Keeping Criminals Behind Bars

Reform UK policy documents

Category: Justice

Reform UK proposes ending early release, deporting foreign prisoners and adding 22,000 prison places by 2031.

Overview

This document sets out a package of criminal justice and immigration measures intended to increase the time offenders spend in custody and to expand prison capacity. It presents the problem as automatic early release and reduced short custodial sentences, which it says have produced a prison population that does not reflect judicial sentences and has forced successive governments into emergency early‑release schemes. The party links this to a reported number of foreign national offenders in custody and to recent statutory changes that shorten automatic release points. The concrete changes proposed are legal and operational. Legally, the party would reverse recent provisions that lower automatic release thresholds, repeal a presumption in favour of suspended sentences for under‑12‑month terms, and impose mandatory whole life sentences for defined child rape offences. Operationally, it would remove foreign national offenders from UK prisons within months, rent 10,000 overseas prison places, and rapidly construct roughly 12,000 additional places on Ministry of Defence land, with a stated target to create 22,000 additional places by 2031 (on the assumption of a 2029 general election). The proposals are wide reaching for sentencing, deportation and prison infrastructure. They would change release practice for standard determinate and serious offence categories, alter probation and recall pressures, and require international arrangements to house foreign nationals. Several of the changes depend on primary legislation or repeal of recent Acts, and some depend on unspecified third‑country agreements to host prisoners.

Key commitments

What it would cost

The document quantifies some fiscal and capacity impacts, but does not present an overall costed programme. It cites that there were 10,134 foreign nationals in custody on 30 June 2026 and that FNOs now cost the taxpayer £643m per year. Impact assessments referenced in the text estimate changes to prison place demand: the 2024 SDS40 change was estimated to affect demand by 4,900–6,200 places, the Sentencing Act 2026 changes by 3,600 places, and earlier two‑thirds changes by 2,680 places; the document aggregates these into an estimated 18,000 additional places required from reversing recent policies. It also cites an assessed net annual cost of around £35m linked to an increase in suspended sentences’ demand on probation. The paper gives staffing cost envelopes for new places as ranges (citing an annual envelope from about £235m to around £405m in endnotes), but it does not publish a total capital cost for building the proposed Nightingale‑style sites, nor the cost of renting 10,000 overseas places, deportation logistics, legal transition after repeal of human rights legislation, or the fiscal source for funding. The absence of consolidated one‑ and multi‑year costings leaves the programme’s affordability and fiscal impact unspecified.

How it would be delivered

The document assigns delivery roles to a small set of bodies and to legislative change. Construction of onshore modular places is to use Ministry of Defence land and British Army assistance, with a stated 18‑month target for about 12,000 places following a general election victory. Overseas bed provision is described as renting places in third countries, with examples named such as El Salvador and Kosovo, and will be used to free up 10,000 domestic spaces within months. Legal delivery is framed as repeal or amendment of recent Acts and regulations, specifically undoing parts of the Sentencing Act 2026, repealing a presumption for suspended sentences, and changing automatic release thresholds; those changes require primary legislation. The document references the Sentencing Council, the Ministry of Justice and named prisons only in statistics and context. It refers to use of the armed forces in support roles. Timetables are partial: the 22,000 additional places are targeted by 2031 (assuming a 2029 election), 12,000 MoD places within 18 months of an election, and FNO removal “within months”. The paper does not specify which ministerial department will negotiate or sign overseas rental contracts, which authority will enforce standards in third‑country prisons, or detailed implementation steps for repeals and transfers.

What isn't specified

The document leaves multiple operational and fiscal gaps. It does not provide capital or total lifecycle costings for constructing the proposed onshore modular prisons, nor does it cost the rental or operation of 10,000 overseas places. It names third countries as examples, but does not specify which states have signed or will sign binding agreements, the legal basis for transfers, or how human rights or standards checks will be enforced. While it states plans to repeal or change domestic statute and to leave or alter obligations under human rights law, it does not set timetables for legislation, nor does it specify transition arrangements for prisoners mid‑sentence. Staffing arrangements for tens of thousands more prison places are not detailed, beyond citing broad staffing cost envelopes; recruitment, training and industrial relations risks are not described. The paper also notes criminal justice is devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but does not explain how its proposals would operate across devolved jurisdictions. Finally, it does not identify a funding source or budgetary mechanism to pay for construction, overseas rentals, deportations or the legislative programme.

Language and firmness

The document mixes definitive and conditional language. Many promises are stated as commitments, using “will” or “we will”: for example, “Reform UK will build or create an additional 22,000 prison places by 2031” and “Within months, a Reform Government will free up 10,000 prison spaces”. Other measures are framed as what a government “would” do: “A Reform Government would not allow early release for serious crimes”. Some statements are aspirational: “we will seek to simplify them”. The use of “will” appears where delivery or targets are asserted, while “would” is used for reforming existing laws, reflecting a mix of enacted pledges and proposed legislative change.