Violence Reduction, Policing and Criminal Justice

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (r) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), which will be moved at the start of the debate, and amendment (h) in the name of Stephen Flynn, the Scottish National party leader, and amendment (k) in the name of Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, which will both be moved at the end of the debate.

Colleagues will know there is significant interest in the debate, so they should expect an early—if not immediate—time limit, which is likely to be five minutes. I want to give warning of that so that people can adjust their speeches accordingly. If they no longer wish to speak, they should let me know.

I beg to move amendment (r), at the end of the Question to add:

“and submit to Your Majesty that this House wishes to see an end to the violence in Israel and Palestine; unequivocally condemn the horrific terrorist attack and murder of civilians by Hamas, call for the immediate release of all hostages and reaffirm Israel’s right to defend its citizens from terrorism; believe all human life is equal and that there has been too much suffering, including far too many deaths of innocent civilians and children, over the past month in Gaza; reaffirm the UK’s commitment to the rules-based international order, international humanitarian law and the jurisdiction of the ICC to address the conduct of all parties in Gaza and Hamas’s attacks in Israel; call on Israel to protect hospitals and lift the siege conditions allowing food, water, electricity, medicine and fuel into Gaza; request the Government continue to work with the international community to prevent a wider escalation of the conflict in the region, guarantee that people in Gaza who are forced to flee during this conflict can return to their homes and seek an end to the expansion of illegal settlements and settler violence in the West Bank; and, while acknowledging the daily humanitarian pauses to allow in aid and the movement of civilians, believe they must be longer to deliver humanitarian assistance on a scale that begins to meet the desperate needs of the people of Gaza, which is a necessary step to an enduring cessation of fighting as soon as possible and a credible, diplomatic and political process to deliver the lasting peace of a two-state solution.”

When the Prime Minister opened the King’s Speech debate just eight days ago, we had all this briefing about how it was a “Rishi reset” moment. So much of a flop was it, that having made promises just eight days ago about the changes his Government would deliver, now he is talking about the changes to his Government instead. We have another reshuffle and another Rishi reset—not change, just more of the same chaos. We remember his conference claim that he was rejecting decades of failure, including the last 13 years of Tory Government. Just a month later, he has brought back one of the main Tory architects in the former Prime Minister, who cut 20,000 police officers, brought in the bedroom tax and austerity, and pushed working families and children into poverty. It is a sign of the state of the Tory party that the Prime Minister who did all that is now suddenly seen as a moderate.

Instead of a Government focused on the problems facing the country, whether the cost of living crisis, record NHS waiting lists or rising town centre crime and serious violence, what we have got is just more of the same Tory psychodrama and chaos. In the past seven and a half years, we have had five Prime Ministers, six Chancellors, seven Health Secretaries, seven Foreign Secretaries, eight Home Secretaries and 11—I think I counted right—Justice Secretaries.

Eight.

Eight Justice Secretaries—it has been a struggle to keep count of their changing. We have had eight Home Secretaries in less than eight years and, even worse, two of them were the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman). She was so unsuited for the job of Home Secretary that she was sacked twice: once for breaching security rules in government, and the second time for undermining security on our streets, attacking the police, undermining respect for the decisions they took in the run-up to a difficult weekend, ramping up division around remembrance and making it harder for the police to do their job. No other Home Secretary would ever have done those things. It shows how little this Prime Minister cares about our security that he was prepared to reappoint her, to defend her and to follow her wherever she led, and now we know why.

The dodgy deal that the Prime Minister denied last year is now laid bare in the former Home Secretary’s letter. She says:

“Despite you having been rejected by a majority of Party members…and thus having no personal mandate to be Prime Minister”.

Fair point there. She goes on:

“This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign. I trusted you.”

Obviously that is another sign of her poor judgment. The deal made him Prime Minister and made him make her the most unsuitable Home Secretary this country has had.

The Conservatives published their latest Criminal Justice Bill yesterday. It has measures that Labour called for to tackle antisocial behaviour, and I was going to make the point that the Government have no ideas of their own and are just following Labour’s lead, but I have to concede that they and the Tory party in general are definitely the experts on antisocial behaviour. The former Home Secretary is throwing rocks and stones. The New Conservative group is making dark threats, going round the parliamentary Tory party nuisance-begging for no-confidence letters in the Prime Minister. The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) is so desperate to find out how many letters have gone in to the chair of the 1922 committee, the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) that he is now camped outside his office, but I guess they told us it was a lifestyle choice.

The first duty of any Government—its most serious and solemn responsibility—is to keep its people safe. Since 2010, overall levels of crime are down by more than 50%. Domestic burglary is down by 57%, violent crime by 52%, vehicle-related theft by 39%, and the number of young people admitted to hospital following an assault with a knife or other bladed weapon has fallen by 26%. In fact, His Majesty’s chief inspector of constabulary, Andy Cooke, has said that

“England and Wales are arguably safer than they have ever been.”

That is because the Government have taken decisive measures, including recruiting 20,000 police officers so that we can cut crime and keep our communities safe. We have made robust punishments available for the worst criminals to keep the most serious offenders in custody for longer, and we have commissioned the biggest prison building programme since the Victorian era.

The Gracious Speech builds on that record with a range of long-term decisions that keep public protection at the heart of the Government’s agenda for our country. I want to start with tackling violence against women and girls, on a point made by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). That is a priority for the Government, and for me personally, but let us step back to reflect on some of the progress made in the last decade or so. The right hon. Lady referred to the offence of stalking and said that she wanted some progress. She will recall that in the 13 years that she was in Government, there was no offence or crime of stalking. We are the party that created it so that behaviour described as “murder in slow motion” could be properly addressed. Then we doubled the maximum sentence.

Let me correct the Secretary of State. He may not recall, but I tabled one of the first amendments on reform to introduce a stalking law. That same amendment was eventually taken up in the other place by the Labour lords, and the Conservative Government agreed to it. I am very glad that they did, but he should not take credit for agreeing to a Labour proposal that I and others put forward.

I am delighted to debate this with the right hon. Lady. Thirteen years, and it was not on the statute book. When did it come on to the statute book? In 2012. She had 13 years, and she missed her opportunity. This is the party that put it on the statute book.

The right hon. Lady referred to other matters of violence against women and girls. This is the party that created the offence of coercive and controlling behaviour. We are the party that slayed the myth that abuse is perpetrated only with punches, kicks and other physical violence. We know that it is not, and we acted to outlaw it. We introduced the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, creating a new domestic abuse commissioner and ending abuses such as the ability of DA perpetrators to cross-examine victims. We created a standalone offence of non-fatal strangulation, and made clear that the cowardly so-called “rough sex gone wrong” defence for murder does not exist.

We delivered radical improvements to the victims code to secure entitlements for victims, including the automatic right for eligible victims to be told when a perpetrator is due to leave prison. There is a 24/7 rape support helpline, more than 950 independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers. We have outlawed upskirting and revenge porn, and introduced the most wide-ranging modern slavery legislation probably anywhere in the world. Over the last year, we have built on that work by ensuring that violence against women and girls is now recognised as a national threat, just like terrorism and organised crime. It is also included in the strategic policing requirement.

When I began my career in the courts, violence behind closed doors was all too often passed off and trivialised as a “domestic”, with no action taken. Not any more. We see it for what it is: corrosive, cruel and devastating. Those responsible are no longer beyond the reach of the law.

I commend the Secretary of State on his speech. He will know that the figures for Northern Ireland are the worst in the whole of Europe. A total of 27 women have been murdered in Northern Ireland by an intimate partner, relative or family member since 2017. Those figures are shameful and discouraging for us all. Would he encourage the Department for Justice in Northern Ireland to follow suit on any legislation on tackling violence against women and girls, so that Northern Ireland is not left behind?

Yes, I would. I look forward to the restoration of the Assembly so that these important priorities can be pursued.

Let me turn to the issue of rape, which I heard mentioned sotto voce from the Opposition Benches. In 2021, we launched a rape review to drive up the criminal justice system’s response to this crime. We committed to total transparency on the data, publishing dashboards about reports, charges and receipts in the Crown court, so that any member of the public could see what was taking place at the touch of a button. We identified levers to drive forward the effectiveness and efficiency of the system, including rolling out technology to ensure that evidence from mobile phone devices could be harnessed rapidly, without victims being separated for long periods from what can be a lifeline. We set out ambitions that many commentators said were unachievable, and we brought Government Departments together, literally—sitting around the same table to prosecute our mission on behalf of victims. Of course, there is always further to go, but the progress made is significant. The volume of adult rape cases reaching court since 2019 has doubled.

Meanwhile, seeing as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford wanted to put us under the microscope, let me make these points. The situation compared with 2010 is striking. More cases of rape are being prosecuted. The conviction rate is higher. Sentences are longer and, importantly, the proportion of those sentences spent in custody is significantly increased, too. To the political points that the right hon. Lady made, she was in Government and voted for the Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 244 of which, if she wants to remember, made sure that every single rapist was released at the halfway mark. If they were sentenced to 10 years, she voted to ensure that they were released after five. We have changed that. This Government say that that is not right, not fair on victims and not just. She needs to account for her actions. We have invested £24 million in Operation Soteria, which brings together the police, prosecutors and academics to develop a new approach to rape and sexual offences. There is now a clear expectation that investigations must focus on a suspect’s behaviour, not on the victim’s supposed credibility.

My right hon. and learned Friend is making an excellent speech and doing excellent work. He has not mentioned the crime of terrorism, which is one of the most serious, and he has not had a chance to mention the amendment that we will vote on today. There is grave concern that the greater the loss of civilian life in the middle east is, the greater the likelihood of radicalisation and increased terror at home. Does he agree that those of us who believe that now is not the right time to call for a full ceasefire, because of the difficulty of giving it, are not giving Israel a moral blank cheque to continue with operations in the way it has so far? Protecting civilian life is vital to prevent future terrorism here and elsewhere.

My right hon. Friend puts it well. Anyone who has observed what has taken place cannot fail but to be filled with anguish and distress, so of course it is the case that a nation’s right to defend itself is a right to do so consistent with international law. The Government are very clear on that, as indeed I think are most people in the House, but she puts the point well.

Protecting the public, which is the theme I am seeking to stress, also demands that we follow the evidence about what works to prevent reoffending. If reoffending goes down, crime goes down. If crime goes down, the public are protected.

I am very grateful to the Lord Chancellor, who was quite right earlier to reject the attempt at revisionist history on stalking by those on the Labour Benches. He and I worked very closely together on the initial change to the legislation. Does he agree with me that there is an opportunity in the next police, crime and sentencing Bill to also address something that would help to protect some of our young people, which is the issue of spiking? There is a real opportunity to update the 1861 law, give a clear definition of spiking and send a very clear message to all those who might be tempted to do so.

I thank my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. He did extraordinarily important work on stalking. He understands, as I do, that it is a wicked crime that leaves women in particular feeling very vulnerable. We acted when others did not and revisionism is to be deprecated; I strongly agree with him. On spiking, my hon. Friend is a tremendous campaigner. He is right that the legislation that is apt to capture this offence is within the Offences against the Person Act 1861. It provides police with powers, but he makes a powerful point. He will continue to make such points and we will consider them with care.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making an interesting speech. I expect he will share my disquiet that we presently have 600 vacancies for police in Scotland which are not going to be filled. An independent councillor in the highlands called Matthew Reiss, himself a senior retired police officer, has said that the thin blue line is going to get thinner. Without police, we cannot do the sort of things that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about—in other words, catching the criminals and making people feel secure. Could he, in his capacity, share his best practice with the Scottish Government in the future?

What a very kind offer. I am sure that call will be echoed by those in the SNP Benches in front of the hon. Gentleman. We, of course, would be delighted to share any best practice. He makes a very serious point. To do all the things we want to do to protect vulnerable people requires boots on the ground—it requires police officers. That is why we are proud of the fact that in this jurisdiction the number of police officers stands at, or close to, an all-time high. We would be happy to commend that approach to our friends north of the border.

On public protection, taking the most serious offenders out of circulation is how we stop them committing crime. But we also want to follow the evidence about what works to prevent reoffending, because that is also how we keep the British people safe. The evidence—not sentiment, evidence—shows that those on immediate prison sentences of less than 12 months are significantly more likely to reoffend than similar offenders who get sentences in the community. They are over 50% likely to reoffend, as compared to less than 25% for those who are required to adhere to tough conditions, with a risk of going to prison if they fail to comply. Let me be clear about what that means. Those who are on suspended sentence orders are required to comply with onerous requirements—be they unpaid work orders, alcohol rehabilitation requirements or whatever—on pain of going straight to prison if they fail to comply. The evidence shows that people see that as a powerful deterrent.

My right hon. and learned Friend will want to comment, in that context, on persistent offenders, because he will know that there are many offenders who persistently offend and commit crimes that would not attract a sentence of more than 12 months. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) spoke of shoplifting, for example. Criminal damage would be another example, as would antisocial behaviour. Some 30% of persistent offenders commit 80% of crimes. Is he really saying that none of them should go to prison?

On the contrary. I know that my right hon. Friend rightly, on behalf of his constituents, wants to ensure that those who destroy lives and have a corrosive impact on communities are brought to book. That is why the provisions have been carefully constructed and calibrated to ensure that those who are unable or unwilling to abide by an order of the court can expect to hear the clang of the prison gate. Not only will the proverbial sword of Damocles be hanging over them, but for those who commit an offence when they are subject to a court order—be it a supervision order, a community order or a non-molestation order—the presumption no longer applies. We send a clear message to criminals: obey the order of the court or expect to go to prison.

Judges will retain their discretion to impose immediate custody when an offender poses a significant risk of physical or psychological harm to an individual—this is to the direct point made by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford—so that domestic abuse offences and other violent offences against women and girls can and will continue to be punished, with immediate custody protecting victims. Nothing changes, but for those whose sentence is suspended, the courts will be able to continue to use a range of requirements, including curfews, electronic tags, community payback and exclusion requirements. Those who do not comply or who commit further offences can be brought back to court and risk being sent to prison.

Alongside that, we want to ensure that we have the prison places to keep serious and dangerous offenders locked up for longer, while allowing lower risk offenders to benefit from community-based restrictions to assist with their resettlement, get back into work and start contributing to society where that can be safely managed. For that reason, we are extending home detention curfew to offenders serving sentences of over four years and keeping our tough restrictions that prevent serious violent, sexual and domestic abuse offenders from accessing this facility.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. We used to have happy times on the Justice Committee together when we were little striplings. What he is saying sounds good, but my question is this. Last year, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and I amended the Public Order Act 2023 to stop intimidatory protests against women using abortion clinics. Although it was passed, that is the only section that has not been enacted. Ealing Council does not know whether to renew its temporary order, which is coming up again. If the law was passed and enacted, it should not have to. Can he tell Ealing Council and the whole country what to do when women every day face intimidation?