(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:45 - Division on Lord Farmer’s Motion - Ayes: 30 / Noes: 67 - Lord Farmer’s Motion disagreed.
Lord Farmer
That this House regrets that the Prison (Governor’s and Adjudicators’ Punishments) (Amendment) Rules 2026 remove and restrict social visits as a punishment despite (1) the potential effects on rehabilitation, prisoner behaviour and family relationships, (2) prison governors’ hesitancy, and (3) the lack of an assessment of likely impacts.
Relevant document: 9th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have put their names down to speak and have made time to take part this evening.
The Victims and Courts Act 2026 gave judges the power to impose in-prison punishments for non-attendance at sentencing hearing. The MoJ gave these new judicial sanctions a big push in the media last month when they were laid as the Sentencing Act 2020 (Prison Sanctions) Regulations 2026. I agree with the MoJ’s intent to make:
“Cowardly killers who dodge sentencing face tough new prison punishments”.
These punishments include no visits for up to 27 days and restriction of social visits to once every 28 days for up to 84 days. For these prison sanctions to have effect, the Sentencing Code requires that they correspond to the punishments that may be imposed by a governor under prison rules, so governors who oversee them need parallel powers—hence the Prison (Governor’s and Adjudicators’ Punishments) (Amendment) Rules 2026. These are the subject of my regret Motion because they give governors new disciplinary powers that do not correspond to judges’ very limited sanctions but far exceed them. Whereas a judge can restrict visits at the very beginning of a sentence, governors are now able to do so at any point to punish any offence.
The prisoner discipline procedures adjudications policy framework sets parameters as to the seriousness of the offence but, first, these could change and, secondly, why are such sanctions generally available? Removing visits for non-attendance at sentence hearings is reasonable and hard to disagree with. However, the measure has been expanded beyond this initial justification and prison rules changed in a way that was not made clear during passage of the parental Act. The Government might claim they are being tough on crime, but at best it is an ineffective measure to that end and at worst a counterproductive measure. It is not being soft on crime to oppose it but the opposite.
Social visits can restrain bad behaviour because prosocial relationships improve rehabilitation—the lack of such relationships is a criminogenic need. These are an individual’s characteristics, traits, problems or issues that directly relate to their likelihood of reoffending. Offender assessment system data says that 72% of all offenders in custody have a relationships need, and 80% of women in prison. Obviously, governors are immediately concerned with reoffending that happens inside their jails. This is the justification for making harsher punishments available. However, I saw during my first review for the Government how family visits can turn around dreadful behaviour.
The mother of one young man complained to the deputy governor of a prison I visited about allegations of unfair treatment made by her son. The deputy helped her understand that the shoe was actually on the other foot. On her next visit this mother put her son right and told him to get a grip—his behaviour changed utterly. This anecdote is backed up by the MoJ’s own research on reoffending, which found that the protective factor of positive family relationships can moderate risk factors including having an attitudinal criminogenic need: a way of thinking, belief or attitude likely to lead to further offences. That young man would probably be among the 85% of male prisoners in that category.
Prisoners who have family visits are significantly less likely to reoffend than those who do not. The old MoJ figure of 39% dwarfed the effectiveness of other rehabilitation pathways such as education, employment and drug treatment. It was the reason they asked me to do the reviews, first for the male estate and secondly for all female offenders. HMPPS’s commitment to implementing all my reviews’ recommendations since 2017 has gone far beyond words on the page. It knows that the greater prize is to shift the culture towards a greater emphasis on improving relationships, whether between officers and prisoners, between senior officers and junior officers they are mentoring or between prisoners themselves. The transforming prisons directorate is reconceiving prisons and designing new builds around the need for relationships.
Yet, despite 10 years of progress, social contact is now a disciplinary sanction. The Prison Reform Trust says that this devalues family members, treats them as instruments of prison discipline and completely neglects the impact on family members despite them having done nothing wrong. Thankfully, those with children will not be so punished, but such prisoners already have a far greater incentive to keep out of trouble in prison. Category A prisoners in HMP Frankland told me they walk away from conflict because their families and children will hear of altercations and will want to know that they are safe.
Indeed, I have heard that governors do not want to use this sanction as they see it as counterproductive to running a safe regime. The report on prison riots in 1989 by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, warned that messing with the ability of families to visit was one of the most resented acts the Prison Service could take.
To conclude, this is the recurring problem that Governments of all colours face: how to appear tough on crime—which this is not—without turning our prisons into overcrowded places where rehabilitation becomes impossible. With attention on capacity pressures and early release, I fear measures are being introduced that make regimes appear tougher on crime but that are simply tougher on prisoners and more toxic to a rehabilitation culture. If this increases in-prison and community reoffending, our prisons will simply fill up.
King and Willmott’s Honest Politician’s Guide to Prisons and Probation tracked 40 years of tough penal policy and the personalities responsible for crafting it. They found time and again that once politicians had moved on from the justice portfolio, they would acknowledge the futility of bowing down to public opinion instead of doing more to shape it. I am grateful to the Minister for making herself available to discuss this SI, and I wonder if there might be room for manoeuvre. The Government could rewrite and reissue it, so that removal of visits could be used only as the judge-imposed sanction for non-attendance at sentence hearing. This could be achieved by taking it out of Rule 55, covering governor punishments for any offence, and by following the example of Rule 55AB, which specifically requires a prisoner to pay for damage to prison property once found guilty. This could then be new Rule 55AC. I hope this will be considered and I beg to move.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, I normally back wholeheartedly initiatives that improve rehabilitation of prisoners. However, in this instance, I beg to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, because I believe that we must look at these new rules through the lens of fundamental justice, public confidence and the rights of victims’ families.
These new rules counter a disturbing trend of offenders refusing to leave their cells to face the court at the time of their sentencing. Let us remind ourselves that the public and victims’ families are demanding action. We saw the murderers of nine year-old Olivia Pratt-Korbel, Zara Aleena and Sabina Nessa refusing to face the families whose lives they had destroyed. This trend is becoming increasingly common; it was adopted by the serial killers at the Countess of Chester Hospital and the Southport murderer. Grieving families sitting in a courtroom watching an empty dock because a perpetrator simply chooses to opt out is an intolerable insult. It makes closure extremely difficult for them and makes a mockery of our justice system.
Traditional internal punishments, such as adding days to a sentence, mean absolutely nothing to a murderer already facing a whole life or half a century behind bars. If a prisoner deliberately defies the authority of the court, there must be immediate, tangible loss of privileges within the prison estate. I know that critics argue that these rules risk damaging rehabilitation, but true rehabilitation cannot begin without accountability. An offender who refuses to look their victims in the eye is actively rejecting the first step of reform and rehabilitation.
The Government have approached this issue with care. There are vital safeguards: the rules explicitly exempt an offender’s children from these restrictions. Wider privileges are being targeted—visits must be earned through compliance with our justice system. We need to back the Government in restoring this vital lever of authority; however, we must ensure that its implementation has checks and balances to avoid abuses. So I have a question for my noble friend the Minister: how do the Government plan to monitor the implementation of these rules—in particular, how the prison governors are using them, and that there are no violations?
In recognising that public confidence in our courts is fragile, these rules protect children, target defiance and ensure that court orders are respected. I urge the House to reject this Motion.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for bringing this matter before the House and for all he has done over the years in trying to improve rehabilitation in prisons. However, I also have great sympathy with the Government, because they are faced with the action of both political parties in winding up the prison population, which is probably the root cause of all these problems. I will not say anything about that tonight.
I want to raise the point that shines through the excellent report of the Secondary Legislation Select Committee, which is that we do not seem to understand two things. First, what is the cause of the inexorable rise in the number of disciplinary offences and their sanctions, which have had to be increased? Secondly, if you can find out what the cause is, it is normally useful to try to understand the most effective way of preventing it. It is very clear that we need a proper examination of the cause and the best way of trying to deal with the problem.
It might be thought that we should set up some Grand Committee or ask people to look again and take a year or so to resolve this. I do not believe that is necessary. We have two expert charities—the Prison Reform Trust and the Howard League—and, as the Minister knows, we have admirable governors in our prisons and other experts in penology.
What is called for, as soon as is practicable, is an answer to the question of why prison indiscipline is getting worse, what the best way of preventing it is and how what is proposed in this statutory instrument is working. Instinctively, I feel that cutting off social relations is bad for prisoners. I also believe that incentives are probably more effective, but that is a belief; it is not based on evidence. Experience has taught me that you need to find out the why, the solution and the best way to deal with a problem. We cannot afford to make a mistake, because adding days to prisoners is increasing our prison population and we cannot afford not to seek rehabilitation through visits by families. The two policies seem wrong, but I do not know and we need to know why.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, the Prison Rules 1999 already provide prison governors with an extensive suite of disciplinary measures. Prisoners who offend against prison discipline may be cautioned, suffer forfeiture of privileges, be excluded from work that they carry out in the prison estate, suffer a deduction or loss of earnings, be confined to their cells, suffer removal from the wing upon which they are located or experience payback punishment. What do these existing measures have in common? They are all directed against the offender himself—his privileges, earnings, freedom of movement on the wing or opportunity to work. Prisoners serve terms of imprisonment because of things they have done; we punish people for the crimes they commit, not the crimes others commit.
My concern is that this amendment to the rules will punish not only the prisoner but those who would seek to visit the prisoner—those on the outside who have just as much interest in his rehabilitation as any. Those people, those loved ones, have not offended or breached prison discipline but, just as the prisoner will be punished by being deprived of their society, they will be punished by being deprived of the society of the prisoner.
It is undesirable to impose penalties on a person for something that someone else has done. Prison discipline is exercised summarily, necessarily and responsibly by prison governors, but I emphasise summarily. It may well be that a prison governor contemplating the use of this punishment could easily be expected to overlook the effect on someone outside who would wish to pay a social visit—a parent, relative, good friend or genuine well-wisher. Let prisons help prisoners amend themselves for the better. Let us not punish people on the outside for the disciplinary lapses of those inside prisons whom they love.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. When we debated the Victims and Courts Bill, I had qualms about the targeted punishment of withdrawing social visits, even from those prisoners despicably refusing to attend sentencing hearings. I do not like the families, even of selfish, cowardly perpetrators, being used as a stick. Then I thought of the families of the victims, shown such contempt by such prisoners, and I swallowed my concerns.
But if ever there were an example of why we should beware laws passed here being weighed down by secondary legislation powers, it is the dangerous slippery slope on display here. It shows another type of contempt: contempt for democracy. No one in Parliament agreed to this mission creep that has amended the Prison Rules to allow restrictions on family visits as a general disciplinary punishment. None of us gave permission for that. Why would we, when it shows politicians’ contempt for any of the common-sense advice or on-the-ground expertise of prison officers and criminal justice campaigners about how real discipline works in prisons?
One of the most effective restraints on bad behaviour or criminal activity inside, or indeed on release from prison, is the influence of families and loved ones. Does the Minister understand that the way for a prisoner to have any sense of regret or shame for past crimes, or to be inspired to change, is via their mum, their fiancé, their kids? Not letting them down can be a powerful antidote to getting into further trouble. These social visits can lead to encouragement, even to tellings off, and while it cannot conquer all of the toxicity and brutality of prisons, having to face down your mum can do a hell of a lot.
Cutting off this pro-social influence is inexplicably foolish, and it is performative toughness. If the Government really want to be tough on the chaos in too many prisons, then do the hard jobs: tackle the thriving drugs industry behind bars; take on the unchecked growth of Islamist gangs; expose how human rights laws are being deployed to limit staff’s ability to exert authority and impose rules. Do not take the soft option of weaponising family visits. If only the Government used their executive powers to tackle cuts in purposeful activity and prison education, to invest in training and support for inexperienced, overworked staff.
I have been involved in the prison project Debating Matters Beyond Bars. The most moving moments have been those prisoner debaters beaming at their certificates because they cannot wait to send them home, and the letters from their wives and their kids saying “It helped him see another future: something to be proud of for his family”. Families are the best rehabilitation aid ever; they are cheap, and you dispense with them at your peril.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, irrefutable evidence from the academic sector, independent reviews, Government-led inquiries and the Ministry of Justice itself demonstrates that maintaining family and social relationships is fundamental to prisoners’ wellbeing, rehabilitation and successful reintegration. It is therefore puzzling, to say the very least, that the Government choose to introduce a punishment that risks undermining the very conditions necessary for safer prisons, improved behaviour and successful rehabilitation.
The lack of adequate consultation with prison groups is also of great concern. Many have expressed doubts on the proposed restrictions, pointing out the possible negative consequences. These include the damaging effect on children, who are innocent and for whom keeping in touch with relatives in prison may be an important means of emotional stability and support.
Prisoners, especially those from minority groups, tend to convey instances of bullying, unfair treatment and other inequalities to family members during visits, which are then reported onward by those family members. Financial hardship, geographical distance and other inequalities already significantly restrict family visits. Do the Government really believe that removing a prisoner’s source of emotional support is likely to improve behaviour, or will it remove one of the strongest incentives for positive change?
The new powers are disproportionate, they infringe prisoners’ fundamental rights to family life and they are counterproductive. They directly contradict the Government’s wider objectives of improving aspects of prisons and of prisoners’ lives. Family contact must be recognised as an essential component of rehabilitation and not simply as a privilege that can be withdrawn as punishment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for bringing this. I hate staying up late, but this is worth it, because this is a cruel idea. The Government say that they want to tackle rising indiscipline and violence in prisons, and of course they do; nobody wants to see prisoners or prison staff living in unsafe conditions. But I am against this decision to take away social visits as a punishment, not least because the Government’s own evidence tells us that family contact is one of the things that helps people behave better, supports rehabilitation and reduces reoffending.
Plus, we should not pretend that violence and indiscipline in prisons have appeared out of nowhere; they have to be understood in the context of years of pressure on the prison system, overcrowding, poor conditions and staff shortages—and the staff who are there are often inexperienced. What is the Government’s response? More punishment.
The Ministry of Justice produced its research into the impact of social visits on reoffending, self-harm and accommodation after release. It found that people who receive visits were significantly less likely to have a proven reoffence within a year of release. They committed fewer further offences and took longer to reoffend. They were also less likely to self-harm and more likely to have accommodation when they left prison, and the more visits people received, the lower the reoffending rate.
In March, HM Inspectorate of Prisons published its thematic review and found that regular family contact was associated with better mental health, improved behaviour and greater feelings of safety. People who received regular visits or social video calls were less likely to be at risk of suicide or self-harm. They were also less likely to experience bullying and victimisation, and less likely to be restrained or held in segregation. The inspectorate was clear that family contact should be treated as an essential part of prison safety and rehabilitation, so why are the Government taking away something that their own evidence says helps make prisons safer?
We constantly hear the refrain that prisons have to be a place of punishment, but you cannot keep making punishments harsher; it just does not work like that. At some point, you end up filling up more prison spaces with extra days—days when prisoners should be on licence and supervised. I ask the Government to please rethink this. It is a very nasty move.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, the Government advanced two inconsistent reasons for the statutory instrument. First, they say that the incidence of violence and rule-breaking in prisons is going up, and therefore governors and independent adjudicators need harsher or stricter options available to punish the serious and repeat rule-breaking. Secondly, they say that, because the Sentencing Act 2026 reduced the amount of time that prisoners will serve on their sentence, governors need to have the ability to keep them in.
It strikes me as odd and sad that the central question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has not been thought about by the Government: has anybody asked themselves why prisoners commit acts of indiscipline or break the rules in the first place? It is largely because they are incarcerated for 23 out of 24 hours a day, in a multi-occupied cell, they essentially live in a public lavatory, and they are largely mentally ill, illiterate and innumerate. The Minister used to work in Holloway prison, so she will know that everyone who spoke this evening, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, said some quite sensible things.
If you keep people in those conditions and fail to give them a sense of purpose and to rehabilitate them, you not only let them down, and endanger the lives and working conditions of the governors and the prison staff, but you waste taxpayer money and do not provide us with the requisite safety that we require of a rehabilitated prisoner—because they come back just as they went in, and so they reoffend. I ask the Government to be a little more intelligent and think a little more strategically about this, and not to resort to the usual government rubbish of reacting in a knee-jerk way without having applied their minds to the problem in front of them.
It is not surprising that, when prison governors and other prison group directors were asked about these measures, they were hesitant and sceptical. If the Minister believes that this will be a good idea, when the professionals in the business clearly think it will not, she needs to have another think.
I will not complain about the English of the Explanatory Notes, but when the Government say:
“Engagement with internal stakeholders to explore the impact on external policy areas, such as prisoner family and relations, trade unions, and third sector stakeholders, has commenced and will continue to occur prior to this instrument coming into force”,
I ask myself, first, what on earth that means, secondly, has it happened, and, thirdly, when will we hear about the result. Please do not allow this House to be fooled into thinking that this is a good idea; it plainly is not.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, is quite right to draw the attention of the House to this ill-judged measure. To oppose it is in no way to condone the crime or the criminal, but it is to acknowledge the appalling conditions in many of our prisons, which are giving rise to discontent and the offences that are being committed, as we just heard graphically described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier.
Given that the majority of the prison population consists of people with numerous problems, disadvantages and frustrations—many of whom would have been much better and more successfully dealt with outside the prison system—clashes with authority within are inevitable, and the conditions they now are serving in make that only worse. The potential doubling of penalties under these rule changes risks dramatically damaging the mental health of the recipients, but I will concentrate my remarks on their potential to add to the chances of prison leavers being homeless.
People leaving prison regularly walk out straight into homelessness. In the year to March, the number averaged 300 a week. Is it any wonder that, for some, reoffending seems the easiest way to find accommodation and a degree of security? These ill-thought-through measures are likely only to add to that problem.
Many prisoners have family relationships that are, at best, fragile. Visits from relations can at least preserve those flimsy relationships—they might even nurture them. They could be crucial in ensuring that, on release, the prisoner has a home to go to. Damaging those relationships by forbidding visits seems a dangerously short-sighted move. All the evidence is that strong relationships on the outside can be pivotal in allowing a prisoner to rebuild his life after release. Having friends or family prepared to provide immediate accommodation may be the crucial factor in preventing the individual reoffending. Governors should never jeopardise that chance.
As a society, we surely should not tolerate people being released from incarceration by the state into a life on the streets. Last month, it was alleged that, on release, some prisoners were being issued with tents. The Government’s response to that was simply: “It is not government policy”. To underline why I believe it is so vital that governors should not endanger any chance of prisoners leaving into proper accommodation, I ask the Minister for a simple yes or no. Under this Government, have prisoners been issued with sleeping bags and tents on their release?
Baroness Porter of Fulwood (Con)
My Lords, reducing reoffending is widely recognised as the central purpose of our prison system. This was true when I worked in the Ministry of Justice 10 years ago and remains so today. Yet these rules, allowing social visits to be removed or restricted as a punishment, potentially undermine one of the very things that can help reduce reoffending.
We know that our prisons are full to bursting. We cannot carry on as we have been. We also know what helps reduce reoffending: education and training, drug and alcohol treatment, preparation for employment, stable accommodation on release and, where needed, mental health support. Provision remains inadequate. HM Inspectorate of Prisons reported last year that 94 of the 104 closed prisons it had inspected were rated poor or not sufficiently good for purposeful activity. At a time when public finances are stretched and difficult trade-offs are having to be made about what to prioritise, many of these areas are not being adequately resourced.
There is one area, though, which the state does not need to fund and which will save money over the long term, if it leverages it: developing strong social networks around offenders. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Farmer and Dr Samantha Callan for their important work in this area over many years. The Farmer review makes a compelling case for maintaining family ties during imprisonment. It cites Ministry of Justice research showing that for a prisoner who receives visits from a family member the odds of reoffending are 39% lower than for one who does not.
Removing visits risks undermining precisely the relationships that can help prevent reoffending after release—a point that has been made many times already. Family relationships should not be treated as a luxury item for those who behave well. Ensuring an ordered and disciplined environment is the foundation for a well-run prison. The irony here is that these rules risk undermining one of the building blocks that can help create the very behaviour and stability that prison discipline seeks to achieve. If we are serious about reducing reoffending, we need to be asking how we can strengthen family ties, not treating them as a special treat that can be removed as punishment. That governors have themselves expressed hesitancy over these changes and that their likely impacts have not been assessed mean that we should surely proceed with caution.
Ultimately, prison discipline should support a prison system that protects the public, and this must mean reducing reoffending. We should not risk undermining that objective without a clear understanding of the consequences.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches, we support the broad thrust of the Government’s proposals, but, like many others, we are concerned by the proposal to withdraw family visits as a punishment in the cases covered by the SI. That is why we support the regret Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. Few have done more than he has to demonstrate the importance of family relationships in reducing reoffending and helping prisoners rebuild their lives.
I chair your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee. In our report on prisons last year, we argued that the prisoners’ punishment is the loss of liberty, and that the job of prisons is to reduce reoffending through education, purposeful activity, tackling addiction and mental health problems, and preparing people for release. That also means, as so many people have said, maintaining family relationships. As the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has rightly described, family ties are the golden thread in reducing reoffending. Evidence shows that family contact improves prison behaviour, supports mental health, reduces self-harm and, importantly, reduces reoffending.
Against that backdrop, I find it extraordinary that the Government should introduce rules allowing family visits to be withdrawn as a disciplinary punishment. Of course, effective sanctions are needed, but why introduce a punishment which undermines the very thing that makes prisons and the public safer?
There are three fundamental objections. First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, it is counterproductive. Family contact provides hope, emotional stability and an incentive to behave responsibly; removing it risks increasing isolation, frustration and resentment.
Secondly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, said, it punishes innocent people. Partners, parents, adult children and other relatives have committed no offence, yet lose contact with someone they love. The exemption for children under 18 is, of course, welcome, but what about everybody else?
Thirdly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, it damages relationships essential for successful resettlement. Families often provide accommodation, practical help and emotional support on release. Why weaken those relationships?
Disciplinary sanctions may be necessary, but they should address a prisoner’s behaviour without damaging relationships that will help to prevent future crime. We should strengthen relationships that help prisoners to turn their lives around, not take them away. The consequences will be felt by prisoners, innocent families and, ultimately, by the communities to which prisoners return. If we are serious about fewer victims, safer communities and less crime, we must stop treating family contact as a privilege that can be withdrawn and instead recognise it as essential to reducing reoffending and protecting the public. I hope that the Government will think again.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, we appreciate and acknowledge the extensive work and experience of my noble friend Lord Farmer in this area and therefore understand what has prompted him to table this regret Motion. However, we cannot offer him support on this occasion.
This statutory instrument will increase the powers that are available to governors and independent adjudicators in relation to disciplinary breaches. Given the rising levels of violence and disciplinary issues in prisons, it is important for prison governors to have these additional powers available to them, to manage those prisoners who repeatedly break the rules.
An obvious concern with the instrument is the failure of the Government to provide a considered impact assessment. That would include a consideration of the impact on prison capacity, with the increased 84-day limit on the number of days that can be added to a sentence. We would like to hear from the Minister the expected impact of this extension on prison capacity.
The Ministry of Justice recently published a rapid evidence assessment on safety in prisons, written by Professor James McGuire. It looked into violence in prisons and sought to explore the factors that impact the level of violence. It noted:
“Higher staff numbers, a stable staff cohort, and a minimal level of vacancies were associated with lower levels of violence”.
There is hardly any surprise there. The most recent quarterly data for the Prison and Probation Service, for the quarter ending June 2026, showed that the number of prison officers in post had actually reduced over the last two years by more than 1,500. What steps are the Government going to take to support prison officers in reducing violence by increasing recruitment and retention?
In conclusion, while conscious of the concerns that have been expressed about the potential impact of these proposals, we are broadly supportive of the need to give prison governors greater powers to deal with indiscipline. Accordingly, we will not seek to oppose.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Hyde of Bemerton) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this important debate, and all noble Lords who have contributed. I recognise the work that the noble Lord has done over many years to make sure that family relationships are taken seriously within our prison system. He has been a consistent and powerful voice on the importance of those relationships in helping people to turn their lives around. I thank the noble Lord for his reviews on prisoner family ties in 2017 and 2019, which many noble Lords have referenced today.
The noble Lord’s Motion focuses particularly on the introduction of new restrictions on social visits. I understand why he has raised concerns about potential consequences for prisoners and their families and for rehabilitation. I will lay out why the Government believe that these changes are needed, what safeguards have been put in place and how they strike a reasonable balance. I make it clear from the outset that I do not see prison order, safety and rehabilitation as competing priorities—quite the opposite. They all depend on each other. A prison that is not safe cannot properly rehabilitate and a prison that does not rehabilitate properly cannot fulfil its duty to protect the prisoners within it and the public. It is not about being unnecessarily punitive, or appearing as such.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the Government are absolutely committed to prisoner safety. We are focused on supporting safety and rehabilitation, working with partners across government and at a local level to improve outcomes for people in custody and on release through better access to treatment and recovery services, prison education, employment and stable accommodation.
On the point raised by several noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, about the more general state of our prisons and the contribution of that to prison indiscipline, I will take the opportunity to point out that this Labour Government inherited, in 2024, a prison system that was on the brink of collapse after 14 years of Conservative mismanagement, with fewer than 100 spaces left in the prison estate.
Lord Garnier (Con)
There really is no point in saying, “We inherited this”. Every Government could come in and say that. I said the same things in 2010. It makes no difference. We have to deal with what is going on right now under her watch.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
I will move on to those comments, but it is only fair and right that I lay out the territory, as the noble and learned Lord would expect me to, including referencing the work of his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, in my opening comments when I have 10 minutes to speak.
As I was saying, this Labour Government have spent over £40 million on physical infrastructure across 34 prison sites. We have introduced specialist staff and equipment to stop the smuggling of contraband into prisons, which can contribute to violence and instability. We are modernising prison education and creating that joined-up system so that basic literacy and numeracy are in place, supporting people into employment and higher education. There is much discussion in this of carrots and sticks, and incentives and sanctions, so I flag that the Government have expanded incentivised substance-free living units, where prisoners who agree to regular drug testing can access enhanced opportunities. This will be increased by a further 12 prisons by the end of 2027-28.
As I am sure all noble Lords who are contributing to this debate know, we have launched the independent review of the prison system, led by the right honourable Amber Rudd and supported by a panel of experts. That is to provide that strategic, risk-based assessment of the current risks and opportunities facing the system, to identify the reforms that will enable us to build that prison system fit for the future. That is due to report back next month and I am sure all noble Lords would welcome that.
The purpose of this instrument is to strengthen the range of measures available to governors and independent adjudicators. As noted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, this is for when serious or persistent rule-breaking occurs, to provide a fair, proportionate response that is sensitive to the circumstances of each individual prisoner.
It is really important to be clear about why the measure has been introduced in this way. The new social visit sanction forms part of the wider measure in the Victims and Courts Act which, once enforced, will give Crown Court judges the power to impose prison sanctions where an offender aged 18 or over refuses, without reasonable excuse, to attend their sentence hearing where a court has ordered them to do so. Parliament has long considered secondary legislation the most appropriate for matters concerning the management of prisoners, via the Prison Rules, as it allows flexibility to amend the regulations. To enable Crown Court judges to restrict social visits, the sanction must be contained within the Prison Rules, making it also available as an option for prison governors or independent adjudicators to use in limited circumstances.
It is impossible to include a sanction for non-attendance at a sentence hearing that only judges can impose without an amendment to Section 41B of the Sentencing Act 2020. This is because the Act specifies that the power of judges to give sanctions for non-attendance at sentencing hearings is limited to sanctions that correspond to the ones governors can give in the Prison Rules. The affirmative statutory instrument specifying sanctions available to Crown Court judges will be debated and the timings for that will be announced imminently. Therefore, I will try to keep the focus of my response to the subject of the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer.
The Government recognise the importance of family contact, as referenced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley and Lady Porter of Fulwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, among other noble Lords. First, and really importantly, children are exempt from this sanction, so they can continue to visit their parents. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, of that. That reflects the Government’s commitment to protecting that relationship between children and parents in prison, wherever that is safe, appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
Secondly, this measure should be used only as a last resort. The prison discipline policy framework said that it
“should only be used exceptionally for very serious breaches of the Rules … in cases of severe and persistent rule breaking for which other interventions or punishments have not proved effective”.
Adjudicators will have to set out the reasons why they consider the sanction appropriate.
Thirdly, those under the age of 21 when the offence was committed must not be given forfeiture or restriction of social visits. This is to reflect the separate policy approach for young offenders and children in custody.
Fourthly, individual circumstances will be taken into account. Some prisoners face serious mental health difficulties or are vulnerable, and losing social contact could make their situation worse. The Government expect those circumstances to be considered carefully before any restriction is imposed. This is about giving governors and independent adjudicators an additional option where other measures have failed—a measure of last resort.
A number of family circumstances should be taken into consideration by the governor where social visit sanction would cause disproportionate or unintended harm. This includes where a prisoner’s family is going through a key transitional period, such as a separation or other period of instability.
I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, about the effect of restricting social visits, and I take them seriously. As other noble Lords pointed out, having someone on the outside who cares about you, encourages you and gives you a reason to keep going can make an enormous difference. As your Lordships know, rehabilitation that genuinely cuts crime is central to this Government’s approach. The Ministry of Justice is supporting this by updating the strengthening family and relationship ties policy framework and reviewing the current social visits policy to promote child-friendly practice, safeguarding, and consistency across prisons.
The Government have not lost sight of the importance of family relationships and recognise that there will be times where serious or repeated misconduct requires a different response. When a small number of people are violent, threatening or potentially disruptive, they make life harder for those trying to use their time in prison positively. Those trying to get an education, learn a trade or deal with an addiction should be able to do so in safety.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, raised the question about whether these new sanctions will improve things for those in prison. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, it is crucial to get to the heart of what causes prison indiscipline. Prison order should not depend upon sanctions alone, which is why governors can use rehabilitative adjudications alongside or instead of traditional sanctions, helping to increase accountability and encourage behaviour change. This includes unpaid rehabilitative or reparative projects.
In the interests of time, I will write to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, to answer her question. However, it is completely unacceptable that people are leaving prisons with tents. That is not the Government’s position, but I will write to her to outline that more fully.
To conclude—at speed—this debate has been valuable and I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed for their scrutiny and insight. I hope that I have addressed the principal points raised. I am aware that I need to write to a few noble Lords.
If the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, would be happy to meet me and perhaps my noble friend Lord Lemos to discuss further the detailed proposal he outlined in his opening speech, we can arrange for that to happen. I reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord for tabling this Motion.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those who work to make prisons places of rehabilitation and to keep prisons safe. Therefore, this instrument should be supported. The Government do not believe that the instrument should be regarded as a matter for regret. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, having heard the assurances the Government have given today, will feel able to withdraw his Motion.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who contributed so powerfully to this debate. I think that all noble Lords, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, supported the argument against these sanctions being available to every governor to punish any prisoner for any crime. It is all very well to say that there will be advice and that governors will take things into account, but we have 110 prisons with 110 different prison governors. If the sanctions are there, they will be used differently.
I hear the Minister when she says that she will be happy to talk to me. However, I am aware of the mood of the House. I am also aware of the whipping on the other side and my own party’s lack of support, but this is, frankly, a very important matter and I wish to test the opinion of the House.