What do you want to reduce it to? Often it's one person's word against another. What basis are you willing to lock people away on?
That was going to be my next question to you, since you brought up the point about the level of proof and I thought that this might be what you were suggesting as a solution.
According to the graph so very kindly and graciously provided by Polecat Pete,
There is a HUGE discrepancy in the number of convictions in the USA versus the UK. I am not a lawyer, attorney, solicitor or barrister, and not even a resident or subject in Great Britain, and as such I don't know what the standards of proof are in the courts of the UK.
Perhaps this is one of the things that can be considered? Here in the USA, however, I believe that it's extremely difficult to get a conviction unless there is an injury to the woman or physical evidence suggesting that she actively tried to prevent the crime, and so I believe that the standards of proof for a conviction here are rather high.
I actually didn't have a solution to the matter, I was just intrigued by the Home Office's solution, of embarking upon an 'awareness campaign' directed exclusively at men and their behaviors.