Sentencing Act 2020 (Amendment of Schedule 21) Regulations 2025

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, in December last year, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby made a Written Statement to the House announcing the Government’s plan to implement two outstanding recommendations made in the independent domestic homicide sentencing review, which was undertaken by Clare Wade KC.

In opposition, we welcomed this review and its approach of updating the sentencing framework for murder to reflect the seriousness of domestic homicides while also balancing the need to ensure that any reforms do not unduly punish abused women who kill their abuser. We did, however, call for more of Clare’s recommendations to be implemented, which is precisely what the draft instrument before us today aims to achieve. The measures in this instrument are central to the Government’s mission to keep our streets safe and halve violence against women and girls, as we anticipate that they will have a significant impact on the custodial terms given to the perpetrators in these cases, rightly recognising the seriousness of domestic murders.

The current sentencing framework for murder, as set out in Schedule 21 to the Sentencing Act 2020, was first introduced over 20 years ago, and multiple piecemeal amendments have been made to it since then. In recent years, particular concerns have been raised regarding gendered disparities for murders committed in a domestic context.

Clare Wade KC was commissioned by the previous Government to review sentencing in domestic homicide cases and establish whether the law and sentencing guidelines were fit for purpose. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Clare for her thorough and considered work on this review, and to those whose campaigning led to the commissioning of this review. That includes Carole Gould and Julie Devey, founders of the Killed Women network and mothers of two young women, Ellie and Poppy, who were tragically murdered by their former partners in 2019 and 2018 respectively. We commend their courage in continuing to share their stories, and their commitment to campaigning for change.

Although some of Clare Wade’s recommendations were accepted and implemented by the previous Government, a number remain outstanding. This instrument implements two of the outstanding recommendations. First, it introduces a statutory aggravating factor for murders connected with the end of a relationship. In over a third of the murder cases analysed by Clare as part of her review, the murder occurred at the end or perceived end of the relationship, and in the majority of cases that appeared to be the catalyst for the killing. In all these cases the perpetrator was male. A murder involving resentment or jealousy by the perpetrator at the end of a relationship is a significant feature of cases involving controlling or coercive behaviour and is often the final controlling act of an abusive partner.

Secondly, this instrument introduces a statutory aggravating factor for murders involving strangulation. In recent years, strangulation has been recognised as a method of exerting power and control, particularly in the context of domestic abuse, where female victims are assaulted by physically stronger males. Nearly a third of the murder cases analysed involved strangulation, all of which involved a male perpetrator and female victim.

The intention of this instrument is to expressly recognise these factors in statute, to ensure that domestic murders and the particular harms that arise in these cases are given specialist consideration in the framework. Sentencing in individual cases is of course a matter for the independent judiciary, and it will therefore continue to be for the judge to determine the appropriate weight to be given to the aggravating factors in each case

I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its consideration of this instrument and its report. As the committee noted, we consulted with the independent Sentencing Council on the draft instrument, in line with our statutory duty to consult the council before amending Schedule 21 by regulations. We are grateful for the council’s feedback on the draft instrument, which we took into careful consideration. A full account of the consultation is included in the draft Explanatory Memorandum published alongside this instrument, including the points raised by the Sentencing Council and the Government’s response.

Alongside this important legislation, the Lord Chancellor has also invited the Law Commission to conduct a review of homicide law and sentencing. The sentencing framework for murder was first introduced over 20 years ago and has never been subject to wholesale review. This contrasts with the Sentencing Council’s sentencing guidelines, which are regularly reviewed and updated, with any changes being subject to thorough consultation.

Although Clare Wade’s review and the legislation before us today go some way towards ensuring that the sentencing framework for murder reflects a modern understanding of domestic abuse, more fundamental reform is also required. The intention of the Law Commission review is a complete reconsideration of the sentencing framework for murder, with a view to making recommendations for a new Schedule 21. The review will also consider the law relating to homicide offences, including full and partial defences to those offences.

We anticipate that the Law Commission review will take several years to complete, and we will then need to consider the recommendations and bring forward any necessary legislation. This is the right course of action for such a complex area of law but it is not a quick one, which is why we are taking more immediate action in the short term by introducing the measures in this instrument.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, it is perhaps ironic that the first statutory instrument we considered was designed to relieve the pressure on the prison population, but these measures are calculated to increase the prison population. They will add to the list of aggravating features that a judge will have to take into account when considering the length of time to serve and, in reality, as the Minister said, they will have a significant impact on custodial terms.

Such amendments should be introduced only where it is plain that they are needed, and I express reservations as to whether that criterion is satisfied in this case. Of course, the amendments were recommended by Clare Wade in her review of domestic homicide sentencing. I pay tribute to her for that review, but it has not left me convinced that these measures are necessary or desirable.

The review puts a spotlight on the fact that the homicide of a woman by a man is often the final chapter of a coercive relationship in which the man has regularly abused the woman. I can see the arguments that, in those circumstances, the previous history aggravates the final act of homicide by the man, but effect has already been given to that factor by the addition last year to the list of aggravating factors in Schedule 21.

These regulations were considered on 14 July this year by the Second Delegated Legislation Committee of the House of Commons. On that occasion, as has been repeated today, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice said that the draft instrument was

“central to the Government’s mission to keep our streets safe and halve violence against women and girls”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/7/25; col. 1.]

The justification put forward appears to be that this will augment deterrence. The Opposition spokesman then referred to reasons why the previous Government had not taken forward these measures and to reservations expressed by the Sentencing Council, but indicated that the Opposition would not oppose the measures. I believe that the comment on these measures by the Sentencing Council was that they were “unnecessary” and “counterproductive”.

In this House, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has made no adverse comment in relation to the measures, so I will briefly express my personal reservations. Schedule 21, which dates back to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, has had the unintended and unfortunate indirect consequence of approximately doubling sentence lengths across the board, contributing significantly to prison overcrowding. Adding to that list of aggravating factors will augment this effect and, as I said, should be contemplated only where there are compelling reasons.

The reason given for making strangulation a factor that augments the seriousness of the offence is stated, on page 21 of the Wade review, as being because

“strangulation includes additional suffering and greater harm”.

When one considers the many different ways in which a man may kill a woman, I question whether there is justification for singling out strangulation as, in itself, so increasing the horrific effect of the murder of the woman as to justify a result that may be several further years of imprisonment.

Prisons: Early Release

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

My noble friend has done fantastic work championing the cause of IPP prisoners. It is clear that people should be released when the Parole Board determines that they are safe to be released. We are using all the levers at our disposal to make sure we do everything we can so that IPP prisoners get released from prison and stay out of prison.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

It is the turn of the Cross Benches.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, how does the reoffending rate of those released early compare with that of those released after full term?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The early release scheme that we inherited from the previous Government had a high reoffending rate. On the controlled SDS40 releases, while we are still analysing the figures, the themes that I am seeing show that the reoffending rates were no higher than we normally see. My overall plan is to reduce reoffending rates generally, which is why I am pleased I managed to get that into my job title.

Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 7th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, this rather sombre debate has been enhanced by the delightful and endearing maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nichols of Selby. I am so glad I was here to hear it.

I endorse the comments made in respect of the death of my learned friend and erstwhile colleague, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. His loss is a personal blow and a blow to this House.

I believe it particularly desirable that judges should have the assistance of a pre-sentence report when sentencing ethnic-minority offenders. The Lammy review identified that ethnic-minority and particularly black offenders were sentenced to prison more often and for longer than white offenders. The review considered pre-sentence reports and concluded that the role that they played was

“vital considering the … difference in backgrounds – both in social class and ethnicity – between the magistrates, judges and many of those offenders who come before them”.

The problem is that, ideally, provision of pre-sentence reports should be the norm in the case of almost all serious offenders. Singling out the ethnic-minority cohort in the guidelines is capable of appearing to some to be unfair discrimination. But currently, a struggling Probation Service appears to lack the resources to produce adequate pre-sentence reports, even in the diminishing number of cases where they are requested.

I do not believe that the guidelines introduce two-tier justice, nor do I believe that their introduction would severely damage confidence in our criminal justice system. I do not believe that we need this Bill, but we are where we are. Let us reluctantly accept the Bill, imposing drafting improvements if we may—and there is scope for those—and move on to addressing the much greater problems that currently beset the sentencing regime.

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, I used to chair the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which was the predecessor to the present Sentencing Council. As the House has heard, a primary role of the Sentencing Council is to promote consistency in sentencing. At present, there is an apparent inconsistency, in that ethnic minority defendants appear, according to statistics, to be receiving more severe sentences than white defendants. The Sentencing Council guideline that is under attack instructs judges to call for a pre-sentence report before sentencing a defendant from this cohort. Might not this guidance be intended to promote consistency of sentencing rather than the contrary? If there is a question as to whether it achieves this object, could this not better be dealt with by discussion rather than legislation?

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords—

Sentencing Council Guidelines

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question and for his generosity and kindness to me many years ago in helping me get going when I first started recruiting people from prison. When we had those conversations many years ago, the prison population was much lower than it is today. That is why we have established the review on sentencing being carried out by David Gauke. We await his report, which will be published in the spring.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, in my relative youth I used to chair the Sentencing Guidelines Council, the predecessor of the Sentencing Council. From the Library this morning I obtained a publication that I believe emanates from the Sentencing Council, which includes the guidelines. There then follows the comment:

“Courts should refer to the Equal Treatment Bench Book for more guidance on how to ensure fair treatment and avoid disparity of outcomes for different groups”.


Does the Minister consider that valuable guidance?

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The Equal Treatment Bench Book was written by judges, for judges. I am very clear that everybody should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has just said. Any of us who have ever acted as lawyers for women who have been exposed to this kind of conduct will know the suffering that ensues from it. The arguments placed before the House by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, are absolutely right. The court has to have wider discretion on sentencing, because sometimes it will be, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said, that multiples of this will have been done and to many different women. It will be there on the internet for all to see, causing incredible mental anguish and pain.

I have just come from a Select Committee where we have been hearing evidence about transnational repression. We have just heard from a woman working for BBC Persian, who had the experience of photographs being turned into deepfake pornography and sent to her daughter’s school. I ask you to imagine the implications of that being circulated, to your own child’s detriment. That is the way in which these things work. I emphasise that there is no example of reasonable cause that could be imagined that could justify it—there really is not. It is very important that we all recognise that.

There will be people—let us imagine Mr Andrew Tate appearing in court for an offence of this kind, were he to do it—who will say that the world should see the beauty of women’s genitalia and admire the great beauty of women as they submit themselves to men. Do we really want the time of the courts to be taken up with that kind of nonsense—because it will be? It will be said to be about trying to inform and educate people about sexual intimacy and sexual matters. All manner of nonsense, presented as reasonable excuse, will be put before the courts—that is what will happen. I urge the court—sorry, I am going into lawyer mode. I urge the House, rather, to see the seriousness of this and that this is a moment where we should be taking a stand and saying no.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised three issues: sentencing and the options available to judges; the issue of reasonable excuse; and recognising that the prosecution authorities will not pursue a case against a child who has somehow stumbled upon a way of doing this. Very careful decisions will be made about people who have not got mental capacity. If we do not take a firm stance on this now, it will be used and abused in terrible ways, to the detriment particularly of women.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

I simply want to endorse, but not repeat, the propositions of law advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I will do exactly the same. It is extremely important that magistrates should have the power to imprison as well as to fine.

Prison Capacities

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, the crisis in prison capacity results from the fact that the prison population of England and Wales has more than doubled over the last 30 years, and this trend is expected to continue. Why? A large part of the answer is that the length of prison sentences has been steadily growing over the same period. Indeed, the sentences imposed today are about twice as long as they were when I started out at the Bar; they are far longer than those imposed in the rest of Europe and, indeed, in Northern Ireland.

Sentencing laws have long provided that a prison sentence should be for the shortest term commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, but successive Governments have not been content to leave it to the judges to apply this test. They have introduced legislation requiring judges to impose higher sentences for offences considered to be of particular concern to the public. These have not been necessary for the purposes of deterrence, rehabilitation or protection of the public. They have usually been imposed to cater for a perceived public demand for greater punishment, but this has come with a cost: over £50,000 a year for each man in custody.

It makes no sense to spend such sums on increasing punishment when they would be better spent on rehabilitation and other measures to prevent reoffending. Doubling sentences has brought no benefit to the criminal justice system; it has led to the crisis that confronts the Prison Service today. Will the Minister seek to persuade the Government to consider the merits of reversing the trend rather than building more prisons?

Courts: Resourcing and Staffing

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for missing the first minute or two of this debate, due to bad timetabling. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, for securing this important debate and want to start by endorsing the comments that he made about the great appreciation of all the lawyers in this House, and indeed of the whole House, for the contribution made by the Minister to proceedings involving the rule of law and to wish him well. I also look forward keenly to the long-awaited maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Saville of Newdigate.

When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was Lord Chief Justice, the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, announced his intention to transfer responsibility for prisons from the Home Office to what was to become the Ministry of Justice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, led a delegation of the senior judges, of which I was one, to Downing Street to protest against this. One of the arguments that we advanced was that, if the prisons and the courts were funded from a single budget, the courts would be impoverished because of the demands of the prisons. Confronted with the powerful advocacy of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, Mr Blair reluctantly agreed to drop the idea. However, in 2007, when I had stepped into the shoes of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the change was made without further consultation. Whether that change is responsible for the present under-resourcing of the justice system is debatable.

A few days ago, I was listening to Peter Clarke, the prison inspector, talking of the underfunding of the Prison Service. The picture he painted was horrifying. We have 30% fewer prison officers than five years ago, yet the prison population has grown to over 85,000. Last year, there were 20,000 assaults in prison, 3,000 of them serious, and there were about 100 suicides. Part of the problem is the inability on the part of the staff to prevent psychedelic drugs being smuggled into prisons. Prisoners are often locked up all day in barbaric conditions, two to a cell designed for one, with an unscreened toilet, and that is where they have to eat because it is too dangerous to allow them to leave their cells to go to a dining hall, let alone to take part in rehabilitation.

The reality is that the public sector is starved of resources across the board. The Government have to make hard and difficult choices when deciding on priorities—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, in his thoughtful address in this morning’s debate. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, has demonstrated, one priority ought to have been, but does not appear to have been, ensuring that the terms and conditions of service of the senior judiciary remain sufficiently generous to persuade the most able candidates to renounce the rewards of private practice in favour of the Bench. The contribution made by the comparatively small cadre of senior judges to the maintenance of the rule of law is of the highest importance, as was so clearly exemplified in the discussion yesterday in Committee on the Investigatory Powers Bill. It is these judges who have to review the legality of executive acts, including acts of Ministers. It is these judges who are responsible for the worldwide reputation of our commercial court that contributes to so much of our foreign earnings.

Looking at the picture more broadly, the public sector is in, or at least approaching, a state of crisis. Does anyone believe that, if we go on as we are, we are ever going to be able to fund a decent prison service, or a fair and universal access to justice, or a health service capable of meeting the demands that are made of it? Radical measures are called for—measures that will not win votes but are called for by good government.

As to the prisons, is it not clear that we will not be able to provide decent prison conditions unless we substantially reduce the numbers of those in prison? Only then will we be able to provide the rehabilitation that is a primary object of imprisonment. At present, 50% of prisoners reoffend—or, more accurately, are caught reoffending—within 12 months of leaving prison. For young people, the proportion is higher.

How can the Government reduce prison numbers? For a start, they could release the IPP prisoners whose incarceration has long exceeded their tariffs. More radically, they could reduce the length of sentences overall. To this the Minister may make the usual response that sentence lengths are a matter for judges. That is true to an extent, but the overall scale of sentencing is determined by legislative action that ratchets up minimum sentences—and sentences have been greatly ratcheted up over my lifetime. They are much longer than is necessary to achieve the objects of deterrence, punishment and rehabilitation.

At present, the prosecution of historic sex offences is overburdening both the criminal justice system and the prisons. Imprisonment of historic offenders does not in general serve any need of rehabilitation, nor is it much of a deterrent. Its justification is punishment. Ideally, the public would wish to try and punish those who committed offences long ago, but where resources are limited, is this something we can afford? Or should we, as do other countries, have statutory limitation of prosecution for all except the most serious offences?

Should not alcohol be more heavily taxed to prevent, or at least reduce, the abuse that fills A&E departments on Saturday nights, causes long-term damage that the National Health Service has to deal with and results in crimes of violence that kill or injure and help to fill our young offender institutes? What of the modern problems of obesity, that all can see threatens to overwhelm our health? Should manufacturers be permitted to sell the sugar-laden food—and, more particularly, addictive drinks—that are causing not only our schoolchildren so much harm?

I have wandered a little from court resources, but the point I am seeking to make is that, the greater the demands on the public pocket, the less there will be to pay for the things that really matter—and access to justice is one of those. We have a new Government and it would be nice to think that the challenges posed by Brexit will cause them to focus on the need to take urgent steps to reduce demands on the public sector, where this is possible, in order to address what really matters. Unfortunately, I am addressing a far-from-crowded House late on a Thursday afternoon and not taking up residence at No. 10 Downing Street.

I have saved, I think, two minutes, which will be welcome.

Prison Reform

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

My noble friend is quite right to focus on the importance of family. According to research by my department, families are the single most important factor in helping prisoners to resettle on release. A number of prisons have developed visitor centres and are doing their best to make the contact between families and prisoners as pleasant as possible. This is important because, first, the families are, after all, not doing a prison sentence and, secondly, it encourages prisoners to remember that their roots in the community and in their family are the key to not reoffending.

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has recognised that we cannot hope to tackle prison overcrowding without improving rehabilitation and thereby reducing reoffending. But is it not the fact that we cannot hope to improve rehabilitation without reducing prison numbers? Can the Minister tell us how the Government will break this vicious circle?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble and learned Lord, with all his experience of the system, will appreciate that we have a duty, and therefore have to have the ability, to house all who are sent to prison by judges. What we are endeavouring to do is to identify the causes of reoffending. Once we have done that, we hope that that will reduce the numbers. If judges feel it is appropriate to sentence offenders to particular sentences, it is not for the Government to reduce those sentences simply to make the figures balance.

Prisons: Young People

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and his panel on their most impressive and wide-ranging review. It makes harrowing reading, particularly the individual case studies. These are young people whom our society failed. There is evidence in the individual cases of failure to take steps that might have prevented their deaths and the review makes practical recommendations aimed at preventing those failures. But, much more significantly, it concludes that the deaths are extreme symptoms of an attitude to the purpose of imprisonment that needs to be fundamentally changed.

One section of the report looks at steps that should be taken to keep young people out of the criminal justice system altogether. I must declare an interest: I have in my time sent quite a lot of people to prison, some of them to serve lengthy sentences, but I have an interest in keeping people out of prison. That is evidenced by my involvement, in one way or another, in a number of charitable organisations that help to do this: the St Giles Trust, Endeavour Training and Youth at Risk.

The review emphasises that, if there is to be change, it must come from the top down. The top is, of course, the Secretary of State for Justice. When responsibility for prisons was passed from the Home Secretary to the Justice Secretary the judges had reservations. We were concerned that the funding demands of the Prison Service might be met at the expense of the court system and the administration of justice, but it seems to me that there is something to be said for the same Minister considering the actions that will give best value for money in both areas. Value for money is critical. We are in a period of financial stringency and it is not realistic to expect Ministers to take actions that will increase overall demand for resources. Some of the review’s recommendations call for an increase in the resources devoted to looking after those in prison, but I suggest that these resources can and should be funded by a reduction in the overall size of the prison population.

As the review points out, the prison system costs in excess of £3 billion a year. The cost of a single place in a male young offender institution is approximately £40,000 a year. The substantial savings that can be made by a reduction of the prison population is obvious. How can this be achieved? There are three ways. The first is by diverting young people away from the criminal justice system. The second is by rehabilitating those in prison, so that they do not reoffend. The third is by reducing the length of sentences served by those who are sent to prison.

Most young people who end up in custody have a history, going back in many cases to early childhood, of disability or disadvantage. Many have mental health problems. Almost all have one thing in common: a lack of self-respect. They do not believe in their own worth because no adult has ever suggested that they were worth anything. Rather, they become used to denigration and abuse. If you do not respect yourself, you do not respect others. The Harris review emphasises young people’s need for peer example and approval. It is this that the charities with which I am involved, and many other charities, provide. They show young people that they are capable of achievement and that their worth is appreciated. I have seen in practice young lives literally transformed in this way.

Such organisations are having a hard time. Many of them rely on funding from local authorities but cash-strapped local authorities are withdrawing that funding. This is perhaps not the best day to emphasise the value of government support for charities that work with young people, but I do so none the less. Of course, those providing funding must be satisfied that it is being put to a use that is cost-effective.

Young people who offended under the influence of mental illness should not be given custodial sentences when what they really need is psychiatric help. It is critical that the sentencing judge is fully informed in such cases. The review draws attention to the fact that many defendants are being given custodial sentences on the basis of presentence reports completed on the day of conviction. This surprised me, for it was not my experience. I endorse the recommendation that a custodial sentence for a young adult is serious enough for a full and comprehensive written report to be prepared for the court.

I turn to rehabilitation of those in prison. It is a depressing fact that a large proportion of those who come out of prison soon go back in again, having reoffended. Anyone who has read the Harris review and some of the reports that it considered will not be surprised by this. The review paints a depressing picture of prison life today. Shortage of staff means that prisoners are spending a disproportionate amount of time locked in their cells. Opportunities for constructive activity are very limited. The review rightly comments that this is “impoverishing to the spirit”. It is a vicious circle because employment in such an environment is not attractive, so that some staffing vacancies are not being filled.

A fundamental recommendation of the Harris review is that there should be a change in attitude as to what prisons are there to do. They are there to impose the punishment of deprivation of liberty by holding prisoners securely and safely. That said, the prison regime should not itself be designed to be punitive. It should be primarily designed to rehabilitate. Restrictions should be the minimum necessary. Life should approximate as closely as possible to the positive aspects of life in the community. I hope that the Justice Secretary will endorse that recommendation.

I turn to my third and most controversial source of savings—reduction in the length of sentences served. The objects of sending people to prison are punishment, rehabilitation and protection of the public. I believe that we are sending people to prison for longer than is necessary to impose the appropriate punishment. The review provides the figures. On 31 December 2014, there were 84,691 people in prison—almost double the figure in the early 1990s. Why is that? Courts have been sending more people to prison and for longer terms. The average sentence length has increased by about 15%. Why is this? Are people more wicked than they were 25 years ago? I do not believe so. I think that the increase in imprisonment is in part attributable to statutory imposition of minimum terms for murder, which have had a knock-on effect on other crimes, and in part to media pressure for longer sentences. How does one reverse this trend? Keeping old men in prison for years and years when they no longer pose a danger to society is, I believe, disproportionately expensive when the money could be better spent preventing young people becoming criminals in the first place. Government should try to get this message across to the public and look for ways of reducing, rather than increasing, sentence length. For all these reasons, I support this Motion.