Prison and Probation Service

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Farmer]

That this House takes note of the state of the prison and probation service in England and Wales.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all who will contribute this afternoon. It is an impressive list, and I am looking forward to hearing some valuable contributions to what is, at the present time, a very important subject. I thank you for making time after a busy week. I particularly welcome the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, who is making his maiden speech here. I am looking forward to hearing his wisdom, of which he has much in this regard. I received a very supportive email from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who is prisons Bishop. She is at the College of Bishops this week and is unable to attend, but she wants us to know that she would have been here if she could have been.

This is a highly relevant debate to the public. The current state of our Prison and Probation Service constantly plays out on front pages of newspapers and online media sites. One of my pleas today is for politicians to resist the media drama, particularly of a single case, and keep rehabilitation at the forefront. The fact is that punishment is deprivation of liberty, not grim conditions. On today’s news, we heard that temporary prefabricated cells, sized for one, are now being fitted with bunk beds. Ten years ago, or more, former Chief Inspector of Prisons Nick Hardwick described such circumstances to the Commons Justice Committee, saying that many prisoners are now effectively living in toilets. Headlines about prison spaces running out should not be ignored.

In August 2026, the total prison population was 86,843, which is 97.6% of the usable capacity. As around 96% are men, it is unrealistic to treat the women’s estate as a readily available solution to male overcapacity. The Government’s female offender strategy admits that some have committed crimes of such gravity that custody is the only sentencing option. Of course, women should be in prison if they have committed serious offences.

The range of contributors to current major capacity pressures includes the increase in convictions for sexual offences. Many are historic, but their devastating effects on victims do not expire. There has also been sentencing inflation of 45% over the past 15 years. A response in no small part to penal populism has also clogged up our prisons and today’s need for early release of prisoners is a predictable consequence.

It is ironic that a “lock them up and throw away the key” mentality necessitated the proposed earlier release of heinous criminals at the top of the new Prime Minister’s in-tray of wicked policy issues. Early releases started under the previous Conservative Government, with their end of custody supervised licence emergency response, which allowed eligible prisoners to be released up to 18 and then 70 days before their automatic release date. But eligibility excluded many serious offences. During the 2010s, the Government found money for new prison places, which will only become available under this Government, and this Government will get the credit—whatever. Short-termism does not work in penal policy. Even when a prison has opened under a highly experienced governor, it takes time to fill up gradually. We are building a community, not stocking a warehouse.

The current scheme of early release cannot be characterised as a continuation of end of custody supervised licence. Moving the standard release point from 50% to 40% and now 33% represents such a significant change in the proportion of the custodial sentence spent in prison that sentencing is becoming increasingly meaningless. This is very worrying for public confidence in the courts and judiciary when they are under exceptional strain. We need sentences that are understandable and reflect the seriousness of the crime but also recognise the possibility and need for rehabilitation. Given the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, I hope he will comment on this, and I will say no more.

One of my main points today is that the issue of prison capacity took the previous Government’s attention away from rehabilitation, and that trend has continued. The terms of reference for the Rudd review barely mention it. While it is a theme in the call for evidence, it does not look like a priority. Neither document mentions the importance of good relationships, despite them being essential to rehabilitation and to many other Rudd review priorities, such as safety, decency and strategy for future prison build. Yet I find HMPPS staff are very committed in this area. Their transforming prisons directorate is creatively building the importance of relationships into future prisons, but it is hard for them to build this culture without the oxygen of ministerial and political support.

The 2016 White Paper, Prison Safety and Reform—in which my first review for the Government was announced—was also focused on Rudd review emergency issues, such as safety, security, new-build prisons and staffing pressures. However, it treated rehabilitation—prisoner reform—as equally important and called for

“a huge cultural and structural change within our prisons—a transformation away from offender warehouses to disciplined and purposeful centres of reform where all prisoners get a second chance at leading a good life”.

The MoJ’s own data showed the powerful positive rehabilitation effects of contact with families and significant ties. They exceed those of, say, education and employment, and provide the motivation for the latter—hence my reviews said that relationships should be the golden thread running through all the processes of prison and probation. Narrowly seeing this as only good family visits misses the fact that everything is mediated through relationships—relationships between governors and their officers, officers and the prisoners, prisoners and other prisoners, the prison and the community that surrounds it, and the prison estate and the society that it is part of—however difficult it might to define and cost them. The culture of prisons and probation needs to change so that a relational approach becomes business as usual, working with the grain of what it is to be human rather than against it. That is how professionals in the Youth Custody Service strive to operate. Yet when young people make the transition to the adult estate, too often they still fall over a cliff edge into a relational desert.

It is 10 years since the Government commissioned my first review and accepted all its recommendations, but its emphasis on relational culture is frequently cut across by policy decisions. In response to understandable public outrage over non-attendance at sentence hearings, prison rules have been changed so that, as a general sanction, governors can remove all social visits for up to 27 days and restrict social visits to one visit in every 28 days for up to 84 days. Prisoners’ children can still visit, but that sanction rules out a very large range of other potentially prosocial visitors. When relationships wither, as they can quickly do when you are in jail, this might remove a key reforming influence on a troublemaker.

One of the most extrovert prisons I visited, HMP Norwich—with its tourist café run by prisoners in open conditions—holds a surgery for family members every week so that the deputy governor can hear their concerns. The deputy governor told me about the mother fighting her teenage son’s corner after he had given her a sob story about how badly he had been treated, and how she turned that mother into an ally by saying, “He’s doing himself no favours. You need to help us help him get through this as well as possible”.

I am also concerned about fathers in prison who might lose parental responsibility when the Courts and Tribunals Bill abolishes the rebuttable presumption in the Children Act 1989 that children’s best interests are typically served by both parents’ involvement. Being in prison does not automatically make someone a bad or damaging father or mother, but removing the presumption will make it easier to argue that they are not needed. Can the Minister confirm whether any guidance will be issued to mitigate that possible unintended consequence for these parents and their children—who are at a profound legal disadvantage—if the Bill becomes law?

Such examples suggest that the culture is still punitive rather than rehabilitative. The problem with culture is its apparent intangibility for policy purposes, but its effects are anything but intangible. Where there is a culture of each government department or public service working separately and territorially, people fall through the cracks between operational silos. That still happens, despite the duty to refer when people released from prison are at risk of becoming homeless. Some local housing authorities work very well with prisons and probation and secure accommodation for prisoners, despite similar pressures on their housing stock as less integrated local councils. According to Nacro, last year in the north-west, 12% of people leaving prison were released into homelessness, compared with more than 20% of people released in south-central. If agencies in every region collaborated as well as they do in the north-west, there would be 3,700 fewer people released to homelessness every year, potentially preventing 1,500 reoffences.

The proven reoffending rate of those released homeless—76%—was more than twice that of those released from custody into settled accommodation, at 36.4%. Some 4,500 inmates will be released early in 10 tranches between 1 October and 1 June next year, in addition to the 4,500 regular releases that take place each month. Prisons and probation are on the front line of the Prime Minister’s pledge to end rough sleeping. Almost one in six are released homeless, and the most recent snapshot found that half of all rough sleepers had been in prison at some point and that 15% of them had been released within the last year. This Government’s national plan to end homelessness calls out the deficiencies of the duty to refer and promises to legislate for a duty to collaborate as soon as parliamentary time allows.

I tabled amendments to the Social Housing Bill to seize that legislative opportunity, but unfortunately to no avail. I was even told by the responding Minister that the duty to refer was working fine, so my amendments, which would have brought the Government’s own proposed reforms into statute, were not needed. It was rather an Alice through the looking-glass moment. Can the Minister report any new progress on bringing the duty to collaborate into law? What is being done to ensure that prisoners have good relationships and that someone is there when they are released, not just accommodation?

One of the most effective ways to prevent homelessness after release is to maintain existing family and other relationships, or enable prisoners to build supportive connections both inside and outside prison. Effective peer mentoring schemes are creating valuable communities of support that start in prison but go beyond the gate for prisoners who have no contact with their families and cannot hope to have. Sex offenders, for example, lumped together as a universally heinous, also need to be given a second chance. Programmes such as these should become business as usual. When well supervised, they can be powerfully therapeutic.

Trusted relationships can bring home to a prisoner the criminogenic influences they have to shrug off if they are to change. They create a sense of agency and dispel despair. Peer support can be game-changing for the 25% of male and female prisoners who are care experienced. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act requires prisons and probation to share corporate parenting responsibilities as part of a new, highly relational approach to care leavers. Peer support is key to fulfilling this. Can the Minister provide an overview of the spread of peer mentoring in prisons and support in English and Welsh prisons? Are there are any plans to integrate them into the Probation Service?

The 19th-century social reformer Elizabeth Fry branded our violent and squalid prisons the “nurseries of crime”. She said:

“The better the actual state of our prisons is known and understood, the more clearly will all men see the necessity of these arrangements by which they may be rendered schools of industry and virtue”.


I will finish on one neglected relationship that I have already mentioned: between the prison and probation system and wider society. Most prisoners will be released back into that wider society, which needs to know and understand what it takes to reform someone who has transgressed, how to prioritise rehabilitation and how to prioritise good relationships while still being appropriately tough on crime. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Lemos) (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this important debate and all noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon to what has been a sober but very humane debate. Noble Lords will know that not every debate about prisons has those characteristics, so I very much appreciate that.

For many years, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has brought sustained attention to the purpose of imprisonment and to the vital role that families and strong, stable relationships can play in rehabilitation. We are very grateful to him. I declare my own interest: I was the lead non-executive director of HMPPS until 2025. I chaired its agency board and had the pleasure and the privilege of meeting the noble Lord and talking with him, particularly about the work my then colleagues at HMPPS were doing on the relational model, which he was a champion of and is at the heart of what we are all discussing.

I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, on a magnificent maiden speech. I am proud to say that I have read both parts of the noble and learned Lord’s court review, twice. He looks shocked, but I have, and I look forward to working with him very closely, as does everyone at the Ministry of Justice.

I will start with the most immediate pressure on prison capacity. I take the challenge from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, not to indulge in the blame game very seriously, and I will try not to. I will also try not to recite lots of things other people have said before and that your Lordships already know. I am all too conscious that I alone stand between noble Lords and Recess, so I shall be concise but thorough.

On all these comments about prison capacity, I am not, as I say, going to indulge in the blame game. In two regards, the comments many noble Lords have made highlight the heart of this problem and the theme we will return to again and again. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, mentioned the great increase in sentence length. This is at the heart of the long-running difficulty with prison capacity. Noble Lords do not need me to tell them that, in the context of a prison capacity crisis, many if not all the things noble Lords have said they value in prisons—such as education, regime, healthcare and rehabilitation—are the first to suffer in overcrowded prisons with overstretched staff. So, we have to get the capacity crisis under control.

I am not going to bandy figures around, but we are providing 14,000 additional prison places and we will continue to make a commitment to prison building. On that, I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that we are not suggesting that the prison numbers will come down or that the prison building programme may, in the end, not prove adequate. We recognise that this is an ongoing thing and will go on for a very long time, perhaps even for a decade. I entirely agree with the comment by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that we cannot build our way out of this capacity challenge, though build we must.

On sentencing, measures already in force include the presumption to suspend prison sentences of 12 months or less. The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, talked about short sentences, and those are subject to important exceptions. Our view is that short spells in custody disrupt housing arrangements, employment and drug treatment. They are not good for mental health and, crucially, as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, said, the family ties that are at the heart of preventing further offending.

Where offenders can be punished and managed safely in the community—I do not apologise for the use of the word “punishment”—we should use that opportunity to both supervise them effectively and tackle the underlying causes of their offending, reserving prisons for those who most need to be there and from whom the public need to be protected. Over the coming months, we will implement the progression model that was at the heart of David Gauke's recommendations and at the heart of the Sentencing Act. I have had the opportunity to discuss that with many noble Lords before today. This is almost the most important building block to a changed landscape for prisons.

I make this offer to noble Lords in the spirit of my noble friend Lord Timpson; noble Lords can consider me a sort of polyester version of my noble friend. We need to make sure that the whole approach of the Sentencing Act—a third in custody, a third under intensive supervision—is understood much better by the public, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others have said. I would be very happy to arrange a presentation from our officials on exactly how this is going to work and how we are preparing for it.

It means a tougher probation service. I was very mindful of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, who I am working with on youth custody, as well. We are asking the Probation Service to do something really quite difficult, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, made clear. We are asking it to improve itself after a long history of troubles that started with the failed privatisation, and to take on many new responsibilities under the intensive supervision model. We know that is challenging.

I have talked about the money. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, has asked me again about contingency planning. The question of government funding and the need for more funding is something we talk about all the time in the Ministry of Justice, as noble Lords can imagine. We will approach the spending review in the usual optimistic spirit.

I want to recognise, finally, on this question of the progression model, that we listened to some of the concerns of victims and their families about the changes. As noble Lords know, we changed some of the exemptions, but we recognise that changing release arrangements can cause victims and their families a great deal of uncertainty and distress. That is why stronger supervision and support for victims are so important in the Government’s approach.

I now turn to prison safety and security, which a number of noble Lords have mentioned. Prisons must be places of safety, security and order, where staff can do their jobs, prisoners can engage in a constructive regime—particularly in education and training for employment—and genuine rehabilitation can take place. As I have said, all this is made much more difficult by serious overcrowding, overstretched staff and inadequate facilities. Drugs, illicit mobile phones and drones fuel violence, criminal activity, debt and intimidation; they undermine staff authority and make turning lives around substantially harder.

At the heart of what we need to do is ensuring effective security. It is essential. That is why we are investing in both the fabric and the security of our prisons, including an additional £35 million this financial year—we get some money out of the Treasury—to strengthen counter-drone security in prisons where there is the greatest threat. We are also working closely with law enforcement partners to disrupt those bringing drugs, weapons and other contraband into prisons.

Our prison officers perform a demanding public service and I take my hat off to them. They need the confidence, training and support to maintain order and build the constructive relationships that help offenders turn their backs on crime for good.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, as of June this year, prison officer staffing stood at 92% of our target level and prison officer resignation rates are at their lowest in five years. It is obviously a difficult labour market, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, highlighted. Many pressures remain, particularly in hard-to-staff prisons, but we have made an enormous effort—going back to my days in HMPPS—on recruitment, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Foster, would recognise.

Many noble Lords have highlighted that a safe prison must also be a purposeful one. Most people who enter prison, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, highlighted, will eventually return to the community. This is a simple statement of fact that is too readily ignored. Nearly 80% of offenders are reoffenders and therefore we have a responsibility to use the time spent in custody as effectively as we can, as many noble Lords have emphasised. Our approach is to help individuals develop skills and secure employment and stable accommodation, and to provide access to treatment for substance misuse and mental health needs.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, we meet regularly with Dame Carol Black and are working with her on the findings of her report. My colleagues and I would be very happy to meet the noble Lord and his colleagues to discuss the AI tool he was describing. All these efforts in health care and accommodation go to the heart of the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, that through all these things we are trying to maintain positive relationships. That is a good and humane thing to do, regardless of anything else: it is a good in itself. Effective rehabilitation nevertheless sits alongside punishment and robust supervision as an essential part of protecting the public. Every offence prevented means one fewer victim.

I recognise the comments made by my noble friend Lord Winston, which were utterly compelling, about the effect on the brain. I have seen research along those lines, and this is a very important area for us to develop. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, will know that we have discussed previously the whole question of gambling and gambling addiction. My noble friend Lord Timpson made some progress on that, and I hope we can continue that. I have no doubt that I will have many opportunities to discuss that with the noble Lord, Lord Foster.

Purposeful activity can have a transformative effect. We are expanding vocational training and apprenticeships and improving links with employers and access to education. Our track record on getting prisoners into jobs when they leave has improved. My noble friend Lord Timpson put a great deal of emphasis on that. We are seeing progress. The proportion of prison leavers in employment six months after release increased to 36.5% in the year to March 2026. We know we have a long way to go, but we are making some progress.

I turn to the question of family and other relationships, which the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, described as the golden thread. The evidence bears this out. Research shows that prisoners who received visits were three percentage points less likely to reoffend within one year of release. But as I have said, I regard that as a good thing in itself, whatever the statistics are telling us. I am delighted that they confirm my view. The prison gates should not be a cliff edge, for all the reasons I have set out. Prisons, probation, local authorities, health services and employment support must work as one system. Of course, there are many difficulties and that is why, alongside MHCLG, we have committed to halve the proportion of prison leavers released to no fixed abode and to increase the proportion in settled accommodation by the end of this Parliament.

I want to say a few words about probation. I thank probation staff for the vital work they do every day to protect the public and support rehabilitation. It is easy to be critical, but we also need to recognise their efforts and their achievements. They have been asked to carry too much for too long. We are responding with the investment that a number of noble Lords have referred to. We have already recruited 2,300 new probation officers over the past year and are recruiting at least 1,300 more in 2026-27. We are rebuilding the service and asking it to take on new responsibilities. Probation officers will have more on their plate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, said. There is much to be learned from the experience in youth custody—I entirely agree with her about that.

Moving part of a sentence from custody into the community, as we are, does not mean the end of punishment. We are giving probation the toughest range of tools ever to manage offenders, including tough licence conditions, electronic tagging on a scale never seen before, curfews, restriction zones, and recall to prison where those conditions are breached. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, spoke about recalls, and I answered a question yesterday from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, on IPPs and recalls. I am very happy to take that away and get back to the noble and learned Lord and everyone who has spoken in this debate about exactly what we are doing to address that trend.

One of the things we are already aware of is that, once someone has been recalled, the time taken to get to a parole decision before they can be released is something we need to address. But I do not at all demur from the general challenge, and I will return to it. Again, as I have said about this progression model, my officials will be very happy to arrange a session on the changes to probation so that noble Lords can feel more confident, at least, of the steps we are taking to build a Probation Service for the future.

I will say something about women offenders and female offenders, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Female offenders often have distinct and complex needs. Many are victims themselves, with histories of trauma, abuse, mental health and addiction, and many are mothers. That is why our long-term aim is to reduce the number of women in prison and, in particular, pregnant women and mothers of young children. That is a particular commitment of ours, to which we shall be addressing ourselves with energy. We have announced—this refers to what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was talking about—the expansion of intensive supervision courts for women, which will use a multi-agency approach to address the root causes of offending. This is an important development, which we shall watch very carefully to see if it may help in other areas too. We are also investing in voluntary and community sector provision to help prevent offending and divert women away from the criminal justice system in the first place. The Sentencing Act’s presumption to suspend sentences is expected to reduce the number of women entering prison by about a third. However, custody will, of course, remain necessary when the seriousness of the offence or the protection of the public requires it.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and one or two other noble Lords mentioned the Government’s decision on IPPs. I am very proud of that. We are continuing the regular meetings with interested Peers. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor himself is attending the next one—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, looks very impressed. The independent review of the prison system, chaired by Amber Rudd, will examine the long-term reforms needed to build a prison system fit for the future, as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has challenged us to do. She will report later this year, and I and my ministerial colleagues will be working closely with her on that.

We must protect the public, and we must stand with victims. Serious offenders must be punished appropriately. Those released into the community must be robustly supervised, and we must reduce the likelihood of further offending. If we succeed in this, that will mean fewer crimes and fewer victims. I note the comments noble Lords have made on foreign national offenders and on remand. This is all part of the approach we need for getting prison numbers to a more sustainable future.

I hope I have addressed the principal points raised, but I will read Hansard with my officials carefully and write on points I have failed to address. I will say this: in my short time in this job, and indeed before, I have worked with many noble Lords in this House on these issues. I regard this as a collaborative, cross-party venture—I was going to say adventure; it is certainly a venture. I know noble Lords from across the House are working with us on IPPs, but I hope we can continue to work together more widely.

In closing, I reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for tabling this Motion and giving us the opportunity to have this debate. None of the problems that noble Lords have highlighted should prevent us paying tribute to those who work tirelessly across our Prison and Probation Service. They undertake, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, noted, difficult and demanding work on behalf of us all. I wish noble Lords a very good Recess. I hope you do not go to too many conferences, but before that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, will respond.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

I am the barrier between everyone and Recess.

This has been a good, valuable and collaborative debate. We have worked together. There has not been partisanship. That is important because this is an important and, to be quite frank, depressing subject. The reasons for depression have become apparent from many of the speeches today. I compliment every Member who has contributed today. There have been excellent contributions. I hope that the Hansard of this debate will get some publicity because it needs it. People need to see clearly the problems that are going on in the prison estate, but they also need to see how we can work together and co-operate. I very much liked the emphasis on the prisoner as a human being, which was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, but also came over in many speeches. I concur with everybody that it was an honour to have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson, make his maiden speech in this debate. It was a hugely valuable contribution.

I am not going to go on and on because we need to get to Recess and it has been a long day. I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions. I hope the debate gets widespread impact across Parliament, into the departments of government and out there to the wider public so that they understand the problems in the prison estate at the moment.

Motion agreed.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, we are about to go into Recess, so I take this opportunity to thank all the staff of the House for their hard work and support and wish them and, indeed, all noble Lords a restful Recess. I hope noble Lords enjoy their party conference, if they are attending.

Early Release Prisoners: Preventing Homelessness and Rough Sleeping

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Farmer]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of partnership working between prisons and local housing authorities in preventing homelessness and rough sleeping among prisoners released early.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who are here today to debate an issue that could get lost amidst the penal populism informing much of the response to the next waves of early release following the Sentencing Act 2026.

Why do I refer to penal populism? Crime must be punished, and I completely understand the concerns of many victims about early release. However, the public vengefulness politicians court to achieve popularity, notably by demanding ever-longer custodial sentences, has led to ever-longer sentences, clogged up our prisons and contributed to the need for these great swathes of early release. The inflation in custodial sentence length between 2010 and 2025 was 45%.

In their book, The Honest Politician’s Guide to Prisons and Probation, criminologists King and Willmott reveal just how many ex-Justice Secretaries, from both main parties, regret “playing to the gallery” as

“tough law and order figures”,

as my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who was Home Secretary following the 1992 general election, described his successors. This response was driven by the understandable outcry following the Jamie Bulger killing in early 1993 by two other children. Instead of acknowledging the need to challenge inadequate parenting and manage expectations about what a criminal justice system can do, the Home Secretary who followed my noble friend Lord Clarke kickstarted the still ongoing competition between the two main parties as to who could be toughest on crime.

My response to the arms race that penal populism generates and has filled our prisons with is that, like the nuclear arms race, we simply cannot afford the price tag, either in sheer cash terms of £60,000 to £65,000 per prisoner per annum, or the squandering of human potential. Those sentenced for sexual offences—over one-fifth of prisoners—are treated as unreservedly heinous despite considerable variability in seriousness and the hypersexualisation of society. We want to lock them up and throw away the key, but the vast majority will leave prison. They and we need their genuine rehabilitation. Many have lost their families, livelihoods and homes. Only about one-third move into settled accommodation post release, compared to the average of around 45%.

More generally, imprisonment itself renders offenders homeless when tenancies lapse, mortgages are not paid or family circumstances mean they cannot return home. Despite a continuing duty of care, far too many are released homeless. Also, rehabilitation without a proper roof is almost impossible, and the statistics bear this out: their proven reoffending rate of 76% is more than double the 36.4% of those who reoffend after being released into settled accommodation. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have assessed how many of those released early are likely to return to prison, whether through recalls for breaching licence conditions or reoffending?

This is a far grislier question, but have they assessed how many are likely to die? Leaving prison homeless is a major risk factor for death shortly after release. Last month, a Guardian investigation reported record numbers of deaths within two weeks of release in 2025—a 28% rise since 2021. Similarly, the charity Nacro found that more than one person dies every day in the year after leaving prison, and last year one in every 144 people released died within that period, more than three times the rate in 2015. In 40% of cases, drugs are a factor and homelessness interacts fatally with that: there is no structure, support or healthcare.

Inside Time, the prisoners’ newspaper—which I know the Minister reads, as do I—says that:

“An estimated 6,000 prisoners will be released earlier than planned from English and Welsh jails in 10 monthly tranches, starting on 2 September”.


So it is very concerning that HM Inspectorate of Prisons told the Commons Public Accounts Committee in November 2024 that, at some prisons, the limited housing stock available for those released had been

“overwhelmed by early release schemes”.

Although the Government have responded to Written Questions by saying that local authorities collaborate effectively with the Prison Service to reduce homelessness, Ministry of Justice data shows that almost 13,000 people left prison homeless or as rough sleepers in the year to April 2025—a 39% rise from the previous year. Similarly, the Government’s A National Plan to End Homelessness states that this

“could have been prevented had better coordination and planning been in place”.

The duty to refer in the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 was designed to facilitate this, and almost half of all “duty to refer” referrals are from criminal justice system organisations. Almost 10 years on from that Act, I welcome the implicit recognition in the proposed new duty to collaborate that it is not working as it should for ex-prisoners. Will the Minister explain how the new duty to collaborate will achieve the level of change required and whether it will be introduced in time to meet September’s heightened need for housing? What incentives, or even sanctions where necessary, will be put in place to ensure better joint working, not least in the interests of rehabilitation?

Prison capacity has been such an emergency issue, but the time has surely come for this to come into much sharper focus as a slower-burn way of reducing our prison population and the criminal justice budget. Reoffending costs us all £18 billion a year. Releasing prisoners into homelessness, especially rough sleeping, single-handedly undermines any previous and future rehabilitation activity. Without accommodation, they cannot seek work and restructure their lives.

Collaboration with local housing authorities is essential for rehabilitation. Some are far more effective than others at finding accommodation for ex-prisoners, even in areas of very pressured housing markets. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman reports that many London boroughs compare badly with statistical neighbours where housing is concerned. In 2025, the London Assembly housing committee flagged inconsistent practice across London boroughs with weak co-ordination between prisons, probation and borough housing teams; prisons not consistently complying with the duty to refer; and late referrals from prisons contributing greatly to uncertainty.

I return to the plan to end homelessness. This Government have committed, by the end of this Parliament, to a 50% reduction in homelessness among people on their first night out of prison and an increase in the number of prison leavers in settled accommodation three months post release and thereafter. To conclude, I ask the Minister to outline how prisons and probation will deliver their responsibilities under the plan to embed local partnerships, collocation and pre-release planning.

King’s Speech

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, first, I support the Government’s health plans, which include a strong focus on prevention and neighbourhood, and I want to help them build on the integration of health and other services required by the Health and Care Act 2022.

We are getting there with the early years in delivering health through Best Start Family Hubs, which are thankfully now in all local authority areas. But, by definition, family hubs are for families with all children up to 19, and up to 25 if they are SEND. County councils such as Essex have pioneered healthcare for older children in their hubs and have much evidence of good practice to share.

Votes for 16 and 17 year-olds was a government manifesto commitment, but I cannot support it on child development grounds and due to its almost complete inconsistency with the rest of English law. Yes, prepare 16 and 17 year-olds to take the adult responsibility to help determine who governs this country, but do not thrust it upon children.

When I visit youth custody sites, I notice staff consistently refer to anyone in their care as children, because they are under 18. I was told it is not because they are highly vulnerable but because calling them children underlines to all concerned that children is what they are. Surely making them voters would require changing the Children Act 1989, which states that a child is a person under the age of 18. That definition is used across vast swathes of law and social policy, including safeguarding, family law, social services, education and youth justice. It is also used by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

So what if under 18s can work full-time and pay taxes? That is about training a child in the way they should go: taking responsibility and contributing. Our tax and voting systems do not completely overlap in terms of entitlement. Any further shift towards adultification needs to be strenuously resisted as it is a major threat to keeping children safe, as seen when victims were blamed in child rape gang cases. Neurodevelopment research is harnessed to argue for raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility. It shows that maturity of frontal lobes, where risk management and judgment take place, is not complete until around 25. One has to ask whether the Government are genuinely interested in children’s welfare or their votes.

Similarly, the draft conversion Bill panders more to identity politics than an objective need for a better legal framework. Violence and coercion are already illegal. This unnecessary legislation is also harmful; it intimidates those with genuinely therapeutic and caring motivations from engaging in any way with someone seeking help.

On the courts modernisation Bill, I will explore how we can improve the Children Act 1989 if this Government remove the rebuttable presumption that the involvement of both parents in their life serves the child’s welfare. Would the Family Justice Minister meet with me to discuss, for example, improving the welfare checklist?

Before I sit down, I want to say that I consider it a great privilege to have heard the valedictory speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, today. I will paraphrase Dr Emma Crewe, who is an anthropologist of Parliament who has said that, in the Lords, influence depends heavily on personal relationships, reputation, civility, reciprocity and trust across parties and groups. Courtesy therefore functions almost like a social currency. Peers who are respectful, co-operative and considerate are more likely to gain influence or persuade others. Thereby, we are a model to the outside world, and I pray that we will continue to be so.

Victims and Courts Bill

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 10th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Polak in his Amendment 7.

It is now rightly impossible for any public discussion of the Epstein files and grooming gangs—or rather child rape gangs—not to put victims front and centre. About a year ago, we were discussing child rape gangs in this House, and I flagged to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, how the recent tragic news of the death of Virginia Guiffre demonstrated the long-term effects of child sexual abuse. I declared at that time my interest that my sister had suffered serious sexual abuse as a young girl and, thereafter, for the rest of her life, suffered long-term depressive and self-destructive effects. I mention that again simply to explain why I have signed the amendment. We can say that victims should be at the forefront but, without taking action, this could sound very much like virtue signalling.

I understand, as my noble friend Lord Polak has highlighted, that specialist domestic abuse and other trauma-focused services, particularly those supporting child victims of sexual abuse, have very high waiting lists, and that where counsellors with the necessary expertise are practising, funding is always inadequate to the need. I suspect that, even if sufficiently high levels of money were forthcoming, workforce shortages would become even more apparent. Have the Government done a needs analysis that would identify prevalence, the scale of the staff shortfall, how many more specialists are needed, how they could be trained and how potential candidates could be identified? Prevalence certainly appears very high. Could all professionals interacting with victims, including teachers, nurses, GPs, and police and prison officers, be given appropriate training in trauma-informed practice so that there was more of a whole-society approach?

I understand that this is straying a little from my noble friend Lord Polak’s amendment, but it gives us the opportunity to hear from the Government how they will put the victims of perpetrators such as Epstein and child rape gangs at the forefront, as they have promised to do.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I was very happy to put my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Polak, not least because he and I, every Thursday morning in the post-legislative scrutiny committee for the Domestic Abuse Act, hear from the sector exactly what is going on and, perhaps more pertinently, what is not going on.

The Minister, like me, is a great fan of the “child house” approach to treating children who have had the most appalling direct physical and sexual abuse. It demonstrates what best practice looks like. Best practice really makes an enormous difference and is incredibly efficient, is very incisive and can work very quickly. That is partly why His Majesty’s Government have thankfully decided to roll this out throughout England to a large degree; that is a great step forward.

As we take evidence, we are hearing again and again that there are examples of really good practice. I recognise that it is unrealistic to imagine that His Majesty’s Government are suddenly going to find coffers bursting with money to enable the whole panoply of support services that one would wish victims to be able to access—that is not going to happen. However, I appeal to the Government and their officials to identify those examples of really good or best practice that are making a difference, rather than taking a blanket approach and saying we need to try to cover all support services. Clearly, some are dramatically more effective than others.

My appeal to the Government is to try to strategically identify those support services that are making a huge difference. For example, two areas that make an enormous difference are the independent domestic violence advocates and the independent stalking advocates. The proof of the pudding in both those areas is that when those individuals are involved and work with the victim from very early on, first, the victim’s experience is transformed for the better, but secondly, and more pertinently from the point of view of the Ministry of Justice, there is a much higher chance of the case coming to court and there being a successful prosecution. Not only does it help the victim but it helps the Government achieve their laudable aim to reduce violence against women and girls.

I do not expect the Government to say that there is a magic wand and that Rachel Reeves is the Minister’s new best friend, but I hope that an approach to identifying services similar to the Lighthouse, which really make a performative difference, could be identified more strategically and assisted more proactively and in a more focused way.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 27th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

I am coming to my amendments later.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

I speak in support of amendments on behalf of my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch, who unfortunately cannot be in her place at this hour on a Friday afternoon. I refer to Amendments 445, 483A, 495B and 941A. First, Amendment 445 would require the panel to consider signs of fluctuating capacity. That issue has been addressed in previous groups but needs raising again briefly here. As Professor Martin Vernon told the Lords Select Committee,

“fluctuating capacity is an extraordinarily common issue, but none the less somebody may retain capacity at some point during their dementia diagnosis sufficient to make a determination as to whether they wish to end their life”.

As has been stated, about two-thirds of people with dementia have never received a formal diagnosis, so it is incumbent on the panel to consider that possibility and take evidence on whether it could be the case. Given that the co-ordinating doctor is not required to be in the room at the actual moment of administration, fluctuating capacity could raise vital issues of consent.

Amendment 483A probes whether the panels have sufficient powers to gather all necessary evidence to decide on eligibility. It ensures that a panel can refer the patient for any further assessments that it considers necessary. Can the noble and learned Lord who is the sponsor explain why the panel does not sit within the usual tribunal structures, as doing so would give it more expansive powers to request further evidence where necessary? For example, the tribunal procedure rules for the First-tier Tribunal, in the Health, Education and Social Care Chamber, empowers the tribunal without restriction to give direction to matters such as,

“issues on which it requires evidence or submissions … the nature of the evidence or submissions it requires … whether the parties are permitted or required to provide expert evidence, and if so whether the parties must jointly appoint a single expert to provide such evidence … and the time at which any evidence or submissions are to be provided”.

It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm whether the powers given to the panel in Clause 17(4)(d) and (e) are as extensive.

Finally, my noble friend’s connected Amendments 495B and 941A would require the panel to provide a report to the person containing recommendations to address any unmet social and palliative care needs, in addition to determining whether an eligibility certificate should be granted. More fundamentally, these amendments probe what the panel is intended to be. The Bill’s sponsors previously have tried to argue that the panel is akin to a multidisciplinary team. My understanding is that on this point they have been rebuffed. After the noble and learned Lord cited the Association for Palliative Medicine’s Dr Sarah Cox in his defence on 9 January, the APM responded in a letter that the Bill’s sponsor had misrepresented Dr Cox’s position, saying:

“This panel fails to replicate a true multidisciplinary model and essential protection”.


Further, it says that the Bill’s current provisions render

“the panel a mere administrative review, stripping it of the very nuance and human understanding that defines robust, compassionate decision-making at the end of life”.

My noble friend’s amendments are intended to help the noble and learned Lord by providing ways for his panel process to be strengthened so that it operates more like a multidisciplinary team. An important first step would be to expand the panel’s scope so that it includes explicitly the ability to provide assessments of or treatments for unmet health and social care needs. This would enable each panel member to assess, individually and then together, the holistic needs of the patient and contextualise their decision around assisted suicide. My noble friend’s Amendments 495B and 941A build on this and a recommendation of the Royal College of Psychiatrists that the panel should be able to recommend interventions addressing potential drivers of a desire to hasten death, such as depression, social isolation or difficult physical symptoms.

It should be remembered that the Bill does not guarantee that the person will ever have met a psychiatrist or social worker before this stage in the process. We cannot deny the patient the benefit of their holistic experience and expertise in favour of a rubber stamp. My noble friend would also tie her amendments to the sponsor’s commitment to consider a requirement for the co-ordinating and independent doctors, although not the panel, to ask why a person has requested assisted suicide. Ultimately, what is the point of exploring motivation unless the intent is to establish whether drivers can be addressed in another way?

To conclude, the heart of the problem is that, due to the way it was added to the Bill in the other place, the panel process suffers from a fundamental identity crisis. Are the members trying to be a kind of tribunal, or are they designed to be a kind of multidisciplinary team? It would be helpful if the sponsor could enlighten us, because currently they fall short of both.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of my Amendment 483, which would ensure simply that in-person hearings remain the default when assessing applications under the Bill, with remote evidence via video or audio link used only where extraordinary circumstances make an in-person hearing wholly impracticable.

Given the gravity of the decisions involved, it is essential that scrutiny is of the highest standard. An in-person hearing allows the panel to observe the applicant fully, including their demeanour and interactions, and to look for any signs of pressure. This cannot be reliably assessed over a video link, and certainly not over the phone. Indeed, California’s assisted dying law requires assessments of coercion or undue influence to take place outside the presence of any other person, a safeguard that remote evidence cannot guarantee.

The Civil Justice Council’s review of remote hearings during the Covid pandemic found that the majority of respondents considered remote hearings to be worse than in-person hearings overall and less effective in facilitating participation, a critical component of procedural justice. Many respondents found remote hearings tiring, difficult to follow and more prone to misunderstanding. The Civil Justice Council found that nearly 13% of participants in remote hearings experienced significant technical difficulties, and in a process as sensitive as this one, even a small risk of technical or technological failure is a risk too far. There is also a contradiction in the Bill as drafted. It requires live evidence while simultaneously allowing pre-recorded testimony, so that a short, pre-recorded voice note could in theory constitute the entirety of an applicant’s oral evidence, with no opportunity for questioning from the panel, and that cannot be an adequate safeguard.

Better Prisons: Less Crime (Justice and Home Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and to be part of a debate where we have five maiden speeches, three of which have taken place and were very impressive. I add my welcome to the five new noble Lords. I look forward to the remaining two speeches.

I welcome this report, which focuses on what happens in prison. Its statistic that reoffending accounts for 80% of the costs of offending is shocking, because it strongly suggests that prison is not working to rehabilitate people. Preventing reoffending requires prison to tackle criminogenic needs—the changeable factors in a prisoner’s life that directly influence their risk of reoffending. Lack of healthy, pro-social relationships is female prisoners’ greatest criminogenic need and men’s second-highest, exceeded only by the closely related lifestyle and associates need. We will never see the much-needed step change in rehabilitation unless we harness the power of good relationships throughout the system.

Better Prisons: Less Crime mentions this 10 times and emphasises the difference that good staff-to-staff, as well as staff-to-prisoner, relationships can make. It mentions HMP Woodhill, and I attended the inspection where it was given an urgent notification. One response to this has been staff better supporting staff. The Minister and I and other noble Lords visited HMP Belmarsh recently and talked to the exceptional governor there about her successful buddy system, where more experienced officers come alongside new recruits, which is helping greatly with retention. Better Prisons: Less Crime gives education more than 100 mentions and employment more than 30. Yet my first report to government on the importance of strengthening family and other relational ties to prevent reoffending and intergenerational crimes said:

“Supportive relationships with family members and significant others give meaning and all-important motivation to other strands of rehabilitation and resettlement activity”.


Ensuring that prisoners have good relationships should top the hierarchy of goals. The Government’s own starting point for commissioning my two reviews was that those who receive family visits are 39% less likely to reoffend than those who do not, making this the most successful rehabilitation pathway. I have had much pushback on this, especially criticism that this focus is being soft on crime. My response to this is that if we lower reoffending by helping prisoners cultivate good relationships, with all that this entails—lower court costs, less crime, fewer victims, more children growing up with reformed parents in work—we are actually being hard on crime. Can the Minister advise how prisons are emphasising the need for good relationships?

I still work with HMPPS and the MoJ on this agenda, and this policy area has some very vocational civil servants dedicated to bringing about system and culture change. My review’s implementation treats relationships as the golden thread running through all processes in prison and probation, influencing how staff, from governors to newly recruited officers, treat prisoners, support each other and engage with the wider community. An extrovert prison purposefully builds relationships with the outside world. Some prisons now run community days for the 50% or so of prisoners who do not receive social visits. People come in from local organisations as living reminders of what life is like outside. They help prepare prisoners ahead of release, pointing them away from criminal associates by providing alternatives. Some are prison-experienced themselves and are a powerful encouragement that change is possible.

Focus has now widened to the role that good peer-to-peer support plays in rehabilitation. Prisons lack in many areas, but what they have in abundance is prisoners—and prisoners can be an asset. I sat in a peer support project in HMP Bullingdon alongside the area executive director, who said that one of the mentors had form as the major troublemaker in other local prisons. That mentor testified to how much his role had changed him:

“For years, I would respond to all authority with violence, and where did it get me? I tell mentees, I was just as angry and frustrated as them, but sharing that built good friendships that helped us both change and stay out of trouble”.


This project had support from the very top and a senior and highly skilled supervisor who could identify prisoners likely to be good mentors.

Every wing in every prison needs these programmes. Before HMP Dartmoor shut down, a similar programme, Peaceful Solutions, significantly changed it into a calmer prison, one result being that officer recruitment became much easier despite the remote location. So can the Minister outline how approaches with the potential to change prison culture by harnessing the power of pro -social prisoner-to-prisoner relationships are progressing?

Sentencing Bill

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 6th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I have tabled Amendment 97A, which is again about probation capacity. I know that the Minister has done his best to convince us, and I completely understand that, with his business drive and determination, he is going to do the absolute best possible for this problem. But I remain unconvinced that the concerns raised by Peers in Committee and by probation staff themselves have been properly addressed.

It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Foster, is not going to push his amendments to a vote, and I certainly will not push this to a vote. However, in Committee, the Government charged that this amendment would risk duplicating existing reports and delaying reform, but I do not see that, because this amendment is not about producing more data for its own sake; it is about independent assurance at arm’s length from Ministers and operational management that the Probation Service has the capacity to safely absorb the additional demands that the Bill will place on it. Quarterly staffing statistics published by the Probation Service are not the same thing as a system- wide assessment that the Probation Service has that capacity.

In addition, the amendment balances investment plans. The Minister referred in Committee to the recruitment of trainee probation officers, to digital innovation and to welcome investment over the spending review period. We heard about those issues from the Minister himself at a briefing yesterday. All of that is positive, but none of it guarantees that the capacity is adequate at the point of commencement of the new statutory duties. The organisation Justice also says that the number of new probation officers set to be recruited would be inadequate. I would be very grateful if the Minister could tackle that problem of the inadequacy of numbers because, of course, recruitment takes time. Trainees take time to qualify. Technology takes time to embed and to get right. In the meantime, probation officers are working under extraordinary pressure, managing high-risk individuals and with case loads that are already too high.

The argument that this amendment would delay reforms misunderstands its purpose. If it delays reform, it is necessary, because it means that the reforms are not enough. Carrying on with huge changes regardless of capacity does not strengthen probation; it weakens it and increases risks to staff. Parliament is being asked to legislate for significant new demands on the Probation Service without this independent assurance by HMPPS that it has actually happened and that it is going to work and it is going to fit. I would have supported the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, but I will, of course, not move mine. I just hope that the Minister feels he has the backing of the House for everything he is trying to do. If we are raising concerns, it is only from a point of view of wanting to make it perfect.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for giving way. I rise to speak to Amendment 70, which my noble friend Lord Jackson, who cannot be here today, led on in Committee, and which I have signed. It would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament on how the Act has affected reoffending rates. I appreciate the Minister’s encouraging introductory remarks.

The amendment would also create a feedback loop into the policy-making process by halting various provisions in the Act if certain metrics are not achieved. On the data, I am aware that reoffending statistics which differentiate between custodial and community or suspended sentences are routinely collected and published every quarter, as the Minister reminded us just now and in Committee. I am also aware of the evidence that those given a community or suspended sentence order reoffend less. Indeed, I am grateful to the Minister for responding at very short notice to my request for data.

To rehearse the compelling arguments for the presumption of non-custodial sentences of less than a year, the one-year proven reoffending rate for adults starting a suspended sentence order with requirements in quarter 3 2023 was 25%. Of those released from a custodial sentence of 12 months or fewer, 62% reoffended within a year. Importantly, robust analysis that compares like offenders with like also shows that suspended and community sentences are more effective than short custodial sentences, with a difference of four percentage points. Even where offending has been prolific, they pack a greater punch in reducing reoffending and promoting rehabilitation. All this is to say that I, like many other noble Lords, really want this presumption to bear more of the above fruit, because a large body of research shows that even where short custodial sentences are the only recourse, they often fail to rehabilitate.

We are also aware that we cannot build our way out of our long-standing prison capacity crisis, and that requires keeping people out of prison where a non-custodial sentence is the most effective disposal, despite public demand for punishment to mean deprivation of liberty. Many simply, and understandably, want offenders to be removed from our streets, not least so that victims know where they are and are unlikely to see them at large—hence this amendment is in a group concerned with transparency of the criminal justice system.

We do need to finesse the wording. I agree that referring to

“the impact of this Act on re-offending”

presents a minefield for researchers as reoffending is affected by many factors. However, there needs to be a proper stocktake in the aftermath of introducing a presumption that will make a custodial sentence far less likely.

My main point is that I, and the public, will assume it is more likely than not that this presumption will de-risk crime for offenders. Knowing they will receive a community or suspended sentence order will surely be a less fearful outcome than imprisonment. We are all aware of how prolific shoplifting has become, now that police are not even attending. Hence and crucially, previous data might not be reliable in this new sentencing world. Therefore, the public need to know not only that this experiment will be evaluated and reported on, as the Minister has assured us it will be, but that it will be called off if necessary.

On this amendment, we also need to finesse whether these reforms are given only two years to bed in, and if the 10% reduction in reoffending pass or fail rate is appropriate. However, the fact that these details need ironing out should not preclude amending the Bill so that there is clarity for the public that steps will be taken to roll this presumption back if it proves ineffective or even harmful. I will not be pushing this to a vote.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

It was indeed a pleasure to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, after all the work he has done in relation to prisons.

Noble Lords may wonder why this amendment about Wales is in in a group about transparency. I wondered too but I think there is an answer, to which I shall come. I had first thought it was just Wales an afterthought—“We’ll just put it in somewhere where it doesn’t really matter”—but there is a reason why it is there.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, for the discussion I had with him in relation to the amendment I tabled in Committee, which was designed to achieve the devolution of just probation and related services. Then, when that amendment was debated, I was extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, who, in his usual extraordinarily courteous and perceptive manner, pointed out the fallacy of what I was suggesting; namely, that one was devolving part of an entire system of offender management. Probation and prisons have to run together. The Welsh Government had thought they should just take probation. The commission I chaired took the view that actually there were two integrated parts. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, and am grateful for him having made transparent the objection to the Welsh Government’s proposal; namely, that you cannot devolve part.

Therefore, I put forward this amendment, which seeks to devolve the whole of probation and prison services. I did so on the basis that at least that gets over one objection of Her Majesty’s Government to the devolution of the justice system to Wales—or part of it. Normally, the objection is, “Well, we know how to do things in Whitehall, they don’t know how to do things in Cardiff, let’s leave it here”. However, it is now quite clear that there was now another very substantial objection. That is, if you devolve offender management, both probation and prisons, you are devolving just part of the criminal justice system, so you cannot do that either. So I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, for making transparent that objection.

Separation Centres: Terrorist Offenders

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. We are carefully considering the High Court ruling on the Abu case, including considering appealing the decision. Our decisions are based on risk, and the proportionality of our response to that risk is how we make our decisions. Someone’s mental health throughout the justice system is a very important factor in how we manage everyone’s risk, whether they are on the first night of their first time in prison or they have been in the system for a very long time.

I am proud of so many of my colleagues who spend so much of their time in our prisons, and of our probation staff, who go out of their way to support people with their mental health requirements. The support we give our NHS and health providers in our prisons is clearly important too. We need to enable them to have the right space and time to work with people who are often very vulnerable.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, there is a gaslighting quality about the High Court judgment that the public sector equality duty was breached because no consideration had been given to decisions that meant a cohort of prisoners, all Muslim, were treated in a particular way. The judge said that this could have been perceived as a form of collective punishment against Muslims. All the inmates in the separation centre are Muslims. Some 75% of MI5’s counterterrorist caseload is Islamist extremists, and 63% of prisoners for terrorism-related offences are Muslims. When I visited HMP Frankland in 2022, a prison officer in the separation unit told me that they were perpetually—and, I thought, dangerously—constrained by the PSED and human rights legislation. Will the Government appeal this judgment and strenuously reassure prison governors that they can and must continue to use separation units to keep officers, prisoners and the public safe?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

As I said to my noble friend, we are considering appealing the decision. It is also important that the staff who work in our separation centres have the skills they need to care for the people there. The system is robust, but we always need to look for improvements. That is why we commissioned Mr Hall to look at all our separation centres and the policies we have to make sure they are right for the future.

Adult Prison Estate: Support for Young People

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Farmer]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to mitigate the reduced support for young people moving from the Youth Custody Service into the adult prison estate.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)]

Transition from the youth to the adult estate is a critical time and needs to be managed with care and thought for the safety of the young person. The transitions policy framework is a guide for all practitioners to ensure that the transition is focused on the needs of the individual, so that when they arrive in the adult prison estate it leads to a safe and positive outcome.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his reply. I am encouraged by his support for rehabilitation and for reducing reoffending by young offenders. The state helps to look after looked-after children until they are 25, recognising that the effects of every young adult’s immaturity are amplified by adversity, family trauma and intense relational insecurity. Young adults in custody often face very similar challenges. Without excusing crime, how could boys’ entry into the adult estate be more trauma-informed to mirror how girls are treated? Also, could genuinely supportive relationships—such as peer-to-peer buddy schemes, including from the very good staff who were at the YCS—be maintained until they fully transition, to help young adults navigate the relational jungle that is the adult estate?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Lord does amazing work in this area and I appreciate his focus on it. The trauma-informed approach is well established for the transition of women within the justice system. Stephanie Covington and others have been great on training staff. We now need to train more in the youth estate for boys and the male estate for men. That is where the Enable programme comes in. It is rolling out now; it is in five prisons at the moment and it will be the basis of training a trauma-informed approach.

It is also important to understand the complexities of young people. As someone who was brought up in a foster family with lots of young people with challenges, I know that how they transition to adulthood and the adult estate is really important. Synaptic pruning, with the connections between brain cells and how they change through adolescence, is important, as is attachment theory. Peer mentoring when someone moves from the youth estate to the adult estate, with officers following them through there and someone who meets them at the gate and makes sure they are settled in well, is equally important.

Prenuptial Agreements

Lord Farmer Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for bringing forward this important debate at the early stages of this Government; as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, just pointed out, they have four and a half years to go. As my noble friend Lady Shackleton pointed out, this matter is always kicked into the long grass; it is therefore a good time for it to be brought out.

The Law Commission made recommendations in 2014, which it is currently reviewing, but calls to make properly drafted prenuptial agreements binding were made long before then, including by noble and learned Lords in this House, so it is hard to be optimistic about change, but, as a non-lawyer I want to take a slightly different tack. As an aside, I am in very good company with and have empathy for another non-lawyer, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, who is preparing to respond to many legal eminences.

This Government have said that, for them to act, any measures will need to further one or more of their five missions. My argument is that making romantic relationships a little less romantic meets the opportunity mission test. Binding prenuptial agreements would, albeit indirectly, boost opportunity for children to do better. That is quite a leap, so I will elaborate. They would strengthen marriage by making it more intentional and less risky, thereby, it is to be hoped, helping to increase marriage rates throughout society. According to Louise Perry, more marriage would be better for women too, as they are the vulnerable party in our informal hook-up culture, where unplanned pregnancy means they are often left, literally, holding the baby.

Crucially, more marriage means more children benefit from the stability that the commitment of marriage brings to family life. Children of married parents are considerably less likely to experience their own relationship breakdown. This was emphasised by the Centre for Social Justice in its 2009 Family Law Review. Its starting point, unusually but importantly, was that any reform of family law needed to support family stability and address the prevailing culture of family breakdown. Then and now, this is the underlying social emergency at the root of and driving so many other social issues. Some 44% of children do not grow up with both their parents. Children who endure family breakdown are around twice as likely to experience homelessness, alcoholism and mental health issues; to get into trouble with the police or spend time in prison; to underachieve in education; not to live with the other parent of their children, and to become a teenage parent themselves.

Marriage makes a difference. The Millennium Cohort Study found that 88% of married parents were still together when their child was five years old compared to only 67% of parents who were cohabiting when their child was born. More starkly, children born to cohabiting parents were almost three times more likely not to be living with both their parents when they were five years old compared to children born to married parents. Attributing this difference in stability to marriage is often dismissed in favour of other coexisting factors that make people more likely to form lasting relationships, such as higher levels of income or education, but low-income married couples are significantly more stable than low-income cohabitees. How relationships are structured matters.

Anthropologically speaking, the whole effort of getting married, the ritual itself, the decision to commit and the explicit public nature of that commitment, and even the financial investment in marking that change of relationship status, are all qualitatively different from the slide into cohabitation which is very common. Psychologists such as Professors Scott Stanley and Galena Rhoades at the University of Denver have extensively studied how sliding into cohabitation differs from deciding to get married and how that affects relationship durability.

As we have heard, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, in her minority judgment in Radmacher v Granatino, which tested the binding nature of a prenup, spoke of the importance of maintaining a distinction between marriage and cohabitation. She also said that Parliament, not judges, needed to make the law in this area. In 1998, the last Labour Government published Supporting Families, the UK’s first ever Green Paper on family policy, and made a strong case for doing this. It is worth repeating what they said then:

“allowing couples, either before or during their marriage, to make written agreements dealing with their financial affairs which would be legally binding on divorce … could give people more choice and allow them to take more responsibility for ordering their own lives. It could help them to build a solid foundation for their marriage by encouraging them to look at the financial issues they may face as husband and wife and reach agreement before they get married”.

This speaks of the greater intentionality that prenuptial arrangements bring to marriage; people think about the future. Indeed, this measure was included in the section in the policy proposals on supporting marriage—still a very valid aim of social policy. It pointed out:

“Providing greater security on property matters in this way could make it more likely that some people would marry, rather than simply live together … Nuptial agreements could also have the effect of protecting the children of first marriages, who can often be overlooked at the time of a second marriage—or a second divorce”.


In its Family Law Review, the CSJ points out:

“England and Wales is unusual across Westernised family law jurisdictions in not having binding pre-marriage agreements … or other marital agreements”.


While prenuptial agreements should not be mandated or normative, it is responsible to consider what a couple would want to happen in future circumstances. Arguably, when the couple are in flush of premarital romance and well disposed towards each other, that is a good time to think about how finances should pan out if things do not work out.

Of course, some strongly hold that premarital agreements plan for failure, reflect distrust and undermine the commitment of marriage. I would argue, as Labour did in 1998, that this intentionality and ability to plan address the realism of the future. Moreover, it is ironic that while it is possible to have a cohabitation agreement to protect assets if a relationship fails, married couples in England and Wales are subject to the very uncertain outcomes of our current divorce law, which can create many perverse incentives.

The CSJ lists many other advantages of making prenups legally binding, such as the greater security that they give to those re-entering marriage who have been scarred by divorce, lower legal costs, fewer delays as judges have not the need to determine arrangements from scratch, and international norms which mean that prenups are expected to have legal force. Disadvantages include the difficulties of predicting future events and including these in the agreement. The vulnerable, weaker party—or the one who is keener to marry—may feel obliged to sign despite possible downsides for them. This leads to the issue of how much residual discretion, which we have heard about, should be allowed to the courts not to treat prenups as binding in particular cases. The more the discretion, the greater the opportunity for fairness and justice, yet the greater the risk that agreements are not binding at all. The lesser the discretion, the more unfair outcomes there will be, even though there is fairness in upholding agreements. Hence, in 1998, the Government permitted a narrow discretionary factor of “significant injustice”. Judge-made law could elaborate the circumstances in which “significant injustice” may be found.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister whether this Government will make the prevention of parental relationship breakdown a key part of their mission to break down barriers to opportunity—and of course of their child poverty strategy. Poverty is a consequence of family breakdown as well as a cause of it. Bolstering marriage is essential, as the last Labour Government realised. Perhaps counterintuitively, making prenups binding is a low-cost tool in the box to do that.