Sir John Major’s Article in the Sunday Times on Prison Reform – 18 May 2025
The article written by Sir John Major on prison reform, published in the Sunday Times on 18 May 2025.
Our prisons are in crisis. They are overcrowded, violent and failing to rehabilitate offenders. Last July, the government was compelled to announce the emergency release of prisoners because the prison population was about to exceed the number of prison places. The consequence of not taking action would have been the collapse of the justice system.
However, notwithstanding these measures, the Ministry of Justice revealed last week that, by November, it is expected there will be no more space for adult male offenders. We cannot go on like this.
This state of affairs has been caused by a prison population that has grown beyond any expectation over recent decades, and that growth is forecast to continue.
Early in my political career, I was a parliamentary private secretary at the Home Office, and I recall the then home secretary, Willie Whitelaw, being apoplectic upon learning that the prison population had exceeded 40,000. Today, it is over 88,000. By 2029, it is forecast to reach 100,000.
This is not, contrary to the claims that one might hear from some sources, the consequence of a surge in violent crime. During my own time in office, violent crime began to fall, and has continued to fall ever since — even if this reality remains widely unrecognised.
Protecting the public from violent crime is a key responsibility of any government and, in such cases, stern sentences must continue to be delivered. But we should beware that excessive zeal to be “tough on crime” does not lead us into unwise policy.
We are told that “prison works”, and, where it holds the worst of criminals in custody, it does. But I do not believe our justice system — or our society — is well served if it also imprisons those who could be better punished by non-custodial sentences.
We need a reset. In the next few days, the independent sentencing review will report. I am delighted that this Labour government had the good sense and maturity to ask a former Conservative justice secretary, David Gauke, to chair the review, and I hope he will take the opportunity to be radical in his recommendations.
We should start with those who currently receive short custodial sentences. Too many prisoners are sentenced to short-term imprisonment, when other sentences would be more effective.
Prison means the loss of liberty, but for the prisoner it often means much more besides. Very often it means the loss of their job, their home and their relationships.
This does not bode well for when they are released: both common sense and empirical evidence suggests that prisoners who have lost those stabilising influences are more likely return to crime. That is in no one’s interest — and certainly not the public at large.
There are alternatives. We should make much greater use of community sentencing. That means ensuring that the probation service is given the resources to make it capable of monitoring offenders and enforcing sanctions.
We could be far more creative when it comes to punishing low-level offenders. Their freedoms could be curtailed in a variety of other ways. I offer the thoughts that passports could be confiscated, and driving bans and curfews could be expanded. Technology, including electronic tagging, can assist with all of this.
Properly resourcing this part of the criminal justice system — far cheaper than having such offenders imprisoned — would give judges and magistrates an alternative option to that of imposing short sentences.
Very often — although I concede not always — low-level criminality is a consequence of mental illness or addiction to drink or drugs. In these cases, if we are serious about stopping reoffending, the better response must surely be treatment rather than imprisonment.
This is especially relevant to female prisoners. There are currently about 3,600 women in prison — overwhelmingly for non-violent offences, and for short periods of time. Many are vulnerable: addicts, mentally ill, or — in a distressing number of cases — themselves the victims of trauma and abuse.
Many are also mothers, for whom imprisonment will have a significant impact not only on them but on their children. We are all equal under the law, but common sense and practicality suggests we should look very carefully at community sentence alternatives before vulnerable women offenders are sent to prison.
Given the scale of the prison capacity crisis, I do not believe the issue will be resolved by addressing only those on short sentences. Ultimately, nearly all prisoners will be released and, when that occurs, it is in the public interest for them to be prepared for a life outside jail.
Those prisoners who abide by the rules and show a determination to turn their lives around should be encouraged. By enabling such prisoners to earn the privilege of being released earlier than would otherwise be the case, we would be aiding rehabilitation, improving discipline within prisons and easing the pressures on capacity.
I am fully aware that any proposal that means any offender spends less time in prison — or does not go to prison at all — will be accused of being “soft on crime”. It was ever thus.
But if we are serious about reducing crime, we must take steps to reduce reoffending. We cannot continue to focus solely on punishment; we need to focus equally on rehabilitation.
Necessity demands reform. Bold measures are required if we are to avoid a situation in which our prisons are full, and our criminal justice system becomes incapable of functioning.
But if this review proposes a new direction — with an entirely new focus on addressing the causes of crime, the prevention of reoffending, and resisting the temptation to see prison as the only answer — there is hope that we can move to a more humane and effective criminal justice system. That would correct a longstanding flaw in our criminal justice system and be of benefit to us all.
Such an approach requires entirely new thinking and an acceptance of the realities we now face. I do hope this review will be brave in its recommendations and, if so, will receive the support it deserves from the government — and the public as a whole.