‘Better prisons, less crime’: Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee report

Approximate read time: 15 minutes

On 12 February 2026, the House of Lords is scheduled to debate the following motion:

Lord Foster of Bath (Liberal Democrat) to move that this House takes note of the report from the Justice and Home Affairs Committee ‘Better prisons: Less crime’ (1st Report, HL Paper 153).

1. Background: State of prisons

In recent years, stakeholders have raised concerns about the state of the prison service in England and Wales, including the number of prisoners, the capacity of the prison estate, poor conditions and inadequate staffing. The government has also acknowledged issues in this area, arguing that prisons are facing a capacity crisis and had been left “on the point of collapse by the previous government”.^[1]

Since the mid-1990s, the prison population in England and Wales has risen steeply: between 1992 and 2012 it doubled in size.^[2] Although it decreased during the Covid-19 pandemic, it has since risen again. In 2024, the average annual prison population (87,256) exceeded the previous record set in 2012 (86,634).^[3] The most recent data showed that as of 29 December 2025, the total prison population in England and Wales was 86,596.^[4] The useable operational capacity of the prison estate was 89,464, meaning there was a headroom of 2,868.

The prison estate has struggled to accommodate this growth in prisoner numbers. Since the 1990s, the prison population has been consistently higher than the estate’s ‘certified normal accommodation’ (or ‘uncrowded capacity’).^[5] Capacity issues have had consequences on conditions in the prison estate. An independent review on the issue published in 2025 found that population pressures had “constrained prisons’ capacity to operate safe, positive and purposeful environments that can reduce the likelihood of reoffending”.^[6] In June 2025, government research also drew a direct link between overcrowded conditions and violence for the first time.^[7]

To address capacity issues, in recent years successive governments have introduced measures aimed at managing the problem. This has included using police custody suites to house prisoners, deploying temporary modular prison cells and introducing several early release measures.^[8] The current Labour government has argued that despite it building prisons at “an exceptional rate”, creating additional places alone would not be sufficient to address capacity issues.^[9] It said that currently, demand for prison places would outstrip supply by 9,500 in early 2028. The government has said that it is not possible to “simply build our way out of this crisis”. It has therefore argued that reform of sentencing is required.

As a result, in October 2024 the government commissioned an independent sentencing review to be led by David Gauke, a former Conservative justice secretary.^[10] The independent review’s final report was published in May 2025 and contained proposals to comprehensively reform the sentencing framework in England and Wales. It set out 48 recommendations, some of which were included in the government’s Sentencing Act 2026 which recently received royal assent. Further information about the legislation is available in the House of Lords Library’s briefing.

Concerns have also been raised about the number of prison officers, their level of experience and working conditions. In June 2025, HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) said that while the overall resourcing of the prison workforce had continued to stabilise, “some challenges remained with staff experience at a national level, as well as persistent recruitment and retention challenges in certain areas of the country”.^[11] The House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee has also said that the prison system faced a “severe” recruitment and retention crisis, with high turnover, low morale and insufficient experienced staff.^[12]

2. Work of the committee

1.2 Inquiry into prison culture

In November 2024, the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee launched a call for evidence to inform an inquiry focused on prison culture.^[13] The committee said it aimed to understand the impact of governors on prison culture, the effectiveness of leadership training and the recruitment, training and retention of prison staff. The committee explained that while its primary focus would be on prisons in England and Wales, it was also interested in hearing about best practice in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The committee received both oral and written evidence from a variety of individuals and organisations, some of which was anonymised and contained accounts of both prison staff and prisoners themselves. Copies of this evidence can be found on the committee’s website.^[14]

2.2 Committee findings and recommendations

2.2.1 Key findings

The committee published its report ‘Better prisons: Less crime’ on 16 July 2025. It argued that “prisons are currently operating in a state of crisis”.^[15] It said that issues included overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, a shortage of funding, criminal activity, the availability of drugs and staffing issues. It also reported that the current state of prisons “hinders the provision” of “purposeful and productive” activities. The committee said this can prevent prisoners from seeking support for mental health and addiction problems and stop them from securing training and educational opportunities which can help prepare them for life after prison.

Summarising its findings, the committee said it had found:^[16]

• a lack of clarity about the purpose of prisons
• a lack of public understanding about prisons
• limited autonomy for prison governors
• a wholly inadequate prison staff recruitment procedure
• poor staff assessment and training arrangements
• siloed working, with a lack of cross-agency collaboration within HMPPS and with external partners
• insufficient ‘purposeful activity’ designed to reduce reoffending
• a sense of complacency and inadequate accountability arrangements throughout the prison service

The committee also said that “reviewed in totality, HMPPS is inflexible, and overly bureaucratic” and that “whether it is fit for purpose remains to be proven”.^[17] It argued that “there is urgent need for wider prison reform, not least to reduce reoffending”.

The committee said that the government has been addressing some of the most urgent problems and explained that its work had focused on the leadership, governance and staffing of prisons.^[18] On these issues, the committee said that the government must give “a clear lead to ensure prisons fulfil their primary purpose of preparing offenders for their release”.

2.2.2 Further findings and key recommendations

In its report summary, the committee focused on several key areas: the purpose of prisons, prison governors, staffing, purposeful activity and accountability. It gave an overview of its findings in these areas and made recommendations. These are summarised below.

On the purpose of prisons, the committee argued that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) should set out a clear and consistent statement of the purpose of prison, with reducing reoffending at its centre.^[19] It said this should be communicated within the system, across government and to the wider public to “build greater support for evidence-based approaches to reducing re-offending”. The committee therefore recommended that the MoJ and Home Office should work together on a strategic communications effort to “enhance public understanding of the crucial link between policies aimed at reducing reoffending and the role of prisons in ensuring public protection through reduced crime”.

Focusing on the role of prison governors, the committee explained that they have overall responsibility for “setting the vision, tone and culture” in their prison as well as responsibility for the safety, security and day-to-day running.^[20] It argued that effective leadership was crucial for establishing the authority of prison officers and fostering mutual respect. However, the committee found that:

Governors are hindered by an over-complicated and confusing management structure, excessive bureaucracy (preventing their greater visibility both within their prison and among the local community), lack of autonomy, inadequate support and professional development opportunities, lack of continuity (with governors frequently transferred between prisons) and inadequate sharing of good practice.^[21]

It recommended that the MoJ should “strike a better balance” between governor autonomy and centralised control “ensuring that governors have the necessary authority to lead effectively”.^[22]

On staffing, the committee said that the prison system faces “a severe recruitment and retention crisis, with high turnover, low morale, and insufficient experienced staff”.^[23] It said it did not accept the view of HMPPS that the recruitment process for prison officers is robust and said that governors should play a greater role. The committee also argued that current training was “woefully inadequate” and failed to sufficiently prepare officers for complex situations or to address key areas such as managing high-risk prisoners or mental health issues.^[24] It contrasted the training on offer to a two-year programme offered to recruits in Norway. The committee recommended that the MoJ should introduce more frequent and role-specific training for prison officers. It also called for existing training for those working with women and children to be reviewed and lengthened.

Looking at the role of purposeful activity, the committee found that a “substantial” part of the prison population was not engaged in work or education.^[25] It also reported that for those who were, it was often on a part-time basis. The committee said that this led to “boredom, self-harm, frustration, and increased violence”. Access to education and skills training linked to labour market needs were also found to be limited despite evidence that both have a positive impact in reducing reoffending. The committee argued that providing purposeful activity was not “a nice thing to have” but central to the prison service’s purpose of preparing prisoners for life outside the criminal justice system and reducing reoffending. It recommended that the prison service take steps to improve access to a more diverse range of educational opportunities and to introduce a strategic approach to employment in prisons, linking work opportunities to labour market needs and providing transferable skills.

The committee said that accountability mechanisms, including the data around prisons and prison performance, were “poor”.^[26] It explained that HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) is an independent inspectorate that inspects the treatment and conditions of detainees and reports on its findings, including making recommendations. However, the committee found that these recommendations “have little impact and too often fail to be implemented”. It also argued that other oversight mechanisms such as independent monitoring boards (IMBs) “have seen their power diminish over time” with complaints not dealt with effectively. As a result, the committee argued for HMIP to be given enhanced powers, including the ability to place prisons in special measures and require reports from prisons and HMPPS on actions taken in relation to recommendations. It also called for greater co-operation between the prison service and the probation service which should be “reflected in formalised, collaborative working of their respective inspectorates”.

The committee said that the “stark conclusion of our inquiry is that the MoJ and HMPPS have failed to improve the prison service to reduce re-offending” and that it is now in “a parlous state”. It argued this had contributed to high levels of re-offending and the need to keep building more prisons. The committee said this was unsustainable, noting that it costs over £53,000 a year for each prisoner, thirteen times as costly as community sentences. It therefore reiterated its recommendations in the key areas and said these sat alongside suggested measures to reduce overcrowding. The committee argued that the government needed to make the case to the public for why these reforms are essential and should seek to build cross-party support for doing so. It said that the current prisons minister, Lord Timpson, “understands the need for change and what needs to be done” and should be supported by the prime minister and secretary of state for justice.^[27]

3. Government response

3.1 Overview

The government responded to the committee’s report on 12 September 2025.^[28] Attached to the response was a letter from Lord Timpson, the minister of state for prisons, probation and reducing reoffending, in which he argued that the government had “inherited a justice system in crisis, with prisons on the brink of collapse”. Lord Timpson said that the government had since “embarked on the long and difficult task of rebuilding a system that fulfils its core purpose: to rehabilitate, protect the public, and reduce reoffending”.

Focusing on the committee’s report, Lord Timpson argued that the committee had recognised the pressure the system had been operating under.^[29] He said that of the committee’s recommendations, the government would be accepting 19, partially accepting 15 and rejecting one. He said he hoped that this demonstrated “the government’s commitment to addressing the key challenges facing our staff and the justice system”.

3.2 Responses to key recommendations

The government’s replies to the recommendations found in the committee’s summary are outlined below:

• The government accepted the recommendation that the MoJ and Home Office should work together on a strategic communications effort to enhance public understanding of the link between policies aimed at reoffending and the role of prisons in ensuring the protection of the public.^[30] It said this measure was a work in progress and highlighted action already happening within government, including work by the relevant departments as part of the government’s ‘Plan for change’.
• The committee’s argument that the MoJ should strike a better balance between governor autonomy and centralised control was accepted by the government, which said that it was a work in progress.^[31] The government said that it recognised the value of autonomy for governors and the innovation this can drive. However, the government also noted that running a national system “does require a level of central control to achieve consistency between prisons and economies of scale where required”. In addition, the government highlighted that in 2023, HMPPS launched a framework for governor empowerment. It explained the ‘free, flex, fixed’ (FFF) framework clarified the extent of governor freedoms and flexibilities and provided the opportunity for governors to challenge areas of fixed policy. The government said that it would continue to review governor authority and the FFF framework.
• The government also accepted the committee’s call for the MoJ to introduce more frequent and role-specific training for prison officers.^[32] It again said that this measure was a work in progress. The government stated that it recognised the value of providing role-specific training, particularly in managing complex situations, and embedding such training throughout prison officers’ careers. The government noted that the ‘Enable’ programme is considering both ‘what’ and ‘how’ prison officers learn from the start of their career and develop throughout it. It said that through the activities of the programme it would enhance the skills of prison staff by improving the offer of continuous professional development. The government also acknowledged the committee’s recommendation that additional training for staff working with children and women should be reviewed and potentially lengthened. It said that this was part of a longer-term ambition as part of the ‘Enable’ programme.
• The committee’s recommendation that the MoJ should take steps to improve access to a more diverse range of educational opportunities in prisons was accepted and said to be a work in progress.^[33] The government said it was committed to improving access and recognised the vital role that education plays in rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. It set out work in this area, including collaboration with the Department for Education to widen access to skills training for prisoners in priority economic sectors.
• The government partially accepted the committee’s recommendation that an enhanced inspectorate should have powers to oversee performance, enforce the implementation of inspection recommendations, and promote the systematic adoption of effective practice across the prison system.^[34] The government said it agreed that it is essential for inspectorate recommendations to be taken seriously and acted upon. However, it said that any proposal to enhance the powers of the inspectorate would need careful consideration as “to give it regulatory powers would fundamentally change the way it would need to operate”. Commenting further, the government said it was open to the inspectorates having the power to comment on policies and structures impacting on prison delivery and to make recommendations aimed at improving the performance of HMPPS. It said it was also open to the inspectors promoting the systematic adoption of effective practice across the prison system. In addition, the government said it had already commenced work on strengthening accountability structures and would look to engage with the inspectorates on this.

The single recommendation made by the committee that was fully rejected by the government was for the prisons minister to always be at the rank of minister of state.^[35] Lord Timpson said that while the government recognised the rationale of the recommendation, the prime minister has overall responsibility for the organisation of the executive.^[36]

3.3 Further correspondence

In September 2025, the chair of the committee, Lord Foster of Bath, wrote to Lord Timpson about the government’s response to the committee’s report.^[37] Lord Foster said that while he welcomed the acceptance or partial acceptance of the vast majority of the recommendations, the committee was concerned that the response fell short on certain issues. He argued that some responses focused too much on what had already been done and did not reassure the committee that the MoJ and HMPPS had “the dynamic energy needed to drive forward reforms”. For example, he said that the government accepted the committee’s recommendation to implement women’s leadership groups and support for female staff while also saying that “HMPPS have reviewed our policies and are content that they are sufficient to address the needs of women”. Lord Foster also highlighted issues with responses regarding access to education in prisons and improving staff recruitment and retention. Concluding, Lord Foster said that:

The evidence we received points to a system that is beset with pressures from all sides, and piecemeal and gradual change will not suffice to fix the problems faced by HMPPS. We urge the government to go further and faster with reforms to ensure that we truly have better prisons and less crime.^[38]

In October 2025, Lord Timpson responded to Lord Foster’s letter.^[39] He set out details of changes to restructure HMPPS headquarters as well as changes to leadership. Lord Timpson also acknowledged Lord Foster’s concerns about certain issues, including support for women’s leadership groups and female staff, access to education and the impact on recruitment and retention, and said he had set out further information on these issues.

4. Read more

• House of Commons Justice Committee, ‘Ending the cycle of reoffending—Part one: Rehabilitation in prisons’, 14 November 2025, HC 469 of session 2024–26; and ‘Ending the cycle of reoffending—Part one: Rehabilitation in prisons: Government response’, 30 January 2026, HC 1639 of session 2024–26
• House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, ‘Prison estate capacity’, 14 March 2025, HC 366 of session 2024–25; and HM Treasury, ‘Government response to the Committee of Public Accounts on the fifth report and the tenth to the seventeenth reports from session 2024–25’, May 2025, CP 1328, pp 37–42
• Prison Reform Trust, ‘Potential unlocked: Building a sustainable prison workforce’, 9 December 2024
• National Audit Office, ‘Increasing the capacity of the prison estate to meet demand’, 4 December 2024, HC 376 of session 2024–25

---

Image by 7500 RPM on Unsplash.