighting significant risks to public safety amid ongoing pressures on the prison system. Currently, approximately 28,700 individuals are under electronic monitoring, and the government intends to increase this number to 22,000 annually by 2027 as part of its strategy to alleviate overcrowding in prisons. However, the NAO’s report reveals troubling gaps in the system’s effectiveness, suggesting that a rush to expand could do more harm than good.
Rising Numbers and Underlying Concerns
The use of electronic tagging in the UK has surged over the past five years, doubling from previous figures. Yet, the NAO’s report indicates that this growth may not be matched by adequate oversight or support. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and the HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) are reportedly grappling with the reality that thousands of tagged individuals might not be actively monitored. As of March 2026, HMPPS was assessing around 8,900 cases—nearly a quarter of all tagged individuals—to identify those not currently under surveillance. The MoJ, however, estimates the number of unmonitored cases to be approximately 5,450, revealing discrepancies that raise critical questions about the system’s reliability.
Performance Issues and Staffing Shortages
The NAO’s report also sheds light on the performance of external contractor Serco, which has faced criticism for delays in tagging individuals promptly. Between August 2024 and July 2025, there were significant lapses, including failure to notify officials of potential breaches in a timely manner. Although recent performance has improved, the backlog of required visits for fitting, checking, or removing tags peaked at 7,000 in October 2024, illustrating a system under strain.
Moreover, staffing shortages within the probation sector, estimated at 2,200 as of March 2026, further complicate the situation. The report suggests that without addressing these deficiencies in governance, data reliability, and overall efficiency, any plans to expand the electronic monitoring system could be ineffective and counterproductive.
Calls for Caution and Comprehensive Improvement
Gareth Davies, head of the NAO, emphasised the dual role of electronic monitoring in managing prison populations and ensuring public safety. He cautioned that without rectifying the identified inefficiencies and risks, the government’s expansion plans could jeopardise both. Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, chair of the public accounts committee, echoed these sentiments, pointing out the alarming lack of clarity surrounding the number of individuals who should be monitored but are not.
Pia Sinha, chief executive of the Prison Reform Trust, expressed concern that electronic monitoring might be viewed as a quick fix for deeper systemic issues in the prison system. She urged the government to heed the NAO’s findings and prioritise investment in probation services, as well as the implementation of strong safeguards, to foster both public confidence and safety.
Government Response and Future Plans
In response to the criticisms, a spokesperson from the MoJ stated that the government has inherited a flawed tagging system marked by significant backlogs but noted that installation rates have improved by nearly 50% since 2024. They affirmed that public safety remains a top priority, highlighting a £100 million investment in electronic monitoring and a broader £700 million initiative aimed at bolstering the probation system, including the recruitment of additional trainee officers.
Yet, as plans for expansion move forward, the crucial question remains: can the government ensure that electronic monitoring serves its intended purpose without compromising public safety?
Why it Matters
The implications of this report extend beyond mere statistics—at its core, it touches on the delicate balance between managing prison populations and safeguarding communities. As the government seeks to navigate the complexities of the criminal justice system, the warnings from the NAO serve as a vital reminder of the importance of a robust and reliable framework. Ensuring that electronic monitoring is both effective and secure is not merely a matter of operational efficiency; it is a fundamental issue of public trust and safety. As the situation develops, it will be imperative for policymakers to heed these concerns and approach the expansion of electronic tagging with caution and foresight.