High Street Crime

This Government inherited a situation in which 10% of offenders account for 50% of all offences, with a small number of repeat offenders wreaking havoc in our communities and on our high streets. Cracking down on these offenders is a central part of any successful strategy to cut crime, and we will accept David Gauke’s recommendations, particularly on the further roll-out of intensive supervision courts. However, the hon. Member must accept the reality of the inheritance left by his Government, which included an increase in sentences although they delivered only 500 prison places over their 14 years in power.

South Shropshire residents would expect high street crime to be dealt with, and proportionate sentencing and appropriate deterrents. How will removing short-term prison sentences achieve any of that?

The hon. Member should know that 60% of all people who are given a short custodial sentence go on to reoffend within the year, so clearly the system that we have does not work. We cannot simply sit back and keep doing things that we know result in increased reoffending in communities that we all want to protect. We have to look at interventions that will make a difference. Tough community punishment produces better reductions in reoffending than short sentences. We will consult Members across the House as we prepare our Bill in the coming weeks to make sure that we have a strong package of unpaid work and other measures designed to toughen up community punishment.

Does the Lord Chancellor agree that when it comes to sentencing, ancillary orders, including those banning offenders from shops and high streets, are part of the answer? We need the police, together with the Crown Prosecution Service, to apply for them, and when an offender appears in court, we need the courts to issue those orders when sentencing.

My hon. Friend raises an important point. He is right that so-called ancillary orders, often referred to as travel bans, bans from seeing football and bans on the ability to go to particular areas, are an important part of the package of measures that the Gauke review has recommended. We have accepted those in principle and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other colleagues as we draw up our package of proposals for the upcoming sentencing Bill.

I call the shadow Minister.

Whatever the sentence or offence, victims and families deserve a meaningful and fair route to appeal sentences that are unduly lenient. Twenty-eight days for people who have experienced deep trauma, when criminals get an unlimited time to appeal, is not meaningful or fair. Can the Lord Chancellor explain to campaigners such as Katie Brett and Ayse Hussein from Justice for Victims why she is not willing to give them more time?

The shadow Minister should know that the Law Commission is considering the whole area of unduly lenient sentencing. It is important that we let it do its work and that it is able to look at the measures in the round and think about the consequences across the whole criminal justice system. We will review those proposals once they are made and legislate if we need to.

I am afraid that that explanation will not wash. The Lord Chancellor knows that she is choosing to give the Government more time in her Bill ahead of the Law Commission’s decision. Why is she giving herself more time, but not victims?

If the shadow Minister ever did any homework, he would know that it is always the Attorney General who has to agree and sign off on unduly lenient sentencing referrals. Our proposals are there to make sure that the Attorney General always has a full 28-day period to consider and make rulings that often help victims. He will also know that the Law Commission is looking at that work. The Conservative Government had 14 years; why did they never do anything?