Prison (Governor’s and Adjudicators’ Punishments) (Amendment) Rules 2026
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate20:45 - Division on Lord Farmer’s Motion - Ayes: 30 / Noes: 67 - Lord Farmer’s Motion disagreed.
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.