Prolific Offenders

The Government have inherited a situation where 10% of offenders account for 50% of all offences. We have also inherited an epidemic of shoplifting, the kind of antisocial crime that blights communities. I have commissioned David Gauke to review how sentences could be reformed to address prolific offending, reduce reoffending, cut crime and ultimately make our streets safer.

I believe in second chances, and perhaps even more chances in some cases, but the excellent Policy Exchange report, “The ‘Wicked and the Redeemable’: A Long-Term Plan to Fix a Criminal Justice System in Crisis” found that hyper-prolific offenders—those with more than 45 previous convictions—are sent to prison on fewer than half of the occasions on which they are convicted of a subsequent indictable or either-way offence. Given that those people commit such high numbers of crimes, which usually affect our least affluent constituents, what consideration have the Government given to the report’s recommendations, particularly on introducing a mandatory two-year sentence for hyper-prolific offenders who are convicted of a subsequent indictable or either-way offence?

The right hon. Member raises an important point about an issue that blights communities across the country. I agree that we need a specific strategy for dealing with prolific offenders. Of course, different organisations use different definitions of what counts as a prolific offender or hyper-prolific offender, and that is why I have asked David Gauke to look specifically at this cohort of offenders in the independent sentencing review. The revolving door of prison and other types of sentences for them is clearly not having an impact. We must think about the interventions that will make the biggest difference to the largest number of those offenders, so that we can cut crime and have fewer victims.

The Lord Chancellor rightly says that less than 10% of criminals account for nearly half of crime. I understand that a sentencing review is under way, but any decisions are for Ministers to make. Will the right hon. Lady please rule out here and now any possibility of allowing career criminals to avoid prison, even for short sentences?

The hon. Member will know that I am not going to pre-empt any of the findings of the sentencing review. The point of having an independent review is to allow for a look at all the issues in the round. I have made it clear that I am particularly concerned about the people who she rightly terms career criminals, and I am particularly keen to think about the interventions that could make the biggest difference, so that we can reduce this blight on our communities. That is a clear statement of intent from the Government, showing how seriously we take prolific offending, but the measures that we choose to take forward will be clearer once the sentencing review has reported.

I call the shadow Minister.

As the Secretary of State mentioned, the approach to managing hyper-prolific offenders is part of David Gauke’s review, which could consider, for example, the wider use of GPS tagging and home curfew, but the Department has been undertaking its own assessment of the effectiveness of GPS tagging. Will the Government commit to publishing that review before or alongside the sentencing review, so that we can properly judge the merits of any proposed expansion?

As I have sought to do throughout this process, I will ensure transparency in the Government’s approach when it comes to not just the emergency releases data, but other information that underpins future policy choices.

I did not quite hear a “yes”, but I will take that as an encouraging commitment that the Secretary of State will publish the GPS tagging review ahead of any sentencing review. However, I am afraid that in Ministers’ discussions of these issues, they risk losing sight of the fact that imprisonment also serves the important purpose of punishing offenders in the interests of justice. Importantly, how will the Government decide whether any of David Gauke’s proposals that they are minded to accept sufficiently punish offenders? How will that judgment be made before any recommendations are accepted?

I have said on many occasions in this House that I believe in punishment and in prison. Prison has a core role to play in the punishment of offenders. However, we must not run out of prison places. We must balance the need to punish and imprison people with interventions that expand the use of punishment outside prison. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, “Build more” from a sedentary position. We are. We are moving forward to solve the 14,000 prison place deficit left by his Government at the last election. This Government will build prisons, but as he knows, we cannot build our way out of the prison capacity crisis. We must consider other measures as well, but let me be clear: we will always seek to punish offenders, and prison will always have a place. This Government will build more prison places than the previous one.