THREE inmates or one, but never two.

That is the Department of Correctional Services’ approach to shared cells, with Commissioner of Corrections Brigadier (Ret’d) Radgh Mason saying the policy is intended to prevent certain behaviours and help manage fights behind bars.

Mason explained the arrangement during Wednesday’s meeting of Parliament’s Internal and External Affairs Committee, where questions were raised about overcrowding and living conditions inside correctional facilities.

He said the department had deliberately avoided placing two male inmates in the same cell, arguing that its experience had shown the need for either individual accommodation or a group of three.

“Where there is a shared cell, it has to be three inmates. Cultural reality is when you have two, other kinds of behaviours are possible and take place, and so that is a decision that would have been taken, and historically proven, in correctional facilities,” he told the committee.

He added: “We do not house two inmates in a cell, like other jurisdictions, because there is history of what happens when two inmates, two male inmates are in a cell. So we go for three. If there is a fight, there is always a third to assist, and also it disrupts other possible activities, and so that’s a safety decision. So it’s either three or one.”

In response, Opposition spokesman on National Security Fitz Jackson pressed Mason to clarify whether the department’s policy of housing male inmates either three to a cell or alone was intended to deter homosexual activity among prisoners, accusing the commissioner of skirting around the issue.

Mason maintained that inmates considered vulnerable were separated according to their safety needs, but did not directly confirm that preventing homosexual activity was the basis for the policy.

“We separate persons who we find to be vulnerable for whatever the reason. That’s one of the considerations, but we separate, we classify and separate inmates for their own safety,” he said in response to Jackson.

The commissioner’s explanation of the three-or-one arrangement came as MPs examined the department’s responsibility to maintain safe and humane conditions for people in custody, including those who have not yet been convicted.

Member of Parliament for St Andrew North Western Duane Smith questioned the conditions in which inmates sleep, particularly at Tower Street Adult Correctional Centre, which is operating well above its intended capacity.

Smith said he wanted to hear more about the cells, bedding and cleanliness, arguing that those conditions were also important to rehabilitation.

He noted that the institution was built to accommodate between 800 and 850 inmates but had more than 1,500, raising concerns about the space available to prisoners, including those awaiting trial or appealing their convictions.

Mason acknowledged that Tower Street was overcrowded but said the department had taken steps to improve accommodation and move inmates elsewhere.

He said the DCS had procured 4,000 new mattresses over the previous two financial years, despite receiving 575 new inmates during the last financial year. He said the bedding issue had been resolved.

The Commissioner also said the department had refurbished 120 cells and was working to make additional space available at other facilities.

“By the end of this month, over 200 inmates will be moved from Tower Street,” he said, adding that the department was optimistic that the overcrowding problem at the institution would be significantly addressed by the end of the financial year.

According to Mason, Tower Street is the only correctional institution operating above capacity. It currently holds 1,569 inmates, against its stated capacity of 850.

Mason said the department had also renovated bathrooms for inmates at Tower Street but was facing challenges in allowing prisoners access to them after they were locked in for the night.

He explained that unrestricted movement could create opportunities for fights and stabbings, making security a concern. The department is therefore considering electronic locking systems that would allow officers to control access to individual cells.