the prison and probation service 48 the number of places at short notice. Primarily, this has been achieved by double occupancy of cells, but also by holding inmates in spaces not intended for occupancy. In recent cases this has meant inmates being held in visiting rooms or rooms intended for isolation-breaking measures. The situation that has arisen has had a negative impact on the conditions for individuals deprived of their liberty. Individuals on remand have remained in the Police Authority’s police custody facilities pending transportation to a remand prison. Police custody facilities are not built nor equipped to meet the needs for, inter alia, isolation-breaking measures that arise during long remand periods. When, for example, visitor rooms and rooms for isolationbreaking measures are used for holding inmates, they cannot be used for the purposes for which they are actually intended. Double occupancy of cells occurs in both prisons and remand prisons. Especially in remand prisons – where the inmates usually spend most of their time in their cells – double occupancy can increase the risk of conflicts between inmates. The fact that inmates share a cell also risks leading to situations that can be described as degrading, when inmates, for example, have to fulfil their toilet needs in rooms that do not have a door. When writing this report, the occupancy situation remains strained within the Prison and Probation Service. Inmates continue to share cells and the number of double-occupancy cells has increased during the latter part of 2019. Therefore, there will also continue to be a risk that conflicts will arise between inmates etc. The Parliamentary Ombudsmen will return to these issues in 2020 in an own-initiative inquiry concerning the occupancy situation in the prison and probation regime. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman has recently directed very serious criticism at the Prison and Probation Service as a large proportion of inmates in its remand prisons are isolated (see also Section 8). On several occasions during 2019 as well as in 2020, details have emerged that the strained occupancy situation has led to staff, who are tasked with working with isolationbreaking measures, being used for other work tasks. The lack of staff increases the risk of inmates being isolated. The Government has relatively recently decided on a bill which entails, inter alia, that the Prison and Probation Service is liable to offer remand prisoners under the age of 18 at least four hours of isolation-breaking measures per day.41 In compiling this report, the Swedish Parliament has not yet made a decision on the matter. The change will mean an important step in the work in preventing children held on remand being isolated, and this is in line with the UN Committee on Torture’s (CAT) recommendations to Sweden.42 An important issue for the Parliamentary Ombudsmen’s OPCAT operation in the coming years will be to investigate 41 See Government Bill 2019/20:129. 42 See CAT/C/SWE/CO/6-7 para 9.