It’s all about punishment: The statutory instrument bringing changes to additional days, privileges and social visits in prison

Earlier this week, the Ministry of Justice announced that it will introduce enhanced powers to punish misbehaviour in prison, increasing the number of additional days of imprisonment that can be awarded, extending the length of time that privileges can be forfeited, and restricting people’s access to social visits. They come in the form of Statutory Instrument (SI) The Prison (Governor’s and Adjudicators’ Punishments) (Amendment) Rules 2026.

We anticipated changes to additional days as part of the raft of measures introduced under the Sentencing Act 2026 – one of such measures being the progression model, under which people will spend a third of their sentence in custody, followed by intensive supervision in the community. But these new punishments curtailing people’s access to privileges and social visits have come as a concerning surprise.  

Additional days

Firstly, the SI doubles the maximum number of ‘additional days’ that can be awarded, from 42 to 84 days. Additional days are a form of punishment, extending the time that someone spends in custody. They will function as the primary mechanism to manage the new earlier release points under the progression model, by providing a way to delay release at the third-way point for those who break prison rules.

We have longstanding concerns about the use of additional days, including about fairness, disproportionality and their potential to put further pressure on prison capacity. You can read more about this in our briefing, Earned Regression?. Worryingly, this increase of additional days also applies to those who are not even eligible for earlier release (eg those on Extended Determinate Sentences).

Forfeiture of privileges

The SI also extends the maximum period for which the punishment of forfeiture of privileges can be imposed, from 42 to 84 days. This punishment means that certain items or activities (eg enhanced access to the gym) to be taken away for a set time.

Restrictions to social visits

The SI introduces two new punishments restricting social visits for people who have been convicted – a restriction on all visits for up to 27 days and/or a limit to one visit per 28 days for up to 84 days (In principle, you could receive both, as Prison Rule 55 states that governors can impose ‘one or more’ of the punishments available to them). Currently, convicted people are entitled to at least two face-to-face social visits every 28 days. This will change on 2 September 2026. These restrictions will not include visits from people’s children.

We are concerned about this new form of punishment. Family and social visits are a fundamental right of people in prison, who retain the right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The importance and benefit of family contact is well documented, including by the MoJ itself. We also note that these new punishments can be given out at governor’s adjudications, where people are typically not entitled to legal representation and cannot access legal aid.  

Lord Farmer’s 2017 review of family ties in prison described them as ‘indispensable’ to people’s progression and rehabilitation. It also highlighted the role that familial and social contact could play in improving security and safety in prisons, citing evidence that improved family ties could lead to improved behaviour in prisons.

More recently, the MoJ found that people who received visits were significantly less likely to have a proven reoffence within one year following release, had fewer reoffences in that period, and took longer to reoffend. The more visits people received, the more the reoffending rate dropped. The research also found that people who received visits were less likely to self-harm, and more likely to be housed on release from custody.  

Earlier this year, a thematic review by HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) confirmed that family contact can have a significant impact on mental health and behaviour in prison. The report stated that people who received regular visits or social video calls were less likely to need ACCT support – ACCT stands for ‘assessment, care in custody and teamwork’, the care-planning process for people identified at being at risk of suicide or self-harm. They were more likely to report feeling safe, and less likely to experience bullying and victimisation. A higher proportion of those who received visits (compared to those who did not), described a culture which encouraged positive behaviour. And people who were encouraged to maintain familial and social ties were less likely to be restrained or held in segregation.

The SI’s explanatory memorandum tells us that the policy to restrict social visits was developed through meetings with governors and prison group directors and met with ‘hesitancy’. Concerns were raised about the negative impact on behaviour, rehabilitation, and on the families of people in prison. The note explains that these restrictions were designed to serve as a strong deterrent to misbehaviour because social visits are typically so highly valued. 

Conclusions

The stated aim of these new rules, set out in the explanatory memorandum, is to provide further tools for addressing ‘persistent or severe rule breaking in prisons’ and to ‘strength the deterrents and punishments available’. Put simply, it’s all about punishment. Even for those who are excluded from the progression model.  

We are heartened to see that these changes will not apply to children or young people aged under 21. The explanatory memorandum states that additional punitive measures would contradict the ‘principles and the purpose of the youth justice system to deter rather than punish.’ This follows many years of campaigning by the Howard League and our colleagues in the sector, advocating for distinct treatment of children and young adults. This is because we know that young adults continue to develop physically and psychologically and that maturity affects judgement, decision-making skills, and impulse control. Evidence suggests that this continues into their mid-twenties, well beyond the MoJ’s cut off point of 21. 

Policy makers should remember that high levels of indiscipline and violence are fed by overcrowded and poor conditions and an under-resourced service. This is recognised by the MoJ’s own research, and these challenges will be explored in Amber Rudd’s forthcoming review of safety and security in prisons. Rather than remove vital and motivating aspects of life in prison, why not bolster the things known to improve behaviour, wellbeing, and rehabilitation?

Dr Helen Churcher
Senior Research and Policy Officer

Comments