Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Monday 15th March 2021
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberPolice, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the Home Secretary, I want to remind the House of what was said earlier regarding the Sarah Everard case. Charges have now been brought in that case. The sub judice resolution does not apply formally when the House is legislating. However, I would urge all Members to exercise caution and not say anything about the detail of the case or the identity of those against whom charges have been brought that might affect any subsequent court case.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Just one week after celebrating the achievement of women around the world on International Women’s Day, I would like to open this debate by once again expressing my sadness at the horrific developments in the Sarah Everard case. My heartfelt thoughts and prayers are with Sarah, her family and friends at this unbearable time. This is also a stark moment to reflect on what more we can do to protect women and girls against crime, and the events of the last few days have rightly ignited anger at the danger posed to women by predatory men—an anger I feel as strongly as anyone.
This Government were elected just over a year ago on a clear manifesto commitment to support the police and to keep our country safe. It is vital that we continue to deliver on that promise to the British people, and our commitment to law and order is having a real impact across the country. There are already over 6,600 more police officers in our communities, thanks to the unprecedented campaign to recruit an additional 20,000 more police officers. Our crackdown on county line drug gangs is delivering results, particularly in London, the west midlands and Merseyside. The police have made more than 3,400 arrests, shut down more than 550 deal lines and safeguarded more than 770 vulnerable people. Last year, we saw the UK’s biggest ever law enforcement operation strike a blow against organised crime, with over 1,000 arrests, £54 million of criminal cash seized, and 77 firearms and over two tonnes of drugs seized. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will go further still in our mission to back the police, to make our communities safe and to restore confidence in the criminal justice system.
We ask our brave police officers to do the most difficult of jobs—they run towards danger to keep us all safe—and that is why I have worked closely with the Police Federation in developing this Bill. I would like to pay tribute to the chair of the Police Federation, John Apter, for his constructive way of working since I became Home Secretary, admirably fighting for his members every single day. He has voiced his members’ concerns to me directly, and I have acted upon them.
This Bill will enshrine in law a requirement to report annually to Parliament on the police covenant, which sets out our commitment to enhance support and protection for those working within or retired from policing roles, whether paid or as volunteers, and their families. The covenant will initially focus on physical protection and support for families, officers and staff, and their health and wellbeing, with a duty to report in place to ensure parliamentary scrutiny.
Despite all that they do, emergency workers are still subject to violence and abuse. The statistics paint an alarming picture. There were more than 30,000 assaults on police officers in the year to March 2020, and over the past year we have all seen the reports of people deliberately coughing at our emergency workers, claiming to have coronavirus and threatening to infect them. There have been too many disgusting examples of police officers and ambulance drivers being spat at and violently attacked as they go out to work day after day to make sure that the rest of us are safe and cared for.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
This Bill doubles the maximum sentence for an assault on emergency workers. Does the Home Secretary therefore share my astonishment at the irony that the Labour party will now be voting against that provision?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having personally spent much time with our frontline officers, the very people who put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe, I think that is a really stark point, and a reminder of which party is backing the police and which party simply is not.
Priti Patel
I will in just a second.
Having personally spent time with those on the frontline, I have also seen the impact of these incidents on officers and on their families. We cannot tolerate such acts, which is why the punishment must fit the crime, and the Bill will double the maximum penalty for assaults on emergency workers from 12 months’ to two years’ imprisonment.
Chris Bryant
I urge the Home Secretary not to play party politics with this particular bit. I introduced, as a private Member’s Bill, the legislation that she is acting on, and at the time I argued very strongly in favour of two years being the maximum sentence. I was dissuaded by the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), who is now the Foreign Secretary; by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Home Secretary; and by a lot of Conservative MPs, who did not want to support the legislation at all.
I need to be persuaded that the Government have used the legislation that is on the statute book at present. For instance, the Home Secretary refers, quite rightly, to people spitting at police officers. It is disgusting and it is a form of assault, but unfortunately the sentencing guidelines still have not been updated since the introduction of my legislation to make sure that spitting is an aggravating factor and will be treated as an offence.
Priti Patel
There are many important points that I would be happy to debate about the police covenant and giving our police officers—the frontline men and women who keep us safe day in, day out—the protection that they and their family members deserve. The hon. Gentleman is right about the sentencing structure and guidance, but we have had support from the Crown Prosecution Service regarding the assaults that I have referred to, particularly over the last few months in relation to coronavirus, when we have seen spitting and assaults on officers.
This Bill is a criminal justice Bill as much as a policing Bill. It is an end-to-end Bill to ensure that the sentence fits the assault and the crime. The Bill will double the maximum penalty for assaults on emergency workers from 12 months’ to two years’ imprisonment, recognising that our officers and emergency workers should rightly be protected. Having spent much time with those on the frontline and seen the impact and the sheer volume of these incidents, I think it is right that we have that provision in this Bill.
The Government fully recognise the professionalism and skills of our highly trained police officers, and that includes the specialism of police drivers. Too often, they are driving in high-pressure situations pursuing suspects on the road while responding urgently to incidents. Through this Bill, we will introduce a new test to assess a police officer’s standard of driving. Should an officer be involved in a road traffic incident, this new test will allow the courts to judge their standard of driving against that of a competent and careful police constable with the same level of training, rather than that of a member of the public, which is how it stands at present.
The Government back the police and will never allow those with an extreme political agenda, such as those calling for the defunding or abolition of the police, to weaken our resolve when it comes to protecting the police. We back the police and will do everything we possibly can to make our community safer.
I have heard the call of the British public for safer communities, and that means cracking down on violent crime, which has a corrosive impact on towns and cities across the country. That includes gangs peddling drugs, as a result of which law-abiding citizens live in fear and, tragically, teenage children are stabbed to death. This senseless violence has absolutely no place in our society.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I support entirely the need to make sure that sentences fit the crime, but is not the reality that courts have huge backlogs and are reluctant to jail people who should be in jail, because they know that our prisons are overcrowded? Does not this Government’s failure on courts and prisons massively undermine what the right hon. Lady says about sentencing?
Priti Patel
Absolutely not. The Government are determined in their resolve—through this legislation, and delivering on our manifesto commitments—to bring in sentences that fit the crime. This is an end-to-end criminal justice Bill. If the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members listen to this afternoon’s debate, they will hear about the measures that are being introduced, and about the Government’s longer-term response. That includes the wider work that the Government are undertaking with the courts and the CPS; the changes that we need to make not just to sentencing, but to our laws; and the support that we are giving to our police.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We do not want to waste police time. Over the years I have formed an unlikely alliance with people such as Peter Tatchell, particularly with the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, to ensure that we enshrine in law your ability, Madam Deputy Speaker, my ability, or anybody’s ability to insult people and cause offence. Thinking particularly of clause 59, will my right hon. Friend assure me that nothing in the Bill will have a chilling effect on the right to debate and, if necessary, cause offence?
Priti Patel
When it comes to freedom of expression, my right hon. Friend knows my views and those of this Government. Prior to taking interventions I spoke about the corrosive impact of violent crime across our towns and cities. Tragically, too many young children—teenagers—have been stabbed to death in towns and cities of the UK. Such senseless violence has no place in our society. I have met too many mothers whose children have been murdered on the streets of our city, and I have seen the raw pain and distress of parents grieving for their child, and the utter devastation they are forced to endure.
We are proud that this Government have put more police officers on the beat, but tough law enforcement can be only part of the solution. We must do much more to understand and address the factors that drive serious violence, so that we can prevent it from happening in the first place. Through the Bill, we will introduce a serious violence duty, which will work to bring public bodies, including the police and local authorities, to work together as one, to share data and information across our communities, and work together to save lives. I thank many of my predecessors for their work on that, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid).
I make no apology for finding new ways to protect our communities and save the lives of our young people. Whenever lives are tragically lost as the result of serious violence, we must do everything we can to learn from what has happened. Homicides involving offensive weapons such as knives make up a large and growing proportion of all homicides, yet no legal requirement is currently placed on local agencies to understand what has happened after each incident. We are therefore introducing the requirement for a formal review to be considered, where a victim was aged 18 or over and the events surrounding their death involved the use of an offensive weapon. The new reviews will ensure that we learn lessons from such cases, and produce recommendations to improve our response to serious violence.
Every time someone carries a blade or a weapon, they risk ruining their own lives and those of others. Every stabbing leaves a trail of misery and devastation in its wake. Our new serious violence reduction orders will help the police to protect our communities better, by giving officers the power to stop and search those already convicted of crimes involving knives and offensive weapons. The orders will help to tackle prolific and higher-risk offenders, and help to protect individuals from exploitation by criminal gangs. That is exactly what I mean when I say that we are making our communities safer.
There will be concerns about disproportionality, but our aim is for these orders to enable the police to take a more targeted approach, specifically in relation to known knife carriers. Unfortunately, data from 2018-19 indicate that the homicide risk for young black people is 24 times higher than that for young white people. That is appalling. As long as young black men are dying and their families are disproportionately suffering, we cannot stand back, and I cannot apologise for backing the police when it comes to stop and search. The Government will work with the police to gather data on the impact of the orders to deliver real and lasting results.
Victims and witnesses must have the full protection of the law while the police conduct their investigations. We will reform the pre-charge bail regime to encourage the police to impose pre-charge bail, with appropriate conditions where it is necessary and proportionate to do so, including where there is a real risk to victims, witnesses and the public. We hope that that will provide reassurance and additional protection for alleged victims, for example in high-harm cases such as domestic abuse.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Since the Home Secretary’s Government first promised a victims Bill, there have been 1 million sexual offences and 350,000 rapes. This Bill is 300 pages long and barely mentions women or children. The explanatory notes do not mention women or girls once. Will she get to her feet and apologise finally for missing this fantastic opportunity to put victims at the heart of our criminal justice system?
Priti Patel
I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman or the Opposition when it comes to supporting victims. As the former chair of the all-party parliamentary group on victims, I and this Government have absolutely put victims at the heart of all our work, as have my predecessors in all their work.
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman can yell from the Back Benches, but it is important to remember that when it comes to protecting victims, there are many victims of different offences and different crimes. I think he and all Members of this House should recognise that this Bill will absolutely provide additional protections for victims in high-harm cases such as domestic abuse and many other cases.
These reforms will be named Kay’s law in memory of Kay Richardson, who was tragically killed following the release of her husband under investigation, rather than on pre-charge bail, despite evidence of previous domestic abuse. It is impossible to imagine the impact of such an horrific crime on the victim’s loved ones, and we all have a responsibility to do all we can to prevent more victims and more families from suffering as they have. That is the point and the purpose of this Bill—it is an end-to-end Bill.
Before Opposition Members start to prejudge any aspect of this Bill and this Government’s work on victims, there will be plenty of time to debate this Bill. There will also be plenty of time to debate the role of victims and how the Government are absolutely supporting victims.
An essential responsibility and a duty on us all is protecting our children. I am truly appalled and shocked by each crime and every case of hurt and harm against young people from sexual abuse and exploitation. It is impossible to comprehend the motivation of those who perpetrate offences against children, and we have been reviewing the law in this area carefully to ensure that any changes we make are the right ones. Through this Bill, I intend to extend the scope of the current legislation that criminalises sexual activity with a child under the age of 18 by people who hold defined positions of trust to include faith leaders, sports coaches and others who similarly coach, teach, train, supervise or instruct a sport or religion on a regular basis.
This issue has some brilliant and long-standing champions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who even throughout her recent cancer treatment worked with me to ensure that we address this significant issue. I also thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who continues to stand by the many victims who were abused as youngsters and who were failed and ignored by those who should have supported them. I also thank Baroness Grey-Thompson for her tireless work on this issue.
Through this Bill, we will also introduce an important measure to help bring closure to families whose loved ones have gone missing. The House will know the horrific case of Keith Bennett and the struggles his family have gone through to find his body since his murder. In 2017, the police believed they had a further lead when it came to light that Ian Brady had committed papers to secure storage before his death, but a gap in the law meant that the police were unable to get a search warrant to seize those papers.
I know this is an important issue—indeed, it has been raised by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and others. I am therefore introducing new powers enabling officers to seize evidence that they believe may help to locate human remains outside of criminal proceedings, such as in missing persons cases, suicides and homicide cases where a suspect is known but cannot be convicted, such as where the suspect themselves has died. As I said to Keith’s brother, Alan, when I met him recently, I am absolutely determined to give the police all the powers they need to access any evidence that could help them to bring some closure in cases such as Keith’s. While I cannot guarantee that a loved one will be found, I can make sure that families are provided with every avenue that our legal system will allow in the pursuit of justice. This is why we emphasise the need to make our communities safer, and that is exactly what the Bill does.
The right to protest peacefully is a cornerstone of our democracy and one that this Government will always defend, but there is, of course, a balance to be struck between the rights of the protester and the rights of individuals to go about their daily lives. The current legislation the police use to manage protests, the Public Order Act 1986, was enacted over 30 years ago. In recent years, we have seen a significant change of protest tactics, with protesters exploiting gaps in the law which have led to disproportionate amounts of disruption. Last year, we saw XR blocking the passage of an ambulance and emergency calls, gluing themselves to a train during rush hour, blocking airport runways, preventing hundreds of hard-working people from going to work. Finally, I would like to gently remind the House that on one day last year many people across the country were prevented from reading their morning newspapers due to the tactics of some groups—a clear attempt to limit a free and fair press, a cornerstone of our democracy and society.
The Bill will give the police the powers to take a more proactive approach in tackling dangerous and disruptive protests. The threshold at which the police can impose conditions on the use of noise at a protest is rightfully high. The majority of protesters will be able to continue to act and make noise as they do now without police intervention, but we are changing it to allow the police to put conditions on noisy protests that cause significant disruption to those in the vicinity. As with all our proposals, the police response will still need to be proportionate. The statutory offence of public nuisance replaces the existing common law offence. Our proposals follow the recommendations made by the Law Commission in 2015. The threshold for committing an offence is high, with any harm needing to affect the public or a cross-section of the public and not just an individual.
We must give the courts the tools to deal effectively with the desecration of war memorials and other statues. Through the Bill, we will toughen the law where there is criminal damage to a memorial by removing the consideration of monetary value of damage. Those changes will allow the court to consider the emotional and sentimental impact, not just financial, so that the sentence can reflect the severity of harm caused. For what it is worth, that does not just mean statues. It will cover a range of memorials with low monetary but high sentimental value, for example gravestones, war memorials, roadside tributes to people killed in car crashes and the memorials to people who have been murdered, such as the Stephen Lawrence memorial. I would like to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland) for their important work on this issue.
I am also clear that no one should have to put up with disturbances and disruptions on their doorstep. Unauthorised encampments can create significant challenges for local authorities, and cause distress and misery to those who live nearby. As we pledged in our manifesto, we will make it a criminal offence to live in a vehicle on land without permission and we will give the police the power to seize vehicles if necessary. I can assure the House that the new offence has been framed in such a way to ensure that the rights of ramblers and others to enjoy the countryside are not impacted.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
What consideration has the right hon. Lady given to the rights of generations of Travellers and Gypsies, who have often been around longer than some of our property laws, who might want to pull up on a roadside for a night? What consideration of their rights has been given in the Bill, which will automatically criminalise them?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was an extensive public consultation on this issue and all those points were considered at the time.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Home Secretary may remember coming to visit Wolstanton Marsh in my constituency during the election campaign. Residents around Wolstanton have long suffered as a result of the unauthorised encampments on the marsh. Will she join me in welcoming what the Bill will do for them? This is a manifesto pledge delivered.
Priti Patel
I recall a visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency, and he is right. Many colleagues, and many members of the public through the public consultation, made the point that unauthorised encampments cause misery and harm to those in the local communities affected by them. There have been many discussions with colleagues across the House on this point, and with local authorities, which more often than not bear the brunt of the costs and consequences, alongside the police.
In September, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor published a White Paper setting out our vision for a smarter approach to sentencing, and now we are introducing legislation to establish this in law. We need a system that is robust enough to keep the worst offenders behind bars for as long as possible, but agile enough to give offenders a fair start on their road to rehabilitation. Sexual and violent offenders must serve sentences that reflect the severity of their crimes, helping to protect the public and give victims confidence that justice has been served. These offences are committed predominantly against women. Through this Bill, rapists and other serious sexual predators sentenced to a standard determinate sentence of four years or more will henceforth serve at least two thirds of their sentence in custody. Rapists sentenced to life imprisonment will similarly serve longer in custody before they are considered for release on licence. The Bill also strengthens the framework for the management of sex offenders. In particular, we are legislating so that courts can attach positive requirements to a sexual harm prevention order or a sexual risk order so that, for example, a perpetrator can be required to attend a behavioural change programme.
The measures in this Bill build on those in the Domestic Abuse Bill, which will return to this House after Easter. Among the changes we have brought forward in the Lords is a new offence of non-fatal strangulation and the criminalising of threats to disclose intimate images. I know that these additions to the Bill will be welcomed by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). We have had discussions already this afternoon about violence against women and girls and what more we can do; these measures are fundamental to restoring confidence in the criminal justice system.
We also recognise that the reoffending rate for children is high, and that is why we are taking forward measures to provide courts with stronger alternatives to custody. In the Bill, we are providing custodial sentencing options for the most serious crimes, alongside alternatives that will allow youth offenders to be effectively managed and rehabilitated in the community. That will ensure that judges and magistrates are able to make the most appropriate decisions in the best interests of the child and of the public. In recognition of the fact that children now in custody are much more likely to have complex needs, we will introduce measures to enable the trialling of secure schools. They will be schools with security rather than prisons with education, and they will have education, wellbeing and purposeful activity at their heart.
The courts play a fundamental role in our criminal justice system. During the pandemic, we have seen the benefits of enabling participation in proceedings remotely or by live video or audio link. We want to put these temporary provisions on a permanent footing, giving judges better options to support the effective and efficient running of their courts and underpinning the principle of open justice. Our aim is to modernise our courts and tribunals so that there are more opportunities to attend and observe hearings remotely, shorter waiting times and less unnecessary travel. I can assure the House that these advantages will never be taken from the right to a full hearing in court. This will always be available where needed, and where the court considers it to be in the interests of justice. Trials will continue to take place in court. We also want to further improve accessibility to our justice system for people with disabilities.
Peter Kyle
At the moment, if somebody suffers a sexual assault or rape, they will wait two years before they have their moment in court. Will the Home Secretary agree to amend the Bill so that people who are victims of rape or sexual assault will be fast-tracked straight into the court system and will no longer have to wait two years?
Priti Patel
It is absolutely right that we look at every single measure and approach to ensure that victims of rape receive justice. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the rape review is taking place and will soon be published.
We want to improve accessibility to our justice system for people with disabilities. Reasonable adjustments can be made for most people with disabilities to enable them to complete jury service. However, the law has to date prevented deaf people who require the services of a sign language interpreter from having an interpreter in a jury deliberation room with them. We are changing that to ensure that all deaf individuals are able to serve as jurors unless the circumstances of a particular case mean that it would not be in the interests of justice for them to do so.
As I said at the beginning, this Government were elected on a clear manifesto commitment to keep our country safe. That is what the British people rightly expect, and that is what this Bill will deliver, by supporting the police, by preventing and cutting crime and by restoring confidence in the criminal justice system, because giving people the security they need to live their lives as they choose is an essential part of our freedom. As we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic, we will build back safer and increase the safety and security of our citizens. This Bill will enable us to do exactly that, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I should inform Members that we will start with a time limit of five minutes, but it will go down very quickly to three minutes.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The House meets today in the shadow of the tragic loss of Sarah Everard, and I know the whole House will be united in sending our thoughts to her loved ones at this time of unimaginable pain. In an incredibly moving tribute, her family said:
“She was strong and principled and a shining example to us all. We are very proud of her and she brought so much joy to our lives.”
Sarah was just walking home at night—a freedom that sounds so simple, it should be unquestionable. But in recent days, we have heard extraordinarily powerful testimony yet again from women across the country about the dangers they face all too regularly—women speaking of suffering vile harassment on the streets, being told to walk with keys between their fingers to protect themselves and being told they should stay at home. It is not women and girls who should be changing their behaviour because of danger. We must change as a society, and as men in particular, we must do better by listening and, most importantly, acting.
I want to turn immediately to the distressing scenes we saw at Clapham. I share the anger there is about the policing of this. Deep and profound lessons need to be learned, and there must be change. People should have been able to mark this moment peacefully and safely. We need to find a way for people to show solidarity safely and in a covid-secure way. As I mentioned in response to the statement earlier today, the Mayor of London has shown leadership on this, asking Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to conduct an independent investigation alongside the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
Saturday’s event was not a protest; it was a vigil. But there is no doubt that it brings into sharp focus the proposed measures in this Bill about curtailing the right to protest—the right to give public expression to deep feeling and the right to campaign for change. The scenes from Saturday should be a red warning signal to the House that rushing through ill-judged and ill-thought-out restrictions on the right to protest would be a profound mistake that would have long-lasting consequences and do great damage to our democracy. The right to protest is a cornerstone of that democracy.
On our statute book, we already have the Public Order Act 1986, together with other existing powers to police protests. It is of course right that protests should be peaceful and legitimate—nobody would suggest otherwise—but the Bill significantly expands the conditions that can be imposed on protests. Unbelievably, it includes
“the noise generated by persons taking part”
causing people “serious unease” as a reason to warrant police-imposed conditions. I do not know about Government Members, but the protests that I have been to have certainly generated a lot of noise.
There is also a penalty in the Bill for someone who breaches a police-imposed condition on a protest when they “ought to have known” that the condition existed. That would have the effect of criminalising people who unwittingly breach conditions.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that no one should be able to block an ambulance from crossing a road or bridge, and that no one should be able to block a printing press from printing newspapers? If he does agree, why will he not vote for the Bill?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Because the existing laws deal with those issues. The Conservative party is not making the case for the additional powers.
The right to protest to those in power—including the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who waves his Order Paper at me—is extremely precious. I declare an interest as a proud trade unionist and refer to my relevant entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on support from the Unite union and the GMB. Whether it is our trade unions or another group that wants to make its views known loudly in our streets, we curtail their ability to do so at our peril. The right to protest is one of our proudest democratic traditions, and that this Government seek to attack it is to their great shame. Our existing laws on protest strike a careful balance between legitimate rights and the need to keep order. Our laws on protest do not, and never should, seek to shield those in power from public criticism and public protest. We on the Opposition Benches will oppose a Bill that puts at risk the whole right to protest, hard-won by previous generations, that is part of the fabric of British democracy. In seeking to preserve the right to protest, we on these Benches stand in a long tradition of British democracy. It is this Government who seek to undermine those traditions.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the inclusion of parts 3 and 4 of the Bill undermines victims, the police force and the whole point of what the Government are trying to do to reform our criminal justice system and make it work for the people? The Government should withdraw parts 3 and 4 and get on with deliberating on some of the detail that could be half good.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Parts of the Bill could have been removed and we could have had a cross-party discussion on making the rest of it work. The Government have failed to take that approach.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that for him to vote against the entire Bill, much of which is extremely good and much of which the Labour party has campaigned for for many years, because he believes that there may be some curtailment of free speech—I do not believe that is the case—in one small part of the Bill, would be to throw the baby out with the bath water? Surely that is the wrong thing to do.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will come to other concerning aspects of the Bill in a moment, but it says a great deal that when I am talking about the great British tradition of the right to protest, it is a Conservative Member of Parliament who stands up to challenge it. That is quite remarkable.
Let me turn to what is needed to address the appalling issue of violence against women and girls. To our shame as a country, we see unacceptable levels of female homicides at the hands of men every year. Labour is committed to working on a cross-party basis to bring forward additional protections; to deliver on the inadequate sentencing for domestic homicides; and to address unacceptable and intimidating street harassment. Labour is committed on stalking, on improving rights for victims of crime, on better domestic abuse services and on recognising misogyny as a hate crime.
There are wider issues, too. On 29 January, I wrote to the Government, together with the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy); the shadow Housing Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire); the shadow Minister for domestic violence and safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips); and the shadow Minister for victims and youth justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). We raised the awful practice of sex for rent—people coerced into providing sex in lieu of payment—and put forward proposals. We wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; not one of them has even bothered to reply. That shows that this is a Government who too often like to talk tough but who fail to take the action needed. In its current form, the Bill does not meet the ambition of the time and will be a terrible missed opportunity.
Peter Kyle
As a signatory to that letter, campaigning on this means a great deal to me. Actually, I contacted the two previous Home Secretaries and Amber Rudd, when she was Home Secretary, set a workstream up to tackle this issue. It has been cancelled. We have been trying very long and very hard to give protection to those 30,000 women every year who are propositioned for sex in return for rent. Is it not time that this cross-party offer is taken up?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Absolutely. The cancellation of that workstream is entirely wrong. I say to the Home Secretary that the offer is open on that. The letter has been sent to the Home Office; reply and engage with us on the Opposition Benches.
Priti Patel
I am actually not aware of that workstream being cancelled or the letter, so I would be more than happy to come back to the House and follow up with the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle).
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful for that, and when the Home Secretary returns to the Home Office, I would be grateful if she could dig out the letter and respond. That would be extremely useful—it was sent on 29 January, for reference.
Chris Bryant
As my right hon. Friend knows, I, and I think we as a party, support clause 2, because we believe that emergency workers should not be subject to the terrible assaults that there have been over the years. But this does pose a problem, because a lot of women who work in shops are subjected to exactly the same problems and are often terrified to go into work. We had a terrible incident in the Co-op in Penygraig less than a year ago. Is there not a job of work that we need to do to make sure that all workers, but in particular women workers working in shops, are also protected?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I will come on to that issue in a moment, when I have some proposals to put forward.
Ministers risk sending out an awful message on the level of importance that they attach to violent crime. The Government want a maximum penalty of 10 years for damage to statues. No Government should ever send out a signal that the safety of a statue carries greater importance in our laws than the safety of women, but, as currently drafted, this Bill would allow someone to receive a sentence of up to 10 years for attacking the statue of a slave trader when rape sentences start at five years. That does not reflect the priorities of the people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
The shadow Home Secretary should well know and should honestly tell the House that the maximum sentence for rape is life.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I asked the Home Secretary earlier in the statement to tell me how many people convicted of rape were actually sentenced to life imprisonment, and she could not answer the question. The answer is hardly any. Ninety-nine per cent. of reported rapes do not even get close to a court, and then we hear the Minister trying to come to the Dispatch Box to boast about the rape statistics—absolutely appalling.
Peter Kyle
My right hon. Friend and the whole Labour party and Opposition agree that protecting private and public property is incredibly important, but it is about balance. If an angry mob throws a statue into water and then turns around and throws a woman or a child into water, can he tell us which one, if the Bill passes and goes into statute, gets the longer sentence?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance that is being put on statues over women, and the Government should be ashamed. This comes at a time when—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
In one moment, because I need to deal with the issue of the rape statistics that has been raised. We are seeing fewer people being prosecuted and convicted for rape than at any time since records began, and that is at a time when the number of reported rapes is increasing. What message do the Government think that that sends to victims about coming forward? As I said to the Minister—he is a Justice Minister; he really should be concentrating on trying to deal with this problem—99% of reported rapes do not even get near a court. That is absolutely shameful. I say to the Home Secretary: think again about the Government’s priorities on this, make changes, such as end-to-end support for victims pre-trial and post-trial, and fast-track these trials through our system, instead of the two years that there have to be at the moment.
Steve Brine
If the desecration of our war memorials does not move the right hon. Gentleman, can I check this one with him? Two of my constituents lost their daughter when somebody impaired by the incorrect use of prescription drugs careered across the carriageway and hit her car head-on at high speed, killing her outright. In part 5 of the Bill, on road traffic, we introduce clause 64, on increased penalties for causing death by dangerous driving. Does the shadow Home Secretary support that and will he vote for it?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I do absolutely support that and I will come to it in a moment but, to deal with the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, he seemed to imply that I did not understand the value of war memorials. I absolutely do. The difference is that this Bill has now been extended to every form of memorial, including statues of slave traders. It really sums up the problem with the Government’s approach. If they genuinely wanted to introduce proportionate measures to protect war memorials, they could have done so and not introduced the measures that they actually have.
I come to the sentencing elements of the Bill. It is of course right to extend whole-life orders to cover the premeditated murder of a child. The tragic murder of Ellie Gould on 3 May 2019 highlights the failure of the justice system to impose strict enough sentences on those who murder in a domestic setting and the issue of the age of the killer. But this measure is insufficient. The current approach to sentencing seems to forget the context in which many female victims are killed—in the home, with a weapon taken from that location. The minimum tariff in such cases is 15 years, but it is 25 if the weapon is brought to the scene of the crime. That is a systemic problem; violence against women and girls seems to be seen as less serious than other forms of violence. This has to be addressed.
The Opposition also say that tougher sentencing on its own is not enough. We know that wider change across our society is needed, and we know that the Government who have decimated our public services over the past 11 years have totally lost sight of addressing the causes of crime as well, with the sadly predictable consequences of rising violent crime in every single police force area of England and Wales. The Bill is shamefully short of measures to address the unacceptable violence women and girls face. In that, it fails woefully to meet the urgent need for change.
James Gray
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned my constituent, Ellie Gould, and her appalling murder two years ago. He is right to say that we campaigned for the issue of premeditation, as proved by taking a weapon to the scene, to be removed. I hope therefore that he will vote for the Bill this evening. There is one counter-argument to that, however. Abused women at home may well defend themselves with a knife, bottle or other weapon at home, and if that were to happen and it became premeditated, that defence would be lost.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
With great respect, the hon. Gentleman identifies a complexity, but I think he agrees with me that that difference in the law—the 15 and 25-year tariffs—is not justifiable as it stands and needs to be equalised.
The need for overdue action brings me to elements of the Bill that have taken too long to introduce, but which we welcome. My hon. Friends, often working across the parties, have campaigned passionately on important issues and they have secured change. It is welcome that the Government have finally brought before Parliament the long-awaited legislation to increase the maximum sentence for assault on emergency service workers to up to two years in prison. I want to pay special tribute to the tireless work of my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch) in securing this change. They have been campaigning since 2018. Indeed, on 27 April 2018, when the matter of two-year sentences was considered, the then Minister said that
“it would begin to create the kind of situation that exists in Russia, which I hope will never exist in the UK”.
He went on to say that such sentences would create
“a category of a superior form of human being with an entitlement to a quite separate form of protection.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2018; Vol. 639, c. 1193.]
Those comments were, frankly, deplorable and the Government’s conversion to the two-year penalty is to be welcomed.
The pandemic has been a powerful reminder, not that one should be needed, of the extraordinary bravery and commitment that our frontline emergency workers have shown throughout. They have put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe day in, day out, even at the very height of the first wave, when tests and PPE were so shamefully hard to come by. Despite that work, emergency service workers have been subjected to a rising number of attacks in this past year, with a 31% increase in attacks compared with in 2019.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Recently in Wolverhampton, two ambulance staff were stabbed. I am watching you go through this Bill saying that you welcome and agree with so many things, so why on earth have you asked your party to vote against it? It just makes no sense.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I do not want to stop the debate for this, but you do not call the person who is speaking “you”. “You” means the Chair; the right hon. Gentleman is the right hon. Gentleman. I call the right hon. Gentleman.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes, I was not aware of your position on the Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have not finished my speech yet, so the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) will just have to wait for me to complete my argument.
As welcome as this measure is, the Labour party is clear that it does not go far enough. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said, we need to consider the workers on the frontline of the pandemic who should also be given that level of protection. First, it does not cover the whole of the NHS family, so we are calling for protections to be extended to social care workers as well. Throughout the pandemic, the range of frontline service workers who put themselves at risk to serve our community has been clear.
Mr Perkins
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson) has actually hit on something that might be helpful to the House. There are many aspects of the Bill that we all agree on. If only the really divisive aspects that the Home Secretary has put in were removed, could not the whole House get behind supporting our police, rather than going through the mess that we have in front of us today?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Absolutely. The Government could press pause on the Bill and bring the whole House together.
Research has shown that, during the pandemic alone, one in six of our shop workers have been abused on every shift, with 62% of UK shop workers experiencing verbal abuse and almost being threatened by a customer. There have been awful examples of attacks on other frontline workers, who have been spat at, punched, verbally abused and intimidated. Labour is calling for wider measures to protect the pandemic heroes, extending protections to shop workers as well as other frontline workers. There is widespread support for this, with the additional protection for shop workers supported by organisations such as the Federation of Independent Retailers and chief executive officers from a number of major retailers, including Aldi, the Co-op, Marks & Spencer, McColl’s, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and WHSmith.
I would also like to mention the work of the USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—which has been passionate in campaigning for its members to receive these vital protections and has generated well over 100,000 signatories on petition. We all owe a huge debt of gratitude to frontline workers for putting themselves at risk to keep our country running. We should repay some of that debt with decent legal protection as well as decent pay.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making, in many parts of his speech, a very strong case for supporting the Bill, but he started by saying that he was not going to support the Bill because of one particular element. The Opposition were going to abstain at the end of last week; then they shifted their position. May I gently suggest to him that a decent way of doing this would be, if necessary, to abstain today, debate the amendments and decide on Third Reading whether the Government have moved at all? Would that not be more logical?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will always bow to the right hon. Gentleman’s guidance on parliamentary procedure, but we took a final decision to vote against this Bill. Let me say to Government Members that I will make it clear when I agree with the Government on something, but as I move on to other aspects of my speech, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will see that there are other parts of the Bill that also cause deep concern; he need only wait for that.
Chris Bryant
I want to take my right hon. Friend back to the emergency workers legislation. One of the difficulties about the way in which it works is that magistrates courts can only sentence up to six months and the Government have still failed to change the law to allow them to issue longer sentences in certain circumstances. The danger is that increasing the sentence will make absolutely no difference whatever, unless the Government do what they could already have done in the last two years.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Having understood the attitude of the Government in 2018, perhaps it is not surprising how slow this has been.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Let me make some progress; I have taken a number of interventions.
I come to the police covenant and frontline police officers across the country. Like the Home Secretary, I meet the chair of the Police Federation and work with him on a regular basis. Only in recent days, I met my local officers in Gwent—virtually, of course—with hon. Friends and listened to the work that they are doing. It is clear that throughout this pandemic frontline officers are putting themselves at risk to keep us safe, but across the board, frontline workers in the police, fire service, education and so many other areas are facing a pay freeze. Their efforts in this pandemic are being rewarded with a real-terms pay cut.
The police covenant is welcome but overdue—it is in this Bill, some three years after it was promised. It is right that the Home Secretary makes an annual report to Parliament, addressing key issues on physical protection, health and wellbeing, and support for families, but we will study this provision closely, in consultation with representatives from across policing. We will be arguing for protections including support for mental health, which is too often overlooked.
I turn to the toughening of sentences for those who cause death by dangerous driving. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) deserves great credit for securing these changes, together with other right hon. and hon. Members who signed the Bill introduced by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), last year. They included my hon. Friends the Members for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), together with MPs from a number of parties. We support those proposals; too many people have taken lives and left families heartbroken, with insufficient punishment—that has to end.
On the extension of laws that prevent adults in positions of trust from engaging in sexual relationships with young people under 18, sports coaches and faith leaders should be included in those safeguards. I give great credit here to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), with others, including Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I am sure everyone from across the House would send her our very best wishes.
James Gray
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and the whole House will be pleased to hear that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford was in the Tea Room this afternoon and she tells me that her treatment is fully successful and she will be on her way to a full recovery shortly.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
That is a wonderful intervention to take; I am sure we will all be delighted to hear that.
The Government could do more on the issue I was discussing. For example, tutors and driving instructors are not included, and I hope that the Home Secretary will look at that again.
Another area where some measures are welcome is in parts of the review from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham being implemented, but that review was published in September 2017, nearly four years ago; there are provisions for the pilot of problem solving courts, for recognising the remand of children as a last resort and for reform of the criminal records disclosure regime. On the issue of reform of the Disclosure and Barring Service, I wish to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) for his work in securing that change.
All those things are welcome and overdue, but we have heard such powerful testimony of the lived experiences and family legacies of the prejudice that black people have faced. Black people have bravely stepped forward to share their testimony of structural racism and the impact it still has. The Government cannot ignore the disproportionality that exists from start to finish in our criminal justice system and continue to take steps that make it worse. The Bill contains so-called serious violence reduction orders, which raise serious questions about disproportionality and community trust. As a minimum, the whole of the review by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham, all 35 recommendations, should be progressed without further delay.
Similarly, the Government must look again at the sections of this Bill on unauthorised encampments. The proposals create a new offence of residing on land without consent in or with a vehicle. The loose way it is drafted seems to capture the intention to do this as well as actually doing this, with penalties of imprisonment of up to three months or a fine of up to £2,500, or both. This is clearly targeted at Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, and the criminalisation would potentially breach the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010.
When Friends, Families and Travellers researched the consultation responses the Government received, they found that 84% of the police responses did not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments. Little wonder that senior police officers are telling us that the changes in the Bill would add considerable extra cost to already stretched policing, while making situations worse. I ask Ministers to think of the signal they are sending. We have already had the discussion about how responding to letters to the Home Office quickly is not the Home Secretary’s strong point, but she will surely have seen the letter to her in January—possibly not, given her earlier answer—from nine different organisations, ranging from the Ramblers to Cycling UK. That letter sets out that these unclear proposals not only risk discriminating against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, but risk criminalising wild camping and even rough sleepers in makeshift shelters or tents.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is very generous to take so many interventions. Is it not the case that, notwithstanding the consultation, the Government have listened and have added the requirement to enter with a vehicle? There is no form of rambling I am aware of where one brings a vehicle on to land with the intention of residing there.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I think the hon. Member needs to reread the Bill on the scope of the provisions, frankly, because it is extraordinarily loosely drafted.
Rights of access to the countryside were hard won through the protests of previous generations. I do realise that there is some ill feeling between this Prime Minister and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, but I did not realise that it ran so deep that he would be happy to see people locked up for naughtily running through a field of wheat. [Interruption.] If only she had all those years ago as well.
The Bill before the House could be a landmark Bill, and we must seize this opportunity for change. Yes, absolutely, there are measures in this Bill that we welcome—mostly because Labour Members have actually campaigned for them—but addressing violence against women and girls cannot be at the bottom of this Government’s list of priorities. If Ministers disagree with my interpretation, they must show it by their actions, and drop the elements of the Bill that suggest that attacking a statue could be a worse crime than rape, drop the elements of the Bill on protests, and revisit the elements that drive up disproportionality and the controls on encampments, which are discriminatory and unworkable. Instead, let this Bill be an opportunity for people to come together and seize the moment to drive through vital changes to address violence against women and girls. Whatever this Government say as the Bill progresses, we on these Benches understand and we hear the call for change. Labour will work to bring about that change, and I would ask all Members to work with us in that endeavour.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I join the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary in sending my condolences to Sarah Everard’s family and friends.
There are elements of this Bill, which is a very large and significant Bill, that I really welcome: the action on unauthorised encampments, on serious violence, on people in positions of trust and on changes to sentencing. I particularly, of course, welcome the change to sentencing for death by dangerous driving, which reflects the change I proposed in my ten-minute rule Bill. It was supported, as the shadow Home Secretary said, across the whole of the House, because many Members of this House have constituency cases that have been affected by this, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) indicated in his intervention. My desire to bring this forward was first brought about by the case—the very sad case—of my constituent Bryony Hollands, who was killed by somebody under the influence of drugs and drink, but there have been other constituency cases, such as those of Eddy Lee and Max Simmons. On their behalf, on behalf of their families and on behalf of all those affected by this, I say simply to the Government, thank you.
I would like to focus on a number of areas where I worry that there could be unintended consequences of the measures being brought forward by the Government in this Bill. I absolutely see the reason for bringing forward the serious violence reduction orders, but I welcome the fact that they are being piloted, because I think there could be unintended consequences in two areas. The first is in stop-and-search. Stop-and-search is an important tool, but it must be used lawfully and it must not be used disproportionately against certain communities. My concern is that we do not go backwards on improvements that have been made on stop-and-search, and that we actually ensure that we do not see this being used disproportionately and a disproportionate increase taking place.
The other area is girls in gangs, and I am concerned—I have had a discussion with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), about this—that we could see serious violence reduction orders against male members of gangs leading to their pressurising their girlfriends to be carrying knives, with the impact that would have on those girls. The way in which girlfriends of gang members are used to get at rival gangs is a worry and needs to be given more attention, and I do not want to see the position of girls being further exacerbated, unintentionally, as a result of these orders.
My second concern is about pre-charge bail. I can absolutely see that, as a result of the changes that were brought in previously, we have seen too many cases where people have not been put on bail, particularly where the crime was a serious violent crime against a woman. However, I ask the Home Secretary to look carefully at the nine-month period that is being set before the police have to go to the magistrates court for an extension of bail. Certainly, I would urge her to resist any suggestion that that should be extended, because we cannot go back to a situation where people are effectively left with their lives on hold, possibly for years, as a result of the operation of bail.
Finally, I want to raise one area that has already been raised: I do have some concerns about some of the aspects of the public order provisions in the Bill. I absolutely accept that the police have certain challenges, for example when people glue themselves to vehicles or to the gates of Parliament, but freedom of speech is an important right in our democracy, however annoying or uncomfortable that might sometimes be. I know that there will be people who will have seen scenes of protests and asked, “Why aren’t the Government doing something?” The answer, in many cases, may simply be that we live in a democratic, free society.
I do worry about the potential unintended consequences of some of the measures in the Bill, which have been drawn quite widely. Protests have to be under the rule of law, but the law has to be proportionate. The first area that I will mention is giving police the powers to deal with static protests in the way that they have been able to deal with marches. Those have always been differentiated in the past. The second is around noise and nuisance; some of the definitions do look quite wide, and I would urge the Government to look at those definitions.
The final area I want to mention is the power for the Home Secretary to make regulations about the meaning of
“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation…or…to the life of the community.”
It is tempting when Home Secretary to think that giving powers to the Home Secretary is very reasonable, because we all think we are reasonable, but future Home Secretaries may not be so reasonable. I wonder whether the Government will be willing to publish a draft of those regulations during the Bill’s passage so that we can see what they are going to be and ensure that they are not also encroaching on the operational decisions of the police.
There are very important elements of this Bill, but I would urge the Government to consider carefully the need to walk a fine line between being popular and populist. Our freedoms depend on it.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]
I can confirm that the Scottish National party will be voting against this Bill tomorrow. That is not to say that there are not sections of the proposed legislation that we support or are satisfied with, but the Bill as introduced will not achieve what the Government say they want to achieve, will seriously curtail the rights to protest, will criminalise the way of life of Gypsy/Travellers, is likely to have a disproportionate negative impact on ethnic minority communities and women, and will allow the ridiculous and unjust possibility of a tougher jail sentence for someone who topples over a statue than for someone who does the same thing to a living human being.
There is one overarching thing on which I think we can all agree, and it is certainly the view of the Scottish National party: tackling serious crime has to be a priority. But rather than creating policy to elicit macho headlines about tougher sentences and who comes down hardest on crime, the bottom line for us is: what works? What reduces crime? When it comes to reducing reoffending, Scotland’s rates are the lowest they have been since comparable records began, because of our focus on community justice.
The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), knows that this tougher sentencing policy does not work. He once said:
“The evidence is mixed, although harsher sentencing tends to be associated with limited or no general deterrent effect.”
So why make that a central plank of the Bill? That is a question the UK Government have to answer. Why do it if it does not work?
Someone we should always listen to is the chief executive of Community Justice Scotland, Karyn McCluskey. She said:
“Community justice allows people who commit a crime to pay back to the community they harmed whilst addressing any underlying causes of crime such as addiction, homelessness and mental health issues.”
It is not hard justice, it is not soft justice; it is smart justice that genuinely reduces reoffending. I will say it again: Scotland now has the lowest reconviction rates since comparable records began 21 years ago.
I turn to the right to protest, which is a right. I know the Government have a bit of a disdain for international law, but article 11 of the European convention on human rights is the right to freedom of assembly and association. The Bill directly contradicts the rights of citizens to protest where, when and how they choose. If it goes through, there will be very few rights to protest in England and Wales at all, and that is unacceptable in a democracy—especially one that likes to claim to be the bastion of democracy and has a history of telling the rest of the world how to behave.
Let us not forget the rights of the people of Scotland to protest in England. While decisions about our lives are made in London, we, the people of Scotland, reserve the right to peacefully protest at the seat of power. Let me note some of the things that the people of Scotland have protested about in England: the Iraq war, over which Scotland had no choice; the obscenity of nuclear weapons conveniently stationed in Scotland, over which Scotland has no choice; and the wonderful women and their allies in the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. Allow me to quote Rosie Dickson from WASPI in Scotland, who called this
“truly a step too far for those 1950s-born women who have not only been unfairly denied their pensions by a Westminster Government but now also face having their human right to protest against it, without fear of arrest, removed.”
Of course, we in the Scottish National party intend for London not to be the seat of power for much longer. We intend to win our independence so that all the decisions governing the lives of the people of Scotland are made in Scotland, where the right to protest is respected. When the Government of an independent Scotland get it wrong, as all Governments do from time to time, the people will be perfectly entitled to tell them that. However, even if independence were happening next week, I would leave this Parliament still fighting for the right of every citizen to protest.
These draconian powers are wide reaching, We have heard a comprehensive analysis of most of them from the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), so I will focus on just a few. First, we as Members of Parliament are accountable to our constituents, but now our constituents are to be told that they can protest and let us know of their disapproval, only we would prefer silent protests so we are introducing noise as a basis on which the police can intervene and impose any type of condition to stop them. Even if they do make noise, it will not matter. We will not hear them because we are putting in an exclusion zone around Parliament so far-reaching that what they have to say—their legitimate protest—will not fall on deaf ears; they will simply be so far away that it will not be audible. They will effectively be silenced. I want those people to know that I do not want them silenced, even if they are opposed to what I stand for. I want to be a Member of a Parliament that embraces democracy; the Bill is doing the opposite, and it is embarrassing.
Speaking of embarrassing, that word does not cover how the events of Saturday night felt for most of us watching them. I want to say something about what happened at Clapham common in the context of the police using the powers they already have and for us to think about how much worse it will get if the sweeping powers in the Bill are handed over to senior police officers.
First, I want to add my voice to those of the many thousands who are heartbroken for the family and friends of Sarah Everard. The torment that her family must be going through is something that nobody in this House would wish on anyone. I know we all share the despair. I attended an online vigil on Saturday night, but I understood why those women who met in person did so—particularly those who live near to where Sarah was taken. I got it. I know they were breaking regulations, and I would never encourage that, but they were in pain and they wanted to come together to help others also in pain. I do not know any woman who has not got a story to tell. Male violence against women takes such a heavy toll on all of us, and sometimes we need to be with other people.
Given the context of Clapham common on Saturday night, surely sensitivity should have been the watchword. I cannot imagine how frightened some of the women must have been, particularly given the circumstances. They have just had an alarming reminder that the police uniform does not give a cast-iron guarantee of safety and some of them find themselves on the ground, handcuffed, with knees on their back, flowers for Sarah trampled on, legs held down and unable to move at the hands of the police. Sarah Everard was just walking home; those women were just expressing their grief. If the current powers to curb protest can lead to what happened on Saturday night, imagine how much worse it will get if this legislation goes through.
I am deeply concerned about the attacks in the Bill on the way of life of some of our citizens. I am speaking, of course, about the Gypsy/Traveller community, who are among the most persecuted on these islands and among the most misunderstood. This Tory Government want to criminalise their way of life at the same time as the Scottish Government have produced an action plan entitled “Improving the Lives of Scotland’s Gypsy/Travellers”. What a contrast! Why are this Government so intent on cracking down hardest on the most vulnerable in our society?
While we are on the issue of racism in society, let me come to clause 46 on memorials. Is it not interesting that this legislation that comes down hard on anyone damaging a memorial comes about shortly after a group of people in Bristol toppled a statue of someone who made his money from slavery? Would I have toppled the statue? No. But do I think slave owners should have lasting memorials to them? Definitely not. This Bill would increase the maximum jail sentence for someone convicted of this to 10 years: 10 years for damaging an inanimate and, to some, very offensive object, when it is rare to get anything like as much as that for damaging a living, breathing person or animal. It is interesting, isn’t it, that the toppled statue that I believe prompted some of this legislation was toppled as part of a Black Lives Matter demonstration, when black people and their allies finally said, “Enough is enough”? As soon as they organise to have their voices heard, legislation pops up to silence them. I find that very interesting. I have spoken this weekend to people in the Black Lives Matter movement who believe that this endangers their very existence. They are in no doubt that they will be targeted.
I have had a lot of emails about this in the past two days, and there will be many people watching who—believe it or not—do not normally tune into Parliament, so it is worth mentioning that this is Second Reading and the next stage is Committee, where the Bill will be scrutinised line by line, word for word, by Members from each party, where evidence will be considered, and where amendments may be proposed. One of the things we will want to pay particular attention to is clause 36 on data extraction from mobile devices. I know the Scottish Government have been speaking to the UK Government about safeguarding and some progress has been made. This is certainly something we will want to interrogate. We have to be exceptionally careful about the use of people’s personal data.
Let me turn briefly to stop and search. Although this will not impact directly on Scotland, I want to add my voice to those on the Opposition Benches who are saying “Enough is enough.” It is not just politicians who are saying that the impact on black communities is disproportionate and it is not just black communities who are saying it. Newly retired chief executive of the College of Policing, Mike Cunningham, has voiced his concern that existing stop-and-search powers are disproportionate to what he calls an “eye-watering” degree. We should be listening to him and to groups like Liberty, Amnesty and Fair Trials who have called for a review of existing powers rather than an extension.
If it is to be fair, the law must be foreseeable. We must be able to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences that any given action may entail. This Bill is peppered with ambiguous wording left to be defined by statutory instruments. For example, there are regular references throughout to “serious disruption” as a reason to criminalise somebody, but there is nothing in the Bill to define “serious disruption”, leaving it effectively to the Home Secretary to decide. I want to know what the Home Secretary’s definition is. I want the right to debate it. The Home Secretary and I interpret things very differently. She thought the Black Lives Matter movement was “dreadful” while I think it is magnificent, so her idea of “serious disruption” will likely be very different from mine. Yet we are signing over to her the right to come up with a definition that will not be debated and we are simply expected to accept that. It is not good enough. The Scottish National party will be voting against this Bill tomorrow and scrutinising it very carefully when it comes to Committee.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
This is a significant and large Bill, and it warrants serious scrutiny. It therefore deserves better attention, I submit, than some of the hyperbole that has regrettably been thrown at it in the course of the earlier speeches of this debate. It is reasonable to examine a Bill carefully as it goes through Committee. I have scarcely ever known a Bill that is not improved by careful examination from the time when it is brought in. To vote against the Bill tomorrow does not seem to me to be a mark of a responsible Opposition, and it is regrettable that Labour and the Scottish National party have gone down that route, particularly when they can see that there is much to agree with. Many organisations in the criminal justice sphere including NACRO, the Centre for Justice organisation, the Magistrates Association and others have welcomed measures in the Bill.
We need a sense of proportion about these matters. For example, the reforms to public order legislation certainly need careful consideration, but changes to the law around public nuisance were recommended by the Law Commission as long ago as 2015. This measure puts that law on a statutory basis, as the Law Commission recommended, but uses, perfectly understandably, terms and phrases from the old common law arrangements, which are well understood and well defined by case law in the courts. The idea, therefore, that the Law Commission is somehow part of some authoritarian plot seems to me to be risible, and better arguments can be made than that.
Being near the M25, my constituency has unfortunately had repeated unauthorised incursions into both publicly owned and privately owned playing fields, sports grounds and others. Proportionality and fairness also mean that there should be swifter and better recompense than the current situation permits for those communities that see much-valued community assets put out of use by unauthorised encampments.
On the sentencing elements of the Bill, sentencing is always a difficult matter, both in individual cases and in terms of policy. It requires a careful balance. Overall, the Justice Secretary and his team who worked on this part of the Bill have got it right. It is right that we strengthen provision to protect the public from the most serious criminals, but it is also right that we give greater attention to the need to rehabilitate. Basically, many of those who end up in the criminal justice system and, indeed, in prison have chaotic lifestyles, sometimes mental health issues, educational issues, social problems and, frequently, weakness and stupidity. Getting those people out of a never-ending cycle of reoffending, as the White Paper says, on which this part of the Bill is based, is not just in their interests, but, overwhelmingly, in the interests of the public, too. I welcome the provisions to give a more agile and sophisticated suite of alternatives to custody. It is important that alternatives to custody are credible to the public, because sentencing has to be credible, but also that they do not waste time in comparatively short prison sentences where little rehabilitative work can be done, and which are hugely expensive. They have their place in just limited instances. Those changes, therefore, are very welcome.
Changes to the provisions regarding spent convictions are very important for rehabilitation. The Justice Committee has called for that in previous reports. Recognising a distinct approach to sentencing of younger offenders is, again, something that our Committee has repeatedly called for, and I welcome that, too. Equally, raising the threshold for remanding children into custody is very welcome and I would have thought overwhelmingly supported.
There is much to support in this Bill, including the provision for charities to set up secure schools, a much better improvement on our current provision. I very much hope that this Bill will get its Second Reading and that we can then examine the provisions in detail. The final thing that we have to be honest about is that justice does not come cheap. If we are to make these important and radical changes to sentencing policy, we must invest in them. If we are to have alternatives to custody, we must invest properly in those alternatives. They will bring both a social and an economic benefit in the long run, but we have to be honest and spell that out at the beginning.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Yvette Cooper.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), a fellow Select Committee Chair.
The tragic death of Sarah Everard is obviously on all our minds. It has led women across the country to talk about our shared experiences of threats on the streets of our own towns and cities and also to express the anger that, more than 40 years after the first reclaim the night marches in Leeds, we are having the same debates all over again. In some areas, it feels like things have gone backwards. Five years ago, just 8.5% of reported rapes reached prosecution. In the last five years, that has fallen to just 1.4%. The Government have been reviewing this for two years, but in the meantime prosecution rates have got worse.
That reflects the broader near-collapse in the effectiveness of some parts of the criminal justice system. In the five years before covid hit, recorded crime rose by 40%, but the number of crimes being prosecuted fell by 30%. In just five years, hundreds of thousands fewer charges were brought, and hundreds of thousands more criminals are therefore getting away with their crimes. In West Yorkshire, recorded violent crime has shot up. The Government have passed lots of laws, but the number of people convicted of breaking them has fallen. There have been lots of changes to sentences, but fewer criminals are getting sentenced in the first place, so justice is not being done and victims are being let down. Over the last five years, the shocking truth is that it has got easier to be a criminal and harder to be a victim. We cannot let that stand.
There is an important debate to be had about the measures in the Bill, but I see nothing in them that will turn around those shocking figures, and that is what we should work across the House to do. We need the police covenant and stronger measures to support police officers and emergency workers who face attack. We need stronger sentences for the most serious of crimes, including whole-life sentences for premeditated child murder, which is one of the vilest crimes of all. I support those measures. The same should apply for premeditated kidnap, rape and murder, but that is not currently in the Bill. There should also be stronger penalties for rape and stalking, but those are not currently in the Bill. It would, I think, be wrong if we ended up with higher sentences for peaceful protest and public nuisance than for stalking. That would be to get the balance wrong.
I put forward measures last year based on Home Affairs Committee work to extend the register and monitoring provisions for dealing with sex offenders to cover repeat perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalking, to stop them moving from one victim to the next and destroying people’s lives because no one is keeping track or joining the dots. I hope the Government will accept Baroness Royall’s amendment in the other place. If they do not, I will table the same measures to this Bill, and I hope that support can be built for them.
There are further measures, which I hope first to discuss with Ministers, that I hope could increase the prosecution rate for assault and domestic abuse, where there have been such problems. The Government are right to place a duty on councils and the police to co-operate in tackling serious violence, but we should be explicit about including the youth service in that; that is not currently part of the Bill.
The Home Secretary will know, even from today’s debate, that there is cross-party alarm about some of the measures in the Bill that go against the British tradition of free speech and peaceful protest. In the coalfields, there is strong support for the work of the police, but people have long memories of things such as the policing of the miners’ strike, so there is also strong support for proper safeguards to protect peaceful protest.
In the Bill, several powers—the broad wording on noise disruption, even though we know few protests are silent, because people want their voices to be heard; the broad powers given to the Home Secretary on serious disruption; and the statutory public nuisance offences with sentences of up to 10 years for doing things that simply might risk causing serious annoyance—are too broad. Every one of us will have seen protests that we thought were seriously annoying, but we do not believe that they should have been stopped. We know, too, that when people protested outside the Iranian embassy for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, the embassy could well have argued that the protests were disruptive to their activities or caused serious annoyance, but none of us would have wanted those protests to be stopped. I urge the Home Secretary to withdraw those measures, to re-consult on them and to try to build consensus not just on them, but on the other, wider, measures in the Bill, so that we can all support taking the action needed to cut crime.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
It is a privilege to be called so early in this extremely important debate. As always, it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, although I am a little puzzled, because most of the amendments to the Bill to make it better that she talked about would not be possible if, thanks to the power of her rhetoric, she persuaded the House to vote against Second Reading, since there would be no Committee stage in which to do that. I suspect that, even though she will go through the No Lobby, she actually hopes that the Bill will go into Committee.
I congratulate the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor on this outstandingly good Bill designed to make us all safer in so many different ways, but I want to focus on one small aspect of the Bill: the sentencing of minors in clauses 101 to 105. The Home Secretary knows well the case of my constituent Ellie Gould, and she kindly saw the Gould parents on one occasion. Ellie Gould was brutally murdered in her own home by 17-year-old Thomas Griffiths in May 2019. It was the most horrible murder of the worst kind, with a knife found at the scene of the crime.
Griffiths’ 12 and a half-year sentence was shorter than it should have been for three reasons: first, because he pled guilty, and I am glad that he did; secondly, because he was a junior at the time of the offence, albeit he was 18 at the time he was convicted; and thirdly, because, rather than taking a knife with him to the murder, he picked one up in the kitchen. He none the less stabbed Ellie multiple times using that knife and then sought to pretend that Ellie had done it to herself. It was very much a premeditated crime—there is no question about it—but because he did not bring a knife to the scene, he only got 12 and a half years, rather than the significantly longer sentence he would have got otherwise.
I pay tribute to Ellie’s parents, Matt and Carole Gould, and a group of her school friends, who have been tireless in fighting to change the law in respect of a brutal crime of this kind. I thank the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary for having listened carefully to them. Under clause 101, a 17-year-old who turns 18 during the course of the trial, as happened in this case, will now face a similar penalty to the one they would face if they had been 18 at the time of the crime. Until now, a 17-year-old was treated much the same as a 10-year-old, and of course, they are very different people. A sliding scale will now be introduced, so that a 17-year-old will be pretty much treated as an adult. That would have increased Thomas Griffiths’ sentence to 14 years. We also welcome the ending of the automatic review halfway through the sentence, which, apart from anything else, causes huge stress and trauma to the victim’s family.
However, the Bill does not address the third anomaly, which is that had Griffiths brought the knife to the scene rather than pick it up in the kitchen, his sentence would have more than doubled—he would have got up to 27 years, rather than 12 and a half. Surely a frenzied attack of this kind, whether it is done with the knife that someone brings with them or a knife that they find in the kitchen, deserves the fullest possible sentence in the law.
There is an argument that women who are victims of domestic abuse may carry out a murder in self-defence using a knife at home. Surely the criminal law could find a way of saying that murder in self-defence under those conditions is quite different from a brutal murder such as that of Ellie Gould. The Lord Chancellor has said that he will consider this matter further, probably outside the context of the Bill. None the less, I hope that such a differentiation will be made possible in the near future, because this is a very important matter, and it touches on the tragic case of Sarah Everard.
Nothing can bring Ellie Gould back. Nothing can assuage the grief of her parents. Incidentally, nothing can assuage the grief of Thomas Griffiths’ parents, who are also my constituents; they have lost their son in a very real way too. But strengthening the sentencing regime, as the Bill does, will at least mean some lasting legacy. It is, indeed, Ellie’s law.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
After the next speaker, the time limit will be reduced to three minutes.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I very much agree with what the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) said. The terrible outcome of the police ban on the Clapham common vigil in the wake of the tragic killing of Sarah Everard shows how wrong the Government are to try in this Bill to curb the right to demonstrate, so I hope they will think again about that. The anger of the vigil was about women demanding to be able to walk the streets without fear, and we must listen to those demands and act on them now in the Bill. This demand is not new. Along with women up and down the country, I joined the “Reclaim the Night” protests in the 1970s, but then women’s demands were not listened to by the men in the corridors of power. Now there are women in government, in the Home Office and in the Cabinet. There are women in all parties in Parliament. We are in the corridors of power, so we must use our power to deliver for women.
We all argued it would make a difference if we were here as women in Parliament. Now we had better prove it. We can in this Bill make it a crime to do what men do to women on the street every day and which makes their lives a misery. Kerb crawling is terrifying for a woman or a girl on her own, especially after dark. A man has no right to do it, so let us make it an offence punishable by taking away his driving licence. Following a woman on the street, filming her, trying to get her number and not taking no for an answer are harassment. Why should women and girls have to put up with it? Let us make that a criminal offence. I have tabled two new clauses, which have the backing of Members from all parties, and not just women, but men, too. I hope that the Government will accept them.
Too often when a woman is the victim of a sexual offence, all her previous sexual history is dragged up in court and it ends up as though she is in the dock, not the man. That is not supposed to happen, but it does, so we need to stop it. I have new clauses with cross-party backing to do that, too, which I hope the Government will back. Women do not want us to sympathise; they want action, and that is what we should do.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) [V]
There is much in the Bill that I agree with, and much of that was set out by the Home Secretary in her opening remarks. I particularly agree with increasing the sentences for assaults on emergency workers to two years, which is an amendment I tabled back when the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 was first debated in 2018. It is always good when the Government come round to my way of thinking, so I hope as a result they will look favourably on my amendments when I table them, and we can save some time.
In the time I have, I will go through some of the things I would like to see in the Bill. As was mentioned earlier, I would like to see a specific offence for assaulting shop workers and other frontline workers. I used to work in retail, but it has been absolutely terrible to see the fact that during the pandemic, when shop workers have been going the extra mile to help us all, the number of assaults on them has doubled. We really need to do something about that, and I hope the Government will look favourably upon that proposal.
I am pleased to see some of the provisions for ending automatic early release for prisoners. I certainly support that, but I would like the Bill to go further. I would like to see the end of all automatic early release for prisoners, particularly those still considered to be a danger to the public. I would particularly like to see an end to all automatic release for those people in prison who assault our prison officers. Again, prison officers face a terrible burden in prison, with far too many assaults. If we were to say to prisoners that anybody convicted of assaulting a prison officer would lose their right to automatic release, that may well help those hard-pressed prison officers.
I would like to see the retirement age for magistrates and judges increased to 75. The Justice Secretary has said that he intends to do that, so this Bill seems a very good vehicle for that. I would like to see a sentencing escalator, whereby if people are convicted of the same offence more than once, they have to get a harsher punishment the second time than they had the first time, and a harsher punishment yet again if they commit the same offence a third time. The Government clearly accept the principle of that, because they have done exactly that with the covid fines. I hope they will allow a sentencing escalator for other criminal offences as well.
I would like to see magistrates’ sentencing power increased to 12 months, rather than six months. That needs to be done. I would like to see the word “insulting” removed from section 4 and section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 so that someone cannot be guilty of something if they simply insult people. There are many amendments I would like to see to this Bill that time does not allow me to mention this evening. I could do with a whole day on Report all to myself.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I do not think that is entirely likely to occur.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) [V]
Ask almost anyone involved in the criminal justice system for their priorities, and they will not say, “More new offences, types and lengths of sentences, and further layers of complexity masquerading as action”; they will point to the backlog in the courts, the lack of resources for everything from legal aid to prisons, and the systemic failure at every turn from investigation and charge, to trial and disposal. Some measures in the Bill are helpful, but parts are oppressive and downright dangerous. I refer particularly to parts 3 and 4, which amount to a sustained attack on civil liberties, free expression and movement by an intolerant Government who are increasingly careless of the rule of law.
Given the time restraints, I will set up the case against part 4 of the Bill. Gypsies, Travellers and Roma are the most discriminated against and marginalised ethnic minority in UK society—indeed, the action of Pontins management reminded us of that only days ago. The Bill targets those communities, and it criminalises what has hitherto been the civil offence of trespass on land. It makes the direct threat of imprisonment and heavy fines for matters that were previously resolved through negotiation or in the civil courts. The Bill threatens, not just for the act of trespass but for an intention to trespass, to seize and forfeit any vehicle involved in that trespass, which in the case of nomadic people means losing their home and all their possessions.
Only 3% of Gypsy and Traveller caravans are on unauthorised sites. The police response to the proposals was unequivocal:
“trespass is a civil offence and our view is that it should remain so…no new criminal trespass offence is required.”
No family willingly stops somewhere they are not welcome, and which has no running water, waste disposal or electricity. They do so for the lack of either permanent or transit sites. Only 29 councils in England provide transit sites—a mere 354 places.
Evictions will run for 12 months, and it is not difficult to imagine a concerted campaign to exclude Travellers from whole areas of the country, contrary to the recent judgment in the London Borough of Bromley v. Persons Unknown. The judge in that case concluded that
“the Gypsy and Traveller community have an enshrined freedom not to stay in one place but to move from one place to another.”
Preventing that potentially breaches both equality and human rights law, as the shadow Home Secretary said earlier. The Home Secretary may not care about any of this, but many people do. She would be well advised to drop these racist and draconian proposals from the Bill before it progresses any further.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]
Unlike the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), those of us who represent rural or semi-rural constituencies know only too well the problems caused by unauthorised encampments, and the deeply damaging effects they have on our local communities. The proposed offence refers to those who brazenly travel and set up unauthorised encampments, with total disregard for others. My constituents have often been subject to the disruption and difficulties caused by those in caravans who, without permission, set up on a village green, a playing field or agricultural land. Although I accept that that may not sound particularly troublesome in theory, unfortunately it is the behaviour and activities of those in the caravans that causes disruption, damage, and disquiet in our lovely rural villages and towns.
The Government’s proposals on tackling unauthorised encampments is a big step in the right direction, but of course more should be done. It does not discriminate against the vast majority of law-abiding Gypsy and Traveller communities, and neither should it, but it highlights the big issue of those who set up unauthorised encampments, and allows authorities to deal with that in a more effective manner.
I support the proposal in clause 46 to create the offence of desecration of memorials, and I would like the Government to consider creating a new offence of attacking the parliamentary offices of Members of the House. An attack on an MP’s office is an attack on the House and on the heart of our democracy. I should declare that I am the victim of such a crime. My office was violently attacked less than two months ago in what appears to have been a premeditated attack designed to intimidate my staff and me. Unfortunately, Leicestershire police, led by Chief Constable Simon Cole, have not been able to identify the assailant. This is the second time in less than 21 months that my office has been attacked. If we are to place value on memorials and statues, as we should, by creating this new offence, how much more important is the symbol of this sovereign body in each constituency—namely, the MP’s office bearing the portcullis? These are not inanimate historical objects; they are the living, breathing and supposedly safe workplaces of Members of this House across our country. I ask the Government to confirm that they take seriously these attacks against MPs, their staff and their parliamentary offices—even more seriously than attacks against statues. Accordingly, I invite the Government to consider my reasonable suggestion for a specific offence of attacking an MP, their office or their staff in their constituency.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
In September 2018, my constituent, Jackie Wileman, was tragically killed by four known criminals who joy-rode a stolen heavy goods vehicle around Barnsley for days before hitting and killing Jackie on her daily walk and crashing into a house in the village of Brierley. The four men had 100 convictions between them, and one had already been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. At the trial, one man pleaded guilty and the other three were also convicted, but with plea deductions and time on licence, they all served between five and just over six years. The lenient sentences handed down to them following Jackie’s death led to her brother, Johnny Wood, bravely and tirelessly campaigning to scrap the maximum sentence for those who cause death by dangerous driving, so that no family would have to go through what they have gone through. Having fought alongside Johnny for this change in the law, and having raised the issue in the Chamber many times and having met the Justice Minister, I am in no doubt that Johnny’s powerful testimony has directly contributed to the sentencing Bill we have before us today.
The Bill, while strong on dangerous driving, also had the opportunity to support victims of other crimes. I met virtually with my constituent Claire Hinchcliffe a few weeks ago. She suffered 13 months of abuse at the hands of her ex-husband, who continued to stalk her after the end of their relationship. He was given a 12-month restraining order. The Bill could have strengthened sentences for crimes such as this, but it does not. It does not mention violence against women once. It fails to address this issue, yet it proposes to give the police extra powers and the right to limit peaceful protest.
The history of Barnsley demonstrates the issues with policing protests and public order. For those who lived through the 1984 miners’ strike and experienced abuse at the hands of the police, these new powers will rightly cause alarm. The state already has sweeping powers to police protests; it does not need any more. This is not about protecting the public; it is about getting cheap, easy headlines for a weak Home Secretary. I am pleased to welcome the provisions in the Bill that will finally deliver justice for Jackie, but I am disappointed that I cannot support the Bill in its entirety due to the fact that it threatens our right to peaceful protest and has no provision to protect victims such as Claire and the thousands of other women who are seeking justice.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
In the short time available, I will limit myself slightly. The Opposition’s position is somewhat illogical at the moment. Is the Bill perfect? No, it is by no means perfect. I hope that it will be corrected as it goes through. Will that happen? Certainly. I accept that there are issues around freedom of speech and the right to assemble, and I think that these will be dealt with during the course of the debate. Overall, this is a good Bill, but Labour Members are going to vote against the protection of the police, the prevention, investigation and prosecution of crime, and important measures on sentencing and release, on public order, on encampments—which bother a lot of my constituents—on youth justice, on secure children’s homes and academies, and on the management and rehabilitation of offenders. They will vote against all of that, yet they agree with much of it. That does not make any sense to me.
Tonight I want to draw the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends to something very important that is not in the Bill, and I want to make some progress on this. It is to do with the rising theft of pets, including dogs, much of which now includes violence. This is a really big issue; it is not prosaic by any means.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I agree with my right hon. Friend—it is a big issue for my constituents and I am glad he has brought it up.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
There have been reports of a huge, 250% increase in dog-theft crimes in a number of counties, particularly Suffolk. The Metropolitan police, who cover my area, report the highest number of dog thefts in the country. The number of stolen dogs registered on the DogLost website has increased by more than 170% since lockdown, and 2020 was the worst ever year for the theft of dogs.
We are not talking about some inanimate object; this is an animal, a pet who is part of the family like the other pets. Dogs also do hugely important jobs. Who secures this place by ensuring that we do not have bombs? Dogs. Who checks at customs that people are not importing drugs and other things? Dogs. Dogs are being trained to detect covid now, and they should have been brought into airports years ago.
The reality here is that it is very violent. The big point is that gangs are involved now. The prices of these animals have risen—we are talking about £5,000 or £10,000 for a dog—and the gangs are very violent. I have constituents who have been knocked to the ground and beaten and had their hands stamped on. There have been threats made against them, their home and their families. These are serious offences, yet right now it is almost impossible to get more than a slap on the wrist for this stuff—a fine of £250 or perhaps £500.
Dogs are not even listed in the Home Office classification—they are in among theft from the person, bicycle theft, shoplifting and other theft. Pet theft currently sits hidden from view under HOC49, alongside things that do not have a home, such as a wheelbarrow. This is wrong, it diminishes the crime and it means that many people who are devastated by pet theft, and often brutalised, have no recourse. As I said, even the sentencing side of it is very poor. We need to bring in much tougher sentences and it is important that we have a categorisation that includes dogs and other pets. We also need police to take pet theft seriously. One individual told me that when their dog was stolen, a police officer said, “Did you have anything else of value taken?” as though dogs were not of any value.
Microchips have to be put in by law, yet no vet has to scan to see whether or not a dog is stolen. That should change so we should bring that in. Other ideas include a ban on cash sales, as happened with scrap metal, to cut off such sales, and consideration of the reintroduction of licences for pet ownership.
Pet theft is a serious offence and I would like the Government, during deliberations on the Bill, to introduce changes to help people. Violence and the theft of animals are wrong. We should do something about it, and do it now.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
The Bill is a missed opportunity. I support some measures, such as those on the police covenant, on doubling the sentence for assaulting emergency workers and on toughening sentences for death by dangerous driving, but I have concerns about several others, including the proposed changes to the right to peaceful protest and the measures on unauthorised encampments, which are targeted at Gypsy, Roma and other travelling communities.
The absences in the Bill reveal the Government’s worrying priorities. The lack of the prioritising in the Bill of measures to protect women from violence and support them is a matter of deep regret. That the penalty for defacing a statute has been increased to 10 years—double the minimum tariff for someone convicted of rape—is offensive, and I hope the Government will think again on that. With that in mind, I send my sincere condolences to Sarah Everard’s family and friends—I can only imagine what they will be going through at the moment.
I wish to focus the remainder of my remarks on the absence of any measures in the Bill to repeal the Bail Act 1976, and on its impact on vulnerable women. Under the Act, the courts can remand an adult to prison for their own protection, without that person being convicted or sentenced, and even when a charge cannot result in a prison sentence. Someone’s liberty can be removed without expert evidence or any formal investigation into their circumstances, and even without their having legal representation. It is reprehensible to deprive a vulnerable adult or child of their liberty because of shortcomings in social security support or mental health or other local services. The potential for abuse in the use of such arcane and outdated legislation is clear to see. It is a scandal and surely in breach of human rights legislation.
Following our recent inquiry on this issue, the all-party parliamentary group on women in the penal system, which I co-chair with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), has recommended that the Bail Act be repealed. At a recent APPG meeting, I was struck by the evidence from a prison governor, who said that prison was the worst possible environment for a vulnerable person and would exacerbate their vulnerability. The shocking thing is that the scale of the scandal is not even known; the Government do not even collect data on the number of people detained under this legislation. After meeting the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), and the Howard League a few weeks ago, I had hoped that this would be included in the Bill. Perhaps the Home Secretary could indicate whether the Government will be correcting this omission in Committee.
Finally, I want to express my concerns regarding the Government’s failure once again to undertake any equality impact assessment on the Bill. Given the Lammy review and the evidenced racial disproportionality in the criminal justice system, the Government’s rhetoric about Black Lives Matter rings hollow.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
I strongly support the points about pet theft made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). As Second Church Estates Commissioner, I also strongly welcome the addition of faith leaders alongside sports coaches, both of which have been added to the list of professions in the Bill—that also includes teachers, social workers and doctors—for whom it is illegal to have a sexual relationship with a 16 or 17-year-old in their care. This is in line with the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and it is absolutely right.
I want to spend the rest of my remarks giving voice to the everyday experiences of one of my female constituents in her early 20s. The cumulative impact of these incidents amounts to very serious and wholly unacceptable antisocial behaviour of the very worst kind, which can lead to a severe lack of self-confidence and wellbeing.
Over the last year or so, my constituent has told me that she has endured: being touched inappropriately and called a prostitute by a strange man on her own doorstep; being continually cat-called while walking down the street; being groped without consent in a nightclub; being cat-called in a seriously offensive manner from the street while fully dressed in her own property; being harassed by a group of men in a pub; having her bottom commented on by an older man while filling her car up with petrol; having her figure loudly commented on by three boys while on the underground, with no one else in the carriage asking them to stop; being followed by a much older man in an unwanted manner over coffee after a church service; and having a man lie to her about his singleness, when he was married and asking her to meet under false pretences. If a young woman in today’s society is not free from sexual harassment in her own home, in public, in a pub, in a nightclub, at a petrol station, on public transport or after a church service, where indeed is she safe?
The tragedy is that these experiences are all too common for many younger women, and it is vital that male Members of Parliament call them out. Although there is so much that we properly expect of the law, the police and the courts, they cannot change a whole culture on their own. That is where our common community life, our families, and indeed every single one of us, has a role. It is up to all of us to set a culture to uphold the values of decency, respect and honouring women that should be commonplace. In particular, it is up to all of us—especially men—to challenge the unacceptable behaviour of other men. The behaviour that I described earlier is not manly anyway; it is cowardly, bullying, pathetic and wrong.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I start by offering my deepest condolences to the friends and family of Sarah Everard. May her soul rest in peace.
Parts of Clapham Common fall within my constituency, and having lived in Brixton all my life, I have walked the same streets that Sarah did. My first job was at the Sainsbury’s supermarket on Clapham High Street and my sixth-form college, St Francis Xavier Catholic Sixth Form College, is located at the southern tip of Clapham Common at Clapham South. I have felt afraid, and I do not want my daughter growing up and making the same adjustments that I did—that all women do. In the past few days, I have been contacted by hundreds of women and men—young and old, grandmothers, mothers, sisters, fathers, brothers—who live in Clapham and across my constituency of Vauxhall. Now they no longer feel safe.
Our streets and our public spaces should not be places of fear for women. We need to listen to women’s voices and we must believe what they are telling us. That includes making sure we listen to all women, including the voices of black women and trans women. Far too often, we do not hear the names of black women and minority ethnic women in the news or on social media, but sadly, many of them have been failed by the police and the criminal justice system. So I say the names of Blessing Olusegun, Joy Morgan, Bibaa Henry, Nicole Smallman and many others who have died on our streets. Only then can we start to heal the mistrust and put in place long overdue protections to protect all women. We must and we will reclaim the streets.
The Bill is wide-ranging and it contains a number of important measures that I welcome. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends for their tireless campaigning on dangerous driving, protecting our emergency service workers, reforming the Disclosure and Barring Service scheme, and widening the law to prevent adults from abusing their positions of trust and engaging in sexual relationships with young people under 18. These measures will make us feel safer.
However, the Bill is also a missed opportunity for much-needed reforms. It does not do nearly enough to address the urgent issue of racial disproportionality in our criminal justice system. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime and violence reduction, I am disappointed that the Government have missed an opportunity to focus on prevention by ensuring that the organisations that need the long-term funding to tackle serious violence and build trust with communities that feel they are sometimes viewed as the perpetrators when they are actually victims, are not included. That includes the many girls and young women caught up in violence associated with gang violence.
I want to focus the rest of my remarks on some of the other measures proposed in the Bill. Those who seek to control the expression of the right to protest—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am afraid the hon. Lady has significantly exceeded her time limit. She will have another opportunity at the next stage of the Bill.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
There is much that I welcome in the Bill, in particular that the Government have adopted recommendations made by the independent inquiry on child sexual abuse. I have a direct interest in this because I worked on it before entering Parliament. I think I am right in saying that this is the first time that the inquiry’s recommendations have been brought into law. It is a powerful thing for the survivors to see the nightmares of their past informing the laws of the future, first, by extending the definition of “position of trust”. When we looked at sports coaches and religious leaders, what they shared was status not just in their sphere but in their community. The children they chose tended to be vulnerable in the first place. They built on the bonds of trust with families to establish extended periods with those children, often overnight, and they were willing to engage in extended patterns of grooming to do so. There are other categories of worker to whom that applies and I hope the Government will keep an open mind on that.
It is also a core finding of the inquiry that we are failing to properly protect children against the worst kinds of abuse because offenders can travel abroad and find impoverished and vulnerable children to seriously sexually exploit. So I welcome the extension of the sexual harm prevention orders to limit their ability to travel and to give the Secretary of State the right to list countries. We know and the National Crime Agency knows what countries that takes place in. However, to be effective we must also take action against social media companies, which all too often are allowing very violent sexual exploitation to be streamed across their platforms. The abuse happens abroad, it is consumed in the United Kingdom and, if we do not take the opportunity to address that in the online harms Bill, I do not know if we ever will.
Similarly, on managing terrorist risk offenders, I particularly welcome the new powers given to the Parole Board under clause 108 to restrict the release of those who may have been radicalised in prison. This goes directly to the lone wolf attack in Forbury Gardens, on the doorstep of my constituency, where the assailant had been released just 17 days before and it might have changed the outcome.
I want to close by saying something about violence against women. I cannot accept that this Government are not doing all they can to protect women in this Bill, but particularly in the context of the Domestic Abuse Bill. It is so rare to have two new sexual offences identified in one piece of legislation, together with the new offence of coercive control.
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend speaks very eloquently about sexual violence against women and we would like to hear more from her.
Laura Farris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
In the last week, a new conversation has crystallised about the safety and dignity of women and their ability to move around in public, and attention must be paid to their voices. I do not think the Bill is the place to rush through new measures or to bolt on new provisions, but I think the Government have an opportunity to begin an important conversation through their VAWG strategy, and I think there is a place for focused legislation on the issue at the end of the year.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
Saturday night saw a peaceful vigil highlighting violence against women ending in scenes of women being forcibly restricted by men. It should have been a moment for women collectively to grieve the tragic loss of a life and publicly express their solidarity, but instead of a moment for reflection on the daily injustices faced by women, this weekend was a powerful reminder of the importance of our civil liberties and the right to protest.
Elements of the Bill are good. The Liberal Democrats support trauma-informed services and strengthening rehabilitation with the aim of reducing reoffending. We also support the police covenant, a measure that helps our police to be a better workforce. The Bill could be made even better by explicitly making misogyny a hate crime. We need to recognise the root causes of violence against women. In the same way that we recognise racial or religious discrimination and homophobia, we can recognise that hatred of women causes harm.
All that important debate is undermined by the part of the Bill on the policing of protests, which is an assault on our civil liberties and our democracy. The Government say they want to clamp down on the most destructive protests, but let us be clear that they aim quite literally to silence protest. The measure is a thinly veiled reaction to the climate protests that have taken place over the past couple of years around Parliament and in cities and towns across the country. The climate emergency has evoked strong feelings, particularly among young people, and it would be quite wrong to curtail their voices.
The whole purpose of demonstrations is to have one’s voice heard, to make an argument, to get the attention of those who make the law and to encourage change. Peaceful protest is at the heart of a liberal democracy. We have taken democracy for granted for a long time. Each generation has to fight for its freedoms. Each generation faces different challenges, but the diverse voices from all sections of our society should never be stifled or suppressed.
Liberalism exists to protect our freedoms, our democracy and our right to protest. If the Government were really serious about protecting women from violence, they would never attempt to silence their protests. That part of the Bill must go.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I want to concentrate on the provisions of part 4 of the Bill, which deal with the long-standing problem of unauthorised encampments. Part 4 effectively upgrades acts of deliberate trespass from a civil to a criminal offence. The campaign of those of us who have argued for that change for a number of years now was based on a similar change in the law in the Republic of Ireland several years ago; hence it has often been referred to succinctly as the Irish option. The move has become necessary because of persistent illegal incursions by some individuals, including some members of the travelling community, that have become an increasing problem in many parts of the country, including my home county of Essex, in recent years.
For the record, many Travellers are perfectly law-abiding and have good relations with the settled community. Unfortunately, however, some others are not, and there have been repeated examples of antisocial behaviour and even criminal damage resulting from illegal encampments in recent years in places as varied as village greens, sports grounds and industrial estates. As a civil offence, it has often necessitated local authorities having to go to court, at public expense, to have such incursions moved on, as well as sometimes being involved in the further expense of clean-up operations once illegal sites have been vacated.
Under this Bill, which I am proud to say fulfils a 2019 Conservative manifesto commitment, police officers will be given powers to challenge illegal encampments of one vehicle or more. If people wilfully refuse to move on, they can be arrested with a maximum sentence of three months’ imprisonment or a fine of up to £2,500, or both. Crucially, offenders can also have their property, including their vehicle or vehicles, impounded by the police.
I can assure the House that this important change in the law has proved very popular with my constituents, and I have received many messages of support since it was confirmed last week. In addition, it has also proved popular with the Essex farming community. The county adviser of the National Farmers Union, Dr Jake Richards, sent me this brief message:
“Dear Mr Francois, I am writing to thank you on behalf of the NFU and the farmers in your constituency for your support and for the Commitment from fellow Essex MP, Rt Hon Priti Patel, on Monday when she announced that changes to the law were being brought forward as part of a new major criminal justice bill to be introduced to Parliament imminently. The changes proposed will be most welcome by our Members.”
Our industrious Essex police, fire and crime commissioner, Mr Roger Hirst, also warmly welcomed adding these powers to the statute book.
In summary, I hope and believe that these tough new powers will act as a genuine deterrent to illegal encampments in future and should thus lead to improved relations between the travelling and settled communities. I congratulate Ministers, and the Home Secretary in particular, on having the courage to introduce them and, in so doing, fulfilling part of the manifesto on which we were elected in the first place.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I am particularly pleased to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), because I intend to address virtually the same subject. Poole is a beautiful place. We attract people, and, unfortunately, we attract people with unauthorised encampments. Last summer, in Poole Park, the cricket pitch was camped on. There was Whitecliff, Sandbanks car park—there are many areas in Poole that face unauthorised encampments, which take away well-used local resources from children and grandchildren, and my constituents.
Part 4 of the Bill was in the 2019 manifesto. I am particularly pleased that the Government have grasped this issue and brought forward this legislation. My constituents could never understand how they had to have licences, obey the law and pay their council tax, but if they stepped on any area that was illegal, they would get arrested by the police, when there are people—
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Does my hon. Friend not agree that this is the age-old clash between rights and responsibilities? In this case, they have responsibilities but they see others who simply claim they have rights.
Sir Robert Syms
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. What used to happen until recently was that people would turn up, and others would phone the local council, which would say that it could not do much about it. They would then phone the local police, who would say that they could not do much about it—indeed, there have been occasions when the local police have watched people go and set up unauthorised encampments—and then they would phone the Member of Parliament and let him know what they think about him, saying that the Government must do something. It is true that the local authority and the police have had more powers than they have been willing to use, but this is in the “too difficult to deal with” box, so people have just kept their heads down and hoped that, after a week or two, people would move on.
However, this does increase real costs to local authorities, which, apart from cleaning up sites, sometimes have to put special measures in to try to protect sites. Year after year, this costs council tax payers quite a lot of money, so I am very pleased that the Government have put these powers in the Bill. I hope that they survive their passage through the House. They will make a material difference to the quality of life of many of my constituents.
There are issues to do with Travellers that we need to address apart from unauthorised encampments. One of those is the poor educational qualifications that many of their children have—the Government need to pay attention to that to see what more we can do—and another is the health standards of many of these people, who do not access hospitals as easily as the rest of us.
Overall, what the Government are doing is very sensible. This is the sort of Bill that a confident right-of-centre Government should bring in to deal with law and order— not only with Travellers but with many other areas. Personally, I am becoming a great fan of the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor, who instead of talking a good game are actually producing things in legislation that will make a great difference to people’s lives.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
I welcome parts of this Bill, but there are glaring omissions, especially around violence against women and children. In Rotherham, and across the country, all too often victims and survivors of crime, especially sexual violence, lack confidence in the system, and this Bill was the opportunity to change that. There are far too many instances where sentencing is too lenient, or indeed where predatory or violent behaviours are not even criminalised.
I am relieved that the Government are finally reintroducing pre-charge bail conditions. Removing them in 2017 led to survivors living in fear of reprisals from their abusers. I also very much welcome the fact that the Government are finally bringing forward the “positions of trust” provisions that make it illegal for faith leaders and sports coaches to have sex with 16 and 17-year-olds in their care. However, the Government need to extend this law to cover the likes of driving instructors, youth workers, police officers and private tutors.
I am pleased about the progress on extending the offence of arranging or facilitating the commission of a child sex offence to include the rape and abuse of a child, and on stronger sentences for commensurate harm. However, the Bill must be strengthened to address online sexual exploitation. Aggravating factors must be included, as has been done in Australia, when it comes to sentencing. The Bill should be amended to state that approaching a person with regard to child sexual offences also specifically includes doing so online or via other telecommunications.
The provisions on the establishment of a list of countries considered to be at high risk of child sexual exploitation or abuse by UK nationals need to include countries that are at risk from UK citizens who commit abhorrent crimes online. Too often, I hear of UK nationals remotely directing abuse of, often, Filipino children from their own homes. Currently, there is a loophole in the law whereby a registered sex offender can change their name through deed poll and then go under the radar of the authorities. Alarmingly, I recently uncovered the fact that over 16,000 sex offenders breached their notification requirements in the past five years, which means that they disappeared from the system set up to monitor them.
Finally, I am astounded that while the Bill makes several changes to procedures in courts and tribunals, the Government have not used it as an opportunity to further improve support for victims and witnesses of sexual abuse.
Tragic events of the past week have shown just how important this Bill is. For too long, abuse, and particularly violence against women and girls, has gone on unchecked and survivors have been left to deal with a system that is not only not working but often making their situation worse. Crimes against women often specifically occur because they are women. These crimes are not gender neutral, so the law should not be either. We must consider a definition in terms of making misogyny a hate crime.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The appalling events of recent days have caused great anger and anxiety. My inbox has many emails calling for curfews on men and many others calling for greater understanding that not all men are perpetrators. At such a difficult time, we must find the right balance between personal freedom and state intervention, but also recognise how vital it is that we teach our boys and our girls the profound importance of mutual respect.
In speaking in this Second Reading debate, I want to focus on a measure in the Bill that I think everyone can get behind—giving the police new powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. For my constituents, that cannot come soon enough. In late 2019, a plot of floodplain near Northampton was sold privately, and then, in the middle of 2020, it was auctioned off to potential developers. The sales were under false pretences because planning consent would never be granted on a floodplain. Then in August 2020, as local residents had feared, a large number of vehicles entered the site and set up an unauthorised encampment. From August to October, the local community was witness to huge piles of commercial waste entering the site and being dumped on the floodplain and in the River Nene, and multiple vehicles with no tax or MOT, some with false plates, entering and leaving the site. There were regular bonfires with acrid black smoke, and visible payment being taken for third parties entering the site to dispose of builders’ waste.
Local residents suffered verbal and racial abuse and antisocial behaviour, including rocks being thrown at passing cars, air rifles being shot, quad bikes being ridden at all hours and dogs running loose around the streets. Residents endured months of real fear and did everything they could to provide evidence to their parish and borough council and the local police. Finally, in October last year, the combined efforts of Northants police and the borough council got the Travellers off the land.
A political philosophy that has always chimed with me is that of John Stuart Mill. In setting out to describe the parameters of individual freedom, he said that we should all be free to do exactly as we like, provided that we are not impeding someone else’s freedom to do exactly as they like. That is a difficult balance to achieve in real life, but where the rights of communities versus the rights of Travellers are concerned, there can be no doubt that facilitating a Traveller’s way of life must not necessitate the misery and fear that was caused for my constituents. Many will be heartily delighted with this new measure, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for listening to the huge majority across the country who want to see greater protections from unauthorised encampments.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
This is a Trojan horse Bill, and the Home Secretary is Sinon at the gates of Troy saying, “I’m the only one left! Please let me in with this fantastic Bill that’s going to do all the things that you Opposition Back Benchers have been asking me to do.” Well, we see that hidden in the Bill, there are some nasty and pernicious laws. Many of the good things in the Bill could be achieved by either amending or bringing forward separate Bills, such as the Death by Dangerous Driving (Sentencing) Bill, promoted by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May).
Instead, the Government have put forward a Bill that is so big, so expansive and so diverse that it covers two Departments, so that they can squeeze the good things in as well as those that deny the rights of people. If we allowed this to stand, every Government would do it, would they not? They would put pernicious rules into what, in public speaking, we call a “something sandwich”, where you put the bad in the middle and sandwich it with the good. That is what the Bill is. I will come on to what the particularly bad things are, but there are also great missed opportunities. I sat on the upskirting Bill Committee. We pushed amendments, and the Government accepted that they would explore bringing forward misogyny as a hate crime. Where is that in this Bill? That could have been included, and it is so disappointing that it is not. There are clearly missed opportunities.
Part 3 of the Bill is particularly problematic, and notably the use of the phrase “serious unease”. To tell the truth, I find myself feeling serious unease when certain Government Members speak and I disagree with them, but in a democracy, I can feel unease, disagree and even think that they are saying things that are offensive, but they are not criminalised. During the Brexit debates, in the main, the protests outside this place by UKIP and Brexit party supporters and by the remainers were eccentric and annoying to many of us at the time, but to me, it summarised the beauty of British democracy when those peaceful protesters, sometimes of opposing forces, were ringing bells and shouting into horns. Now there is the idea that the police could say, “You’ve gone a decibel over—you’re a criminal.” Many of the people on protests will not even know that the police have laid orders down, because it will not be widely known, so we will be criminalising people without them even knowing it.
I have not even got on to some of the really pernicious measures in the Bill, such as those on Traveller communities. If we had decent move-on sites and decent support from local authorities and made sure that we worked with the community, we could resolve the problems. Surrey has no move-on sites whatsoever—no wonder there are problems in that county. Those are the things we need to deal with rather than criminalising. The idea that someone in a layby over one night could be considered a criminal—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I was so carried away with the hon. Gentleman’s rhetoric that I did not notice he had exceeded his three minutes. I apologise to everybody else.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I welcome the Bill, which seeks to inject fairness into the criminal justice system and rights many wrongs currently in existence. The protection that clause 46 gives to war memorials and wreaths laid on them is admirable, and I am glad that the provision is being introduced. To desecrate a memorial is a particularly low thing to do and the law should reflect that.
May I also welcome the changes to sentencing powers to allow for life imprisonment for death by dangerous driving? In too many cases, the courts have been unable to deal with these matters effectively and consequently they have given inadequate sentences for even the worst incidents. That will stop, and we will all be safer as a consequence. I have to say, it would have helped if the Crown Prosecution Service had been more minded to lay manslaughter charges in many such instances. It seems to be only on the road that an offence can happen in which someone carries out a deliberate action that creates an obvious risk that is against the law, and yet the CPS is reluctant to lay manslaughter charges. That will change because of these proposals, which I welcome with open arms.
The serious violence reduction orders to be brought in by the Bill are truly groundbreaking. Knife crime is an evil that destroys lives and terrifies communities, but the Bill gives the police powers to make a difference. However, we do not want knives simply to be replaced as the weapon of choice by acid, so I ask the Minister to consider including the possession of noxious liquids in the provisions. That would build on the massive improvements that both the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office have achieved in reducing the number of such attacks.
Finally, we need to counter the serious misinformation that has been spread about proposals in the Bill to place conditions on demonstrations. The proposed extra powers are not a ban on protests—far from it. There must always be a right to protest, but there must always be rights for those going about their business, too. The Bill seeks to balance those competing rights. It will allow protests, vigils, demonstrations and marches, but not the blocking of bridges or stopping traffic and bringing cities to a standstill. Protests, yes; causing serious disruption to others, no. The Labour party’s voting against the Bill is totally wrong. The message needs to go out loud and clear that Labour Members are voting against provisions to extend sentences for death by dangerous driving, child killers, and serious violence and knife crime. They should vote for the Bill.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The last few weeks have been incredibly difficult for women across the country. Sarah Everard’s death is utterly tragic. My thoughts are with her family and friends, as well as with all those who have lost a loved one to male violence.
It is clear to me that Saturday evening in Clapham was supposed to be a peaceful vigil, not a protest. I have spent the last few weeks speaking to women overwhelmed by their feelings of grief and anger. I have spoken to those who feel a little less safe on our streets, those who worry about the world in which their daughters will grow up, and those for whom recent events have brought back their own experiences of trauma, harassment and violence. Campaigns such as the #MeToo movement have ensured that conversations on abuse and violence are finally reaching the mainstream discourse, yet women are not under any illusions. We have spoken out against male violence in all its forms for decades, and I am frustrated and appalled that only now are we being listened to. What is in the Bill for us? How does it protect us? How does it address the scandalous prosecution rates for rape and sexual assault? How does it make women safer on the streets? The simple answer is: it does nothing. Increasing sentences for serious crimes is important, but there is little point if criminals never get to court to be sentenced, as is the case in 99% of rapes. Instead of prioritising victims, the Bill curbs our rights. It makes it harder for us to protest when the Government get things wrong and put the protection of statues above the protection of women.
While I welcome the measures in clause 45 that will extend the existing positions of trust offences, some alarming gaps remain. I am hugely concerned that those provisions will not be applicable in all the circumstances in which they have the power to make a difference. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on wrestling, I am hugely disturbed that the provisions set out in clause 45 will not protect those in the wrestling industry. Colleagues may not be aware that wrestling was devastated by the #SpeakingOut movement, which documented horrific tales throughout the industry, including threats of rape and sexual abuse. Some of the victims facing abhorrent abuse have been children as young as 13.
I am sure that the Minister agrees that we do not want perpetrators of sexual offences to fall through a loophole in this legislation, yet because professional wrestling is not classed as a sport and as such does not have a governing body, it is at risk of doing just that. I urge the Minister to commit to meeting me and my colleagues in the APPG on wrestling to talk about the potential avenues to include appropriate protections for young wrestlers in this Bill.
Actions speak louder than words. To quote a heroine of mine, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on what would have been her 88th birthday:
“Real change, enduring change, happens one step at a time.”
The Government need to recognise that we need to take that step, and that we are at a crossroads with a real opportunity to change the lived reality for women and girls in this country. I plead with the Minister to work with the Labour party to ensure that women and girls are safer on our streets and in their homes, to work with us to ensure that the right to protest is not reduced and that voices across the country are not silenced—to work with us to finally do the right thing.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) [V]
Now then, no one should feel unsafe in our country, and this Bill will be of great comfort to law-abiding British people who want to see greater powers for our police and tougher sentences for child murderers, sex offenders, killer drivers and anyone else who thinks they are above the law. If you cannot live by the rules of our society, then you should live in a place that has a different set of rules, and that place is prison. The good news is that we are recruiting 10,000 extra prison officers and 20,000 new police officers, and we are building more prisons.
Post covid, people want to return to safe streets and safer neighbourhoods. This Bill does that. This Bill ensures that the victims of crime are put first. I find it strange that Labour is talking about tougher sentences for crimes against women, yet in December it tried to stop us deporting foreign rapists. One Labour MP said we should not deport those criminals in December as it was too close to Christmas. I disagree; I thought it was a great Christmas present.
Labour says that this Bill will remove the right to protest. Rubbish. This Bill will protect peaceful protests from being hijacked by trouble-causing agitators. Labour’s idea of peaceful protests are the ones we saw in Whitehall last year, where police were attacked, our flag was burned and memorials were damaged, while its own MPs looked on and said nothing. That was disgraceful.
We have a Home Secretary who is brave enough to tackle the issue of illegal camps. Those camps have made the lives of Ashfield residents a misery. When they are set up, crime rises, locals feel intimidated and the council is left with a massive clean-up bill. This Bill puts a stop to that nonsense. Police in Ashfield are doing a great job, but I know they are frustrated by short sentences and weak bail conditions. This Bill will give our police extra powers and the extra confidence they need.
I am confused that the shadow Home Secretary said tonight that he agrees with lots of things in the Bill, yet he will vote against it, proving once again that Labour is on the side of the criminals. Before lockdown, residents would often see me sat in the front of a police car going out on patrol and supporting our police, which is in sharp contrast to some Labour politicians, who have been seen in the back of police cars on the way to the station. It comes as no surprise to me that Labour will not support this Bill, after reading this week that there are 14 leading Labour politicians who have been arrested, imprisoned or under investigation in the past six months. There is no wonder we need more prisons.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
We will try to get back to some sense of reality after the nonsense we have just heard.
This is a really important and wide-ranging Bill, and there are many aspects that I and my colleagues welcome. I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for their success in securing the “protect the protectors” aspects of this Bill; my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) for securing reform of the Disclosure and Barring Service; and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) for her work that has led to the dangerous driving reforms. All those things and more deserve support. It is a testament to the Home Secretary’s insatiable desire for conflict that a Bill that contains so many measures campaigned for and fought for by Labour MPs should still be impossible to support.
What a missed opportunity this Bill is. There is nothing that will make a significant difference on the issue of violence against women and nothing on victim support, despite what we have just heard from the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) about the Tories being a party that supports victims. Indeed, it considers protecting statues a greater priority than protecting rape victims. The events of this weekend have brought into sharp relief where a civilised society must allow protest and support our police to keep our streets safe from criminals, not instruct them to arrest peaceful and grieving women.
We can easily see why this division is a political strategy of Conservative Members. Listening to speeches like that of the hon. Gentleman, it is very clear that they want to introduce elements that we will all agree with, and then introduce one or two elements that we cannot possibly agree with in order to say that we are preventing the good parts of this Bill. It is absolute cheap politics, and it is the politics of division. This is a Government who have frozen police pay, cut police numbers, and let criminals off the hook due to backlogs in the courts and overcrowding in our prisons. There can be no doubt but that they are no friends of the police.
Before I finish, I want to take a moment on someone who is a friend of the police—the police and crime commissioner for Derbyshire, Hardyal Dhindsa. I was extremely proud that my county, Derbyshire, where less than 5% of residents are BAME, was the first area to elect a BAME police and crime commissioner. Five years on, we are even prouder. Hardyal promised he would set up a programme in every village and town in the county. Not only has he done that, but he has met residents right across our county, while fiercely fighting the corner of our dedicated police both in Government and in the media. He has never forgotten who he is there to represent, and if the police get it wrong, as they did when Derbyshire police published pictures of dog walkers in the Peak or fined people walking five miles from home, he has been quick to be the voice of the people, not hidden away from a difficult situation. I hope he gets people’s support on 6 May.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) [V]
This is a substantial and impressive Bill. Many of the policies in it predate the 2019 general election and some featured in the September 2020 White Paper, so they are certainly not measures that are being rushed through. It is difficult, in the space of three minutes, to do justice to the 296 pages, 176 clauses and 20 schedules, so let me just name check a few of the parts I particularly support.
I support putting the police covenant into law at last and the increase in penalties for assaults on emergency workers. It is incredible that we are having to contemplate that. I support the allowance for police officers faced with dangerous high-speed car chases in pursuit of dangerous criminals who are done themselves for dangerous driving; they are just doing their job. I am pleased we are toughening provisions on criminal damage to memorials, especially military memorials. I support tougher penalties for causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate driving and tougher sentencing of child murderers. I support scrapping the early release of terrorist offenders, innovation in probation with the use of curfews and community sentencing, and clamping down on sex tourism.
There are lots of sensible, practical and much-awaited measures in this Bill that the vast majority of our law-abiding constituents will certainly welcome, but of course Labour is voting against all of these tonight. It has not even bothered to table a reasoned amendment to let the Bill proceed and then scrutinise it in Committee. Apparently, it is just a blanket vote against the whole of the Bill and all the measures in it. Labour Members may try to claim that they have objections to the new public demonstration conditions proposed for preventing serious disruption to the life of the community or recklessly causing public nuisance, and they may claim that in some way it suppresses free speech, but if they really do have such concerns, they should support the Bill and argue for improvements in Committee. However, people gluing themselves to tubes to disrupt the whole London underground system, clambering on to planes to shut down airports, preventing an ambulance reaching an emergency department through protesters, preventing the distribution of a free press, or assaulting police officers to get to, violate and vandalise war memorials does nothing to further free speech, free association or any democratic process. Ordinary law-abiding people should not have to put up with it, and there are many thresholds and conditions in this Bill.
I specifically welcome measures to extend the definitions in relation to those who abuse positions of trust by engaging in sexual activity with minors. The Bill specifically references sports coaches and faith leaders. However, private tutors, including music teachers, are exempt from many of the safeguarding checks that we rightly expect of mainstream employed teachers. Can we consider including them, as I tried to do many years ago as Children’s Minister?
I warmly welcome the measures to criminalise trespass when it results in unauthorised encampments, causing damage in order to access private and community property, trashes the cricket pitch or village green when it happens, and prevents local people using the amenities that they pay for. To add insult to injury, these unauthorised encampments eventually leave the site scarred with fly-tipping, everything from building waste to human waste, and then they come back and repeat it all over again in a few years’ time. It is not acceptable. This Bill will clamp down on it at last, and I support it.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this incredible important and timely debate.
Those of us who continuously rejected the recent Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill did so partly because of the impact that it would have on the freedom to protest. That freedom is being challenged yet again today, through the authoritarian measures proposed in this Bill.
This weekend, people across the country watched in horror the visual evidence of the disgraceful police action towards peaceful attendees of a vigil to mourn the murder of Sarah Everard and to express a collective anger and despair that so many women still suffer violence at the hands of men as part of their everyday life. Despite the Government’s attempt to conjure up smoke and mirrors earlier today, a spot of damage control if you like, this incident exactly demonstrates that there are still serious questions about the powers that our police forces have, the way that these powers are executed, towards whom they are targeted, how they are scrutinised, and how those with such powers are held to account.
The Government regularly express their concern about human rights in other countries. If enacted, however, the Bill before the House today would
“expose already marginalised communities to profiling and disproportionate police powers through the expansion of stop and search, and Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities may face increased police enforcement through the criminalisation of trespass.”
Those are not my words, but the words of the director of the well-respected human rights organisation, Liberty.
Protests are often a space for the most marginalised to make their voices heard. In the past year, we have seen that in the Black Lives Matter protests and we have seen it over this past weekend. Just as police rode into protesters on horses last year, so, too, did they violently grab women on Saturday night.
Freedom of speech intrinsically linked to the freedom of protest should be enshrined in our legislation so that it is available to all. The Bill, however, would give the Government even more power to decide whether a protest should be allowed to go ahead. Given that our current Home Secretary refers to anti-racist Black Lives Matter protesters as “thugs”, it is no wonder that people up and down the country are alarmed. The crux of the matter goes beyond that. The right to protest must be protected or else we find ourselves on an extremely worrying path, with a totalitarian Government able to silence whoever they choose.
Despite the rhetoric, all evidence indicates that this Bill is unlikely even to cut crime and to make those whom it intends to protect safer. Successive Governments have brought in longer sentences and created even more prison places, and that has not reduced crime or slowed the rate of offending.
The impact of this Bill will be felt by marginalised communities more than any other. It will be felt by women, unable to protest at the everyday violence they face. It will be felt by ethnic minority communities, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, trade unions, anti-racist campaigners and climate emergency campaigners—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am afraid we must leave it there.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
I welcome the Bill and the extensive improvements that it will make to the justice and policing systems. I will mention just a few of the many new provisions that have been the subject of much correspondence to me as the Member of Parliament for Derbyshire Dales.
I am pleased that the Government have been prepared to deliver on their manifesto commitments as opposed to changing them as they go along, as those on the Opposition Benches often do. This is what the majority of my constituents voted for. I was pleased to hear from a fellow MP for Derbyshire, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins). I am disappointed that he will not be supporting the Bill, because I fear that he may well be out of tune with his constituents.
Over decades, the people of Derbyshire Dales have been plagued by illegal encampments. The disruption and damage caused by these illegal encampments have hugely distressed my constituents who have often taken months to resolve these issues only for them literally to appear again up the road. There have been substantial issues in Ashbourne, Matlock and Bakewell, which have caused huge upset, mess, and expense to Derbyshire Dales District Council and its good residents.
The Bill criminalises trespass and strengthens police powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. Under the new legislation, the police will have the power to seize vehicles, at last and to arrest or fine trespassers who intend to reside on public and private land without permission, while ensuring that they are not able to return for at least 12 months. The new criminal offence is much to be welcomed—up to three months in prison or £2,500. That is what my constituents, and people across most of the country, have been demanding.
I support the provisions to double the maximum sentence for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months to two years. It is ironic that Labour Members wish to increase sentences for offences such as rape, but are intent on voting against those provisions. It makes no sense whatsoever. I fully support the extension of the law on positions of trust. As a mother of four young men who were once young teenagers, I am reassured that the Government are at last prepared to do something regarding sports coaches and religious leaders, and ensure that our children are safe. It is a landmark step forward and I am grateful for it.
On war memorials, I felt sick to the pit of my stomach to see Churchill’s statue jeered at and sprayed with cans of paint, and I take my hat off to my hon. Friends, some of whom are in the Chamber, who cleared it up. I am surprised that Labour Members will oppose some of these common-sense measures, and it is a testament to just how out of touch they are, and how difficult it will be for them to win the trust of voters. Conservative Members will fulfil our promises, and ensure that the manifesto pledges are kept.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I confess that I feel saddened and ashamed nearly every year when we come to International Women’s Day, because we have to listen, again, to a litany of the number of women who have been killed by their partner, nearly always in cases of domestic abuse, and sometimes with their child. That has been my experience as an MP in the Rhondda, as nearly all the murders that have happened in my patch over 20 years have been of that exact same situation. What makes me ashamed is that the situation does not seem to improve year on year.
Perhaps three or four times in my life have I worried for my safety on my way home, and last week I felt ashamed to know so many female friends and constituents who say that that is their experience every time they go home. The Rhondda is remarkably safe. We have a very low level of crime. It is a safe place, yet a poll—not a scientific poll but one done by a local firm—showed that 84% of women in the Rhondda felt that they had been sexually harassed or been in danger on their way home. We must do a lot more, and we men must walk in women’s shoes—if you don’t mind the pun—a few more times. If that is uncomfortable, all the better. We need to learn the discomfort that many women go through.
I am delighted that the Bill changes the legislation on emergency workers, which I introduced as a private Member’s Bill. We had to fight tooth and nail against the Conservative Government of the day to get it in place, but
“more joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth”—
and all the rest, and I am delighted that the sinner repenteth and is now sitting on the Front Bench. Of course it is right to have tough laws against an assault on emergency workers, because an assault on an emergency worker is an attack on us all. However, we cannot just change the law; we have to ensure that the police implement that law, that the Crown Prosecution Service pursues it, and that magistrates feel it is important. I am afraid the Government have done nothing on that front since 2018.
Section 25 is about religion and sport and people in a position of trust, and of course we must deal with that. From my experience, I think we must also consider those who coach people in the arts. My worry is about personal freedom, because this is a woolly jumper that snags easily, and once snagged can readily unravel. We must be very careful about the noise provision. I have been on miners’ marches where we sang so loudly that the walls rocked. I have often been on Pride marches, when I wondered who on earth gave a gay man a whistle in the first place. Noise is part of a protest and part of our freedom.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I was discussing the Bill with a constituent over the weekend, when, bizarrely, she asked me whether I would be disloyal to my party. Loyalty is clearly an underrated concept, but this is much less about party loyalty and much more about doing the right thing. Those who claim that this Bill is anti-conservative, anti-libertarian, anti-democracy or even that it seeks to ban peaceful protest are wrong; it is actually about the silent majority, promises made in our manifesto, law and order, and the need to take this country to where it needs to be. I will be voting it through.
To me, this is one of the most pro-law and order Bills passed in recent decades. It gives police authorities much more confidence in the job that they have been trusted to do. It enshrines the police covenant into law, increases the maximum penalty from 12 months to two years in prison for assaults or battery against emergency workers, ensures that criminal courts have sufficient sentencing powers and, as we have heard, strengthens police powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. It also strengthens the management of sex offenders, and of terrorist risk offenders on licence.
I want to focus briefly on one particular aspect of the Bill—namely, the desecration of war memorials. Alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who is my very good friend, I was one of the signatories to the Desecration of War Memorials Bill, which will now been subsumed into law. I thank the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), and many others for all their support.
Every single war memorial, irrespective of nation, faith or location, serves as a visual reminder of the horrors of war and the appalling conditions that people face when fighting for their country. These names are not just an inscription on stone, but actual human beings who lived, loved and were loved. These heroes had friends and families, and were in the prime of their life when they were taken, so each memorial bears testimony to lives cut short, the anguish suffered by families, the potential that was never fulfilled, the children that were never born and the guilt suffered by those who did come home. That is why we must ensure that all war memorials are sufficiently protected in law, and that those who seek to damage them through wilful ignorance or stupidity are brought to justice. This Bill is excellent, and I will not hesitate to vote it through the House.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Government published this blockbuster omnibus Bill last week and rushed it through to the Commons, hoping to swell a law and order narrative ahead of the local elections to distract from the Government’s widespread failings. Along with many sensible and necessary changes to the law that Labour MPs have called for—on child protection, dangerous driving, protecting frontline workers and supporting deaf people to act as jurors—the Bill acts as a Trojan horse to push through divisive culture war issues, including specific offences on damaging statues and cracking down on the public’s right to protest.
Ministers somehow did not foresee that law and order means more than the elements that they have chosen for this Bill. It means keeping women safe. It means supporting women who have suffered violence or sexual violence to come forward, prosecuting the offenders and achieving convictions. It means ensuring that the police and others in authority are held accountable to the public needs, and, yes, it means that the rights to protest, and to express grief and anger, are protected. Is it not a remarkably sad irony that this Bill claims to protect memorials, but could be used to criminalise vigils?
Of course, Ministers should have been able to foresee that violence against women could return to the top of the public’s priorities. Sarah Everard’s tragic death has resonated so viscerally with women not because it was unique, but because, sadly, it was all too typical; she could have been any of us. Last week in the International Women’s Day debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) read out the list of 118 women and girls, aside from Sarah, who were killed by men in the past year—one every three days. The real question is how women’s safety ever dropped from the top of the agenda, and yet this Bill never once mentions women.
According to recent figures, 97% of women aged 18 to 24 have experienced sexual harassment, yet the Bill does nothing to address that scourge. Even fly-tipping could get a longer sentence than stalking. As others have pointed out—irrefutably, at a time when less than 3% of rapes even reported to the police lead to charges, let alone convictions—rape has effectively been decriminalised. Last year, rape prosecutions fell to the lowest level on record. Even when a conviction is achieved, sentences can be as short as five years—half of what the Government think is appropriate for despoiling a statue. Addressing this horrifying situation in line with the demands made today by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) should surely be the centrepiece of legislation that is called the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, but the measures she has called for are not even a consideration. I cannot support a Bill that puts protecting monuments ahead of protecting women. Women need concrete action from this Government, not action on concrete.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
This Bill delivers on the manifesto commitments on which the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke elected me. I am particularly pleased that the Government have adopted proposals from the private Member’s Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and I worked on together, to ensure that in every town, village or city across our United Kingdom, thugs who desecrate war memorials will feel the full force of the law. Judges will now be able to consider more than just the monetary value of damage to these sacred memorials to our glorious dead when they pass a sentence—which may be a maximum of 10 years, but that will not be the case in every instance, as some Opposition Members are trying to make out.
I want personally to thank the Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor for our meetings and close work on this aspect of the legislation. I am troubled to see some Labour Members deriding and demeaning this important work. That conflicts directly with the advice given to the Labour party from a leaked sensitive internal strategy document, which said that Labour Members should make “use” of the Union flag and veterans. The fact that the Labour party want to make use of such things, rather than being proud enough to believe and willing to fight for them, is embarrassing.
I have been fortunate to see the incredible work undertaken by Staffordshire police locally, whether that is by meeting PC Karl Mander and his police dog Audi, who was stabbed in service, leading to the first conviction under Finn’s law, or walking the beat with PCSO Matthew Hough-Clewes last week in a local anti-social behaviour hotspot. This legislation is important in giving our police and our courts the powers and guidance they need to keep us safe, so I am left baffled by Labour’s position.
Desperately scrambling for a reason to vote against, Labour Members claim the new law will silence lawful protests. This is simply not the case. In fact, the Bill simply clarifies the existing common law offence of public nuisance. As a constituent who emailed me today said,
“if you are not breaking the law you have nothing to worry about.”
However, if someone wants to block roads and stop ambulances getting sick people into hospital, or glue themselves to a train so people miss a day’s work, the police will now be able to take action, preventing eye-watering costs like the £37 million that Extinction Rebellion’s 2019 protests cost the UK taxpayer.
To sum up, when I vote for this Bill, I will be voting for tougher sentences for child murderers and sex offenders, life sentences for killer drivers, ending the automatic early release of the most dangerous criminals, greater protections for our emergency service workers and delivering Kay’s law, which will help to protect women from their abusers. Those are the sorts of things that people in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke expect to get done, and I will proudly do so.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
I have looked at what this rushed and punitive Bill will do for Wales, and I have found it wanting. It will infringe our right to protest, worsen inequality and lead to a yet more unjust society. This Government are not interested in seriously tackling the underlying causes of crime. They would rather overlook the cycle of offending while clamping down on dissent. The Labour party’s U-turn from abject abstention to principled opposition within the space of one hour yesterday showed that its leaders also have scant regard for the consequences of the Bill.
The Government display yet again a wilful ignorance of devolution, and the Bill’s “designed by England, for England” approach will further aggravate the damage caused by the jagged edge of justice policy in Wales. It shows that Wales needs control over justice now more than ever, so that we can develop a holistic approach that interconnects with our health, education and social policies.
The Bill’s erosion of the right to protest is antithetical to Wales’s values. We have a proud history of protesting against injustice, from non-conformism to Chartism, the miners’ strike, Welsh language rights protests and the present-day independence movement marches. The right to make peaceful protest against iniquity is something that lies deep within our culture. The Bill will also entrench Wales’s status as a nation of incarceration. Wales has a higher imprisonment rate even than England, and one that disproportionately affects black people, who are imprisoned at six times the rate of white people in Wales. The Bill will criminalise more young people and increase the number of vulnerable women entering prison, yet still tolerate the circumstances in which women such as Wenjing Lin and Sarah Everard were killed, all the while doing nothing to address the structural problems of the justice system in Wales, faced with disproportionate cuts to court numbers and support services.
The current system is failing. We could do so much better in Wales if we had proper control over policing and criminal justice. We could deliver a more humane justice system—one that enables equality, dignity and social justice, and that would allow us to tackle the root causes of crime, promote community support, tackle gender-based violence, root out structural racism, give victims a fair voice and protect our communities by prioritising the complex task of rehabilitation over the tabloid policing Acts of punishment—and a fair and just Wales for all. This is the nation we can be not if, but when we give ourselves the chance.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) [V]
During this pandemic, the Government have handed enormous powers to the police to enforce lockdown restrictions, leading to a situation where the police are now policing the coronavirus regulations as a public order problem, rather than a public health matter. It has led to dangerous lines being crossed. We must not forget that while this type of state violence was made visible at the weekend, it is the case that these tactics have been used to protect powerful interests throughout our history. It was seen during the miners’ strike, and it was seen last year as a response to the Black Lives Matter protests.
In a democratic society, policing requires consent and understanding of the public mood. We are seeing a huge overreach and a situation where women have been criminalised while attending a peaceful vigil. Recent events have left women feeling even less empowered in our society. For the police to say to women, “The way you can protect yourself is to stay at home”, is just not good enough.
It comes as no surprise that within this Bill there is no mention of women, whereas the word “memorial” appears eight times. The Bill seeks to ensure that attacking a statue carries a longer sentence than attacking a woman. What kind of message does that send about this Government’s attitude to tackling the endemic issue of violence against women and girls?
The Bill disproportionately impacts Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities by criminalising trespass and increasing police powers of eviction. It will increase the inequalities experienced by Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities and ensure that discrimination against those communities is still alive and well as an acceptable form of racism in this country. The Bill also extends the definition of “unauthorised encampment”, which in effect criminalises the increasing numbers of rough sleepers.
I believe the right to protest is sacred in any democracy, so I will be voting against this Bill, because it is an assault on our civil liberties, threatens what remains of our rights to protest, expands stop and search powers and further criminalises Traveller communities. The Government must think again and listen to the vast public anger regarding this Bill. I reject the politics of division laid out by the Government in this Bill, and I ask Members across the House to do the same.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Kate was dead on time, and I will now be strict as far as the time limit is concerned. Please do not exceed it.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) [V]
Three minutes is limited, so I will focus on one core aspect of the Bill. I got my first taste of the criminal justice system when I was 13. My dad went to the pub and never came home after receiving a single blow to the head that killed him instantly. From never really having dealings with the criminal justice system, my family was thrust into a whirlwind of police meetings, lawyers’ appointments and court dates, all while trying to deal with the suffocating grief of losing my dad, and that has given me a deep desire to ensure that the criminal justice system works for the victims of crime.
I recently launched an all-party parliamentary group to investigate the rare but damaging phenomenon of one-punch assaults, with an emphasis on sentencing. I wish now that I had been able to get started earlier to feed in some meaningful and evidence-backed proposals to this Bill, but I am grateful to the Justice Secretary none the less for agreeing to meet next week to discuss the APPG’s work. I hope that together we can make some progress in delivering a fairer sense of justice for the left-behind families of one-punch assault victims.
The events that followed losing my dad were the darkest times I have ever known, but in those dark times were points of light in the incredible police officers who helped to support our family. I particularly pay tribute once again to Karen Cocker and Sue Best, our family liaison officers, without whom we would not have been able to navigate the court process with our sanity intact.
After scenes such as those we saw reported at the weekend, it becomes somewhat trendy to turn against our police and denigrate those who devote their lives to keeping us safe. The unfairness of all police being tarred with the same brush based on the actions of a tiny minority is surely something with which we can empathise in this place, given the unfairness of all politicians being held to account for the actions of the worst of us.
Since I was 13, I have had the utmost respect for our police. They run into the face of danger while we run away, stand face to face with armed criminals to keep us safe and are at the frontline of major national crises. The national policing wellbeing survey revealed that a shocking 67% of police officers report post-traumatic stress symptoms and that the average officer shows moderately high symptoms of anxiety. That is why I wholeheartedly supported the Conservative party manifesto commitment to deliver the police covenant—the people of Bishop Auckland elected me on that commitment, which we will deliver through this Bill.
It is our duty to protect the mental health and wellbeing of the police, just as it is their duty to protect us. The Bill will make it a legal requirement for the Home Secretary to report to Parliament each year on what steps they are taking on the physical and mental health and wellbeing of police personnel and their families. Through the Bill, we are also ensuring that our incredible police officers have the powers they need to keep us safe and to secure prosecutions. We are seeking to protect the public and to protect our protectors, both police officers and emergency service workers. I finish with a question. What message does it send that the Labour party is voting against this?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Tonight, I pay my respects to the life of Sarah Everard. As she grew up in York, her loss is deeply felt by me and my community.
Extraordinary liberties have been relinquished to ensure that we kept safe during this last year, but when our liberties are stolen—and, I say this as a woman, at the very time we need them most—the measures in the Bill can only be described as repressive. We have a justice system that is institutionally discriminatory against women; that does not secure high-quality representation for them, that fails to prosecute the most heinous of crimes, that delays cases for years without survivors being able to access vital and necessary trauma services, and that completely fails to keep women safe. The Home Secretary was remiss in her opening speech, since the Bill fails women, fails society and fails to advance our justice. Now is the time when we need to take to the streets and reclaim them, yet the Bill threatens to criminalise us for using our power to force Government and their institutions to change. With economic, social and environmental failure, it is our duty to enable people to exercise their rights, but part 3 of the Bill restrains them.
Let me move on to part 4. I shudder at how the Government are drawing on the darkest periods of history by criminalising Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. This demonstrates that the hostile environment continues to fester in the Home Office, and it must be called out.
Before I close, I want to focus on clause 45. I have made a number of representations to Justice and Home Office Ministers, so they will know what I am about to say. It is not just in sport and religious settings where young people have been groomed and abused. My constituent received private tuition—music coaching—and was groomed for two years before being raped. Her case was one of the 99% of rape cases reported, but not prosecuted. Her perpetrator, now known for sexual impropriety, had no DBS check. If he had, she would have been safe. She was failed, and the Bill fails her and many more. All private tuition settings need full safeguarding checks and measures to be introduced. Secondly, host families of international students accommodate young people of different cultures and language. They need the protections covered by clause 45 too. I trust that the Minister will support such amendments.
The Bill is woefully insufficient when it comes to protection yet overtly hostile in disallowing people their rights and their voice. I came to this Parliament to fight for equality, protect the rights of my constituents and advance justice. It is unconscionable not to stand in the way of the repressive ideology advanced in the Bill. I call on the Government to think again and I will vote against the Bill.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
The right to take non-violent individual and collective action is fundamental to the functioning of our democracy. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is being rushed through, and it is ill thought out, with glaring failures, including authoritarian provisions such as those in part 3 that threaten our right to protest. Restricting the freedom of assembly and association contravenes article 11 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and significant concerns have been raised by trade unions, human rights groups, lawyers, activists and even the ex-chief constable of Greater Manchester.
The imposition of additional conditions on protests, such as being too noisy, simply look like an anti-democratic direct attack on particular social movements at odds with the Government’s agenda. This Bill represents an attack on the public’s freedom of speech, impacting on our fight for race and gender equality, against the climate emergency and for improved workers’ rights. Our country has a proud history of collective action, and I want to express my solidarity with those who attended Clapham common on Saturday to remember Sarah Everard and who were treated disgracefully. What we saw contradicts any notion that there needs to be an extension to the powers to oversee protests. Indeed, the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), has previously stated that
“legislation already exists to restrict protest activities that cause harm to others.”
Instead of ever more draconian powers, effective policing requires community consent, and to achieve that, there needs to be greater transparency and accountability for the way that protests are policed. I am pleased that David Michael, the Labour Bedfordshire police and crime commissioner candidate, who grew up in Luton, recognises that and is committed to using his experience in the police, together with his understanding of our community, to ensure trust between Bedfordshire police and the community it serves.
Placing more restrictions on people’s ability to gather and protest will not make the public safer. In fact, it is the opposite. It will trample on our ability to stand up for our human rights and against injustice. The Home Secretary focused her remarks on wanting to support women to feel safe while walking down the street, but heaven forbid we do so a bit too noisily, a bit too annoyingly or a bit too near our elected representatives in order to stand up for our human rights.
Individual and collective action is something to be celebrated and encouraged in a functioning democracy. I owe it to the women role models who stood up for what they believed in and shaped my political awareness as a teenager—be it those at the Greenham common women’s peace camp, the Women Against Pit Closures or those marching against apartheid in South Africa—as much as I owe it to those women now or who will come after me, to not let our right to protest, be it noisy or annoying, be slowly eroded.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I am glad to be speaking about this eagerly awaited Bill because of its importance for the residents of Wolverhampton. I have campaigned and will continue to do so for a safer and cleaner Wolverhampton. I want the residents to be able to walk clean streets day or night and feel safe.
I fully support the Bill and know that it will be welcomed by many of my constituents. I believe in tougher sentencing for child murderers and sex offenders. I approve of the crackdown on knife crime and violent crime, especially to protect emergency workers. Last year, I conducted a community survey. One of the top areas of concern for my residents—even in a pandemic—was crime. Residents are always getting in touch with me about different issues that the Bill addresses. They do not want to see thefts, fly-tipping and unauthorised encampments, and that last point has probably caused me more work than anything as an MP.
Wolverhampton has beautiful parks such as Bantock and West Park, and over the years, these have been home to unauthorised encampments. I want to make it clear that the majority of the Traveller community are law-abiding citizens who cause no trouble in the local community. We in Wolverhampton did see that, but we have also experienced major problems. To deal with that, Wolverhampton Council took out an injunction, giving it extra powers to move unauthorised encampments. Part of the injunction was to build a transit site. I have no problem with that, and I understand that there needs to be a place for the Traveller community to visit. The site chosen was Gorsebrook Road in Dunstall, which is still one of the most deprived areas in Wolverhampton. It was not welcomed by the residents or by the Traveller community. The cost to build the transit site, in an area that I have championed as a nature trail for local schools and residents, is £1 million. The Bill will negate the need for an injunction at the transit site in its current form. I know that work is under way, but I will continue to ask City of Wolverhampton Council, as I do again now, to pause the work, wait for the legislation to be passed, save money, develop the nature trail and build a legacy for generations to come.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
The scenes at Clapham common this weekend exposed a disgraceful abuse of power by the Metropolitan police. However, for too many of us, the scenes did not shock; they have become worryingly familiar. From the miners protesting at Orgreave and elsewhere in the 1980s to the climate change and Black Lives Matter protests last year, the violent crackdown by police on peaceful demonstrators exercising their right to protest has been routine, systematic and deliberate. Such actions raise the fundamental questions: who do the police protect and who do they serve? This weekend, it was abundantly clear that the answer to both questions was not women.
By making it an offence to cause serious annoyance or inconvenience, the Bill restricts our fundamental rights to freedom of assembly and expression and effectively removes our collective ability to fight back against state abuses of power. The proposals for a new serious violence reduction order will provide greater power to stop and search a person at any time, in any place and completely free of suspicion. There are major criticisms of current stop-and-search powers, which impact disproportionately on black people, particularly in my city of Liverpool. A recent Home Office report identified that black people are 2.7 times more likely to be victims of stop and search and three times more likely to have force used against them. The police do not need more of these powers, which will not protect us.
Some of the Bill’s most disturbing clauses attack the nomadic lives of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities by criminalising unauthorised encampments and establishing trespass as a criminal offence. The proposals are discriminatory and potentially unlawful. The Government’s own consultation on extending the powers showed that even the majority of the police respondents to the consultation think the crackdown is the wrong approach. GRT communities are among the most persecuted and marginalised. In Liverpool, we have a large permanent settlement of GRT families living in my constituency. They face systemic discrimination and routine violence. Instead of supporting these communities, who already face some of the starkest inequalities, the Government seem hellbent on introducing tougher powers to act against them.
The Government’s approach to public safety is fundamentally flawed: it is rooted in discrimination against communities and restrictions to our freedoms rather than a serious attempt to tackle the problems that we face. I appeal to Members from all parties in the House to ensure that this weekend’s horrific scenes mark a serious turning point. The draconian powers in the Bill must be torn up and a new approach to public safety must be pursued—one that puts safety, welfare, justice and accountability at its heart.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) [V]
The first duty of any Government must be to protect the public and keep local communities safe. I know that that belief is shared by many in my constituency, so I welcome this important Bill, which introduces a comprehensive package of measures to achieve just that. Every day, police officers and those in the emergency services put themselves in dangerous situations to keep us safe. Although legislation is in place for the most serious of crimes in this policy area, the sentencing for assaults is too weak. We have a responsibility to ensure that the police and emergency services can carry out their day-to-day duties as safely as possible. The Bill will help to achieve that.
There are many facets to the Bill, but I wish to focus on two particular aspects: bringing people to justice and reducing reoffending. I have been pursuing these issues on behalf of Loughborough since I became an MP and I did so some years ago when I was fortunate enough to chair a panel on reducing reoffending on behalf of Charnwood Borough Council. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Let me turn first to the removal of the presumption of release pending investigation and the presumption in favour of pre-charge bail conditions, otherwise known as Kay’s law. The change will provide a duty to protect victims and will enable the setting of conditions while further investigations are undertaken. This is vital both to the safety of the victim and to encourage the reporting of crimes with the knowledge that bail conditions can be imposed to help to safeguard the victim.
I received a number of emails from my constituents who are very concerned about sentencing and I have to agree with them that more needs to be done to ensure that those convicted of the most serious crimes receive appropriate sentences and spend more of their sentences actually in prison. That will not only restore public confidence in the justice system, but crucially ensure that victims, who sadly often bear physical and mental scars of their experience, receive the justice they deserve.
Sentencing, however, is only one side of the coin. I welcome that the Bill also places a strong emphasis on action to reduce reoffending. If we are to break the cycle of reoffending, we must ensure that offenders have every opportunity to break the vicious circle of repeat crime, giving them the chance to get their lives back on track and so reducing the social and economic cost to our communities. The £3 million Newham pilot for youth offenders, set to start in July, is one good example of work to reduce reoffending. The curfew orders set out in the Bill, and the ability to vary those orders, are another excellent example, ensuring people have a role in, and can contribute positively to, society. Work is one of the best ways to draw them away from a life of crime.
I strongly believe that, taken together, the measures in the Bill will have a significant impact on reducing crime and protecting not only the public, but our fantastic emergency workers. I will therefore be supporting the Bill.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Like so many others, I was shocked and appalled by the events on Clapham common on Saturday night. It is an outrage that a peaceful vigil in memory of Sarah Everard was shut down because the Met determined not to engage with organisers to ensure that the vigil could pass off safely. It is very difficult to see how the Met could have got it more wrong, and I say that, as many in this House will know, as a former police officer. The leadership have let down rank and file officers and, despite what those on the Government Benches might say, it is right that Cressida Dick should consider her position.
However, there has also been a failure of Government. For the past year, the Government have sustained legislation which prevents people from exercising their fundamental right to protest. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I will vote against the renewal of the Coronavirus Act 2020 when it comes back before the House, just as we did in September. Our rights matter and the right to protest matters, too. This is a Bill which, just when we should be considering how we dismantle restrictions on the right to protest in the name of public health, instead doubles down on them. The Home Secretary had strong words about the scenes on Saturday, but the reality is that this hastily pulled together legislation will make such scenes more common. The challenge to some of those on the Government Benches who have claimed to be acting in the name of liberty over the last few months is this: will you oppose the Bill, or does liberty only matter to you when it is your liberty and not the liberty of those you disagree with?
Moving on, I want to use my brief time to speak to part 1 of the Bill and its measures concerning the police service. Enshrining the duty of the Home Secretary to produce a police covenant report in law is a very important step for police officers around the country. It is about recognising the realities of policing and the impact it can have on those who undertake those duties. As someone who comes from a policing family, I have seen that first-hand. My father, husband and I were all assaulted in the course of our duties. This year’s Armed Forces Bill legislates for a duty for public bodies to have due regard to the principles of that covenant. That is not something that this Bill is introducing for the police covenant and I would be grateful for further clarification on whether the Government might look to do similar in relation to the covenant in future.
There are other positive steps in the Bill, such as legislating to allow special constables to join the Police Federation. The work of special constables is vital, both as volunteers and in giving back to local communities. In carrying out frontline duties, they face the same dangers and experiences that appointed police officers face. I also support the introduction of road traffic fixed penalty notices in Scotland, as it is good to have UK-wide alignment.
Finally, I turn to the Government’s proposal to double the maximum sentence for assaulting emergency workers. Is an increased penalty for that actually going to reduce assaults on the police? Is somebody in the heat of the moment going to think, “I’m going to get two years for this, as opposed to 12 months?” I doubt that it will. Instead, I worry that there is a risk of getting into a competition, whereby assaulting someone in a particular role means a higher penalty. The fundamental aspect is policing by consent. If we create the right community culture, it should not matter what the penalty is, because the incidence of such crimes should reduce regardless. Our policies on crimes should not be dictated by what plays well to the gallery—they should be evidence-based.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) [V]
I would like to start by paying tribute to Sarah Everard, and my thoughts are with her loved ones and her family. For too long we have seen women live in fear, and this Bill is one way in which we can start to make our streets and our society safer. It does feel, after last week, that there has been a renewed conversation about the safety of woman, and I hope that Sarah’s death has not been in vain.
This Bill, along with the Domestic Abuse Bill, ought to go a long way in making the world a safer place for women, but we must not be complacent and we must be resolute in this journey. On the latter Bill, I particularly welcome the amendment about threatening revenge porn, and I hope social media companies and other platforms will play their part in ensuring that revenge porn and non-consensual content are banned.
I must commend the Government for bringing forward this legislation and delivering on a manifesto commitment. As I talk to local residents across my constituency, there is one thing in common that they expect. It is that our justice system should be made fair—fair to the victims of crime, fair to the local community and offering fair justice to offenders. In particular, I applaud the removal of the automatic halfway release. This Bill ensures that those who commit the most heinous of crimes will spend more time in prison, so that their victims do not feel short-changed. That is the right thing to do.
I welcome the focus on rehabilitation in this Bill, as in my view society should always be conscious of why we choose to imprison people in the way we do. I am a big believer in global Britain and our place in the world. It was Winston Churchill, the then Home Secretary, who said that a society’s attitude towards its prisoners, its “criminals”, is the measure of
“the stored-up strength of a nation”.—[Official Report, 20 July 1910; Vol. 19, c. 1356.]
But this is also an act of common and economic sense. There is little point in ensuring that sentences are fully served at the taxpayer’s expense if, on release, a person is likely to reoffend. A jail sentence should not be a gateway to reoffending or graduating to a more serious crime. This conveyor belt to crime costs almost £18 billion to the taxpayer, which is why I am also pleased to see a greater emphasis on rehabilitation through greater support for the probation service and targeted measures such as curfews, community sentencing and better technology to ensure sustained rehabilitation.
Of course, prisons must serve their purpose for society in full—the delivery of justice must be fair, and it must be equitable—but we as legislators should not forget our duty in supporting offenders in turning their lives around. Once the victims of crime receive justice, to show compassion through rehabilitation speaks to our strength as a society—the very same strength that Winston Churchill once spoke of.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I pay tribute to Staffordshire police for their hard work and professionalism throughout covid. Local emergency services have given their all, often at high personal risk, particularly paramedics in responding to medical needs. I am truly grateful for their work, and their dedication brings us ever closer to a safe lifting of lockdown. Our policing is by consent, and I know that officers in Staffordshire hold this in great importance. In Stoke-on-Trent, officers have taken a measured approach based on the four Es—engage, explain, encourage and enforce. The comparatively low covid fines in Staffordshire demonstrate that enforcement is a last resort.
The images we saw over the weekend at Clapham common were disturbing for us all, and this should be thoroughly investigated, but I do not think it right to impede the progress of this important Bill. Our freedom-loving democratic values enshrine rights to peaceful protest, and this Bill does not curtail that. Many constituents have contacted me over the last year after seeing the wanton vandalism and obstruction of ambulances. This totally reckless behaviour of a minority demonstrates the need to update measures, such as putting static protests on the same footing as moving demonstrations. Emergency service workers frequently put themselves in harm’s way in protecting and saving lives of others, and we must give them the protections they need, such as doubling maximum sentences for assaults. How could anyone not support these measures, given that they frequently put themselves at great risk to keep us safe?
I fully support the new police covenant, which ensures that serving and retired officers and their families are properly supported. I know my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent are extremely concerned about more serious criminals. Although crime is generally down, it is worrying that crimes committed in Stoke-on-Trent are becoming more serious. Especially concerning are the repeat offenders, and I welcome serious violence reduction orders to target persistent offenders. The Government’s safer streets initiative in Fenton is particularly important locally, improving household security so that people feel safe in their own homes.
No one should ever feel unsafe, not least women and children. It is totally unacceptable that any woman should be too scared of going out at night or should expect to be regularly harassed. I very much welcome the Home Secretary reopening the survey on tackling violence against women and girls. It is most worrying that Opposition Members do not support measures targeting the most serious offenders, including those committing serious violence and sexual offences. This Bill ends automatic early releases, keeping dangerous criminals off our streets. It also encourages stricter conditions on bail in high-harm cases and extends protections against sexual conduct by those in positions of authority. Figures of authority must not abuse positions of trust through such despicable behaviour. A lack of trusted positive role models often drives young people into gangs, drugs and violence because they believe that they will be somehow more secure. That cycle must be broken down in Stoke-on-Trent and across the country.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Can I first say, on using women as a reason to vote against the Bill, that I spoke about my own personal experiences last week? I remind those on the Opposition Benches that women and men are equal in law, so it all applies to women.
I want to raise the concerns of my constituents about the fundamental right to peaceful protest. It is important to make one thing clear: the Bill includes nothing that will threaten the genuine rights of people to engage in protests. What it does is address all those people who glue themselves to trains and buses, and block access to hospitals when somebody could need life-saving treatment. Those protests are not simply inconvenient; they make life intolerable for people living or working around them. This is about balancing the genuine and fundamental right that we shall have to protest. In short, the checks and balances remain firmly in place. I hope that the Minister in summing up will confirm that that is correct.
Like women and men up and down this country, my colleagues on the Government Benches believe in law and order and giving our police the tools that they have asked for—the right tools for the job. The Bill delivers on that pledge. I will briefly touch on some of its key points.
The Bill extends whole-life orders for the premeditated murder of a child and ends the automatic early release of dangerous criminals. It introduces life sentences for killer drivers—those who cause fatal accidents while speeding and racing. It doubles the maximum sentence for assaulting emergency workers. It protects communities from illegal Traveller sites being set up. It introduces tougher community sentences, and it brings in Kay’s law to better protect victims and witnesses in cases of violent and sexual offences. It also ensures that those who desecrate our war memorials face the full force of law after what we witnessed with the Churchill monument and others last year.
I want to tackle those issues and bring in measures that protect my constituents and make our streets safer. That is why I will support the Bill’s Second Reading, to allow it to move to Committee where it will be fully scrutinised. It appals me that the Labour party will vote against a Bill that will bring tougher sentences and protect people such as my constituents in Hyndburn and Haslingden. That once again highlights why so many turned their backs on Labour as it continues to turn its back on the wants and needs of constituents such as mine. I will support the Bill, as I wholeheartedly believe that we should punish criminals.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe).
In the winter of 2019, through the wonderful weather we had—the snow and the rain—as I knocked on doors across Bolsover and in South Normanton and Clowne, there were three common refrains. The first was: get Brexit done. The second was the remarkable leadership of the Labour party under the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). The third was crime and the sense of unfairness. There was a sense that those who do not live by the rules seemed to get away with it; they were not properly punished. The Bill is a tremendous step in the right direction, delivering on the manifesto commitments that we stood on and making sure that those who commit some of the worst crimes are properly punished.
I welcome the fact that we are enshrining the police covenant in law. It must be an absolutely monstrous time to be a police officer, trying to uphold the law in such difficult circumstances throughout the covid period. I have spoken regularly to police officers and the leadership in Derbyshire, and they have done a remarkable job. I am delighted that we have their backs and are enshrining the police covenant in law.
We are doubling the maximum sentence for assaults on emergency workers. Those who serve our communities with such distinction and such honour should not be the victims of assault full stop, but those who commit such crimes should be punished. That is absolutely the right thing to do.
We are introducing criminal penalties for unauthorised Traveller encampments—that will be welcomed across Derbyshire—and whole-life orders for premeditated murders of children. That is exactly what residents in Bolsover want to see.
We have not had a lot of cross-party love today, so I must confess, I am the co-chairman of the all-party group on wrestling along with my friend the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). In her remarks, she mentioned that she welcomes the scope of offences in the Sexual Offences Act in relation to the abuse of positions of trust. We are particularly concerned about this in the wrestling industry, and she and I have spent many hours discussing it. In her remarks, she asked for a meeting with the Minister on some of the specifics around that, and I echo that call.
This is a brilliant step in the right direction. It is the kind of legislation that the people in Bolsover voted for, and I look forward to supporting the Bill.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
I join the Home Secretary and colleagues in sending my condolences to the friends and family of Sarah Everard. This Bill delivers on our manifesto commitment—the one that I stood on in Carshalton and Wallington, and so did many others—to toughen up sentences for the most dangerous criminals and reform the criminal justice system.
Of the many welcome measures contained in the Bill, I particularly welcome measures such as extending whole-life orders for the premeditated murder of a child and ending the early automatic release of dangerous criminals, which will keep the perpetrators of the most heinous crimes off our streets. I know, from the countless times that I have been told that the criminal justice system is too lenient, that my constituents will also welcome the tougher sentences for the most dangerous criminals, the introduction of life sentences for killer drivers, the doubling of the maximum sentence for assaulting an emergency worker and the introduction of Kay’s law to better protect victims and witnesses in cases of violent and sexual offences. It is because of the campaigning efforts of those victims and their families that I will support the Bill.
Like me, many colleagues will have met and heard stories of grieving families from their own constituencies, angry at what they have seen as a lenient sentence. I remember reading one story just last year of a young man who tragically lost his life in Carshalton after being hit by a driver who was later arrested on suspicion of being drunk behind the wheel. This Bill will ensure that in cases such as this, the punishment fits the crime. Additionally, I know that residents across the London borough of Sutton will particularly welcome criminalising trespass and strengthening powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. Only recently, Carshalton and Wallington residents were incredibly frustrated when an encampment jumped from local park to local park, causing harm, disruption and distress as it went, yet progress on removing this encampment was incredibly slow because of the limitations around the existing law. These measures will make it much easier to deal with that.
This Bill does deliver on our manifesto commitment, so I am dismayed that Opposition Members are finding ways to try to oppose these important measures. The wording in the Bill is complemented by case law, and clearly defined principles are being put on to the statute book at the request of the independent Law Commission. The Bill is there to stop scenes like those we saw last year of protestors blocking ambulances, and not to ban peaceful protests, so it is no good Labour or Lib Dem Members saying that they agree with parts of the Bill if they are not going to support it. We should be unapologetic in standing up for victims of crime and their families, combined with the efforts that the Government are already making to put more police on our streets and work on prevention. For that reason, I will support the Bill tomorrow.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) [V]
The first duty of any Government is to keep people safe. Although recent events have been shocking, we are fortunate to live in a country where citizens are overwhelmingly law-abiding, but as times change, crimes change, and it is important that we continue to update and amend legislation to make sure that our constituents not only are safe, but feel safe.
Any new criminal legislation should do four important things: it should discourage crime, improve detection and prosecution, make punishments effective and reduce the chances of reoffending. I welcome this Bill, as I believe that it will strengthen the law in all those areas. The Bill will certainly act to discourage crime, with the introduction of whole-life orders for child killers and new powers to halt the automatic early release of offenders who pose a danger to the public. Potential offenders can be in no doubt that this Government are committed to making sure that serious crimes will be met with serious sentences. By increasing the efficiency of the courts, the Bill will also reduce delays and improve prosecution rates. I know from the experiences of my constituents this year—both those accused of crime and those who have been victims—how devastating delays to justice can be.
I welcome the Bill’s provisions to punish certain crimes, particularly serious driving offences and assaults on our brave police and emergency workers, more robustly. I also believe that the Bill will be effective in reducing the chances of reoffending, with more community orders ensuring that offenders do not lose jobs and family relationships as a result of their punishments, making it more likely that they can rebuild their lives without resorting to further criminal behaviour. However, for some offenders who have served their time, returning to their community and their previous relationships can be a factor that actually increases their chance of reoffending. For those people, escaping that context and getting a fresh start can offer them the best chance of building a crime-free life.
Northern College in my constituency, one of only four residential adult education colleges, specialises in giving vulnerable adults, including those who have served prison sentences, a second chance at education. Set in the stunning and inspiring grounds of Wentworth castle, it offers students high-quality teaching alongside counselling and support. In such a positive and focused environment, the outcomes are incredible, with students achieving GCSEs, A-levels and even higher education qualifications, and going on to gain good jobs and live fulfilling lives.
For many ex-offenders, full rehabilitation requires a second chance at education, which so many of us take for granted, so I wonder whether the Minister would be willing to meet me to discuss the role that Northern College could play. This is an excellent Bill that meets many of our manifesto commitments, and it has my full support.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
This is an extremely wide-ranging Bill. I have raised in the House a number of times the reform of rehabilitation. This Bill will give the courts powers to give alternatives to custody for youth offenders, by piloting changes to youth rehabilitation orders. For adult offenders, a “problem-solving court approach” will be piloted for certain community and suspended sentences. This aims to ensure that there is more tailored, intensive and structured support to rehabilitate offenders in the community. Employment opportunities for reformed offenders will also be improved by the Bill.
The Bill outlines several measures that will allow the courts to return to normal as soon as possible and cut into the backlog. Virtual juries were trialled with huge success on four occasions last year by the international fair trials organisation Justice, most notably in Wimbledon. “Wimbledon juries”, as they should perhaps become known, were subject to research and authentication by the University of Oxford, and the trials proved that they were, in many ways, as effective in executing their responsibilities as juries in courtrooms. They can be inexpensive and can return juries to their historic origins, based in communities.
The Bill also makes changes to police powers over protests. I have been looking carefully at those parts of the Bill, and I know that they will be examined in greater detail in Committee. However, it is clear, especially with the background of current covid legislation, that those who enforce this legislation need to be clear as to its framework.
The language of clause 59(2) is central. The language of “distress” and “loss of amenity” is familiar to the courts, but “serious annoyance” and “serious inconvenience” are unfamiliar to the courts. I know that “annoyance” has been used in public order Acts in Ireland, I think in Austria and perhaps elsewhere, but I would welcome a very clear definition here. We need to help our police decide what these words mean, and we need to let those that they will cover know what they mean. Similarly, “noise” from a protest that could
“result in serious disruption to the activities of an organisation”
needs to be more clearly defined so that it does not catch the sort of chanting that one would normally expect at a protest.
Finally, I welcome that the Home Secretary has instructed Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary to investigate the policing at the Clapham vigil. I welcome confirmation from her that there are aspects to be investigated and that she intends the extended consultation to ensure that the justice system provides confidence for the victims. Therefore, one should look at this Bill in the whole and it should be supported.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I welcome this Bill, which fulfils manifesto promises on which I was elected and demonstrates this Government’s firm commitment to law and order. I declare relevant interests: prior to my election, I spent 12 years as a magistrate, and was a board member of the Youth Justice Board, a member of the Sentencing Council and a non-executive director of Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service.
There are undoubtedly offenders who pose a clear and present danger, and they must remain in prison for as long as it takes for them to cease being a threat to the public. I therefore welcome moves to lengthen custodial sentences for certain very serious offences and to extend the time that must be served before automatic release applies. This also represents an important step towards increased public confidence in sentencing, which is not always as transparent as it might be.
I want to see fewer victims of crime. Key to achieving that is cutting reoffending, which accounts for some 80% of offences at the moment. Prison is not always the best place to achieve the greatest prospect of rehabilitation, so I am glad to see pilots of problem solving courts, and I hope they will be especially targeted at young adults. I am pleased that community orders will be made more robust, not least by extending the maximum curfew hours to 20 a day. I believe that home detention is a tool we should increasingly look to, as technology continues to develop at a pace that can provide many of the reassurances on security and monitoring behaviour that would not have been possible even 10 years ago.
There are welcome changes to the youth justice system here; reducing the use of remand in custody for children is the right thing to do. I am pleased to see changes to the intensive supervision and surveillance programmes, and I support the proposals to make detention and training orders more flexible. The Bill eliminates many anomalies in previous legislation, and I would welcome the Government giving further consideration to one anomaly that I highlighted in my recent ten-minute rule Bill: that children who commit an offence as a child but turn 18 before getting to court are treated as adults at both trial and sentence. The risk of this happening has been exacerbated by delays caused by covid, and those delays vary greatly between different parts of the country, resulting in a postcode lottery that is fundamentally unjust and yet can have lifelong consequences. Although there has not been time to incorporate my proposal into the Bill at this stage, I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor for meeting me to discuss how, with appropriate safeguards, some of its aims might be achieved. I hope that the Government might still be persuaded that this Bill provides such an opportunity. I am confident that that could be achieved without conflicting with other very important proposals in this Bill.
Three minutes is a short time in which to discuss a Bill of 300 pages. Of course, I do not claim to have addressed element of it in my remarks, nor do I claim that the Bill is perfect in every way, but I firmly believe it represents a step change to tackle crime more effectively and so make the British public safer.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]
May I, first, associate myself with the sympathy expressed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to Sarah Everard’s family at the outset of this debate? When this Bill comes to a vote tomorrow I will be supporting it. I will be supporting a Bill that will ensure stronger sentences for child murderers, rapists, violent offenders, dangerous drivers, child abusers, burglars, drug dealers, knife carriers and those who desecrate our memorials. The Labour party will be voting against those stronger sentences. Labour, having previously said that the legislation does not go far enough, will now vote against all of that, in an astonishing U-turn. It will also be voting against increased sentences for those who assault our emergency service workers.
This is a wide-ranging piece of legislation that will, quite reasonably, update public order legislation that is now 35 years old. In the short time in which I have to speak this evening, I am unable to cover the breadth of this Bill, but I will pick out a couple of points. I am pleased to see that the police covenant is to be enshrined in law, strengthening support for serving and retired officers. I know that unauthorised encampments can cause a great deal of stress and inconvenience, as I saw in my constituency, in Colwick, a little while ago, as well as disruption and damage. The power to seize vehicles and arrest or fine trespassers who attempt to reside on private and public land without permission will, no doubt, be reassuring.
It is also important to state that the Bill will not stop the right to protest. The right to demonstrate is a hard-fought one, and it will continue. A number of constituents have written to me regarding clause 59, but it is important to note that this is a component of the existing common law offence of causing a public nuisance, which is being put on to a statutory footing following recommendations by the Law Commission in its 2016 report on the simplification of criminal law. All in all, this is a Bill that makes good on several commitments made in the manifesto on which I stood for election in 2019. I am pleased to support it and I look forward to its passage in the House.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) [V]
Freedom of assembly and of expression are fundamental rights that are hard-fought and hard-won but easily lost or damaged if we legislate in haste. I want to focus on clauses 54 to 56 and 59 to 60, which would make significant changes to police powers to respond to protest. They would, for example, significantly lower the legal test for the police to issue conditions on protest. The term “serious unease” is a significant departure, reducing the test for the threshold of harm so as to potentially capture peaceful protest that a claimant considers objectionable.
Clause 54 would give the Secretary of State powers to further define the meaning of
“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation”,
which could significantly curtail the activities of peaceful pro-life vigils outside abortion centres. Organisations such as the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and MSI complain of harassment or intimidation, but this is rarely, if ever, supported by evidence. The test of “serious disruption” could remove the objectivity normally required for criminal prosecution and place the emphasis instead on the perception of an organisation. This has potentially far-reaching implications for the fundamental rights of those with non-mainstream views to assemble and express their views, and it is incumbent on this House to defend those rights, however much we approve or disapprove of such views.
Clause 59, by abolishing the common law offence of public nuisance and replacing it with a new statutory offence of
“intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance”,
needs to be carefully scrutinised to ensure that there are clear definitions of terms such as “serious annoyance”, “serious inconvenience” and rights common to the public. The word “impact” in relation to static protests is ill defined and too open to interpretation, and on-the-spot assessments could increase unjustifiable interference with fundamental rights.
Concerningly, removing intentionality from the offence of failing to comply with a condition issued by the police on a protest means that the police will be able to enforce the law based on their subjective interpretation of what the alleged offender should have known. Allowing the police to issue conditions on one-person protests, rather than the current two, potentially brings into scope street preachers, but it should be recalled that prosecutions against street preachers have invariably failed due to falling foul of freedom of speech rights. Without amendment, the Bill could increase police apprehension of otherwise lawful speech and could have a profoundly chilling effect on free speech more widely. I hope that the Committee and the other place will have sufficient time to carefully scrutinise this significant Bill.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
I will have no hesitation in supporting the Bill when it comes to a vote tomorrow, because it delivers on so many of the manifesto promises I made to residents across Burnley and Padiham. It starts by toughening up the sentences for drink and drug drivers who kill while under the influence, for criminals who assault our emergency service workers and for those in positions of trust who groom children for exploitation. It does all this while also tackling unauthorised Traveller camps that show no regard for local residents and planning systems, and so much more. What’s not to like in this Bill?
There is so much in the Bill, but I will keep my remarks to just a small number of areas. The first is the desecration of war memorials. I have been incredibly disappointed to hear Labour MPs indicate that this provision does not matter, because it does. We have some fantastic memorials in Burnley, not least the cenotaph in Towneley Park and the memorials to so many others in our villages such as Hopton and Worsthorne. The images that we saw last year of our national cenotaph being targeted caused hurt, upset and anger. That is why this matters. I am really pleased that the Government have recognised the strength of feeling on this and introduced tougher sentences as a result.
The Bill also delivers on our promise to bring in a smarter, more credible sentencing system. It is one that deals with the most serious violent offenders by ending the automatic release at the halfway point, that tackles repeat offenders that blight our communities, and that makes youth rehabilitation orders more effective at reducing youth offending.
I spent some time before coming to this place mentoring young offenders when they were in prison, and I have no doubt that this will make a difference. I have, however, received emails from concerned constituents about the protest provisions in the Bill. Let us be clear: nothing in the Bill alters a person’s fundamental right to protest and make their voice heard. However, the right to protest does not give anyone the right to block an ambulance going to a hospital; it does not give anyone the right to stop someone going to work to earn a living; and it does not bring with it the right for a person to stop a newspaper being printed just because they disagree with the contents. Just as important as the right to protest is the right to a free press, the right to life, and the right to employment. The Bill just gives equal weight to all those competing rights. The Bill puts the right of the law-abiding majority first. It protects victims, it backs our police and emergency service workers and, with that in mind, it should command cross-party support tomorrow evening.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) [V]
Many constituents have shared their frustrations with me over the issue of illegal encampments. Although many Travellers are law-abiding citizens, illegal sites can cause distress and misery to those who live nearby. They also play havoc with local sports clubs and businesses and the Bill will put a stop to that. I am pleased that these measures are proportionate and that we have taken steps to ensure that those exercising their rights to enjoy the countryside are not inadvertently impacted.
Some people are claiming that the Bill will somehow stop people’s right to protest, and that is simply not true. What makes it worse is that some are trying to link it with temporary covid restrictions, which is a completely separate issue. Whatever the rights and wrongs of recent events, it is abhorrent and totally wrong for groups to try to use a tragic incident as a smokescreen to oppose legislation that they do not like. This legislation means tougher sentences for child murderers, sex offenders, killer drivers and those attacking emergency service workers. By campaigning against this Bill, they are also campaigning against these measures.
The Bill is also designed to stop the behaviour of extremist groups such as Extinction Rebellion or BLM causing serious disruption by stopping trains running or by gluing themselves to buses. Serious disruption is a well-established and defined concept. The changes bring static protests in line with equivalent provisions that apply to marches or processions under section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986. For example, a protest does not cause serious disruption just because it may distract employees in a nearby office, and nor would a peaceful vigil in a park cause serious disruption.
Examples of things that could cause serious disruption might include blocking a bridge or a road to stop pedestrians or traffic getting through. We saw that happen when Extinction Rebellion decided to block Westminster Bridge. While these people were dancing and having fun, ambulances needed to be diverted and cancer patients had to walk to hospital instead. Another example of serious disruption might also include preventing a train from leaving a station. What sort of organisation claims that it wants to stop climate change and then prevents people from using public transport? People from those organisations do not understand the value of a proper day’s work.
People physically preventing a printing press from operating because they disagree with the editorial position of that publication is another example of serious disruption. These people talk of freedoms yet attack freedom of speech and the freedom of our press, including titles such as The Sun, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and the London Standard. This is not just an attack on them, but on all our media.
Our freedoms are precious and we must do everything we can to ensure that freedom is enjoyed by all and not hijacked by these groups. This Bill, using sensible, fair and proportionate measures, will set us on a course to do just that.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) [V]
Please may I too send my deepest sympathies to Sarah Everard’s family and friends? Also, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
There is much to commend in this Bill, which dots several i’s and crosses several t’s with regard to our manifesto. We hear a lot about rights; now it is time for responsibilities.
Following the unhappy circumstances surrounding the vigil for Sarah Everard, there is concern over the extension of police powers, and the new laws regarding public order must be scrupulously monitored and sparingly used. I mention this with the vigil in mind, where the police were caught between a rock and a hard place as they attempted to balance laws passed to control a pandemic and an outpouring of grief that those who attended the vigil wanted to share. It highlighted to me what happens when the police lose the consent of the people, which only reinforces how important it is for laws affecting public order to be proportionate, clear and reasonable. To that extent, I was reassured when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated in her speech that these new powers are aimed at preventing protesters from stopping people going to work or closing a city like London for days on end. This new style of protest appears to be the norm today, and no responsible Government can sit idly by.
Let me move on to other aspects of the Bill. I am 100% in support of doubling the maximum penalty for assaults on emergency workers from 12 months to two years in prison. I sincerely hope that this deterrent also applies to inmates who assault prison officers. For too long, a lack of any real deterrent has seen this forgotten army subjected to acts of violence that are totally unacceptable—and it is not just physical violence. Female prison officers, in particular, are vulnerable to being “potted”—a degrading and revolting assault where human excrement is emptied on their heads.
As a former soldier, I find the damage to and desecration of war memorials a particularly heinous and cowardly crime. Whatever one’s view on a particular subject, it does not give the right to tear down statues. I agree that monetary value should not be a factor in sentencing because these memorials are, quite literally, priceless.
I welcome the toughening of the law on trespass. Rural crime is a significant problem, and this promise in our manifesto will help to combat a small and unruly element who think they can operate outside the law.
Finally, I like the idea of secure schools as an alternative to jail for troubled young people—at least, I assume that is the aim. Their success will depend to a large extent on who runs them and how they are operated. I recall the attempt to introduce bootcamps, which fell at the first fence. However, there is no doubt that a period of discipline within a well-organised structure would do no harm.
Tomorrow night I shall be voting for the Bill, which will be welcomed by the law-abiding silent majority.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be back here physically to speak.
A Government’s first duty is always to protect their people, and this flagship Bill will ensure that our justice system will always serve the law-abiding majority. It is timely after recent events as it emphasises that this Government put women’s safety front and centre. The Bill lengthens jail time for serious sexual offenders and prevents their early release. It keeps those most horrific individuals who rape or sexually assault children in jail for longer too.
We should consider this Bill in the context of the second major piece of legislation that will protect women—the landmark Domestic Abuse Bill, which introduces new provisions to ban the rough sex defence and extends the law against revenge pornography, as well as creating the specific new offence of non-fatal strangulation. This is flagship policy making. I am proud of a Government who since 2010 have put women’s safety at the heart of their policy making.
The way to test any Bill passed by Government is on whether it changes things for the better for people. This Bill will do just that. It delivers important manifesto commitments, including ensuring that serious violent and sexual offenders spend more of their sentence in prison, increasing to life the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving, increasing sentences for desecrating a war memorial, doubling the sentence for assaulting an emergency worker, and enabling prisoners who become dangerous to spend all their sentence in prison. It also makes sure that more repeat knife offenders and burglars serve the specified minimum jail term. Every stabbing creates a trail of misery, and often devastated families when it ends a life, as in the case of my constituent Ryan Passey.
I welcome the strengthening of police powers to tackle unauthorised encampments. That will be particularly welcome for my residents in Withymoor Village in Amblecote. I fully recognise that everyone has the right to a nomadic life, but this must be balanced against the rights of local communities. For me, the balance has never been quite right, and we needed greater police powers. The Bill delivers just that, for which I thank the Government enormously. It will change things for the better for my constituents. Police will now have the powers to seize vehicles and arrest or fine trespassers who intend to reside on private and public land without permission. Yet Opposition Members attack plans for criminal penalties for those who refuse to leave unauthorised encampments as discriminatory and unworkable. Once again, they show themselves to be on the side of those who break the law rather than the law-abiding.
With this new Bill, we will have more tools at our disposal than ever before to protect our residents. I support it for all that it delivers. It will make my community in Stourbridge safer. After listening to this debate, my concern is that those who vote against the vital measures in the Bill will be putting a day’s headline or strapline ahead of the safety of my constituents, particularly that of women.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Since 2009, the armed forces’ next of kin have been given the Elizabeth Cross if a family member has been killed in action as a result of terrorism. The award is obviously named after Her Majesty the Queen. I believe that such an award should now also be made to the police, fire officers and members of the ambulance service. I suppose that it would be appropriate to link them all together as blue-light services.
The national police memorial on the Mall lists almost 5,000 police officers who have been killed while on duty since records began. Most recently, during the troubles in Northern Ireland, 319 Royal Ulster Constabulary officers were killed; and since 2001, 16 Police Service of Northern Ireland officers have been murdered. Since 2010, 11 Metropolitan police officers have also been killed here in London. It is difficult to get consolidated lists of firefighters who have been killed doing their duty, but at least 69 died between 1986 and 2017. Ambulance personnel who have died in the line of duty have normally been hit by vehicles when attending casualties, and figures are difficult to get—yet it happens.
Maybe, with the approval of the Queen, we might be able to call this award the “Charles Cross”. After all, His Royal Highness Prince Charles is patron of the National Police Memorial Day. Frankly, I believe it would be a thoroughly appropriate name for such an award. I suppose the scheme might be expanded to include the air ambulance and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which are really part of the blue-light fraternity of emergency services. I suggest that the award should go no further than that. I believe such an award to be utterly proper and decent, and it may indeed give close family members of those who have lost their lives protecting the rest of us some solace and perhaps not a little pride when they wear such a decoration.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I prepared a one-minute speech, but I will try to stretch it to two minutes. The constituents of North East Bedfordshire will welcome this Bill. They will particularly welcome the fact that it begins with the police covenant, which codifies our responsibility to recognise the obligations and sacrifices of our police officers. They will very much welcome the end of automatic early release, but I must say to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies): he should see this as the start, not the end, of ending automatic release, so that the public understand that sentences mean what they say.
My constituents will particularly welcome the actions on illegal encampments, which are a blight for so many in the countryside and urban areas. On the issue of policing demonstrations, let us listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) said and take more responsibility for ourselves in setting the laws, rather than the obligations of the police for policing them. I welcome the sensitivity in the Bill in terms of the interactions of young people with our justice system. If we can get that right, it will preclude many faults later on.
It is welcome that we have clause 164, which at last recognises that deaf people can have access to British Sign Language interpreters. For hundreds of years, we have recognised that every citizen in this country is entitled to a jury of their peers, and now those juries can include our deaf citizens as well as everybody else. Finally, I believe, in all generosity, that Labour Members have made a terrible mistake in opposing the Bill, and neither my constituents nor theirs will ever understand the reasons why.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned—(Michael Tomlinson.).
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Royal Assent
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2021
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act 2021
Non-Domestic Rating (Lists) Act 2021
Contingencies Fund Act 2021.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Tuesday 16th March 2021
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberPolice, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 225 / Noes: 359 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 359 / Noes: 263 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before we resume the debate, I want to remind the House of what was said yesterday regarding the Sarah Everard case. Charges have now been brought in that case. The sub judice resolution does not apply formally when the House is legislating. However, I would urge all Members to exercise caution and not say anything about the detail of the case or of the identity of those against whom charges have been brought that might affect any subsequent court case.
I have decided to select the reasoned amendment in the name of the Official Opposition and I will call David Lammy to move their reasoned amendment when he comes to speak later in the debate.
I remind all hon. Members, whether they are participating remotely or otherwise, that there is a three-minute limit on all contributions. For those participating remotely, there is a timer on the bottom righthand corner of the device that you are utilising. If, for whatever reason, you cannot see that, please ensure that you have another timing device because we have to be very strict. Not everyone will get in today, quite clearly, so please do not push the limit beyond three minutes. For those participating physically, the timer will be demonstrated in the usual manner.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) [V]
How often have we heard the notion that somehow liberty is an integral part of the English character, and that we fortunate few in this country are somehow different from the rest of humanity? Not for us authoritarianism, autocracy or, God forbid, the dark slide into fascism. No, no, no—that is for other people and other countries, not us. Yet here we stand, yet again with yet another Bill from this Government stripping the people of this country of yet more liberty and more of their democratic rights.
English exceptionalism is a dangerous fallacy, none more so than when it comes to the constant vigilance required of any democracy. It is hubris of the first order—one I fear has infected those on the Government Benches. The potential for the slide into authoritarianism and worse is, as history has clearly demonstrated, part of the human condition. That is the painful and bloody lesson from the 20th century. Yet here we are, with this Bill before us. It is the tip of an authoritarian iceberg—one that is on a collision course with public defiance.
Democracy is being swept away in a calculated programme to leave the public muted and powerless. We have the demonisation of the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma community, a planned voter suppression Bill to strip the right to vote from black and other disadvantaged communities, and the limiting of judicial review to stop the public challenging the Government’s decisions in court and shifting yet more power to the Executive. We have the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which creates a two-tier, “them and us” system of human rights. Now, having passed that, the Government are coming for our rights with a review of UK human rights legislation.
Those on the Government Benches are fast moving from becoming a Government to becoming a regime. They want to stifle dissent, so that they are not accountable to the public. Our country—our economy, our politics and our media—is controlled by a small clique of individuals. Over the past 40 years, they have taken more power for themselves at the expense of our democracy. Now they are not even happy with us clinging on to the scraps we currently have.
I have directed this speech at Government Members, but to those on my own Front Bench who have finally been brought to the right position of opposition, I say this: it should not have taken the police assault on people gathered peacefully in memory of Sarah Everard to see the assault on democracy that this Bill is. It is writ large, so let this be a wake-up call. We have never seen anything like this Government before.
If the Bill goes through, anyone who values their democratic rights must get organised and fight back. I will stand with protesters, irrelevant of the laws passed by this place. I say to anyone in this place and outside who values democracy that we must create a democracy that is fit for purpose for the challenges we face—climate and ecological breakdown, the epidemic of inequality—
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
May I start by joining colleagues in expressing my condolences to the friends and family of Sarah Everard?
I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill. I am particularly pleased that it delivers on three promises that I made in two Departments: stronger police powers and a new criminal offence around unauthorised Traveller camps; putting the police covenant on the statute book and completing the public health approach to serious violence.
Given the short time I have, I will focus my remarks on child sexual abuse and exploitation. I want to leave Members in no doubt that we are facing an epidemic in child sexual abuse, the severity of which has left me crushed at times. Although the Government are doing outstanding work, it is clear that there are still inadequacies and blind spots enabling predators to operate undetected for decades. That is why for the best part of a year, I have been leading an inquiry into child sexual abuse and exploitation with the Centre for Social Justice. Although the findings will not be published until later this month, I am grateful that the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary have taken an interest in this work and have included some of the initial recommendations in the Bill.
I am particularly pleased that the Bill will close a loophole in the law that allows sports coaches and other people in positions of trust to have sex with 16 and 17-year-olds who are in their care. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for the excellent work she did to bring that about.
I also welcome the fact that those serving an SOPC—sentence for offenders of particular concern—for a child sex offence will be made to serve two thirds of their sentence before they are eligible for parole.
These changes will make a difference, but we need to go further. It is difficult to believe that only 4% of child sexual abuse offences result in a charge or summons—to put that another way, when the police record a child sexual abuse offence, more than nine times out of 10, the perpetrator is not brought to justice—or that sentencing guidelines recommend the same punishment for stealing a bicycle worth £500 and viewing the rape of a child.
Lenient sentences make poor deterrents, and they say to victims that society does not take the damage that is done to them seriously enough. That is why I urge the Government to consider three further measures: first, including online offences in the SOPC scheme; secondly, moving to a presumption of cumulative sentencing; and thirdly, asking the Sentencing Council to undertake a full review. It is only when we take the scourge of child sexual abuse seriously that we will start to make sure that the punishment truly fits the crime.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) [V]
I join others across the House in extending my sincere condolences to the family and friends and all affected by the horrific murder of Sarah Everard last week.
The House has heard many passionate speeches objecting to certain aspects of the Bill that impose disproportionate restrictions on our freedom of expression and right to protest. Those are fundamental human rights and a cornerstone of our democracy, and they must be protected. I totally support those objections to the restriction of our liberties. The right to peacefully protest on any issue must not be interfered with by the Government.
Part 2, chapter 1 of the Bill deals with duties to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence. Specifically, it places a legal duty on local authorities, police, criminal justice agencies, health authorities, fire and rescue services and others to collaborate through sharing data and intelligence with one another to prevent and reduce serious violence and a duty to plan together to prevent and reduce such violence. In particular, they must identify the kinds of serious violence that occur, identify the causes of that violence and prepare and implement a strategy to prevent and reduce violence. Without any doubt, it is imperative that the impact of violence by men against women, the prevalence of that violence—particularly domestic violence and sexual violence—controlling and coercive behaviour by men and the impact on the community are included in that strategy to reduce violence against women and girls.
I want to highlight the outstanding work of the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit, funded by the Scottish Government. It has reduced homicides in Scotland from 137 over a number of years to 64 last year, using an innovative, proactive public health partnership approach to violence reduction, driven by the conviction that violence is preventable and not inevitable. A number of police services across England and Wales have sought advice from the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit and are at varying stages of setting up similar schemes.
It is therefore very welcome that the Bill will pave the way for the police service and other agencies to adopt schemes and strategies based on that model, which has proven to be highly successful. That approach must be included in the formal strategy mentioned by the Home Secretary yesterday for the reduction of all forms of violence by men against women and girls. This will, of course, come at a significant cost, but whatever that cost is, we simply cannot afford not to take this action, as by not doing so, we will continue to fail to protect women and girls now and in the future. We must act, and we must act now.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The clock has not been started, because I did not want to eat into your time, Tracey, but I want to say that it is fantastic to see you back in the House of Commons where you belong.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Thank you for your kind words, Mr Deputy Speaker. Time is exceptionally limited, so I shall keep my remarks short, but like others, I wish to extend my condolences to the family and friends of Sarah Everard.
I welcome this Bill, which draws on our manifesto commitment to make the country safer by equipping the police with the powers needed to protect themselves and the public, while strengthening sentencing laws to keep serious sexual and violent offenders in prison for longer. It is unfortunate that recent events have overshadowed the good intentions of the copious measures in this Bill, and I share the views of those in the House and outside it that we need to do more to protect women and girls. Why should we be afraid to walk somewhere or even exercise after dark? But, rather than trying to kill off the Bill, we should be working cross-party to strengthen it to that end.
I am a supporter of the police and I am afraid that I do not think we stand up for them often enough in this place. We read about the occasions when they misjudge or mishandle things, but we do not read about the 99% of the time where they silently get on with keeping us safe. Like all other key workers, our police officers have continued to work throughout the pandemic on the frontline, often being spat at and assaulted. I have many police officers living in my constituency and I am a proud aunt of a policeman. The measures in the Bill will better protect them and other emergency workers, not least by doubling the maximum sentence for assault on emergency workers, which is much overdue.
I am delighted that the Bill includes measures to extend the positions of trust provisions to include those who coach, teach, train or supervise in sport or religion. This has been a long process, but I am exceptionally grateful that this Home Secretary and Justice Secretary have listened to me, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and, most importantly, the brave victims who spoke out about the abuse that they suffered at the hands of their coach or religious leader. The need for change has finally been accepted.
There is so much that I could speak about in this 296-page Bill, but I just want to mention two things. First, my local council very much welcomes the Bill’s provisions that deal with illegal encampments, but Medway Council has requested that an amendment is added that gives local authorities the powers to seek recovery costs for the damage caused. As challenging as this may be in practice, concerting the power that enables them to do so is something that I am willing to table, and I hope that the Government will seek to support it. The second point, which was raised eloquently yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), is the need for a specific offence and stronger punishment for pet theft. There has been an extraordinary and worrying rise in the theft of dogs, and many of my constituents are fearful for their beloved pets, so using this Bill as an opportunity to strengthen protections is essential.
Given the time, let me conclude by saying that there is so much more that I could add, but this is a good Bill, albeit with plenty of scope for improvement and for new things to be added to it. First and foremost, I look forward to supporting it in the Lobby tonight.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
I join others in expressing my condolences. This Bill continues the authoritarian drift of this Government. First, we had the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which basically gives immunity to people abroad serving our country who committed torture. Then we had immunity given to state agents breaking the law in our country, including the crime of rape. Now we have clause 59 of the Bill, which proposes a 10-year jail sentence for causing the risk of “serious annoyance”—those are the words in the Bill. Note that is not even for causing “annoyance”, but for causing the risk that there may be annoyance. There are many things with which we might risk causing annoyance every day, but it is only in dictatorships or repressive regimes that such actions are subject to drastic sentencing.
This Government claim to have their roots in libertarianism and, of course, they are champions of liberty, but it is liberty only for the powerful and the wealthy, the “get rich quick” merchants and the spivs, those whose freedoms allow them to cause all kinds of annoyance—firing decent, hard-working employees and then rehiring them on worse conditions and paying poverty wages. Now we have a new freedom—the freedom to bung multimillion-pound taxpayer contracts to mates in the private sector. They have set their sights on our tradition of dissent, because their legislation is designed to crack down on our rights to take action against injustice. Black Lives Matter activists, workers who take industrial action, environmentalists and the women’s movement are all in their sights.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend and I have organised and been on many peaceful protests together. The measures in this Bill are so regressive that, under them, surely some of those protests that we have been on would have ended up in scenes like those we saw on Clapham common, with us and others being arrested. This shows that peaceful protest is not safe under the remit of the Bill.
Jon Trickett
I have indeed worked many times with my hon. Friend on all kinds of activities. What the Government have in their sights are the ancient rights of assembly and freedom of association, which are now threatened by clause 59. The fundamental right to free speech means nothing if these other freedoms come under attack. We may end up with a situation in which we are free to shout at the telly in the privacy of our own homes but not free to organise ourselves collectively in public.
It is not as if our country has done away with all forms of injustice and inequality, is it? Yet instead of standing against injustice alongside, for example, the women on Clapham common the other night, the Government appear to be more interested in empowering the police force to arrest people who the state judges to have risked causing annoyance. It is interesting that many police officers have said that they do not wish that power to be bestowed upon them.
This House of Commons should be a beacon of liberty—a protector of our rights to speak, associate freely and assemble in public to express our reservations about how the country is going. Repressive legislation will never eliminate the thirst and hunger for justice that remains so powerful in our country today. It is the duty of the Commons to stand up this evening and reject this Bill.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) [V]
The first duty of any Government is to protect members of the public from harm, and I welcome the swift progress that the Government have made on that. Despite the challenges posed by the pandemic, the Government have beaten the target of recruiting 6,000 extra officers by March 2021 and are ahead of schedule to recruit, as promised, 20,000 more police officers by 2023. With a new cohort of police officers protecting our communities, we should give them the protection that they need to do the job to the best of their ability.
At a time when we are battling an invisible enemy—the coronavirus—our exceptional frontline workers should not be at risk of violence from the very people they are trying to protect. I am glad that the Government have shown that they will not tolerate such attacks and are legislating to double the maximum penalty for assaults on emergency workers from 12 months to two years in prison—the penalty that fits such an abhorrent and selfish crime.
At a time when we have been tragically reminded of the senseless violence perpetrated against women and girls, it is important that our communities are protected from the most serious offenders. A previous Labour Government introduced automatic early release at the halfway point; we are legislating to ensure that that stops and that those convicted of the most serious violent and sexual offences must serve at least two thirds of their sentence before parole is considered.
I welcome the fact that more robust sentences for the worst offenders will be combined with greater efforts to rehabilitate. For offenders stuck in the revolving door of crime there will be things such as electronic monitoring tags to ensure that long and restrictive curfews are adhered to. Sobriety tags, which were first piloted here in Lincolnshire, will ensure that individuals comply with alcohol abstinence orders. Such measures will ensure that once criminals have left custody, robust monitoring is still in place both to stop further harm and to break the cycle of reoffending.
I am pleased to see that those who use their car as a weapon will receive longer sentences, but as we increase sentences for careless driving I look to the Minister for reassurance that we will not criminalise those who have a momentary lapse in concentration—something most of us experience at some point.
Burglary is a particularly invasive crime that many of my constituents fear, and it leaves people feeling unsafe in their home. Will the Minister consider increasing sentences for those who commit this particularly invasive crime?
The Bill represents a significant strengthening of our judicial system, with the flexibility to tackle both serious crime and the causes of crime. I am proud to see this Government delivering on their manifesto commitment to empower our judicial system and make our country safer, and I will support the Bill today.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
This monster of a Bill includes the word “women” zero times in 295 pages, yet statutes, war memorials and monuments are mentioned multiple times.
The Bill is likely to go into Committee, so it is then that I will seek to improve it by tabling an amendment to prohibit the long-standing and continual, daily harassment and intimidation of women at abortion facilities. Every year, 100,000 women across England and Wales who try to exercise their right to a termination are told that they are going to hell, filmed, followed and given propaganda that is inevitably medically wrong and unwanted. That is not healthy, noisy protest but the shaming of individual vulnerable women for decisions taken perhaps as a result of rape or similar. It is gendered harassment, which is not included in the Bill but overlaps with part 3—the explanatory notes talk about
“disruption to the life of the community”
when
“the purpose of the organiser is to intimidate others into doing or not doing something that they have a right to do”.
Many women will have recognised what the Home Secretary said yesterday about how we all too often quicken our pace or grab our keys or phone in uncomfortable street encounters. Factor in being booked for a time-sensitive medical operation and there is no easy escape. This intimidatory activity is calculated to make women cancel their appointment or, at the very best, rebook it for when those people are not there. There is unpredictability and inconsistency: only three local authorities have gone down the byelaw route of local public space protection orders. This cannot continue; it is unequal access to justice, if nothing else.
When I asked the Health Secretary in this Chamber for his opinion on anti-vaxxers, he told me that no one’s access to legal medicine should be barred or prevented. By lumping such a measure in with prosecuting sports coaches who groom teams, criminalising already-persecuted Traveller lifestyles and introducing excessive sentences for toppling statues, the Government are inevitably going to accuse those who oppose the Bill of being soft on sex offenders, which is really disappointing.
Harassment of women is objectively wrong; it is surely not party political. Indeed, the cross-party will of the House is behind such a measure. The last time my private Member’s Bill was put to a vote in June, the House voted for it by 213 to 47. I even had Government Members on the payroll coming up to me all day saying, “Good on you, I wish we could have voted for this too.” So it is high time we updated what is being done in common law and put into statute, followed Canada—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am terribly sorry; we have to move on.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
Given the recent focus on violence against women and the fact that the coronavirus pandemic has increased physical and sexual violence, the Bill represents an opportunity to fix oversights in the law regarding child safeguarding. It contains some welcome provisions that will protect women in the UK. However, child marriage remains an oversight, and a new clause criminalising the practice would protect vulnerable girls in this country and around the world.
Under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, adults commit a criminal offence if they have sex with a child—defined as a person under the age of 18—with whom they are in a position of trust. Clause 45 of this Bill would extend the list of positions of trust to include sports coaches and religious figures, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). The explanatory notes state that the logic is that children are susceptible to abuse, exploitation and manipulation. If a child’s will can so easily be manipulated by those in a position of trust, with abusive consequences, why does the law allowed them to marry at the age of 16 or 17 with their parents’ consent?
In 2018, the Forced Marriage Unit recorded 1,500 cases of suspected forced marriage, 35% of which involved children under the age of 18, and since 2017, Karma Nirvana has responded to 375 calls involving child marriage. However, the true prevalence of child marriage is likely to be much greater as it often occurs in unofficial customary ceremonies. The crime of forced marriage, introduced in 2014, does not adequately protect children. The Forced Marriage Unit reports feeling unable to intervene in cases involving children because coercion is difficult to prove and vulnerable children have been groomed to appear willing. Children being groomed into child marriages often cannot understand what is happening to them and feel unable to challenge their parents. The current law effectively places the reporting obligation of a serious crime on young and vulnerable victims. For that reason, many contact charities such as Karma Nirvana only later in life when the damage has been done, so could Ministers please include a new clause in the Bill to enable us to stop child marriage in this country?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I should just like to remind those who are on the call list but who, for whatever reason, are unable to take part in the debate, please to get in touch with the Speaker’s Office as usual. That message will then get through to us. The sooner the better, please.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
This Bill has provisions that I support, including whole-life orders for premeditated child murder and ending automatic early release of dangerous prisoners and sex offenders. However, the Bill also attacks, on a permanent basis, the fundamental human right of peaceful assembly. Banning gatherings, or a single person protest, on the grounds of noise or annoyance is deeply troubling. Noting the disgraceful events at Clapham Common on Saturday, I will vote against the Bill tonight.
The Bill also needs to do much more on tackling violence against all women and girls. The Government’s announcement on a council bidding process for lighting and CCTV funding does not cut the mustard. The Opposition’s reasoned amendment points out that the Bill fails to introduce a single new measure specifically designed to tackle the epidemic of violence against women. Indeed, anyone damaging a statue would receive a heavier sentence than many rapists.
I want to raise three issues that the Bill should cover. First, if Ministers are serious about protecting women, they must recognise that exchanging money, food and accommodation for sex is a form of violence. Scotland’s Government, the Crown Prosecution Service and the London Mayor recognise prostitution as violence against women. Why not this Government? Our current laws on prostitution are unfit for purpose. The UK today is a low-risk, high-profit destination for sex traffickers and pimps. Pimping websites operate openly and legally. Women are subjected to sexual exploitation by men, who face no criminal sanction. We must bust the business model of this modern slavery, cracking down on online pimping, deterring sex-buyers and supporting victims. I will be tabling cross-party amendments to introduce laws that support women and hold men accountable.
Secondly, pornography websites currently profit from exposing children to misogynistic violent pornography, fostering attitudes that underpin violence against women. We need the Government to take action on that.
Finally, we must join the dots. Individual incidents of violence against women are often not random, one-off or unconnected. Effective prevention of violence requires early intervention. We need a way to flag up where low-level sexual offences are often the gateway to potential serious escalation. Libby Squire was raped and murdered in Hull by a man who had, for 18 months prior to attacking Libby, wandered the streets committing sexual acts of indecent exposure, voyeurism and burglary of underwear and sex toys. Many offences were not reported, but even if they had been, the current law would not have dealt with the underlying problem.
In conclusion, violence against women is endemic, but also preventable. In remembering Libby Squire, Sarah Everard and many others, we need deeds from this Government, not words.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
What a rare treat to be able to speak in the Chamber.
One of my colleagues said earlier that the primary role of Government is to keep people safe: to keep those who are the law-abiding majority safe, those who want to do the right thing and those who simply just want to get on with their lives. We made commitments in our 2019 manifesto on law and order. This substantial Bill fills many holes and codifies some loose ends of common law interpretations, but mainly it protects the public whom we are here to serve. There are a number of features in the Bill and I just want to highlight a few in the time available.
Whole-life orders, as the starting point for premeditated child murder, has to be right. The prevention of automatic early release of serious, violent and sexual offenders has to be right. The public, for too many years, have wondered of what madness we have had that that was not so.
The doubling of the maximum sentence to two years for assaulting emergency workers, again, has to be right. These people have worked hard for us over the past year. Too often, we hear stories of them being spat at and abused during the covid period. We have spoken about the protection of victims and witnesses over many years, but finally Kay’s law, as it has been called, will mean that victims will be able to play a part in the bail conditions that the police impose.
Strengthening powers to tackle protests that cause significant disruption to the public is the area that seems to have got a lot of people exercised over the past few days. What we saw at Clapham Common was an unedifying scene, but it was not a result of this Bill or where we are at the moment. It was a result of the draconian covid legislation that I have not supported throughout but, strangely, Labour has. This Bill does not attempt to stop protest—far from it, and I would not be supporting it if it were, because I quite enjoy a good protest.
Very importantly, the Bill criminalises trespass to tackle unauthorised encampments. I can imagine that hardly any, if any, hon. Members or right hon. Members in this House have not had communities that have had to bear the cost of such unauthorised damage, cost to the local taxpayer, and often a “couldn’t care less” attitude by those who conduct it. The Bill also backs up our significant commitment to deliver 20,000 new police officers, and some of the excellent work in disrupting county lines and action against drugs in general.
I will support the Bill this evening, and I am somewhat intrigued that Her Majesty’s Opposition are opposed to it at this stage, but there seem to be more flip-flops than on a summer holiday.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) [V]
This is a broad and significant Bill. There are many areas that I would like to discuss, but I have only three minutes, so I will concentrate on the long overdue changes relating to illegal Traveller camping.
My constituency has a number of legitimate Traveller sites. The relationship between the settled communities and the so-called Travellers on official sites is generally harmonious. Surrey County Council and Surrey District and Borough Councils are in the process of setting up a transit site, with facilities, for Travellers. All this is very different from the frequent illegal Traveller invasions. Surrey has had hundreds of these incidents, and my constituency has more than its fair share. Over recent years, the numbers of these illegal land-squatting camps have increased. If access is inhibited by barriers, gates or any form of obstruction, they are broken down or removed, and generally damaged. The Travellers then squat on-site regardless of the ownership, be it common land, parkland, farmland, private land or even a school playground. I note that a number of Members are opposed to change and would prefer that this remained a civil matter. That approach has been an absolute, abysmal failure, with considerable financial loss to the local community or the landowners. The legislative change criminalising this type of illegal camping is exceptionally welcome and has been long awaited. It is for the protection of local people—my constituents.
I note that in certain circumstances a fine can be imposed. Considering the phenomenal mess of human detritus and general waste, often including hardcore, that is almost without exception left behind when the illegal occupiers are removed, it would be helpful if some form of recompense for the cost of returning the site to its pre-invasion state could be available. I realise that that would be technically possible using the Compensation Act 2006, but this would need civil action requiring identification and service of notice on individuals who will have already moved and be able to claim that the mess was no fault of theirs. Hence, I wonder if it would be possible to require the site that has been occupied illegally to be returned to its previous state or to apply an appropriate cost to those who are abusing the site.
There is much in this Bill that I like, but this particular change will be overwhelmingly welcomed by an enormous number of my constituents who have been abused by these people over many years.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) [V]
I am grateful to be called in this debate. I wish to place on record my thanks to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), for meeting me to discuss this Bill. The scale of the Bill, the wide-ranging import of its provisions and indeed the two days set aside for the Second Reading debate all indicate the magnitude of what is contained within it.
First, I wish to indicate my support for the provisions that directly apply to Northern Ireland. The ability to access information from encrypted devices, the ability to take samples from human remains, changes to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and mutual recognition across our United Kingdom are all welcome provisions that will assist in the fight against serious crime. Ministers are aware that I have raised my concern that, although they are not part of this Bill, unexplained wealth orders, provided for in the Criminal Finances Act 2017, have not yet commenced in Northern Ireland, despite our Department of Justice seeking a commencement order.
With paramilitarism and organised crime still having a significant impact in Northern Ireland generally, and in my constituency of East Belfast particularly, we need immediate progress on this issue. I am prepared to table amendments to the Bill if necessary, though I am somewhat assuaged to hear that progress may come in the next week or two. I would therefore be extremely grateful if confirmation of that could be given from the Dispatch Box this evening.
Separately, the House is well aware of the strength of feeling following the abhorrent murder of Sarah Everard so I am pleased that the Bill will increase the time served in prison from half to two-thirds of the sentence as a minimum for the most serious sexual offences. It will bring in provisions on abuse of positions of trust and enact Kay’s law with greater protections linked to pre-charge bail.
Finally, and regretfully, I rail against in the strongest possible terms the overarching sweeping and draconian provisions on protests. I have heard what the Government’s intention is, but the loose and lazy way the legislation is drafted would make a dictator blush. Protests will be noisy. Protests will disrupt. No matter how offensive we may find the issue at their heart, the right to protest should be protected.
Unless we wish to proceed with societal constraints that permit only graceful, genteel and humble protest, I urge the Government to indicate that they accept the strength of feeling on this issue, that they will work with colleagues across the House to amend the provisions significantly, and that they will not proceed without publishing guidance underpinned by statute on the operative implications.
I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all colleagues a happy St Patrick’s Day for tomorrow.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Thank you. We now go by video link to Dame Angela Eagle.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a huge portmanteau Bill. It contains proposals that I would sum up as the good, the bad and the ugly. The good includes measures that give particular protection to emergency service workers from assault, the problem-solving courts pilot, and long overdue reform of the criminal records disclosure regime. The bad is the Government’s appalling assault on the right to protest and free assembly, which is causing concern and alarm across the House, including from the former Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who expressed her misgivings about this in no uncertain terms yesterday.
The ugly is the complete absence from the Bill of any coherent attempt to protect the freedom of women and girls to live their lives free of harassment and violence. Clause 46 further criminalises assaults on statues by increasing the maximum penalty for such vandalism to a scarcely believable 10 years in jail. The Government’s obsession with using the law to stoke a culture war by giving more protection to inanimate statutes than to living people is an abuse.
Clauses 54 to 60 are a premeditated attack on the right to assemble and protest, which is the cornerstone of our democracy. While Ministers purport to be the defenders of our rights and freedoms, the Bill diminishes both. It extends already wide powers to police demonstrations much further, by creating new offences and new criteria that can be used to close down protest. The Bill seeks to place draconian limits on the method, location and even the noise demonstrators will in future be allowed to make if they are to remain lawful.
Apparently demonstrators are henceforth to be seen but not heard, like children in a particularly reactionary Victorian novel; yet the whole point of demonstrations is precisely to draw attention to injustice and give voice to issues that have been ignored. Democracy can be loud and messy sometimes—that is the point of it—so the Bill must be amended to preserve the freedom of assembly and the right to protest.
The real issue that the Bill should address is the mess that the Government have made of the justice and courts system. There is currently a backlog of 56,000 cases in the Crown courts, which means four years to wait for a trial. Justice delayed is surely justice denied. Since 2015, the percentage of recorded crime that reaches the court has halved. Rape convictions are down to just 2% of cases reported, and while domestic violence has soared in lockdown, convictions have fallen off a cliff. The Government would do better to run the existing court system efficiently and effectively before they come to the House with the new laws contained in the Bill.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) [V]
I will be supporting this important piece of legislation, which delivers on our manifesto pledge. It covers many important elements, and during my contribution I will have time to address only some of them. First, may I associate myself with the comments about Sarah Everard? My thoughts are with her loved ones.
I am not a lawyer, but there are many learned hon. Members of this House, and it is worth noting that the Law Society supports the overall ambition of this substantial Bill to tackle crime, support the police and build safer communities. Going into detail, one of the bits I particularly want to highlight is clause 46. Following an excellent campaign by my hon. Friends the Members for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), with the private Member’s Bill on the desecration of war memorials, it is good to see this measure included in the Bill. It is not just about war memorials; it includes roadside memorials and gravestones as well.
On part 3 on public order and the right to protest, it is worth reiterating that the police response does need to be proportionate. I would cast the House’s memory back to six months ago when we all saw images on social media of an ambulance trying to access St Thomas’s and not being able to do so. The other theme worth highlighting on this particular issue is that there have been effects on freedom of the press with print media not being able to print.
Part 4 on unauthorised encampments—clause 61 onwards—is a really important piece of legislation. I know of many colleagues who have campaigned on this particular provision for many years. It will make trespass a criminal offence, and it has a significant effect on law-abiding communities. I would echo the comments made by others in the House that civil actions have not been a suitable avenue of discouraging poor behaviour. Clause 62, which changes the period of no return from three months to 12 months, targets the bad apples, and I think it is a welcome addition.
Finally, part 7 on sentencing and release is a really important piece of legislation that gives the law-abiding citizens of our country the confidence that those found guilty of heinous crimes will have a proportionate sentence. Clause 108 on referring to the Parole Board in place of automatic release is another aspect that is well worth mentioning.
In summing up, this Bill will be warmly welcomed by law-abiding citizens. It offers increased protection to those who protect us, it increases the options available to the courts to ensure that sentences are in line with the offence and it ensures that disruptive behaviour is actively discouraged.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]
On the day the Parliament of Scotland seeks to place the United Nations convention on the rights of the child at the heart of our nation’s legal system, the British Parliament seeks to criminalise thousands of Gypsy and Traveller children for daring with their families, in the 21st century, to live their traditional and historic way of life. Imprinted on vellum, this archaic legislation will enshrine centuries of resentment, bigotry and racism, entrenching inequalities and proscribing specific ethnic groups, even against the advice of the police forces of England. It is a law that facilitates the narrative of exclusion, well exposed in recent weeks when Dochertys like me, merely for being from the Traveller community, are excluded from the life of the state.
As a Scottish constituency MP, I see this is a direct attack on the Scottish Traveller community, which this Parliament refuses to recognise as a distinct ethnic group—Scots who will be at the mercy of Dickensian attitudes, and exposed to imprisonment and financial ruin by the mother of Parliaments. As the co-chair of the all-party group on Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, I see this as a misguided, reprehensible attack on the ancient and historic rights of the nomadic peoples of these islands. It is clear that England’s green and pleasant lands are not for the likes of us, and the Conservative and Unionist party does not give a damn who knows it.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate and to support this vital legislation. At the outset of my remarks, I too would like to set on record my deep sympathy for the family and friends of Sarah Everard—what happened last week was the most appalling story, and it will cast a lasting shadow for many of us as we reflect on these issues today and, indeed, in the years ahead.
This legislation matters because it is about the Conservative party delivering on our promise to the public to cut crime and ensure that we have tougher sentencing for some of the most violent criminals in our society, and I find myself genuinely astonished at the attitude of Opposition parties in opposing it.
I want to address the two main grounds being relied on by the official Opposition to justify its stance. First, there are the provisions to stop some of the most extreme tactics of protest groups such as Extinction Rebellion, which go too far. I well remember the tactics of Extinction Rebellion and the misery they brought to hundreds of thousands of people across the capital and elsewhere. Blocking roads so that ambulances cannot pass, because people are glued to the ground, is not a legitimate tactic for protest. The right to protest is fundamental, but it is not unqualified. We have to balance all rights and responsibilities in our society against the rights and liberties of our fellow citizens, and the tactics that have been deployed have clearly gone too far.
The second ground that Labour relies on is that the Bill is not ambitious enough in its protection of women and girls, and some of the remarks by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) sum up the damaging things that are being said about this legislation, which will undermine public confidence and are, in fact, simply wrong. She spoke about statutes being attacked, as though they were some kind of worthless thing to defend. I would defend our heritage on its own terms, but, of course, the relevant provision is also about protecting gravestones, for example, from being desecrated; it is not just about statues.
The hon. Lady also said that we had not taken action on protecting people from harassment. Well, the Government have taken action on stalking, and they introduced a 10-year sentence for it recently. That is something I am very proud of, and it should not be forgotten. It has added to a very strong record on the protection of women’s rights, on issues from forced marriage to strangulation to coercive control. We should be proud of all of that, because this Government care deeply. The Bill strengthens those provisions further, from ending early release for serious sex offenders, to stricter pre-charge bail conditions, to measures on the abuse of positions of trust and on arranging or facilitating child sex abuse. This is really important legislation, and that should not be forgotten.
That all goes to show how far the Labour party has drifted from the values of its traditional heartlands. In places such as Middlesbrough and Hartlepool, it is not just that local people feel ignored and taken for granted by the Opposition, but that they now feel actively betrayed by them. This legislation is a litmus test about values, and it deserves the full support of the House today.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
In any legislation, any of us on any of these Benches can always find some good, and this legislation is no different. For example, there are the measures on providing protection from being abused by adults in positions of trust and the measures on dangerous driving, as well as the increase in sentences for those who assault our emergency workers. However, this legislation is a curate’s egg, and what little good there is in it is overwhelmed and infected by the bad. It breaches the covenant between us in Parliament and the public about the consent that is part of a free, fair and equal society.
All of us recognise that it is time for some reform of how public order is managed in this country. The scenes of chaos that we saw on Saturday are a clear embodiment of that. The trust between the police and women, particularly in London, has been broken—trust that many communities have not had in the police for some time—but this legislation will do little to heal those relationships.
I will be honest: I have a long list of things that cause me “severe annoyance”. Some, Members may agree with; many, they probably would not. However, I pity the commanding officer trying to enforce this legislation if it becomes law and trying to explain decisions around severe annoyance. The legislation is simply unworkable. I am also ashamed to be part of a Parliament that is seeking to demonise a minority community in the measures being brought forward around Gypsy and Traveller communities—measures, indeed, that the police themselves have said they do not wish to see.
The public have to be able to tell us when we are getting something wrong. Sometimes that message is noisy and messy, but it is important that we do not seek to silence it no matter how uncomfortable it might make us feel. This legislation seeks to do that.
The Bill also breaches that covenant between us and the public by what it does not contain. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) does not quite understand the concern that there is no mention of women, but plenty of mention of statues. At a time when we are all concerned about the lack of action over tackling violence against women, this legislation could have been the perfect vehicle for the Government to implement the Law Commission’s recommendations on making misogyny a hate crime, but those are measures are absent. It could also have been an opportunity for the Government to recognise when they are at fault in the courts. Let me give just two examples. For the past three years, the Government have been found at fault by the courts on how they treat bereaved parents in this country and on how they treat victims of domestic violence who have a sanctuary room—they charge them the bedroom tax—but no measures have been brought forward. What respect for the courts does that show from a Government who are now seeking to reform those areas?
Human rights mean little if they cannot be actioned and if they are not upheld, even when it goes against what appears to be the Government’s interests. I urge the Government to use this legislative time for something more constructive, to work across the House, to recognise the concerns over violence against women and to uphold all our rights. We shall all regret it if they do not.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) [V]
There is so much to say in such a short time. First and foremost, I wish to thank the brilliant officers of Devon and Cornwall police for their unshakeable commitment, as well as our fantastic police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, who has done a huge amount of work, particularly around combating domestic violence and modern slavery in our region.
I am afraid that I have to take issue with some Opposition voices that have described the new measures around policing protests as dangerous and draconian. Ensuring that a protest cannot prevent an ambulance from reaching a hospital in an emergency is the exact opposite of dangerous. Ensuring that police can impose conditions on protests that are noisy enough to cause intimidation, alarm and distress to innocent bystanders is the exact opposite of draconian. As the Home Secretary said yesterday, the right to peaceful protest is the cornerstone of our democracy, and all of us in this Chamber understand and cherish that fundamental right. It does not, however, extend to causing damage to property or injury to others.
I am pleased that the Bill introduces maximum life sentences for drivers who cause death by dangerous driving or by driving under the influence of drink and drugs. I want to thank my constituents in Truro and Falmouth who, throughout my time as their Member of Parliament, have consistently highlighted the need for proper punishment of hit-and-run drivers. Unfortunately, they will be familiar with the tragic death of Ryan Saltern, a postman from Probus, a husband and a dad of young children. The man responsible for Ryan’s death left the scene and was sentenced to just four months, which was suspended for a year. He was disqualified from driving for just 12 months. Needless to say, Ryan’s family have been left devastated. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) has been working closely with Ryan’s parents, and I join him in asking Ministers to consider a new criminal offence of leaving the scene of an accident that later resulted in death. We would welcome further meetings with Ministers about this matter.
Finally, I pay tribute to the Bill for the changes that will bring about better protection for women. I am proud to sit on the Benches of a Government who have already introduced, or who are progressing the introduction of, the following measures specifically aimed at the protection of women: outlawing upskirting; creating an offence of coercive control; strengthening the ban on a rough sex defence; outlawing non-fatal strangulation; creating the offence of stalking and then doubling the maximum sentence; criminalising the sending of revenge porn images or threats to do so; introducing measures to make it easier for victims to give evidence in court; the passing of the Modern Slavery Act 2015; the increased funding for rape support centres by 50%—the list goes on. In addition, Cornwall Council is receiving £1.1 million of funding, which was announced last month, to ensure that domestic abuse victims and their children are able to access life-saving support.
As always, I welcome the Prime Minister’s further announcements this week of the doubling of the investment for our safer streets. There is more to do, but the Bill is a great start, and I will happily back it this evening.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) [V]
This 300-page incoherent mish-mash of a Bill contains some truly odious measures, and I have time to deal with only one of them: the dangerous and unjustifiable crackdown on the freedom to protest in clauses 54 to 60. Those clauses alone are enough for me to vote against Second Reading tonight, despite the Bill containing some good measures.
This populist Government have swiftly developed a penchant for authoritarianism, born of their approach to getting the vast amount of Brexit legislation necessary through Parliament. They have got into the habit of writing framework Bills with extensive Henry VIII powers, leaving vast scope for Ministers to change primary legislation by personal fiat, without adequate parliamentary scrutiny. This trend has been made worse by the necessity to legislate swiftly for public health reasons because of covid, again with no scrutiny ahead of laws being brought into force. The coronavirus crisis has led to a draconian removal of basic liberties that is necessary temporarily for health reasons, but not for a minute to be thought of as desirable. The Government now want to make this emergency way of doing things the norm, to enable police officers to have far too much power effectively to silence any protest.
We have a Government who attack judges who decide cases in ways they do not approve of; some Law Officers who will not defend the independence of the judiciary; a Government who legislate to enable themselves to break a treaty that they have only just signed; Ministers, including the Home Secretary, who break the ministerial code with impunity, while senior civil servants they disagree with are hounded out of their jobs; and a Government who now want to take the power to ban demonstrations or vigils if they are too noisy—they are literally silencing any protest they do not like.
This legislation allows for convictions for breach of conditions that the police have imposed, even where the person on trial has no knowledge of what that condition was; it increases the punishment for such a breach from 12 weeks to 51 weeks in prison. The Home Secretary seems to have hijacked what was a worthy enough sentencing Bill to insert her divisive and polarising measures on protests. The original timetable for the Bill gave the game away. It was due to be completed in time for the police and crime commissioner elections in May. This is being done to enable the Government to claim that their political opponents are not supporting the police enough—indeed, we have already heard speeches from some Government Back Benchers claiming just that.
There has been no real focus on how the law should be changed for the good of society. For example, we have just seen how much it fails to meet the needs of women, who just want to be safe. This Bill just does not tackle any of those issues. Clauses 54 to 60 are intended to destroy the fundamental rights of citizens in our democracy to protest, and just for some cheap headlines ahead of an election. The Bill is draconian and undesirable, and the Government should not get away with enacting it.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) [V]
First, I want to join in the sympathies and prayers expressed by Members from across the House to the family and friends of Sarah Everard.
I rise, virtually, to support this welcome Bill, and in the limited time I have I wish to focus on the aspects that concern violence against women, girls and children. I have been disappointed by the approach that Opposition Members have taken to this Bill, which stands in marked contrast to the constructive tone taken to the Domestic Abuse Bill. It is clear that today’s Bill takes a stride forward in protecting women and girls. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) describes the “little good” the Bill is doing. I would not describe ending the automatic halfway release of those convicted of offences such as rape, extending the law on abusing positions of trust to better protect children, better protecting victims of domestic violence and introducing tougher sentences for sex offenders as “little good”. Indeed, when this is paired with the Domestic Abuse Bill and the upcoming violence against women strategy, we see that the Government are taking concrete steps to address the many challenges we still face to make women safe in their homes and on the streets.
I also take serious issue with the conflation of maximum and minimum sentences that we have heard in the course of this debate. The maximum sentence for rape is life. That message should ring out from this Chamber. The conflation of the minimum and maximum sentences is simply a demonstration of the Opposition playing party politics on an issue that goes far beyond any point scoring in this Chamber today.
However, it is always important to look at what more we can do. I have spoken before about my long-standing concerns about the use of standard determinate sentences, particularly for rape. I welcome the action that the Government are taking to end the use of standard determinate sentences for terrorist offenders, and the power to refer high-risk offenders to the Parole Board in place of automatic release. However, the reoffending rate for sexual offenders is 14%, and we know that 84% of rape convictions are dealt with by standard determinate sentences. That means that the Parole Board is not involved at all in the release of those criminals. I think we should look at that further, to add to the already significantly increased protections that we are giving women and children as a result of this Bill—and any accusation that we are doing otherwise is false.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
This is a dangerous Bill in many ways, both in what it contains and in what it omits, including in its stark failure to really tackle violence against women. I want to concentrate, in my three minutes, on the draconian threat to the right to protest.
Under this Government’s plans, protests will still be allowed, just as long as the police say so, just as long as the protests are not too noisy, just as long as they do not cause too much of a nuisance, just as long as they do not seriously annoy anyone, and just as long as they are not too near Parliament. So protests can go ahead, just as long as they do not do what protests are meant to do. And those who do not abide by the new rules could get 10 years in prison—longer than the sentences most men convicted of rape ever get.
Let us be clear: this is a political attack—an attack on people’s ability to exercise of one of their key democratic rights, an attack on one of the ways people have to speak out against Government policies they oppose, an attack on free speech. The Government have already made it much more difficult for people to go on strike, and now they want the police to make it much harder for people to protest.
Even without this new law, we have seen the state, under this Government, clamping down on democratic rights: last week, a nurse fined £10,000 after protesting against pay cuts; women at the Clapham common vigil attacked. And it goes way back: students kettled for opposing higher tuition fees; fracking activists jailed.
This Bill, written in direct response to the growth of Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion, is aimed at suppressing further political opposition and dissent. Instead of tackling the underlying grievances, the state is responding by attacking those challenging injustice. It is a form of state intimidation, designed to stop people organising and attending protests, but people will not be stopped.
Throughout our history, significant gains have been won through demonstrations: eight-hour days won by the trade unions; votes for women won by the suffragettes. Such movements were always denounced at the time as violent by politicians standing on the wrong side of history. If the Government proceed, this law will be broken repeatedly, and trust between the state and its citizens further shattered.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) [V]
On a sunny spring morning early on a Saturday in 2017, weeks away from the general election, I was at home, where I am now, with my then nine-year-old daughter, my wife having just left to go out with my then 11-year-old and three-month-old daughters. I looked out of the window and saw a car parked outside, with a man holding a ladder walking towards the house. We were not expecting anyone, so I went out to ask if I could help.
Things then took a sinister turn. What unfolded was an orchestrated, organised mass takeover around and on our private home, with two men forcing their way up on to our roof while others appeared with camera phones and a loudhailer as they circled our house, taking photos and video footage through the windows and broadcasting unsavoury and baseless claims about me. My nine-year-old hid upstairs while I called the police for help.
The guise of this protest was to rail against cases of children being taken into care and adopted. As the then Minister for Children, I knew that strong views on this sensitive subject came with the territory, but never in my wildest dreams believed this would ever be literal. We were forced to vacate our family home under police escort and were unable to return for three days as our roof remained occupied, save for my wife recovering some personal belongings for her and our baby with the police in attendance.
As this trespass was, in law, a civil matter, my only recourse at that stage was to apply for an injunction, unless it could be shown that a criminal offence had subsequently been committed on site. We were all left feeling helpless, intimidated, frightened and let down by the current construct of trespass and public order law. The children were confused and worried, and I ended up having to relive the whole experience in court, after which, thankfully, convictions were secured. For many months afterwards, I would still jump when a vehicle I did not recognise parked outside our house. We can all subscribe to physical non-violent protests on public land, but the mental and emotional impact on those caught up in it, especially where trespass is involved, cannot be overlooked. That is one of a number of reasons why I am very supportive of the provisions in parts 3 and 4 of the Bill.
As a former children’s Minister, I am pleased to see measures to extend definitions in relation to those who abuse positions of trust by engaging in sexual activity with minors, as well as measures establishing secure schools, preventing knife crime, promoting and improving the use of youth rehabilitation orders and others. I know that many parishes in Eddisbury will welcome the Bill’s proposals to protect our war memorials from desecration.
As the Bill goes through Committee and Report stages, there is a chance to consider what more we can do to tackle the growing and devastating scourge of pet theft, which is an emotive issue among many of my constituents. Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention my private Member’s Bill to raise the retirement age of magistrates to 75, which I am delighted is now official Government policy. Is this not the perfect Bill in which to make that law?
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) [V]
First, may I pay my respects to the loved ones of Sarah Everard? My thoughts and prayers are with them.
Causing death by dangerous driving deserves a life sentence. That is the justice that Violet-Grace Youens’s parents deserved. Their angelic four-year-old daughter Violet-Grace was so cruelly taken from them. The family continue to tirelessly campaign and help others through the Violet’s Gift charity. Last year I was proud to co-sign the private Member’s Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) on this very issue. Since then, the Government have indicated that they will not support that Bill. Instead, they have included the dangerous driving changes in this far-reaching Bill before us. Unfortunately, this means that I will not be able to support the changes this time, for this Bill infringes on our very freedom and democratic rights.
Like many, I agree that protests can sometimes cause some personal annoyance. Protests can make us late for work. Protests can cause a little harm to our finances. Protests can force us to listen to views we do not agree with. But should protests be a criminal act because they cause the risk of some “serious annoyance”? I do not think so, and I am sure that most Members agree. Perhaps worse still, the Bill empowers a judge to imprison someone convicted of causing the risk of serious annoyance for 10 years.
The freedom and right to protest is the cornerstone of everything we believe in. It is the bedrock of liberal democracy. Across the world to this day, we see people taking to the streets to protest for their rights. Throughout my life, I have seen how protests have brought about change—the fall of the Berlin wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and more recently in Belarus and Myanmar. We have also seen where putting down protests can lead us. The Tiananmen Square protests live on in our memory. Every adult alive that day remembers that brave man walking in front of those tanks. Giving up our freedoms simply so that the Home Secretary can appear to be tough on crime is not justifiable. Doing so would be a betrayal of everything this Chamber represents.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) [V]
It is a privilege to speak in this important debate. I, too, would like to extend my deepest condolences to Sarah Everard’s family and friends. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) for sharing his powerful personal experience to bring to life how important the changes in the Bill are.
A couple of weeks ago, a young female in my constituency started working as a police officer. On just her second shift, she was assaulted when someone spat at her. Spitting and coughing on police officers has become more common since covid-19 came into our lives. North Wales police alone recorded 100 attacks on officers including coughing and spitting or biting between February and November last year. This is part of an unacceptable trend of increased assaults against police and other emergency service workers. Of respondents to the Police Federation demand, capacity and welfare survey last year, 55% said they had been the victim of an unarmed physical attack in the previous 12 months, and in some frontline roles the figure was as high as 83%.
Since 2020, at least 30 officers have been killed while performing their duties, despite massive improvements in protective and defensive equipment. The data shows that we are living in a more violent society, and the threats to our police officers are increasing, but those who attack or assault police officers are often let off with little more than a slap on the wrist. What an offence that is to our police. I speak regularly with the police on Anglesey; I have been out with them on patrol and I helped to man the Britannia bridge with them during the first lockdown. I know how seriously they take protecting people on the island, but they tell me of the difficult and often threatening situations they handle every single day. John Apter, the national chair of the Police Federation, said:
“We need officers to have the very best protection, and there must be a strong deterrent—that deterrent should be time in prison, no ifs, no buts.”
The Bill doubles the maximum sentence for those who assault police and other emergency workers.
I end by saying that I will back the Bill tonight. I applaud this Government for using the Bill to follow through on their manifesto commitment to take serious action on sentencing of those who assault our police, as part of their raft of measures to improve provision for those who serve our communities daily.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
The Government admit that there is a crisis in policing, the criminal justice system and courts, and the publication of such an interminably long Bill speaks to that. Members of the public may be left wondering, given that the Conservative party has been in office for well over 10 years now, who is responsible for the multiple crises. In that time, we have had innumerable pieces of legislation on these matters—on policing, criminal justice and courts—including statutory instruments. Logically, we can conclude that none of that legislation has dealt with the admitted problems, and may even have exacerbated them.
We should not expect the outcome of this Bill to be different, because it is designed not to address fundamental problems but to infringe on our civil liberties and prosecute culture wars, with more protection for a statue than for a woman and a longer sentence for damaging public property than for sexual assault. The Bill does not even attempt to address the crisis of plummeting conviction rates for some of the most serious crimes, including rape. Reported rapes are soaring; they almost reached 60,000 last year, but barely 2,000 resulted in prosecution. The Victims’ Commissioner has spoken of the effective decriminalisation of rape in this country.
Ministers are fooling no one when their default response is to talk about tougher sentences and more police. Tougher sentences are useless if the perpetrators can reasonably expect never to be convicted. More police on the streets are a waste of time if they are instructed to prioritise guarding statues. The Bill seeks to make that style of policing commonplace, with the major focus on powers to prevent non-violent protests, such as Saturday’s vigil in memory of Sarah Everard, whose family we continue to hold in our thoughts and prayers. It follows in rapid succession legislation that provides legal immunity for members of the armed forces and the police, even in cases of rape, torture and murder.
Historically, we have had policing by consent in this country. This Government seem to be intent on ending that, with more armed police and more random stop-and-search, despite the evidence of racist discrimination, ploughing on with the failed Prevent programme and the obvious demonisation and disproportionate impact on the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, and now the suppression of peaceful gatherings and protests. This is draconian legislation. It will not make us safer. It should be opposed by everybody who believes in democracy.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
In the last three years, there have been 1,329 assaults against emergency services workers in Nottinghamshire, and I will share some of their stories.
On 1 February last year, police were called to assist paramedics at a reported insulin overdose. As they reassured the patient, Lance Morgan, that there was no sign of an overdose, he became abusive, kicking out at officers and paramedics, shouting racist abuse. Emergency workers Paul Pointon and Michael Phipps were injured, as Lance Morgan punched Michael in the groin and Paul in the abdomen. He was sentenced to 20 weeks in prison after pleading guilty to four counts of assaulting an emergency worker.
On 16 August, a female police officer was punched in the face and shoved in the chest after she stopped a driver who had been speeding, lost control and crashed into another car. The offender, Andrew Robbins, got 14 months in prison for assaulting an emergency services worker and a string of driving offences.
I have been speaking about violent assaults, but 64% of the 1,329 assaults were non-physical, such as spitting, coughing on, or threatening officers. The majority of those assaults were carried out by people who claimed to have coronavirus—covid assaults. In Nottinghamshire, Omar Osman spat in the mouth of the police officer arresting him, while claiming he was covid-positive. In custody that evening, he spat in the face of a detention officer, splashed water and urine at another, and hit the custody sergeant over the head while spitting in his face. As one officer said to me when I accompanied him on patrol, these things happen over and over, and people live with that constant, nagging fear: “Have I got covid? What if I pass it on to my family?”.
The Bill will double the maximum sentence for assaults on all emergency service workers. This issue has too often been overlooked in debates of the past 24 hours, because Labour Members do not want their constituents to know that they are voting against it. So that we all know where we stand, tonight Conservative Members will vote for tougher sentences for child murderers; Labour Members will be voting against. We are voting to keep rapists in jail longer; Labour is voting against. We are voting for tougher penalties for those who desecrate the memory of the fallen; Labour is voting against. We are voting to keep our streets safer and to tackle violent crime; Labour is voting against. Labour Members are soft on crime, and soft on the causes of crime. They are failing to protect their constituents, and failing to back our police.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Our hearts are with the family and friends of Sarah Everard, and our thoughts with those who gathered in peace and solidarity to mourn her death, in a vigil that was so badly and aggressively handled, and into which we need an immediate inquiry. In its aftermath, this Bill is our opportunity to help women to reclaim the streets for good, turn back the tide of rapes, and replace fear with confidence. Instead, however, the Bill curtails our rights to peaceful protest and assembly. It gives harsher punishments for attacks on slave-owner monuments than for sexual violence against women. It persecutes our Roma and Gypsy communities, and it attacks our right to roam the countryside while giving rapists freedom to roam our streets; rape is up by 35%, and 99% of recorded rapes never go to court.
We need investment at scale in Nightingale courts, equipped with the latest DNA forensic testing technology, so that rapists can be charged, prosecuted and convicted in weeks, instead of victims living in fear for years, as this Bill allows. The Government should empower our citizens and communities, but instead they attack the rights of all of us to peaceful assembly and protest—trade unionists, EU remainers, climate change activists, anti-war protesters, and vote-at-16 enthusiasts. They are curtailing the freedom of expression that feeds a healthy, responsive democracy. That will drive protest underground, generating heat in place of light.
This Trojan horse Bill may display popular measures on dangerous driving, protecting protectors and Lammy reforms, and I am sure that in Committee, Labour will support those few crumbs of goodness beside the poison chalice that this Bill represents. This thoroughly rotten Bill needs to be rejected and recast in the next Queen’s Speech. It fails to reclaim our streets from the grip of fear; and amid a pandemic, a recession, and the serial abuse of women on our streets, it constitutes an attack on our fundamental values, our democracy, our freedom, and the very laws that protect those things. We should reject the Bill.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Bill delivers on our manifesto commitments to tackle crime. Let me start with protection for those on the frontline. The new police covenant will bring increased focus to the issues of physical protection, help and support for the families of officers. I know from my time in the Ministry of Defence the galvanising effect that the reporting duty in the Bill will have, just as the duty introduced for the armed forces covenant had.
There has been an unacceptable increase in assaults on emergency workers. In Norfolk alone, 659 police officers were assaulted last year. Doubling the sentence for such attacks will better reflect the risk that the police, firefighters, paramedics, prison workers and others face.
Protecting young people is an important part of the Bill. I support including faith leaders and sports coaches in the provisions relating to sexual activity and positions of trust. Extending the offence of arranging a child sex crime will close a gap in criminal law. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the role that Facebook played in providing information that was crucial to securing a 25-year sentence for a serial paedophile in my constituency. However, with the National Crime Agency and senior police officers warning that Facebook’s plans for encryption risk serious child abuse offenders going undetected, I urge Facebook to rethink.
If we are to increase confidence in the justice system, it is important that sentencing reflects the severity of crimes, and I welcome minimum terms for repeat offences, including burglary, drug and knife crimes, unless exceptional circumstances apply. Very serious violent and sexual offenders should rightly serve longer sentences.
There has been much focus on the clauses relating to public order, and rightly so; the right to protest is an essential part of our democracy. I share concerns about the policing in Clapham, and I welcome the independent review. However, the powers in the Bill are not about that; nor are they about the temporary covid restrictions. They are there to deal with deliberate tactics that have led to disproportionate disruption. Some call the blocking of ambulances, closing of bridges and people gluing themselves to trains legitimate protest. My view is that those actions undermine the careful balance between the rights of protesters and the rights of people to go about their daily lives. I recognise that there are concerns, and those provisions will be considered further in Committee.
Finally, there is strong concern about dog theft in North West Norfolk, as elsewhere. Pets are part of our families, and the emotional hurt that the loss of a pet can cause is immense. I hope that during the passage of the Bill, the Government will bring forward measures to increase penalties for that crime.
Tonight, I will back these measures in the Bill, and others to support rehabilitation and more effective community sentences to tackle serious violence. Anyone who votes against this Bill is voting against measures to make our streets safer.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) [V]
What a shame that the Government have chosen to turn a piece of legislation that we could have all got behind into a divisive attempt at a culture war. In this House, we all support the police covenant. We all want better protections for our emergency workers. We all want the right sentences for people who cause death by dangerous driving, and we all want to protect vulnerable young people from abuse by people in a position of trust. I am pleased those measures are in the Bill, and I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), for Halifax (Holly Lynch), for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), for their campaigning on those issues.
There is more the Government could have done that we would have supported, such as introduce better protection for shop workers, as well as emergency workers. I refer to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. Its survey of shop workers last year showed that 60% were threatened by a customer, and 9% were assaulted. We have been trying to tackle the intimidation of shop workers in Didsbury in my constituency, and it is time for real action to deter that kind of behaviour.
We could have seen real measures to tackle violence against women and girls. On sentences, we agree on whole life orders for the premeditated murder of a child, but why not whole life sentences for the abduction, assault and murder of a woman? Why not make street harassment a crime? We could even have seen measures to seriously tackle drug policy and sentencing. In my view, it is counterproductive to criminalise people for the possession of drugs for personal use. It runs the risk of ruining their future life chances, wastes the time of the police and courts, and does not reduce the harm that drugs cause to individuals or society. A serious debate on drug policy is long overdue.
Even without those measures that the Government could have introduced, we could have supported the Bill on the basis of the good things it proposes if it did not have measures that are disproportionate, divisive and dangerous—and that, most importantly, put our fundamental right to protest in jeopardy. The right to protest is one of the most important rights we have, because it helps us to stand up for all other rights. Even the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said yesterday that
“freedom of speech is an important right…however annoying…that might sometimes be.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 78.]
The Home Secretary would do well to listen to her predecessor.
This is a big Bill with very significant measures on complex issues, and it needs serious scrutiny. I hope the Government will extend time on it to the time that it needs, and will rethink the measures that we do not need, and that the police often do not want. I support the Labour party’s reasoned amendment, and will vote against a Bill that puts our fundamental right to protest at risk. I ask the Government to rethink and withdraw those measures as the Bill progresses. As the shadow Home Secretary said yesterday, we should press pause on the Bill and bring the whole House together. This is too important an issue for us not to.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
There is so much wrong with the Bill that three minutes could not possibly cover it. It marks a descent into authoritarianism.
We are debating the Bill today because the Home Secretary despises Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter, having described them as hooligans, thugs and criminals. The Bill is designed to make it more difficult for working people to hold the powerful to account by expanding police powers to a level that should not be seen in any modern democracy. In fact, if this proposed legislation was being debating in another country, I am sure Members of this House would be condemning that country as an authoritarian regime. Make no mistake, this is the biggest assault on our rights and freedom to protest in recent history. It moves to criminalise Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities.
I attended the Black Lives Matter demonstrations in Nottingham East, and the protests and vigils at Scotland Yard and Parliament on Sunday and yesterday. We took to the streets because people are angry. We are hurting. We are sick of male violence, whether it is at the hands of the state, our partners, our family members or strangers. We march because some people do not survive male violence: Sarah Everard, Bibaa Henry, Christina Abbotts, Naomi Hersi and many more. The public realm belongs to women too, and women should have the right to go wherever we choose without men harassing us, assaulting us and raping us. We have a right to walk home.
This Bill does nothing to protect women. In fact, the Bill protects statues of dead men—slave owners, even—more than living women. It hands unaccountable power to the police—the same police who were forcing women to the ground at Clapham common on Saturday night. I will be voting against the Bill.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
I was elected to represent the people of Stockton South on a manifesto that pledged to get tough on crime, protect our emergency service workers and give real justice to the victims of some of the most heinous crimes. I am therefore delighted to support the Bill, which will do exactly that. It will ensure that we are on the side of the victims, not the criminals; it has tougher sentences for those who vandalise our memorials, those who prey on children, sex offenders, killer drivers and child murderers. The victims of those awful crimes are often left scarred by them for the rest of their life, and I am glad that the Bill will go some way to delivering real justice for them.
The Bill contains fundamental, wide-ranging improve-ments to our justice system, and it is impossible to cover its breadth in just three minutes, so I will focus on what it does for our emergency service workers across the country. The pandemic has been awful for us all, but many of our emergency service workers have borne the brunt of it. While we retreated to the safety of our homes, our emergency service workers rolled up their sleeves and got on with it, running towards danger when so many of us would run away. It is therefore unbelievable that during this most terrible year, assaults against our emergency service workers have increased substantially. Yes, our policemen and policewomen who do so much to protect us, and our doctors and nurses who help us when we need them most, have faced record numbers of assaults this year. In Cleveland, that has meant 662 assaults on emergency service workers; that is up more than 50% on the previous year.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am grateful to my next-door neighbour in Stockton for giving way. We have the third-most serious level of serious crime in Cleveland, yet the hon. Gentleman’s Government refused us additional funding time and again. Why?
Matt Vickers
Today the hon. Gentleman has the chance to be on the side of the emergency workers, those brave men and women who put themselves out on the frontline to keep our communities safe. We are putting more police on the streets and giving them the powers and equipment that they need to do the job, and I am very happy that there are more than 150 more police officers on the streets of Cleveland, thanks to this Government.
I welcome the fact that the Bill will increase the maximum sentence imposed on those who assault our emergency service workers. It is much overdue and there must be no further delay in protecting our protectors, doing justice for those who put themselves in harm’s way to uphold the law or who are there to help us when we need them most. I am hopeful that a tougher approach to sentencing will send a signal and go some way to ensuring that our emergency service workers get the respect that they so rightfully deserve. The Bill enshrines the police covenant into law, ensuring that our police officers—retired or serving—and their families get the additional support that they have rightly earned through their service to our communities.
We have put more police officers on the streets. We have provided more equipment and more funding, and now, whether it is by tackling unauthorised encampments or persistent violent offenders, we are giving the police the powers that they need to do the job. This legislation is long overdue and, tonight, I will be on the side of the victims and the emergency service workers across this country.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
There is much in the Bill to be welcomed, but there is an attempt to mislead the public—to accuse Labour MPs of wanting to be soft on those guilty of assaulting or murdering children, emergency workers, police or anyone else convicted of such crimes. Tory MP after Tory MP has done exactly that while, all the time, ignoring the sinister measures in this Bill that hit at the foundations of our democracy—the right to assemble and to protest. No matter how loud the faux anger and indignation of Tory MPs, Labour is right to oppose this Bill and stand up for people’s democratic rights. Protest is awkward, inconvenient and noisy, but it does bring about change. The Bill will give the police powers to determine which protests are acceptable, which should be allowed and which should not. It opens the police up to political pressure and to erring on the side of caution for fear of retribution if trouble occurs.
We are witnessing a Tory-led coup without guns. There has been a consistent pattern to this Tory Government’s abuse of power. To avoid dissent in this House, including dissent from their own side, they closed Parliament. We have seen Tories appointed to public bodies allocating millions in covid contracts to Tory friends for personal protective equipment, goods and services. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care was found to be acting unlawfully for failing to divulge details of contracts. The National Audit Office concluded that applicants with political contacts were 10 times more likely to be successful in bids for these contracts. We have seen £22 billion wasted on track and trace. Our Home Secretary has paid hundreds of thousands of pounds out from public funds in damages because of her bullying. We had a Budget that blatantly favoured Tory seats, even indulging the Chancellor’s seat.
This Bill is another example of the Tories’ determination to avoid democratic scrutiny. Now, they want to close down public dissent. This hits at the heart of democracy in this country. If we do not stand up and defend people’s right to show dissent, as MPs in this House, we are in dereliction of our duty. We must oppose this Bill.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
I will do my best to contain my remarks to the actual content of the Bill. The Government were elected on a clear mandate to tackle serious crime, support our police and keep communities across the UK safe. The Bill is a clear commitment from the Government that they are following through on those promises, and I commend them for it.
Throughout the pandemic, our local police forces have continued to work through extremely difficult circumstances, often risking their safety to ensure the safety of others—of ourselves and our loved ones—just as they do in normal times, running towards danger as we run away. I personally thank the North Wales police force for its hard work in keeping all of us in Delyn and across north Wales safe.
There is a particular challenge for the police in Wales, as responsibility for health regulations is devolved while responsibility for policing is not. I am proud that, despite our local police force often being pulled in disparate directions by some of the interestingly questionable political decisions that are made in Wales, they have carried on with their duties by keeping communities safe and tackling crime.
Just as our police have protected us, it is now time that we help to protect them and their work. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison) said in her contribution yesterday, it is important that we protect the protectors and give them the support they need through appropriate powers and sentencing. We will protect our police forces and frontline workers, who sacrifice so much to keep us safe, by increasing the maximum sentence for assaulting an emergency worker and enshrining the police covenant into law.
We will protect our communities by ensuring that the most dangerous criminals will be properly punished through the introduction of life sentences for killer drivers, the ending of the automatic early release of serious offenders, and the extension of whole-life orders for the worst—those guilty of killing children.
The Bill will make a real difference and help to keep us safe. It will protect our police and strengthen our justice system, thereby preventing further families from going through the pain of not getting the justice they deserve. I do not pretend that the Bill is perfect, and I sympathise with some of the concerns expressed about the provisions on protest. Although I welcome the Bill for the good that it will bring to our society and our justice system, I am sure that those provisions will be carefully considered and scrutinised in Committee.
In closing, I remind all Members that on Second Reading we consider and vote on the general aims and principles of a Bill, so to throw the whole thing out at this stage would just be irresponsible. As the Bill works towards a safer and more just society, I will be deeply saddened if Opposition Members vote against its Second Reading, which they could do only to score a political point or, more worryingly, because they do not wish to see a society that protects its people and its police force.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
I commend all those who have been involved in bringing the Bill before the House. It has much merit, not least in relation to the penalty for those who cause death by dangerous driving. I know of families who have suffered such loss, and it is so tragic. Their pain and grief is compounded by the lenient sentencing of those who have taken away a loved one too soon.
I welcome the increase in penalties for the assault of an emergency worker. We ought never need to be reminded of the contribution that emergency workers make in our society, but if we did, the past 12 months have done just that. Our nurses, doctors, ambulance drivers, paramedics, firefighters, police and others have been very much on the frontline. The least we can do is to protect them when they are attacked by mindless individuals when they are doing their job. I concur with the remarks of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) in yesterday’s debate: similar protective provisions for retail workers and others would be very welcome.
There are many other welcome provisions in the Bill, such as the change to the provisions on early release, which can cause so much hurt to victims. The provisions on attacks on war memorials are welcome and badly needed in Northern Ireland where, sadly, such memorials have become a focus of attack for some time.
I also have concerns that I hope the Government can address. It will come as no surprise to the House to hear that, as someone who represents the party of the late, great Ian Paisley, I believe that the right to protest must be protected. That right was hard won, and in a democracy it must be protected. The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) rightly highlighted the potential pitfalls of clauses 54 to 56 and 59 and 60, which would make significant changes to police powers to respond to protest. This issue must be approached with careful consideration and caution. What is “serious disruption”? Who defines it? What is the definition of “serious annoyance”? We need these matters to be clarified.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Of course, it is somewhat disappointing to hear the Opposition change their position from one of abstaining to one of voting against the Bill, but then again we have come to be unsurprised by their machinations and changes of heart throughout this Parliament.
There is a great deal to welcome in the Bill, from the ending of unauthorised encampments, to the changes to sentencing for minors, dangerous driving—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for her work on that—the desecration of monuments, and serious violence and assaults against frontline workers, which so many Members have mentioned. The Government are updating the law to a position that ensures that sentencing fits the crime, and confidence can be restored in our justice system.
Those are worthy steps that make a difference and restore the faith that people have in our Parliament, our police and the way in which we conduct ourselves in this Parliament; yet tonight’s vote has already been misconstrued to the public as anti-freedom, anti-protests and with little impact on women’s rights, despite the fact that Parliament is this week debating the Domestic Abuse Bill in the House of Lords, covering many of the issues that have been raised by the Opposition and that the Minister has already worked on so tirelessly.
The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) may well stand up and not even speak to the Bill, but there is no restriction on people being able to protest. There is no restriction on freedom of speech. Speech after speech has seen Opposition Members provide examples of positive elements to the Bill, and discuss what does work in it. To say that they will not vote for it is to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and to give the Bill no chance of success, no scrutiny, and, as my colleagues have said, no right to be improved in Committee.
I believe passionately in freedom of speech. It is the cornerstone of our democracy. It is sacrosanct. The right to protest and to speak is no more reduced by the Bill than by the existing laws on libel, sedition or public order. As was said yesterday, in the words of John Stuart Mill,
“we should all be free to do exactly as we like, provided that we are not impeding someone else’s freedom to do exactly as they like.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 99.]
The measures in the Bill are not some governmental power grab or conspiratorial coup, which is what we have heard from some, but an overdue recommendation of the Law Commission from 2015. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) pointed out yesterday, if this House worries about the content of the Bill, it can scrutinise it in Committee and improve it, and we will be able to return something that will do justice to its intent. I will vote for the Bill tonight.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
Much of what has been said about the Bill goes to show just how divisive it is. Rather than seeking to make people feel safer, to work with communities, and to bring peace and cohesion to neighbourhoods, the Bill has been designed to divide us. We know that this mess of a Bill has some good things in it, such as strengthening the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on protecting the protectors, and I declare an interest as a former GMB officer, previously working with the brave ambulance worker Sarah Kelly to protect emergency workers such as her from assault.
The Bill also includes dangerously discriminatory measures for Traveller communities, and silencing our right to protest in support of causes that we hold dear. Labour was born out of the trade union movement—out of the working classes protesting for better pay and rights. We should never forget the power of protest, but with all the will in the world, and with all the opposition to it, the Bill will sadly pass. I did not come to Parliament to sit in opposition; I came to Parliament to put Labour values into action. A Labour Government would be making very different choices, but for now the Tories have free rein for their politics of division.
Just as disturbing as what is in the Bill is what is not included. Taking all politics out of it, fundamentally the Bill should be about making people safer. When 97% of women have been sexually harassed, and there are 233 rapes a day and 80,000 a year, with prosecution rates at an all-time low—about 1,000 this year—we have to ask who is made safer by the Bill. There is not one mention of women in it.
If the Government’s answer to making the country safer is delivering tougher sentences for attacking a statue than for raping a person, they have entirely the wrong priorities. If the Home Secretary really wants to make people safer, she should fund refuges, clear the court backlog, support victims throughout the entire process, and rid our streets and institutions of the misogyny that is a breeding ground for violence against women and girls.
I welcome the amendments from the Labour Front Bench on street harassment and seeking to bring much-needed measures to include the safety of women and girls in the Bill. Any woman will say that sexual harassment is not just something that she worries about in the dark; it is something that she risk-assesses in every part of her life, including at work. That is why I intend to table an amendment that criminalises sexual harassment in the workplace. What we have currently are workplaces across industries and sectors effectively policing themselves, and this is failing. It fails victims of sexual harassment every single day. If I were robbed on the street and the robber was caught, he would end up behind bars, but if I were robbed of my earnings, forced out of my job by a man who sexually harassed me, he would do that without fear of any time behind bars. That is not right. Other countries have made sexual harassment a criminal act and it is time for the UK to do the same. In the names of Sarah Everard, Shukri Abdi, Blessing Olusegun, Bibaa Henry, Nicole Smallman and all the thousands of women who have suffered at the hands of male violence: enough. We deserve better than this. We deserve to be safe.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I am delighted to speak in support of this Bill. I particularly welcome the balance it strikes on sentencing, with longer sentences for the most serious offenders but smarter justice, including more community punishments, for young offenders. Having worked for 10 years with prisoners and young offenders, I know that this is the right balance, and that the Bill will be welcomed by my constituents and across the country.
That is why I am so disappointed by the stance taken by the Labour party. It is understandable to object to aspects of the Bill, it is right for the Opposition to challenge the Government on civil liberties and police powers, and it is understandable to see whether this Bill can be amended to include more protections for women and girls, but for the Opposition to say that they will vote against the whole Bill at this early stage—to vote against the aims and principles of the Bill—is to try to make such amendments impossible. It is also blatantly opportunistic. They had no such in-principle objections last week; there was no sense that the clauses on protests or street safety, or the relative number of mentions of women and statues, were so bad that the whole Bill had to be rejected. Last week, the Opposition were just planning to abstain on Second Reading. That in itself was pretty craven and showed Labour’s weak commitment to law and order, but now they have been blown off the fence and blown into voting against the whole Bill. They faced a test this week: would the party, under its new leader, stand for law and order, or would it stand for gestures? It faced that test and failed it, and the public will notice.
Of course it is right that we use this occasion to discuss the abuse and misogyny that women suffer every day in this country. Some of this abuse is already illegal, but all of it must be deprecated in the strongest terms, because all of it has its root in male disrespect of women. This is not a modern phenomenon. I am afraid to say that it is as old as time and it is written on almost every page of human history. But something else is written in our history too: the attempts by society to contain male violence and male disrespect.
Our culture historically taught men that they had a duty to honour and protect women. It is a difficult thing to say, because it may appear that I want to turn back the clock to a time when men chivalrously protected the weaker sex, but of course, as I have said, that is not how it always was in the old days, and even if it had been, we do not accept the idea that women need protection by men; they just need men to behave themselves. So let me say emphatically that I do not want to turn back the clock; however, we do need to face the fact that our modern culture has not delivered all the progress it was supposed to. I wonder whether that is because our modern culture has a problem with telling people how to behave—it has a problem with society having a moral framework at all.
It is right that we are having this debate, and I hope we get to a better place because of it, because the key thing is that all the laws in the world will not stop violence against women and will not stop sexism if our culture is not right. We need boys to grow up secure in themselves, with good role models and an innate sense of respect for other people. That means stronger families and more supportive communities.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) [V]
As we have heard through this debate, the right to demonstrate peacefully underpins democracy; people have an inalienable right to be heard. The explicit aim of this Bill seems to minimise that right. Clearly, the new definition of “nuisance” could apply to almost any protest around Parliament, where the whole purpose is to get the attention of politicians such as us. I, for one, have always felt that Steve Bray, the “Stop Brexit” man, served to remind us that we live in a thriving democracy. Protest gives the public a way to reach parliamentarians which should make us proud of the country we live in. Let us not hide away from the fact that this Bill is just a knee-jerk reaction to the Extinction Rebellion protests last year, and it appears to be a deliberate curb on free speech and the right to protest peacefully.
I enjoy a very good relationship with South Wales police, and I would like to pay tribute to the officers from the neighbourhood teams across Gower, the new chief constable and the Labour police and crime commissioner. One of my biggest concerns about the new proposal is that its measures pit the public against the police, creating a wedge at a time when we should be building up trust. We all know where the buck stops, from the disgusting images we saw on Clapham Common at the weekend: it is firmly with the Home Secretary and this Government. Until the Government disclose the minutes of the Home Secretary’s meetings with the Met on Friday, we can only judge from her own social media, and it does not take a genius to work out where the blame lies.
I am sure we have all had distressing casework around the difficult issue of rape. The derisory conviction rate of 3% stems in part from the burden that is put on the police to pull together enough evidence to take to the Crown Prosecution Service. Cut after cut means that they do not have the time or the resources to do that successfully, and this has created a system that is failing women and that fails to recognise the significance to society of all aspects of violence against women. We all know that institutional misogyny exists in many organisations, but misogyny is a societal problem, and society is now at a crossroads.
Last week on the Armed Forces Bill Committee, we heard evidence about prosecuting crimes, including rape, through the military courts. Yesterday I asked the Home Secretary about the attitude of some of the armed forces towards victims of male violence and, frankly, it really is worth taking the time to read the transcript of the evidence session, because in 2021, for men with fancy titles to have such ignorant views is really distressing. I have a huge amount of respect and admiration for those who serve in the police force and the armed forces, but we must make sure that they are not part of the problem and instead part of the solution. As politicians, it is our responsibility to ensure that the full force of the law is always used to protect our citizens and keep them safe.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
There is much to welcome in this far-reaching Bill, with tougher sentences for violent crime, for child murderers and for sex offenders, with greater efforts to remove knives and weapons from our streets, and with the inclusion of Kay’s law to provide greater protection for those who find the bravery to speak up against violence and sexual offences in their own homes. I could go on, but in the time I have, I will focus on an issue that greatly affects my constituency—namely, the right to protest outside this place, in the heart of my constituency.
The recent history of legislating on protests outside Parliament makes for interesting reading. Labour Members who question the Bill’s impact on the freedom to engage in democratic protest may wish to cast their minds back to sections 132 to 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, in which a Labour Government prohibited protest within a kilometre of Parliament without prior agreement with the Metropolitan police. Fortunately, the Conservative Government repealed those restrictive sections in 2011.
If this weekend has taught us anything, it is that there is a huge difference between a peaceful vigil where people come together to express shared grief and outrage, and protests that take place day after day for weeks on end and that can occasionally bring unpleasant disruption to those living and working locally. Central London has seen changes in the way that protests are organised and in their longevity. They are not always organised by specific groups. They are movements, often with different aims and objectives. Some come to protest peacefully, but others may have the aim of causing disruption and even destruction. I believe passionately in the right to protest; it is one of the values we hold so dear in this country. The clauses in the Bill do not restrict the right to lawful protest. What they do is bring static protests into line with the provisions that already exist.
I accept that some of the language in the Bill could benefit from tightening up, and I am sure that that will be done as the Bill progresses. Much has been highlighted about the democratic and human right to protest, and I agree, but let us not forget the human rights of my constituents who live with over 500 protests or marches a year. I see a huge spike in my mailbag when Westminster plays host to a major protest, with constituents highlighting that a few cause them distress and loss of amenity. They do not question the right to protest, but they do not accept becoming prisoners in their own home and the distress that they often feel as a result of a small minority of protesters. Criminality is what the Bill aims to prevent, and that is surely something that everyone in this place wants to achieve.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) [V]
I will be voting against this Bill: it is a pernicious piece of legislation and it must be stopped in its tracks today.
Yesterday the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) mentioned “unintended consequences”. I respectfully disagree with the “unintended”. The Government have brought forward a Bill knowing that it will criminalise people who want to make their voices and opinions heard on the future of this nation. It is a huge Bill that this Government are determined to bust through the House of Commons at the same time as the unacceptable state tactics used at Clapham Common at the weekend and at the Black Lives Matter protests last year. Despite this, and despite a shameful history of callous injustices such as the events of Orgreave and Hillsborough, and the spy cops and blacklisting scandals, this Government have doubled down and brought in the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021 and now this Bill.
The Bill attacks civil liberties; threatens already limited rights to protest, march and demonstrate; risks worsening the racial and gender disparities in the criminal justice system; expands stop-and-search powers; and further criminalises Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. It extends powers to police protests so that those causing what it calls “serious annoyance” could be faced with the prospect of 10 years in prison. As a former trade union organiser for Unite, and someone who has marched and protested against injustices all my life, I am certain that had this legislation existed then, it would have risked criminalising every single person I marched alongside. It represents a real and serious danger to those speaking out about injustices going forward. Within this Bill are measures that excessively impact Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. The director of Liberty has said:
“If enacted, these proposals would expose already marginalised communities to profiling and disproportionate police powers …and…communities may face increased police enforcement through the criminalisation of trespass.”
This Bill must be voted down. As my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said, this is draconian legislation. I make a plea to all the parliamentarians who sit in this House and talk about civil liberties to step up to the plate, reject the politics of division, and reject a Bill that shames this House and everything it is supposed to stand for.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) [V]
Despite events in London over the weekend, I would like to thank our police forces throughout the country for all their hard work in carrying out their duties, in a somewhat tricky balancing act at times, throughout the pandemic. Mistakes have clearly been made by some, but this cannot detract from the good work done by most forces throughout the country.
Sussex police, led by Chief Constable Jo Shiner and police and crime commissioner Katy Bourne, have consistently exercised a calm and consent-based approach throughout the pandemic, engaging with the public, explaining Government advice to help prevent the spread of coronavirus in our communities, encouraging compliance, and using enforcement only as a last resort where people refuse to comply. We must not forget that the police are the public and the public are the police. We all have a duty in community safety and welfare.
Much has been said over the past few days about the right to protest: a new crackdown on protest, curbing civil liberties, and putting rights fundamental to our democracy at risk. This Bill does not do that. It is indeed our fundamental right to protest: to gather and to have a voice. No one is stopping that. But for some protestors, peaceful protest is just not enough. Last year in London, for example, we saw extreme disruptive tactics in the Extinction Rebellion march that reportedly cost the Metropolitan police £16 million. That is not police money; it is taxpayers’ money that would be better spent on, say, nature-based solutions to climate change. This fundamental right does not come with a right to act in a criminal way—to be violent or disruptive. There is no freedom without justice.
The actions of perpetrators in committing criminal damage and Public Order Acts offences and assaulting members of the public or police officers executing their duty are unlawful and unacceptable. There is no reason for peaceful demonstrations to turn disruptive or violent. Unfortunately, even good causes often attract a malign element hellbent on using such a cause as a platform to showcase their own agendas, undermining the aims and message of the protest or demonstration that they have attached themselves to on that particular day.
We have all witnessed the extreme disruption that some protests have caused, stopping people getting on with their daily lives, hampering the free press and blocking access to roads, bridges and businesses, including Parliament, and even hospitals. We cannot confuse current coronavirus regulations with a new Bill that introduces sensible measures to deal with disruptive behaviours while maintaining a right to peaceful protest. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. I welcome and support the Bill, because as a Conservative, I stand for justice and for law and order.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) [V]
I would like to begin by echoing the comments of my hon. and right hon. Friends yesterday and today who have registered our concerns about the Bill, our disbelief that this Government are seeking to treat attacks on statues as more important than attacks on women, our opposition to disproportionate restrictions on the right to protest and the missed opportunity to protect women and girls from violence and the hatred that underpins it. Nottinghamshire police and our police and crime commissioner, Paddy Tipping, have shown the way by treating misogyny as a hate crime, and the Government need to follow.
I remind the House that the Crown court backlog is failing victims and witnesses. I welcome today’s announcement of a Nightingale court for Nottingham. It has taken too long, but I am glad that the Government have finally responded. There are some welcome measures in the Bill that reflect the hard work of many colleagues who have campaigned for change, but I would like to raise two specific issues.
First, clause 164 paves the way for deaf people to sit as jurors in England and Wales. Previously, language service professionals have not been allowed to enter the deliberation room, so anyone requiring in-person communication support has been barred from jury service. However, I ask the Minister to consider whether it is drafted too narrowly. The clause allows for a British Sign Language interpreter to support a deaf juror, but of the 900,000 UK residents with profound or severe hearing loss, only around 100,000 use BSL as their first language. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on deafness, I know that a large number of deaf people can only participate when they are supported by a speech-to-text reporter, so will the Minister clarify how this affects them? Will a speech-to-text reporter also be provided in the deliberation room? Will the Minister consider amending the clause to use a catch-all term, to give the Courts Service more flexibility to meet the needs of all deaf jurors?
Secondly, I would like to raise concerns about the effectiveness of measures in the Bill to tackle dangerous driving. The increase in the maximum penalty is welcome, but we must review the definition of dangerous and careless driving and formalise the role of driving bans as a sentencing option for those whose actions have clearly caused danger but who are not dangerous drivers who need to be imprisoned. I would also like to see stronger penalties for hit-and-run offences or where death or serious injury is caused by opening a car door unsafely. Cyclists deserve better protection. Finally, the Government need to close the loophole that allows convicted drivers to evade driving bans by claiming exceptional hardship. I hope the Minister will consider amendments on those matters.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The need to protect women and girls from violence and the importance of protecting our fundamental right to protest are both long-standing issues that have been brought into sharp focus by what has happened in recent days. We should be using the Bill before us to put in place long overdue protections for women against violence, including domestic homicides, rape and street harassment. We should be doing something about the fact that fewer people are prosecuted and convicted for rape now than at any time since records began, at a time when the number of reported rapes is increasing. We should be tackling the misogynistic attitudes that underpin the abuse women face. Those at the vigil for Sarah Everard in Clapham on Saturday, like my constituents who got in touch with me last year about what happened to Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry in Wembley, want us to change as a society. Like so many others who have spoken out for such a long time, they want us as MPs, and as men in particular, to listen and to act. But rather than use the Bill as an opportunity to act in support of women demanding to be able to walk the streets without fear, it is instead being used to attack our fundamental rights as citizens by limiting the right to protest. Those assembled on Saturday were part of a vigil, yet they have drawn attention to the Government’s plans to restrict our right to protest with this Bill.
Protest is the foundation of our democracy. Like many Members of Parliament, I have protested outside of this place for far longer than I have been within it. The right to protest must be protected for us all, and I will use my position in here to do all that I can to defend it. The attempt to restrict our right to protest is not a sign of a Government who are confident with the country that they seek to represent. The right to protest is a long and deeply held part of British democracy. The Bill’s attempt to allow the police to restrict protest because of
“the noise generated by persons taking part”
would make a mockery of our rights.
It is shameful that, rather than attack the injustices that people are protesting about, this Government seek to attack the very right to protest itself. There are measures in the Bill that I and other Labour Members welcome, but the way it targets Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, fails to address violence against women and girls, and seeks to attack our right to protest mean that it is something that we must oppose. As MPs we can use our votes today to voice our opposition to this Bill. It would be inexcusable to use those votes to silence the voices of protest outside.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Second Reading of a Bill is, for me, about the principle of the legislation. As a candidate at the last general election, I stood on the Government’s manifesto to make this country safer by taking more effective action against crime. Colleagues have the opportunity both in Committee and on Report to amend the Bill if they so wish. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I was slightly disappointed that the issue of “released under investigation” was not included in this particular Bill, but I am very glad that the Home Office has announced today that we will be looking again at the role of police and crime commissioners.
Local residents in my constituency have been shocked about a murder in Old Leigh and violent activities in Chalkwell Park. I raised the issue of knife crime in the Chamber earlier this month and was told by the Prime Minister that we have more than 6,000
“of our target extra 20,000 police already recruited.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 247.]
I hope that Essex police recruit enough police officers to stop any more violent crime.
This debate is taking place against a background of an horrendous murder. It appears that the management of the Metropolitan police needs to give a far better and fuller explanation of how it handled recent events. There should also be an external independent investigation, or a public inquiry, into the Metropolitan police’s handling of Operation Midland. My former colleague and parliamentary neighbour, Harvey Proctor, and my former colleague, the late Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, among others, have been denied justice for far too long. The Metropolitan police must not act as judge and jury on its own failings. There should be a full-scale debate in Parliament on Operation Midland and on who should be held to account.
My office looks over Parliament Square. I have long complained about the endless demonstrations that take place on this very busy roundabout. It is absolutely ridiculous. It is very difficult to work because of the noise—the drums, horns and loudspeakers. Policing these so-called events costs a huge amount of money and, with Parliament being the seat of democracy, our work should not be disrupted.
Finally, I am delighted that the campaign of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), which he started in 2018 to make deliberate acts of trespass a criminal rather than a civil offence, has been successful. After a large number of Travellers set up encampments on Snakes Lane in Eastwood, many of my constituents complained about an increase in vandalism, crime and antisocial behaviour. I fully support the Home Secretary in her decision to amend the existing powers to remove trespassers, and I wish this Bill well.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is a matter of deep regret that, after the deeply tragic events of the last week, the Government have decided to move forward with this Bill, which does far too little to protect women and goes too far in restricting the right to peaceful protest. I am immensely grateful to all my hon. Friends who have spoken so movingly in opposition to this Bill over the last two days.
As a lifelong trade unionist and a veteran of countless picket lines and demonstrations, I want to speak specifically to the implications of this Bill for our right to peacefully protest. This is a matter of huge significance to my constituents. In the last few days alone, I have been inundated with messages urging me to speak up against this Bill from teenage climate strikers, anti-racist campaigners and health workers opposed to the privatisation of the national health service.
We must not forget that without protest, agitation and industrial action, the freedoms we most cherish today would never have been won. People protest remains a vital democratic freedom and the very lifeblood of any healthy democracy. Now the Government plan to impose unprecedented new restrictions on the ability of citizens to make their voices heard, and I urge all Members to vote against them. The additional restrictions that this Bill looks likely to impose on the right to public assembly are far too broad. They will do little to improve public safety, but much to deter people from exercising their democratic right to the streets. The introduction of an exclusion zone around Parliament means that the voices of protestors simply will not reach those who need to hear them most—us.
We should also all be concerned by the potential impact of this Bill on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. These are some of the most marginalised and discriminated against people in our country, and they are all too often the victims of social exclusion, racial profiling and police brutality. Instead of using this Bill as an opportunity to honour their commitments to rooting out racial prejudice in all its forms, the Government have instead launched an attack on the very way of life of many Roma and Travellers by criminalising trespass. The Home Office says that this Bill is about making communities safer, but this Bill will in fact leave GRT communities far less safe, more at risk of criminal prosecution and even of having their homes and property confiscated. Will the Home Secretary now listen to the voices of police officers, who overwhelmingly oppose these hard-line measures, and favour adequate site provision as a means of dealing with unauthorised encampments? I will be voting against the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
This Bill works to ensure that the criminal justice system continues to reflect the views of society, delivering on our manifesto commitments, and I welcome it.
I welcome the requirement for serious offenders sentenced to four years and more to serve two thirds of their sentences before release on licence, rather than just 50%. Automatically releasing serious criminals on licence well before their sentence is due to expire brings the criminal justice system into disrepute with ordinary people and, more importantly, with the reasonable expectations of the victims of crime. While I recognise that early release and sentence are an important management tool for the prison population, the message needs to be clear that their sentence is what they serve.
Labour is wrong to argue that police powers to search a person who has already been convicted of knife crime without additional suspicion is somehow an unjustifiable attack on their freedoms. My view is that if they do not want to be considered a risk of carrying a knife, then they should not be convicted of carrying one in the first place. These court orders will help ordinary, law-abiding people to be protected. This is where our focus should be, and it is.
Labour is also against powers to help the police to manage the new wave of protest direct action, where the aim is not so much to protest as to cause chaos and inconvenience to as many people as possible. We all have a right to protest and to make sure that our voices are heard, but it is a right to protest, not to prevent. Why should one section of the public have an unfettered right to impose massive disruption on the rest of society? What about their right to get on with life? Where competing rights clash, the law must maintain a balance. Modern protest movements, such as XR, game the system, and disruption, not peaceful protest, is their objective. The law needs to adjust to maintain the balance of competing rights, and I think this Bill helps to achieve that.
Is this new power open to abuse? Yes it is, like every power that the police have, but there is no difference between this power and every other power that we loan to the police. It is open to challenge and review through the press and the courts. As a democracy, we are well used to holding those in power to account. Every single member of the public has the power to become a citizen journalist immediately through their phone. As a result, the police are subject to review and oversight like never before.
This Bill has ordinary people at its heart, sticking up for their priorities. It delivers on manifesto promises. As such, it is democracy in action, and I will be supporting it.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
During the pandemic, our civil liberties have been curtailed in a way that was previously unimaginable. Most of us have accepted that in order to protect life and public health, but along the way injustices have occurred.
Black Lives Matter protesters in London were kettled and photographed and asked to provide their names as a condition of their liberty, with no legal basis, yet police allowed football fans to party on the streets of Glasgow and even gave them a police escort to their destination of choice. Then, last weekend, police officers manhandled and detained women protesting the alleged abduction and murder of a woman, with which a police officer is charged. It is hard to imagine a more egregious misuse of police powers.
All this has occurred because the law on protest in a pandemic is not clear, but the provisions in this Bill to curtail the right to protest beyond the pandemic are even worse. The Bill affords significantly expanded powers to the police to stop protests that would cause “serious unease” and creates criminal penalties for people causing “serious annoyance”. But causing annoyance is part of our freedom of speech. If a protest can be prevented for being annoying, any protest can be prevented.
All movements for change involve an element of peaceful protest. Think of the suffragettes. I am sure many of us did when we saw the photographs from Clapham common on Saturday night. If women cannot speak up to protest their rights, what is our society coming to? Yes, the Extinction Rebellion protests may have been very annoying to those of us going about our business on London’s streets and public transport, but those protesters were protesting the biggest problem of our age—climate change—and I think that gives them the right to be a bit annoying.
We have now seen what can happen when the law governing our right to protest is unclear. The same problems will occur if the margin of discretion granted to the police and the Home Secretary is left as wide as it currently is in this Bill. Although these legal changes will have force only in England and Wales, they will impact people living in Scotland. There is a long tradition of Scots travelling to London to protest. We saw that most recently with the huge demonstrations against Brexit, and past examples include the fight against section 28 and the fight of the anti-war movement.
Parliamentarians, whether of left or right, should never be in the business of giving Governments and police forces powers to stifle dissent, particularly where there is a risk that those powers will be used against those whose beliefs make the Government and the establishment of the day uncomfortable. I would say the same if I were worried that the Scottish Government were in danger of curtailing freedom of expression—and indeed I have, which is part of the reason I am making this speech from the Back Benches.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) [V]
This is a thorough, ambitious and necessary Bill. Ministers know that the public expect those in positions of authority to be subject to scrutiny and actively prevented from abusing their power. Those who seek power in order to do bad things must not be tolerated. That is true of those in sports and religious settings, as it is of those in education, medical, care and justice settings. I welcome the extension of position of trust measures to protect more young people.
Staffordshire police and our local emergency services have shown the dedication to duty that the public expect and have done us proud in Stoke-on-Trent during the pandemic. The Home Secretary knows how important it is to support emergency workers, including police officers, who dedicate their working lives to keeping us safe. She knows they must be protected by the force of law, within the rule of law.
I therefore welcome the provisions for longer maximum sentences for those who assault emergency workers. Too often we read comments from judges that they would have imposed more substantial punishment if they had been able to do so. It is right that we in this House enable justice to be done, and that includes against those who desecrate war memorials.
It is also right that we seek to prevent crime from being committed in the first place and that, where it has been committed, we rehabilitate those who commit it, as well as punishing them. Effective community safety partnerships are key to reducing serious violent crime, and I am glad the Bill provides for their remit to do so.
Too often we see the twisted morality of gangs and extremist allegiances leading to violence. It is right that those who commit such crimes should not be able to walk free from prison after just half their sentence and that Ministers should be able to refer to the Parole Board the expected automatic release of individuals who pose a serious threat, including those who pose a terrorist threat.
In Stoke-on-Trent, sadly, we know that the danger posed by a small number of individual extremists is very real indeed. We also know that almost everyone else is law-abiding, or redeemable if they are ex- offenders. Therefore, just as I welcome tougher sentences, meaningful cautions and stricter parole for those from whom we need protection, I also welcome the provisions for the rehabilitation of ex-offenders who have corrected their behaviour.
I judge this Bill on how it delivers for Stoke-on-Trent. It provides for tackling the threat of radicalisation and for tackling serious violence, public nuisance and the rehabilitation of ex-offenders. I am proud to vote for this wide-ranging Bill, which delivers on our manifesto commitment.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
I want to start by remembering Sarah Everard and all women who have died at the hands of violent men. Like all women, I have known what it is like to be scared when you are wondering whether you will make it home—taking the long way round to avoid dark places, moving carriages on the train to avoid men, and hearing footsteps behind you and then being hugely relieved when they pass by. I have also known what it is like to be subjected to abuse and assaults and to not bother reporting them, because those things are so much part of the everyday experience of being a woman. I also know what it is like not to be taken seriously when you do report them.
This Bill does not take violence against women and girls seriously either. I simply cannot imagine any scenario where an attack on a statue could be more serious than a rape, no matter how important the man it commemorates —and let’s face it: it will be a man. Yet that is exactly what this Bill suggests, with a 10-year maximum sentence for harming statues and a five-year minimum sentence for rape. Rape and sexual violence prosecutions are at their lowest ever level in England and Wales, and domestic abuse prosecutions are down 19%, yet the Government are worried about statues.
In Bristol, of course, we know all about statues. When Colston fell, I called out the Home Secretary for her completely unwarranted attack on Avon and Somerset police over their policing of the protests. Now, the independent report that the Home Secretary herself commissioned has praised the decisions that the police made at the time and said that her criticisms of them were misguided. Last summer, we showed how protests could and should be policed. The city and our Mayor responded with dignity and maturity in the aftermath, setting up the We Are Bristol history commission and starting a city-wide conversation. We used that moment to bring the city together.
The Government are now doing the exact opposite. The Communities Secretary wrote an op-ed for The Telegraph, saying:
“We will save Britain's statues from the woke militants who want to censor our past”.
We know what that is about: stoking social and cultural anxieties to win votes, seeking out not what we have in common but what divides us, and fanning the flames. Now, whether it is Black Lives Matter, Reclaim the Streets, the school climate strikes or just someone who wants to pay tribute to a murdered woman by lighting a candle and holding a vigil, people are all collateral damage in the Government’s trumped-up war on woke. That is why I will be voting against the Bill tonight.
It is not just what is in the Bill; it is also what is missing. Labour’s proposals to increase minimum sentences for rapists and stalkers, to make misogyny a hate crime and to create a new street harassment law are not in the Bill. Nor is our proposal that someone convicted of the abduction, sexual assault and murder of a stranger should be eligible for a whole-life order. The Bill could have sent out a strong signal that the Government do take women’s safety seriously. It could have been so much better. I urge the Government to stop playing politics and to start protecting women.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
This legislation marks an undermining of human rights and civil liberties. It represents a slide toward authoritarianism. We have seen other legislative restrictions on human rights in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill and the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2021. A fresh look at the Human Rights Act and the right to judicial review are looming. It must be seen in the wider context of manufacturing wedge issues and creating arbitrary divisions within society as part of the politics of distraction from genuine social, economic and environmental challenges. We should focus instead on reinforcing the norms and foundations of liberal society, including democracy, human rights and shared public space.
The Bill is so flawed that it should be rejected outright on Second Reading. Events of the past weekend relating to the vigil for Sarah Everard only reinforce that view. This is a major test for all MPs, and I am pleased that many colleagues across a range of parties understand that, but there is a major challenge tonight facing the so-called and self-styled Conservative libertarians. Liberal principles, human rights and civil liberties are not some form of pick and mix, to be selected only when they suit a particular political agenda. Any necessary element of the Bill, including those applying to Northern Ireland, can readily be presented again by the Government via a different piece of legislation.
Of many dangerous aspects of the Bill, the most dangerous is the attack on the right to protest—a cornerstone of democracy and a critical mechanism for holding power to account. It reminds me of the ill-advised and ill-fated proposed Public Assemblies, Parades and Protests Bill in Northern Ireland. which went out to public consultation in 2010. Thankfully, better sense prevailed and it was dropped. Protests have become seminal moments in the UK’s history, with the protests against the Iraq war and against Brexit standing out in recent memory. Protests have been a source of empowerment for the politically marginalised and a powerful tool for securing rights for minorities. Recently, protests have been central to challenging institutional racism and misogyny. It is why protests work, and the Government know that.
Protests invariably involve a degree of nuisance and inconvenience—it goes with the territory. Nuisance and excessive noise are not the same as illegality; they are not the same as violence. These are not even powers the police themselves are seeking; rather, they will put the police in a much more challenging and invidious position.
It is staggering that less than a month after the Pontins blacklist brought to light just some of the discrimination faced by Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people, the Government’s response is to propose legislation to further erode the rights of those communities.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
My constituents have waited a long time for the justice system to feel like it is putting victims before criminals, and this Bill will deliver that, with tougher sentences for assaulting emergency workers, stricter conditions on bail in high-harm cases, including domestic abuse, increased jail time for sex offenders and child abusers, and extra funding for violence reduction, including knife crime. This Government are making our communities safer.
In 2020, someone was more likely to be a victim of violent crime in the Cleveland force area than anywhere else in the country, yet we missed out on violence reduction funding because of the criteria being based on the number of hospital admissions. When Ministers revisit the fund, I urge them to review the criteria so that Cleveland can benefit from the additional funding and bring a special violence unit to Teesside—something championed by Theresa Cave and the Chris Cave Foundation.
Outside violent crime, when it comes to tackling petty crime and antisocial behaviour, the role of neighbourhood policing—better known as common-sense policing—must not be underestimated. For that reason, I congratulate the Government on their recruitment of 146 extra police officers for Cleveland, which will help to keep people safe in our town centres and elsewhere.
Antisocial behaviour is not limited to town centres, and residents in TS6 have been experiencing it for far too long. TS6 is a regular meeting place for illegal off-road bikers, who cause great nuisance to local residents and put themselves and other people in danger by riding their off-road bikes around the streets and on Eston Hills. I know from those who live in the area that this causes great concern, so I welcome the new resources in the Bill that will help to fix that dreadful situation for them.
The Bill also introduces new measures to crack down on repeat offenders. In Redcar and Cleveland, we have had a recurring problem of low-value thefts from cars and garages, due largely to the system’s inability to enforce proper sentences for repeat offenders. The Bill will help to change that, but new resources and measures can only go so far. What we need in Redcar and Cleveland is leadership and a police and crime commissioner my constituents can be proud of. We have had six chief constables in eight years, and a damning verdict from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in 2019, which described Cleveland police as the “worst force” in the country.
Our officers are not at fault. They are being failed by the force’s leadership and by Labour’s police and crime commissioner. I have full confidence in Chief Constable Richard Lewis to turn the fate of our force around, but we need an effective police and crime commissioner to hold the force’s leadership to account. I urge people across Teesside to vote for better policing, and to vote Conservative and for Steve Turner on 6 May.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
Many of the rights we enjoy today were won not because of politicians with great ideas, but because people came together and demanded that their voices be heard. The Peterloo massacre caused politicians to pass the Great Reform Act 1832, the suffragist movement forced politicians to grant women the right to vote, and the striking Ford machinists and campaign for women’s equal rights inspired the Equal Pay Act 1970.
Our right to be heard is about to be eroded by one of the most pernicious pieces of legislation I have ever seen. Provisions in the Bill enable restrictions to be placed on freedom of assembly and association, which arguably contravenes article 11 of the Human Rights Act. Alarmingly, the Home Secretary will have the power to define what constitutes a “serious disruption” with regard to protests, allowing the Government to effectively determine what protests can and cannot take place. More insidious is the principle whereby protestors who
“intentionally or recklessly cause a public nuisance”,
by causing what is termed “a serious annoyance” can be subject to jail sentences of up to 10 years. A “serious annoyance” is purposely not defined, which should send chills down the spine of anyone who believes in democracy.
The Bill also fails to address the bias and discrimination that persists within our justice system. Indeed, the newly created serious violence reduction orders, which would allow the power to stop and search a person at any time, in any place, and even when completely free of suspicion, is at risk of being applied disproportionately to black and minority ethnic communities. The proposals to criminalise “unauthorised encampments” and establish trespass as a criminal offence, effectively criminalise the way of life for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. The Bill does not include any specific measures to prevent male violence against women, and it does nothing to address decades of underfunding for the sector tackling violence against women and girls.
What of the right to speak out against such injustices when the Bill is enacted? The Bill fundamentally erodes those rights, and consigns them to the history books, only to be told to our children, like a fairy tale of freedoms gone by.
“When people are free to choose, they choose freedom.”
Those are not my words; they are the words of Margaret Thatcher. The reality of her tenure was very different, but frighteningly, her successors are now writing an even darker dystopian tale of their own, and it seems our freedoms play no part in that at all.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]
I welcome measures in the Bill that will help to ensure that our justice system better reflects what the silent, law-abiding majority rightly expect of it. There has never been public support for letting people out halfway through their sentences. Most of the public would always have wanted child murderers to spend the rest of their lives in prison, and the majority would feel that justice was done if people who murder, rape and sexually abuse others spent much longer in prison than they currently do. We are addressing those issues.
The Conservative party is making changes to ensure a justice system that does a better job of delivering justice. The tragic loss of Sarah Everard, and the women victims who have spoken out, remind us how important that is. Although the measures in the Bill are much welcomed, and the Government can be proud of bringing them forward, I hope that over time we do more. I still do not understand how someone can rape a child and not, as a default, expect to spend the rest of their life in prison. I do not understand how someone could murder someone, robbing decades from them and their families, and come out of jail fewer than 20 years later. Even the term “life sentence” is an insult to victims and their families. It is as if the threat of someone being recalled to prison if they commit another offence is in any way akin to being locked up.
There remains, I am afraid, an intellectual snobbery around law and order in too many parts of the judicial establishment, which has decided for a long time now that people who think that justice is served by criminals being locked up for longer are unsophisticated, do not understand crime or reoffending, and are acting on some kind of unworthy baser instincts. We have, importantly, made a start today and I am very glad to support these measures.
Of course, nothing I have said stops our justice system doing much more to rehabilitate offenders who commit less serious offences, diverting people away from a life of crime. Not only is that the right thing to do, but it will free up prison spaces so that we can go further in locking up hardened criminals who should be locked up. I know the Justice Secretary is passionate about delivering a range of measures within and accompanying the Bill to do just that, and I welcome those equally.
As for the Opposition, I humbly suggest that yesterday really was a new low for the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). We all recognise that any change in the laws around protest should be carefully scrutinised, as opposed to the confected outrage we have heard today, and of course the Committee stage will provide for that. For a former Director of Public Prosecutions to use a few bullet points on social media to contrast the maximum sentence for one offence with the starting point for another offence is beneath the standards of both the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s current and former office, and, I suspect, is something that will, on reflection, be regretted. Ten years has long been the maximum penalty for criminal damage. Forgive me, but I must have missed the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s previous campaign for sentencing starting points to be calibrated around that.
This is a serious Bill dealing with serious issues and it deserves proper scrutiny. We should expect more from the Leader of the Opposition.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) [V]
The Secretary of State no doubt thought that she could rush this Bill through Parliament, grouping mundane and relatively positive changes with sweeping attacks on our civil liberties, and thought no one would notice. Last night, thousands protested against the Bill and against the use of excessive force by the police, and many more attended vigils over the weekend in memory of Sarah Everard, Wenjing Lin and all women affected by and lost to violence. I am greatly saddened and angry that the vigil in Clapham descended into violence due to heavy-handed policing. That contrasts with how demonstrations are managed in Wales, where policing has been, in the words of First Minister Mark Drakeford, sensitive and proportionate. I also share his concerns about the Bill.
Democracy is so much more than just ticking a box once every five years. It is a continuous process which involves protests, rallies, picket lines and outpourings of grief, as we all saw and experienced this weekend. It means being able to uphold our hard-fought fundamental democratic rights. The Bill introduces worrying new restrictions on the ability to protest, allowing the police to make highly subjective judgements on what may result in the “intimidation or harassment” of bystanders or cause them “annoyance” or
“serious unease, alarm or distress.”
It also allows the Secretary of State to curtail protests through secondary legislation if she judges them to be disruptive—an incredibly concerning development.
By limiting the type of protests that can take place outside Parliament, this Parliament risks becoming even more detached, even more of a bubble than it already is, divorced from the very real concerns of the people we are elected to represent. Since becoming an MP, I have joined protests outside Parliament alongside people from my constituency in Cynon Valley, to save jobs in Wales and demonstrate about climate change.
I would also like to speak out against this Bill for criminalising the way of life for many in the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community, who already experience some of the starkest inequalities of any ethnic group in the United Kingdom. Having worked with people in this community, I can bear witness to the inequalities and hardships they suffer daily. In addition, the legislation introduces new measures likely to further criminalise young black men, who are already disproportionately targeted by stop and search.
The Bill takes completely the wrong approach to policing and justice. We need proactive and preventative solutions that address the underlying causes and inequalities that exist in our society. Investment is needed in measures such as early intervention and rehabilitation, and community-based solutions, not reactive measures such as those contained in the Bill that punish and criminalise often the most vulnerable and our most marginalised in society.
The crisis in our police and justice system has been created by a decade of cuts and failed Tory ideology. The Bill fails to address that at the same time as it curtails our civil liberties. That is why I could never have voted for this Bill and I urge everyone to stand with me in opposing it. Diolch yn fawr.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. Anyone listening outside might imagine that Members were talking in different debates. On the one hand, we hear Opposition Members echoing Unite the union’s calling this Bill “dangerous, totalitarian legislation”, and on the other, we have colleagues such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) and my hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) praising the Bill’s extra protections for children from sex offenders, and for emergency workers from attacks in our hospitals, ambulances and police stations. What is going on?
The confusion comes, I believe, from a conflation after the ghastly death of Sarah Everard between the policing of the peaceful vigil on Clapham common under emergency pandemic laws to maintain social distancing, and measures in the Bill to legislate on public order, which are in part 3 of this vast Bill. The point is that they are separate issues. Let us not forget the core aim of the Bill, which is laid out on page 1. It is not domestic abuse, which is covered in a separate Bill that is also live at the moment, but safety and protection, as the introduction makes clear.
It is over three years since I raised, after meeting constituents’ parents, the issue of the grooming of young people by a driving instructor and a sports coach. Any Member who has read the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children’s case studies would not oppose the core principle of the Bill, which is the changes in the position of trust clauses. They are a major step forward that every parent and teacher should not just welcome, but applaud. Will the Lord Chancellor, either when he is on his feet later or on Third Reading, confirm that driving instructors are covered by clause 45(2)?
When Opposition Members complain that there is not enough to help women and girls in this Bill, I urge them to realise that the vast majority of those better protected through clauses 44 and 45 and, indeed, through parts 2, 7, 8, 9 and 10—and much else—are in fact women and girls.
Nor should anyone be misled by part 4 and clause 61, which concern unauthorised encampments. They take action against Travellers camping on land without permission of the owner, if they fail to comply with a request to leave
“as soon as reasonably practicable”.
Those in my constituency who have seen such encampments over the last decade—time and again they smash through fences in parks, sports grounds and dog walking fields—have seen their access and rights infringed and their children intimidated, while some, although by no means all, Travellers lift two fingers to the injunction processes.
The Bill also doubles the sentence for assaults on emergency workers and includes Kay’s law. That is why I will be supporting the Bill, and I am frankly astonished that everyone in this House is not doing so, with the details to be discussed on Third Reading.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
This Bill is a disgrace. It is dangerous, undemocratic and disproportionate.
It is dangerous, because it is trying to neuter protests and undermine our most precious rights, including freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and the right to peaceful protest. The Government are seeking to impose far-reaching conditions that would have the effect of shielding those in power from criticism. They would make Greta Thunberg sitting alone with a placard a potential criminal, and likewise all the brave and passionate young people who know that the future of humanity and our planet depend on peaceful protest exposing just how inadequate Government action is given the scale of the climate and nature emergencies, yet the Home Secretary wants the power to decide whether these protests are necessary, too noisy or causing too much disruption, so that she can silence any criticism that does not meet her approval. By increasing the maximum penalty for exercising the right to protest, the Government are creating new restrictions on where they can take place, eliminating important aspects of human rights law that require the state to facilitate protests. She wants to deter any dissent yet further.
The Bill is undemocratic, too. The Government are rushing it through Parliament, with just a week between publication and Second Reading. It is a knee-jerk reaction to last year’s Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion protests, because some right-wing MPs did not like them.
In particular, the process is silencing the voices of marginalised communities who should be heard, as well as the MPs who seek to represent them. Just this weekend, we have seen who else is in the Government’s sights. Women attending peaceful vigils in memory of Sarah Everard were pinned to the ground simply for exercising their rights, which brings me on to disproportionality.
Having seen the response from police on Clapham common on Saturday night, it beggars belief that the Government are giving more powers and discretion to them via this legislation. As one of the few MPs to have been arrested during a peaceful protest—in my case, against fracking—and subsequently after a week’s court case acquitted of any wrongdoing, I can tell the Home Secretary that I have first-hand experience of the disproportionate action of the police. I was therefore proud to co-sponsor a cross-party amendment that sought to deny the Bill a Second Reading. The legislation will perpetuate the systemic risk that infects our criminal justice system, including by expanding stop and search, which sees black men targeted, and by creating a new trespass offence that criminalises the life of nomadic Gypsy and Traveller communities.
Women like Sarah Everard, Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman need more than extra street lighting. They, and countless other women, deserve a legislative framework that upholds and defends their fundamental rights. Every UK citizen will be affected by what is a dangerous attack on our universal rights. I urge every MP who believes in free speech and democracy to oppose this Bill.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I have a very different view from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), my near neighbour in Sussex, on this Bill. I wish to focus on its positives regarding not just perpetrators of violence, but victims. I am amazed that any Opposition party would vote against the Bill on Second Reading. They should rather engage with making it better if they feel that there is more road to travel.
First, I pay my respects to the family of Sarah Everard, a fellow graduate of Durham University, as is the Lord Chancellor. Our thoughts are with all her family following this abhorrent crime. This morning, I paid my respects at the shrine that has been created at the bandstand in Clapham common.
There are 24 Members of this House who can say that they objected to the Coronavirus Act 2020 extension in September, which gave the police the powers to act in the way that they did on Saturday evening. I have heard right hon. and hon. Members criticising the police for carrying out actions under legislation that they did not oppose. I do not think it reflects well on this House when we create powers for the police and then criticise them for using them. When we look to give the police more powers, and when they look at the Acts on demonstrations and say that they do not work, they must quiver at the thought that they will be hung out to dry by the very Members who did not oppose the legislation, and I ask all hon. Members to bear that in mind.
In the minute I have left, I will focus on a much smaller shrine, a few hundred metres from the one I mentioned, for another victim of knife crime. I welcome the serious violence reduction orders in the Bill that will be placed on known knife-crime offenders and give the police further powers to act. Some 275 lives were lost in the last year to knife-related homicide. We do not hear enough in the House about how we can help. Those victims lost their life merely for being on the streets.
As vice-chair of the all-party group on knife crime and violence reduction, I have worked cross-party on the introduction of a serious violence duty. We have talked about the health strategy going across agencies, and making sure that there is a duty to report and act. This type of carrot, which is being brought in as well as the stick that I just mentioned, will allow us to tackle knife crime and hopefully reduce the number of lives tragically lost.
Time does not allow me to say more. There is much more in the Bill that I really support but look to the Government do more on, including on the protection of shop workers. That is why the Opposition should vote for this Bill and make it better.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
Harold Laski, professor at the London School of Economics and chair of the Labour party in the Attlee period, said that in this country, we will not see the arrival of fascism with some dictator strutting in his uniform, bedecked in medals. Instead, the risk to our freedom will come from the creeping, incremental erosion of our civil liberties, leading to harsh Conservative authoritarianism. This Bill is a step in that direction. It is a step in undermining the constitutional safeguards of our liberty, secured over generations of protest and struggle. It threatens the very basic human freedom of assembly and association.
The Bill is aimed not just at the traditional progressive campaigners and trade unions; its target is the young—the younger generation that rejects the racism, sexism and misogyny that permeate our society and understands that its future is being placed at risk by the existential threat of climate change. Through their participation in mobilisations such as Black Lives Matter and Extinction Rebellion, the young have discovered their power; so, too, have this Government recognised the power of the young. The Bill is about ensuring that the younger generation are prevented from exercising that power.
I caution the Government to learn from the past. For centuries, our history has shown that when the Governments have imposed legislation that strikes at the heart of our liberties, our people simply refuse to accept and comply with unjust laws. If a Government persist, division and conflict are always the result, so I warn the Government that they provoke our younger people at their peril.
If anything defines the disgraceful depths to which this Government have sunk, it is the attack in this Bill on the last group in our society against whom it appears that for some it is still acceptable to openly racially discriminate: the Traveller community. Under this Bill, they will suffer the threat of not only action by the police but even the loss of the homes in which they live. I urge colleagues to wake up to the threat of this Bill, and to vote against and defeat it at every stage of its passage. That is what I commit to doing.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I associate myself with the heartfelt and genuine comments from Members of all parties about the tragic circumstances around Sarah Everard’s death. My thoughts are with her family, her friends and her community. It is a terrible time. Opposition Members have sought to equate the policing of Saturday’s vigil with measures in the Bill that are intended to protect the public from disruptive protests, but those measures make up only a small part of the Bill. It is a knee-jerk reaction. It is populist. I think the Labour party will regret taking the decision to oppose the Bill and will find itself on the wrong side of history.
Let us have a look at what the Labour party proposes to vote against tonight. Labour Members will be voting against protecting women and children from sexual abuse; against tougher punishment for perpetrators of serious sexual and violent crimes; against tougher community sentences, which would ensure that offenders give back to society; and against measures giving police the tools that they need to deal with the harms caused by unauthorised encampments—something that is very important to the people of Milton Keynes.
Labour Members will be voting against the introduction of a serious violence duty on specified authorities that will require them to work together to prevent and reduce serious violence; against extending whole-life orders for the premeditated murder of a child; against ending the automatic early release of dangerous criminals; and against life sentences for killer drivers.
The Bill will ensure that those who commit the most heinous of crimes will spend the rest of their lives behind bars. It will ensure that the police will have the powers and support that they need to make our communities safer. As we vote on the Bill tonight, we need to look ourselves in the mirror. We need to be able to look our constituents in the eye. I know that I will be able to look my constituents in the eye; will Labour Members be able to do the same?
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), although I am a bit disappointed that he doubled down so hard on the most discriminated against group in Europe, the Gypsy and Traveller group.
I wish to speak about a group who do not receive a mention in this Bill—women. The killings of Sarah Everard, Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman, and the fallout from the policing of vigils or events to remember these terrible occasions, give us an opportunity in this debate to bring about a new conversation. Unfortunately, this Bill just seeks to take away people’s right to protest and to freedom of speech. The Bill is packed with measures to limit our democratic freedoms and to protect statues, rather than address the glaring failures of the system.
Let us look at some facts. Data from the Prison Officers Association shows that the highest number of women in prison are there for the non-payment of TV licences, and that 80% of women in detention are in prison for non-violent offences. A majority of women in prison commit crime as a result of abuse, whether that be childhood trauma, abusive relationships, financial abuse or drug use as a result of some sort of trauma. Women are much more likely, even when in prison, to have been a victim of violent crime, yet this Bill does so little to deal with that. Ministers could have used this legislation to address that, and to defend women and girls. Instead, they have packed this Bill, which lacks focus, with draconian measures to try to divide the country and create yet another culture war.
Ministers could have increased minimum sentences for the most serious crimes, such as rape and stalking, and shown that they really care about the dreadfully low rates of conviction for sexual violence. The Victims’ Commissioner Dame Vera Baird, QC, is right to say that “urgent and sustained action” is needed to
“redress the confidence in the police and criminal justice system—and really, frankly, half the population”.
Labour has done some homework for the Government, and proposes a victims’ Bill and a survivor’s support plan for victims of rape. I hope that the Minister will give due regard to that excellent work, which was prepared through good consultation with many, many women.
I have been clear with my constituents that I will vote against this Bill, not because there are not some good elements to it, but because I seek to defend the right of my constituents not to be silenced. Labour wants changes that will protect women and girls; changes that will target violent crime; and changes that will provide the treatment and addiction support that are so often overlooked in the criminal justice system.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I will not support the Bill tonight. I have been contacted by many constituents over the past few weeks who have serious concerns about both what it does and does not contain, and not least about the lack of measures to protect women from violence and abuse. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) was just explaining, there are aspects of the Bill we would welcome or support, not least those drawing on initiatives by Labour Members, such as measures on protecting emergency workers from assault and on tackling sexual abuse, and others from the Lammy review, but this Bill is sadly deficient in so many other respects.
The Government could have worked with Members across this House to bring forward measures that adequately tackle serious crime, improve the policing and justice systems, tackle the violence against and abuse of women, and protect our democratic rights to liberties, but they did not. The provisions on protest are deeply concerning and disturbing—I would describe them as draconian. Having organised and taken part in many entirely peaceful protests, sometimes involving millions of people, I fear that this is yet another attempt by this Government to clamp down on legitimate dissent and democratic disagreement.
However, the Bill’s greatest deficiency, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, is that despite being 296 pages long, the word “woman” does not appear once. That is a staggering feat, given that more than 50% of victims of violent crime in the past three years have been women, that there was a 23% drop in rape convictions last year, and that domestic abuse prosecutions fell by 24% in 2019. We must take serious action, including by making misogyny a hate crime. The Bill does not increase minimum sentences for rapists and stalkers, it does not make street harassment a crime and it does not fast-track rape or serious sexual assault cases. All women and girls deserve better.
On domestic violence, may I thank my South Wales PCC colleague, my predecessor in this place, Alun Michael, for his work, and colleagues in South Wales police, whose work on tackling domestic violence I have viewed? I am thinking in particular of the pilot project Drive, an initiative tackling perpetrators of domestic violence. An independent evaluation has shown that that is making a significant impact, and I am pleased to see that it now covers all seven local authority areas covered by South Wales police. Unfortunately, like all forces, South Wales police has had to struggle with substantial cuts and the austerity of years of UK Tory rule, including cuts to policing. It was thanks to the Welsh Government that funding was made available for additional police community support officers. I thank the community policing teams for the work that they do. I might also mention that policing in Wales is disadvantaged this year to the tune of £6 million because of the way the apprenticeship levy system works. Will the UK Government fully fund the cost of police graduate training in Wales, as they do in England?
I end by raising serious and legitimate concerns raised by my constituents, especially young people, about the experiences of black constituents and other people of colour in relation to the criminal justice system and policing in Wales and across the UK. I have had a number of frank and open conversations about that in recent weeks. Deeply concerning disparities continue. While 16% of the general population in England and Wales are from a black and minority ethnic background, the disparity in the numbers of people arrested, convicted of a crime and in prison from those communities is stark and has to be dealt with. We need to implement the recommendations of the 2017 report by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy).
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
All Governments come to power seeking to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour, and it is clear that most succeed to some extent, but the challenges that face our society change, and the weaknesses in laws that have been brought in with good intent are exposed by experience, as we know. That is why I welcome the Bill. It addresses several issues of great concern to my constituents, and, by improving the way in which we conduct cases and sentence those convicted, will benefit our society as a whole. There is no doubt about that.
Among many things, the Bill addresses the unacceptable disruption caused to my constituents and many other people’s lives by protests that have caused enormous trouble but have remained within the bounds of the law as it stands. We have learned from protests in the last couple of years that the police clearly need powers to ensure that, while lawful process is facilitated, it is not at the expense of thousands of people who are simply seeking to go about their daily business.
Secondly, I welcome the steps to improve the handling of cases of sexual abuse. Having spent many years working in local government on those matters, including meeting with the Leader of the Opposition during his days as Director of Public Prosecutions, the measures seem to me to be a proportionate and sensible culmination of the experience that we have gained in cases brought in recent years that have demonstrated some of the weaknesses in the present legal system. Many victims and complainants across the country will have waited a long time for the Government to take action to ensure that their circumstances are taken seriously and offenders are prosecuted effectively.
Thirdly, I strongly welcome the measures to tackle illegal encampments. Like many of my constituents and other people across the country, I have witnessed the setting up of such an encampment within direct sight of home, so I know just how awful the consequences can be for that community and for that place—as well as having, in my time as a councillor, to set aside hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money to clean up the consequences. Communities should not have to suffer that any longer, and these robust measures are well merited.
For those reasons and many others, I strongly support the Bill and I look forward to the benefits that it will bring to my constituents in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner and to the whole country.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I rise to deal with the absolute brass neck that we have heard from the Government Benches during the course of the debate—interestingly standing up to laud what is in the Bill, which I can only describe as the “Government attempting to look busy on crime” Bill, because they do not want to talk about their miserable record over the last 11 years. It is a record that has left fewer police on our streets, fewer courts open for judgment, and fewer police staff to investigate crimes.
We have seen the impact: longer delays to investigations, longer waiting times for criminals to be brought to justice, and indeed criminals getting off scot-free because often victims lose total faith in the criminal justice system. That is the Government’s record. We are asked on Second Reading to support or oppose a Bill on the basis of principle, and I am opposing the Bill on the principle that it fails women, it fails children, and it fails to face up to the serious evolving nature of crime in our country.
Since the appalling murder of Sarah Everard we have seen, in our family, an outpouring not just of grief, but of a demand for change. That is why it so appalling that there is no mention of women in this Bill and no new sentences. Indeed, there is the ludicrous and offensive position that someone can be given a longer prison sentence for throwing a lump of iron into the river than for throwing in a woman. That is the miserable experience.
We also see the experience in case law. I would like the Lord Chancellor to stand up and explain in his summation how it was that a deputy children’s care manager in my borough could be involved in trafficking children to sell crack cocaine and heroin in Devon and Cornwall, and receive the paltry sentence of four years—four years—for trafficking children across the country. What does his Bill do to deal with that? What does he say to those children and victims of crime when, 11 years into his Government, with county lines becoming a feature of crime in a way that it never was before, his Government—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have not had heckling here for a very long time. Now, behave!
Wes Streeting
They do not like it: Government Members do not like being confronted with their record. That is why, with this Bill, they are chasing headlines, instead of chasing serious criminals. They have the audacity to stand up and laud loads of provisions in this Bill that they have taken from Labour Members and their private Members’ Bills. I congratulate them on that, but it is still the case that they are not facing up to the serious nature of crime that affects women and children in my community. They have thrown in loads of measures to look busy, but they are running from their record.
I am voting against this Bill, because it is perfectly right for Members to say, “We demand better and we expect better of this Government”, and unlike Members elected at the 2019 general election, we do not just read scripts from central casting, we demand better. We demand better for our constituents, and so should they.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
When the Home Secretary said that she wanted criminals to “feel terror” at the thought of committing offences, she reflected the heartfelt sentiments of those who live on the frontline of crime, starkly contrasting the small clique of bourgeois liberals who use wealth to segregate and insulate themselves from the reality of disorder and have sought to amplify time and again, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) did tonight, the rights of thugs and villains and the civil liberties of the violent mob.
This week, Members of Parliament have rightly resolved to redouble our efforts to prevent violence against women. It is strange then that just months ago 70 Labour parliamentarians sought to block the deportation of 50 violent criminals, including those convicted of murder and rape, and that they will vote against a Bill tonight that cracks down on crime. It does seem that the Labour party is more motivated by the political posturing associated with what the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), whom I greatly admire by the way, typically described as headline grabbing, than it is with protecting the safety of the innocent.
As figures show, our police forces are continually challenged by increasing demands. Hard-working officers are frequently derailed by the malign advocates of the rights of criminals and distracted by the politically correct delusions of the ideologically motivated elite. Imagine the demoralising disappointment they must feel when, after working tirelessly to solve a crime, an unelected judge insists on awarding a derisory sentence, inhibiting the incentive to prosecute, weakening deterrence and undermining public trust.
Typically, custodial sentences are drastically reduced, and even the most ruthless criminals are released early. Many killers are released after a dozen or so years, while naive utopians in gated communities plead for even greater leniency. How the liberal left misunderstands the criminal mind, for deviant individuals who have chosen crime as a career weigh up the balance between risk and reward, cost and benefit. It is a measure of their trade.
The misassumption that crime is an illness to be treated has become so pervasive that it is barely questioned in the broadcast media, yet to see those who choose to profit from the misfortune of others in the same way that we regard the sick and infirm is to demean the latter and elevate the former to a status they do not deserve. This assumption that wickedness is a misfortune of less significance than the suffering it causes means relegating such acts and the victims of them. In this way, justice is neither seen to be done, nor done at all.
This Bill goes some way to regaining public faith by strengthening law and order and regaining that mantle for the Secretary of State and our party. All Members of this House who care about the innocent should vote for it, for our task is to be fierce in defence of the gentle.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) [V]
First, I would like to offer my condolences to Sarah Everard’s family and friends. My thoughts are with them and all those who have lost a mother, daughter, sister or friend to violence at the hands of men.
Like many of my constituents, I was shocked by the images that came out of Clapham common over the weekend. There is something very ugly about a group of women being manhandled, pushed to the ground and pinned for mourning yet another victim of male violence against women. The Home Secretary says that the legislation will make us safer, but after this weekend, I do not feel safer. The events on Saturday night show us the opposite of what the Home Secretary has concluded—far from the police not having enough powers, the sad truth is that the powers they do have are already open to abuse. That truth is not only demonstrated by the women who came to mourn and lay flowers over the weekend; it is written in the headlines about the women who survived the horrors of the spy cops scandal, the headlines about black, Asian and minority ethnic people being killed in police custody and the headlines about the Alfie Meadows and the Ian Tomlinsons who are struck down by police just for being in the presence of a demonstration.
This Bill is the latest in a series that, rather than safeguarding our right to protest, grant even more powers to crack down on dissent. Rather than addressing the real problems in our courts—just look at the gigantic backlog of cases waiting to go to trial, many of which will be domestic abuse, violent crime and rape cases—this Government want to hand out harsher punishments for damaging a statue than harassing a woman in the street.
So I do not feel safer, and there is one group of people who will feel significantly less safe and secure because of the Bill: the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. If the Government were serious about addressing the issue of unauthorised encampments, they would tackle the real problem: the shortage of places where it is permitted to stop and reside. All this legislation will do is strip people of their homes, push them into the criminal justice system and criminalise the way of life of an already persecuted community.
What we needed today was a Bill that dealt with the very real problems in our criminal justice system, respecting our rights to protest and to live our lives how we choose. That is what makes people safer, and we got the opposite of that.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]
The right to protest peacefully in this country is enshrined in article 11 of the European convention on human rights. Those provisions were put into domestic law and protect the freedom of assembly and the freedom of association with others. I suspect that every Member of this House, together with millions of our fellow citizens, has taken part in such protest events. Such expressions of community feeling are central to our way of life and part of each citizen’s interaction with the democratic process, and that should be protected at all costs.
However, it is an established legal principle that article 11 rights can never be unfettered, for if that were the case, rampant criminality could be justified, providing a defence to those who indulge in such behaviour under the guise of legitimate protest. These are qualified rights, and interference with them may only be justified in certain specific circumstances, including for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others and the prevention of crime and disorder. In my view, this Bill—specifically, parts 3 and 4—does not impact on article 11 principles but provides reasonable powers to ensure that the police can improve the effectiveness of protest policing in certain limited circumstances, as long as those powers are applied proportionately and in line with human rights law.
Labour appears to be arguing that the police should not have powers to address the most extreme antisocial behaviour during protests, therefore ignoring the rights of our fellow citizens who may be caused intimidation, harassment, serious unease, alarm or distress in certain circumstances outlined in the Bill. There were clearly mistakes in the policing of the vigil at the weekend in memory of Sarah Everard, but that single example should not be used as overwhelming evidence to suggest that the police will not use the powers in the Bill proportionately, reasonably and in line with existing human rights legislation.
If the choice presented to hon. Members is between voting against the Bill due to the definition of the controlled area outside Parliament and voting in favour of it to ensure the longer imprisonment of rapists, I know which way my constituents would expect me to vote. By voting in favour of this legislation, I am voting in favour of tougher sentences for child murderers, ending early release for sex offenders, the imposition of strict conditions on bail, tougher sentences for assaults on emergency service workers, various measures to crack down on knife and violent crime, and the enshrining of the police covenant in law, together with many other important provisions. I am astounded that the Labour party cannot bring itself to support legislation that will protect all our constituents.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I stand proud to support this Bill today. There are many good measures in it; in fact, we have even heard from Opposition Members that there are many good measures in it. However, they still cannot bring themselves to support it.
Traveller encampments, especially the unauthorised ones, cause distress to residents such as those on Kingston Road in Radcliffe in my constituency, who often thought that the encampment had more rights than they did. They saw extreme antisocial behaviour such as their fences being used as a toilet or being stolen for fires, and they actually feared for themselves. I went and met them several times during the summer, because there was not just one encampment; there were two. It is about time we supported our residents and said that we are not against Travellers, we are just against unauthorised Traveller encampments.
On the sentencing measures in the Bill, I am pleased to see greater sentencing for attacks on shop workers and emergency workers and for the kind of desecration of our memorials that we saw during the Black Lives Matter movement last year. The Bill provides greater sentencing powers for the most serious and violent of crimes. It also introduces Kay’s law, which will provide better protection for the victims and witnesses of violent and sexual offences. That is a measure that we should all welcome. In hand with the Domestic Abuse Bill, it really does go the distance to protect our victims. I would love to quote several of the figures on violent and sexual assaults in my constituency and, indeed, in Greater Manchester. However, with the failure of Greater Manchester police’s data system and the political leadership by Andy Burnham in regard to this, we do not have any of those figures because they got lost, for some reason.
On introducing life sentences for killer drivers, I want to start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for bringing forward her ten-minute rule Bill on this issue. Her Bill started the process; this one goes much further in ensuring that those who are reckless, careless and selfish will face the full force of the law for depriving us of our loved ones.
The linking of this Bill to the poor decisions of the Met over the weekend shows the true worst of the Opposition. I think it is absolutely disgusting, and they should be truly ashamed. Changing their mind at the last minute because they think there are votes in it is not opposition; it is opportunism, and the public will see through them.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) summarised the Bill perfectly: it contains the good, the bad and the ugly. There is some good in it, and I pay tribute to Labour colleagues who have campaigned to protect the protectors and for increased sentences for dangerous driving, which are in the Bill among some other stuff. However, I find some aspects of it deeply worrying for the future of our democracy, particularly clauses 54 to 60. I cannot comprehend how a Government who, on 16 February, declared that they were so concerned about free speech that they were introducing a duty for universities to
“stamp out unlawful ‘silencing’ on campuses”,
can then introduce a Bill that will damage the right to protest, because freedom to protest is part of our freedom of speech. The Government need to make up their mind: they either support free speech or they do not. Fully free speech does not mean just supporting the newspaper columnists and outspoken TV presenters that they agree with; it means supporting it for all.
I do not agree with every protest I see, and, yes, some are really annoying and some are really noisy, but I support the right for people to have that protest. I supported the coach industry with its noisy, inconvenient “Honk for Hope” protest. It is crucial that everyone understands that when someone loses the right to protest, everyone loses it; we cannot pick and choose. There have been people protesting outside Parliament for centuries. What makes this Government so precious that they are the Government who suddenly cannot cope with it? I will not support the silencing of people, for the Labour party stands for freedom for everybody, and that freedom includes, yes, even the Members on the Government Benches.
I will quickly turn to what else is missing. On 22 September 2020, I raised directly with the Lord Chancellor the increased abuse that shop workers were facing during the pandemic. He replied that it was
“incumbent on all of us to make sure that sentencing guidelines properly reflect the role that they play.”—[Official Report, 22 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 793.]
I hope everybody can therefore understand why I was disappointed to see no specific reference to retail staff in the Bill. On 10 March, retail trade union USDAW renewed a call for legislation to protect retail staff after it released new statistics showing that 79% of shop workers said that abuse was worse than last year. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), who tried to bring in a private Member’s Bill on assaults on retail workers, but unfortunately the Government objected to it. One shop worker living in Hull West and Hessle stated some of the issues that they had faced, including bad language, spitting, throwing items at staff and verbal abuse, which had caused anxiety and depression. Unlike some Conservative MPs, I care about people more than I care about statues. People come first, and no one should face abuse for just doing their job.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) [V]
There is lots to welcome in this Bill, but I want to focus on the issue that it covers on which I have had more casework than any other—unauthorised Traveller encampments. Unfortunately, these are a common feature in my constituency. Since last July, I have been copied into a weekly report on where there are unauthorised camps. In 20 of the 34 weeks since I have been getting that report, there has been at least one other unauthorised camp in one of the two districts that my constituency goes across, and in 32 of the 34 weeks there has been at least one camp somewhere in Oxfordshire.
When my constituents, who I think respect the right of Travellers to live their lives in the way that they do, write to me about unauthorised camps, they typically describe the same things: abuse, mess, noise throughout the night, and vandalism. The clean-up costs of these things are considerable for local authorities. The vast majority of Travellers do not behave in this way, so it is wrong for the Opposition to say that the Bill is criminalising their lifestyle, but for the minority who do behave in that way, it is right that we change the law to be able to tackle that.
These unauthorised camps cause distress, disruption and damage, as the Bill acknowledges. It is common for the police to say that they do not have the power to act, so it is right that we should lower the threshold to enable them to do so. They are commonly set up on highways, which in my constituency typically means the slip road on the A34 at Drayton, so it is right that we should clear them from such roads. The Bill also acknowledges the cat-and-mouse game that often goes on whereby after a long time trying to get these camps removed, they then reappear in the same place within days or weeks, as they have been doing at Great Western park. I therefore support the Government’s measures involving possible prison sentences, fines or confiscation of vehicles.
We all recognise the right of Travellers to be able to set up camps inside sites that are designated—caravan camp data suggests that those sites have increased by 41% in the past decade—but we should also recognise the right of our constituents to live their lives peacefully in their own homes and neighbourhoods, and we should vote for this Bill tonight to help them to do so.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, notwithstanding the need for a police covenant and for tougher sentences for serious crimes, including child murder, terrorism and dangerous driving, and for assaults on emergency service workers, because the Bill rushes changes to protest law and fails to introduce a single new measure specifically designed to tackle the epidemic of violence against women and is therefore an abusers’ charter since domestic abuse rates have spiked and victims of rape are facing the lowest prosecution rates on record, and because the Bill fails to criminalise street harassment, fails to make misogyny a hate crime, fails to raise minimum sentences for rape or stalking, and fails to give whole life orders to those found guilty of abduction and sexual assault and murder of a stranger.”
It is an honour to close this debate on behalf of the Opposition and to move the reasoned amendment standing in my name and that of the Leader of the Opposition. It is a debate that has involved the lion’s share of Members across this House, and of course we meet at a time of a national cry to tackle violence against women and girls.
It was in June last year, on one warm evening, amid the deep concerns about the pandemic at that time, that my wife and I, on learning and reading the news, wept together as a friend of mine, Mina Smallman, and her husband Chris lost their two beautiful daughters, Bibaa and Nicole, to terrible violence on a horrendous night in west London. We wept again just a few weeks ago because, on the evening of 3 March 2021, Sarah Everard, after visiting a friend in south London and walking across Clapham common, was spotted on CCTV at 9.30 pm and then she disappeared. The whole country and both sides of this House are mourning Sarah’s disappearance, kidnap and murder.
No story is more telling of the fact that we need tough sentences on the most serious crimes to deter criminals and protect the public, but we must not make the mistake of thinking that this horrific incident of violence against a woman is a one-off. The press may not report it, but women of all backgrounds, from all parts of the country and of all ages are killed every week. In 2016, 125 women in the UK were killed by men. In 2017, the number was 147. It was 147 again in 2018. Over the past decade, 1,425 women have been murdered in the UK. That is roughly one woman every three days.
It is not only murder; all kinds of violence against women are endemic in our country. In one year alone, 3.1% of women—510,000—experienced a sexual assault. Domestic violence has skyrocketed during the pandemic, with 260,000 domestic abuse offences between March and June. The Government knew about the crisis of violence against women and girls before this week, but when they were drafting the 20 schedules, 176 clauses and 296 pages of this Bill, they chose not to mention women once.
Maybe this Government do not like to talk about women because they know they have failed them. A decade of cuts, court closures and failed ideology is letting women down. Half the courts in England and Wales closed between 2010 and 2019. There are 27,000 fewer sitting days than in 2016. Under this Government, just 1.4% of rapes end in conviction. That is a record low and should shame us all.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) rightly asked, why are the Government not fast-tracking rape victims through the CPS and the courts? The Crown court backlog is now a record high of more than 56,000 cases. The Government like to pretend that is only because of the pandemic, but they have no answer to why they let the backlog grow to 39,000 before covid even hit. The result is that victims of crime are being asked to wait up to four years to get to court. Many witnesses are dropping out of the justice system entirely because of delays. Violent criminals are being spared prison because of it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) rightly pointed out, discussions on the justice system must always start with delays in the system and the inadequacy of legal aid. Instead of tackling violence against women, the Government have prioritised giving the police the power to prohibit the fundamental freedoms of protest that the British public hold dear. By giving the police this discretion to use these powers some of the time, it takes away our freedom all of the time. The Government’s Bill targets protesters causing too much noise and says that those who cause annoyance could be jailed for up to 10 years. I am thankful that the draconian limits on the power to protest were not in place during the great protests of the 20th century that led to real change.
Mr Lammy
I will not give way for the moment.
When the suffragettes marched for the right to vote, some of them were prepared to break the law to make their point just outside the House of Commons. Does the Secretary of State believe that those women who shouted noisily should have been arrested, too? Protesters marched from Jarrow in Tyneside all the way to London to demand the right to work in 1936. Does the Secretary of State think that the police should have had the power to stop them before they had even passed York? The anti-apartheid movement, of which I was part, marched continuously on Trafalgar Square for black and white people to be treated as equal. Does the Secretary of State seriously believe that they should have been arrested because they caused an annoyance?
Throughout Britain’s history, protest has been a fundamental method for the public to voice dissent. Pandemic aside, what is it about society that has changed exactly that means that the police need more powers to control protesters today than they did yesterday? What is it about the images of police tackling a mourning woman to the floor last weekend that makes the Secretary of State think that the police do not have enough as it stands? The truth, as has been briefed to his favourite newspapers, is that the Government are introducing these measures because they dislike Black Lives Matter, because they hate Extinction Rebellion and because both tell too many hard truths.
Shaun Bailey
When the Opposition vote against this Bill tonight, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the Labour party’s position will have finally changed to: weak on crime and weak on the causes of crime?
Mr Lammy
I know that the hon. Gentleman is just getting started, but the party that introduced whole life orders—the Labour party—will not, I am afraid, take any lessons from him.
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), was right in this debate when she said that there was a fine line between “popular and populist” and that our freedoms depend on it. The Conservative party’s principles are rooted in liberty and against the overreach of the state. I call on every member of the governing party who still believes in freedom to join the Opposition and vote against this Bill tonight.
According to the Government, not only those who cause annoyance but those who damage statues of slave owners should be locked up for a decade. Unlike the Government, the Opposition will never condone criminal behaviour, but this Government’s priorities are backwards; they are upside down. Unlike women, memorials are mentioned in the Bill eight times. The Government think that people who damage statutes should spend up to 10 years in prison because of their emotional value, but it is fine to give five-year sentences for rape. This is not hypothetical: Anthony Williams strangled his wife to death, but received only a five-year sentence; John Patrick raped a 13-year-old girl, but got only seven years in jail; Ferdinando Orlando and Lorenzo Costanzo were jailed for seven and a half years for raping a woman in a Soho nightclub; James Reeve raped a seven-year-old disabled girl, but got only nine years; and David Nicholson raped an 11 year-old, but was given a sentence of nine years and four months. What does this Bill do to address those injustices that many people feel?
The Government would rather blow a dog whistle against minorities than make women safe. Measures in the Bill will further compound the inequalities experienced by Gypsies and Travellers who are already the most disproportionately represented group in the justice system. Those found guilty of trespass in the Bill could receive a higher sentence than someone convicted of stalking. Once again, this Government’s priorities are skewed. Even police forces do not support the Government’s criminalisation of trespass. The National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners said:
“Trespass is a civil offence and our view is that it should remain so.”
Why are the Government determined to lock up Gypsies and Travellers, even against the advice of their own police?
Many of the other measures in the Bill will compound the biases that the Secretary of State knows exist in the justice system. The Prime Minister likes to boast of following my review and recommendations, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) argued so convincingly, too often young people are still considered to be perpetrators, when in fact they are victims. Earlier this year we heard the roar “black lives matter”, and it is clear by the fact that no full equalities impact assessment accompanies the Bill that the Secretary of State simply does not agree.
The Bill contains some important proposals that Labour supports. Most of the best measures come from campaigns by Labour MPs, many of whom have spoken eloquently about those campaigns in this debate. Labour supports my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) on dangerous driving, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) on reform of the disclosure and barring service. Labour supports my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) regarding sexual abuse by people in positions of trust, and my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on protecting the protectors. As the shadow Home Secretary so powerfully said, why can those protections not be extended to shopworkers, social care workers, and other front-line heroes? The Opposition are behind those measures, alongside others to keep the public safe from terrorists, child murderers, and other dangerous offenders.
However, Labour cannot vote for a Policing, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill that ignores the intimidation, violence and abuse that women face. We cannot vote for this Bill when it fails to increase sentencing for rape and stalking. We cannot vote for this Bill when it fails to criminalise street harassment, or to make misogyny a hate crime. We cannot vote for this Bill when it fails, on the watch of the Secretary of State, to give whole life orders to those found guilty of abduction, serious assault, and murder of a stranger. We cannot vote for a Bill that fails to outline a strategy to tackle the culture of misogyny that underpins it.
Richard Graham
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned stalking twice. It is worth remembering that in the Government in which he served, stalking was not a criminal offence. It became a criminal offence in 2012, and we then doubled the maximum sentence for stalking a few years later. I hope he will recognise that that was achieved under this Government.
Mr Lammy
Given all that has been said by women over the past few days, with the street harassment and stalking that they face, there is a simple question for the hon. Gentleman, who has tremendous experience in this House: have we done enough? Given that this is an omnibus Bill of a size we have not seen in a long time, could we have done more, and could the Secretary of State have done more? The simple answer to that question is, most obviously, yes, we could.
This is a missed opportunity. The murder of Sarah Everard has led to a national outcry, and the Government must finally take action to tackle violence against women and girls. The Government have responded with yet another meeting. Instead of uniting the country around a mission finally to address that violence, they are bringing forward divisive legislation that pits people against one another and takes away our freedom.
Some time this week, another woman will be killed. After around three more days, another woman’s life will be taken. Both those murders are likely to be committed by a man. For far too long, we in this country have had a problem of men killing women. If we stand for nothing, we fall for everything. Today, Labour is standing up for women by voting against this Bill. I ask Members on both sides of the House to do the same.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
As the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said, it is an honour to close this debate and to follow other right hon. and hon. Members. This two-day debate has been an opportunity, first of all, for all of us to pay tribute to the memory of Sarah Everard, her loved ones and the wider community, who have expressed their shock, revulsion and anger at what has happened and at the wider issues, too.
When we talk about safety, each and every one of us has a responsibility. When women all too often feel unsafe, it is the wrong response to say to them, “Stay indoors. Don’t go out alone.” Instead of questioning the victim, we have to deal with the perpetrator. When I think about how far we have come, I sharply remind myself of how far we still have to go. I look around this House and think of colleagues from all parties—some of whom are no longer here—with whom I have had the honour to work on a cross-party basis on issues such as stalking, child abuse and coercive control. I am proud of that work, and I know that they are, too. The Domestic Abuse Bill, which is coming to the end of its progress through both Houses, has in many ways been Parliament at its very best.
The events of last week have no doubt acted as a catalyst. Society is speaking. The response to the reopened call for evidence on the Home Office’s violence against women and girls strategy has now received more than 120,000 submissions in just three days. Society is speaking, and it is for all of us to be up to the level of events.
The Bill, on which I have worked for many months—from well before the sentencing White Paper that I published in September last year—is not just the fulfilment of a manifesto commitment, important though that is; it lies at the very heart of the mission of this Government. It is another milestone along the road to creating a higher degree of public protection for victims of crime—and that very much includes women and girls. I had hoped—in fact, I believed—that we were going to be able to work with Members across this House not on the principle of the Bill but perhaps on the detail. Imagine my disappointment to hear that the Labour party has decided to oppose the Bill on Second Reading.
Let us remind ourselves of what Second Reading is all about: it is not about the detail of the Bill—whether it can be amended, improved, honed, polished or added to, as we have seen with the Domestic Abuse Bill—but about the principle. With the greatest of respect to Opposition Members, what beggars belief is that they think that now is the time to turn unity into bitterness and partnership into strife—[Interruption.] I can tell the right hon. Member for Tottenham that I am afraid that is what I have been hearing across the House. It is as if, somehow, we have descended into two nations once again, speaking past each other and not engaging in the way that we did on the Domestic Abuse Bill. To say that I am perplexed and disappointed is an understatement.
But then I read today’s Order Paper, and sadly all seems to be revealed, because we have not one reasoned amendment—we will vote on the one moved by the right hon. Member for Tottenham—but two from the Labour party. The Front-Bench amendment, which has a few names attached to it, makes a brief reference to the law on protest but, on analysis, does not really offer any solid reasons that are differences in principle in respect of Second Reading. The other reasoned amendment, which has been signed by 42 Labour party Members, offers much more direct resistance. It is clear that in principle those signatories are very much opposed to the Bill. There, frankly, lies the heart of the dilemma for the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party: they are trapped between parts of their party that oppose, in principle, sensible, reasoned, proportionate measures that develop the law in a mature way, and the vast majority of the public, who want us to work together in the national interest. I am afraid that it looks as if party interests are being put before the national interest. It gives me no pleasure at all to say that, but I am afraid that that is what it looks like—not just to those on the Government side of the House, but to the country.
Let us look at what we did on the Domestic Abuse Bill. By working together, we moved mountains.
Robert Buckland
No, I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think I can do justice to the number of inaccuracies, generalisations and false assertions—inadvertent assertions, I will concede—that were made by him and, I am afraid, by other Opposition Members. They are concocting—
Robert Buckland
No, I will not give way.
Opposition Members are concocting synthetic arguments in objection that just do not stand the closest scrutiny. They are inadvertently—I will say “inadvertently”, because I will give them, of course, that courtesy—misstating some of the key provisions of this Bill.
Let us start with the juxtaposition pf sentencing for rape and criminal damage. The starting point for the lowest category of the offence of rape, as set out by the Independent Sentencing Council, is five years. With aggravating factors and different categories of offending, rape offenders will receive, and very often do receive, substantially longer sentences, leading up to those for campaigns of rape, where sentences of in excess of 20 years, or even life sentences, will be imposed, because the maximum penalty for rape is life imprisonment.
Robert Buckland
No, I will not give way.
In this Bill, we are making sure that those who commit offences such as rape spend more of their time in prison. We are ending Labour’s automatic halfway release provisions for people who receive sentences of over four years for offences such as rape and section 18 grievous bodily harm, and we are making sure that they serve two thirds of their term of imprisonment.
Turning to criminal damage, the relevant Act is now 50 years old, and for those 50 years the statutory maximum has been 10 years where the value of the damage is over £5,000. The changes in relation to criminal damage of memorials simply remove the previous restriction on the mode of trial and allow the full range of those powers to be used up to that maximum. We are simply giving the courts greater discretion as to how they sentence such offenders, taking into account the emotional and community impact of those offences.
We had, I thought, cross-party support on these measures. Indeed, back in the summer, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) publicly backed our proposals. He said that he would work to support such efforts in Parliament. Now he is opposed. Why? Why the change? What is going on here? I will tell Members what is going on.
Robert Buckland
No, I will not give way. I will explain what is going on, and then I will let the right hon. Gentleman in.
I would suggest that what has happened here is the result of a conflation with the covid regulations and their interaction with the right to protest, which the Labour party did not oppose—it voted in favour of those on occasions or did not oppose them. They have conflated those arguments with measures in the Bill that long predate what happened on the weekend—those regrettable scenes that we all saw and were upset and appalled by. They are now conflating those issues with the issues relating to this Bill. There is no relation between the two, and I would love to hear an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Last year, the Government spoke about additional protection for war memorials. We all understand the value of war memorials. What we did not agree to, and I have never agreed to, is locking up people for 10 years for damaging all memorials, including those of slave traders. That just sums up everything that is wrong with the Government’s approach. They could have worked with us. They did not. They have created division.
Robert Buckland
It is a very nice try from the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have the utmost respect, but it does not cut the ice. We know what has happened here. It is a party in panic that is weaving, twisting and wobbling because its internal management problems are far more important than the public interest. That is the truth. Here we are, at the end of a two-day debate, with the Labour party, which I concede has a proud record in supporting the police and maintaining law and order, now voting against measures to strengthen sentencing for rapists, burglars, drug dealers, sex abusers, killer drivers. All of that is being opposed by the Labour party. Let me tell Labour Members the price of that for their party.
Robert Buckland
No, I am not going to give way.
Much has been said about the excellent campaigns run by Labour Members. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), with whom I have worked very well over the years on issues relating to child abuse. Imagine the impossible position that those doughty campaigners have been put in by their Front Benchers. They are now having to vote against the very measures that they campaigned for so assiduously. That is a terrible predicament for them to be put in. It is a disgrace, and the Labour Front Benchers should hang their heads in shame.
There have been in this debate many constructive and important contributions, and I want to in the minutes that I have left—
Robert Buckland
They don’t like it when the truth is explained to them. They think that they have the moral high ground on all these issues. Well, I can tell you that there is no monopoly on morality in this place.
Before I deal with the excellent contributions from Members across the House, may I deal with the canard about “annoyance”? Much has been made about the somehow strange use of a word that is seen as a massive infringement on the civil liberties of men and women across this country, yet a brief perusal of the Law Commission’s report of 2015 tells us that the law has developed for centuries with phrases like “annoyance”. It is a part of the common law on public nuisance. The members of the Law Commission—they were all very good members; there was Lord Justice Lloyd Jones as he then was, and Professor David Ormerod, who is well known as an excellent academic in these fields—recommended that the law needed to be codified. The law had been restated with reference to the use of the word “annoyance” by none other than the late and noble Lord Bingham when he was in the House of Lords. He set out the law very clearly. Clause 59 amounts to no more than a reiteration of the excellent work of the Law Commission. To say anything else is, frankly, once again a confection, a concoction and a twisting of the reality.
I want to deal with the question of abuse in a position of trust. I pay particular tribute—I think all hon. Members will agree with me—to the outstanding work of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). It has been a pleasure to see her back here. She spoke earlier. I think she has now gone home, but we all wish her well. She has, with great tenacity, campaigned to make sure that we make these provisions a reality.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). He asked a particular question about driving instructors. He will see in the Bill that there will be provision, by way of statutory instrument, to allow an amendment of the law to extend to further categories of occupation. It is important that there is a clear evidence base. We are dealing with young people who are transitioning to adulthood—they are 16 and 17 years of age—and it is quite clear that the evidence on sports coaches and religious leaders, sadly, did point to a need to change the law. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends and to my noble Friend Baroness Grey-Thompson for their excellent work.
On causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) deserves our thanks and praise for pressing her Bill. I know she has welcomed the provisions. In the context of memorials, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for pressing their case with extreme prejudice and alacrity and for succeeding on the provision.
The Home Office parts of the Bill were outlined very well by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary yesterday. In summary, I would say that important public health duties are being extended in relation to serious violence. I have long held the view that it is only by bringing together the local agencies that we truly get ahead of the trends in serious violence and in prevention, which is of course nine tenths of what we need to be doing.
The Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), made a weighty contribution to the debate, rightly pointing to the extra investment in alternatives to custody. At the heart of the approach I am taking as Lord Chancellor is enhancing and improving community sentencing. It has long been clear to me that we need to make sure that sentencers have a proper choice of robust community alternatives.
Wes Streeting
I asked whether the Lord Chancellor could explain to my community why someone who was in a position of trust—deputy manager of a care home—who peddled kids to deal drugs across the country got a prison sentence of only four years. What is he going to do about that?
Robert Buckland
The hon. Gentleman knows that matters dealt with in court are matters for the independent judiciary, but I will look at the case, because it is vital that we make sure that those who are involved in organised crime and abuse—that is what that case sounds like to me—are properly dealt with, and that the wider issues are addressed. I share his concern.
Robert Buckland
Not at the moment.
I am particularly pleased to thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray), who represented the family of Ellie Gould, the murder victim of whose case I think everyone in this House is fully aware. It is important to take on board the points he made about domestic homicide. I have spoken elsewhere about the importance of getting the balance right when it comes to the categories of murder. I committed to a review—I did that last week—and I will bring before the House further information on the content of that important review.
In the minutes left, I am pleased to commend to the House a radical new approach to the way in which we deal with young people—children—who are incarcerated in the secure estate. The days of locking them up and forgetting about them absolutely have to end; we all agree on that. That is why the measures to clarify the legal framework surrounding new secure schools will allow a complete change in the way in which we deal with, support, rehabilitate and educate children in our care. Schools with security will have education, wellbeing and purposeful activity at their very heart. As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) for his constructive suggestions and his work as a member of the Justice Committee.
Let me outline on the record the important provisions in the Bill relating to unauthorised encampments. Many right hon. and hon. Members have raised the issue. It is a real concern for many of our constituents.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The pages of the Bucks Free Press attest to the sheer scale of the costs to our green spaces and our communities of unauthorised encampments. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that on this issue and on protests, the Opposition are refusing to engage with legitimate limits on both freedoms?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend puts it very well. This is all about balancing the rights of Traveller communities to use authorised encampments and to enjoy the lifestyle that they have chosen, and the rights of householders not to have their local communities despoiled. That is what we are seeking to do. The Bill, in my strong submission, allows that balance to be maintained and enhanced.
The Bill is part of our wider approach to making the criminal justice system smarter, and to keeping our streets safe from the worst criminals, while giving offenders opportunities to turn their life around. We can rebalance the justice system. We can restore faith in it, which has sadly been in decline for too long. The Bill is a welcome step forward, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We require social distancing in the Chamber at all times, please.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now briefly suspend the House for three minutes so that arrangements can be made and people can leave and enter the Chamber with proper social distancing.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 18th May 2021
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPolice, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 May 2021 - (18 May 2021)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. First, let me ask you to switch any electronic devices off or to silent mode. I remind you that Mr Speaker does not allow tea or coffee to be consumed during sittings of this Committee. This is really difficult, but you have to try to observe the social distancing arrangements and sit only in the places that are marked. I ask you to wear a face mask when you are not speaking, unless you are medically exempt. Space is a bit tight in this room, so people just have to observe social distancing and try to make it as easy for people as possible as they are moving around.
Today we will consider, first, the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and then a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions, before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take all those matters without debate. Before we hear evidence from our first panel, we will have a short briefing from the Parliamentary Digital Service on cyber-security, which is of particular concern to members of this Committee because we are dealing with matters relating to the police and criminal law. The programme motion was discussed on Monday by the Programming Sub-Committee for this Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
I beg to move, Date Time Witness Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 10.30 am The National Police Chiefs’ Council Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 11.25 am The Police Superintendents’ Association; The Police Federation of England and Wales Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 2.45 pm The Centre for Justice Innovation; The Centre for Social Justice Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 3.30 pm Jonathan Hall QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 4.15 pm Local Government Association; The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 4.45 pm Doughty Street Chambers; Garden Court Chambers Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 5.15 pm Youth Justice Board Tuesday 18 May Until no later than 5.45 pm The Bar Council Thursday 20 May Until no later than 12.15 pm National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders; Unlock Thursday 20 May Until no later than 1 pm The Victims’ Commissioner Thursday 20 May Until no later than 2.45 pm The Children’s Society; Community Justice Scotland Thursday 20 May Until no later than 3.30 pm The Association of Youth Offending Team Managers Thursday 20 May Until no later than 4.15 pm The Law Society Thursday 20 May Until no later than 5 pm Howard League for Penal Reform; Criminal Justice Alliance; Women in Prison; Sentencing Academy Thursday 20 May Until no later than 5.45 pm Professor Colin Clark, University of the West of Scotland; Amnesty International UK; Liberty
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 18 May) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 18 May;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 20 May;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 25 May;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 27 May;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 8 June;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 10 June;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 15 June;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 17 June;
(i) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 22 June;
(j) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 24 June;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 10, Schedule 1, Clause 11, Schedule 2, Clauses 12 to 42, Schedule 3, Clause 43, Schedule 4, Clauses 44 to 47, Schedule 5, Clauses 48 to 51, Schedule 6, Clauses 52 to 66, Schedule 7, Clauses 67 to 73, Schedule 8, Clause 74, Schedule 9, Clauses 75 to 97, Schedule 10, Clauses 98 to 100, Schedule 11, Clauses 101 to 127, Schedule 12, Clause 128, Schedule 13, Clause 129, Schedule 14, Clauses 130 to 134, Schedule 15, Clause 135, Schedule 16, Clauses 136 to 156, Schedule 17, Clauses 157 to 161, Schedule 18, Clauses 162 to 168, Schedule 19, Clauses 169 to 171, Schedule 20, Clauses 172 to 176, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 24 June.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and I are both delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I welcome to the Committee my hon. Friends, on the Government Benches, and hon. Members across the room. I am sure that we can expect some lively debates in the days and weeks of scrutiny ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Victoria Atkins.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be circulated to members by email and made available in the Committee Room.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Victoria Atkins.)
The Chair
If everyone is agreed, we will go into a private session for the briefing on cyber-security and to discuss the lines of questioning. Time is very tight, so we will allow five minutes for the presentation and, if there are any obvious questions, a few minutes for that. If people have things that they want to follow up, I ask them to do that separately with the PDS; otherwise we are just eating into the Committee’s time.
The Chair
I want to check how members of the respective parties want to handle the questions. We have our first panel until 10.30 am; they will all be giving evidence by video today. It is slightly harder since we are not sitting in our usual formed lines, but my assumption is that I should simply alternate between members of the respective parties and allow enough time for the Minister and the Front-Bench spokespersons to come in towards the end. Are you happy with that?
The Chair
Obviously, you can either use the questions that are on the brief that you have been given, but there is no objection to your asking your own questions. However, the questions must relate to the content of the Bill; we do not want any flights of fancy from anyone. I hope that makes perfect sense.
Also, if anyone has anything that they need to declare, I hope that they will be kind enough to do that.
I think that covers all the preliminary business. I am conscious that it is difficult to be called with the arrangement in the room, so if you want to be called, just indicate that to me. And if you are sitting at the back, there is a microphone there, so that you will be heard properly. If anyone is having any terrible difficulties, let me know.
Otherwise, if you are happy to proceed, I will call the first panel of witnesses: Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council; and Chief Constable BJ Harrington, the NPCC lead for public order and public safety.
Examination of Witnesses
Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt and Chief Constable BJ Harrington gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: For myself, Chair, all I will say is that throughout the construction of the Bill, all my respective leads have worked with the Home Office officials, to try to make sure that our views have been incorporated, so we feel that we have had the opportunity to be engaged throughout the process. I do not think that I really need to say much more than that at this stage.
Chief Constable Harrington: I am one of those respective leads, so I have had plenty of opportunity to inform the Bill.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: We are always concerned about any officers that have to routinely undertake the kind of work in which there will undoubtedly be an impact on the officer’s welfare. We have a range of wellbeing work that we do, including a specific wellbeing service, Oscar Kilo, that looks after all aspects of wellbeing, particularly mental health wellbeing, which has become one of our priorities in recent years. When you get into specific roles such as the one that you identified there, there is training and assessment for officers who go forward and undertake those roles. There is also regular checking and assessment of those officers so that they are looked at again, spoken to and monitored for any of the specific impacts.
As you have identified, there is a range of roles that we now have officers undertaking that are by their very nature distressing, and of course we recognise that kind of repeated exposure, so there is psychological testing and support provided to those officers. In particular roles, that will incorporate routine and regular checking to ensure that the officer’s welfare is fine. That fits within the much broader work that we undertake more generally on wellbeing, and, as I say, particularly and increasingly mental health wellbeing.
Sarah Champion
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: The reality is making that work. An issue that we undoubtedly have around wellbeing and the occupational health service provision is the restricted amount of capacity. That is one of our challenges. In all circumstances, where we want to refer officers or staff for support, one of our frustrations is that it often takes quite a while to access that support. Although there is a positive in the concept of providing more universal support, it would have to be balanced with being able to actually provide the capability and the capacity to do that effectively. That is one of the challenges we face.
The Chair
Chief Constable Harrington, do you have anything to add?
Chief Constable Harrington: Like Martin said, we have some systematic processes for those who engage in high risk areas. Some of the capacity issues are dealt with by our trauma incident management response, which enables supervisors and peers to recognise, debrief and spot the people who need further and greater intervention, and almost to triage that response following any kind of traumatic incident, particularly in the cases that have been referenced.
The Chair
I call Robert Goodwill. By the way, Members are free to take their jackets off if they feel so inclined.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: BJ, I will probably let you take that one first.
Chief Constable Harrington: First and foremost, all police training and all police responses to public order and protest, and those important freedoms that you referenced, are in accordance with the Human Rights Act. Of course, there is always the balance between the positive duties to ensure that people can express those rights, and those negative duties, ensuring that we infringe on those rights only when that is proportionate and necessary. I think the point is around getting the balance right in protecting the rights and freedoms of those who are impacted by that.
We asked for some of the changes that are incorporated into the Bill, including more currency around the powers in the Public Order Act 1986 as was. Protest and assemblies have changed since that time. There are issues such as when does a procession become a static assembly, and an assembly become a procession? There is the consistency of what the police can do, always within a landscape of balancing the competing rights of those affected and those who wish to express their rights. There is also the need for real clarity for both the officers who are required to make difficult decisions, balancing objectively and proportionately what they need to do, and for those who wish to express those rights or to have them protected.
We think that the proposals to align sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 really do bring that currency to what we see and how people protest, assemble and march now. There will also be consistency so that people can better understand. Of course, things like the public nuisance elements allow us—the police—to anticipate better where there will be significant or serious impact. “Significant impact” is the phrase we would want to see. You have seen and referenced some of that significant disruption to people whose rights are infringed by others. We think that the changes bring currency and consistency and, overall, greater clarity for all those who have to police it and those who take part.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: From our perspective, we asked for the consistency between those two sections, and that is included. We asked for, and would like to see, particularly serious disruption—a very high threshold—to become more like significant impact on the community. Of course, we can prove disruption, and it is also about whether the impact is on, for example, a small business, an individual, a neighbourhood or, indeed, a large institution or Parliament itself. We asked for that, and we think the Bill starts to address that.
In terms of the powers and the response to that, the tactics and things, whether that is the use of force, that we apply—you referred to water cannon available to other police forces and other countries—always need to be in that balance and, of course, proportionate and necessary to achieve that legitimate aim. But the proposals give us greater clarity to be able better to balance those competing rights, which are always tricky and difficult and always require judgments about those who are affected by it and those who are expressing their rights, and there will always be opposing opinions. I think the Bill broadly gives us that extra power.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: If I may reference Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire & rescue services’ survey of the public, where there is serious disruption, the public are very supportive of the police being active and preventing that action taking place. I think the public will perhaps always step in when they see a significant impact on them, or in terms of the lower elements, where it is just frustrating perhaps or just annoying. I think the public in the survey showed that they are more tolerant of that.
It goes back to the previous questioner’s point: in the police service, we guard the freedoms of expression and assembly very carefully, because they support police legitimacy in terms of the police being the public, and the public being the police. So I think the Bill gets the balance right. I think the public will always be concerned where people are climbing on top of tube trains, which is simply dangerous. That will always be a case where the police or the public would want to intervene.
The Chair
Is there anything you want to add, Mr Hewitt?
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: Not really. We police public order and protest in a particular way, and I am very proud of the way that we police that. As has just been said, it is always a challenge to balance the different rights, responsibilities and risks, and that is what our commanders do routinely. What the provisions in the Bill give us is greater consistency and clarity, which is really important for the commanders and the officers on the ground, but equally for people who are seeking to protest. This is an environment that changes and shifts, and the Bill gives us extra certainty and clarity in terms of dealing with situations as they arise.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: Police training already clearly plays a large part in our obligations, positive and negative, under the Human Rights Act, and we make those judgments around balance now—the protection of rights and freedoms of others, versus the rights of assembly and freedom of expression that are so important. It is a core part of our training, from senior commanders through to police constables and every rank and grade in between. We already balance those competing rights.
In terms of preparation, we engage with protest groups where we can and where they wish to engage with us. We try to understand what it is that they wish to achieve through their protest, and we then try to speak to those who would be impacted on—you used the example of people in a shop—to understand what they need. We try to strike a balance that allows both of those rights and freedoms to be carried out and realised. Sometimes there is conflict in that, because some might seek to obstruct one or the other. That is when police commanders and officers have to make those judgments, but it is always about how they balance those rights in a way that is proportionate and necessary. Of course, any restrictions that we place on those rights must always be prescribed in law, and that is what we say the provisions in the Bill allow us to do more clearly for all involved.
Maria Eagle
Q
“entire classes or types of protests”
will be prohibited and that the bar for what will constitute significant disruption to the community, which is a woolly phrase—what does that consist of?—will be set at a low level, which will infringe on people’s rights to protest peacefully. What do you think about this, and what is your understanding of the definition of serious annoyance?
Chief Constable Harrington: The vast majority of protests across the country are largely unpoliced and take place without police intervention, and we use our current powers under the Public Order Act to impose restrictions relatively infrequently. Over the past year, I do not think it has been more than 20 times, although some of those have been high profile and have obviously been challenged in the courts. These are not powers that we seek to use frequently, and they are well considered. Of course, they are subject, and have been subject, to challenge in the courts, both through judicial review and subsequently when people have been prosecuted for breaching the conditions in relation to that.
On serious annoyance, we think serious disruption is a very high bar. We asked for “significant impact” on the community, to take account of where it may not be serious but is perhaps significant to a business, an individual or a school, or to the operation of someone’s life and freedoms. On serious annoyance, we need to see what Parliament’s decision on the definition of that is and to interpret that accordingly, always coming back to how we interpret the law in a way which comes back to the fundamental freedoms and those fundamental obligations on policing, which is to get the balance right between those who wish to express those rights and those who are impacted by them. We will have to see what Parliament decides and whether it is able to give us some clarity about what that means, so that we can make those judgments in an informed and lawful way.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: I have policed many protests over 27 years in London, and headed up public order for the Metropolitan police in a previous job, so, yes. There are lots of cases—Redmond-Bate and others—that would suggest that protest is annoyance and disruptive. This is the balance. We come back to the point: where does that level of disruption become, in our view, a significant impact on a community? That is the balance of judgment that we have to make. If that stops the operation of a business—a hospital perhaps—or stops thousands or tens of thousands of people commuting to their jobs each day, our argument would be that that tends to trip the bar to say that that is not proportionate and the balance is out of kilter there.
Equally, we have to take into account that there will be some annoyance and there will be some noise, but that is the judgment call that commanders have to make, balancing those and taking the evidence or the information from those affected by it. We would very much welcome from Parliament guidance and a steer as to what that would mean and what the levels are—if you excuse the pun—because that is how we can then make sure that we balance those rights lawfully and proportionately.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: Some are very, very noisy, with drums, cymbals and bands, and others—certainly that I have been involved with—have been absolutely silent, because of the nature of those protests. Noise is one element which can disrupt, but so also is the presence. So there is a whole variety of different protests, but, yes, many are noisy.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: The presumption is that people have a right to assembly, and we would only impose conditions on those where we think that there is serious disruption, serious disorder or the likelihood of serious damage, or they are there to intimidate people. As the law suggests, we have always said that, in terms of serious disruption, that bar is very, very high, and we would like to see “significant impact”.
We use these powers currently very rarely. We allow and facilitate many protests, and sometimes to our criticism. Police commanders are criticised for getting the balance wrong because one or other side, or opposing views, think that it should not be allowed. I cannot say that every protest will always be allowed, but I think individual commanders will make informed, balanced judgments based on the information, always seeking to get the balance right, with a presumption that is set out in the Human Rights Act that we will facilitate a peaceful assembly, but always balancing that against the protection of rights and freedoms of others.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: As I said, we asked for greater consistency in sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act. For the Committee’s benefit, for a procession, we can impose conditions such as appear reasonable to the senior commander in the circumstances—whatever range of conditions. For an assembly, we can only specify location, duration and maximum numbers. As I said, the point is when does a march begin and an assembly stop? You will have all seen that in your own experience.
We asked for greater clarity around public nuisance and for that to become a statutory offence, rather than a common law offence. We think that gives commanders and the public greater clarity and understanding. We think that is an important power that will allow us to deal with some of the more serious disruption to communities that perhaps might be planned.
We also asked that, where we have talked to individuals and gone through breach of the conditions, whether in advance, through publication, through engagement or through the five-stage appeal before we use enforcement, and where we have done everything we possibly can, often videoing officers speaking to or giving a leaflet to someone who we say is breaching, that the presumption be shifted, as they ought to know, because we have done everything possible. We have asked for those kinds of powers, and they are reflected in the Bill.
The Chair
I will come to Allan Dorans in a second, but in the interest of balance we will go first to Antony Higginbotham first.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: Social media has been a game changer in many ways. We still get organisers who come forward and people who say they want to march from A to B. They will organise around that; they are what I call a traditional protest march.
But, as you rightly say, we can have protests or assemblies that are organised in a matter of hours—sometimes minutes—and the use of social media can change those protests and make them more dynamic. Hence, the currency around that, because something was advertised as an assembly at a particular point, but, very quickly, through social media, everyone is off to another point, and it becomes a march. We think that is really important, and the powers help us because we can be really clear about imposing proportionate, lawful and necessary conditions, if the threshold is met, on the whole of that protest, whether it walks or stands still. Then everybody can be clear about what they do.
In terms of social media, we have adapted very quickly, I think. You will regularly see police officers in our police liaison team trying to engage with organisers. We will see approaches through a whole range of social media platforms. Sometimes, as it is people’s right not to engage with us, you will see senior officers making very clear appeals and clearly setting out through social media what, in the policing judgment, is acceptable or not acceptable, in order to make sure people are clear about where they may or may not be breaking the law if we impose conditions.
So we have adapted to that and we continue to do that. Through events, you will see that we continue to do that for those events. We also use social media to understand the impact on those affected, so that we can either protect property or protect the rights and freedoms of those who may be affected.
Antony Higginbotham
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: It is the ability to communicate quickly, to change their focus of protest very quickly and to divide and split up—it is just that it is dynamic. We see that in a social context—“I’ll meet you here” or “I’ll meet you there.” That is the same thing in protests.
I think you hit the nail on the head about what we are asking for around consistency and currency, allowing the powers that we use—again, proportionately and with all the balance and the constraints of the Human Rights Act—to be really clear, so we can say, “What is the impact of what this group propose to do? How do we best balance that?”
Then, if we think the threshold is met, we can impose conditions that allow us to be really clear about what we are trying to achieve. To the point you made earlier, we then need to communicate that very clearly to those involved so that they have every opportunity to express their rights, understanding what the rules and thresholds are for when the police would intervene.
Antony Higginbotham
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: We are very careful with the use of closed online groups. The open-source platforms we use are exactly that: open source. Our communication with protest groups is open, as is their conversation with us. I think we are very careful; our access to those would be about criminality, and that is not what we are talking about here in terms of our use of those powers. This is not to limit or criminalise protests; it is to balance those rights of disruption with competing rights.
Seeking access to closed groups would always be at a very high threshold we would consider only with criminality. We do that in other arenas, and we have good powers and good co-operation in order to do that. We would not seek that routinely as part of policing protests or public order. As we have seen over the last year—even this last weekend—there have been largely peaceful protests. My view as the national lead is that we would only seek those powers where protests end and criminality begins, but I think they are well catered for elsewhere.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: The first point I would mention is that there will be pilots for the serious violence reduction orders. We have been and will continue to work very closely with the Home Office to make sure that we fully understand the impact of such orders. There is no doubt that there are people who are more violent and have a history of violence, and we do a range of things to try to reduce the number of violent crimes. Our concern is to make sure that there is no disproportionality in the way these orders are used, so we are really keen to work very closely with the pilot site to assess how this can be another tool—and it is just one further tool—in dealing with street violence and violence among younger people.
We do think there is an opportunity for certain individuals to become subject to this sort of order, but we want to work with the pilot site to see how we can make that work; how we can make it an effective tool that does not cause more challenges with particular parts of the community.
The Chair
Thank you. I want to try to squeeze in one last Back-Bench question—Hywel Williams, could you make it brief, because I want to get to the Front Benches.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: Potentially, that presents a challenge. The four Welsh forces work extremely well with Welsh Government, and—obviously—with local authorities in the individual force areas. There is always going to be a challenge when people are potentially in different legislative places. We have been dealing with that in many senses in our response to the covid pandemic for the last 14 months or so: we have very deliberately responded as one UK police service, but on almost all occasions there have been slightly different regulations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and, for that matter, Wales. That presents a challenge to policing, but I know for a fact that the four forces in what the National Police Chiefs Council would describe as the Welsh region work incredibly closely with the Welsh Government and with local authorities in the individual areas. We work effectively and collectively as one UK police service. I am confident that we will be able to bridge those gaps if they exist and deal with the challenges, but those challenges nonetheless do exist when we are potentially in different frameworks.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Q
I have some quick-fire questions first concerning several other issues in the Bill that we do not have time to go through in detail, so do not feel that you have to give long answers. On the police covenant—that we welcome—would you have liked to see other police officers included in the primary legislation, such as the British Transport police and the Ministry of Defence police? That question is to Martin.
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: As I say, we work as one police service and we really have done so over the last 14 months. Potentially, that would be a positive thing. We are working closely with the Government. I have set up a shadow police covenant board which has all the representatives of the organisations: staff associations, unions, police and crime commissioners, and the NPCC. We are working really closely with the Home Office officials who are putting it together. My view is that we operate as one UK police service, and it would be helpful if that was likewise.
Sarah Jones
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: There could be some potential to that. We have, as you know, been alive to the issue of exploitation, particularly in the guise of county lines. We have used other legislation to prosecute the criminals exploiting those children. It is clear, though, that it is a phenomenon. That is why the requirement to share information is important: so that we identify all the risk factors as we collectively try to reduce violence. It may be worth considering a specific definition, but it is well understood in policing. That aspect is part of how we try to deal with those issues— particularly but not exclusively county lines.
Sarah Jones
Q
“The solution to unauthorised encampments lies in the provision of sufficient lawful accommodation accompanied by closer working between the police, local authorities and all other public services.”
Will you expand on that view? Why did you come to that position? These are really quick-fire questions, sorry.
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: This is a really challenging area for policing, and it provokes strong views on all sides. The police often find themselves in difficult situations when dealing with these issues. Our group, which worked very closely on this issue, strongly believes that the fundamental problem is insufficient provision of sites for Gypsy Travellers to occupy, and that that causes the relatively small percentage of unlawful encampments, which obviously create real challenges for the people who are responsible for that land and for those living around. Police still get involved at the moment. The view of our group is that the existing legislation is sufficient to allow that to be dealt with, and we have some concerns about the additional power and the new criminal provision and how that will draw policing further into that situation. Really, our point fundamentally as the NPCC group is that the issue here is the lack of provision that theoretically should be made, which means that we have this percentage of Travellers who are on unlawful spaces and you end up in the situations that we end up with. Our view is that the current legislation is sufficient to deal with that issue.
Sarah Jones
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: I think we all understand that the volume of digital evidence that is required for almost every investigation has grown and grown as all of our lives are lived more digitally. That has created real pressure on the time limits of investigations and our ability to gather the evidence that we need to take an investigation forward. We have increased the capability. It is partly about equipment and having the right equipment to be able to extract digital evidence. It is also about having officers and staff who have the right capabilities to assess that evidence and produce it in an evidential form.
There is no doubt that that is a growth area, and all sorts of discussions are going on between us and Government about increasing our capacity and capability for that. However, the flip side and the really important point is making sure that what is being done is lawful, proportionate and necessary. Again, that side of the work is equally important.
This is never going to be about randomly extracting data; this is about extracting the data that is required to conduct a proper investigation, provide evidence and decide how something goes forward and, really importantly, doing that in a timely fashion. As we all know, there are real concerns about the timelines for investigations and prosecutions, and one of the key factors in the delays in those processes is the extraction and analysis of digital forensics. So we need the legal framework to allow us to do that properly and we then also need the resourcing and the capabilities to do it within the right time limits.
The Chair
Can I remind you, if Mr Cunningham is coming in, that you are in the last two minutes of your time, so how you use it is up to you.
Sarah Jones
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: Of course, there is a process by which we have to react to highway obstruction. It does not allow us to assess impact on hospitals or access for emergency vehicles. There is clarity between what is a procession and what is an assembly, and we can apply such conditions as are necessary, with all of the balancing around what could be a march or an assembly or both. If you take Parliament square, sometimes people will rotate around it. I know there is particular interest in St Thomas’ Hospital with Westminster bridge, for example. The ability to have consistency allows police commanders, where required, depending on the size and nature of the march, protest or assembly, to be clear in advance about where emergency vehicles will be allowed to get through.
I use Parliament square as an example because it will be evident to members of the Committee and easy to describe, but the same issue might arise elsewhere. The process enables us to be clear in advance where that threat is posed or, at the time, to be clear and able to communicate that. With highway obstructions, there is a need to negotiate, discuss and decide whether there is lawful authority and if an emergency vehicle is trying to get through, that takes time and it will not be effective.
The Chair
Thank you. I have got to switch to the Minister, Victoria Atkins. If there is time, I will come back to Sarah Jones.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: That is right.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: Yes, I welcome that very much. In some senses, that was previously there. When you look, in particular, at the work that has been done by violence reduction units in the past year to 18 months—a couple of years, in fact—getting all the relevant agencies in the local area to focus on and prioritise reducing violence, and play their part, is the way to reduce levels successfully. We can never do that purely by enforcement. This is a really important opportunity to bring all those groups together and focus on violence in their local area.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: The fact that it is a partnership is really important as well.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: We did ask for public nuisance to be made statutory. A Law Commission report from 2015 clearly set out more broadly some of the benefits of doing that. The report refers to:
“serious distress, annoyance, inconvenience or loss of amenity; or is put at risk of suffering any of these things”.
The measure would be for more unusual kinds of protest activity that are not a march. Historically, people have hung off gantries of cranes, where there is serious inconvenience and loss of amenity.
Importantly, making it statutory establishes two things. First, the rules are very clear to those who have to use and understand the legislation. The common law is good, but it is steeped in decided cases and judgments that are often difficult to extract for non-lawyers. It allows Parliament to be clear about what the phrases mean, and to give guidance to policing and the public on what is intended. From a policing perspective, where we have intelligence or information, it allows us to act in advance to prevent some of those issues, where proportionate and necessary. That is the difference that it makes. We are working from the Law Commission report in 2015, which states a number of benefits. We see those as very important for those reasons.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Chief Constable Harrington: Yes, that is the Law Commission’s summary of what that should be. That is where that phrase appears. We welcome the clarity; making it part of statute allows for phrases such as that and others to be clearly defined for us and for the public.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: As I alluded to, it is critical to have a clear code of practice and framework to ensure the extraction to be proportionate and necessary for that investigation, and to be very clear about timelines, how that will be done and how the victim—or the complainant—will be treated throughout. This has been a very challenging area for us. Having that certainty and clarity of the guidelines will help to ensure that everybody understands the process. As I said, the ability for us to do that as quickly as we can, to deliver the evidence we need, is really important to maintain confidence, as you say, for people to come forward, and to maintain those complainants throughout the process, to reduce the attrition levels.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
Q
I have two brief questions. The first relates to the proposed increase in the penalty for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months to two years. Does the police service welcome that change? Do they think that it will potentially deter people from attempting to assault officers in the discharge of their duties?
Assistant Commissioner Hewitt: Yes, we welcome that change very much. It is sad to report that we have seen a steady increase in assaults on emergency workers, primarily police officers. In the month up to 14 March this year, there was a 19% increase on the previous year in assaults on emergency workers, predominantly police officers.
We have done an enormous amount of work in the service; we did an officer and staff safety review process, which is working to improve the safety of our officers and staff. We have worked closely with the Crown Prosecution Service, which has been supportive in achieving charges where officers or staff are assaulted in the course of their duties. I think the increase in the sentence is positive, provided, of course, that those sentences are handed down when people are found guilty at court. We are supportive of that, because it demonstrates the seriousness and the importance of the fact that, although our officers and staff protect the public and do dangerous things, they should not expect routinely to be assaulted.
Chris Philp
We completely agree, thank you. My final question relates to out of court disposals. There are proposals in this Bill to simplify the number of out of court disposals from six to two. That has been trialled, I think, in three forces over the past few years—
The Chair
Order. Minister, I am very sorry to interrupt you, but we are out of time. We will have to save that question for another witness or another occasion. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the Committee’s allotted time to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee. Apologies, Minister, but we are on a pretty tight schedule.
Examination of Witnesses
Chief Superintendent Paul Griffiths and John Apter gave evidence.
The Chair
We now hear from Chief Superintendent Paul Griffiths, president of the Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales, and John Apter, chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales. We have until 11.25 am for this session. Can I ask you to introduce yourselves for the record, please, gentlemen?
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: Good morning. My name is Paul Griffiths, and I am president of the Police Superintendents’ Association. We represent more than 1,300 senior operational leaders across England and Wales, and other non-Home Office forces and Crown dependencies. Our main priorities are to influence national strategy and to protect our members if they are at risk or from a wellbeing perspective.
John Apter: Good morning. I am John Apter. I am the national chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales, and we represent 130,000 officers across England and Wales—across all 43 Home Office forces —from the rank of constable up to and including chief inspector.
The Chair
Thank you. I think we will try to follow the same pattern as before. I will try to get Back Benchers in first, and then I will allow about 10 minutes each for the Front Benchers.
Sarah Champion
Q
Can I ask of our witnesses the same question that I asked of the chiefs? In the police covenant, would it help and support your members if there were mandatory provision at the very beginning of training and all the way through to support you on a psychological level? I am very aware that you are the first people on many occasions to see some hugely traumatic situations. I am particularly thinking, on child abuse, of the amount of time that police officers have to invest in seeing some pretty horrific things. Should we put in the police covenant mandatory training and support for officers to deal with that trauma?
John Apter: I am happy to start. Thank you for the question. The police covenant is very close to my heart, and it is something that the Police Federation has campaigned for. Absolutely, it needs to be meaningful and tangible, and it needs to have a benefit for those it is there to support—not only officers, but staff, volunteers and retired colleagues. Mr Hewitt said earlier that much has been done about wellbeing in policing over the past few years, and I support that.
We have come an awful long way, but we have not gone far enough. One of the frustrations that my colleagues have is the inconsistency within forces. I have had this conversation with the College of Policing, and part of that is the lack of ability or willingness to mandate particular aspects of training and support. The covenant gives us a great opportunity to put in place mandated levels of psychological support and training from the start of somebody’s service to its conclusion and beyond.
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: I echo John’s view on this. There has been a rise in some of the challenges that officers face—even our members—in terms of psychological trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder and so on. In my role as president of the Police Superintendents’ Association, and as a trustee of the police charities that help and support in these issues, I have seen a rise in some of the challenges that officers face—not only those on the frontline, but my members who are senior operational leaders.
The service has come a long way with the frontline review, the officer safety review and a rise in our focus on wellbeing as a consequence of some of the challenges we have faced over the past decade. Do we need anything additional in the legislation in respect of that? There is a need for consistency across occupational health standards, but I think that could be achieved through the programme management rather than through legislation. There is a real focus in the service now, through Oscar Kilo and wellbeing, the NPCC, and staff associations in this area, and we are working closely together, so there is a golden opportunity with the police covenant to best serve and support officers and staff across the whole country.
Sarah Champion
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: It is hugely important for us to be victim-orientated in our policing services. We have really focused, over the last 10 to 15 years, on vulnerability issues and the significant vulnerability areas of policing, through the College of Policing and the NPCC drive, and we have identified victims, both online and in the physical space. That is a clear focus for us as a service: how best to serve victims.
In many of the initial contacts with victims, we provide a very good service and there is very good feedback, but over time, with the pressures that we are under, that sort of connectivity, and the confidence and trust that victims have in policing, can get strained because of the lack of contact. That is not to say that things are not going on, but we have to work within a system—particularly through the criminal justice system, which is also under strain—where we have to work with victims as best as possible, to deliver the best possible service.
In terms of our service delivery to victims, not only are our tact and diplomacy important in the way we deal with them, at the incidents or wherever they report matters to us—whether current or historic—but there is almost a path by which we have to keep connected to those individuals to provide them with the best possible service. I think that is key for us: that connectivity, drive and support through all the criminal justice processes.
Sarah Champion
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: We have the increase with the additional 20,000 officers who are coming in. It is my hope and expectation that we can actively deploy them to support victims, along with the other challenges and demands that we have. Do we ever have enough police officers? No. There are always things that we want to do, and we have the same ambition as society: to do the very best we can and do as much as we can. In that sense, we never have enough, but in terms of our ability to deal with some of the demand, the increase in resources is very welcome, and hopefully, we will be able to provide a better service to the whole public, as much as our focus around victims.
Sarah Champion
Q
John Apter: I completely echo and support Paul’s comments—he and I work very closely together on this. My colleagues want to do the best they can for victims of crime. What I would add to what Paul said is, “Let us not forget the victims within the service.” You heard from Mr Hewitt that assaults on officers, staffers and other emergency workers have increased by 19% during the pandemic—some horrific levels of attacks—and very often, my colleagues say that they feel they are treated as a second-class victim.
I think we have done enormous things to improve that over the years. A project called Operation Hampshire, of which we are particularly proud and which is being led by the Met, is improving the quality of service that victims within the service get. If I were to add to my ever-increasing wish list on the legislation, I would say that yes, the victims in the public must get the best service possible, but I want to see that same level of service—not better, but the same—extended to my colleagues and members of police staff, because all too often, they feel that that is not the case.
Mr Goodwill
Q
John Apter: This is a longstanding problem for policing and actually for all the emergency services. What we have seen far too often was highlighted in a case in the Hampshire constabulary, when a traffic officer—a roads policing officer, who was fully trained—was engaged in the pursuit of someone who had stolen a vehicle after quite a nasty burglary. It was a textbook pursuit; nobody was injured and we caught the baddies at the end of the pursuit. However, that officer and his crewmate were prosecuted for dangerous driving and they ended up in Crown court. The reason is that the law, as it is currently, does not recognise the training that the officer has received or the purpose to which the vehicle is being put. That puts my colleagues in a very vulnerable position.
So we have been campaigning for many years to try to redress the balance. I want to say on the record that this is not about the Police Federation saying that colleagues can drive as they wish without any fear of scrutiny; some people may have to face prosecution or inquiry. But far too many of my colleagues are prosecuted for simply doing what they have been trained to do.
All that we are seeking is for the training and the purpose of the journey to be recognised in law, because I think the public watching this would be astounded if they were to see a police vehicle engaged in a pursuit or an emergency response and that driver is then judged as any other member of the public. So, you take away the blue lights and the police markings, and that vehicle is treated as one being driven by any other member of the public. That is bizarre; that should not be allowed to happen.
We expect police officers and indeed other emergency drivers to get to a particular place as quickly and as safely as they can. The law fails to protect them at the moment. So, yes, we are seeking those changes. I am really pleased to see the Bill but there are some amendments that we want to see, and we are working closely with the shadow team and the Home Office to see if we can bring about those changes, to make sure that the legislation is fit for purpose and protects the officers who deserve to be protected.
Mr Goodwill
Q
I guess that with an ambulance and a fire engine, it is less nuanced, but with the police you would not necessarily know until you get to the scene whether life is at risk and whether it is necessary to speed there.
John Apter: Indeed, and the training has certainly evolved. The emergency response and the pursuit training for police drivers has evolved over the years, and the training certainly brings in the judgment—it is all about the information that the officer will receive.
I was a roads policing officer for many years. I was trained in response and that judgment is so important because very often at the end of a pursuit or an emergency drive, it is the driver who is responsible for their actions—nobody else. So, yes, you can only deal with the circumstances that you are presented with and you have to risk-assess in that moment. It is a fine balance.
However, I would say, and I genuinely believe, that we have the best driver training in policing in the world—I really do believe that. Our driving standards within policing, with the emergency driving, are exceptional. We just need that element of protection, but it is not to say—I have used this phrase before—that I condone a wacky races culture. That is not what I am supporting. It is about balance.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: The only bit I would add is that there are circumstances where officers still have to exceed the speed limit as part of their duty. So it would be quite important for us to consider surveillance officers, those doing diplomatic escort and so on, where their driving may leave them in a position where they are under investigation, and it would be reasonable to have the same standards applied to them in the circumstances that could prevail.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: I know that you have had extensive evidence on this from Chief Constable Harrington as the NPCC lead. Our members play a significant role in protest, whether they are silver or gold commanders, depending on the size and scale of the protest. One emerging trend that has caused them great difficulty has been the change in tactics with some of the protest processes, such as protesters gluing themselves on to certain items involving vehicles—locking on. That change in their movement and the inconsistency have caused our members considerable challenges in terms of how best to interpret the law and apply it in a necessary and proportionate way, so there is support in terms of providing consistency for some of the challenges that they face as the operational public order commanders.
In terms of some of the definitions around “serious disruption” or “significant impact”, we will obviously wait for that to be clearly defined by Parliament, but the training mechanisms that are in place for our public order commanders and public order teams are really significant, are quite detailed and do allow them to really play through and work through some of the judgment calls they have to make, and some of the judgment calls may have to be made within seconds, so some of the changes and amendments do gain support from us.
Maria Eagle
Mr Apter, do you have anything to add from the federation’s point of view?
John Apter: These were changes that the Police Federation had not particularly called for, but what I do support, especially after listening to Chief Constable Harrington, is the view that we need to evolve the Public Order Act. Protests have evolved over the years. The way individuals react and, very often, confront police officers has dynamically changed. The vast majority of protests we do not hear about: they are unremarkable; they are peaceful. I do not think you will find many police officers, if any, who do not support the right of peaceful, lawful protest. But we have to evolve; the legislation must evolve to be dynamic, as the protesters are. Very often, we see on our television screens so-called peaceful protests, which are hijacked by those with an agenda to cause violence; we see this time and again. So while the Police Federation has not called for this particular part of the Bill, we are supportive of an evolution of the Public Order Act to make sure that it is fit for purpose but still allows lawful protest and gathering—bearing in mind the pressures on policing at the same time.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: I think the relationship between the public and the police has never been more tested than it has been in the last 18 months. Some of the work and effort that has gone into public relations at a time when we have had to police—some of the laws that have been put in place for the covid restrictions have really put a strain on the relationship, in terms of how we balance peaceful protest with trying to maintain the health regulations that are in place. The relationship that we have with the public is fundamentally important to us, and some of the polls that have come out show that there is significant trust and confidence across the public in general. We recognise there is certain strain with certain communities, but in the main we do have public support. Knowing that that relationship is so strong and knowing about the use of the Human Rights Act in everything that we do in terms of policing should provide the public with the necessary reassurance that we police in an appropriate, lawful and necessary way, and we will continue to do so.
Maria Eagle
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: One of the most important factors that has emerged over the last 18 months and that is a fundamental part of many of our police command issues—whether that is public order, investigations or firearms—is effective communication with the public, so that there is a clear understanding about what they can and cannot do, what we can and cannot do, and how that relationship evolves. We want to facilitate peaceful protest, because it is a fundamental part of our liberal democracy. That is golden to the public, and it is golden to policing as well, but how we balance the human rights of all the individuals, including the ones who are impacted by protest, is a really difficult and challenging balancing judgment that needs to be made by police commanders. From my perspective, a lot of this is about effective communication on what is lawful and what is not lawful. We need to make sure that liaison is in place where there are leaders in relation to the protest issues, so that we can plan in advance, facilitate it is as best as possible and continue as we have done in many veins, in terms of making sure to the best of our ability that people can protest and not be impacted either way.
Maria Eagle
Mr Apter, do you have anything to add from the federation’s point of view?
John Apter: Obviously, the relationship with the public is integral to our style of policing and for the communities, and it has been tested. Paul is right to say it has been tested to the limit in some places over the past 15-plus months. The overarching issue with the Bill, and on protest, is one for the NPCC and, as Paul says, for the commanders, but when relationships break down, it is my colleagues—my members—who feel the brunt of that out on the streets. Of course, when we are policing protests or any sort of activity where there is high emotion and where there will be an element, in some cases, who will be intent on violence no matter what we do, we have to react accordingly. But communication is key, accepting that some will not want to be communicated with; they will not want to hear the message. The relationship is so important—I cannot stress that enough. I agree with Paul: despite the challenges over the last year-plus, the relationship with the vast majority of the public is still very much intact and still very positive.
Maria Eagle
Q
John Apter: I think the problem that we found with the coronavirus legislation was that it was unprecedented. I remember when the legislation was brought in—it was unbelievable. It was almost like watching a film being made. I have been a police officer for more than 28 years, and I would never have dreamt that we would be policing in the way that we were asked to police. If that is how policing felt, you can only imagine how the public felt, and we had to evolve. There were multiple changes of legislation that were not always as clear as they could be, and I understand why. I understand why the legislation had to be rushed through, but that came with problems, because my colleagues did not always know what was fully expected of them but nevertheless did their best in the most trying of circumstances. With the Bill, Parliament can inspect and go through the processes in a timely way, so I hope on behalf of my members that whatever the Bill looks like at the end of the process, it will offer clarity and guidance, and that people will completely understand what is expected of them, both within policing and for the public. I have hopes, and Parliament will do what it does on scrutiny as the Bill goes through that process.
The Chair
Mr Griffiths, is there anything you want to add?
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: I was just going to add that when some of the health regulations were introduced at pace, at speed and at scale, there were moments when there was a lack of consistency across the country, but that was gripped by the police service with the four Es approach. The reality is that applying consistency through this legislation will aid public order policing across the whole country. As we move forward and develop, in line with the legislation, we will do what we always do, which is to increase our communication, and review and adapt accordingly, to best facilitate peaceful protest.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Q
John Apter: I declare that I was a special constable before I was a regular officer. I am passionately supportive of our special constable colleagues. I have always thought it was an injustice that special constables could not, if they wished, be a member of the Police Federation, as the representative body of police officers.
When I was a special many years ago, over on the Isle of Wight, I was not allowed to drive police vehicles, generally I was not out on patrol on my own and I certainly was not allowed to be a specialist in any field, but I did feel part of a team and I contributed. The special constabulary, thankfully, has evolved considerably over that time. Special constables are response drivers. They stand shoulder to shoulder with my colleagues. They have exactly the same powers and they carry exactly the same risks.
I have always thought, even when I was a special, that it was wrong that they were not allowed in law to be members of the Police Federation. The Police Federation has been pushing for this measure for a number of years now, not always with the support that we have now to get it where it is in the Bill.
When the Bill goes through with special constables able to be members of the federation—fingers crossed they do—special constables will feel included. I speak to many special constables, who often feel that it is wrong that they are just not included or considered. That is going to change because of the Bill. They will have the same legal support and welfare support. They will be treated as equals alongside my colleagues. It is absolutely right and proper that special constables have a credible, loud voice alongside the representation of other colleagues. This measure is long overdue; I believe passionately in it and I am looking forward to it being in the legislation.
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: We really value the contribution of special constables and other volunteers through our networks across the country. In terms of their contribution to policing, what they do is quite significant. Some of the work that they did through the covid crisis continues to amaze us. It is a valuable contribution. They epitomise the relationship between the public and the police.
I have always had a close working relationship with ASCO, the representative body—the Association of Special Constabulary Officers. This legislation is an enabling opportunity for special constables. It is right and proper that they get protection and support. I have raised issues about funding and true representation, but the legislation has support in terms of its enabling role. Those other reservations about best protecting the rights and so on of special constables are true and dear.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
John Apter: I am really pleased to see these measures in the Bill. The violence that my colleagues face is unprecedented. It increases year on year. As Mr Hewitt said earlier, we have seen a 19% increase in assaults on emergency workers during the pandemic—predominantly police officers. The level of violence has increased also. I have been a strong campaigner, and it is not only about a suitable deterrent in the courts. It is also about better training, better equipment, better support, welfare support, and treating police officers and police staff who are victims of an assault as a victim should be treated, which has not always been the case.
I have only one issue with the legislation. There must be a deterrent, but the increase in sentencing will mean nothing unless the courts actually use their powers. On the sentencing guidelines and what we have seen in recent years, I and my colleagues who are victims would say that perverse sentences have been handed down to people who have been extremely violent and inflicted nasty injuries on police officers or police staff, and they have walked away from court. I completely appreciate that it is case by case and the sentencing guidelines need to be followed. In the cases that I have examined, the sentencing guidelines have been adhered to, which tells me that the sentencing guidelines, certainly for assaults on my colleagues, are not fit for purpose. I absolutely support the increase in sentences, but we have to have a real fundamental review and a sensible conversation about sentencing guidelines as well. That is something that I would like to see pursued.
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: Naturally, because of the role and responsibilities of our members, thankfully, in one respect, we do not encounter direct risk in that sense, but I regularly get feedback from our members about the risks to the people that they lead, and it echoes John’s point around the rise in assaults on police officers and other emergency services. We have seen a 19% increase in the March period compared with last year. We are very grateful to Parliament for considering the increase in the sentence for assaulting emergency workers, but we are under no illusion that this is only one part of the jigsaw. We need to work with not only other criminal justice agencies to best represent, show and demonstrate the impact of this across society, but internally, in terms of our kit, equipment and training and also our development around tactical communication. We need to strengthen that ability to defuse situations by word rather than force. So there are many aspects to this, but we fully support Parliament’s consideration of extending the sentencing available.
The Chair
We will go to Mr Dorans. This had best be the last question before I go to the Front Benches.
Allan Dorans
Q
John Apter: That is a really important question. If you go back 10 years or so, my colleagues would say very little. Some forces were better than others, and that is chief constable-led. If a chief constable has emotional intelligence and those values about how people really matter, that trickles through the organisation, but that has not always been felt. There has been a sad lack of consistency when people are in specialist posts that expose them to trauma. I can give you a lived experience. For many years I was a family liaison officer dealing with trauma every single day, knocking on far too many doors and changing people’s lives, and not for the better. That was many years ago, about 10 years ago, but my force at the time, Hampshire Constabulary, was very innovative and gave us annual check-ups—welfare and psychological check-ups. We had welfare officers in the force. We had a lot of support, but then with austerity, unfortunately, some of those measures were removed and the force was a poorer place for it. That was typical across policing.
We have moved forward in such a positive way. I am often criticised by my colleagues because I talk up the good work going on—whether it is Oscar Kilo, the national police wellbeing service; the Coventry police, which are doing really good work in this area; or the Police Federation, where we have invested heavily on a welfare support programme for our colleagues—but it is not always felt by all our members. Getting that message out to people about what is available and how to access it is a postcode lottery across policing. We need that consistency.
We need occupational health to be benchmarked to a certain standard. I know we are going to have a chief medical officer—hopefully for policing—which I hope will bring that consistency. That is where the covenant can have some good legislative teeth to say to forces: “This is not a nice to have”. We can’t talk all day about looking after our people and say: “Put a post-script about wellbeing and the job is done”. It is much more than that.
That is not to say that is the norm. I don’t believe it is now, we have come a long way, but the covenant must show its teeth. It must be brave and make sure that that consistency is across all policing to support my colleagues, certainly with their mental health. We are seeing a crisis in mental health in policing that we have never seen before. It is a real significant concern: a continuous exposure to trauma. Officers are being exposed to levels of trauma that are unprecedented—more than people have seen in the military. This is based on evidence from the charity, Police Care. Something has to be done. Things are happening, but the covenant is a great opportunity to pull that all together.
The Chair
Chief Superintendent.
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: Picking up on mental health and trauma impacts across the police service, we are also starting to see police charities supporting these areas. There has been a 36% increase in inquiries to the police charities compared with the previous year, the vast majority of which are mental health concerns. There is clear evidence of the impact of trauma on police officers and staff. We recognise that everybody will experience some trauma in their life, but the exposure for police officers is quite significant.
We then have to look at what is the best thing that we can do. There is a whole array of things that we can do: providing appropriate space for debrief, increasing communication, and occupational health support. There is a whole catalogue of things, but I would class those as probably falling under what I would describe as the programme management, rather than any legislative concerns.
There are two matters I would like to raise on the police covenant. The first is the important role of independence within the processes, so that we get an independent view. Our employment rights are restricted—naturally so, we would not contest them, because of the nature of our role and responsibility in society—but measures that can be put into place to provide independent support, guidance and oversight are really important, so I stress the importance of independence in the system.
I would also like to raise the issue of mental health concerns and seeking the police covenant as a way through helping and supporting. Unlike the Police Federation, the Superintendents’ Association goes beyond the 43 Home Office forces. We support other police forces, including British Transport Police and Civil Nuclear Constabulary, which at the moment are not directly covered by this legislation. I would like to emphasise the importance of the whole police family and make a plea to consider as part of the legislation those wider non-Home Office forces that play an integral part in UK policing.
Sarah Jones
Q
You have just made exactly the point that I was going to ask you about, on the importance of the police family and the wider family as part of the police covenant. Can I push you both a bit on the notion of independence from the Government when we are looking at the covenant? What could that look like? Would there be a benefit of some oversight from policing bodies, perhaps chaired independently, on the covenant report that is produced by the Home Secretary? Would you both welcome that?
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: It has always been my perception that a police covenant is almost the sector asking the Government for additional support or assistance, or to rule out any adverse impact on police officers, and for the Government to play their role across all other public agencies to try to level the ground and make sure everything is fair and supportive for policing.
The NPCC has employer responsibilities, which are sometimes in statute and are sometimes just its moral code for how to look after staff, so the way it is constituted in terms of how this flows is really important. My fear is that it would be left in a situation where the Government would direct the NPCC on how to support its own police officers, staff and volunteers. It is incumbent on Parliament to consider how best to get some level of independence, in terms of the oversight, and echo the responsibly to work across Government in terms of supporting the police covenant and all officers and staff.
John Apter: I want to touch on something that Paul said to a previous question. It is important that the Police Federation’s views are noted. This is about who the covenant actually benefits. Paul is right that we represent the Home Office forces, which are the big chunk of who the covenant legally covers, but we work incredibly closely with the non-Home Office forces, Police Scotland, the Scottish Police Federation and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. It is really important that we are all treated equally within policing. We do not want the benefits that the covenant hopefully brings to be diluted in any way for any part of policing. I completely support and echo what Paul says.
On the independence—absolutely. When we were pulling together our concept of the covenant—obviously we want it to be very far reaching, but we accept that we have to start somewhere—one of the things that I was insistent on was that it must be enshrined in law; it must mean something. It is a positive step for the Home Secretary of the day to report to Parliament on a legal framework. It is right that the Home Secretary of the day has that responsibility.
When we talk about oversight, I do not want the covenant to become wrapped up in bureaucracy and red tape. If it is, nothing will be achieved and nothing will get done. Within policing, we have some strong views about the need for it to be independent. That is not to say that the Home Secretary, the policing Minister and the Home Office have not been incredibly supportive. They have, and we could not have got this far without that support, but in order to make the covenant meaningful for our members, retired colleagues and volunteers, I think that level of independence on the oversight programme, the oversight board and the delivery board, which would then lead in to the Government, is really important. We fed back those views collectively as policing. It is not just the federation calling for this; collectively, we all believe very strongly in it.
Sarah Jones
Q
Can I ask Paul about pre-charge bail? What are your thoughts about breach of bail, which we have talked about previously? We are finding our way through that with this piece of legislation. How do you think that would work in an ideal world?
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: I should probably start by saying that we did voice some significant concerns in 2016 about some of the changes that were coming in and highlighted this at the time as a joint letter between the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents’ Association and the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We worked with the changes that Parliament instructed, and we are grateful for the recent amendments that may come through the Bill in terms of timeliness and some of the issues that have been challenging us over the last four years.
We are supportive of the vast majority of it. The one area where had some concern was on the breach of police bail, where bail conditions are imposed and then suspects continue to breach those bails. Of course, those bail conditions would be there to protect victims or even the wider public. It could be extremely useful to us for that to be an offence in its own right. I note that there is an introduction to prevent the start of the custody clock, which was another risk that we thought may come from somebody who would consistently breach their bail, risking an impact on the investigation custody time limits for other aspects for which they were under investigation. The Bill suggests that three hours is sufficient to deal with that breach of bail, and that seems appropriate, but it could be beneficial to the police service for that to be an offence in its own right in terms of processing individuals for such breaches.
Sarah Jones
That is really helpful; thank you. Shall I go over to Alex? I am aware of the time.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: We have not been called to provide any advice or consultation on that. Could I get back to you in writing on that one? I would probably have to do more research.
The Chair
Do you have anything to add, Mr Apter?
John Apter: I am afraid I will have to give the same answer.
Victoria Atkins
Q
John Apter: I think we are pushing on an open door. Policing has changed significantly over the past decade or so, and it is the same with chief constables, who may previously have been reluctant to get certain wellbeing initiatives into place. There is wholesale agreement that the covenant will be a positive thing for policing.
The issue we have at the moment is that although we know the principles of the covenant, we do not really know what exactly will be in it. Chief constables know me very well, and I, on behalf of the organisation, will be holding them to account, but I genuinely think that it will be a partnership. Perhaps that is naive, but if, as expected, the legislation allows the covenant to be enshrined in law, I will be saying to chief constables very clearly, “This is not something you can cherry-pick. This is in legislation. This is to benefit our colleagues, staff, volunteers and so on. It is not a nice-to-have; it is an essential.” So they will be held to account, but in fairness I think it will be a productive partnership.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: Most of them have probably worked their way through the hierarchy of public order command systems, from right at the frontline, following through to supervisory and management roles, but not necessarily in all cases. There is a detailed training command course for public order leads, which embodies everything that you would expect: to understand the tactics necessary when utilising public order, seeking the appropriate advice and guidance, understanding the law and the community, and all the different aspects of decision making that are so important to understand how best to corral a crowd or deal with a peaceful protest.
They will learn how to deal with everything from small, minor protests with just some shouting, to some of the challenges that, sadly, we have seen in the past 12 months, where they have faced attacks by missiles, etc. The training is detailed. I have absolute confidence in some of the public order commanders. We have to understand that they are called to make really difficult judgment calls, balancing human rights of individuals and the recognition of their own staff and the public. They make difficult decisions in a short space of time. It is a credit to them as individuals and to the training processes that allow them to do that.
Chris Philp
Q
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: You are right to clarify that. Unfortunately, we have not been consulted on that particular aspect. If I can provide written evidence, we will explore a response and get back to you.
Chris Philp
Q
John Apter: Absolutely, the risk of a custodial sentence would be a meaningful deterrent, as well as everything else. As I said, it is about the training and equipment that officers and staff have. But I go back to my earlier point: the increase in sentencing will mean nothing if the sentencing guidelines do not allow the courts to use those powers effectively. Far too often, my colleagues feel that the wider criminal justice system lets them down. We need to address that, as well as increase sentences. Yes, I believe that it would be a deterrent.
Chief Superintendent Griffiths: It is very much welcome and supported. There is a hope that it will be a deterrent. We recognise that any sort of assault on emergency workers has a complex and dynamic number of factors that may cause that situation to arise. We must do everything in our power to eliminate or minimise every aspect of those factors. Hopefully, it will have a deterrent effect, and will send a very strong message from Parliament to emergency workers to say, “You are valued for what you do. We support you, and you should not have that sort of risk when trying to carry out your duties.” We will review the situation over time, to see what the deterrent effect is, but we are grateful for the support that Parliament proposes.
Chris Philp
Thank you. It may be worth you engaging with the Sentencing Council once the legislation passes, to ensure the sentencing guidelines reflect the seriousness of the offence, and that the sentences in practice reflect Parliament’s intention.
The Chair
Now is a good time to draw this session to a close. I thank the witnesses for their evidence this morning.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 18th May 2021
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPolice, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 18 May 2021 - (18 May 2021)
The Chair
Q
Phil Bowen: Hello. My name is Phil Bowen and I am the director of the Centre for Justice Innovation. I would like to make the Committee aware that from July 2020 to March 2021 my organisation had a contract with the Ministry of Justice that enabled me to provide policy advice and challenge to Ministers and civil servants on the community supervision aspects of the sentencing White Paper and the Bill.
Adrian Crossley: Good afternoon. My name is Adrian Crossley and I lead the criminal justice unit and the addiction unit at the Centre for Social Justice. The CSJ is a think-tank that advocates social policy aimed at tackling the root causes of poverty in the UK.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Q
Phil Bowen: Of course. The Centre for Justice Innovation has long been a supporter of problem-solving courts. At their simplest, they bring together specialist supervision and intervention teams with the powers and authority of a court to review progress regularly against a sentencing plan. They generally operate out of existing courthouses and are built from existing resources. We already do work on and support about 11 courts across the UK that use problem solving to manage specific caseloads, including three in Northern Ireland, sponsored by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, and four in Scotland. That is in addition to the 14 family, drug and alcohol courts already in existence in England in the public family law system.
As you know from the Bill, the Government propose to pilot three separate and distinct models of problem-solving courts in England and Wales in the criminal court system: a substance misuse court model; a model to tackle domestic abuse; and a model to help vulnerable women avoid short-term custody. We are very supportive of the move, for which we have been calling for a long time. We believe that the evidence base on all three of those models is robust enough that the piloting of them in England and Wales would be useful as a first step before thinking about their further roll-out across the system. We think there is a real chance to reduce the use of unnecessary custody and tackle reoffending, particularly in the substance misuse and vulnerable women models and, in terms of the model to tackle domestic abuse, to really hold perpetrators to account and give victims a sense of safety and involve them in the ongoing supervision of those perpetrators.
Adrian Crossley: Thank you; I am grateful. I am very well aware of the work that Phil Bowen is doing. CSJ also endorses the use of problem-solving courts. They have the potential to be enormously beneficial to defendants sometimes facing serious matters across the UK.
In terms of the scope of the proposed pilots, I think that the chosen three categories—domestic abuse, substance abuse and vulnerable women facing prison sentences—are wise choices. What is best about a problem-solving court is that it draws from real specialist knowledge and experience that can really look behind a problem, understand it and provide practical solutions, so these issues are worth tackling. One point I would note as a matter of caution is that problem-solving courts at their best are fantastic, but they do pose dangers. I am pleased to see that we are starting with a relatively small pilot because it is important to get right the things that sometimes appear to be small. For example, listing cases for problem courts to ensure that they are before the same panel that can continually look at a case and review it, and understand that the team that they are working with and the person in front of them are important.
In our jurisdiction, we have sometimes had difficulty with listing in front of lay magistrates—problems that they do not necessarily experience to the same degree overseas in the US. So there are examples of things that need to be done well and right. I am pleased to see that those three categories have been chosen, because they are worth tackling, and I am pleased to see that the initial pilots are small enough to allow proper analysis and reform as we go along.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Q
The Chair
Adrian, would you like to go first?
Adrian Crossley: Yes. Thank you. I can entirely see that that concern is absolutely valid. We know from the CSTR—community sentence treatment requirements—model that substance abuse and mental health are both dealt with alongside each other, separately but often in the same hearings. It is an absolutely valid concern. I would also say that as well as substance abuse, there is now a growing need to consider the impact of gambling addiction. That issue is becoming increasingly prevalent in our country. Sadly, over the last 15 years, there has been an explosion in this sort of addiction, and it draws into crime the people who would not necessarily always fall into it.
What I would say—I have said it prior to this—is that problem-solving courts are good if they are done well, and I would hope that we do not get too prescriptive about what kind of person is in front of us and categorise them as a domestic abuse or a substance abuse case. Often people have complex and chaotic lives with lots of different things going on. I would hope that a problem-solving court done well might have a category that they call a substance-abuse court, but be equipped to deal with something such as mental health as well.
I practised as a barrister for some time and I know that often clients, like I had before me, have issues behind what is apparent from the offence, which could go unseen unless probed. I spoke to a colleague earlier today and he explained to me that there are some 300,000 people in the UK right now who are indebted to a loan shark. You will never see the chaos behind someone’s life from a simple shoplifting offence. You need to be able to explore that. If problem-solving courts and pre-sentence reports are done well, in line with the new probation reforms, this should become clear and we should be able to help people with multiple needs before the courts.
Phil Bowen: To add to that, I understand that the current plans in the Ministry of Justice are to pilot those three types of models, but as all the models are drawn up, there is an awareness that people who would be eligible for substance misuse court are likely to have co-occurring mental health needs, and those would need to be addressed at the same time. The substance misuse court that currently operates in Belfast and the drugs court that currently operates in Glasgow recognise the complexity of people’s substance misuse and other needs, and seek to address them.
It is pretty clear, from what I have seen, in existing practice and what the Ministry of Justice is beginning to develop, that there is a broad awareness that it may be a trigger for intervention that vulnerable women are identified as at risk of custody, but there will be a recognition and services targeted at a range of their complex needs, one of which almost invariably will be mental health. That is very much at the heart of what the Ministry proposes, and we support that.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Adrian Crossley: We welcome the addition of the new statutory duty clause for courts that requires them to consider the welfare and best interests of the child. We think that is a positive part of the Bill. It would be nice if it could go further. Seeing custody as something to keep people safe is not correct, but there is broad support, as far as I can tell, from people with an interest in youth justice for this change. I know some of my colleagues would like it to go further.
Adrian Crossley: I can only add that we have seen a substantial reduction in custodial sentences for youths over the last 10 years or so. We welcome efforts to encourage rehabilitation and use it absolutely as a last resort. I think it goes far enough.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Currently, as I understand, clause 45 would extend those definitions and include anyone aged over 18 who supervises or works with 16 and 17-year-olds. I know from personal experience with my own family that, often, older children at a dance school, perhaps over 18, often chip in to help with tuition and coaching. In some cases, they may even be in the same class at school as a 17-year-old who is part of that dance academy. I wonder whether there could be difficulties in situations such as that. Indeed, we also remove the right to give consent from 16 and 17-year-olds who may find that infringes on their ability to choose who to have a relationship with. Perhaps Mr Crossly might be most appropriate to respond first.
Adrian Crossley: The first point to know is that affording some protection in this area is absolutely imperative. We have seen abuse of trust that has led to not just inappropriate relationships—that is not what we are dealing with. We are dealing with sometimes highly vulnerable children who are sexually abused. In order to make an inroad into dealing with that sort of offending, we need to get to the crux of how it comes about. All too often, positions of trust can allow a perpetrator to hide in plain sight—not only that, they make the person who is abused feel partially responsible and incapable of speaking out. The perpetrator recruits the trust of the people nearest and dearest, including their parents.
While I appreciate that there may be some difficulties in the administration of this issue, that will not unnecessarily impinge upon the movement of people and their enjoyment of their leisure, I do not put that value at naught—absolutely not. I do see, at the other end of this, we have a very real risk, which has existed pervasively throughout our society for a long time. I think the extension into the position-of-trust model starts to move away from identifying it as in small pockets of society and to see it as the modus operandi of some perpetrators of crime. I think its broadness is important and the clause as it stands is sufficient.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Adrian Crossley: So much of this, as with any law, is about how it is actually executed on the ground and how the decision-making processes operate. At this stage, when you are looking at the written form of the clause, I can see that there is potential there for consent. The administration of a clause like this relies on good practice, and I would say that these things can be circumvented. You have the same sort of problem with something as controversial as stop and search, where you can see that there may be a very good reason for it but, done badly, it can be incredibly corrosive to society; it can stop people moving around freely. But that does not mean that the legislation itself is wrong. It will come down to how we administer this, and a continual review of that is necessary. But I do accept this: it is not possible for me to say that there will not be friction and difficulty as this clause is administered.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Q
Phil Bowen: One example to offer the Committee is from the public family law system. The Welsh Government and the courts system have just agreed to create a new family drug and alcohol court. The issue is similar, in that it requires a partnership between people in the Welsh Government, local authorities and the courts service.
I certainly know that, as part of the Ministry of Justice’s scoping of where the pilot sites might be, it is very keen to speak with Mayors, police and crime commissioners, the Welsh Government and others about where the most suitable sites are. So I do not think it is incompatible. It certainly will require partnerships and collaboration. That is what exists already in existing problem-solving courts; as I say, it already is going to be a feature of the new family drug and alcohol court in south Wales. So I do not think this is insurmountable. I certainly know there is a strong interest in the Ministry to have discussions with the Welsh Government about whether they think it is appropriate to have one of the problem-solving court pilots in Wales. I think there is still work to be done there, but wherever they exist, they require partnerships between different agencies and both national actors and local actors.
Hywel Williams
Q
Adrian Crossley: Sentencing inflation is a very real problem. For decades now, we have seen incremental rises in sentencing, right across the board. There is a theory that the more we increase the more serious offences tariffs, there is a trickle-down effect; essentially, it pulls up sentencing for lesser offences. We see, for example, sentences for drug offences increase over a 10-year period by about 30%, and for theft by around 22% over the same period. This has a very real effect on people’s lives. It is not just a question of a few extra years—that would be serious enough as it is—it can often be the difference between somebody having a sentence suspended and actually being taken away and put into a cell, so it is a very real problem.
Some regard this as a Bill of two halves with what some regard as very punitive sentencing on the one hand and some very progressive, challenging and, I would say, quite brave proposals for community reform and rehabilitation on the other. A great deal of subjectivity is involved in deciding how much time somebody should serve for very serious offences. I do not see anything necessarily wrong with reviewing how this society deals with very serious offending. If there is an increase in tariff, which we as a liberal democracy think is right, that is fine, but there are real dangers with that. My view is that we are likely to see a Prison Service that is wholly incapable of dealing with the stress of an extra 20,000 people—what is forecast for the next few years—inundated with new offenders who are likely to have very little access to meaningful reform and rehabilitation. That is deeply concerning to me.
If as a society we feel that that more serious offending requires a higher tariff, we also have to address the numbers in prison. The most important thing we need to do is to look at whether people who are currently being sent to prison, perhaps at the lower and medium end of offending, really need to go there. The Centre for Social Justice published a paper last year called “Sentencing in the Dock”. Our position was very clear that modern technology, with GPS tagging and alcohol tagging—I could list a number of requirements that are already rightly in the Bill—could provide a sufficient deprivation of liberty to act as a real punishment for serious offending or medium to low-level offending.
We need to be much bolder about the amount of people we keep out of prison and deal with in the community. We can see clearly that in treating alcohol, drug addiction, mental health problems, literacy and numeracy, you are far more likely to have an effect on those key drivers of crime if you deal with people in the community than if you put them in prison. We could be much bolder in dealing with community disposals. There is a real risk of sentencing inflation here, of a prison population growing out of control and, in my view, of brutalising people who might otherwise be able to reform.
Phil Bowen: I agree with a lot of that. The only thing I would add is that proposals are set out in the White Paper that are being taken forward by the Ministry that seek to strengthen the community justice parts of the system. They include things such as investing in early intervention and prevention, including the improvements to the out-of-court disposals regime, which I think is vital for young people and people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in particular.
The nationalisation of the probation service represents a real opportunity to strengthen community sentences and win public confidence in community sentences back from the courts. I also think a strong interest and investment are needed in high-quality treatment for offenders and the more dynamic use of electronic monitoring. While I agree with a lot of what Adrian has just said that some proposals in the Bill seek to increase the use of prison, that takes away money from smarter investments in community justice. I would also like to emphasise that there are things in the Bill that we support, because we think they take forward that idea of smarter community justice.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Q
Adrian Crossley: My view is that definitions usually start their life imperfect and develop with a great deal of expertise from public and experts who understand this issue perhaps better than I ever could. Notwithstanding that, and understanding that there may be a starting point of imperfection, they are useful. In my view, definitions of important criminal principles help real decision makers on the ground make practical decisions that are fair and consistent. Notwithstanding the fact that I see problems with that—we have seen so many different definitions of domestic abuse, which started its life as domestic violence, that it is clear these things are fluid and can develop—I think they have a practical application.
Phil Bowen: I have nothing to add to that. I agree with that.
Sarah Champion
Q
Phil Bowen: I think presumption to all of them is very useful. The other thing that I think is worth underlining is that part of the model of the specialist domestic abuse courts, which ought to operate in every magistrates court but at the moment do not, is that independent domestic violence advocates make sure the victims are asked about special measures and those special measures are put in place. I think there is a delivery and implementation question, as well as a legislative question, about whether the resources are there to help victims of domestic abuse and ensure those special measures are put in. Yes, I think a presumption would be useful, but I think it also requires attention to implementation and delivery issues. Special measures should already be used in specialist domestic abuse courts across our magistrates court estate and, in many cases, domestic abuse victims are without access to those measures, for want of anyone who asked.
Sarah Champion
Q
Adrian Crossley: I endorse pretty much all of what Mr Bowen has just said. I will not repeat what he said, so forgive me, but I particularly want to emphasise the focus that was placed on the reality of actual implementation. I worked for some years as a prosecutor and in defence, and I can say that, very often, lack of special measures is not the result of an omission in thought or some massive procedural error. Sometimes the implementation of special measures and, certainly, the pragmatics of what happens in court are not there and the stress that that puts witnesses through is absolutely huge. Sometimes, we talk a lot about witnesses not turning up or defendants gaming the system, hoping that the stress of waiting for trial is so bad that the witness just will not turn up, but the chaos and confusion that is caused by a broken system that is fixed on the day can be hugely distressing to a witness. I think implementation is important.
That point is not where I was going to go, however. Just for balance, I should say that it is always right that the accused should be able to face their accuser and evidence should be tested properly. Nothing that I have seen that has been proposed, including video examination in chief and cross-examination before trial, gives me any concern that without the right implementation that could not be done well. We always have to have an eye on making sure that the accused has a fair trial. This is important; it is not a nicety. However, the measures I have seen proposed give me no real cause for concern about that. I think it makes a massive difference to the view of the complainant and, unfortunately, it would also make a massive difference to the view of some defendants, who may face the reality of the evidence against them earlier. It may encourage pleas that should have happened earlier.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Q
Phil Bowen: Very quickly, I think the proposal in clause 100, which reduces judicial discretion about imposing minimum custodial sentences, is a regrettable step. I have seen no evidence to suggest that that discretion has been misused. I am not sure on what basis that clause was proposed, and we have been arguing for its removal from the Bill. I see a place for minimum custodial sentencing, but I tend to be against anything that fetters the discretion of judges.
Adrian Crossley: Statutory minimums can have a function when we want to give a standard approach to the severity with which society regards a certain offence. My view, though, is that over a decade or two, judicial discretion right across the board—not just in this clause—has been steadily eroded, and I do not find that particularly helpful in criminal justice. Judges are well equipped to make decisions about what is in front of them, and they are well advised. No guidelines can ever foresee the variety that life can bring you, and my view is that the more judicial discretion there is, the better our criminal justice system is likely to be.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Phil Bowen: In general, we support the move to the two-tier system. It is something that was called for by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, as you know, in 2016. Fifteen forces already operate such a simplified framework. The concerns we have are twofold. One is that in consultation events that we have already held with a number of police forces, they strongly suggested that they wanted to retain the flexibility to issue the community caution—the lower tier—without conditions. In the existing framework, they are able to issue a simple caution that does not involve conditions. Police forces want that flexibility, and the new framework proposed by the Government does not allow that in the lower tier.
The second issue, which speaks to previous comments about disproportionality, is that we would strongly argue that it should be possible to offer the community caution—the lower tier of the two tiers—to individuals who accept responsibility for their behaviour, rather than requiring a formal admission of guilt. This is an idea that was raised in the Lammy review and has subsequently been raised in the Sewell report. We think it would be better if that lower tier could be offered to people, who are required only to accept responsibility for their actions. As the Lammy review suggests, that may encourage the participation of people from groups who tend to have less trust in the police and the criminal justice system.
Adrian Crossley: Drawing from the 2014 audit, there are some learnings from the two-tier system, most notably the training of officers so that they can refer people to the intervention that is appropriate and useful, better inter-agency communication, and sufficient time for implementation. Once that is done, our view is that this is a great step forward. We are very enthusiastic about it. This is about intervening and offering help, not just having a meaningless warning. We have spoken to charities that have actively said that these sorts of interventions, which encourage somebody to engage with treatment, can really make a life-changing difference to people. It is unrealistic to expect them suddenly to go into full rehabilitation, but it can make an introduction and open up doors that sometimes people feel are just not open to them. We see that there is real strength in this approach. We have also heard a number of police forces suggest that it would be enormously helpful to them if community resolution remained on the books. Certainly, it is currently the most widely used disposal.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Adrian Crossley: No, not the simple caution. It is a community resolution. It is slightly different and more like a contract with the police force that they can enter into to take the matter further. That is enormously popular with the police right now. Just to be clear, our view is that the thrust of this two-tier system is that there is a condition attached to allow the disposal of tier one and tier two. We think that is a very positive thing.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Adrian Crossley: I think that risk is entirely possible; this is quite well documented. We have to look at ways to challenge that. Phil briefly touched on the “Chance to Change” pilots that are currently being operated, which look at this slightly lesser form of admission.
Our view is that we have to address the mischief here. If there is mistrust in this system, then there are two things that can be done. First, proper independently chaired scrutiny panels can look at the way these are run and the advice that they give to people when they enter the police station. I know that the Government have already suggested that that might be a way of dealing with this.
Above and beyond that is access to legal advice and to legal aid. We are seeing an attrition of people’s access to legal advice. My experience is that when people are properly advised about what is in front of them, when they understand that they are being treated fairly and decently, and when they understand the evidence against them, then they are in a position to make an informed choice.
If it is just a choice about, “Do you trust the police?” then I can entirely see how some communities would have reservations about that and even, when it comes to sentencing, well-founded reservations about pleading guilty. A system that is transparent and provides good training, a good understanding of what they are involved in and, clearly, good legal advice at an early stage, could combat that.
The Chair
I am afraid I have to strike a balance and I have to switch to the Minister, for his questions. I am sorry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
Q
Adrian Crossley: So that I understand the question and I answer it properly, are you asking what merits we would need to see in order for there to be an expansion of minimum tariffs in sentencing? Is that what you mean?
Chris Philp
Or the risks. What are your views about the principles of the possibility?
Adrian Crossley: My own view is that judicial discretion should be king. I have not done any huge research into this, but in my view and from my practice, sentencing guidelines have become very prescriptive and they almost railroad judges into decisions. Judges always have parameters to work within, but what is before the court is often something that is necessarily unique. Minimum sentencing can shackle decision makers who are acutely aware of the facts in front of them.
The only benefit I see is in cases where there are overwhelming public interest concerns that mean that a minimum tariff would adequately address a specific mischief and would undo it. If I were to see that, I would regard that as a pro for minimum sentences. I would need to see an evidence base that that would achieve that.
Phil Bowen: I agree with what Adrian says. In general, a lot of the evidence from, for example, the United States on mandatory minimums is not encouraging, but I see an argument for Parliament identifying particular crimes of concern and putting those in place. We should be clear that the deterrent effect of that is likely to be pretty mixed. The evidence is pretty mixed about whether that kind of thing really does deter future crime, but I can see the public need for the Government to be seen to respond to public desires around particular signal crimes. That is why, although I do not reject them out of hand, I agree entirely with Adrian that judicial discretion is extraordinarily important because judges will know the facts of the case much better than the press or the public watching on.
Chris Philp
Q
Phil Bowen: I think the emphasis in the Bill and the White Paper on flexibility around the use of electronic monitoring is the strongest part of the proposals. What the Ministry seems to be doing, which I think is right, is to encourage probation officer discretion and the flexible use of electronic monitoring powers, both to control people where there is need for further control, and to loosen up things where they are doing well. Part of the problem with electronic monitoring to date has been far too rigid sets of curfews without the ability for probation officers to vary them while people are on community sentences. I certainly support that.
In terms of providing for longer periods of electronic monitoring, I can see cases where that may well be useful. The only note of caution that I would suggest to the Committee is that the evidence base suggests that for younger people—in particular, young adults who live at home and people assessed as low risk—longer periods of electronic location monitoring can have a backfire effect. In other words, it can lead to increases in reoffending. All that really means is that the Bill provides the powers that it does, and it is then the job of the probation service to use those powers as flexibly as possible and in line with the evidence.
Chris Philp
Thank you. I was going to ask about problem-solving courts, but I think that was covered adequately in earlier questions. I think Minister Atkins has some questions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Q
Adrian Crossley: This policy actually has its origins in the CSJ. We are obviously very supportive of the serious violence reduction order. Just for clarity, and so I can answer that more fully, this is a post-conviction order. We regard it as being part of the wider system. We do not regard it as a stand-alone solution to knife crime in our country.
We see a very significant increase, not just in possession of weapon offences, but of violent offences perpetrated with the use of a weapon. What is clear to us is that we need to do something about that which is robust enough to challenge the mindset of someone leaving their home with a weapon. We draw from the group violence intervention models piloted in Boston in the US under Operation Ceasefire, which create a sort of pull-push effect. We really want to deter people from being able to leave the home feeling that they are safe walking around with a weapon. They should know that they are much more likely to attract police attention if they are on these orders. At the same time, in the sentencing court, we would hope that the order would be able to include other, positive provisions—perhaps even a knife crime behaviour order. Real intervention, engaging young people and pulling them away from that sort of offending can also have a pull effect away from that kind of offence.
I should say that currently, as it is being piloted, it is only for adults. Our view is that knife possession is pervasive across a number of age groups: it is particularly concerning when young people are carrying knives. We would like to see this scheme really being rolled out, so that we can intervene early when people are younger, to see that we do everything we can to take knives off the street and keep people safer.
The Chair
As it is 2.45 pm, we had better call this session to an end. I thank the witnesses for the evidence they have given to the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
Jonathan Hall QC and Matt Parr gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: My name is Jonathan Hall QC. I am the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and I carried out a review into the management of released terrorist offenders after the Fishmongers’ Hall attack, which is relevant to the evidence that I will give today.
Matt Parr: I am Matt Parr and actually I am not the Chief Inspector of Constabulary; that is Sir Tom Winsor. I am one of the Inspectors of Constabulary; I have been doing that job for almost five years. I think the particular reason that I have been asked to give evidence today is that I have just led a series of inspections, including around protests and the way police look after them; into the Sarah Everard vigil; and then this week into the way that the Police Service of Northern Ireland policed a high-profile republican funeral. So I have been doing quite a lot of work on protesting, and I have had some discussions with the Home Office about the legislative proposals.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Q
Matt Parr: Three aspects of that come to mind. First, the use of social media has clearly enabled the organisers of protests to be significantly more nimble. It means that some of the obligations to engage with the police beforehand can be circumvented, creating really quite significant problems for police commanders in the way they plan for protests.
That is the first aspect, which is reasonably obvious to anyone who has been on or near a protest, namely that there is huge potential for social media to be used—in a good way; I am not saying in a bad way. But its ability to galvanise and organise and inform people to join protests or indeed in the way they conduct them is wholly different to what the police had to contend with 20 years ago.
The second point is slightly more subtle. When we conducted the inspection into protesting, we found that more and more police forces are doing more and more policing of protests, for one reason or another, and they are also finding it ever more difficult to persuade their officers to train to be public order commanders, or indeed to make themselves available to do the lower levels of training, so that they can then help out on the protests.
One of the reasons cited for that is that police officers at protests—not in all cases; the temptation to generalise and to be unfair to all protesters is something that we have to resist here—sometimes get identified through social media. One reason that they are disincentivised from going on these protests and volunteering to train to do them is that they are nervous about being vilified on social media, having been identified beforehand. So that is having a chilling effect for police officers and in fact quite often damages their morale.
One of the things we said about the need to modestly reset the balance in the interests of protesters versus the public, and a remark made about decisions made by gold or silver commanders who are the senior police officers commanding the protest, is that they are often nervous about the backlash on social media of any decisions they take. One of the consequences is that there is perhaps a tendency to default to the balance being more in favour of the protester than otherwise. That was my second point.
My third point is that a cautionary tale came out of the inspection we did into the policing of the vigil following the tragic death of Sarah Everard, and the impact of what is frankly a single still photograph that was circulated very quickly and very widely on social media. That created a backlash, and we ended up with some people, and indeed some public bodies and some unions, calling for the resignation of the Met Commissioner. In that report, we said that the reaction was unwarranted. We all know that there is a danger that people get their news and form their opinions from social media. We trawled through hour after hour of police body-worn video of the same incident and came up with a very different view to what social media—completely under- standably—led people to have. I will start with those three points.
Antony Higginbotham
Q
Matt Parr: The Home Secretary asked us to look at five proposals at that stage in November, when she asked me to give an initial impression of five of the proposals going into the Bill. In the end, only four of them went in. We had some reservations, but in general we saw the four proposals—with some caveats, particularly around the fifth one that did not go in—as having the potential to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the policing response to protest. If you want to discuss the details of those, we can do that, but in answer to your general question about whether they would assist the police in getting the balance right in the age of social media, I would say probably yes.
Sarah Champion
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: No, I tried to be as comprehensive as I could when carrying out my review of the multi-agency public protection arrangements. I thought long and hard about the additional powers that might be needed, and I am pleased that they are contained in the Bill. I cannot think of anything else. From a detailed, legal perspective I would just say that there are a couple of points of detail about two of the powers, and maybe the Committee will want to question or press on whether further safeguards are needed. I did not draft the powers, of course, and I recommended that they be done generally and they have now been put into statutory language. Overall, I have nothing to add to what is here.
Sarah Champion
Q
Matt Parr: Shall I go first? I am afraid it will be a short answer. We are aware of the issue, and as you may know we do a 43-force inspection of all police forces on a rolling basis. We think that it is a bit early and that we need more time to reach an informed view on the issue, but we will look at it in our next round of inspections.
Jonathan Hall QC: I have a short point to add: I did look at one issue. There are special arrest powers in section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and those powers differ from other arrest powers in that they allow for people to be held for up to 14 days. I did consider whether there should be the power to bail after arrest in section 41 in my first report, but for various practical and technical reasons I thought that was probably wrong. That is the only thinking I have done about that.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: I thought there were three key points. First, managing the terrorist risk from released offenders involves practitioners from agencies who are not always good at working together. For example, the probation service and MI5 do not have, historically, an easy way of working together.
Secondly, the likelihood of making really good decisions at the right time, which is what matters, would be increased if there was a shared understanding of risk. That involves greater data sharing, and not just secret data sharing—though that is important—but sharing data from all other sources. One of the good things about the Bill is that it resolves an uncertainty about when data can and cannot be shared. It also requires better understanding in all the agencies about what tools exist. Probation has a really fantastic, powerful tool—the ability to recall risky offenders to custody. That is probation’s power—it is not the police’s or MI5’s—and it is important for MI5 to understand that and to make sure that the person making that decision understood the risk. So a comprehensive understanding of each of those powers is important and, as you know, I recommended a couple of extra powers, which are in the Bill.
Thirdly, there is a particular difficulty in practice of managing people who had not been convicted of terrorism offences but who were of terrorist risk when released. Take, for example, someone who went to prison for a very violent offence and became radicalised in prison—they present a terrorist risk on release. It is quite difficult to get them into the structures that exist for managing such a terrorist risk, but the Bill is going to change that to make it easier—[Inaudible.]
Sarah Jones
You froze. You were saying, “to make it easier”.
Jonathan Hall QC: The Bill will make it easier for MAPPA—the management structures of risk—to apply to all terrorist risk offenders. That is not just people who were convicted of terrorism offences but people who are of terrorist risk when they come out of prison.
Sarah Jones
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: I have nothing to say in relation to the power of the police to arrest urgently where there is a breach of licence; that is a really sensible addition. There is a power in clause 159 to apply for a warrant to search the premises of a released offender, and I support that. The point of detail is that it would be possible to apply to a judge for a warrant that would allow you to enter on any number—potentially an infinite number—of occasions. If you think about released terrorist offenders on licence, their licences can last a very long time—for example, 10 or 15 years—so perhaps the Committee may want to think about whether it is appropriate to have a power that would authorise multiple entries into a person’s premises throughout 10 or 15 years. The power of multiple entry under warrant does exist when you are talking about a live operation, and the police find that quite useful. I am not quite sure whether it is justified in the context of this particular risk. That is just one small point of detail, more by way of a safeguard.
Secondly, I recommended and am pleased to see in the Bill a power to search the person of a released terrorist offender. For example, if someone is going to London for the first time, or if a released offender who is very dangerous is going to meet a probation officer for the first time, that would authorise the police to pat them down to make sure they are not carrying something. That is good not only as a deterrent, but as a reassurance. It is reassuring to have that ability, which exists in the context of offenders under civil measures called TPIMs—terrorism prevention and investigation measures.
The only small point is that in the Bill the purpose of searching is
“for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism”.
In other statutes, for example the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, the power is to be used for
“ascertaining whether the individual is in possession of anything that could be used to threaten or harm any person.”
When I was thinking about this point, I had in mind patting someone down for a weapon or something of that nature, rather than a personal search to check generally whether they are complying with their licence conditions. Again, that is something that the Committee will probably want to consider—what precisely is the purpose of the search. It may be that the purpose of the search goes a bit wider than is necessary. Those are two relatively small points of detail.
Sarah Jones
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: No, I do not think there is anything in the Bill to address that. The only other bit of the Bill relevant to my area of business is the power to refer an individual who has become dangerous in prison to the Parole Board so that they cease to be someone who is automatically released and can only be released by order of the Parole Board. I think that is sensible. I do not know whether you know that I am doing a review of terrorism in prisons at the moment. The need to be agile and respond to the radicalisation that does sometimes happen in prison is important, so that is to be welcomed. I do not think—unless you can refer me to it—that there is anything that addresses the question of deradicalisation or desistance. I think the truth is that officials will say that it is an ongoing process. I am not saying it will not work with some people, but I would not put all my eggs in that particular basket.
Sarah Jones
Q
Matt Parr: I have got quite a lot of sympathy with what you say. We were very clear in what we said that any reset should be modest. We also said that, because of article 10 and article 11 rights, some degree of disruption is not just an inevitable by-product, it is sometimes the whole point of the exercise of protest, and on that basis, it has to be encouraged. Zero protest is certainly not the aim as we saw it; zero disruption was not the aim either—some degree of it is inevitable. It is just a question of where the balance lies.
I take your point. Some of the things in the Bill we were not asked to comment on. For example, imposing conditions on one-person protests—clause 60 in the Bill —we were not asked to comment on. Some of the specific areas such as access around Parliament—clause 57 and then clause 58 if Parliament moves—we were not asked to comment on, either. There are things that we did not really look at, and therefore I have not got a judge on what effect they might have and what the potential benefit might be.
Perhaps the most contentious would be the third of the proposals that we were asked to look at that widens the range of circumstances in which police can impose conditions on protests: static assemblies or processions. It could be either type. We said that at the moment there are four acid tests. In the disruption one, it was “serious disruption” to the life of the community. As I understand it, the proposal is that that is modified to “significant impact” and so on. Ultimately, these will have to be judged in the courts. It struck me that it clearly aims to set a lower bar. Personally, when I reviewed it, I did not think the bar was necessarily the problem. There is just as much of a problem with educating and training the police officers and making sure they understand how article 10 and 11 rights can be properly tempered. It was a question of training and understanding as much as it was of where the bar was for disruption.
Interestingly—again, I am probably simplifying it a bit too much—there is quite a stark difference between London, which obviously gets a disproportionately large number of protests, and elsewhere. Senior police officers outside London—again, I am generalising—tended to think they had sufficient powers, and senior police officers inside London tended to think that more would be useful. I think that is a reflection of it.
I think yes is the short answer to your question. I think there are dangers and, as ever, the bar for measuring what was significant or what was serious should be a high one. We all recognise that. It should not be done on the flimsiest of pretexts. Again, it would then be open to challenge, and I think police officers would only wish to use it when they were confident.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: Certainly most of those convicted of terrorism offences will have some sort of Parole Board referral anyway, so automatic release for people convicted of terrorism offences has virtually come to an end. I spoke—
Alex Cunningham
Sorry, can I stop you there? Can you explain the parole role in this, because my understanding was that it would not actually happen?
Jonathan Hall QC: Let us say I get a determinate sentence of eight years for robbery—no, let us say for fraud, a non-violent offence. I will be released automatically after four years. I understand the clause is intended to allow the Secretary of State to ask the Parole Board to look at me to see if I have become a dangerous offender while in prison. Let us imagine I have been radicalised and all the assessments are that I am a dangerous terrorist offender. The Secretary of State could refer that individual to the Parole Board to make a determination that they should now be treated like a violent or a sex offender. In other words, they will not be released automatically at four years, but would have to apply for parole. That is what I understand the clause does.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: Okay. I have to say that I have not looked at the detail. The Parole Board has a role in deciding whether that person should be released.
Alex Cunningham
Q
“Making release from custody discretionary, and contemplating the possibility that the period in custody could be doubled as a result, is not some minor alteration in the administration of a sentence. It is retrospective sentencing by the executive, a form of internment, circumventing the judicial process and all the protections it confers.”
Do you think the changes to automatic release have any constitutional implications?
Jonathan Hall QC: I will confine myself to talking about terrorist-risk offenders. I do not want to discuss anything outside my remit. If you are talking about people who are sentenced to be automatically released as, for example, Usman Khan was, if in the course of their time in custody it becomes apparent that they are very dangerous, it is appropriate to be able to make their case dependent upon the Parole Board.
As the evidence from the Fishmongers’ Hall inquest has shown, Usman Khan came out with a huge amount of risk, as a result of his behaviour inside. Does that have constitutional implications? The current law is that that sort of change, as you know from the emergency legislation that went through last year, is not contrary to article 7. Does it have big implications for individuals? Yes, it does. It is a decision that would have to be taken very carefully. Does it give rise to the risk of a cliff edge? Yes and no. As you know from the Usman Khan case, they had to be released, and there was no way of changing that.
The point about someone’s release being discretionary is that it is then open to the Parole Board to time their release, and to delay their release if they are not safe enough to be released. Of course, there is always a cliff edge. A person could go to the end of their sentence. The Parole Board could say, “We are not going to release you at all,” and then they would come out automatically. It adds something to put them in the hands of the Parole Board once they have been identified as a risk.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: It is a really good question. It is a power that will be exercised pretty rarely, I expect. I do not think that you can ask the judge who passed the original sentence to change the sentence. That would be an odd situation, to ask the sentencing judge to reconsider their sentence, on the basis of what happened in prison.
If you think, as I do, that there will be the rare case where you need to delay someone’s release, I cannot see an alternative mechanism, other than putting it in the hands of the Parole Board. You are right that it will disappoint some people, as I think we have discussed in the past. I am slightly concerned about the fact that for some dangerous terrorist offenders—people who have already been identified as dangerous—the role of the Parole Board has now been abolished altogether, because of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act 2021 that is now in force.
I do not think it is a bad thing to have the Parole Board looking at the small sub-set of individuals who are identified as very risky. In the course of my review into terrorism in prisons, I have seen evidence of individuals who are very risky and potentially becoming riskier because of how they are in prison. It seems right that they should know that, as a result of the risk and what they are doing in prison, their release may have to be delayed.
The Chair
I am going to have to stop you there. I will switch to the Government side and Victoria Atkins.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: First of all, it means that anyone who is a risky offender—whatever they were put inside for, whether they were sentenced for a terrorist offence or were sentenced for a non-terrorist one but are in fact a risk—can be managed under MAPPA. The law as it stands states that someone must be a risk based on their offending.
To take the example of a fraudster who went to prison and was then dangerously radicalised and became a terrorist risk, their risk would not in fact flow from their offending. Clause 162 cures that, so that anyone who is identified as a terrorist risk may be manged under MAPPA. That is a good thing, because the authorities found it quite hard to deal with that cohort of people.
The other thing that clause 162 does is to make it very clear that people can provide information to MAPPA without having to do what they used to do when I carried out my review, which was to look for information gateways in, for example, the Children Act 1989 or the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, because they did not feel that there was a clear basis for them to share information with MAPPA. As you will understand, the key thing about managing terrorist risk is that all the right information should be receivable. Clause 162 cures that point as well.
Victoria Atkins
In other words, dealing with the reality presented by a very small number of the most dangerous offenders—dealing with that reality, rather than being constrained by the fact that they committed a fraud offence in the past, rather than a terrorist offence.
Jonathan Hall QC: Exactly.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Matt Parr: There were four tests in the law as it stands, one of which is “serious disruption”. Clause 55, I think, changes that to “significant disruption”, among some others. It is a general lowering of the bar.
Victoria Atkins
Q
“serious disruption to the activities of an organisation”,
or,
“serious disruption to the life of the community.”
That is the wording in clause 54 as well. As you will understand, clauses 54 and 55 are about ensuring consistency between moving protest and static protest. We heard from police witnesses this morning that one can flow into the other very easily, and back again.
May I also ask about clause 59? That places the common law offence of public nuisance on the statute book. Does the inspectorate have any views on that, or has it made any recommendations on it previously?
Matt Parr: Not previously, but we did in the report we put out in March. That was one of the five proposals that the Home Secretary asked us to comment on in particular. Our view was that we agreed with what the Law Commission recommended back in 2015, I think. We concluded, for much the same reasons as they did, that that was a sensible thing to do. In summary, we thought that protesters deserve to know where they stand, and that there was no harm in making the rules clearer than they are. It was supporting the Law Commission’s proposal.
Chris Philp
Q
Matt Parr: I am really sorry. I have not looked at that. I cannot give you an answer, I am afraid.
Chris Philp
Q
Let me turn to Jonathan, if I may, going back to clause 108, which Alex Cunningham was asking about. This is in relation to prisoners sentenced for non-terrorist offences who are deemed to become high risk in the course of their sentence. To clarify, is your understanding of the clause the same as mine—that the Secretary of State does not have the power to unilaterally ask for their prolonged incarceration, but instead the Secretary of State simply has a power to refer the prisoner to the Parole Board, which will then make the assessment of dangerousness? It is the Parole Board that makes the decision, not the Secretary of State; the Secretary of State simply refers. Is that your understanding as well?
Jonathan Hall QC: Yes. I have it in front of me. I think the point that Mr Cunningham was making is that it is the Secretary of State who refers it, but you are right: it is the Secretary of State who refers it, but ultimately it is the Parole Board that decides.
Chris Philp
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: Yes, that is right. When the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020—the emergency legislation that came in after the attack at Fishmongers’ Hall—transformed people from automatic release prisoners to people who would have to apply to the Parole Board at the two-thirds point, it had an effect on people who are currently serving. That was challenged in the courts by one of the affected prisoners, and the High Court concluded that it was consistent with article 7.
Chris Philp
Q
The final point that Mr Cunningham raised was in relation to the potential for a cliff edge if somebody serves all of their sentence in prison and is not released early. He referred to the possibility of a cliff edge, which exists in various other contexts that you have referred to already. Am I right in saying that if the Government, the security services or the authorities are concerned about the risk that a particular prisoner might pose following release if they were released without licence conditions because they had served all of the sentence, it would be open to the security services, acting through the Secretary of State for the Home Department, to apply for a TPIM if they felt the threshold was met? That would be one option available if they wanted to manage risk, accepting that TPIMs are rarely used.
Jonathan Hall QC: You anticipated what I was going to say. Yes, that is available, but TPIMs are very resource-intensive, and they are very rarely used for that reason.
Alex Cunningham
I misunderstood the line about the role of the Parole Board. I was concerned about what happens beyond the completion of the sentence. As the Minister says, the TPIM is used only in extremely rare circumstances, and it was unclear when that would apply and when it would not apply. Again, my concern is the cliff edge—somebody being released into the community without any licence conditions or further restrictions on their movements.
Chris Philp
Q
The Chair
Hang on a second. I think we are supposed to be taking evidence from our witnesses. Do you want to answer that, Mr Hall?
Jonathan Hall QC: Yes. To continue the thought, where someone reaches the end of their sentence, their sentence cannot be increased—for example, by adding an extra licence period. In a way, it sounds quite a sensible idea that if someone is very dangerous, when they get to the end of their sentence you should just add a licence on administratively, but that would be completely wrong in principle, because the point of a licence is that you can be recalled. If someone was sentenced to 10 years by a judge and got to the end of their sentence, and you then added on a licence period of, say, five years, if they were recalled—quite a few terrorist offenders do end up being recalled—they would end up serving up to 15 years. That would, of course, be wrong in principle.
Sarah Champion
Q
Jonathan Hall QC: I am not trying to avoid it by saying that it is a really good question, but I have not properly absorbed the role of victims in the work that I have done as reviewer of terrorism legislation. One of the difficulties of terrorism is that you are looking more at future risk than at past impact, but obviously, a really bad terrorist attack has the most atrocious consequences for individuals. I am going to slightly dodge it, if I may, by saying that I have not really thought that one through, but I will take it away.
Matt Parr: I do not really have anything to add. It struck me at first glance—it is the first time I have thought about it—as a reasonably attractive idea, but again, I have not really given it a particularly great amount of thought.
The Chair
Are there any further questions? It appears not. In that case, I thank you both very much for your evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Councillor Nesil Caliskan, David Lloyd and Alison Hernandez gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Councillor Caliskan: I am Councillor Nesil Caliskan. I am chair of the Local Government Association’s Safer and Stronger Communities Board—[Inaudible].
The Chair
We are having a bit of a sound problem here. Could you repeat that, Councillor Caliskan?
Councillor Caliskan: Thank you, Chair—I hope you can hear me now. I am Councillor Nesil Caliskan. I am chair of the Local Government Association’s Safer and Stronger Communities Board and the leader of Enfield Council.
The Chair
While we straighten out the sound, let us go to Mr Lloyd.
David Lloyd: Hello, I am David Lloyd. I lead on criminal justice for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and I am the recently re-elected Police and Crime Commissioner for Hertfordshire.
Alison Hernandez: I am Alison Hernandez, the national lead for roads policing and safety on behalf of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and I was recently re-elected the Police and Crime Commissioner for Devon, Cornwall and Isles of Scilly. I am here particularly to give the voice of the public on some of the areas in the Bill, and in our role as a scrutineer of policing.
The Chair
Thank you very much. We are trying to straighten things out with Councillor Caliskan’s sound—hopefully we can get that sorted—but we will proceed because of time. I call Ian Levy.
Ian Levy
Q
David Lloyd: I think you make a really good point. Demonstrations are frustrating, especially when they put other people’s livelihoods at risk. Certainly, in Hertfordshire, we had an Extinction Rebellion demonstration that really put free speech at risk by closing down the printing press in Broxbourne, which my friend, the other Chair of the Committee, Sir Charles, will know all about. Certainly, it was difficult to balance the right to demonstrate against the right to free speech.
I think that the strengthening in this Bill is very helpful, although in that specific demonstration the issue was not so much whether the protesters could be arrested, but how they could be arrested, because of the way they had got themselves in some very clever holes so that you could not unpick them. However, I think we really do need to think about the broader population when people are demonstrating, rather than just the rights of the demonstrators.
Alison Hernandez: As you will know, it does not matter which police area the protests occur in; there is a reflection upon police forces nationally from communities thinking, “It is happening where we are, where we live.” There is sheer frustration about some of the disruption that has happened. One of the key factors for us is that it is about being proactive with people who want to run peaceful protests. Our police force in particular has been very good at doing that. As you may be aware, we have the G7 summit coming to us in June in Cornwall, so we are very sensitive, to a heightened extent, about this particular area, and we want to facilitate peaceful protest.
I think these measures in the Bill are needed. Anything that gives the police a tool that ensures public confidence in policing and shows that mob rule does not rule is really important. It really is reflected in public confidence that our police force is on the side of those who are on the right side of the law.
Ian Levy
Thank you. Councillor Caliskan?
Councillor Caliskan: I think it is important to differentiate between protest and the opportunity for the public to come together for things like a vigil. That is obviously—[Inaudible]—the very tragic death of Sarah Everard, for instance.
The Chair
Are you able to bring your face closer to the microphone or bring the microphone closer to your mouth? I think that would help.
Councillor Caliskan: Is that better?
The Chair
Okay, try now.
Councillor Caliskan: And we must also differentiate between a one-day vigil or protest and something that is over a longer period of time. In my experience, from having spoken to council leaders from across the country, the best way that peaceful protest is facilitated is planning in advance. That means the community and organisers having a good relationship with the police, and local forces working closely with local authorities ,so that you know when gatherings will take place, how you can put measures in place to support them to express their views and do so in a safe way. Differentiating between short-term gatherings and long-term gatherings is important.
Sarah Champion
Q
Councillor Caliskan: The first thing to say is that the Local Government Association broadly welcomes the Bill. We recognise its intentions for victims of crime and to support communities. However, there are aspects of the Bill, for instance, the offensive weapon homicide reviews, that I referred to, that lack clarity on the implications for resources, and why they are necessary, given that other reviews take place that could probably cover some of the issues. Reviews take place when you want to learn from an incident. It is unclear what the outcome of an offensive weapon homicide review would be and what learning would be achieved from that.
On the broader point about resources and support, local government have been under incredible pressure in funding youth offending services for several years. We know that youth services have seen a cut in their budgets. Youth offending services primarily have two functions: to stop reoffending, and to stop offending in the first place. The second function is not a statutory responsibility, and it is up to local authorities and partners, such as the police and NHS, to be willing to put in resources to stop offending in the first place. The early intervention and prevention aspect of things will be critical if the intention of the Bill to reduce crime over a long period of time is serious. Alongside the statutory responsibilities that the Bill sets out, the LGA’s view is that it is critical that there are adequate resources to be able to intervene with preventive measures at an earlier stage.
Sarah Champion
Q
Alison Hernandez: There are a few bits in the areas we have been looking at. One area that is particularly of public interest is around the level of offending on our roads from poor driver behaviour generally. There is an absolute appetite from the public—we carried out a survey about 18 months ago on road safety through the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and over 66,000 people responded. It was absolutely clear that people witness offending behaviour on the roads where they live for about 70% of the time. So there is an appetite for more enforcement and for the fines levels, and that is in the Bill around delivering courses for some of those driver behaviours, which I think is really great. We are interested in seeing another area, which would be a levelling up of the fines for some of those offences. They are all different, whether for speeding, using a mobile phone, or not wearing a seat belt. The fines are all at different levels. Our suggestion is: why don’t you level up the fines, then you also have an opportunity to spend more funding on road safety?
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Q
I am very interested in this issue and there are two parts to my question. First, do you think that the existing powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 are sufficient to address the issues that arise from unauthorised encampments for communities that are affected? If not, do you think that this Bill goes some way to fill any gaps that have been identified and raised by a number of different groups?
Separately, regarding local authorities, I think it is little-known that local authorities are actually required to find space for Travellers’ sites, transit sites and authorised encampments. Do you have examples of local authority areas that are doing that alongside communities and the police, and it is working well? And what more can local authorities do?
Siobhan Baillie
Alison Hernandez. Thank you.
Alison Hernandez: There are a few things, actually. Some of the existing arrangements under the legislation that you mentioned are quite strong, but there is a resistance—a nervousness—among police actually to deliver on them, and I think that having a very clear criminal offence makes it a lot easier for the police to act.
At the moment, if you look through the National Police Chiefs’ Council guidance on how to deal with unauthorised encampments, it refers to a number of elements that must be met before the police take some action. This change actually enables the police to make that decision much more easily and more simply, so we really support the change to the way that we are looking at this issue.
I want to be clear that right now, as we speak, I have two unauthorised encampments, one in each county: one in Truro; one in Cranbrook. And these encampments are really affecting our communities’ confidence, by allowing people to break the law and cause damage. Actually, our communities are taking extreme measures to try to stop these unauthorised encampments from happening. This is not about being against people who have an alternative lifestyle; having such a lifestyle is absolutely fine. But when they impact on the communities’ amenity and actually cost the community money to clear up and solve issues, this offence helps to make it really clear that we do not want to see that situation in our communities.
I will just add that the sort of extreme measures that I have witnessed here in my area of Devon and Cornwall include a local council spending £18,500 on metal gates with locks to stop people from accessing pieces of land, which people have still broken into and accessed. The council have now built a concrete wall to stop those people, but it is also stopping local communities from using that land, too, because the council do not want to spend more money to clear up the land afterwards. So there is a challenge about sites—absolutely—for local authorities to consider, but I think this offence makes it clear for policing that there needs to be action.
Councillor Caliskan: The issue is experienced by local authorities up and down the country to different extents. I think it is true to say that there is disruption and that it can cost local authorities resources and funds. It is also true to say that across the country our Gypsy and Traveller communities are badly served in terms of sites that are allocated through planning policy, and it does not help when local plans take a number of years to agree things for them. So, even when there is a clear commitment to find additional sites, it can take years to identify those sites in planning policy. It is partly a planning policy issue and it is partly, I think, a lack of commitment to be able to find adequate space for our Traveller communities.
However, I have to say that the best example of existing local government being able to accommodate Traveller communities is when local authorities proactively build relationships, and while the Bill clearly sets out a way forward to be able to deal with the issues from an enforcement perspective, that is only a part of the picture. The LGA’s view would be that alongside that there needs to be a genuine commitment to accommodate communities, to have adequate spaces and to support those communities in additional things that they might need, such as health provision. Over the past year, there have been good examples of local authorities appointing community liaison individuals just for Traveller communities to be vaccinated, for instance. It costs local authorities resources, but there is a bigger picture that has to be considered.
David Lloyd: I think first of all we have got to start to look at how we can work together across the public sector, and I do not think that we are good enough at that. Very often, the first thing that happens is that the police are called to move on rather than thinking about what the issue is in the first place. Certainly, when I was first elected to a local council back in 1992, we had issues with Travellers and unauthorised encampments. If we had started then with a policy of ensuring that every single borough and district council had sufficient provision for those who may pass through, so that then, when there were unauthorised encampments, they could be moved on to those places, I do not think that anyone would feel that there was a problem in doing that. The issue is when there is no other place reasonable for them to go that is within close proximity. I do not think the duty of the districts and boroughs in two-tier areas and local councils in other areas is enforced sufficiently.
We always have to think about what it is that victims of all crimes and members of the public think most of all. One of the things that concerns people most of all is when there is an encampment—very often, it happens around a bank holiday weekend—and it seems that nothing can be done. I think that the strengthening powers within this will be helpful but that does not, in the long term, help with the real problem, which is: is there sufficient provision? We have got to do something alongside that.
In this discussion, along with the earlier question where Sarah Champion asked “What about budgets?”, we have to find a better way in local government—and I am proudly a part of local government as a police and crime commissioner—to share all of our budgets and we have to find a better way to plan together. Because one of the problems is that the issue of unauthorised encampment is always pushed to someone else as their problem, rather than any one of us picking it up as our problem. We have got to find a way through that.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
The Bill introduces offensive weapons homicide reviews. What do you see as a rationale for holding only reviews where offensive weapons are involved? Why is the focus on this type of weapon and is there not a danger that those who have lost loved ones to other causes or other methods will feel that their loss is less valuable than others? That is to anyone who wishes to answer that. I think we will start with Councillor Caliskan, please. [Interruption.]
The Chair
I think we have lost you again, councillor. Shall we go to someone else while we see if we can sort this out?
Allan Dorans
Mr Lloyd?
David Lloyd: My understanding of the Bill—you will understand it better than me, probably—is that it does not get rid of other homicide reviews. Of course, the one that probably you and all of us are familiar with is the domestic homicide review, which is always very helpful, and we all learn a great deal across all agencies around that when that happens. I think this builds on that and that is reasonable.
One of the areas of focus at the moment is around serious violence. I think it not unreasonable, therefore, that we take a little bit more time and we have a little bit more evidence around what has gone wrong. I am a real believer in evidence-based policing, and we have to look at that really closely. I am very much in favour of that. It is going to be, remember, an 18-month pilot. If that brings about initiatives to prevent homicides and protect communities, I think that is a very good idea.
The Chair
Let us try Councillor Caliskan again.
Councillor Caliskan: Hopefully you can hear me now. I agree with what David said about the pilots, and it will be interesting to see the outcomes. The direct comparison is to domestic violence homicide reviews, where there can be very clear learning; and being able to learn, as a system of multiple agencies, where you might have been able to intervene earlier to stop something helps us to reduce crime in the future.
The issue with offensive weapons homicide reviews is that the evidence shows that somebody with an offensive weapon may not necessarily know their victim. You can take knife crime, for example, and compare it with domestic violence. In most cases of domestic violence, the victim and the perpetrator would know each other; that is not necessarily the case—in fact, most often is not the case—when it comes to knife crime.
I think it will be interesting to see the outcome of the pilots, but we have to be careful that we are not just creating additional burdens on agencies and that we have clear criteria and pathways for learning. Also, who will be the owner of the outcomes? Who will be responsible for being able to implement some of those lessons learned? I think that level of detail is probably missing from the Bill, so I wait to see the outcome of the pilots.
Alison Hernandez: One of the challenges around domestic homicide reviews is the lengthy delay from, obviously, when the incident happened to when the review is completed. Often, the challenge we have is that people have moved on and some of the corporate learning from it is not actually kept well within the organisation. So I think that that accountability around this trial would be really helpful, to be clear. There are opportunities around things like local criminal justice boards and there are opportunities through police and crime commissioners of actually holding on to this as part of something that we have to report on. So I think it would be good to look at that accountability to make sure it does not become a paper exercise and is not really utilised in decision making.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Councillor Caliskan: The burden of finding alternative accommodation is really about the fact that you are competing. You are competing because you may have victims of domestic violence that the local authority also needs to find accommodation for. So it is about limited resources. It does happen already: they will be rare occasions, but there may be examples where a young person needs to be relocated because they may have been involved in county lines or gang activity. But it is not simple and it is not just about relocating that individual—
The Chair
Councillor, I am very sorry to interrupt you. Is it possible to bring the mouthpiece closer to your mouth? We are really struggling to hear you.
Councillor Caliskan: How is that? Is that better? I will hold it.
The Chair
Let us try.
Councillor Caliskan: Hopefully you can hear me a bit clearer. The other point I was going to make is that it is not as simple as just relocating an individual. It is often a family that you have to relocate, and there are additional processes associated with that. Examples of issues are employment for the parents and the tenure of accommodation. If they own their own property, relocating them becomes more complicated. The picture is complicated, as you might expect. This is possible; local authorities do do it, but it takes multi-agency working and it requires a real bespoke approach depending on the individual and the family that you are trying to support.
Bambos Charalambous
Do Alison or David have any insights? I imagine not, but if they do I am happy to hear from them.
David Lloyd: All I would add—I am sure Members will be very much familiar with this—is that probably the vast majority of our criminals are under the age of 25 and a huge number of them are under 18. In Hertfordshire a couple of years ago, three quarters of our murders—we have very few—were committed by people under the age of 18. So in many ways we need to get how people are being remanded right. There are greater rights that children would rightly expect and have, but that does not mean to say that some of our most serious criminals are not children. Getting that balance right is difficult.
Councillor Caliskan: If I might add, there are good examples throughout the country where youth offender services are intervening at an early stage that not only supports individuals not to reoffend but provides a family approach, supporting siblings who may be at risk of being involved in criminal behaviour. That early intervention makes a real difference, so as local government we would look to see how such public health approach-led practice could be rolled out more consistently across the country.
The Chair
Commissioner Hernandez, do you have anything you want to add?
Alison Hernandez: Just one point in relation to youth remand. The challenge in helping young people and getting that right is the gap between arrest and conviction. With the courts backlog there is at the moment, that can be a long gap, and one of the challenges is that sometimes you cannot work with that young person until they get to the point of conviction. I just wanted to flag that up, but that is more about charge to conviction than remand and awaiting.
Mr Goodwill
Q
David Lloyd: I feared that you were going to say that. I am not convinced that anything can easily be done. Clearly, on private land, there is a planning process, but it is private land, and that is difficult. I think you are talking specifically about where someone has purchased land and invited people in, and they may well have inappropriately developed that land so that there is a site built there. It is very difficult to know how to deal with that. I certainly have not got the answer. You may well have an answer among you, but how you get the planning process to discriminate, if you like, in a positive way against that which is clearly not right and for that which is right will be difficult.
Sarah Jones
Q
David Lloyd: Can I come in first on that and perhaps also bring in another bit? One of my concerns about the Bill is that it does not go far enough; in fact, it does not really mention how we might use police and crime commissioners more. My concern has always been very much about trying to be at the centre of the criminal justice system and how we bring that together with someone who is a focus for that on a local basis.
One of the benefits of police and crime commissioners has been their ability to bring different parts of the criminal justice system together, along with local authorities, so that we can better ensure that we reduce violence and crime, that the lessons are properly learned and that we put support for victims and perpetrators in the right place. I think it is perfectly reasonable to establish the situation as we are doing it, but we need to go further. One tends never to talk about what is not in a Bill, but the big thing this misses, as far as I am concerned, is how you put PCCs at the very heart of the criminal justice system.
Frankly, with extra duties falling to police, more people will be arrested, and they will end up in a queue going to court which is getting ever longer. Until you have got someone who is able to break through that long queue to get to court, none of this will really work. That is a crisis that we need to solve, and I think we have a solution in trying to give more power to police and crime commissioners. That might be a discussion for another day, but it is something we really need to focus on.
Councillor Caliskan: I think the LGA would highlight that a prevention-first approach is a long-term, sustainable approach to deal with crime in our communities. We absolutely support collaboration and a multi-agency working approach, because it works. The evidence demonstrates that it works, and the best and most successful outcomes demonstrate that. Take the violence reduction units, for example; there are very good examples of that.
There are not violence reduction units everywhere, so there is this inconsistency. They were, as I understand it, first established based on the areas where there were high levels of knife crime. Now, whether that should be the criteria going forward is a matter for debate, but I would emphasise again that the long-term statutory responsibility is suitable and that the multi-agency approach is properly resourced to be able to deliver those early interventions.
The community safety partnerships are really welcome as well. Again, there are some good examples of them. I guess that the benefit of community safety partnerships is that local communities can decide what the issues are. That gives communities agency, and it allows different organisations to come together to have ownership of the problem.
We at the LGA would ask for there to be more consistency. For that, we should see violence reduction units extended and offered in more areas, and there should be a more sustainable funding model. If we are serious about seeing a reduction in crime, we have to have models that move away from just one-off grant funding or one-year grant funding, to five-year periods of funding, so that there can be long-term projects.
Alison Hernandez: If I may say, I get a bit frustrated with the conversation about funding, because it is not all about having funding from the Government. I absolutely applaud the serious violence duty. One of the challenges that we all recognise is that, generally, society is getting more violent. This isn’t, “Who has got the most violence in their area?” We have a general societal problem, which every area needs to be looking at, focusing on and tackling.
In Devon and Cornwall, we are not one of the areas that received the violence reduction unit funding, so the chief constable and I have come together in a partnership to establish a serious violence prevention programme. We are funding that through council tax payers’ funding, because we believe that it is fundamentally important that we make this a priority. So you can do it yourselves if you think it is important. The serious violence duty will help people to see that this must be prioritised to be tackled. We want to do prevention; we do not want to deal with the things in the Bill that are just about enforcement and the hard end of it. We are able to look at that early intervention and prevention.
Many Members will have heard of things such as Operation Encompass, which is throughout the country in all 43 police forces, to try to help children who are at the receiving end of domestic abuse. In that sort of thing, we are trying to help children as young as possible, to break that cycle of violence. We fundamentally know that domestic abuse is one of the key issues that, if not tackled at a young age, leads to more violence in later life. I am an absolute supporter of the serious violence duty. We have things within our own powers, as commissioners with our local authorities, to set the priorities to tackle that.
Sarah Jones
Q
Councillor Caliskan: I think you are right. There is no point talking about just enforcement if you want to see community cohesion. Enforcement alone does not allow for Gypsies and Traveller communities to have their place in our community when they want it. It is the nature of their protected characteristics.
What needs to happen? There was a question mark over the efficiency of—[Inaudible]—policy. There has to be a commitment from local authorities that those sites are allocated. The statutory legislation that already exists for these protected characteristics needs to be taken seriously. We should be meeting the obligations that are already set in statute, which says that we should have adequate sites for these communities, but we just do not.
I would like to give parliamentarians some reassurance that the LGA absolutely takes tackling crime seriously. That is why councils up and down the country fund multi-agency working. We take it really seriously—it is a priority, because residents tell us that they want to be safe. We also recognise that crime is a symptom of what is often a complicated socioeconomic issue. If we want to collectively be serious about tackling crime, we have to tackle it at every stage, which means talking about prevention and—[Inaudible.]
Victoria Atkins
Q
Alison Hernandez: I want to be really clear what we are all talking about. We are not talking about all Gypsies and Travellers.
Victoria Atkins
Exactly.
Alison Hernandez: We are not talking about the travelling community. We are talking about a minority of people. I have examples in Exeter city where the local authority created a very nice site so that we could admit them quicker from where they were. It had everything that they needed and the facilities that they wanted, and it was in a nice, secluded spot. When the police went in to evict them, they decided not to go to that site that was available to them. They wanted to go to the next game that they wanted to play. Let’s be really clear about this: we are talking about a minority of people who do not want to abide by the law of this country. I believe we need this offence to support our communities and to send a very strong message: you do not do this type of behaviour.
I mentioned the £18,500 metal fencing created at Drumbridges roundabout to stop them accessing that land. They broke into that land. I have communities who will tell me that they have spotters who go ahead to break open the gates, so they will use the excuse that the gates were already open. All these sorts of things are happening. I have asked about CCTV—can we put it on the main sites where we have these things happening? It cannot be done, because of human rights—because it is where someone is living. Every place you turn to as a community to try to solve this problem is not available.
For me, harms are being caused. On Dartmoor alone, when they had an unauthorised encampment, it became absolutely huge. When these things get so huge, no one can move them on, because the amount of resource required to do so is immense. The bailiffs were going to cost £50,000 a day, and they would still need police back-up in order to do it. The cost is absolutely huge. There is something about sending a message through this Bill which tells the public that we are on their side and that we do not support people who do not want to abide by the law.
David Lloyd: I entirely agree with that. In Welwyn Garden City, we have a person who has almost been driven to the verge of bankruptcy because there was an unauthorised encampment which decided, at the same time, to take on industrial-level fly-tipping. It would cost about £150,000 to move those materials. That originally happened 18 months or two years ago. It is still there among all the woodland.
These people are at the end of their tether. The cost is not just monetary. I have people calling me who really are frightened because they have had large numbers of people on their own land and they feel intimidated and personally threatened. We need to do something about it. Much of it is about sending a message.
While I recognise that it is not helped, as I said earlier, by the fact that local authorities do not provide sufficient spots for Travellers to move on to—I recognise that is something we need to do—we also need to send a message that these people can be moved on if they are in an unauthorised place. We need to send that message out again, as Alison has said far more ably than me, so that the public recognise that we are on their side and we are on the side of the underdog.
Councillor Caliskan: All I would add is that I recognise that there are strongly held views, and we have councils who articulate exactly what colleagues on this panel have spoken about. It can be a huge cost to a local authority.
The best way to deal with these issues is through a collaborative approach, not just through agencies in a particular area, but also with the communities themselves who may be occupying the space. Something has got to give at some point, and an obvious solution is trying to identify space. Local authorities absolutely do not want to be encouraging criminality and disruption, not least because it costs a lot of money, but we could be going round and round in circles unless we find a long-term solution. I recognise that the Bill is an attempt to do that. All I would say is that in order for there to be a collaborative approach, alongside that there needs to be an approach that is about dialogue with communities, too. I do not think that contradicts anything that other panel members have said.
Victoria Atkins
Just to assist the Committee, clause 61 focuses on the conditions whereby this offence can be committed. The phrases “significant damage”, “significant disruption” and “significant distress” appear to cover the descriptions given by Commissioner Hernandez and Commissioner Lloyd.
On the serious violence duty, where the Government are requiring local agencies to work together to draw together plans to tackle serious violence in their local areas, I am happy to reassure Commissioner Lloyd that clause 13 very much views police and crime commissioners and mayors with policing powers as having a convening role in that. What value do you think will be gained in your local areas from requiring these organisations—vital as they are, in their many ways, in tackling the serious violence that we hope to prevent—to get around a table and work together with schools and educational establishments, in particular, to ensure that we prevent serious violence?
The Chair
Very briefly, please, because we are almost out of time.
David Lloyd: Things that are asked for specifically and are required of us get done. This measure strengthens what many of us are already putting into our own police and crime plans. It is always better to place a duty on us, because that ensures that it gets done. We really do need to ensure that the scourge of serious violence is reduced. There are many parts of the country—thankfully not Hertfordshire—where this is out of control, and this measure will help.
The Chair
Order. We will stop, because we are out of time. I am sorry, Councillor Caliskan, but we have a very tight schedule today. I thank the witnesses for their evidence, and I thank Councillor Caliskan for persevering with some of the sound problems.
Examination of Witnesses
Adam Wagner and Marc Willers QC gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Marc Willers QC: Good afternoon. My name is Marc Willers. I am a QC barrister practising at Garden Court Chambers.
Adam Wagner: Good afternoon. I am Adam Wagner, a barrister practising at Doughty Street Chambers.
Sarah Champion
Q
Adam Wagner: I will leave the Gypsy and Traveller aspect to Marc. From a protest perspective, what worries me about the Bill is that it decouples the public order element from the Public Order Act 1986. It makes that Act do things that it was not designed to do—to protect public order by effectively giving the police powers to impose directions on any protest that is very noisy, which is any protest.
In terms of discrimination, I regularly act for clients who protest—not for any particular thing; I act for clients who protest all sorts of things. My concern is that the police and potentially the Government will end up cherry-picking the kinds of protest that they consider to be valuable and the kinds that they consider to be problematic. That will ultimately be a political decision, not one based on public order. Ultimately, it does not matter whether it is a left-wing Government or a right-wing Government—they will have the ability to discriminate against groups that they do not agree with.
Marc Willers QC: You might have guessed that I am going to indicate that the Bill, particularly part 4, discriminates against Romani Gypsies and Irish Travellers, two ethnic minority groups with a traditional way of life, an integral part of which is living in caravans, and which also involves nomadism. The Bill will criminalise trespass at a time when many of those who resort to and reside on unauthorised encampments have nowhere else to go, the reason that being site provision, an elderly but enormous elephant in the room, has not been addressed since 1960, when the Government and Parliament of the day introduced the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, which closed the commons.
A statutory duty was introduced in 1968 by Lord Eric Avebury, but that duty was subsequently repealed in 1994. I am afraid that the encouragement of private site provision has failed abysmally, and we still have a cohort of Romani Gypsies, Irish Travellers and, indeed, new travellers who do not have a lawful stopping place. Criminalising trespass and giving greater powers, which the police have roundly suggested they do not need, to occupiers of land for the police to enforce really puts another nail in the coffin of nomadism and makes such people’s lives extremely difficult. The disproportionate impact on Gypsies and Travellers is there for all to see.
Sarah Champion
Q
Adam Wagner: It widens the test for being able to impose conditions on a protest to encompass pretty much any protest that is noisy enough to cause intimidation, to harass, or to cause
“serious unease, alarm or distress”
or “serious disruption”. If you are a protest organiser, you will know that that could apply to any protest. You have to appreciate that the current section 12 of the Public Order Act 1986 allows for conditions only when a protest causes
“serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community.”
That is already pretty wide.
By making it about noise, you are effectively saying to the organiser that any protest could be caught by that description, so they will have to rely on the good will of the police and the Home Secretary, because the Home Secretary will have a regulation-making power not only to define any of the new terms that I have expressed, but to give examples. Organisers will have to rely on the police and the Home Secretary to decide that their protest is not worth putting conditions on. From a protester perspective, that puts you entirely in the hands of the police and the Home Secretary. That very problematic for somebody organising a protest, because a lot of people will think it is just not worth it, particularly when they are representing an unpopular cause or one that they consider to be controversial. Those are precisely the protests that are the most important, and the most important to protect.
Sarah Champion
Q
Adam Wagner: No; I have not, I am afraid.
The Chair
Is there anything you wanted to add, Mr Willers?
Marc Willers QC: Much the same can be said about proposed new section 60C of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, in terms of its language. It seems to me that a lot of the language used is vague and uncertain. There is a reference to causing “significant distress” as one of the conditions that could lead to the criminalisation of an individual who refuses to leave a piece of land. That, in itself, brings inherent problems, because a private citizen could very easily invoke the power and leave a police officer with a fait accompli—in other words, they have no option but to arrest an individual who refuses to leave land in circumstances where the occupier says, “I am being caused significant distress by the very fact that this individual is parking on land that I occupy.”
That distress can be engendered or underpinned by the prejudice that Gypsies and Travellers face in our society today. It is a widespread and long-standing prejudice, dating back to the first time that Romani Gypsies came to these shores in the 1500s. I am afraid that it is fuelled by mainstream media and politicians. It is instilled in the minds of many members of the public, and it is bound to play a part. There may well be unwarranted and unjustified concerns on the part of the occupier, which could lead to the criminalisation of an individual who has nowhere else to go.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Marc Willers QC: It might be better for Mr Wagner to deal with that issue, given that I am dealing with part 4.
Adam Wagner: This is a recommendation by the Law Commission, as I am sure you are aware. My concern about codification is that it becomes a statutory tool in the armoury that might not previously have been used. I appreciate that the Law Commission recommended it. It does have benefits in terms of clarity and making the definition of public nuisance a statutory one, rather than coming out of common law and arguably being subject to not being clear.
I do worry that once it becomes a potential tool in the box, it will be used more. From the perspective of protest, and protecting the right to protest and freedom of assembly, it is just another tool in the armoury of public authorities to limit protest. Both Mr Willers and I deal with cases involving private injunctions against protesters and, in Mr Willers’ case, Gypsy and Traveller communities. You can see this proliferation in the courts of the use of any kind of method that will allow private companies and public authorities to restrict what is generally non-violent activity that does not cause much, if any, public order issue. You can see that being used. My concern is that it adds another potential bar to an already quite extensive collection of bars to public protest.
Marc Willers QC: I echo what Mr Wagner had to say. In the context of unauthorised encampments, there has been what has been described by the Court of Appeal—Lord Justice Coulson—as a feeding frenzy, in a case involving Bromley’s application for a wide injunction, effectively creating a no-go zone in Bromley, where Gypsies and Travellers would not be able to camp. That has been replicated up and down the country, in what has been described, as I said, as a feeding frenzy of litigation.
The Court of Appeal, in that context, concluded that the creation of such no-go zones offended the Equality Act 2010, the European convention on human rights and the protection of the right to respect for the traditional way of life of Gypsies and Travellers, and the enshrined right to roam. To bring it back to unauthorised encampments, in part 4 of the Bill the Government appear to be creating the no-go zones that the Court of Appeal has said in another context would fundamentally breach the rights that I have identified.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Marc Willers QC: The problem with part 4—it is speculation as to whether or not definitions will become crystallised in litigation—is that most Gypsies and Travellers will have left the site and be unable to challenge the decision by a police officer to arrest them, given the scenario that would play out under, for example, proposed new section 60C of the 1994 Act. A Gypsy or Traveller parking on a piece of land with their family, perhaps on the way down to Kent from somewhere up north, is not going to hang around when threatened with the seizure of their vehicle to argue that they should be entitled to remain on the land. Even if they did, they would probably not get legal aid with which to challenge the application of the section and their prosecution. In those circumstances, we are probably unlikely to see much, if any, judicial consideration of the vague terms in part 4.
Adam Wagner: If I may, I will add that
“serious unease, alarm or distress”
is not new to the law. You see that wording in the definition of criminal harassment and in other places. My concern is more about width than about clarity. I have dealt with numerous cases involving over-wide injunctions. There is quite a lot of case law about clarity versus width, and the point is that once this language is in the law relating to noise, it will be obvious to the courts that it is a very wide provision indeed and will rely to quite a large extent on the decision making of the police officers.
For example, if a protest decided to be completely silent, it would be difficult for the police to say that that protest was going to cause enough noise to cause serious unease. I imagine that the next Extinction Rebellion protest we see will be completely silent after this. But in seriousness, I think the court will just see that as very wide. What you have really got here is nothing to do with public order; it is about nuisance. It is about criminalising a certain kind of nuisance arising from what should be a protected activity—exercising political speech rights, under articles 10 and 11 of the European convention.
Sarah Jones
Q
Marc, it was put to us earlier that this is not about discrimination or attacking Gypsies or Travellers. It is about people who are engaged in significant criminal damage in places where they should not be. It would be helpful to have your response to that charge—Adam first.
Adam Wagner: I hear that. I will just quote Lord Justice Laws, who said:
“Rights worth having are unruly things. Demonstrations and protests are liable to be a nuisance. They are liable to be inconvenient and tiresome, or at least perceived as such by others who are out of sympathy with them.”
Protest has not changed; protest has always been a pain, a nuisance and liable to be inconvenient and tiresome. What has changed is that we have a Government who do not like certain protests—although that in itself has not changed either.
Extinction Rebellion is no different from any widespread protest movement—the civil rights movement in the 1960s, the environmental movement previously—but what is different is that it has managed to attract hundreds of thousands of people to its cause and is making real inroads on the public consciousness. That in itself is not a justification effectively to give the police powers to ban or impose conditions on any protest or, even more troublingly from my perspective, to give the Home Secretary—whose role is only to protect public order, not to protect particular opinions or to impose her, his or the Government’s opinion on any particular group—powers in effect to give examples of protests that she considers to be noisy, the ones that this legislation is targeting. You are getting yourself into a situation not where the public is better served, but where this essential part of democracy is going to be reduced down and chilled.
Sarah Jones
Thank you. Marc?
Marc Willers QC: The first thing to say is that those who are committing significant criminal damage can be prosecuted using existing legislation. If they are committing antisocial behaviour, existing legislation is in place. Indeed, the police made that point in their responses to the consultation on these proposed measures, and did so in spades. The response from the vast majority of the police forces was, “We do not need additional powers”, or, “We do need the existing powers under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to be strengthened.”
I have no hesitation in saying, fund the police properly and ensure that they prosecute those who commit criminal offences, whether they be Romany Gypsies, Irish Travellers or members of the settled population—everyone should be treated in the eyes of the law—but part 4 and the proposed provisions do not just affect those who are committing significant criminal damage; they affect each and every Gypsy and Traveller who is exercising their right, enshrined in our convention and under the European convention of human rights, to nomadism, to roam. We should not force them into a position in which they are only lawfully exercising that right when actually on the road—a road to nowhere.
The provision not only will force them into that situation, in which they are literally only within the law when they are moving along the road, but will give police the power to seize their homes, should they fall foul of the provisions. Should they camp on a piece of land and be asked to leave by an occupier who is prejudiced against them and would not want them to be there out of fear that they might commit some behaviour instilled in the mind by prejudice against Gypsies and Travellers, then as I said, it is a fait accompli for the police who are called in. They will have to arrest and almost certainly seize the caravans, that being the home. The individual and family might end up being destitute.
This is all at a time when there is insufficient transit and permanent sites for Gypsies and Travellers to live on. The proposed legislation ignores the rather elderly and enormous elephant in the room—the lack of site provision. That lack of site provision has continued unabated since the 1960s, as I said, when the commons were first closed.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Adam Wagner: Yes, of course.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Adam Wagner: I think I would be neutral on that. It is a very wide piece of legislation. Every time I read it, I am pretty surprised at how wide it is already. What I am pretty clear about is that section 12 does not need to be widened.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Adam Wagner: Well, potentially. The proof is often in the pudding. It depends on how the police use it and whether they are using it effectively. I have read the report from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services. I speak to a lot of police, and my experience is that they know they have a wide suite of powers when it comes to protest. What they struggle with, if you look at what has happened over the covid regulations, is deciding when to use them and what is proportionate. These are very difficult policing situations, and they are not necessarily solved by imposing widespread conditions that may lead to legal challenges, which may be successful. Successful policing of protests ultimately comes down to working with the protesters and civil society—hearts and minds stuff from the police. You saw that with the Sarah Everard vigil, and you see that with Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter. I do not think you can really enforce your way out of some of the disruption caused by protest. It is really about allowing voices to be heard and being careful.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Adam Wagner: Well, in part. The Public Order Act was used quite extensively over the course of the Extinction Rebellion protests, and Black Lives Matter was under the covid regulations last summer. That was the power that was used, and those are much more extensive. The covid regulations are far too extensive. We saw there the problems when the police are given too much power, because then they have to make what are not really public order decisions but substantive political decisions about which protests they do and do not allow. That is the danger. I do not think it is a right-wing or left-wing issue; any Government should be worried about protests being limited by political decisions, rather than public order decisions.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Adam Wagner: I think the objective test would assist the courts; I do not think it would assist police officers. Anything that limits these powers is better than not, but I just think the powers themselves are too wide for the reasons I have set out. I do not think that helps anything. From a policing perspective, applying all those tests is not going to be easy anyway. Really, this is about the width of the powers overall as a package, rather than the reasonable firmness test or anything like that.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Marc Willers QC: I do not think it would just be related to private lands—
Victoria Atkins
I accept that. There are provisions on common lands as well—you are quite right.
The Chair
I think we had better let Mr Willers answer as we are going to run completely out of time.
Marc Willers QC: It covers private and public land, and common land, and you are right that the conditions are “significant damage”, “significant disruption” and “significant distress”. My comments earlier were about the fact that significant damage and disruption can be covered by other legislation. The “significant distress” point was one I made in the context of the fact that the occupier may have their own impression of “significant distress”, or may suffer significant distress because of an inherent prejudice towards Gypsies and Travellers.
The Chair
I am really sorry Minister, but we are going to have to stop there because we are out of time allotted for this session. I thank you both for your evidence.
Examination of witness
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby gave evidence.
The Chair
I now call Stephanie Roberts-Bibby, acting CEO of the Youth Justice Board. Once again, we are down to 30 minutes, so we have to be tight—we have until 5.15 pm for this session. Stephanie, would you introduce yourself for the record, please?
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Stephanie Roberts-Bibby, and I am the interim chief executive officer for the Youth Justice Board. It is great to be here today to give evidence to you.
The Chair
I see that you are on an iPhone. Could I possibly ask you to flip it round so that you are in landscape?
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: Is that better for you, Chair?
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: Absolutely. We would say that children who commit offences as children should be sentenced as children, and that, where possible, the court should take into account the age and maturity of the child at the time of the offence. I know that HMCTS has been working tirelessly—particularly at the moment with the covid pandemic—to make sure that children’s cases are held promptly and before their 18th birthdays.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: We strongly believe that when the offence was committed as a child, that should be reflected in the length of the sentence, so they should be sentenced accordingly. We appreciate the logic for some of the tapering proposed in the Bill, but we feel that it fails to recognise that all children, who were under 18 at the time of the offence, had a distinct set of rights and vulnerabilities, and that the nature and length of time with which children and young people’s development takes place needs to be reflected. Indeed, evidence points firmly to brain development continuing up until the age of 25.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: We wholeheartedly support the introduction of secure schools. We very much welcome the Government’s proposal to open the first secure school at Medway and we look forward to a further secure school as part of the Government’s commitment to an alternative to secure accommodation for children. We have been working closely with Oasis, which was announced as the provider of the first secure school. It is a very strong academy trust and will offer a different operating model from the secure environments that currently exist. While there is some great practice that takes place across the secure estate, we know from the data about the outcomes for children who have been in the current secure estate that those outcomes are poor and that further offending continues.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: It is a concern that the market, as you would describe it, for providing a secure estate is quite limited. We would want to try to stimulate that market, to get the full range of providers that will be able to meet children’s needs. I think there is something about really understanding the complexity of children in the secure estate. These children are extremely vulnerable and, as a result, their behaviours can then be deemed as being extremely risky and posing a risk to others.
Our only concern about the delivery of the secure school is that link, at the moment, to the academy sector, particularly for children entering the youth justice system who have quite often been involved in practices whereby they have been off-rolled. For instance, we note the high levels—the prevalence—of exclusion of children. For example, we know from HMIP data that 89% of children at Feltham in 2018 had been excluded from school. We would be really keen to seek an assurance through the tendering process that academy trusts that are selected to open or run a secure school have the full range of skills, expertise, structures and ethos to support children to change in a secure setting.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: Youth offending teams are critical in early intervention and prevention with children who may be on the cusp of offending. There are a whole range of sentencing options available, but before that point there are out-of-court disposals, which means that children can be engaged in a range of activities, interventions and indeed supervision that would help them to address their needs.
Regarding the latter, I think there is really something about us all committing to understand children’s development, some of the social and economic environments in which children are living, and some of the deprivation and the structural barriers that children in our communities are experiencing, particularly children from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, who we know are disproportionately represented across the youth justice system. So there are a range of options available from youth offending teams.
One of the challenges that we hear about from the sector is its capacity to work upstream. Often, that is a result of funding, although this year the youth offending teams have had an additional uplift in their grant to help with some of the challenges that they are currently experiencing.
Siobhan Baillie
Very tiny. I have a number of youth groups in my patch, as no doubt all MPs have, that are trusted by youngsters and that have been there and built the relationships. How do the Youth Justice Board and youth offending teams work with the grassroots youth organisations?
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: If I start with our role as the Youth Justice Board, we work really closely with the voluntary and third-sector community. We have a regular stakeholder forum, where we come together with all of the voluntary sector to hear their voices and concerns, so that we can have effective oversight of the youth justice system.
At grassroots level, which you referred to with youth offending teams, local authorities can subcontract or co-commission services to the voluntary sector, although again we know that in latter years some of those organisations have not necessarily been able to sustain themselves. However, those services are really critical to understanding the context in which children are living: the services they need, and the services that are able to get alongside children and help them. We also have a youth-affiliated network in which we hear from children and hear their voices. They are often the go-to services when children are in crisis, are feeling vulnerable, or do not know what to do.
Alex Cunningham
Q
“In this Chapter—
“adult” means a person aged 16 or over”.
Given the wealth of evidence on maturity, do you think that the section and other provisions of the Bill that address sentencing 16 and 17-year-olds are appropriate?
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: I go back to my original answer in which we are clear that the age in law for children is up to 18. We absolutely promote a child-first youth justice system which means that children up to the age of 18 should get treated as children, as they are in law. The evidence base in the debate about maturity strongly suggests that brain development continues until the age of 25, and indeed some evidence shows that it may extend to 28 for males in particular. We would absolutely continue to champion the idea that children should be sentenced as children until their 18th birthday.
Alex Cunningham
Q
“There is no evidence that the threat of harsher custodial sentences deters children from offending, no evidence that contributes towards rehabilitation or promoting long-term positive outcomes. Meanwhile, there is abundant evidence that imprisonment is extremely harmful to children and disrupts their healthy long-term development.”
How do you think the changes to youth sentencing proposed in the Bill will impact reoffending rates?
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: A number of changes are presented, and I want to pick out some of those. We are broadly supportive of the proposals relating to youth rehabilitation orders. We are supportive of anything that prevents children from being drawn further into the youth justice system. That would include offering them greater support in the community, and making sure that they get their needs addressed. There is no evidence to show that punishment changes behaviour. What we know changes behaviour is pro-social identity, and giving children a positive image of themselves where they can build on their strengths, and aspire to contribute to our society and our economy. We are very clear that we would not want to see the Bill result in more children being pulled into the youth justice system, and indeed we would want to see children continuing to be referred into the services that rightly should be there to meet their needs and prevent them from offending, as we have seen in the last 20 years since the youth justice system was established.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: We really support the proposals and changes to remand. I will start with that point, if that is okay. We welcome the proposal that there be a statutory duty for the court to consider the child’s welfare and best interests when applying the prospect of custody test. We know that at the moment only a third of children in custody on remand go on to get a custodial sentence, which raises the issue of why so many children are being remanded in the first place. So we very much support the proposals around remand.
We particularly support the changes that would say that only a recent and significant history of a breach, or offending while on bail, would result in custodial remand. We recommend that those definitions be tightened or specified. We would recommend that “recent” refer to a six-week period, and “significant” refer to a situation where there is a potential to cause serious harm or injury. We are very supportive of measures that would reduce the number of children being drawn into the system, particularly into custody, so we support the recommendations around remand, but those measures in isolation will not reduce the number of children in custody. There still needs to be work in the community around appropriate accommodation for children, with holistic services that meet their needs. At the moment, there is a misalignment between the priorities of the criminal courts and available community provision for children’s social care accommodation.
We also think there is limited time to build an appropriate bail package. As we all know, there is more to do, although there is ongoing work around vulnerable children and reducing the likelihood of their being exploited.
We very much welcome the changes to the detention training orders, but some of them could result in an increase in the number of children in custody. It might be helpful if I talk through each of those changes. I am conscious of the time and that I am talking very fast, but I think those changes are quite significant. We welcome the fact that there will be more flexibility with their sentences, rather than the rigidity that we have now. However, there is a challenge that the fixed lengths mean that children may miss out on the opportunity to be enrolled in school, for training or for an apprenticeship.
We have some concerns that the findings of the impact assessment that the Government completed may mean that individuals making an early guilty plea may end up with longer sentences than they currently receive. While there would be no additional children’s sentence to detention training orders under this option, that would increase the capacity at any given point of the number of children in the secure estate. We have estimated that to be a potential 30 to 50 places, costing £5.3 million to £8.5 million per year.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: We would suggest that some of the changes may further disproportionately disadvantage black and mixed heritage boys—that is indicated in the impact assessment that is currently being completed. We would be very keen to work on some mitigating actions that might prevent those unintended consequences disproportionately affecting those children further.
Chris Philp
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: We would see the benefits very much related to the skills, experience and expertise that multi-academy trusts could bring into a secure school setting. As you may know, the secure estate is split into three different sections: secure training centres, secure children’s homes and young offenders institutions. The custodial element of those organisations is very strong and probably strongest in the YOIs and the STCs. The introduction of a very different model that accounts for children’s needs will not mean that they will not be secure; it will mean that they have a focus on education, mental health, and a trauma-informed approach to working with children who have complex needs, which is very much needed.
Chris Philp
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: Gosh. We could probably provide you with a significant amount of evidence on that and I would very much welcome the opportunity to do that in writing to the Committee.
We would suggest coming from the perspective of the child first and using the evidence base that has been developed recently, which focuses on children, their personal and social identity and their strengths, rather than being deficit-based. The evidence, which equally applies to adults, is that if you look for good and build on good, much more is achieved than if you tell people that they are no use and no good and cannot contribute to society.
We know that with children, the earlier we intervene, the better—early intervention and prevention, and targeting services upstream. That is a challenge for youth offending teams at the moment. They have statutory caseloads and trying to balance intervening earlier is really difficult. Some local authorities manage to do that better than others. There is a massive evidence base and we can share the evidence after the Committee today.
Chris Philp
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: We have been working really closely with the Ministry of Justice on the remand review. We are very keen to understand the data better and to have a look at the trends across the country. One of the things we would really welcome as, dare I say, an amendment to the Bill is for there to be a decision why bail is and is not granted. There is still a lack of evidence on what needs to change for more children to remain in the community, and we want to avoid perpetuating cycles of evidence.
You asked about what more we could do around the remand review. There is certainly something more we could do around trying to knit the system together better, through our heads of regions constantly having discussions with the sector around remand. We are doing quite a lot of work at the moment on developing alternative models for accommodation. We are working across London. We are investing in a pathfinder project to try to develop a different model for children, to prevent them being taken into the secure estate on remand.
Chris Philp
I think that covers everything I wanted to ask. Thank you for the work you are doing.
The Chair
If you do wish to furnish the Committee with further written evidence to support your comments, that would be most welcome. I think Mr Cunningham had a further question.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: As I understand it, the inspection framework for a secure school will be Ofsted, quite rightly, because it is a secure school rather than a prison. Of course, there is a role that HMIP might play in helping to share and disseminate best practice. As is the case when Ofsted does an inspection in the secure estate, HMIP is part of that broader inspection team. There is a role for it to share best practice as it sees and finds it.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Stephanie Roberts-Bibby: Some of the principal challenges come from the fact that services for children sit across everyone’s responsibility but no one’s responsibility. There is absolutely something about us continuing to reach out across the Government. We very much see joining services up as some of the leadership space that we are in and will continue to be in, so that children who are vulnerable to offending are seen and are not slipping through the gaps in service provision.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank you very much for your evidence today.
Examination of Witness
Derek Sweeting QC gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I am Derek Sweeting QC, chair of the Bar Council of England and Wales.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Two questions there. Would we support them? Yes, because open justice is a really important objective within the justice system. Will they work? There are obvious problems with managing hearings that are accessible over the internet, particularly in an age of social media when people know how to record things and take photographs and video online—that sort of thing. I think there are issues with how you police open justice and ensure that proceedings have the seriousness and gravity that they should have and that you do not get an abuse, particularly on social media, of the facility to be able to see things from afar. But generally I think it is a move in the right direction.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Yes. I think at the moment there are already dangers around jurors doing things that they should not through the internet and social media. They are given a very specific warning and written information about what they can and cannot do while they are serving on a jury. I think all of this must be considered with a lot of care. There are bits of court proceedings that I think should not be directly under the gaze of the camera and so on. So there is a lot of room for working out what the protocols are and how things work best.
On the general point, there is plainly a risk that we will have more occasions on which there could be potential contempts of court, but I do not think we can go backwards; we just have to manage these things as we have done with every technological step forward that impacts on the justice system.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Well, barristers never do that, of course. I think we are a long way off the American sort of proceedings that we sometimes see. That is perhaps slightly unfair to many American attorneys, who conduct their business with a lot of decorum, even under the gaze of the camera.
Mr Goodwill
Thank you. That was slightly tongue in cheek, although we do occasionally have barristers appearing at the Dispatch Box and I would not comment on their performance.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I think the first part of the question is: what technology have we got in place at the moment?
When the pandemic struck, and once we got back in particular to jury trials in the Crown court, we did see the roll-out of CVP—Cloud Video Platform—which very few of us knew was under development at the time. That was vital to allowing work to resume in many jurisdictions. We have also got a new system on the way, so the technology is improving all the time.
The second part of the question is really about how satisfactory is remote participation by the witness or others in court proceedings, and I think it really prompts the question, if we can do it, whether we should. That is the point—that fact that we can is not really a reason for necessarily doing it. I think it is absolutely clear that proceedings in future will probably involve a hybrid, with some witnesses attending remotely where that is appropriate. That has to be judicially managed. I think for some hearings it is pretty clear that everything could be done remotely, particularly administrative hearings. But in hearings that are serious in their nature because they will result in the final disposition of a case and so on, there is a much greater argument for ensuring that all of the participants and all of the evidence start on the basis that if evidence can be given in person, it should be. Thought should then be given to what is unnecessary to have in person and what could be dealt with remotely.
It is an area where we are finding our way. The Bar Council has just issued a statement with the Bars of the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and of course England and Wales, which I represent, which actually makes that point. It says that there are many aspects of a remote hearing that are not satisfactory, in the sense that they are not as good as having everybody in the room—the old model, where you get two teams together with a referee and you have an adversarial contest. But that model anyway is something that we need to think about as we go forward.
There is plainly a use for more remote, but I think the profession would like some guidance as to what the parameters are for when we should be remote, what the starting position is and when it is appropriate, and only appropriate, to be in person.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: The two types of conduct that you have just described are in themselves likely to be criminal offences, so there is nothing new about that. Has protest changed in its nature? I think we have certainly heard some evidence that, particularly with social media, the way in which protests can be arranged makes it much more difficult for them to be managed. I think there is some public concern about that. The measures contained in the Bill, particularly in relation to noise levels and serious disruption to and impact on persons in the vicinity, raise a legitimate question about whether it goes a bit too far, particularly in relation to what “significant” means and who has to take that decision on the ground. You ask whether things have changed, and I think you might look at this and say that almost every suffragette protest would have been caught by the proposed legislation.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I think it is a sensible measure. We welcome the fact that we have got a statutory maximum of 10 years. It was a Law Commission recommendation—clause 59 is what we are talking about. I think the only thing I would inject into the conversation around this is that the Law Commission report itself actually includes a defence of reasonableness, and that defence applies particularly to cases where the conduct is in an exercise of an article 10 or article 11 right to freedom of assembly or freedom of expression. Effectively, you might say that the Government seek to criminalise, on the basis of what the Law Commission’s report addressed, acts that the Law Commission itself thought would be caught by a reasonableness defence in relation to public protest and the exercise of important rights of freedom of expression or freedom of assembly.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I think it changes things, rather than adds, doesn’t it? In relation to memorials, we will now find ourselves in the Crown court rather than the magistrates court. It is important to acknowledge that approaching the issue of damage to memorials only on the basis of value, for example, really underplays the quite significant sentiment that attaches to particular memorials and ought to be recognised. However, magistrates already have the power to imprison in relation to the existing offences that would apply. It seems a little unnecessary, I would have thought, to say that all these offences need to be covered by an offence that means they have to be dealt with in the Crown court, with all the extra cost and time that that would entail, particularly in a jurisdiction that already suffers from a significant backlog.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I wonder whether the sledgehammer is being used for a nut here. I think you have to reflect public concern about attacks on memorials, but this may just flip the problem from something that perhaps does not provide enough in the way of sentencing options to a much more onerous and ponderous procedure to deal with something that can involve, for example, removing flowers from a memorial, which you would not have thought would be something that could not be dealt with by magistrates. One would anticipate a range of sentencing options within the summary jurisdiction and perhaps in the Crown court as well, but not the need to go off to the Crown court for all these offences.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: The answer is that we are probably likely to see longer sentences and more of them. I hope that does not sound too pessimistic, but that is the overall effect that you are asking me about. That is probably what we will see if the sentencing reforms are carried into effect, because to some extent they limit judicial discretion and extend the role of mandatory sentencing.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: You are adjusting the release point within a sentence that has already been passed by the court. I think there is an argument that it might make things more complex, but on the face of it, it seems to me to be something that may actually provide a little clarity within the existing sentencing regime.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Which one are you referring to?
Alex Cunningham
The provision about the changes to automatic release and referral to the Parole Board.
Derek Sweeting QC: I am not sure that we have commented on that, actually.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: The concerns around that are really that it is sensible to try to reduce the complexity of this area—I think the ambition is to reduce down to two—but I think the attachment of conditions to both of the cautions that are left, as a requirement, is not necessarily helpful. It would be useful to have something that was a more general tool that the police could use, that would not turn up in criminal records later on and so on, and that would give the police the option effectively just to give what is now the simple caution.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Yes. I think we have drawn attention to the fact that those are not in the Bill, so it would be sensible, we would have thought, to try to do that and to be a bit more ambitious around the youth justice points in the Bill.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: We do welcome, certainly, the British Sign Language proposal in the Bill. I think that, if anything, we were slightly surprised that there was not some consultation around it. There are jurisdictions in which this is a development and there is some learning about it; there is some practice as well. It involves, generally, two signers, so there is obviously a resource impact as well. This is not just about the interpretation of evidence; someone would go into the jury room when the jury retired. That is likely to require some additional training of signers, because it is a different role from just interpreting. Those are the sorts of things that we think might well have been covered by some consultation.
In fact, in a way, the opportunity was lost, by not consulting, to consider whether there are other categories of disability for which reasonable adjustments and accommodations might be made to enable people to serve on a jury, because it is an important civic duty and the wider the range of citizens who can undertake that duty, the better. So it is the right direction of travel, but we think the arrangements around it will obviously need some thought, some investment and some training for signers, and actually there might have been an opportunity to think a little larger about who else might benefit from similar adjustments or adjustments that are specific to their needs.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I hope it is not the case; I think it is once in a lifetime, as far as I am concerned. If I did not make the position clearer earlier, that was because we were really dealing with the general question of remote participation. I think, in the case of remote juries, that is an area where we do have significant concerns, and I think we would oppose the measure that is proposed in the Bill. The reason for that I think you have touched on already: this is not a measure that has been needed over the course of the present pandemic. It is said, I think, to be effectively a just-in-case measure, an emergency measure, but it is wholly unclear what the circumstances would be in which the measure would be required or executed—put into effect. So I think we do have concerns about that.
Fundamentally altering the character of a jury trial by, as the Lord Chief put it, having the jury as spectators rather than participants, which is certainly the view he was expressing about what the impact of remote juries would be—changing it in that way is a very significant change to a very important part of our justice system, a bit of the justice system that really has public confidence, and that we know from the research really recognises diversity and does not produce outcomes that are unfair. I think we need to be very careful and cautious about making significant changes. I think, if we are going to have a measure, it should not be a measure on which we say, “Oh well, there might be a need for it at some point.” If the point arises, it would be much better to consider itin the circumstances of any future emergency, if it occurs. We certainly would not like to see remote juries deployed outside of emergency conditions. There does not seem to be any reason to do that. There is no research about that and no evaluation of the effect on outcomes of having a remote jury. Even in Scotland, where it has been trialled during the pandemic, with much larger juries of 15, it is yet to be evaluated.
We would suggest that it ought to be approached with a lot of caution. It is not a measure that is needed; we can wait until it is needed. Equally, as I think is acknowledged, the technology is only barely there. Again, we ought to wait until the technology can be factored into the mix to consider whether it is a good idea.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Those who are vulnerable; young defendants and those who may find it difficult to follow proceedings if they are held remotely, who may need particular access to their counsel, which is much more difficult if you are dealing with things remotely. There is a raft of problems that you may encounter when you physically separate the defendant from the trial process.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: In the end, it will have to be managed judicially. I am not sure that we need to hem in the exercise of discretion in relation to that. There are already provisions in relation to what the judge must take into account when considering whether there should be remote participation. They are very difficult to apply to juries, by the way, but if they are followed, we will find that they involve a significant number of safeguards for the fair conduct of proceedings.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Yes, I think my point was really about the suggestion that the statutory offence—these are the words—is to cover the same conduct as the existing common law offence of public nuisance but, yes, you are right that there is an offence of that sort in there.
Chris Philp
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Two questions. Is it more convenient? Certainly, during the pandemic it has been important to have a method of holding hearings when we have to socially distance. Under the circumstances of the pandemic, it was vital. Remote hearings have enabled the family jurisdiction in particular to keep on working from the word go—it never stopped. Using technology in those circumstances in remote hearings was extremely helpful. It was certainly convenient during the pandemic.
Is it convenient for everyone? During the pandemic itself, we had some opposing views. Counsel certainly found it convenient, but one or two participants in family proceedings publicly said that they felt detachment from the proceeding. We have to recognise that there are reasons for being cautious about making the assumption that if it is convenient for legal professionals and judges, it is also necessarily a good experience for users. Certainly, there are whole categories of users for whom, if they cannot get to court or if they have mobility problems, the ability to have a hearing remotely is going to be valuable. Of course, we have been in a big laboratory, and we have tested a lot of these things in a way that we that we would not have been able to do in the decades before the pandemic. We need to take forward the best of remote and carry on using it.
Are there disadvantages? Yes, I think there are. There are experiences that we have all heard about, which are salutary and should make us be cautious about just assuming that we can always do things as well if we are doing them remotely.
Chris Philp
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: I am not sure that is right. The point that I was making is that the proposed amendment is to the mode of trial for a limited class of offences of criminal damage. That is the effect of the amendment. It removes the power for an offence involving a memorial to be tried in the magistrates court, however small the value of any damage. That was the point I was making earlier. I was really being asked whether that is a proportionate measure, and the point I was making is that there are some offences involving memorials where one would have thought that the magistrates’ powers are perfectly adequate, and it is not proportionate to require that matter to go to the Crown court.
Chris Philp
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: Well, there might be, but equally there might be cases where it is wholly unnecessary to go to the Crown court. Since the definition of “memorial” extends to moveable items, removing a bunch of flowers from a memorial amounts to the offence. It is difficult to see why that merits a trip to the Crown court. It is well within the magistrate’s existing sentencing.
Chris Philp
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: My understanding that a mode of trial change is being contemplated under part 2.
Chris Philp
Q
Derek Sweeting QC: There are obviously circumstances in which minimum sentences can be used. It is a matter for Parliament. You have to reflect on public disquiet and the need to make sure there is a sentencing regime that reflects the seriousness of offences. The general position is that if you have minimum mandatory sentences, you inevitably tie the hands of the judge to some extent. If you carry on extending that, you are making potentially significant inroads into judicial discretion. The lesson of sentencing is that cases generally need individual sentences because there are very complex differences between them. You were just making the point about judges having discretion to sentence according to the gravity and nature of the crime.
The Chair
Does anyone else have any further questions? I cannot see anyone. In that case, Mr Sweeting, thank you very much for your evidence to the Committee. I thank all witnesses who gave evidence today to the Committee. That brings us to the end of our oral evidence session for today. The Committee will meet again on Thursday to take further evidence. We will meet in this room at 11.30 am.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Tom Pursglove.)
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 20th May 2021
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPolice, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 May 2021 - (20 May 2021)
The Chair
I remind hon. Members to observe physical distancing. They should sit only in the places that are clearly marked, and it is important that Members find their seats and leave the room promptly to avoid delays for other Members and staff. Members should wear face coverings in Committee unless they are speaking or medically exempt. Finally, questions to witnesses should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and we must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee agreed on Tuesday—we have plenty witnesses and only a finite amount of time. There is one other issue: we have some problems with the cameras, so we can see and hear the witnesses, and they can hear us, but they cannot see us.
We will now discuss the lines of questioning to this morning’s witnesses before we start the session in public.
The Chair
I call the first panel of witnesses. Campbell Robb is the chief executive of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, and Helen Berresford is the director of external engagement for that organisation, so we have two from NACRO. Sam Doohan is policy officer at Unlock. I would like each witness to introduce themselves very quickly so we can crack on with questioning.
Campbell Robb: I am Campbell Robb, chief executive of NACRO for the last two years. I am really pleased to be here—thank you for the invitation.
Helen Berresford: I am Helen Berresford, director of external engagement at NACRO. Thank you.
Sam Doohan: Hi, I am Sam Doohan, and I work for Unlock. We are a charity that focuses on the challenges of people with criminal records.
The Chair
Great. It is nice that we can hear you in the ether. We cannot actually see you either now, so you cannot see us and we cannot see you. We would quite like to see the witnesses if that can be organised. Who would like to ask the first question? I call Sarah Champion.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Q
Sam Doohan: There are some things in the Bill that will help to some degree, but there are some omissions. A good deal of the youth offending regime, with regard to criminal records, will stay the same. Larger changes in the Bill, particularly around cautions, are not being made for young offenders, so they will face the same regime as now and will not receive any benefit.
Another critical omission is that once the Bill passes it will still technically be possible for someone to commit a crime as a child, be convicted after they turn 18 and then receive a criminal record as if they had committed the crime as an adult. We are very keen to see some change to that. We firmly believe that we should stick to the principle that young people deserve not only a second chance but special treatment and consideration.
Helen Berresford: While there are some things in the Bill that we welcome in terms of young people—for example, the changes to remand, which will make a really big difference to what has been an ongoing issue for a while—we have a number of concerns about some of the proposals, which will likely increase the number of children and young people in custody and the time they spend in custody, with no evidence of the impact that that will have on either reducing crime or reducing reoffending. We have seen significant progress over recent years with the decrease in the numbers of children being sent into custody. That has been a really positive story, but we are very concerned that a number of the proposals in this Bill will reverse that and increase the number.
Sarah Champion
Q
Helen Berresford: Some of the proposals will increase the sentencing, such as some of the proposals around sentence length and the starting tariffs for murder, for example, and some have implications for increasing the numbers, such as the changes to detention training orders. There are a number of different proposals that will likely increase the numbers of children and young people going into custody.
Campbell Robb: I would add that, overall, some of the welcome things around problem-solving courts and some of those things could be extended into the youth, and we need to see more of that. I would like to see some more discussion during the passage of the Bill about some of the non-custodial approaches that could be introduced in the youth estate, as well as in the adult estate.
Sarah Champion
Q
Sam Doohan: To a large degree, Unlock would say that we are happy with the direction of travel, but we do not think that the Bill in its present form goes far enough. There is something of a split in the criminal records regime, essentially between those who go to prison and those who do not, and we are happy to see that the majority of people who do go to prison will see reduced spending periods for their convictions. However, we are still quite unhappy to see that some people will still disclose for life. We believe that needs quite close attention paid to it.
Further down the regime, even when we talk about what in the grander scheme of things we might think of as quite minor offences, the criminal spending regime around road traffic offences, and speeding in particular, is radically out of step with everything else in the rest of the spending regime. People end up having to disclose, say, a speeding ticket for five years, which is longer than if they had gone to prison for a year. We think that not only does this need to change and be brought into step, but that on the whole we should emphasise not only faster spending but fewer situations in which people legally have to disclose, and a higher standard of demonstrable need to discriminate on the basis of a criminal record.
Helen Berresford: We would very much agree with that. At Nacro, we run a criminal records support service, and we receive thousands of inquiries every year from individuals who are trying, and often struggling, to navigate a very complex system. We very much welcome the direction of travel and the proposals in the Bill to reduce that burden, which is also felt by employers. That is a really important part of this: lots of the employers who we support struggle to navigate the system themselves, and that can lead to them being more risk-averse when it comes to employing people with criminal records.
I agree completely with what Sam said. There are some anomalies and outliers here, and this Bill is a real opportunity to deal with them. Motoring convictions is a great example of that, and I think that can be fairly easily dealt with. There are a couple of other points that come up in this Bill, such as the new out-of-court disposals and the diversionary caution. A simple caution previously did not have a disclosure period, and I think putting one in only increases barriers, which is contrary to the Government’s direction of travel. I think there are some real opportunities to go further and tidy that up, but we very much welcome the direction.
Campbell Robb: I have nothing to add—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Sorry, Mr Robb, we did not hear that because we have a bell going off in our ears. Could you repeat that?
Campbell Robb: I hear the bell ringing. I was just agreeing with both of them; I have nothing to add.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Have we got the balance right? To what extent is an employer entitled to know somebody’s criminal history? Can we do more to work with employers to get them to understand? Companies such as Timpson, for example, have been very good at taking on people who have criminal pasts, and rehabilitating them. Does the Bill move in the right direction on this? Does it protect employers from potential criminal activity from employees and does it make it easier for people to get into work?
Sam Doohan: The direction of travel is certainly positive. At the same time, we do not think the balance is right yet in the overall rationale for employers at the basic level, who are not obliged to ask for a criminal history and have a free choice whether they do or not. The fact that employers can ask because they are nosy is not fair to applicants at any level.
A 2001 study commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions said that a lot of the problems around employers asking come from the recruiter and the person who chooses to ask. The study broke that down across several categories, including age and position within a company. There are various factors that make people more willing to ask and more willing to discriminate if people disclose a criminal past.
Another factor that came out from that was that employers would, if given scope to do so, claim that just about any job you can imagine had some tangential relationship to someone’s previous criminal history. Perhaps in a very loose sense, that could be argued to be true, but we see driving convictions being held against people in jobs that do not involve driving, or people with a driving ban, who cannot legally drive, having that conviction held against them for pushing trolleys in the car park in Asda. There is some rationale in allowing employers to ask, but we do not think the balance is there yet. It is being used just to discriminate.
Helen Berresford: The balance point is a really important one. We work with employers as well, and understanding their needs is a really important part of that. For a lot of the employers we have supported, it is about transparency and knowing what they can ask and understanding that point. The system is so complex and arbitrary at the minute, and the transparency is not there, so the faith and trust in the system are not automatically there. We have to get to a point where it is transparent, easy to navigate and much simpler.
Sam’s point about motoring convictions is absolutely right. We have supported people who have had job offers withdrawn because an employer has come across their motoring conviction, which has absolutely nothing to do with the job that they would be doing. It is about relevance for the job. That is a really important factor.
Campbell Robb: As both my colleagues have said, this is a step in the right direction. There is more we would like to see in the Bill. The other point is that, when we get through this, whatever the new regulations are, the Government, working with ourselves and employers, need to really think through how we talk about this. We need to run campaigns and explain to employers and work with businesses and business organisations, so that we do not just all talk about Timpson—which is brilliant at this and does a very good job, but we want to have dozens of organisations. We know they want to do more in this space, but feel put off and worried by the complexity that comes with it. We would like to see a bit more in the Bill, but we also want to work afterwards with the Government and employers to make the measures work better.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Campbell Robb: We work every day with thousands of people who are coming out of prison, trying to settle them. We work with employers across the country to find either permanent or short-term opportunities. Criminal records are just one barrier to many people who are trying to get work when they come out of prison. It is about training and education, rehabilitation in prison and what is available then, and suitable accommodation. There is whole range of factors.
The new changes to the probation system, which I know the Justice Committee has looked at recently, are hopefully opening up some opportunities for all of us who work in this space, to provide a more rounded service. These changes to criminal records will help a bit, but they will make a big difference if we can go just that bit further.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Q
Campbell Robb: It is simple: the answer is yes. The commitment in the Bill to community sentences, treatment requirements and problem-solving courts is a real step in the right direction for non-custodial, rounded approaches to sentencing and rehabilitation. When we work with problem-solving courts in the areas that have them, our experience is that they do work. We need to provide that rounded approach to non-custodial sentences, which is to do with treatment, problem solving, a good probation service, training and development. In short, the answer is yes. These are a good thing. We would like to see more of them. The evidence is generally positive, both for pathways out of addiction and into employment, and for reducing reoffending. We look forward to working with whoever is providing them to really get that.
The second thing to add is about better awareness among judges about the success of these courts and how to use them. When the Bill is passed, how do the Government intend to work with the judiciary and other providers to make sure problem-solving courts become more available and better used?
Maria Eagle
Q
Sam Doohan: While we talk about the further end of the criminal justice system, rather than the sentencing part of it, one thing that we see as being particularly positive about problem-solving courts is that while, yes, they are potentially more expensive up front, they have a much stronger ability to head off reoffending, which saves money further down the road in potential future court cases and prison sentences.
We see it as a false economy to say that problem-solving courts cost more in the immediate term. The Government’s White Paper, which led to this Bill, put the cost of reoffending at something like £18 billion—a huge amount of money. For relatively low-level offences that, in the grand scheme of things, are typically associated with reoffending over a more protracted period, if there is no intervention, that extra money is well worth it. We just have to invest it up front and make sure that the solutions actually work.
Maria Eagle
Q
Sam Doohan: Certainly, in the present climate, we would probably see a pilot as a political necessity. However, we would expect a pilot to be very positive. We see no reason why it would not be. It would be nice if we could make them happen tomorrow—have ring-fenced funding and have some long-term commitment to them—but if it takes a year or two years to prove the point and make them a permanent fixture of the justice system, that would be more positive in the long run.
Maria Eagle
Q
Campbell Robb: The evidence from the Bill suggests that most of the approach in it will lead to longer sentences and people in prison for longer. It is also disappointing that there is nothing in the Bill that tackles the issue of the 30,000 short sentences of under six months that are given out every year, which cause significant damage to the individuals involved. We understand the desire of the Government to meet what it feels is the public’s desire to see longer tariffs for some crimes. However, we could have done so much more, particularly on short sentences, to really think through who is ending up in prison, why and for how long.
Maria Eagle
Q
Campbell Robb: I misunderstood, sorry. On treatment orders and the others types of things that we have just been talking about, if they are too harsh or too difficult to pass, or if people have been set up to fail, there is a danger within those that if they are not done properly with the individual and they do not understand the consequences of what they are doing, people could end up back in prison for failing on a relatively minor breach of a treatment order. It is hard to say there is evidence of that, but there is some concern that that might be the case. I hope that answers your question.
The Chair
I will bring in the Front Benchers in three minutes. Mr Dorans, do you want to ask a question?
The Chair
Are all the Back Benchers content and happy? Mr Levy, I did not see you hiding behind the Perspex. You have three minutes before I bring in the Front Benchers.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Q
Campbell Robb: Central is the answer. We as an organisation have been working in this space for nearly 50 years, and we feel that the partnership between the new probation service and organisations such as ours, both locally and nationally, is absolutely essential. We need local partnerships in sentencing and pre-sentencing, and in problem-solving courts and the treatment centres. Local charities and national charities should be working together with the statutory services, providing a wraparound—ideally, to stop people offending in the first place.
When people first hit the criminal justice system, we need to bring in organisations such as ours and others in order to be able to work with people and to keep them out of it through education, training and apprenticeships that we can offer at a whole range of levels. When they are in the system, it is about making sure that they get out as soon as possible, and that they get the rehabilitation and education they need when they are in it. Charities are definitely a part of the process, and we would want to see relationships between charities supporting this work.
Ian Levy
Yes, if we have time.
Sam Doohan: I would certainly say that there will continue to be, and there should continue to be, a strong partnership between Government and the charitable sector, but it should also be clear in Parliament’s mind that Government services for probation, youths and all manner of things should not take as read that the charitable can fill in any shortfall. It is important that we work together—we can make more of a difference together than we can separately—but things such as, for example, informing employers about criminal records and the risks associated with hiring someone who has a criminal record, which is the single biggest piece of information that changes an employer’s mind about whether to hire people, are at the moment done almost exclusively by the charitable sector. We are happy to do that work—it needs to be done and it is important—but having more resource and focus from the Government to ensure that message gets out far and wide would be extremely valuable on a number of levels.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Q
Helen Berresford: I am happy to go first. You are right that we are concerned about the disclosure period. One of the other points that I would raise is that obviously the new proposal is for two tiers—a diversionary caution and a community caution. One of the things that we would really like to see from this is a growing use of out-of-court disposals to keep people out of the formal justice system, which we know has a positive impact. The more we can use them, the better. What we do not want to see with this new approach is more people being given the upper-tier caution as a result of it being two tier. We want to see more people coming into out-of-court disposals more broadly. We need to be aware of the risk of more people having the one that has more conditions attached to it, which makes it more difficult.
The second point is very much about the disclosure period. If we take the disclosure period out, we have much more of a chance to use out-of-court disposals in a positive way that does not put up additional barriers and gives people the chance to move on and not to get engaged with the formal justice system.
Sam Doohan: I entirely agree with Helen about the disclosure periods for the new upper-tier caution. That is certainly a problem; I will not re-tread that entirely. One of the other concerns that we have about the new cautions is that now, at least in the adult regime, there will only be conditional cautions, which require a fairly in-depth process of paperwork to set and monitor conditions and ensure compliance. There is now no other caution option available. Those cautions will be delivered largely on an individual officer level and by individual forces.
As a result, forces will be much more hesitant to use a caution. Whereas in the past, they might have been quite content to give a simple caution and send someone on their way with a formal warning or reprimand, now the force in question will have to take on the burden of monitoring, compliance and potentially re-arresting someone if they breach conditions. They will be forced either to go above the caution and see more cases through to prosecution, even though it would not necessarily be in the public interest to do so, or not to take action at all.
As we know with the criminal justice system as a whole, when we start having these slightly weighted decisions about who falls into what tier of disposal, those who are from disadvantaged backgrounds, along the lines of race and religion, almost universally fall into the harsher end, and those who are not do not. We are creating a system that incentivises busy working police officers to say, “Actually, I am going to make this the CPS’s problem, not mine, and I have the choice of who to do it to.” Is that going to lead to good criminal justice outcomes? We think it may not. We do not know yet—I stress that—because it has not been studied, but it does have the characteristics of a system that will not have the desired outcomes.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Campbell Robb: We do have that concern. The Government’s own impact assessment suggests that that might be the case, and that it was in the public interest to continue. We know that, at every stage, young BAME youths, in particular, are disproportionately likely to be stopped and searched, and to end up in the system in different ways. We do have that concern. We would like to see more evidence used to understand what the impact of the proposals might be. We know from previous proposals and reports, such as David Lammy’s, that the system is not working in the way that it could, and there is nothing in the Bill that will positively change that. We urge the Government to think about whether there is more that we could do on that through the passage of the Bill.
Sam Doohan: One important thing to keep an eye on is that the out-of-court disposal family is one that requires co-operation from the person who is receiving the disposal. That is fine if you have a community that is reasonably homogenous and where there is no tension with the police, because people are much more likely to co-operate. They may not see the police as being friendly, but they at least understand the interaction better.
Where there is less community cohesion and there are people from all manner of underprivileged backgrounds who historically do not have good relationships with the police and are less likely to be co-operative, that again puts us in a situation where the out-of-court disposals and their relatively lesser impact on someone throughout the rest of their life will end up going to people from relatively more privileged backgrounds, and those who end up being prosecuted and receiving full convictions will be people from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Helen Berresford: No, I think that is right. Sam has just explained that very well. I think that there is a risk. We can see across a number of the proposals and, as Campbell said, the Government’s impact assessment the impact on people from black and minority ethnic communities. Out-of-court disposals are a good case in point in terms of how we ensure that they do not discriminate. We can see it at every stage. We need to be looking at how we reduce the disproportionality in the justice system, and what actions we can take to do that. We can see that some of these proposals do the opposite.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Helen Berresford: We know from the evidence that community orders are more effective in reducing reoffending than short prison sentences, which are ineffective at doing that. We want to see much better use of community sentences where they are more effective. Community sentence treatment requirements are a really good example of how we can do that, ensuring that we also put in the drug treatments and mental health support that are needed alongside it. That is really important.
A lot of these orders have the potential sanction of being sent to prison if breached. We do not support that as a way forward. We do not think that that is effective. If a community sentence is not working, we already know that a short prison sentence is less effective, so it does not make sense that that is the penalty. There is evidence to show that continuing the support in the community, to ensure that we are actually dealing with the issues, is more effective. It is about ensuring that community sentences are not setting people up to fail, and that the conditions around them try to help with their different needs, such as alcohol and drug treatment, mental health treatment, and homelessness. All those different parts need to be addressed. That is where the focus is.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Sam Doohan: The one thing that needs to be considered with community orders and criminal records is that when a community order is given alongside another disposal and it becomes an ancillary order we have to be very careful about how long we set the orders for. At present, the full conviction does not become spent until the full ancillary order is completed or ended by the court. A lot of orders are given for three years or five years. Some are given for life. We need to be aware of that, so that we are using orders in a proportionate way that matches the intention of them. They should not be given out simply as a five-year ban from this location, say, which will in fact end up with someone taking six years before what is probably a relatively minor conviction is taken off their record.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Campbell Robb: It is one part. To isolate it solely as being effective on its own is not something— It can be a very useful method of keeping people out of prison, but it has to be wrapped around the probationary offer and the other offers available to the individual, so that they have meaningful engagement, either through unpaid work or training or development, and are in stable, suitable accommodation, so that they are not moving all the time. So, in and of itself, it can add some benefit, but it cannot be taken as a single thing.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
Q
May I start with problem-solving courts? Clearly, as with so many things, it is important that the implementation is right; there are some things that work and some things that do not. Can you give your views on the things that have worked and the things that have not worked in problem-solving courts that we have tried in the past—I think there was one in Merseyside a few years ago—and the lessons that we might learn from problem-solving courts in the US, as we design and implement the pilot?
Helen Berresford: This is not something that we have significant expertise in at Nacro, in terms of learning from previous pilots. With any of these things, we have to understand, as you say, what has worked and what has not worked.
The point that we made earlier about the role of building judicial confidence, which was picked up on, is a really important one, and that confidence has to be central to problem-solving courts as we roll them out. Getting the right people involved and the right support functions is important. One of the important purposes—is it not?—of problem-solving courts is that you bring the right people into the discussions and keep them engaged.
I will just refer, for example, to community sentence treatment requirements. We know from our experience of what we have seen that engaging with the judiciary in that process has a really positive impact. That is one of the things we have seen and that we would like to see much more of in the roll-out of CSTRs, and I would say the same for problem-solving courts.
Sam Doohan: In addition to building interest and engagement in the judiciary, one of the other issues is also building interest and engagement among the local population. The courts need to be credible, both to offenders and to the local population. That is probably the biggest step that needs to be taken. If local people think that someone will effectively get just a slap on the wrist and that the problem-solving court does not solve the problem, they will not bother reporting minor crimes and, to some degree, neither will the police. It is very important that that credibility takes centre stage and that the whole process has some faith that its measures will actually be successful.
Chris Philp
Q
First of all, do you share that analysis, particularly where a CSTR might be an alternative to a short sentence? If you do share that analysis, what do you think we can do to encourage the wider use of CSTRs, in addition to the extra money for the actual treatment that is being provided at the moment? I ask that because I would like to see them being used a lot more.
Campbell Robb: Yes, we would too, and I think the evidence suggests that when they are used properly they can have a significant effect, on both the addiction or the mental health issues that people are suffering from, and ultimately—we think in previous studies, but not recently—potentially on reoffending. So we are very supportive of them.
I think that, as you would expect us to say, they need to be part of a wider network that is available, ranging from wider drug treatment services, through the NHS and other public health bodies, to job opportunities. They are part of a holistic approach—part of a whole series of interventions that can help people.
On their use as an alternative to sentencing, we could not agree more. That is the work that Nacro does every day, with hundreds of people across the country. If we can use them to help support people through their mental health issues, or drug and alcohol issues, and keep them out of the criminal justice system, then absolutely; we could not agree more. We are very supportive and would want to work alongside to get more of them up and running as soon as possible.
I agree that having the judiciary, as well as the public, see them as a viable alternative is something we all need to work on once the Bill becomes an Act, so that we really get that buy-in and momentum behind them so that they can be used more widely.
Helen Berresford: We have seen an increase in their usage in the test sites. The only point I would add, without repeating my earlier comment, is that building judicial confidence will be an important part of this. That is a really important thing to learn from. Continually evaluating and learning as we roll these out will be really important, learning where they have worked and where they have not. If we can build that in, I think there is a really positive role for community sentence treatment requirements.
Sam Doohan: There is also an issue with building faith with offenders and the people who will potentially receive treatment. One of the concerns that we hear with these kinds of disposals is that people are worried that their criminal record will show that they have been in drug treatment or mental health treatment. In general, although not in the absolute, that is not a problem, because it will not show up and they will not have to disclose it. But people do not know that and they do not necessarily have a great deal of faith that it will not show up three, four or five years later, when they have turned their life around.
I mention that in particular because a DWP study from 2010, I think, found that the only group who, in employment terms, were discriminated against on a par with people with convictions were alcoholics and drug users. Therefore, ensuring that people understand the full ramifications of co-operating with a drug treatment programme—that it will be private, to a large degree, and that it will give them the opportunity to move on positively afterwards—would go a long way.
Chris Philp
Q
Helen Berresford: Our preference—and yours too, I hear—is very much about looking at community sentences, where they are more effective. If there is an option of custody, I think we really need to build that in as an absolute last resort, and it is worth looking at how we can ensure that is the case. Certainly, on a broader point, in the past we have seen increases in recall to prison, and in some cases people have been recalled for very minor breaches of their conditions, and nothing to do with committing a crime. It is really important that we ensure that is not what we are doing. If there is a condition about prison as a last resort, we have to make sure that it is for a very significant reason and that it is truly a last resort.
Chris Philp
Q
Sam Doohan: Broadly speaking, statutory minimums cause problems. The reduction of judicial discretion means that cases cease to be individual and start to be set by central Government policy. Although it can be argued either way, depending on your taste, were we to follow an American model, where if you get three strikes and then a very long prison sentence for a relatively minor crime, under the current British criminal records system that would almost certainly be disclosed for life, and it would not just be a fairly stiff sentence for repeat offending; it would become a life sentence immediately. That is something always to be aware of when thinking about where we set not just sentencing guidelines, but sentencing minimums in particular. If the judge thinks that six months is appropriate, we should not be the ones to argue with that.
Campbell Robb: We agree that judicial discretion is paramount. We think that is a very, very important consideration. For any changes, it is important to be aware of that and to have an urgent space to see what impact those minimum sentences are having across the piece, in terms of numbers, time and then rehabilitation.
The Chair
I thank our three witnesses for a very strong performance and for answering the questions so fully—it is much appreciated.
Examination of witnesses
Dame Vera Baird, QC, gave evidence.
The Chair
We now move on to our second session. We have Dame Vera Baird, the Victims’ Commissioner. Dame Vera, could you introduce yourself for the record, please? Not that you need a great deal of introduction, as you were formerly of this parish, but just for the record.
Dame Vera Baird: Good morning. I am Vera Baird, the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales. I hope you are receiving me. Over.
The Chair
Excellent. We are receiving you—brilliant. I am not sure if you can see us yet, but we can certainly see you. I call Mr Goodwill.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Dame Vera Baird: Thank you very much, Mr Goodwill. It is very good to see you again—we were next-door neighbours at one time, constituency-wise.
I will focus on the digital download point, because it is extremely key. Clause 36 in the Bill is very problematic. We have done some considerable work on it, which I would like to mention. First, let me compliment the Home Office team who drafted it and who approached us to ask what we thought of it. Let me explain that I fully understand, as I guess the Committee does, that the purpose of clause 36 is different from the area Mr Goodwill has just rehearsed.
I understand from Mr De Meyer, who is the NPCC police officer I have mostly been talking to about this, that people say to the police, “Someone is harassing me” or “Someone sent me this. Look at my phone—there is the evidence.” The police are worried that if they take the phone, they might be in breach of the investigatory powers legislation, so they are seeking a statutory power to take a phone off somebody who is voluntarily giving it up. That was good to understand—that is fine—but the power as set out at the moment does not contain any protections for the complainants who are in the position that Mr Goodwill has mentioned.
If I may, I will briefly rehearse the position as it is seen from the victim’s point of view. If you look at a Rape Crisis survey 18 months ago, or if you talk daily to ISVAs, you will find that the view is that on the ground it is practically routine for rape and sexual assault complainants to be asked to hand over digital devices, and for most of the material on it to be trawled, so far as they are aware. Apparently, according to my network of stakeholders, the CPS frequently seeks a level of material straight away, before it charges, and if a complainant refuses, the case just does not get considered for charge. That is very, very troubling, and it has a chilling effect not only on current victims, but on reporting, and it could impact victim attrition.
We did an analysis of a data set showing that one in five victims withdrew their complaint of rape at least in part due to disclosure concerns. Home Office data shows an increase of rape complainants withdrawing pre-charge, and it is right to say that many senior police officers, including Mr De Meyer, accept that there has been a big blow to the confidence of the public in the police because of the whole issue of digital data.
In my own former area—I was the PCC in Northumbria until not quite two years ago—the Home Office funded a pilot of independent legal advice for rape complainants dealing with digital download. That pilot disclosed that about 50% of the requests for digital download of rape complainants’ devices were not necessary or proportionate. Of course, we must take some comfort from the fact that that means the other 50% were, and my understanding is that this pilot worked well. It was praised by 23 of the 25 professionals involved in it because it also speeded matters up: where there was a legitimate request for a particular section of the contents of the device, the independent legal advisor was able to get to grips with its reasonableness and advise if it was reasonable, and it was then very quickly accepted. None the less, 50% of requests were not in that category, and we do know that it influences people about reporting rape when they fear that not only their own personal data, but the data of everybody else who is on their phone—their little brother, their sister, their mother, anyone they may confide in—will also have to be disclosed.
The last three points that I really want to emphasise to let you appreciate the seriousness of this problem are that in 2020, the Information Commissioner published a report about exactly this, and outlined a series of ways in which the police were not complying in a number of respects with data protection legislation. The gateway for consent was one of the concerns, and there was an internal report by the CPS two years ago, which found that 60% of its requests for digital download were over-intrusive and not necessary. A little bit later, HMCPSI found about 40% were in the same category. The police have now done a lot of work to try to shift policy backwards, and this new power—which has no obvious nod, even, in the direction of the protection of complainants—came out of the blue from a different Department of the Home Office, and has absolutely none of the protections that, in policy terms, the police have been looking towards for quite some time.
We have the ICO, the Home Office and the National Police Chiefs’ Council all meeting with us, and we are very pleased with that. We asked whether we can draft some amendments to this that will safeguard the protection the police need, but will also offer protections for complainants when the power is used for this—as it will be, of course. In a very lightning run through them, there is no definition of agreement. What it says is that an authorised person can take information from a device if it has been voluntarily provided and there is agreement to give the stuff, but there is no definition of agreement, and we know very well—as I have just recited—that often, there is a sort of implicit threat that if you do not, that is the end of the story. We defined agreement in a fairly obvious way—fully informed and freely given. There is no requirement at all for the police to specify the nature of the material, let alone the actual material, that they want to look for. It is just all or nothing: you agree or you do not agree. A big concern is that although it is described as information that needs to be relevant if it is being sought, it does not make reference to the very important turn of phrase in the legislation, which is a “reasonable line of inquiry”. It is much broader.
We therefore drafted some amendments that dealt with all of those points and a number more, and we offered them to the Home Office team. I am very pleased to say that the National Police Chiefs’ Council accepted them, and felt that they fulfilled all the requirements that it had and offered some excellent protections. I am very pleased to say that the Information Commissioner’s Office, although it is happy with the code of practice going way beyond this legislation, also accepted them. The Home Office did not. When we tried to probe why, the answer came:
“While the NPCC indicated they were content with your drafted provisions, they have also said they were similarly supportive of the draft we prepared. We incorporated their operational perspective…with the views of our technical and legal experts”.
Mr Goodwill
I think we probably need to move on, because other colleagues want to get in.
The Chair
I think we have to move on now. It is not that this is not important. It is hugely important, but you have asked one question and there was a 10-minute response. We have three colleagues. We cannot do that again. I call Mr Dorans.
Allan Dorans
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I do not think that it does go far enough. Sentencing is not a territory that I want to get into particularly because victims’ views are very different about sentencing. It is by no means the case that everybody who is a victim of crime wants extremely heavy sentencing. There was a piece of research recently by RoadPeace that shows that they are not particularly strongly supportive of the increased sentences for driving offences, and would prefer driving bans rather than what they see as people who have driven dangerously but are not dangerous people being locked up in prison for a long time. They feel that long sentences may deter charging or jury verdicts.
Victims, just like everyone else, are a mixed bag, but what they want very much is to be treated decently by all the criminal justice agencies; to have adequate support and courteous engagement; to be kept up to date; to have all the entitlements when they come to court that will help them to give their evidence well; and to be supported right through, including after the sentence, going into the time when someone is serving their sentence—keeping them up to date about what is happening so that they might then more easily accept what happens when the individual comes out.
That whole procedural justice—what works for victims—is absolutely key. It does start to appear quite well in the new victims’ code of practice, but certainly that code of practice, which is about the sixth version of it that we have had, must be implemented, when the others have not been. There is nothing in the legislation here to help with that. The victims’ law is coming down the line and I hope that we can do more for victims in that.
Apologies for taking a long time about digital download. I meant simply to end by saying that all the problems that we have experienced can be solved by the drafts that we have prepared, which have been accepted by everyone but the Home Office. I urge the Minister in charge to look at that again.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I agree. I wonder whether the problem starts with the victim contact scheme and whether we are not embracing enough people into it. We have done some really good work with HMPPS about that. They are moving to a much stronger invitation to join the victim contact scheme and are offering all sorts of ways to do it, even after the event. That would put people in a position where their statement would be taken, and it would be read.
In fact, during the course of the pandemic, a lot of victims have gone online and read their statement to the parole board. The number of victims who have done that has gone up, and we think the online provision—giving satisfactory remoteness to an individual from a prisoner, but none the less communicating what is good—is probably a good model for the future, but it is imperative that that opportunity is given to victims.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dame Vera Baird: In essence, yes, I do. We have just done a report about special measures, Ms Champion, and it would be good if you looked at it. The problem starts with the fact that the needs assessment is not done clearly by a single agency. It is all across the CPS, witness care units and the police. We have said that it should be in the witness care units. It should be done in a professional and thorough way with them co-ordinating it.
Then there is the real problem that the range of special measures, and the one that might suit you as a witness, are not always available and are not always offered even if they are available. There is a risk of some sort of court culture limiting the choice when the intention is that the best evidence should be given for the benefit both of the complainant, to cut the tension, and of the criminal justice system, to get evidence that it might not get otherwise.
Let me add that the roll-out of section 28 enables vulnerable and intimidated witnesses to pre-record their evidence weeks and weeks—probably, in reality, years—before a case can come to trial, and then be cross-examined on video too so that, many weeks before it comes to trial, they have finished their involvement in it. Obviously, it often just needs to be a choice, but that can be the default position to get a lot of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses out of the queue at the Crown court, put an end to their stress and record their evidence while their memory is fresh. I think that should be the default position available for all the categories that you mentioned.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dame Vera Baird: Yes.
Sarah Champion
Thank you.
Dame Vera Baird: We wrote last year and asked for exactly that.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I am not the lead for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners; I am the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, and I do not know about that conversation.
There are two difficulties. One is that an unauthorised encampment often causes great discomfort to neighbours of it—that is probably a gross understatement. The other concern I have—very frankly—is that my experience is that the appropriate statutory provision is not always made to provide Gypsies and Travellers with an alternative place that is lawful and so they, too, are put in a very problematic position.
I saw what Martin Hewitt from the National Police Chiefs’ Council said the day before yesterday. He said that he did not think the police needed more powers; it would be much better if more lawful places were made available. And then there is no difficulty with getting Gypsies and Travellers out of places where they should not be, because there is a lawful place to put them. So I am afraid at the moment we have kind of two sets of victims.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Dame Vera Baird: Yes, I do. It is very important that what victims want, which I have described—procedural justice, being treated with decency, being kept up to date and so on—is provided for in the process of delivering a caution. It looks as if victims are about as satisfied when the offender is given a caution as they are when the matter goes to court, so as long as they are consulted and they are treated as victims throughout, I think it is probably excellent to streamline the nature of this work.
There is one reservation: perhaps something needing a bit of looking at is the obligation to admit guilt in order to get an out-of-court disposal. Sometimes something like a deferred prosecution might be something that a person would be readier to accept, and it should be no more of a problem for a victim. But in principle, as long as victims are involved—we have a massive backlog in the courts, so if we can deal with justice for both sides in some other way, let us do it.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I am not an expert on sentencing and I do not think you particularly want my personal views. Do you want the perspective of victims on that?
Lee Anderson
Yes, please.
Dame Vera Baird: It is hard to say because we do not get a lot of victims coming to us and talking about sentencing; they are usually talking more about their own treatment by the justice system. But what I can tell you is that although they are broadly supportive of different sentencing, the briefing that you have probably had—and that we certainly have had from RoadPeace, Brake and British Cycling—suggests that they are worried about the difference between a sentence where someone has caused death and a sentence where someone has “only” caused what might be the very most serious of harms, and they wonder whether there ought to be some nearer proximity between the two.
But victims do say quite clearly that they have concerns about making causing death by dangerous driving and causing severe injury by dangerous driving have much higher penalties, because of the factor I mentioned before: it might deter prosecutions, or it might deter juries, who can pretty easily see themselves in a driving seat when something goes wrong, from convicting. So they have that reservation.
I think the telling line is that victims are not sure why there is such reliance on custodial sentencing for people who may have driven dangerously but are not dangerous people. Is it not better to use driving bans more effectively and not to allow such leeway about the unfairness of it but to make them pretty well automatic? That is their take on it, and I do not think I can second-guess them.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Q
To finish the conversation that we started at the beginning, it would be helpful if you could describe the impact that you think those amendments will have on the process and on the victims. Perhaps you could say a bit more about their sense of confidence in the system. What are we aiming for here?
Dame Vera Baird: We do have to protect the article 8 rights of complainants, and the open nature—the swingeing and unconditional nature—of these clauses does not do that. I have set out all the people who have commented on how commonplace it is for a victim to have their phone demanded and for it to be trawled, as it is called on the ground. I have set all that out.
The consequence, of course, is that complainants, who say they have been sexually assaulted—they are already injured, and we have already failed to protect them against crime. They are probably vulnerable. They are certainly very nervous. They have heard that it is not a nice thing to go to court. They probably know the conviction rate is very low. They have got together the courage to go and talk to the police and to discuss the case, and they seem to be met—my survey last year made this very clear—with police officers who are looking askance at them as genuine victims and saying, in effect, “Hand over everything there is for me to know about you, so that I can check whether you are a worthy person for me to get behind and prosecute this case.”
Other than sexual assaults, rapes and trafficking, and occasionally domestic abuse, I do not know of any other kind of case in which the download of phones is used in that way. It is not just the download of phones. Frequently the police ask for, and frequently the CPS requires, all health notes, psychiatric notes, school reports and social services reports, which obviously adds to the tendency to think that you are the one under investigation, and not the other. This is a massive deterrent and, not surprisingly, a good reason why people withdraw.
Following the pilot we did in Northumbria, which was highly successful, it is very important that there should be automatic legal advice. When someone’s article 8 human rights—we have an obligation to protect human rights—are put at stake by what the CPS has found are overly intrusive demands in 60% of cases, the only way to try to deal with it, given that there are a whole range of cases about it, is to get free, independent legal advice for the purpose of discussing and ordering with the police and the CPS what is appropriate to seek, what should be disclosed and what should not.
Our amendments say that, and we have sent those to the Government. I think we have also sent them to every member of this Committee. I hope that the Government will realise that although it has an end-to-end rape review—the purpose of which is to restore confidence and restore prosecutions—this piece of legislation is actually running in the opposite direction and is likely to make things worse.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dame Vera Baird: What needs to happen is that section 28 needs to be the default option, so that rape complainants can finish with the trial while their memory is fresh and facilitate getting some trauma therapy, if that is what they need—section 28 and independent legal advice. I think it is fair to say to the CPS that if they require a level of data from phones and other places and they find something, however irrelevant, it may call the complainant’s credibility into question. There was a terrible case when I was a PCC in Newcastle, where it was put to a woman of 23 that she had always been a liar because she had lied by writing a letter to her school saying that she could not go to the swimming pool that day, and forging her mother’s signature. She was 12 when she did that. If something like that is found, the police probably think they have to disclose it to the other side, because they have a full duty to do so.
The point is not to look for ridiculously irrelevant material, or you are in pursuit of what I think victims think the police are looking for, which is the perfect victim. Of course, none of us would be a perfect victim in that sense, so that needs very much to be met by legal advice. It may be that once that material is found, there is no power in the CPS to do anything but disclose it. It is arguing at the beginning about what material should be sought.
It is absolutely clear that the Crown Prosecution Service has to start prosecuting rape. It now prosecutes around 1,700 cases a year, whereas for the best part of a decade, prior to a change in its approach to rape in 2016-17, it prosecuted 3,500 cases a year and got a corresponding number of convictions. Now it is prosecuting only half as many as that and getting convictions only in three figures, which is a terrific collapse. That approach, which changed, needs to be changed back.
There must also be good provision of independent sexual violence advisers. Anyone who comes to make a complaint, which is a very courageous thing to do given what they have gone through, the imbalance of power between them and the police and their complete lack of awareness of what the criminal justice system is like, needs a professional friend beside them to help them to cope. They may need to move house, if the rape was in the house, or move job, if the rape was connected with the job. At least a professional friend can help with those things, and you cannot expect a complainant to cope with that as well as with the criminal justice system. All that seems imperative. I am mindful of the Chair’s wish for brevity from me, so perhaps I will write to you with a longer list.
Alex Cunningham
Thank you very much for that. I think you have covered everything that I needed to cover.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Q
On the point about digital divides, do you accept that there is a need to clarify the law on this? At the moment, we have the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and we have the Attorney General’s new guidelines, but presumably you accept that there is a need to set a framework in law in order to help and protect victims, and to protect the right of a free trial under article 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998?
Dame Vera Baird: I think national legislation to clarify the law about this is imperative, but it is just not this national legislation.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Dame Vera Baird: Yes, of course we have to do so. I am not sure you will be doing that with this power. I think there is a real human rights challenge here already, and I am pretty satisfied that there will be data protection challenges too. Yes, of course data protection is the law and it is important. I do not think this fulfils all your obligations under that either.
Victoria Atkins
Q
“that information stored on the electronic device is relevant to a purpose within subsection (2)”.
That wording of course comes from the 1996 Act, doesn’t it?
Dame Vera Baird: I do not know which it comes from, but “relevant” is no good, Minister. “Relevant” is not a reasonable line of inquiry. Somebody who comes across the letter from the lady in Northumbria might think that is relevant. I do not think that finding it is a reasonable line of inquiry. A reasonable line of inquiry in the CPIA is the right test, and this is the wrong test.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Dame Vera Baird: There is a test of a reasonable line of inquiry under the CPIA. That is the test, and that is very much a narrower test than the one in the proposed clauses. I have to say, because we narrowed it from relevance down to a reasonable line of inquiry in our amendments, the police were happy to accept that, so I am not sure why the Home Office wants it to be wider than the police want it to be.
Victoria Atkins
Q
“satisfied that exercise of the power is necessary and proportionate”.
Again, that wording applies across the board in terms of criminal proceedings. Is that correct?
Dame Vera Baird: I have come across the terminology before, but it is highly subjective. Insufficient detail is gone into for it to have the meaning that it is important to have. I think it is a very good thing, if I may say so, Minister, that you have accepted that the backdrop against which we approach these clauses is a very, very undesirable one, where confidence has been lost by over-demands on vulnerable complainants’ personal data. It is hugely important therefore to put into the legislation every protection that can be put in, for fairness. Remember, there is a massive power imbalance in the relationship at the time of the requests—
Victoria Atkins
Q
The codes of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, for example, are vital codes of practice that are relied on in court. If a police officer does not meet the standards expected by that code when interviewing suspects, for example—if there is a significant breach—the entire prosecution can fall. Do you accept that although we are rightly looking at the wording of the clauses, just focusing on those would not give the full picture? We also need to consider the importance that the code of practice will have. It will deal with some of the practice points that you have raised.
Dame Vera Baird: I do not think it is the right analogy to compare any code of practice. Let me tell you, the code of practice under this is invisible or non-existent. Codes of practice are discussed though they are the answer to it all. The first thing to say is that they do not have the power of statute, and if the legislation goes through as it is now, that is what the police will likely rely on. Of course a statutory code of practice under PACE has the consequences that you described, Minister, but that is because if you break the code of practice under PACE, it impacts on the defendant. The defendant can say, “Oh, that’s been done unfairly and jeopardised my fair trial,” and a breach can even be the end of a prosecution. There is absolutely no power for a rape complainant to have a similar resolution of a breach of any code of practice in this legislation. They can breach the codes of practice until they are blue in the face, and it does not make any difference to the trial.
Victoria Atkins
But you accept—
Dame Vera Baird: That is a difference in power, is it not? That is an important point.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I am sure you accept the difference, though, Minister—
Victoria Atkins
No—
Dame Vera Baird: There is no possible remedy or solution for the complainant that is analogous to the outright acquittal that can be a consequence of breaching the PACE code of practice, because that is about a defendant. This is about a complainant. What do you suggest would be the solution if the code of practice were breached in my case of rape and too much documentation was taken and disclosed? What is my remedy?
Victoria Atkins
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I would like to answer that, if I can. They are the only thing, because there is no sign of a code of practice. There is no draft code of practice at all. When I ask what my remedy would be as a rape complainant, you say to me that the police will be accountable, but how will they be accountable? It is not a crime and it is not a tort to break this code of practice, so what is the remedy if it is broken? It is not an analogy with the PACE code of practice. Do not over-rely on this code of practice, Minister. You and I share the aim of protecting complainants. Do not over-rely on a code of practice no one has ever seen and that does not have statutory form.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Dame Vera Baird: If those routes really do exist, have they been working, Minister? I do not remember any complainant being able to come to me as a PCC and complain about an individual case. Let’s face it: the dire situation where the public, or at least this sector of them, have lost confidence in the police has occurred at the time when all of those bodies that can call them to account have been in play, and they have not called them to account.
Victoria Atkins
Q
I will move on to unauthorised encampments. You were asked about the impact and you fairly conceded that residents can be victims in the context of unauthorised encampments. Clause 61 sets out the offence. The conditions that are laid down for the alleged commission of an offence include factors such as “significant damage”, “significant disruption” and “significant distress”. With your focus on antisocial behaviour, presumably you welcome the focus on those unauthorised encampments that result in those sorts of distressing conditions?
Dame Vera Baird: I would not want anyone to suffer from any of those, but causing damage—I do not know what that is. If you are on an unauthorised encampment and you have not got a lavatory so you dig a latrine, is that causing damage to the field? I think it depends how it is defined. I really cannot go much further than saying that unless there is proper provision of authorised encampments, you have two sets of victims. I quite agree with you that the people who are distressed, damaged or whatever by an unauthorised encampment are victims of that. There is no doubt of it—you have made your point—but I want you to take into account the difficulty of finding somewhere to camp in a lot of places, which forces people into an unlawful place. Of course, damage is not justifiable, but that is a factor to consider. I was so pleased when the NPCC appreciated that as well.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank the witness again for her evidence.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 20th May 2021
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPolice, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 May 2021 - (20 May 2021)
The Chair
I will introduce our panel of witnesses. If they can see us and hear us, that is an improvement on this morning when they could only hear us. We will hear from Iryna Pona, policy and research manager at the Children’s Society, and Will Linden, deputy head of the Scottish Violence Reduction Unit at Community Justice Scotland.
Colleagues, we have until 2.45 pm for this section, so just under 45 minutes. Will our witnesses introduce themselves for the record, please?
Iryna Pona: My name is Iryna Pona, policy and research manager at the Children’s Society, which is a voluntary sector organisation. We work with young people who are criminally or sexually exploited, who have experienced abuse or who have gone missing from home or care. We do policy and research and also work directly with children and young people delivering one-to-one support group work as well as therapeutic support for children.
We also have national programmes such as the disrupting exploitation and prevention programme. These programmes, as well as working with young people, also work with professionals to help them improve their responses to children who are criminally or sexually exploited. Our prevention programme funded by the Home Office also runs campaigns. The #LookCloser campaign is about raising the awareness of the public and professionals of child exploitation with the aim of better identification and better and earlier support for these children.
The Chair
Thank you. Mr Linden next.
Will Linden: Good afternoon. I am Will Linden, deputy head of the violence reduction unit in Scotland. We are an independent unit as part of Police Scotland. We look at prevention in all of its guises in reducing violence from cradle to grave. We have been doing this since 2005. We adopted a public health model fairly early on.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Q
Iryna Pona: I think having a definition of child criminal exploitation would be very helpful. When we did research on child criminal exploitation, one of the messages that we had from loads of professionals, both working with the Children’s Society but also working with the local authority and police, was that different services—
Sarah Champion
Sorry, I am a bit deaf and your link is a bit iffy. Is there any chance you could speak a little slower, please?
Iryna Pona: Of course, yes—sorry. I was saying that the lack of shared understanding of what child criminal exploitation is prevents co-ordinated, joined-up responses to children who are criminally exploited, particularly responses that happen at earlier stages, when the children are groomed for child criminal exploitation.
Also, when children come into contact with police and law enforcement agencies, we know that they are still more likely to be treated as young offenders rather than being seen as victims of crime. So having a definition that all agencies—police, social care, the voluntary sector and others—can share and understand in the same way will really help to change attitudes and also help with how support is provided.
We also believe that the definition needs to be quite broad and not just focused on county lines. We have seen in recent years that there has been a huge focus on county lines, which is really welcome, but the county lines model of child criminal exploitation is just one type of criminal exploitation. We know that children may be exploited in a variety of other ways and that these models constantly evolve and develop.
Having a broad definition that would explain to everyone involved that child criminal exploitation is when someone manipulates a child into undertaking criminal activity would go a long way to improving the responses to children who are criminally exploited and it would improve early intervention as well.
Sarah Champion
Q
Will Linden: It is not necessarily my area of expertise, but I will just back up what Iryna said there. The challenge if you set a definition for child criminal exploitation is to make sure that the definition is wide and dynamic enough to cover things. The problem is that if we set definitions, we then work to them; we work to that bar—and if, for whatever reason, a young person does not qualify for or meet that definition, they can fall within the gaps in the system.
We have to be quite careful with the definition, to make sure that it is encompassing and that it is not fixed at any point in time; if we are writing it just now, the definition of “exploitation” and what happens to a young person who is being exploited will change. We have to be quite careful. It is important that we write a definition and have one, so that we understand what the services need to do, but we must not get absolutely fixated on it.
Sarah Champion
Q
Iryna Pona: From what we know about this issue, definitely not enough data is being collected. In relation to child criminal exploitation, some data is collected through the national referral mechanism when young people are referred to it. From October 2019, it started collecting data specifically on child criminal exploitation, because of the huge increase in the number of referrals. It is really helpful, but in our opinion it is only the tip of the iceberg.
No similar data is collected through social care. I know that social care will introduce this as one of the factors in assessment—from this year onwards, I think. However, at the moment we do not know the true scale of child criminal exploitation. There is some proxy data, which is about how many children have been arrested, but I believe that at that point it is too late. We need to start identifying child criminal exploitation much earlier, to offer help much earlier.
There are also gaps in relation to child sexual exploitation. Some data is collected by the police and is available from them, but police data often focuses on crime; it does not always include children aged 16 or 17 who are victims of sexual offences because of the way the data focuses on crime. It is acknowledged in the Government’s sexual abuse strategy that that is a gap.
We also do not necessarily understand the progression from identification to prosecution of these cases. There is no clear data in relation to that, which I think impacts on how agencies can see the bigger picture, gather information and plan a relevant response to these really serious crimes. Regarding prosecution, some data is available, but it is very limited.
Sarah Champion
Q
Will Linden: The Scottish perspective is very similar, but this comes down to the fact that we collect a lot of data on individuals and families—crime data, health data and social work data. The problem is that the data do not speak to each other.
We often hide behind GDPR and data protection rules. The datasets and the data holders need to be more aligned so that when we are trying to make some of the strategic decisions, we can interrogate the data better, understand the impacts on families and understand the impacts on young people. For me, this is not about collecting anything new; it is about using it smarter. From Scotland’s perspective, I do not think we are much further ahead than where we are in England and Wales now, because we need to get smarter at that too.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Q
Will Linden: I come from a background of looking at prevention and looking at what works, both from a public health perspective and from a criminal justice perspective—not any particular one lens.
Looking at the Bill and what it is trying to do with violent crime reduction orders and other aspects, the intent is there to try to reduce violence. Some of the challenges I have with it regard the unintended consequences of the Bill. If you are going to use some of the measures in it, such as what are essentially increased stop-and-search powers and increased powers over individuals connected to, and guilty of, violent crime and carrying knives, we have to be sure that those are the targets that we want to target with this, because we really need to be focusing on those who are the most at risk of committing the highest level of violence.
For the majority of young people—it will be young people who are caught up in some of the violent crime orders—they will probably be one-off offences. What we will be doing is further criminalising them, and the unintended consequence is that we might be pushing them further down a criminal justice pathway. Looking broadly at the Bill, it is a good idea in principle, but it is about who we point it towards and who we target it at. If we are targeting it at a wide spread—everyone who is caught with a knife, or everyone who has something to do with violent crime—and everyone becomes a part of the Bill or a part of this order, the consequences could far outstrip the outcomes that we are going to try to achieve.
Iryna Pona: From the Children’s Society perspective, we are supportive of the intention behind the duty to bring together different agencies to develop a strategy to reduce and prevent serious violence in their areas. However, we know that the success of such a duty would rest a lot on how it is implemented locally. It is really important that the duty is formulated in such a way as to encourage the greatest focus possible on the safeguarding of children and on the early intervention and support for children and families, as opposed to being seen as a crime reduction initiative.
We therefore believe that for the duty to have a significant impact on reducing the criminal exploitation of children when criminal exploitation is linked to violence or children’s involvement in violence, it is important that the safeguarding of children is recognised and included in the name of the duty, encouraging multi-agency action to address the underlying causes of violence, such as poverty, poor housing, exposure to domestic violence, and criminal and sexual exploitation.
All those are really important, because I agree with what Will said. Potentially, if it is just treated as a crime reduction initiative and prevention is focused on police action, it is very different from when it is safeguarding and focused on offering the best support possible to children.
Sarah Jones
Q
Iryna Pona: Yes. I believe it will help with interpretation of the duty locally, to enable it to be interpreted in a very similar way across the country and to focus attention on action that needs to be taken by different agencies locally on safeguarding children and taking action to provide support. It is not necessarily preventing escalation or further involvement in violence, but preventing as early as possible involvement in any violent activity. That would be really important.
I also think there are other simple ways in which the duty can be improved—for example, by making sure that when the strategy is produced, social care is part of the consultation, because it will have information about who the vulnerable children are, what the level of need is and how things can be improved locally.
There are different elements related to the duty—for example, about information sharing—that are also important. Information sharing is obviously a very important area. We agree that it is crucial that relevant information is shared to enable agencies working together to plan a better response to children. But there is also something in the duty and in the accompanying guidance that suggests that information may be shared or requested directly—for example, from schools—by the police about individual children. We would have concerns about that, because schools have such an important role to play; school is a place where children have trusting relationships with teachers and educators. It could undermine some of the trust that children have. We believe that there are already in place multi-agency structures—such as multi-agency safeguarding hubs or multi-agency risk assessment conferences—that are better placed for that information sharing about individual children.
So I think there are elements in this duty that are really important, but there are also ways to improve it.
Sarah Jones
Q
Iryna Pona: Plugging is when young people are exploited by criminal groups to deliver drugs across the country and—sometimes—they are delivering those drugs inserted in cavities in their bodies. It is a horrific experience for children—it is also a great risk to their health. Unfortunately, it is something that a lot of children we are working with are experiencing. It is experienced by a lot of children who are exploited by criminal groups for county lines drug trafficking.
Sarah Jones
Q
Iryna Pona: Yes. That definitely came up a lot when we were doing our research for the county lines report. Practitioners were—[Interruption.]
Sarah Jones
Q
Will Linden: A public health approach to tackling violence is quite simple. It is about using an evidence-based approach to address the causes of the violence in the first place—looking at the challenges, the underlying situation and the underlying evidence, and addressing them before they becomes a wider issue. The public approach is nothing to do with specific trauma or with criminology; it is solely about applying what works at the earliest possible stage. It is evidence-based, it is tried and tested, and it is there to try to deliver long-term, sustainable outcomes. Obviously, over the last year we have all become aware of the public health approach in terms of dealing with the covid situation. This is the same idea: it is looking at what works. How do you vaccinate a community? How do you try to reduce violence? In relation to young people and violence, it is not necessarily about crime, prison and stop-and-search; it is about why they got to that point in the first place and what we can do about it.
Sarah Jones
Q
Will Linden: There are a number of thoughts about that in terms of what has happened over the last few years. There are increasing levels of inequality and the reductions in the services that are available because of some of the decisions we have had to make; there are also issues such as social media and young people’s culture. What is interesting for me from a Scottish perspective is that although we have seen increasing levels of youth violence in England and Wales, we have not seen the same thing in Scotland. We have seen the level of violence change, go up and stabilise at a certain level, but not necessarily among young people. It is a different group and a different type of violence.
There is something particular happening within certain cultures in certain areas of the UK. We know that violence is not constant across the whole country; it is in pockets. For example, in Scotland, about 60% of the violence is attributable to less than 1% of the population at a very small geographic level. Although we talk about looking at a public health response to the whole country, it is sometimes about much more targeted interventions at a local level.
Sarah Jones
Q
Will Linden: I do not hold much stock in the comment that violence is just increasing anyway, because throughout the western world violence has been reducing for centuries. We are safer today than we were yesterday, despite what the crime figures, and sometimes the newspaper headlines, tell us.
In Scotland, we looked at policing to start with. Policing is incredibly important, because sometimes you have to stabilise the patient and deal with the problem before you can put in prevention measures and deal with the underlying causes. For us, that was heavily about education. It was about looking at schools and access to young people, who were our initial target, our biggest group and our biggest challenge, predominantly in Glasgow and the west coast of Scotland, not in the whole of Scotland. That is who we targeted.
We targeted young people with education, programmes and advertising campaigns. We looked at how we could get people into jobs and mentor and support them. It was not a one-fix thing. It was about trying to understand the local situation, so in specific areas of Glasgow we looked at the gangs problem, and in Lanarkshire we looked at unemployment. It was about looking at different problems and trying to apply the solutions locally. That took a great deal of partnership working and a great deal of intelligence and information.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Q
Will Linden: That is an important question, because they do have to fit in with existing structures. One of the successes we have had in Scotland in delivering on the strategy is because we are connected in. We are connected into policing. We are connected into the Government. We are connected into local government across the country. If you are introducing any new structures alongside that—VRUs; it does not matter what it is—how are they going to connect into local delivery and local services? More importantly, how is it going to connect into local communities?
If we are looking at strategies based on short-term turnaround—for example, we are going to provide x amount of money to provide a reduction in the next year—that is not going to work, because you are looking at how to build the building blocks, within these communities, areas and partnerships, that are going to deliver long-term, sustainable outcomes. That does not mean that the partnerships, in whatever area of the country they are, cannot get reductions just now, but what we want to do is to build upon those short-term wins in order to build long-term, sustainable reductions that are built into the system—that are not additionality.
Maria Eagle
Q
Will Linden: We do not have any experience in what you are looking to do down in Merseyside or any other areas, but you need to think beyond the traditional route of crime indicators because of the length of time involved.
You can look at trying to reduce the levels of crime and violence, but what we are dealing with just now is a post-pandemic situation. Over the last year, we have seen significant changes to communities’ environments, so you might actually face increasing levels of violence and there might be increasing problems over the next year or two as a result of the consequences of the last year, and post recovery. If you just tie yourselves down to simple crime figures and recorded crime figures, you could be challenged on that. What we will have to do is to look at some of the other figures around things like community wellbeing, trust in the services, trust in policing and education figures, and try to take in a broad spectrum of outcomes, particularly when we are looking at young people.
If our outcome is solely about reducing crime, that can be achieved quite simply with two things. Recorded crime can be reduced by changing the law and stopping recording it; that is easy. But if you want to reduce the harm that violence causes our communities, you have to look at all the various measurements that measure harm. Some of those are simple, like the crime surveys. Others are much more complex, in terms of mental health or wellbeing. I would look to try to include as wide a sweep as possible, to try to get an understanding of its wider impacts, not just the simple ones.
Maria Eagle
Q
Iryna, I am asking about the serious violence reduction units and how they are going to fit into other arrangements that are already there. From the perspective of the Children’s Society, do you have anything to say about how the new multi-agency collaborations are going to work alongside violence reduction units and existing structures that are supposed to promote collaboration between agencies?
Iryna Pona: First, apologies for being disconnected. There were some technical difficulties.
The violence reduction unit is obviously quite new, and they also work in very different areas. With the new duty to focus on serious violence, I think it is very important that in the way it works, it should be complementary and joined up with the work of the violence reduction unit. It is also important to understand that areas where there are violence reduction units receive additional funding to undertake violence reduction activity locally, but that is not available across the country. It is really important that the new duty is supported with appropriate resources and delivered locally.
The Children’s Services Funding Alliance, which the Children’s Society is part of, looked at the funding from 2010-11 to 2018-19 on early intervention and late intervention services. It showed that the funding for early intervention services reduced by 46% during that time, while the funding for late intervention services increased by 29%. That shows that there is not enough early intervention available. It is important that where there is activity that focuses specifically on diverting young persons from being involved in violence or violence-related activity, it comes together with funding to address the underlying causes of why young people may be in a situation where they may be exploited in a particular way or drawn into certain groups and activities.
It is really important to understand that local picture. In that respect, it is really important that violence reduction units and local safeguarding partnerships work together to understand those underlying causes and try to develop a strategy that will comprehensively address those local issues.
Sarah Champion
It is extraordinary. I have tinnitus, which is why I am deaf, so that ringing—
Sarah Champion
Q
Will Linden: The impact on a child receiving a criminal record is extraordinary. It sets you on a pathway for life that makes things much more challenging. It can be traumatic and it can hamper you having a job or a career in the future. It can take you further down the criminal justice pathway, where you can get further involved in criminality but you are actually more likely to be victimised and to be the victim of crime. Having young people involved in anything to do with the criminal justice system is not, under any circumstances, a thing we should ever aspire to. The criminal justice system is one of the necessary evils that we require in society at present and we should do our best to keep young people out of it as much as possible.
The Chair
Does anybody else have anything they would like to ask our excellent witnesses? No? Well, I thank the two of you for giving up your Thursday afternoon to join us. I am sorry that we lost you occasionally and that there was background noise, bells and banging, but we got there in the end, so thank you very much.
Examination of Witness
Hazel Williamson gave evidence.
The Chair
Good afternoon, Hazel, and thank you for being ready to join us early. Hazel Williamson is the chair of the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers. I have just introduced you, but I think we need to do you the courtesy of allowing you to introduce yourself very briefly.
Hazel Williamson: Thank you. I am very grateful, and I am delighted to be able to give some evidence today. Yes, I am Hazel Williamson, and I am chair of the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers. I have been chair since September last year, and for two years before that I was vice-chair. My day job is head of Staffordshire youth offending service.
The Chair
Thank you very much. We have a question straight away from Mr Robert Goodwill.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Hazel Williamson: In terms of custodial remand, we have seen a significant reduction under the previous legislation and the current legislation. Under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, we have seen a reduction in remand. Some of the challenges that remain for remand are around those robust packages, and in particular suitable placements, for our children and young people. We know that placements is a national issue for children and young people, and finding the most suitable is really difficult. What we know about our cohort in the youth justice system now is that they have changed over the past 20 years. They are presenting with significant trauma and abuse, often as a result of exploitation. That makes it really difficult for our local authority colleagues to source an appropriate placement.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Hazel Williamson: With remand into custody, we would always try to offer suitable alternatives wherever possible, whether that is a robust bail package supported by our youth offending teams or remand into the care of the local authority with that additional support. We know that in the custodial population, there are high numbers of children who have been looked after or are currently being looked after, along with other needs, but wherever possible we would try to work with our local authority to seek that suitable alternative to remand.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Hazel Williamson: In particular, I would like us to record remand decisions more robustly in the courts. We need clear decision making; we need it to be clear why we have made those decisions. Also, we should take the opportunity to encourage regular reviews of remand and seek alternatives wherever possible.
I think on a national footing we need to be working closely with the Department for Education and our director of children’s services to develop a more robust placement process and improve the quality of the market for placements.
Mr Goodwill
Thank you very much indeed for those clear and concise answers.
Maria Eagle
Q
Hazel Williamson: We are obviously supportive of anything that improves youth custody. We know that outcomes for children who end up in youth custody are poor and have been for some considerable time. The recent inspection reports will detail that we do not yet have the significant improvements we need in youth custody.
As an association of YOT managers, we believe that children in custody—custody should be a last resort—should be placed in small, secure units close to their homes. We do not advocate large custodial establishments where children are placed far away from their home; we would advocate small custodial units. As for the academy trust, it remains to be seen what the detail is around the secure school and how children will manage as part of the routine within that environment.
Maria Eagle
Q
Hazel Williamson: If we look at the proposal for an extended intensive supervision and surveillance programme, it did not have great results when it was previously piloted, and it was not piloted on a scale to allow an effective evaluation. We as YOT managers are not convinced that the extended ISS is the way to go. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that custody is the last resort for children and young people.
The other proposal in the Bill that we as an association have been discussing is around intensive fostering. Staffordshire youth offending team—my service—was part of one of the pilots. That scheme was extremely expensive and did not necessarily get the expected results for those children and young people. So while we absolutely support robust alternatives to custody, I think we need to be consulting with our youth offending teams to try to examine what we think will work with the cohort of children we are dealing with.
Maria Eagle
Q
Hazel Williamson: There has always been a disparity for our girls in the system. I am concerned overall that the numbers of children going into custody will increase with some proposed mandatory sentencing, and I am concerned that it will impact in particular on our girls and our black and minority ethnic children—particularly our black and mixed heritage boys. I am also concerned that it may impact on our children who are looked after. There are some particular groups in the youth justice system who I believe will be adversely affected by some of the recommendations in the Bill.
Sarah Champion
Q
Hazel Williamson: I am not going to put a figure on it, but we know that we get better outcomes for children and young people who are placed in secure children’s homes that are generally run by people who are social work and social care-trained, and that provides a much more nurturing environment. It is a children’s home with security rather than a custodial environment overseen by prison rules.
Sarah Champion
Q
Hazel Williamson: I think there is a missed opportunity in the Bill to really strengthen the rights of children, whether that is in the community or in custody. There is a missed opportunity in that we are not strengthening our welfare-based approach to how we deal with children and young people. We know that children are different from adults, and we should take a stronger welfare-based approach with our children and young people. I definitely think that could be strengthened in the Bill.
Sarah Champion
Q
Hazel Williamson: Some things in the Bill mean that some of our children would receive mandatory sentences. I do not think it necessarily outlines for us how children’s welfare and the needs of children would be taken into consideration.
Sarah Champion
Q
Hazel Williamson: That is really a commissioning contract that we have not been party to. In the association’s view—I go back to my previous point—children should not be looked after where they are governed by prison rules, primarily.
Sarah Champion
Q
Hazel Williamson: It is slightly more. There is no doubt that paying for care for children where we want better results will inevitably cost us more. If we compare that with what it would cost for what is being proposed in the community, that also costs more. If we want better outcomes for our children and young people, we will have to invest, and invest a lot earlier.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Q
Hazel Williamson: In terms of how we administer any community order, we work together with children and their families, or their corporate parent if they are a child in our care. We develop a holistic package that includes health. There is no doubt that health across England is patchy, in terms of provision for youth offending teams. However, health is a statutory member of all youth offending team partnerships. We would certainly advocate that the health offer is strengthened nationally, so that all children, whichever area they live in, get the right treatment at the right time.
We know that children who come into contact with our service have a significant range of unmet health needs, in particular speech, communication and language needs. We know that over 90% of the children we work with are often operating at an understanding age of between five and seven years old. So when we ask a teenager to navigate a very complex environment, their understanding is much lower than their chronological age.
The Chair
Well done, Mr Levy. Right, are there any more Back-Bench colleagues who would like to come in before I bring in the shadow Minister, who is champing at the bit? No? I call the shadow Minister.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Q
Earlier, I believe that I heard you correctly when you were expressing a view on the proposed changes to the test for custodial remand. Did you say that you were concerned that it could lead to more children being remanded in custody?
Hazel Williamson: No, that is not what I said. I believe that the Bill could lead to more children receiving custodial sentences. In terms of remand, we are pleased that the Bill strengthens the conditions for remand and that remand will be seen as the last alternative. However, in the courts arena we would like to see the reasons for remand being made really clearly recorded, and the decisions about it.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Hazel Williamson: In particular, we are looking at mandatory sentences for some offences. What we have to understand is that the children and young people who we currently work with in the youth offending service are different from those we were working with 20 years ago. Youth offending teams have worked really hard to reduce the number of children and young people in the statutory youth justice system, and we have much lower numbers now. However, what we have is an increasingly complex group of children and young people, who have often experienced exploitation, in particular criminal exploitation, and significant trauma.
For me, what is a missed opportunity within the Bill is that join-up regarding how we work with children who are exploited by our serious crime gangs, and we need to be thinking about a much more welfare-based approach to how we work with our children and young people.
We are also concerned about the differences proposed for some of our 17-year-olds. We believe that, in terms of youth justice, they are a child until they get to 18. There is also lots of evidence about brain development, showing that it can take children until they are into their early or mid-20s to fully develop.
We believe that there is opportunity within the Bill for more custodial sentences and we are particularly concerned about our black and minority ethnic children, including our Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children.
Alex Cunningham
Q
“In this Chapter…‘adult’ means a person aged 16 or over”.
Do you think that generally—you have already alluded to some of this—the Bill gives sufficient consideration to research on maturity?
Hazel Williamson: I know that there is mention of neurodiversity in the Bill, but it does not go far enough. We should treat children as children until they are 18 and they should be sentenced as a child until they reach the age of 18. In an ideal world, we would look beyond that, because many people do not develop fully, in terms of brain development, until they are in their mid-20s. The cohort of children and young people we are working with have suffered significant trauma. We know that affects what would be the brain of a teenager who had not experienced trauma; the brain develops differently, if you have experienced significant trauma and abuse. Virtually all the children we work with in our system have experienced abuse to some level or degree.
So no, the Bill does not go far enough, in my view. That links to our earlier conversation about being more welfare and rights-based. We need to think about the rights of children. They should be treated as children until they are 18.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Hazel Williamson: If they have committed the offence as a child, they should be sentenced as a child. During covid, there have been some delays in court processes, which has meant some children being sentenced as an 18-year-old when they committed the crime as a child. Going back to our earlier conversation, we know that brain development does not change just at age 18. For me, if you committed the offence as a child, you should be sentenced as a child.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Hazel Williamson: We have talked about this as an association. We have concerns when there are not opportunities to have terms reviewed. What we know is that there will be significant changes. For example, the brain of a child who was sentenced to a long term at 17 will have matured significantly by the time they reach their mid-20s, so we should be enabling that review to happen along and through their sentence.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Hazel Williamson: What YOT managers say to me is that the biggest challenge is around funding. Youth offending teams have absolutely reduced first-time entrants; we have reduced children and young people going into custody. We are also reducing the reoffending rates for many of our children and young people. The assumption, therefore, is that youth offending teams do not need to be funded as much as they were previously.
However, youth offending team managers have been saying for some time that just because the numbers have reduced does not mean that we are not working with a complex group of children and young people. For many youth offending teams, the numbers they are working with have not reduced; it is just that the children are in a different space and place. For example, we might not be working with as many children on statutory orders, but we will be offering some kind of prevention and diversion to keep them out of the criminal justice system.
It is not always the case that because first-time entrants are reducing and the numbers of children involved in the criminal justice system are reducing, youth offending teams are not doing the same amount of work they have always done. Funding is really an issue, as is understanding the context and the numbers of children that YOTs are trying to work with across the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
Q
Hazel Williamson: Absolutely, and we know that, but children and young people who commit those offences as children should still be sentenced as children. We can use the strength in our youth offending teams, because we have seconded probation staff working with us, so we can have quite a balanced report for those children and young people, and support them with the transition from youth offending teams into probation. Age and maturity should absolutely be considered across the whole system, but our children and young people who commit offences when under 18 should be sentenced as children.
Chris Philp
Q
Hazel Williamson: What we know about sentencing is that people will make significant changes between the time they committed the offence and where they are at any given point in time. We have been working with children who have been awaiting sentence in the Crown court, and who are now past their 18th birthdays. They will have made significant changes up to the point where they are sentenced, and they were still children at the time they committed that offence.
Chris Philp
Q
Secondly, some new youth sentencing options, and sentencing options more widely, are made available in the Bill. Can you give us some commentary on how youth offending services and courts can make a success of those new sentencing options?
Hazel Williamson: I assume you are referring to the intensive supervision and surveillance, intensive fostering, and GPS monitoring?
Chris Philp
Yes, for example.
Hazel Williamson: Okay. In terms of ISS, I have already indicated that its extension will require some resourcing. Intensive supervision and surveillance is already in place across the country for youth offending teams, and it is utilised to prevent children from receiving custodial sentences. I think that is already in place. There are concerns that the pilot of an ISS extended to 12 months did not give the results it needed to.
In terms of the intensive foresting arrangements, again, I go back to the fact that it is really resource-intensive and expensive, and it will require very close join-up with our local authority colleagues, who will be required to provide the foster carers to support it. On GPS—some trials have been taking place for GPS monitoring for our children and young people—there is some thought that it will certainly prevent some of our children and young people from being involved in those more violent crimes, and will reduce the risk of them being exploited. That is not the case from what we are seeing with children and young people who are subject to GPS monitoring and tagging. We also know that those children really struggle with the equipment, in terms of practicalities and charging the equipment. We know that GPS does not work for a lot of our children and young people in areas where it has been piloted.
As youth offending teams, we want to look for suitable and robust alternatives to custody for our children and young people. There is no doubt that it has to be done in partnership, but it will require some significant resourcing.
The Chair
Hazel, thank you for that. When people ask—[Interruption.] Bloody hell, I am wrestling with my wretched mask—my mother-in-law made it and I wear it in honour and tribute to her. Hazel, when people ask me, “How should I prepare to give evidence to a Committee?”—be it a Select Committee or a Bill Committee like this—I shall say, “Watch Hazel Williamson.” That was crisp, concise and informative. It really was a masterclass, and it is appreciated by us all at the start of a very long afternoon. We are trying to find our next witness, who is being asked to appear 25 minutes early. If we cannot find our next witness, colleagues may go and have a cup of tea and stretch their legs. Thank you, Hazel.
Hazel Williamson: Thank you.
The Chair
I will call a 10-minute break. The sitting is suspended until a quarter past 3.
The Chair
Hello, Ellie Cumbo, Head of Public Law at the Law Society. Can you hear and see us?
Ellie Cumbo: I can.
The Chair
Excellent. We have until 4.15 pm for this session, but I think we are going to end early. Thank you for joining us early. We are ahead of schedule. Would you like to introduce yourself very briefly?
Ellie Cumbo: Certainly. My name is Ellie Cumbo. I am the Law Society’s Head of Public Law, and I have been in post for two years. My substantive responsibilities are, as my title suggests, largely to do with public law, and we include criminal law within that definition.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Ellie Cumbo: Certainly, there is nothing in there that sounds controversial to me. I should, however, flag that the Law Society at the moment does not take the view that it is right for us to comment on the public order provisions of the Bill. That is largely down to the fact that our role is to comment on how they will work in practice and whether it will be possible for them to be implemented by the police and understood by solicitors, clients and the general public. Much of that remains to be seen. It is, after all, the case that these are political decisions.
We of course take the point about fundamental rights. We want to point out that it has become extremely clear in the last year and a half that it is important not only that the law is clear and accessible in the ways that I just described, but that it is enforced in a way that is consistent and can be understood by the general public. That is something that we would call for. Beyond that, we have not seen fit to comment on these particular provisions.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Ellie Cumbo: I am saying that it is not within our remit. We have to judge our remit based on what we take to be in the interests of our members, which of course includes issues of principle such as the rule of law and access to justice. It may well be the case that there comes a point where, if great concern is expressed by those agencies and bodies with greater knowledge of how these provisions would be enforced in practice—policing bodies, voluntary sector bodies—we might see a need for us to add our voice to those concerns, but there are more appropriate bodies to comment on those at this point than us.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Ellie Cumbo: Again, clarity of the law is an issue of concern and interest to the Law Society and its members. We have not taken a view on that particular Law Commission proposal, but we certainly would not oppose it. Codification does not always come without disbenefits: in this case, we are not aware of any, but to reiterate, we have no strong view on that at present.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Ellie Cumbo: I am afraid so. I am sorry not to be able to assist the Committee on that, but we have taken a view that at the moment, that is not an area for our expertise.
Maria Eagle
Q
Ellie Cumbo: Certainly. The heading for all of our concerns is access to justice and the impact, or potential impact, of some of the provisions on access to justice. Now, in some of those areas, it is more that we have a question and we would like to see more detail about how this will look in practice—the open justice provisions would be in that category—but there are two particular areas where our concerns are already sufficient to put us in a position where we do not support what the Bill currently proposes. Those are in relation to video juries and the pre-charge bail provisions.
Maria Eagle
Q
Ellie Cumbo: I should say at the outset that we support the aim of those provisions, first to give clarity, and secondly to give the police a realistic opportunity to conduct investigations in hopes of preventing such measures as we have seen in recent years: the over-reliance on release under investigation, which the Committee may be aware that the Law Society has raised significant concerns about. At the moment, the risk is that a great many people—we do not know how many, and that is part of the problem—who are suspected of a crime but have not yet been charged with one are living in limbo for truly unacceptable lengths of time, as are all other potential parties to the case, including the complainants and potential witnesses. We understand that if the police have a little bit more time in which to put somebody on bail, that might reduce the need for them to feel that release under investigation is their only option.
However, at the other end of the scale, we do not want to return to the situation prior to 2017, where suspects could be on bail for indeterminate lengths of time. That too is a situation that places an unacceptable strain not only on defendants, as they are at that point, but on the other parties to the case, including complainants —potential victims. Our preference was for a middle way, so when this was consulted on in 2017, our preference was for an initial period of two months, followed by extensions up to four and up to six. That was what we felt was the appropriate middle ground. We feel that the potential to go to nine months before a court gets anywhere near the matter is excessive, but we do support the aim. We obviously want there to be greater certainty for all concerned.
I should just say, in closing, that ultimately what we really want, which I hope we could all agree on, is fewer delays, and investigations that conclude in a timely fashion. In our view, that is better achieved by greater investment of resources in the criminal justice system, rather than by what I might call a little bit of tinkering around bail time limits.
Maria Eagle
Q
Ellie Cumbo: The first thing to say is that of course that uncertainty, that living in limbo that I referred to previously, affects solicitors and legal practitioners, too. Ultimately, though, I think what my members would say is that it is their entire duty to act in the interests of their client, so it is the impact on their clients that they are quick to raise with us, and the potential injustice not only for, as I say, suspects and potential defendants, but all other parties to the case.
It is probably worth also developing the issue of what this might mean for access to legal advice. The longer a case is put off, the greater the risk of disengagement by the suspect or defendant and by all others. Memories fade. Justice outcomes are potentially damaged by the time that there actually is a hearing, and that is not good for anybody.
Maria Eagle
Q
Ellie Cumbo: I should say that we are in a middling position—again—on those provisions. We have not taken a stance against the provisions. Solicitors have adapted very well to remote hearings over the last year and a half, and they have been seen to have very great advantages, particularly in relation to administrative or interlocutory hearings where only the legal representatives are present. That has enhanced everyone’s convenience and the efficiency of proceedings in a very clear way, and our members are very clear about that.
However, we do have concerns about the fact that this is a very new development. It is foetal in terms of lifespan in the broader justice system. We would not be the first to raise concerns about the ability of vulnerable parties to participate in an effective way. In a survey that we recently conducted with our members, only 16% of them told us that they felt that vulnerable parties were able to participate effectively in remote hearings. We understand that the judiciary have taken notice of that. Guidance is available, in different jurisdictions, about the cases in which remote hearings are thought to be suitable. But it is still a developing agenda, and we are concerned that things should not move forward too quickly, because it is a substantive change and of course—as with so much in the criminal justice system—we know very little about the potential impact on justice outcomes and whether it is in fact in any way a risk to the right to a fair trial to conduct certain types of hearing in a remote way.
Maria Eagle
Q
Ellie Cumbo: We certainly welcome it, yes. Many people might be surprised that it is not already the case that a British Sign Language interpreter can be present in those circumstances. Obviously, that is a reflection of the fact that the whole system takes the importance of an independent jury very seriously—it is perhaps the most important safeguard we have for the fundamental rights of those who are charged with criminal offences. That is probably why it has taken the length of time it has to get here.
Our view is that, given where the public consensus can be judged to be and the fact that BSL interpreters participate in other types of confidential proceedings, we do not think that at this point it would be sustainable not to move forward with these provisions. Obviously, we are pleased to see that the Government are taking seriously the risk that the jury might in some way be influenced unduly by the presence of a 13th person, but as long as those safeguards are in place, we are entirely supportive of those provisions.
Sarah Champion
Q
Ellie, I am reeling from something that our Front-Bench spokesperson said in the last session. In chapter 3, on the extraction of information from electronic devices, in clause 36(10), the Government redefine an adult away from the definition in the convention on the rights of a child, which defines a child as a human under the age of 18, to
“ ‘adult’ means a person aged 16 or over”.
Could you comment on that extraordinary change?
Ellie Cumbo: I have not had the benefit of hearing that, so I think it would be unwise and unhelpful for me to do so. Could I come back to you on that?
Sarah Champion
Q
Within the Bill, there are changes regarding the availability of live links and when a vulnerable witness could call for special measures. What reasons would a judge have to refuse the use of a live link?
Ellie Cumbo: It is important that judges maintain that discretion. It is difficult to give an overview because the examples of a judgment that it is not in the interest of justice to use those live links will be so case-specific. It would be difficult for me to enlighten the Committee any further on that, other than to say that we place great trust in the discretion of judges and believe that they would not refuse vulnerable people the ability to use special measures without good reason.
Sarah Champion
Q
Ellie Cumbo: I think that would be difficult to assess in practice. I wonder if it would be helpful for me to consult some of our members who do defence work. It will sound to most people, including me, as though there is not an enormous difference between those two different situations, but I would not want to speak out of turn and be unhelpful. Is it acceptable for me to ask some of my defence practitioners who would be best able to give you an example of why that might or might not make a difference?
Sarah Champion
I would be extremely grateful for that. Thank you. I refer you back to one of your earlier answers. There are already huge backlogs in the justice system, for various reasons. Are there any measures in the Bill that cause you direct concern that it might increase that backlog?
Ellie Cumbo: I believe I would not be the first to note that anything that enhances the risk of a welter of contempt of court prosecutions is probably not desperately helpful. That is one of the reasons why we are keen to see the final detail around what I refer to as the open justice provisions of the Bill.
Of course, we support open justice and think it is of vital importance, but the reality is that there is a de facto limit in a physical courtroom of how many people can be observing trial proceedings at any given time and what they are getting up to while under the immediate eye of the judge. If any move towards the possibility of mass observation of court proceedings were possible as a result of the Bill, there would be a much enhanced risk of abuse and of people behaving in such a way that criminal proceedings against them ensue.
On a separate point, a concern that we have is that it puts a level of pressure on the parties that simply is not an issue in a physical courtroom, that something might go viral on social media.
Those are the concerns that we have about the open justice provisions. I am aware that I have gone slightly off topic, but certainly anything that puts further pressure on the criminal justice system in that way is not ideal in terms of dealing with the backlog. As I said with regard to the pre-charge bail provisions in particular, we would like to see significant further investment in the criminal justice system to clear that backlog, rather than changes that I think can be described as a bit of tweaking around the edges.
The Chair
Would any other colleagues from the Back Benches like to participate? No. I call the shadow Minister.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Ellie Cumbo: That is another area of the Bill where, for the time being, we have chosen not to make significant comments. We comment on sentencing guidelines, but we view whether sentences should be tougher or softer as a political decision, and are slow to presume that our members would all have the same view.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Ellie Cumbo: I think I can safely say that criminal defence practitioners in particular worry about sentence inflation as a political trend in the long term, but I do not think that I could responsibly comment on the specific provisions of the Bill. As I say, I do not think that members’ views would all necessarily align.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Ellie Cumbo: Absolutely not, no. We are very clear on that.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Ellie Cumbo: I think it is worth saying that the absence of public consultation on that point is a cause for concern. Anecdotally—I am sure this is true for many of you as well—nobody I have spoken to in a personal capacity feels comfortable that such a change might be made. They certainly find that they want to know more about it, and the safeguards that would underly it. This is an area where, to me, there is an obvious need for public consultation, given the importance that we all place on the way that juries work, and the ability to be tried by a jury of your peers.
In relation to whether we have been consulted as the Law Society, we have had informal conversations. We were aware that the possibility of remote juries was under consideration at one point during the pandemic, but of course it was not then introduced, so the timing of putting it on the statute book now struck us as rather odd.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Ellie Cumbo: I think what is important is that we do not know. The problem with any change to the way juries work is the relative difficulty of having a baseline against which to compare changes. We do not know to what extent changes to the way juries operate would have an impact on fair trial rights and the justice of the outcomes.
One could only speculate about which particular categories of defendants might be impacted—the vulnerable, those who already have communication difficulties, and so on. I do not know how helpful that speculation is. The point is that you do not experiment with a decades-old system that is so important to ensuring our fundamental rights and freedom without significant evidence, including that there is a need for it and that it would in fact deliver additional capacity to the system, which has not been done yet. The evidence has not been produced that there would be a significant increase in capacity from the proposals.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Ellie Cumbo: Our preferred safeguard is that we do not do it. We are very clear on that. We do not believe it is appropriate to introduce remote juries, particularly at a time when demand for them is surely in decline.
Chris Philp
Q
Ellie Cumbo: As I said earlier, it has been a story of great success in many ways, enhancing the convenience of all parties, including solicitors, particularly in relation to those types of hearings—administrative hearings— where it is only legal professionals talking to each other. Why on earth should you not use a remote hearing for that?
But it is not just an innate conservativism that prompts those concerns about whether it is working well for all types of hearings and all types of people appearing in those hearings. This is a significant change that is difficult to analyse—in fact, I believe the MOJ itself is still in the process of evaluating its success. We are keen participants in those discussions and are keen that our views are heard. Our views are that where such hearings enhance the interests of justice, we are in favour of them and, where they do not, we are not.
Chris Philp
Q
Ellie Cumbo: Obviously we and our members have implicit confidence in the judiciary. We are great believers in the importance of our independent and expert judiciary. That is not to suggest that it is not possible to make their lives a little bit easier than the current provisions do.
There is guidance, as I referred to earlier, about where remote hearings are and are not appropriate, and it differs slightly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. That is not a comment on the judiciary but it is arguably a reason for further attention to be paid to how clear those messages are and how possible it is, with the best will in the world, for the judiciary to interpret them in a way that promotes the interests of justice.
Sarah Champion
Q
Ellie Cumbo: No, I think I have had the opportunity to cover most of the things that the Law Society would want to. Perhaps I should have added into the conversation about pre-charge bail that we take the same view in relation to the removal of the presumption against bail: we understand the aim, but do not think this is the best way of achieving it. We would like to retain that presumption on the basis that it is still perfectly possible to use bail, but it can only be used where it is appropriate and proportionate to do so. We think that is an important safeguard.
The Chair
That brings this session to an end. Ellie, thank you very much for joining us and for the crispness of your answers.
Ellie Cumbo: Thank you.
The Chair
I say to the Committee that we are only going to run this panel for a maximum of 45 minutes. Our wonderful people in the Perspex booth doing the audio and visual will try to find the next panel so that we can end today at 5.30 pm. That is 15 minutes early, but we are running ahead of schedule.
We will now hear from Dr Kate Paradine, chief executive of Women in Prison; Nina Champion, director of the Criminal Justice Alliance; Dr Laura Janes, legal director of the Howard League for Penal Reform; and Dr Jonathan Bild, director of operations at the Sentencing Academy. Welcome, all.
May I ask for short and crisp answers? You will be asked lots of questions and there are four of you. I will not delay further. Will you introduce yourselves in no more than 10 seconds each, please? We will start with Dr Paradine.
Dr Paradine: Kate Paradine, chief executive of Women in Prison. We work with women in communities and prisons, and campaign for the rights of women in prison.
Nina Champion: I am Nina Champion, director of the Criminal Justice Alliance. We are an alliance of over 160 organisations working towards a fair and effective criminal justice system. In addition, since the Bill was published, we have helped to convene a coalition of criminal justice and race equality organisations to examine and highlight how the Bill risks deepening racial inequality in the criminal justice system.
Dr Janes: Good afternoon. I am the legal director of the Howard League for Penal Reform. We work for less crime and safe communities, and we run a discrete legal service representing children and young people in prison.
Dr Bild: I am Dr Jonathan Bild, director of operations at the Sentencing Academy, which is a charitable organisation that promotes the use of effective sentencing practices and also public understanding of and confidence in sentencing.
Mr Goodwill
Q
The Chair
Do it in the order you introduced yourselves.
Dr Paradine: In terms of improvement, we think that there has to be a focus on rehabilitation and not on sentence inflation and the ripple effect that that will have on the prison population, and particularly on the crisis in prisons. We welcome the focus on improving community sentences, but we feel that there needs to be a really close look at what that will mean in practice on the ground.
Certainly in terms of the impact on actually preventing rehabilitation rather than encouraging it, it is important that we consider what the knock-on effects are on the system. In terms of undermining improvements that are happening on the ground, whether it is diversion from custody or strengthening support services, the Bill does not address any of those issues as it currently stands. The ripple effect on sentence inflation is a real concern for us.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Dr Paradine: When we talk to probation officers, their concern is caseloads and the access to support services that help people to address the root causes of offending. We do not believe that probation officers need any more powers, and we do not think that they think that they need them, either.
The issue is access to a full, strong network of support services, particularly focused on the needs of women in the case of those that we address. For the purposes of enforcing sentences, there is not a problem with sentences not being harsh enough. Community support services that enable people to complete those sentences are what is really needed, not extra powers for probation officers.
The Chair
It is Nina Champion.
Nina Champion: We certainly welcome aspects of the Bill around reducing use of child remand, criminal records reform and the focus on diversion from custody, but overall we are very concerned about the sentencing and policing aspects of the Bill, and about the lack of evidence that it will improve public safety or reduce crime. It will put great pressure on an already stretched criminal justice and prison system. We are particularly concerned that the cumulative impact of many of the recommendations will result in increased racial inequality in our criminal justice system.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Nina Champion: For that period of time, but when you look at all the evidence, there is none to show that keeping people in prison for longer will have any impact on public safety or on their own rehabilitation. We are concerned, for example, about provisions that keep people in custody for longer and then reduce the amount of time that they spend on licence in the community, which is absolutely vital to enable people to resettle into the community and have that supervision by probation. Reducing that could have an adverse impact on public safety.
The Government have clearly committed to trying to reduce racial inequality in our criminal justice system, but that has to be by actions and not just by words. They have to be able to show evidence that this will have the impact that they want, and there just is not that evidence.
Dr Janes: We at the Howard League also really welcome the provisions in relation to remands for children, but we do think that not getting rid of the rather Dickensian ability to remand women and children for their own protection and welfare is a real missed opportunity, especially now that there will be a requirement to consider welfare before remanding a child. We also welcome the criminal records changes, which are very good, but more can be done to make sure that the rehabilitation period reflects the date at which the offence was committed.
We are incredibly concerned about the cost. The impact assessment shows that the increase in prison time will cost millions of pounds. We are also very concerned about the impact on our prison system. With these proposals, in the next five years the prison population will increase to 100,000, which is unprecedented in our country. Just to put that in context, in only the 1990s we were at 40,000, so that is an absolutely huge increase, and the impact assessment states that that will lead to instability, compound overcrowding, reduce access to rehabilitation, and increase self-harm and violence.
Although covid has absolutely been a challenge for everyone and a tragedy for many, it has given a brief pause in the uptick in the prison population. Not building on that, and putting further strain on the prison system, really is a bit of a missed opportunity.
Dr Bild: I echo a lot of what Nina said on the sentencing provisions. We have concerns that they do protect the public but in only the narrowest of senses—only for those additional months, or perhaps years, that someone spends in custody. If there is a plan to do something with those people while they are in custody for that extra time to make them less likely to reoffend when they come out, we suspect that that may only kick the problem down the road by a few months or years.
We are very keen on the issues around public confidence in the criminal justice system, but we do not necessarily think the Bill will make a great leap in that direction because of the technical nature of many of the changes. What the Bill does do is to make sentencing ever-more complex and complicated.
A pre-requisite for public confidence is public understanding. One of the results of some of these changes will be that it will perhaps be more difficult than ever to really understand what a custodial sentence will mean in practice. There is much more uncertainty about what a length of custody actually means. Overall, it is yet more piecemeal change in sentencing, which further complicates the framework.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dr Janes: Yes, the projections, as I just mentioned, show that it is set to go up to around 100,000. It is absolutely clear that many of the provisions in this Bill will see people spending a lot longer in prison. There is the increase in the minimum term. We know that with the DTO sentences we are likely to see up to 50 children at any one time in custody. The release provisions for the serious offences—four years or more—will go up to two thirds, rather than a half, which goes right back to the point that both Nina and Jonathan have made in terms of less time in the community under supervision, which is important for victims and confidence in the system.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dr Paradine: Most women in prison have experienced much worse crimes than those they are accused of committing and that end up meaning that they are in prison, particularly domestic abuse, child abuse and other forms of sexual exploitation, so this is a massive issue. We are really concerned about the impact on women, on families and, particularly, on children in terms of the imprisonment of primary carers.
We support the Joint Committee on Human Rights proposals for an amendment that would require judges to record and consider what they have taken into account in relation to sentencing primary carers, including to prison, and to collect data on that, so that finally we have the data, which it is really shocking that we do not have, about the number of children and families affected when the primary carer goes to prison.
When a mother is in prison, in 95% of cases her child will have to leave their own home to go into care or to live with relatives. It is completely unacceptable that the measures up until now have not resulted in the change needed. This is an opportunity to make that small change. It does not require anything different, but it will make sure, hopefully, that the things that should be happening in court do happen, that imprisonment is not having a disproportionate impact on children and that their best interests are safeguarded.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dr Paradine: That absolutely is the case. The majority of women are in prison for things like theft and non-violent offending, often linked to property, to mental ill health, to substance misuse and to multiple needs. The 5% of the prison population that is women is the most vulnerable of that already vulnerable population of people in prison. It is quite ridiculous that we plan to build 500 new women’s prison places, when what we should be doing is driving down the women’s prison population, which we can do if we invest in the right things and focus in the right direction.
Unfortunately, this Bill is a missed opportunity to turn the system around and to focus on rehabilitation, community intervention and making sure that prison is a last resort and not the first resort, which sadly it still often is, drawing people into a system that they find it difficult to escape from. We plead with you to make sure that we try and make sure that this Bill does not make a bad situation even worse.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dr Bild: Yes, when it comes to primary carers that is a relatively stable area of law and it is a relevant mitigating factor. I understand that there has been an amendment moved to go into statute, which is something that would be sensible, but sentencing will already refer to the guidelines on that. I would defer to Kate on all of these issues; it is very much her area of expertise.
The Chair
Dr Janes, you wanted to say something a moment ago and put your hand up.
Dr Janes: I would just add, on this point, that the really important aspect of sentencing is judicial discretion. That is essential if you want to really make sure we do not make women, children and disabled people—people from all sorts of backgrounds—suffer unduly. There is a real shift away from judicial discretion in this Bill.
Nina Champion: Some of the provisions will disproportionately impact women, and also black, Asian and minority ethnic women. For example, on the clause relating to assault on emergency workers, the equality impact assessment acknowledges that for that type of assault, which can often happen, for example, after a stop and search, it is more likely that women will be caught up by extending the maximum sentence in that provision. Of course, we want to protect our frontline workers, but these sentences have already been increased, even in 2018, and the deterrent effect just is not there. The proof is not there that it has any impact on protecting our frontline workers. What it does is catch more people up in the criminal justice system.
The other proposal relating to mandatory minimum sentences, particularly for issues around drug trafficking, will also capture more women and black, Asian and minority ethnic women. As Laura said, it removes judicial discretion to look at the individual circumstances of the case. We know that many women may have been coerced or exploited in drug trafficking cases. As Kate said, they are victims themselves. Introducing minimum sentences removes the opportunity for the judge to look at the individual circumstances of the case.
Maria Eagle
Q
Dr Paradine: Yes, absolutely. This is a Bill that does not recognise the nuances of individual cases, including those relating to women. We know that hard cases make bad law, and many of the provisions are an example of that. We absolutely think that the needs of women have been overlooked.
We know that sentence inflation has knock-on effects throughout the system. There are many unintended consequences to, for example, focusing on the enforcement of community orders and including more and more enforcement measures without addressing the real issue, which is about support to ensure that those who have community sentences can complete them with the support that they need. From our point of view, many of these measures are not looking at individual cases and enabling the discretion on the ground that is needed to make sure we meet each case as we find it. We know that the women’s prison population can be radically reduced, but not with some of these measures, which do not take into account the unintended consequences—particularly the impact on women who are primary carers and the best interests of their children.
Nina Champion: I just wanted to add a point about the lack of overall consultation with this Bill and these provisions. Because it was brought in as a White Paper, rather than a Green Paper, there has been no public official consultation. Groups that will be disproportionately impacted by these measures have not had the opportunity to be heard, including organisations and individuals representing those from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, women, or young adults. We really need to have much greater consultation before these measures are brought in to ensure that there are not the adverse impacts that Kate was talking about.
Maria Eagle
Q
Dr Paradine: Yes, absolutely. The problem-solving courts pilot is one small green shoot of hope in this Bill, in that those sorts of measures, which will enable court and multi-agency support across the system locally to tackle the root causes of what brings people into the system, are really the answer here. We would like to see much more focus on those innovative solutions, restorative justice and out-of-court disposals, of course, which are a really untapped resource in terms of what could turn our system around.
We are concerned not only about the lack of consultation with all sorts of groups representing the interests of those affected by this system but with professionals working within it. We know that there is real progress with out-of-court disposals and the use of simple cautions, conditional cautions and all those provisions available to the police, and we think that those measures must be looked at really, really closely, to make sure that the unintended consequence is not to undermine progress that is already being made in doing exactly what you say needs to be done, which is to focus on a wide range of community solutions that enable us to tailor sentences and responses to individual cases, and actually turn these situations around rather than driving people into a system—indeed, a revolving door—that they find it difficult to escape from.
Maria Eagle
I think that the Howard League wanted to come in there, if I can see properly.
Dr Janes: Thank you very much; I just want to make a brief point. I completely agree with what Kate just said, but I will add to it that the Howard League is concerned about this increased use of electronic monitoring, and particularly, as was raised earlier, the lack of scrutiny of it by the courts. There is a real concern that, instead of it being an alternative to custody, it can become a gateway to custody, and a real concern that that could disproportionately affect women. I just wanted to add that.
The Chair
Dr Bild wants to come in on this and then Nina Champion. Dr Bild.
Dr Bild: Sometimes there is a disconnect between what Parliament does with legislation and what happens in practice. Lots of relatively innovative and problem-solving options have been available, in theory, for a number of years. You can attach treatment orders—alcohol treatment orders, mental health orders or drug orders—to community orders and suspended sentence orders, but in practice it happens very, very rarely. Only a tiny proportion of community orders and suspended sentence orders will have what might be a rehabilitative order attached to them.
Part of this is a commitment to resourcing, as well. There does not need to be huge legislative change; this stuff is already on the statute book and it is already, in theory, available to sentencers. Anecdotally, sentencers are reluctant to impose an order that they are not entirely sure is available, and the defendant will not be able to benefit, through no fault of their own.
It is not necessarily only about finding new ideas, although new ideas are very welcome; it is also about properly resourcing, and showing some commitment to, what is already on the statute book.
Nina Champion: I just wanted to add that there are a couple of missed opportunities, in terms of a presumption against short sentences—there was a real missed opportunity here to divert people from custody—and to look at adult remand as well as child remand, as adult remand disproportionately affects women.
Also, just picking up on Kate’s point about restorative justice, the White Paper made some positive noises about the benefits of restorative justice, both for victims—in terms of coping and recovery—and for reducing reoffending, particularly for violent offences. However, the Bill does nothing to ensure that there will be more access to restorative justice. For example, the national action plan for restorative justice expired in March 2018 and has not yet been renewed. Those are the sorts of measures that really will make a difference for victims and reduce reoffending.
Maria Eagle
Q
Dr Paradine: I am sorry to say that, no, we do not think that the current Bill does that. There are all sorts of ways in which the intent to reduce the number of women in prison radically and to divert women, and others, from the system is not played out in its provisions. For all the reasons that have been covered by the various members of the panel, it does not do that. Sadly, unless the Bill’s direction of travel is redirected towards rehabilitation and communities rather than prison and creating harsher sentences, any progress that has been made will unravel really quickly. The 500 prison places will sadly be the focus, rather than our hope that we could really transform the system in the way that it affects women, families and communities, and beyond that men and young people also.
There needs to be a really strong rethink of what the Bill is trying to do, and a focus on the real problem, which is community support services and the ways that we tackle the root causes of offending. There is very little in the Bill that convinces us that that is the focus, so we need a really strong rethink to focus on communities and not on prison. We know that victims want sentences that work. They do not want to see harsh sentences that do not work. Their interest is in stopping crime and reducing reoffending. Sadly, we do not think that the Bill as it stands achieves that ultimate aim.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dr Bild: Yes I do. Of all the clauses, that is the one that I have the most concern about. I saw some of the discussion on Tuesday with Jonathan Hall, QC in relation to terrorism, but this is broader than terrorism, of course. It takes in a large number of offences that are violent, and certain sexual offences.
The problem I think it creates is twofold. First, there is an issue with the power being given to the Secretary of State. As I say, I saw the debate on Tuesday. I think it engages slightly different considerations than the changes that took place last year in relation to terrorism did. On this occasion, we are talking about the Secretary of State intervening on the sentence of an individual prisoner, which engages a slightly different debate to the Secretary of State changing the arrangements for everyone convicted of a certain offence. I would draw an analogy to the Home Secretary’s old role to set the tariff for life-sentence prisoners. That power spent about 20 years in litigation before the Home Secretary lost it. It is slightly different, but there is an analogy, I think, and I am not sure that it is an appropriate power for the Secretary of State to have.
There is also a real concern that the most dangerous people will come out with no supervision, no licence conditions and no support. In some respects, the more dangerous you are, the less you will be managed in the community. In terms of managing that—
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dr Bild: I am not sure that that will be a high-visibility issue for confidence in sentencing, to be honest. One of the huge problems we have is that we do not really know what goes on in magistrates’ courts. Magistrates’ courts themselves are very low-visibility things, so I do not think we should overstate the impact that these reforms will have on confidence.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dr Janes: Yes. These minimum term reviews are very little understood, because they are rare, but I have done a number of these cases in my own practice, and it is a very unusual situation where we get to see the criminal justice system actually incentivising people to make consistent and genuine change. The current proposal pins that opportunity on the arbitrary date when you happen to be sentenced. All of us want to see the consequences of crime actually fit what happened, and we know that in the current climate, cases are delayed for all sorts of reasons beyond a young person’s control. That might be because of delays due to covid, or because extremely vulnerable young people have to have their sentencing delayed while they have psychiatric and psychological reports, so this proposal does not seem to have any rational basis. It seems to deprive the most vulnerable people of something we would want for them, which is to be incentivised to really change their lives around.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Dr Janes: That, I really cannot answer. As you say, the entire sentence is galvanised around the date of commission. As was said by the House of Lords in the Maria Smith case, that is because it is recognised—and has been for decades, and internationally—that children are less culpable than fully grown adults. There seems to be no rational rhyme or reason as to why the date of sentence would be chosen.
Alex Cunningham
Does anybody else wish to comment on that? If not, I will pass to Sarah.
Sarah Jones
Q
Nina Champion: Thank you for that question. We responded to the consultation on serious violence reduction orders to oppose them—well, we tried to oppose those orders, but there was no question to enable us to oppose it. That option was not given as part of the consultation; it assumed that these were going ahead before the consultation had actually happened. What we do know is that many respondents to that consultation said that one of their key concerns was the disproportionate impact of this provision, particularly on young black men.
We do not believe that serious violence reduction orders are needed, or that there is evidence that they will reduce knife crime. Of course, we all want to reduce knife crime, but rather than additional surveillance, we would rather see additional support for people convicted of these offences. We worry about these very draconian and sweeping police powers to stop and search people for up to two years after their release without any reasonable grounds. Reasonable grounds are an absolutely vital safeguard on stop and search powers, and to be able to be stopped and searched at any point is a very draconian move that, again, risks adversely impacting on those with serious violence reduction orders. For young people who are trying to move away from crime, set up a new life and develop positive identities, to be repeatedly stopped and searched, labelled and stigmatised as someone still involved in that way of life could have adverse impacts. It could also have impacts on the potential exploitation of girlfriends or children carrying knives for people on those orders. There could be some real unintended consequences from these orders.
In relation to your point about what could be done, if these powers were to go ahead, we would like to see a very thorough evaluation of them before they are rolled out nationally. I do not have much confidence in that, given that section 60 powers, which also allow suspicion-less searches to happen, were rolled out following a pilot after several months without any evaluation being published or any consultation. It is therefore absolutely vital that these powers are thoroughly evaluated. That could involve things such as looking at the age and ethnicity of those who were stopped and searched, the number of people stopped in the belief they were someone who had an order but did not—we might see increased stop-and-account of people who have got nothing to do with an order, in cases of mistaken identity for someone who is under one—or the number of times individuals were stopped.
We would like to see scrutiny panels given access to body-worn video footage of every stop-and-search that is done under these powers or in belief of these powers. It is crucial that the evaluation speaks to people who are directly impacted by these powers, interviews them and understands what the impact is. It should also interview and speak to the organisations working with them. Ultimately, it should also look at whether this has achieved its aim. Has it reduced knife crime within an area compared to non-pilot areas? Much could be done to ensure that the evaluation is thorough to avoid the roll-out of these powers, which we believe are not necessary and could have disproportionately adverse impacts. They are just not needed.
Chris Philp
Q
Dr Bild: Yes.
Chris Philp
Q
Dr Bild: Yes, I agree with that. I think the concern is the ability of a Secretary of State to have the power to intervene in the automatic release of a prisoner. That is the question. I agree that the ultimate decision will be made by the Parole Board, which is an independent tribunal, but there should probably be a bit more of a firewall between the Secretary of State and an individual prisoner’s sentence.
Chris Philp
Q
Dr Bild: I do not know if it is going to be made by the Home Secretary or the Justice Secretary. Yes, I agree on the final decision for release, but the halting of the automatic release will presumably be done by the Secretary of State.
Chris Philp
Q
Dr Bild: I agree with you, but the issue you have here is that somebody who is dangerous could be released into the community under licence. If that person serves their entire sentence in custody, that same person, who may be even more dangerous by the end of their full sentence, will be released into the community with no licence conditions, no supervision and no support. So yes, I agree with you that it is safer for the extra time that someone is kept in custody, but it is less safe once they are released.
Chris Philp
Q
Dr Bild: The Parole Board only has discretion in the sense that it has to follow its own rules. Therefore, it can release someone only when it is satisfied that they do not pose a risk to the public. The Parole Board would not be able to decide that now is a nice time to release someone and have a little bit of licence period; I assume that it would have to follow its rules. If it was not fully satisfied that the person is safe to release, I imagine that the Parole Board’s hands would be tied by its own rules.
Chris Philp
Q
Dr Bild: I would agree that that was the case last year in relation to the terrorism legislation, as I said earlier. I am not saying that it is not lawful, but I think that a different issue is engaged when a Secretary of State is making a decision on an individual case and not a blanket, “You have committed a certain offence, therefore this is your release arrangement.” That is the issue.
Chris Philp
Q
Let me move on. I want to ask a question to all the panellists, so perhaps the answers could be relatively brief, given that I am sure we are under time pressure. We had some debate some time ago in this session about the appropriateness of imposing minimum sentences, whereby Parliament specifies in statute that if someone is convicted of a particular offence, there is a minimum period of time that they must be sentenced to in prison, regardless of the facts of the individual case, and regardless of any discretion that the judge may wish to exercise. Can each panel member give the Committee their views on the appropriateness, generally, of statutory minimum sentences?
Chris Philp
We have got three minutes.
Dr Janes: The problem with mandatory minimum sentences is that they do not allow the judge to take into account the specific characteristics, needs and circumstances of the person before them. We have already spoken about why those things are so important. [Interruption.]
The Chair
Do not all speak at once, but one of you please speak.
Dr Paradine: For us, it is the same as for Laura: minimum sentences, the lack of evidence of a deterrent effect, and the inflation of sentences across the board. We really do not believe that minimum sentences are the way forward, and there is so much evidence that that is not the way to go. It is misleading, and it will not do anything for public confidence. What will do so is sentences that actually work in preventing and reducing offending.
Chris Philp
Q
Dr Paradine: Yes, because judges should have the discretion to apply to the case the sentence that is required. That is why we have judges, and that is why our system is as it is. There is no need for constant interference in the way that is proposed in the Bill.
Nina Champion: I agree with both Kate and Laura about the importance of looking at the individual circumstances of the case. I would also like to add that, in terms of racial disparity, we know that black people are more likely than white people to be sent to prison at Crown court. We know that black women are more likely to be given a custodial sentence. We know that these disparities exist. Even taking into account other factors such as the lack of an early guilty plea, we know that black people are disproportionately represented in terms of sentencing and being sent to custody, so this would disproportionately impact those groups.
Chris Philp
Q
Nina Champion: Across the board.
The Chair
Dr Bild, last but not least.
Dr Bild: I agree with the other panellists. If there was any evidence whatsoever that mandatory sentences deterred people, there could be some justification for them, but in the complete absence of any such evidence, I see no reason to have mandatory minimum sentences. To pre-empt the question, that includes every single offence.
The Chair
Thank you very much, panel. Have a happy Thursday evening and a great Friday, working into the weekend.
Examination of witnesses
Professor Colin Clark, Oliver Feeley-Sprague and Gracie Bradley gave evidence.
The Chair
Colleagues, we now move on to our final panel. It is scheduled to end at 5.45 pm, but it is starting five minutes early. It is up to you when it ends, but it was scheduled for 45 minutes. If you want to take it to an hour, that is up to you, but it was scheduled for 45 minutes, and it could end earlier than that.
We will now hear from Professor Colin Clark from the University of the West of Scotland, Oliver Feeley-Sprague, programme director for military, security and police at Amnesty International UK, and Gracie Bradley, interim director of Liberty. In the order I have introduced you, could you each say hello and tell us who you are, in no longer than 10 seconds?
Professor Clark: Good afternoon, colleagues. As indicated, my name is Professor Colin Clark. I work at the University of the West of Scotland and am based here in Glasgow.
Oliver Feeley-Sprague: Good afternoon. Thank you for having me. My name is Oliver Feeley-Sprague. I head up Amnesty UK’s work on policing, military and security issues. Usually I am based in London, but I am currently sitting in Northamptonshire, in a very windy upstairs room—I hope we will not be disturbed.
Gracie Bradley: Hi, I am Gracie Bradley. I am interim director at Liberty and I am at home in London.
The Chair
Thank you all. I also thank you all for joining us early. It was really kind of you to give up part of your day to let us talk to you a few minutes before we had scheduled. Right, Mr Anderson would like to ask a question.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Q
I surveyed 1,000 people in my constituency earlier this year. I will run through a couple of the questions I asked. The first question was: do you think the Travelling community respect the rights of the local community when they set up camp in your area? Only 4% said yes. I asked: do you think the Home Secretary is right when she said that we need to give our police tougher measures to stop unauthorised camps? Only 3% said no. I am not going to run through all the questions, but the last one I will give you is this: do you think crime rises in the area when an illegal camp is set up? Some 92% of my residents said yes.
The Bill is great news, because what it will do is see a decrease in crime the four or five times a year when unauthorised camps are set up in my community. I would like to ask the witnesses whether they agree with me that crime will reduce in places such as Ashfield because of the new measures in the Bill to stop unauthorised camps. It is a yes or no answer.
Professor Clark: Well, I am speaking to you as someone who has been employed as a professor and a researcher for more than 25 years.
I suppose we need to begin with querying the methodology of the survey that was just mentioned and how robust that kind of response and the data are. In terms of a yes or no answer, the answer in a sense would be this. What is in place to ensure that we address the ripple effect of the issues and consequences of the lack of provision of Traveller sites at least since the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and up to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994? The concern is that if people have nowhere to go, if there are no legal sites in the area, these encampments will not go away, so unfortunately this new legislation, which I think is going to be just about as unpopular as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and we all remember how unpopular that was, will do nothing to solve this issue.
What needs to be in place is a national site strategy that to some extent addresses the wide-ranging social policy issues that arise when there are unauthorised camps, as they were referred to there; roadside sites is another way of talking about it, in terms of the terminology. The Government need to work with the organisations that represent the communities to plan an effective road map—quite literally—of UK sites and accommodation. I just do not see this legislation helping that by any means at all.
We are witnessing right now what is going on in Bristol —the really draconian eviction that is going on in Bristol. We are witnessing what has happened at the Wickham horse fair. This goes back many, many generations, and I think there has been an overreaction at the Wickham horse fair today as well. A really serious rethink is needed. I would hope that time and energy were spent addressing the shortfall issues with accommodation and the consequent social policy issues that arise, rather than trying to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. It is a minority within a minority of the population. Bear in mind that 75% to 80% of the Gypsy and Traveller population in the United Kingdom are in bricks-and-mortar housing; this is a small percentage.
I absolutely sympathise with the speaker who mentioned the issues in the local area. What needs to be done is to address that issue in a more comprehensive, national strategy. That, not criminalising populations, is the answer.
Oliver Feeley-Sprague: I agree with a lot of what Colin said. The specific issue around Traveller legislation is not something that we prioritised in great detail in our submission on the Bill, but as a representative of Amnesty International I would say that Travelling communities, not just in the UK but widely across continental Europe, are among the most discriminated against and victimised of any minority group in existence. That is even reflected in things like the Lammy report on racial discrimination in the UK. You do not address the problem by criminalising an entire way of life, which is one of the potential outcomes of the measures in the Bill, especially when you are talking about groups that already have protected characteristics under other relevant law.
I point out that the list of things that anecdotally were reported as part of the survey are already criminal acts. There are already powers in place to prevent, detect and stop those things and to prosecute the offenders. A common feature of some of the measures in the Bill, in our view, around the necessity and proportionality test, is that many of the things that are addressed are already criminal, or can be made criminal in the right circumstances. Those measures are neither necessary nor proportionate.
Gracie Bradley: I would echo a lot of what Colin and Olly said. The real issue here is the chronic national shortage of site provision. Instead of criminalisation, what we want to see is local authorities and Government working together to improve site provision.
It is really important to recognise that we are talking about one of the most marginalised communities in the UK at the moment. These measures are a disproportionate and probably unlawful interference in Gypsy, Roma and Travellers’ nomadic way of life. Article 8 of the European convention on human rights protects people’s right to private and family life and their home. The Court of Appeal has set out that this community has an enshrined freedom to move from one place to another, and the state has a positive obligation to protect Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities’ traditional way of life. The new seizure powers in respect of vehicles in particular are very likely to mean that people end up facing homelessness.
As we have already discussed, some elements of these proposals are very subjective and invite stereotypes and profiling. The majority of police forces do not want greater powers. Research from Friends, Families and Travellers has shown that when police were consulted in 2018, 84% of the responses said that they did not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments, and 75% of responses said that their current powers were sufficient and/or proportionate. The issue is the chronic national shortage of site provision, and that should be the priority of Government and local authorities.
Maria Eagle
Q
The Chair
We will go in reverse order. Gracie first, then Oliver and Colin.
Gracie Bradley: Thanks. I would like to set the Bill in its wider context. What we are seeing is a shrinking space for people to speak up and hold power to account, the Human Rights Act potentially being watered down, and attacks on judicial review. Now we see this policing Bill that inevitably poses an existential threat to our right to protest. These aspects of the Bill are so significant and so serious that they cannot be mitigated by procedural amendments.
The right to protest is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy and it is protected by articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights. I recognise that it is not an absolute right, but the state has a duty to protect that right and has a positive obligation to facilitate it. We must not forget that protest is an essential social good. For people who do not have access to the courts or the media and so on, it might be the only way they have to make their voices heard.
In Liberty’s view, we have not seen a compelling case in favour of expanding existing powers in respect of protests. The existing powers are already broad and difficult to challenge, and they are weighted heavily in favour of the authorities. I know that there is some analysis to suggest that the protest provisions in the Bill are a direct response to Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter. I just remind the Committee that during the judicial review of the Met’s decision to ban Extinction Rebellion protests in 2019, the commissioner conceded that there were sufficient powers in the Public Order Act to deal with protests that were attempting to stretch policing to its limits. We are incredibly concerned by the existential threat to protest that the policing provisions in the Bill propose. We invite the Committee to say that they should not stand part of the Bill. I will leave it there for now because I am sure others have more to say.
Oliver Feeley-Sprague: Again, I agree wholeheartedly with what Gracie has said. Amnesty is part of a number of civil society organisations and academics who think that part 3, on protests, in its entirety should be removed from the Bill. It is neither proportionate nor necessary.
I have been working on policing issues for the best part of 25 years and I have never seen a roll-back of policing rights in all of that time. Often I think what is missing from these discussions is recognition that it is not necessarily about a lack of policing power. It is a tactical and operational decision made by commanders at the time to maintain and uphold public order, and they already have a variety of powers and laws. You have only to look at the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice on public order to see the enormous list of powers police have at their disposal.
From an international perspective—you would expect me to say this as someone from an international human rights organisation—these are international legal obligations under article 21 of the international covenant on civil and political rights. Interestingly, the Human Rights Committee issued a general commentary on this issue last year. It is quite normal in international legal circles for authoritative bodies to introduce guides and interpretation statements about how these things are supposed to be implemented. Importantly, the commentary on the right to peaceful protest issued by the Human Rights Committee last September said that states parties should avoid using
“overbroad restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly.”
It stated that peaceful assembly can be
“inherently or deliberately disruptive and require a significant degree of toleration.”
Lowering the thresholds and introducing vague terminology such as “noise”, “annoyance” and “unease” are the clear definition of overly broad restrictions on the right to peaceful protest. It puts the UK out of step with its international obligations.
That is also important in the foreign policy setting, because Britain—the UK—goes out of its way to say that it wants to be a champion of human rights around the world, especially on issues of civic space and freedom of assembly. It was a feature of the integrated review and it featured in the UK’s response to the G7 communiqué. It is awfully difficult for the UK to champion these issues on the world stage when domestically it is rolling them back. If any other regime in any other context were to introduce powers of the kind introduced in the UK by this Bill, the UK Government would be the first to criticise. It gives those regimes an easy excuse or get-out clause. They can point the finger and say, “Well, the UK is as guilty as all of us. The UK has no credibility to lead on these issues on the world stage.” That discussion is missing a bit from this Bill.
Professor Clark: There is little I can add to what has been said, but I will do my best.
The words that Olly quoted—“noise”, “annoyance” and “unease”—are replicated in other parts of the Bill, where there is talk of “disruption”, “damage” and “distress” of a significant nature. What strikes me is the imprecise language and terminology of the Bill, and the potential that it would introduce for discretion, the operation of prejudice and bad governance, in a sense. It leads to some fundamental questions about what kind of democracy we want to live in. Do we want to live in a democracy that protects human rights, protects peaceful assembly and guarantees both formal and substantive citizenship rights?
I am of an age where I remember being outside where you are right now back in 1993, peacefully assembling to protest the introduction of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 for the same reasons that we are here today. There is a real sense of déjà vu about this in terms of the rights to protest and to peaceful assembly. Then, of course, it was raves and the succession of repetitive beats, as the Act made it known. It was a section of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 that effectively ripped up the obligation of the state and local authorities to provide Gypsy sites within local authority areas. There is a real sense that we have not made much progress here at all.
Again, I concur with what Gracie and Olly said. I hope this is taken on board.
Sarah Jones
Q
In terms of protests, it is completely reasonable for the police, particularly in London, to say, “We have these enormous protests that last for several days. They may well be peaceful, but the city grinds to a halt. Is the balance of power right in this setting?” That is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, and there are different views about what the answer is. You have all made your views clear on the Bill, and I agree, but do you think there is anything reasonable that should be done, perhaps not through the Bill but in other ways? There are lots of different practices that could be looked at. Does any of you have a response to the charge that there are protests that last for days and cause significant disruption, and what are we to do about that?
Gracie Bradley: That is as really interesting question. It is a good question, but the problem is that, in seeking to legislate for that kind of thing, we have ended up with something that is so broad and has the lowest threshold so far that essentially any protest may be targeted. That is just not really what is at hand here. The issue is that nearly any protest could be considered to cause serious annoyance. All kinds of protesters may fall foul of it, and nobody should face a sentence of up to a decade for exercising their fundamental rights. That is the problem that we have with this legislation.
I appreciate that you are asking what we should do with protests that go on for days, and are disruptive and so on. As I said, protest is a fundamental right, and it is the state’s obligation to facilitate it. The very essence of protest is that it will be disruptive to some degree. One person may say, “This has been going on for days,” or one public authority may say, “This has been going on for days and now it is causing a huge problem,” but other people will perceive the threshold as much lower, so it is a really dangerous road to try to go down. What we should really be looking at is how we uphold the right to protest.
Again, there is a perception that this is just about Extinction Rebellion or Black Lives Matter, but people have been out to protests for all kinds of reasons over the last year, be it either side of the Brexit debate, lockdown or BLM. The Court of Appeal said:
“Rights worth having are unruly things. Demonstrations and protests are liable to be a nuisance. They are liable to be inconvenient and tiresome”.
It is to approach the question from the wrong perspective to be saying, “How can we limit?” We really need to be looking at how we can facilitate, especially when we have had scenes like the ones at Clapham Common under existing powers, and when the Black Lives Matter protesters last year were subject to very heavy policing—kettling, horse charges and so on. We have seen a nurse fined £10,000 for organising a protest. Really, the question is, “What can we be doing to better protect and uphold protest rights?” rather than, “How can we clamp down?”
Professor Clark: I very much agree with what Gracie says. In a sense, this issue is back to front. It is ostensibly an issue of management and pragmatics, and how to better facilitate protest, as Gracie puts it. We recently had a situation here in Glasgow. It was two tales of the weekend, really: on the Saturday we had Rangers football fans in Glasgow city centre, and then on the Sunday we had a march in support of Palestine and against what was going on there.
I attended the Sunday event, not the football event, but it seemed to me that those were very much issues of management and pragmatics. The Sunday event was well planned and prepared for, and proportionately policed and managed. It had a clear start point and end point, and as far as I am aware there was no trouble whatsoever—there were stewards present and so on. The Saturday was a rather different matter. It was expected but not particularly well planned for, particularly by Police Scotland and other representatives.
Bearing in mind what happened there and in other instances of what this legislation could be used for, it strikes me that we need to come back to the idea of how we embrace and understand questions of formal and substantive citizenship, and manage the pragmatics of given protests and how we can better facilitate and prepare for them. That seems the right thing to do if you believe—to go back to what I said earlier—in human rights and want a better functioning democracy.
Oliver Feeley-Sprague: I repeat what I said earlier about the fact that the right to peaceful protest is a right, enshrined in international law, that everybody has, and for centuries those rights have been used, often in very noisy and productive ways, to deliver everything from votes for women to preventing serious wrongdoing, behaviours and things of that nature. Noisy and uneasy protest is often the way that we see very productive social change happen. I think that is recognised in the international commentary around how states should react.
The way the police manage public order is an enormous skill of tactical and operational consideration. I would just go back to the toolkit that they already have. Sometimes they make the right decision, and sometimes they make the wrong decision—everybody is human—but the answer here is a toleration, not a restriction, and a tactical and operational decision about how best to manage. The threshold needs to be set high to prevent serious threats to public order, not noise and unease.
I would like to bring in two other points so that we do not miss them. The Bill captures other people by using a very low threshold of “ought to know”, which basically means in this context that if you attend a protest, you should be aware of any restrictions that may have been imposed either by a Minister via regulation or by the police. You are then criminalised for that—criminalised for things that in any other context would be perfectly lawful. That is a very dangerous threshold for ordinary citizens to have to face going about their daily lives.
Allowing Ministers to further define these vague terms through secondary legislation, by issuing regulations, creates a space for the Executive branch of Government essentially to outlaw things it finds uncomfortable, rather than the general threshold of serious threats to the public health or order. By doing it via the regulatory framework, you are not allowing Parliament enough scrutiny and enough checks and balances on that.
The way that bystanders and people who participate may be criminalised, and the way that it gives Ministers disproportionate power, are two dangerous things that should not be there.
Sarah Jones
Q
The Chair
That question could elicit some very long answers, so could we please have really crisp answers? Let us start with you, Gracie.
Gracie Bradley: That is a great question. To put it bluntly, Liberty was founded in 1934 in response to oppressive policing of the hunger marches. As I am sure Committee members will know, we have taken significant action over the years, in court, in terms of policy, influencing legislation and so on, in respect of what we perceive to be heavy-handed or disproportionate policing of protest. To say that if we had not had the covid restrictions it would all have been better is unfortunately too optimistic and not borne out by the evidence. I referenced the injunction that unlawfully banned protest in 2019 brought by the Met. That was pre covid.
The pandemic has unfortunately given rise to confrontations that we perhaps would not have seen, because we have seen interventions that would not have had any basis in law had we not been in the context of the pandemic, but Liberty’s history of campaigning, policy and legal work tells us that some of the tactics that we saw at Black Lives Matter protests, such as kettling, horse charges, and people being stopped and searched rather than being supported when they were seeking support from the police, are not confined to the pandemic.
I think it is incredibly dangerous that we may be heading from a situation in which protest has been policed for the last year, in Liberty’s view wrongly, as if it were not lawful, straight into a situation, if the Bill becomes law, where effective protest can be shut down more or less at a public authority’s whim. We are seeing a continuity that we may not have seen had we not been subject to the pandemic restrictions that we have been subject to, but even there the police have overreached in their interpretation of the powers. We have seen protest treated as if it were banned, and it has never been under a blanket ban in the course of pandemic. That is why we have seen a lot of confrontation.
Oliver Feeley-Sprague: I want to be careful not to imply that I would ever think that there was a time when the powers in the Bill to restrict protest were proportionate or necessary. I do not think that they ever would be, but we are in unprecedent times in terms of overall restrictions on things that would normally be perfectly lawful. We are living in extraordinary times. I agree with Gracie that some of the policing decisions have clearly been wrong, but we have been living under unprecedented restrictions that have almost become normalised and entrenched on our views. We are all anxious about going outside, playing by the rules, doing the right thing and keeping everyone safe, as we all want to be during this pandemic. If ever there were a time not to be increasing policing powers in the way that is envisaged in the Bill, now is that time because this is not normal. But I want to be careful because Amnesty would say that the powers in the Bill would never be proportionate.
Professor Clark: I would underline that the key word, which Gracie used earlier, is overreaching. I think that is what we have seen. In a sense, the current context and public health situation because of the pandemic has allowed for that overreach to happen. That is not to say that it might not have happened in other, more normal times, but there has been evidence of overreaching. Olly was spot on when he said that this is absolutely not the time to be doing this. We need to be really cautious about the next steps.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Q
Oliver Feeley-Sprague: I think in my answer, I said—if I didn’t, I should have—that it has the potential to criminalise a way of life. Some of the powers around returning to a site and seizing vehicles, when those vehicles might be your home, clearly do raise that prospect. I will repeat what I said about our experience as a human rights monitoring organisation: Gypsy and Traveller communities across this continent, across Europe, possibly even—
Victoria Atkins
Q
Oliver Feeley-Sprague: It depends on how you are defining that threshold of “serious”. I have seen little in the Bill that gives any indication of what threshold you are using to reach those determinations. It is true, as far as I am aware, that the Gypsy and Traveller community is one of the most persecuted groups in the UK, and they are persecuted across Europe.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Gracie Bradley: I just want to echo what Olly said in respect of the fact that the threshold is not clearly defined. These definitions are vague, and they could potentially include a very wide range of issues. I would also add that the way the clause is drafted, it is not simply where significant disruption, damage or distress is caused; it is where there is a likelihood or a perception that it is likely to be caused. The offence can be committed by someone who is said to be likely to cause damage or distress. This is highly subjective, and may invite stereotypes and profiling based on the mere existence of an unauthorised encampment. Again, the issue is really about the breadth of the drafting, the lack of definition, and the fact that the mere threshold of likelihood may invite judgments that are based on stereotyping and profiling. That is what is really concerning about this clause.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Gracie Bradley: That is a difficult question to answer. I do not have a firm answer to that, but I think that if you are taking into account the distress of local residents, you also have to take into account the fundamental right of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people to live a nomadic way of life. It is not an absolute in either direction, and when we are talking about a community that, as Olly has said, is one of the most persecuted in the country, we have to be really careful about introducing these really broad and vaguely defined measures that are likely to invite them to be stereotyped and discriminated against further.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Gracie Bradley: As I have already said, the issue is that we are talking about “likely to cause damage”. That is subjectively determined. There are some people who will be perceived as likely to cause damage; there are some people who, in another person’s mind, will not be. This is very subjective, and I do not think we can abstract it from the history of how people have been treated. I think Colin wants to come in.
Professor Clark: Yes, I can say something about this. In a sense, it is not even local residents; it is actually in the hands of the landowner or the licensee. That is one of the changes between, for example, the regulations in the law as contained in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and the current Bill—this is where there is a significant change. In the 1994 Act, it was the police who had that decision to make about when the action should be forthcoming. In this Bill, that right is given over to the landowner or the licensee, and in a sense it is up to the people who—to answer your question, Minister—own the land on which the Travellers are camped. The landowner would make a decision: “I now feel that this is disruptive, damaging and distressing, so therefore I will call the police and then issue the actions.” That is the issue at stake here.
I will just remind the Minister about the lack of movement on a national site strategy, around both permanent and transit sites and around the right number of pitches on those sites. A lot of these issues would go away and it would be far less expensive than a constant cycle of evictions. The economics of this, as well as the human rights aspects, are quite important.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Professor Clark: What is the context? Without context that is an impossible question to answer.
Victoria Atkins
Fly-tipping. A field was taken over by an unauthorised encampment and it cost £50,000 to clear it. Is that acceptable?
Professor Clark: There is legislation in place already to deal with fly-tipping, I believe. I do not think that there needs to be an enhancement of that legislation to the current law as it stands. There is legislation to deal with fly-tipping, whoever may cause it.
When sites come into being in local areas, it is not uncommon for other people to notice that it is Travellers coming in and use that as an excuse to fly-tip their own business-related waste, and then blame it on the Travellers. That comes back to the points that my two colleagues made about the dangers of invoking racialised stereotypes here and apportioning blame, when it is not those individuals who are to blame. Again, this is where we need to be careful about the way in which we use language and how this Bill goes forward.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Oliver Feeley-Sprague: Anybody responsible for causing £50,000-worth of damage to somebody’s property is committing a crime and, absolutely, people should be protected from that. To echo what the other panellists have said, I think you need to be very careful about further minoritising the Gypsy and Traveller communities. To answer your question bluntly, any form of significant damage of that nature is a crime, whoever does it.
Victoria Atkins
Q
Gracie Bradley: I am not sure that I understand what the question is getting at.
Victoria Atkins
Does the Law Commission have a reputation for not understanding human rights law, or for somehow wanting to diminish people’s human rights?
Gracie Bradley: Not that I am aware of. I suppose what you are getting at is that codifying public nuisance in statute was a recommendation of the Law Commission, which is correct. In 2015, it did recommend that codifying public nuisance should be done, but it did not consider the application of public nuisance to protest.
The Law Commission noted that its proposed defence of reasonableness would increase cases where a person was exercising their right under article 10 or article 11 of the convention, but they also noted that it is somewhat difficult to imagine examples in which this point arises in connection with public nuisance. The Law Commission absolutely did not propose a maximum custodial sentence of a decade.
The Chair
Would any of the other witnesses like to respond to that question?
Oliver Feeley-Sprague: Just to say that I agree 100% with what Gracie said. That is my reading of what the Law Commission concluded in 2015. There are very specific qualifications about article 10 and article 11 rights needing to be protected under any changes of the law. By my reading, this Bill does exactly the opposite of that, so we should be extremely cautious.
Professor Clark: I think the Law Commission is fully cognisant of the rights and responsibilities of a healthy democracy. It understands questions of human rights and citizenship. I would not dare to suggest differently.
Victoria Atkins
Q
The Chair
One of you can respond to that, if you would like to kick off.
Professor Clark: I can. What was the question?
Victoria Atkins
“Serious annoyance” is a phrase that has caught attention. In the context of public nuisance, that is a phrase that has arisen over centuries—I think I am right in saying that—of legal development and does not necessarily have quite the flippant meaning that it may have in day-to-day life outside of a court of law.
Professor Clark: Okay. I understand now—sorry. I think this comes back to the point that all three of us have made on the issues around terminology and definitions, and the use of them, and the ability to exercise discretion. You would like to hope, and expect, that moving forwards such expressions would take on their proper meanings in a legal context, but applied fairly and applied justly.
Given the overall nature of the Bill and what I said earlier about the impreciseness of the language and terminology, certainly in the case of part 4 with regard to unauthorised encampments, I think that is why a lot of outside bodies and organisations and non-governmental organisations have question marks.
However, I will hand over to Gracie, who might be better informed than I am on this.
Gracie Bradley: I am happy to pick this up. We know the legal genesis of that definition of “serious annoyance”, but of course the provisions in the Bill do not confine themselves to “annoyance”. If we look at clause 54, we see that conditions may be imposed that appear
“necessary to prevent the disorder, damage, disruption, impact or intimidation”—
Victoria Atkins
Q
Gracie Bradley: I was not saying that it was in clause 59; I was picking up on another clause in the Bill, which contains language that is vague and concerning. But I can leave it there, if you want to stick with clause 59; I do not have anything to add on that.
Chris Philp
Q
“public safety…the economic well being…the prevention of disorder or crime…or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
Of course, unauthorised encampments of this kind do infringe
“the rights and freedoms of others”.
Thereby, I would suggest, article 8 is not engaged. Moreover, the right to enjoy one’s property is made very clear, is it not, in article 1 of protocol 1, which says that people are
“entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of…possessions.”
So, given what I have just said about paragraph 2 of article 8, and about article 1 of protocol 1, would you care to reconsider your article 8 analysis in relation to this clause?
Gracie Bradley: No. I think that what I said was that under article 8 it would likely be an unlawful interference, and I would disagree with your analysis that if it is proportionate, article 8 is not engaged. If the right can still be engaged, and a limitation may or may not be proportionate—
Chris Philp
Q
Gracie Bradley: The point is that there is a balance to be struck; that is what happens with qualified rights. And I think the point is that the potential threshold at which these measures may be applied is so low, and the impact on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people is potentially so distinct, that it would be disproportionate for the measure to be applied to them. What we are talking about, especially when we are talking about the potential seizure of vehicles in the context of nomadic Gypsy and Roma Traveller communities, is people potentially losing their homes entirely. If we are talking about people potentially facing a custodial sentence, that is a really significant interference with their article 8 rights, and it may have further implications—for example, what happens to their children if their caregivers are not available to them? Yes, I recognise that there may be interference in the life of the local community, but the point is that the threshold at which these measures may be invoked, and the impact on people who live in their homes and who have a nomadic way of life, is so significant that the way the Bill is drafted is disproportionate. In Liberty’s view, it also invites discrimination.
I recognise that the Committee is trying to get at the point about the wider community. It goes back to what Colin spoke about at the beginning and what numerous police forces have mentioned—that there is a lack of lawful stopping places, and that there is inadequate provision. I do not think we square this circle by getting into whose rights are more infringed on which side. The point is that what we need to get to is working constructively together to ensure that communities are provided for, and to make sure that there are enough stopping places and pitches. That is the way that we resolve this.
Chris Philp
Q
Gracie Bradley: Of course—Liberty is a human rights organisation. As I am aiming to demonstrate, I am not dismissing that this is a qualified right, and that there are other things that hang in the balance on the other side. I have said there is a balance to be struck but, at the same time, the way the Bill is drafted means that it poses a disproportionate and really significant threat to the rights of Gypsy and Roma Traveller communities. They are a persecuted and minoritised community, and I do not think it is defensible for them to be targeted in this way, especially when there is a non-punitive solution, which is to ensure that there are adequate stopping places.
Chris Philp
It is not targeting that community expressly; it is targeting people who engage in a particular kind of behaviour, regardless of their identity—but I think I have taken this far enough.
The Chair
I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee. Thank you for coming early and staying longer than your allotted 45 minutes, and I thank you for your evidence.
That brings us to the end of today’s sittings. The Committee will meet again at 9.25 am on Tuesday in Committee Room 14, in order to commence line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Tom Pursglove.)
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 25th May 2021
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPolice, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 May 2021 - (25 May 2021)
The Chair
Good morning. Before we begin line-by-line scrutiny sof the Bill, I have a few preliminary reminders. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of the Committee except for the water provided. I remind Members to observe physical distancing. Members should sit only in the places that are clearly marked. It is important that Members find their seats and leave the room promptly to avoid delays for other Members and staff—although I do not think that will be a problem for us given that you are all coming back this afternoon. Members should wear face coverings in Committee unless they are speaking or medically exempt. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting, which shows how selected amendments have been grouped together for debate, is available in the room. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order they are debated but in the order they appear on the amendment paper; the selection and grouping list shows order of debate. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which an amendment relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the existing clauses of the Bill. Members wishing to press a grouped amendment or new clause to a Division should indicate when speaking to it that they wish to do so. Here we go!
Clause 1
Police covenant report
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, after “workforce,”, insert
“including the impact of working with traumatised survivors on officers’ wellbeing and morale,”
This amendment aims to ensure the police covenant report, when addressing the health and well-being of members and formers members of the police workforce, also addresses the specific impact working with traumatised survivors, such as survivors of child sexual abuse, has on officers’ wellbeing and morale.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 77, in clause 1, page 2, line 34, at end insert—
“(8A) The Secretary of State may not lay the police covenant report before Parliament unless it has been reviewed by an oversight board.
(8B) The oversight board referred to in section (8A) must be made up of representatives of the following organisations, appointed in each case by the organisation itself—
(a) the Police Federation,
(b) the Police Superintendents’ Association,
(c) the Chief Police Officers Staff Association,
(d) UNISON,
(e) the National Police Chiefs Council,
(f) the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners,
(g) the Home Office, and
(h) the College of Policing,
and an independent chair appointed by the Secretary of State, and any other person the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Amendment 76, in clause 1, page 2, line 41, at end insert—
“(aa) members of the British Transport Police,
(ab) members of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary,
(ac) members of the Ministry of Defence police,”
Clause stand part.
New clause 44—Duty on health service bodies to have due regard to police covenant principles—
“(1) In exercising in relation to England a relevant healthcare function, a person or body specified in subsection (2) must have due regard to—
(a) the obligations of and sacrifices made by members of the police workforce,
(b) the principle that it is desirable to remove any disadvantage for members or former members of the police workforce arising from their membership or former membership, and
(c) the principle that special provision for members or former members of the police workforce may be justified by the effects on such people of membership, or former membership, of that workforce.
(2) The specified persons and bodies are—
(a) the National Health Service Commissioning Board;
(b) a clinical commissioning group;
(c) a National Health Service trust in England;
(d) an NHS foundation trust.”
Sarah Champion
It is a pleasure to speak here today and that the first amendment is on the police covenant, which has support across the House. The amendment would make the covenant as strong and useful as it possibly can be.
It is clear that officers and police staff across the country get variable levels of support. They put themselves at risk in the most extreme circumstances, and the horror and trauma they have had to deal with in the last year has been exceptional. I will speak specifically about trauma, and first let me give some examples. Child sex offences recorded by the police increased by 178% between March 2007 and March 2017 and there has been a 511% increase in the abuse of children through sexual exploitation. Unfortunately, in just that example, different police forces across the country give different levels of support to their officers and frontline staff. We should not be surprised that police officers are exposed to trauma, but I find it quite shocking that there is no standard training as soon as individuals join the force to help them identify what trauma is and how to deal with it. The fact that across police forces there is not a standard level of support to be accessed once an officer feels he has the need for it is really letting our forces down.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on tabling the amendment. Does she agree that one of the problems is that for too long there has been a culture in the police of making do, being tough and toughing through it? That is why it is unaddressed, and that can lead to people not raising the concerns they feel and to the absence of help that should be there.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend knows the issues intimately and has tried to address them in the past. She speaks with a great deal of experience and she is absolutely right. I was speaking to my district commander about the clause on Friday. He said, “The biggest problem we have is that the culture in the force is basically to deal with it, and we are weak if we try to raise concerns.” My response to him was that in the armed forces, particularly in the last 10 years, they have completely turned that culture around because there was the will and impetus to do that. I am incredibly impressed by the level of self-awareness, recognition and support that the armed forces have when people start to feel the impact of trauma.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood said, the number of police officers who are off sick as a direct result of trauma and related activity demonstrates that the problem is huge. The evidence is there for the change that we propose.
Sarah Champion
This is what I do not understand: throughout my career in Parliament I have tried to focus on prevention, because it is cheaper. The bottom line shows that it is much better at the beginning to teach police officers or back room office staff how to identify trauma, how to deal with it and how to get help. That is why I say to the Minister that, within the covenant and with the opportunities she is given to follow through on her own’s party’s commitment to produce the covenant, we need trauma training and the necessary support in black and white in the police covenant.
Police forces have an organisational responsibility to support the wellbeing of their workforce. The College of Policing published a wellbeing framework, which outlines standards to benchmark their wellbeing services, but that is voluntary. The college has also issued specific guidance on responding to trauma in policing and psychological risk management. Let me offer some more facts and stats—people who know me know that I love a statistic. The 2019 police wellbeing survey identified some really worrying mental health data, finding that 67.1% of police officers responding reported post-traumatic stress symptoms that would warrant an evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder. That is two thirds of the police. A Police Federation survey of 18,000 members found that
“Attending traumatic and/or distressing incidents”
was one of the top 10 reasons why respondents were having psychological difficulties at work.
Let me pick up on the phrase “psychological difficulties at work”. Such difficulties have an impact on the individual, their colleagues, and the public. I have done an awful lot of work with survivors, predominantly of child abuse but of abuse in general as well. The level of response and empathy that they get from that first police officer tends to dictate how the rest of that process goes and, ultimately, whether they are able to secure the conviction of the perpetrator. If that police officer has undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and is unable to access support, what will that first interaction with the victim be? It will be poor. That is not the officer’s fault; it is our fault for not putting the support in place to enable them to identify the issue at the time.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
The hon. Lady certainly lives up to her name by standing up for the victims of abuse and those affected in other ways. The police could perhaps learn lessons in how to deal with some of those problems from GCHQ, many of whose officers, including those working in Scarborough, spend many hours looking at online images of child sexual abuse or terrorism. GCHQ is aware of those problems and is on top of them from the very start. Does she agree that the police could learn from GCHQ?
Sarah Champion
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. GCHQ has a large footprint in his constituency, so he has seen at first hand that correct identification and the provision of early intervention and support prevent these issues arising. Unfortunately, in the police force that is a voluntary duty. The police covenant gives us the opportunity to put in the Bill that that needs to be addressed. It is simple, it is cheap, and it involves an hour’s training and signposting to existing resources.
Some 23% of respondents to the Police Federation survey had sought help for their feelings of stress, low mood, anxiety and other difficulties. Let us contrast that with the 67% who were recognised as having undiagnosed PTSD: just 23% of the nearly 70% who had those symptoms sought help.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend will remember that when she was questioning Assistant Commissioner Hewitt about the availability of support, he said:
“An issue that we undoubtedly have around wellbeing and the occupational health service provision is the restricted amount of capacity… In all circumstances, where we want to refer officers or staff for support, one of our frustrations is that it often takes quite a while to access that support.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 6, Q3.]
Does she agree that if we had proper training up front, so that people were trained almost to expect traumatic experiences, the pressure on the system when they undergo them would be all the less?
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is what I mean when I talk about recognition, a change of culture and early intervention. Members probably do not know that I trained and qualified as a psychodynamic counsellor. My very first client was a miner who had been buried alive—he was stuck underground. I was in my early 20s and he was in his mid-50s, and we looked at one another and both went, “Oh my God. This is what I have to deal with,” but as it was a post-traumatic stress disorder and he had come very soon after the event had happened, we managed to resolve the issue within four sessions.
With post-traumatic stress disorder, early intervention is key. If it is left for years—decades, in some cases—it becomes so embedded and ingrained in someone’s psychological make-up that it becomes a really big issue that affects every single aspect of life. It is important to recognise the early signs, which could be covered at the very beginning of training; it could even be an hour-long online training course. We need the police to be able to recognise it themselves. That is where we need to get to, and that is what the police covenant could do.
Returning to the survey, of those police officers who sought help 34% reported that they were poorly or very poorly supported by the police service. Of those with line management responsibility, only 21.8% could remember being given any training on how to support the staff in health and wellbeing.
Members of the National Association of Retired Police Officers have supplied me with examples of the sorts of incidents that they have to deal with. I apologise as they are shocking, but not unnecessarily so, I hope. This is the first case study:
“I served as a traffic sergeant. Part of the role was as a road death scene manager. I attended the scene of many deaths on the roads. I then went to a child abuse investigation, where I got promoted to DI. Whilst a temporary DI, my wife’s best friend and our neighbour hanged herself and I cut the body down. I got symptoms in relation to this straight away and things didn’t get better.
Now 11 years down the line, I have chronic PTSD, the side effects of which are severe depression, anxiety attacks and extreme mood swings. Now, it’s always at the back of my mind that if I’d had early intervention when I asked for it, maybe things would have been different.”
The following is case study 2:
“Operational experiences include attending suicides. For example, within my first few weeks of returning from training school, I attended a suicide where the victim lay on the railway tracks and was hit by a train. I assisted in the recovery of the remains of the victim.
Also, a man jumped off a tall office building and landed headfirst. I was the first on the scene to see the massive head trauma he had suffered.
They were all extremely distressing sights and I have difficulty getting them out of my head, even now.
These are just a few examples where I wasn’t offered any psychological support. I wasn’t even asked if I was okay. It was just seen by everybody as part of the job: suck it up and get on to the next thing.
I retired medically in 1999 as a result of injuries received on duty. I have suffered with complex PTSD and health issues ever since. I am currently waiting to receive further treatment from the NHS. I have received nothing from the police by way of support, even at the time of my retirement.”
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I can confirm the efficacy of having support immediately after a traumatic event. In my own experience as a social worker when I was a young man, I discovered someone who had unfortunately committed suicide. The support that I got from my senior colleagues allowed me to resolve the difficulties I had with the experience. It also convinced me that quick intervention can work very effectively and that, conversely, no intervention at all can lead to problems for many decades.
Sarah Champion
I thank the hon. Member for sharing that experience, which reiterates the two points of early intervention and creating a culture in which it is automatic for a manager to ask, “Are you okay?” and to offer support, and to have support in place.
Alex Cunningham
Another example comes from my personal experience. When I worked for the gas industry, I went to a gas explosion to handle the associated public relations. As went towards the building where the explosion had taken place, a fireman coming out the door said to me, “It’s not very pleasant in there.” I went in—I had to find out exactly what had happened—and there was the torso of a woman. That was 30-odd years ago, and it lives with me to this day. I got no support whatsoever—I did not even think about it. Perhaps that is all the more reason why we need to ensure that at least our emergency workers are getting the support they need as soon as possible.
Sarah Champion
Exactly. My hon. Friend used the phrase, “I did not even think about it” and that is what we have to change. The police covenant gives us the opportunity to turn that around and have a culture in which, if someone sees something traumatic, it will be automatic to check in on them to see if they are okay. If they are okay, that is good, and they can move on. Our police are suffering the most extreme trauma day in, day out. They do not know it when they get up in the morning but they have no idea what they will face when they open that door. Think of the stress that puts on their bodies—stress that can be alleviated.
Maria Eagle
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not enough just to ask, “How are you?” in the context of a culture that expects people to be okay, and that, consequently, the Minister can give a lead in how she implements her welcome proposal for the police covenant by emphasising that mental health is as important as physical health? Does my hon. Friend also agree that just having wellbeing in there is not quite enough to change a culture and that the expectation that support is given needs to be clear?
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend puts it far more elegantly than I could; I absolutely agree. The police covenant talks about wellbeing. We need the word “trauma” in there, because that is what we are dealing with. The Minister has the opportunity to put that in black and white and show the leadership that we need. The whole House would support her in that. I really hope that she can take that forward.
In our evidence sessions, Assistant Commissioner Hewitt said that we have an issue with
“the restricted amount of capacity. That is one of our challenges…one of our frustrations is that it often takes quite a while to access that support.”—[Official Report, Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 6, Q3.]
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North, early intervention prevents escalation. John Apter, the chair of the Police Federation, spoke about dealing with trauma, saying:
“We have come an awful long way, but we have not gone far enough. One of the frustrations that my colleagues have is the inconsistency within forces…part of that is the lack of ability or willingness to mandate particular aspects of training and support. The covenant gives us a great opportunity to put in place mandated levels of psychological support and training”.—[Official Report, Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 20, Q30.]
Chief Superintendent Griffiths said:
“There has been a 36% increase in inquiries to the police charities compared with the previous year, the vast majority of which are mental health concerns.”
He added that, on trauma,
the exposure for police officers…is quite significant.”—[Official Report, Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 29, Q43.]
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
As I have previously declared, I am a former detective inspector in the Metropolitan police, where I served for 17 years in operational roles. I absolutely relate to the hon. Lady’s description of the lack of support at that time, but chief constables are required, as part of the police retirement process, to write to retiring officers to offer them such support.
Sarah Champion
Yes, but the case study from NARPO shows that that does not always happen. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, but we ought to extend that support to retired officers. That will not have a massive cost implication, but it is our duty to them for all they have done. We have a fantastic veterans covenant in place. The police covenant provides the opportunity to deliver something similar, in recognition of that incredible service that the police have given us. We should do something when they are serving as an officer and once they have left. The fact that it is voluntary and sometimes it happens and is piecemeal is just not good enough. That is not acceptable. We have the opportunity to change that.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful point. We are looking to introduce the covenant now. Now is the perfect time in many ways, because we lost many police—21,000—over the past 10 years, but there is now a period of significant recruitment, so a lot of officers are coming into the force. Does she agree that now is the perfect time to make sure that we do that early intervention and training, so that those thousands of new officers do not go through the same experience as many others in the past?
Sarah Champion
I completely agree. Now is the perfect time for those reasons, and also because hopefully we are coming out of the pandemic. The service that the police gave during the pandemic was exceptional. We should recognise the personal trauma that caused to them, by ensuring that the need for trauma support is recognised in the police covenant. That would be the greatest respect we can show.
Alex Cunningham
When my hon. Friend questioned John Apter, the national chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales, she asked whether he supported this measure. He said:
“Absolutely, it needs to be meaningful and tangible, and it needs to have a benefit for those it is there to support—not only officers, but staff, volunteers and retired colleagues.”
He went on to say about training:
“I have had this conversation with the College of Policing, and part of that is the lack of ability or willingness to mandate particular aspects of training and support.”
The most important part of his evidence was:
“The covenant gives us a great opportunity to put in place mandated levels of psychological support and training from the start of somebody’s service to its conclusion and beyond.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 20, Q30.]
I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that the Police Federation is fully behind the amendment.
Sarah Champion
I do welcome it, but it is not just the Police Federation, NARPO or the College of Policing that are saying that; it is what I hear when I speak to serving officers. I had a long conversation with my district commander about this on Friday, and he cited case after case of officers entering a building, having a traumatic experience, and then him trying to give them support. However, what tends to happen is that the support is not in place, the waiting list is too long and they then go off on long-term sick leave. While off on long-term sick leave, the issue is compounded so it becomes even more of an issue. I paraphrase, but basically he said to me: “When we are able to offer early intervention, the officer comes back and carries on serving. When we are not, we know that they are going to be off for a very long time, if indeed they come back at all.”
I say to the Minister that this amendment is a common-sense courtesy. It is a way for the House and the Minister to make a clear commitment to recognising mental health and trauma, and showing the respect and duty that we have to our police force.
Maria Eagle
I want to make a short contribution based upon my experience before I came into the House, which was a shocking length of time ago. It was 24 years ago, in fact, and now I have put that on the record—oh dear.
Before that time, I was a solicitor practising in civil litigation. I frequently tried to help people who had been traumatised at work and were suing their employer, normally because they had lost their employment. Some of the people I sought to assist in that capacity were serving and former police officers, and others who had encountered traumatic situations in the workplace.
At the time, I thought of myself as a relatively sympathetic ear, and I think I was regarded as such too—Members might be startled to hear that, given the adversarial nature of proceedings in this House over the past 24 years. However, it was tremendously difficult for me to get a good statement out of the people who had been traumatised, because they had put up barriers. I would ask them, “What effect did this have on you?” and they would say, “I’m fine. I’m okay.” Often that was a few years after the incident that led them to the path out of employment, whether they had to retire or they were medically dismissed. They were clearly not okay, yet even when I, as their solicitor, was seeking to take a statement to assist them in getting some support ex post facto, and usually after they had had to leave their employment, they were still almost incapable of telling me how they really felt about what had happened and the impact it had had on them.
I know that if those people had been in a culture that said, “It’s okay to be not okay; we are going to provide you with help; you might not think you need it, but it is here in case you do, and it is perfectly fine to go along to the counsellor and break down in tears; that does not mean you are not a man”—they generally were men, but not only—then my role as a solicitor, trying to get them some compensation for their trauma over the years and their loss of employment, might have been a lot easier.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend reminds me of another constituent who is no longer a police officer, unfortunately. He went to what he was told was a domestic incident, was let in and found someone on the floor, convulsing—they had taken a large amount of cocaine when they knew he was entering the building. He tried to resuscitate the person, which led to PTSD. He left the force, but this is where the double nub that my hon. Friend spoke about relating to compensation needs to be considered. The police force did not recognise his PTSD, which was the reason he resigned from the force—he could not cope because he could not get the support from them—but the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority did not acknowledge that he was a victim of a crime because of the incident that led to the trauma, so he got no support, no compensation and no job. He actually went to a solicitor three times and challenged it. I am glad to say that he is now an incredible campaigner for police veterans with PTSD and is getting them the recognition that they deserve, but it should not have to be a fight all the time; it should be automatic.
Maria Eagle
I saw that kind of situation many times in my practice as a solicitor. I always felt that it would have been better to have prevented these things from happening. I believe that amendment 2, by making it clear that the covenant can and should seek to address trauma, could be the key to opening up and changing that culture, facets of which we have all, in our various ways, given examples of today.
One thing that is common to all the examples that Members have recalled from their own experience is that they involve an emergency worker—someone who is there to help and benefit society—who in the course of their employment sees the kinds of things that the rest of us in society are shielded from, thankfully, and then they are not supported to overcome that trauma. That is the common thread.
The Government should accept the amendment, because wellbeing equates to mental wellbeing. It is not just about someone making sure they are physically strong enough to be a police officer; mental support is just as important. If inserting “trauma” could be a key to unlocking that kind of support, I believe that the Government could be responsible for leading and promoting a change in culture across our emergency services.
That has already happened in the armed forces, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said. Much progress has been made in what was a very macho workplace, where there was an equal lack of understanding that mental ill health and trauma could lead to serious disability, a lack of operational effectiveness and a requirement to retire far earlier than society would have wished, having invested a lot of money, time and effort into training such specialists. That is also true of our emergency services on the civilian side.
This is an opportunity for the Government to lead what will be a tremendously important change in culture—a signal to those organisations that this is the way forward and this is what matters. This has been missing in our civilian forces and civilian emergency services, and it needs to be there. This could be a really important way of leading that change.
I hope that the Minister will see the importance of that and will ignore what she may have in front of her, which will be from civil servants—who are doing their job absolutely adequately and well, I have no doubt—setting out to try to resist any change to the perfect wording that they have devised. It is not always perfect; it can sometimes be improved. I am not criticising the civil servants—I spent nine years as a Minister, so I know how hard they work—but sometimes a Minister can apply her own common sense to what is in front of her. She is there to do just that. She is there to say to her officials, “That’s all very interesting, but I am applying my political common sense and we are going to accept it.”
If the Minister does that—I hope she will—it could be the beginning of a real change in culture that in future will impact on the nameless people who otherwise might have fallen into the kinds of problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham so eloquently set out. All of us who have spoken in this short debate have some experience of coming across aspects of this issue. In the future there might be unnamed people whose health benefits and who do not lose their employment and livelihoods because the Minister was brave enough to lead the change by accepting the amendments. I hope she will think very seriously about doing so.
Hywel Williams
I referred earlier to my experience as a young approved social worker under the Mental Health Act of getting an innocuous call, while I was on duty on a Saturday morning, that turned out to be a case of suicide in a very rural and unsupported area, which meant that I was there for quite some time before the police and medical people turned up. I want to make one point to the Minister. Following that day, I had two calls from a colleague—a peer—who shared her experiences and supported me. Then I had two calls from a manager, and on the Monday we had a short, purposeful meeting. My point is that support need not be extensive or even expensive in any real sense. Short interventions that are purposeful and skilled can be very sophisticated and effective.
Sarah Jones
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairman- ship, Sir Charles. As we are debating amendments 2, 77 and 76, clause 1 stand part and new clause 44, I will speak to all the issues in the round. I will start by thanking Sarah Thatcher and Huw Yardley from the Public Bill Office, who have given so much guidance to us all in preparation for the Committee. We start this debate at the end of a difficult and turbulent year, but one in which people across the country have come together and there are many lessons that we can learn. I hope we can apply those lessons to the progress of the Bill. It is a year today since George Floyd was murdered, and I know that the lessons from that will also guide much of what we talk about today.
It is a pleasure to begin our line-by-line consideration of the Bill by debating the introduction of the police covenant, which we all agree with and support. We all probably believe it is long overdue. The tone set by my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham and for Garston and Halewood shows the nature of our approach and how we want to try to support the changes, but we also want to work to improve them as much as we can.
The Bill creates a statutory duty for forces to support police officers and places a requirement on the Home Secretary to report annually to Parliament. It focuses on protection, health and wellbeing and support for families. It applies—correctly—to serving and former police personnel. It is an appropriate acknowledgement of the sacrifices made by the police service and the need to provide better support. The Police Federation has campaigned for the introduction of a covenant for several years, and I salute it for the campaigning work that it has done. I am pleased that the Government are taking action.
It is appropriate to take a moment to thank, on behalf of the Opposition, the police and all those who have given incredible service working on the frontline through the covid crisis: our police officers, firefighters and other emergency services, health and social care workers, shopworkers and transport workers, who have all shown incredible bravery and dedication. Those who put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe are the very best of us, and we thank them for their service.
We support clause 1. We are pleased that the covenant will focus on
“the health and well-being of members and former members of the police workforce”—
their “physical protection”, and—
“the support required by members of their families”.
Amendment 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, is extremely important. I congratulate her on tabling it and agree with everything she and others have said this morning. It helps to expand on what is an absolutely crucial element of the covenant.
We heard today that a Member of this place has had to take several weeks off because they are suffering from PTSD. The surprise with which we hear that reflects how we do not talk about these issues enough. We do not support people enough who have these conditions, and we are not enabling a lot of different professions to tackle these issues.
In preparation for this debate, I talked to the National Police Chiefs Council, the Police Federation, the Police Superintendents’ Association, and many police across the country who have talked about mental health and how it is a significant and growing issue. Some forces deal with it extremely well and some do not, which is the premise of where we are starting from. Some support out there is absolutely first rate and some really is not. There is no consistency across the country.
Working with traumatised survivors, as my hon. Friend set out, has a huge impact on the wellbeing and morale of police officers and staff, but the impact of running into danger and serving the public goes beyond that. I recall when I first became an MP talking to a police officer who had to stem the blood of a young boy who had been stabbed as he waited for the ambulance to arrive. The trauma of that cannot be underplayed.
I have talked to officers in the custody suite in Croydon where, only last year, Sergeant Matt Ratana, a police officer approaching his retirement after 30 years’ service in the police force, was shot dead in front of his colleagues by somebody who had been brought in for questioning. The impact of that on the entire community of police officers cannot be underplayed. The officers who were there had to intervene and try to help their colleague before the emergency services arrived. All the other people who worked in that area who were his friends and colleagues were also affected. Think also of colleagues in the Independent Office for Police Conduct who did the investigation and had to watch repeatedly the CCTV footage of what happened and see a police officer in that situation again and again. That is real, brutal trauma.
Sarah Champion
I support everything my hon. Friend is saying. The examples that she and I and Members here have given are the big trauma incidents that we recognise as likely to have an impact, but I also think it is important to recognise it might involve going to a domestic abuse case and seeing a child who is the same age as your child. A seemingly small case could have the most profound impact. Putting the provision for support in the police covenant, regardless of the incident, is the key to the amendment. It should be up to the individual to know and recognise when something has an impact and is starting to unravel—to see the early signs, whatever the trigger.
Sarah Jones
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We do not always know what is going to trigger those kinds of responses. I met recently with Sam Smith, who some people will know. He is an ex-police officer who served on the frontline for three years. He said:
“You’re thrown into a job where, within weeks of starting, you’re spat at, fighting people, rolling over dead bodies—your adrenaline levels are so high”.
The job quickly became his life. A chronic shortage of staff meant that Smith did a lot of overtime, spending his time-off sleeping and barely seeing his friends. He started having nightmares. He said:
“I probably wasn’t the nicest to my girlfriend—I became irrational and unreasonable. When I look back now, I’m surprised she stayed with me.”
After two and a half years of service, Sam realised he was suffering from PTSD and did not feel he had the support he needed to stay in the job.
Since leaving the force, Sam has been running a campaign calling for better mental health support for police officers, as he is concerned about inconsistencies in support across the 43 different police forces. He says that at the moment the main mental health welfare service for police officers is a programme called Oscar Kilo. Many would argue that the money provided is not well spent, the provisions are entirely optional and nothing is mandatory for any forces. Because of that, and ever-tightening budgets within the police, the service can be underused, and many officers had never even heard of it.
Sam is calling for us to go further than the Bill and the amendment. He is calling for a national standard of wellbeing support for police officers and hopes that the Government will back his Green Ribbon Policing campaign. I know he would appreciate it if the Minister would look at the campaign for a national standard of wellbeing support, and perhaps she might consider meeting Sam and talking about how those proposals could be taken forward.
There are some aspects of the Bill on which we will inevitably disagree, but I think we can all, across the House, agree on the importance of the mental health of members and former members of the police workforce. In that spirit, I hope the Minister will support amendment 2 and potentially pledge to go further and consider wider reform to wellbeing standards for police officers.
I will move on to amendments 76 and 77 and new clause 44. As I mentioned, the Police Federation has been campaigning for many years for a covenant, through its “Protect the Protectors” campaign. All the police bodies are in favour. It is a good thing. To be the best it can be, we need to make some improvements and make sure that we do not miss this opportunity.
The covenant comes after a year where the police have had to carry out the enormous challenge of policing the draconian emergency covid legislation, with limited guidance, in some cases, or notice when laws would be changed. The police absolutely rose to that challenge and got the balance right overall. The covenant also comes within the context of significant cuts to the police, as well as the nature of crime changing, with violent crime high, terrorism and historic child abuse cases taking up more of police time, and a high proportion of crimes now online. The number of assaults on police officers has rocketed to more than 35,000 assaults in the last year, a subject we will return to in our debate on clause 2.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham mentioned, the number of police officers leaving the service with mental health problems is too high. Research from a team of sociologists at Cambridge University showed that nearly one in five police officers have symptoms consistent with PTSD. It is widely recognised that mental health issues are widespread and under-detected, and a proper response is patchy across police force areas.
Morale is at an all-time low. The Police Federation’s 2020 survey revealed that 86% of respondents said that they did not feel fairly paid in relation to the stresses and strains of the job. Some 65% of respondents reported that the covid-19 crisis has had a negative impact on their morale and 76% felt unfairly paid for the risks and responsibilities of their job during the pandemic.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend will recollect the evidence given by John Apter during the evidence sessions. He quoted Martin Hewitt:
“You heard from Mr Hewitt that assaults on officers, staffers and other emergency workers have increased by 19% during the pandemic—some horrific levels of attacks—and very often, my colleagues say that they feel they are treated as a second-class victim.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 21, Q33.]
Does my hon. Friend agree that, having seen that surge, what she is trying to achieve is all the more important?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Throughout the period of covid, I have been talking to John Apter, Martin Hewitt and others. The impact on police staff—the exhaustion—of not being able to take leave for long periods of time and of those increased assaults has been significant. We need to reflect that.
As of March 2020, there were 2,578 police officers on long-term sick leave. More than half of long-term police officer absence is due to sick leave. In 2019, the national police wellbeing survey identified some worrying mental health data, which we have heard about. Some 18,066 police officers and 14,526 police staff responded to the survey, and 67.1% of respondents reported post-traumatic stress symptoms that would warrant an evaluation for PTSD. The average anxiety score for police officers was moderately high and their average depression score was moderate. They were not given the vaccine as a priority, so they were running into danger with that threat, and they have also had a pay freeze. This is an opportunity to show that we appreciate the work that they do, and to acknowledge that we can do better in giving them more support in the job that we ask them to do.
Sarah Champion
I support the amendment. To be quite honest, if I am on a train and something kicks off, I do not really care what police force the officer comes from. If they are a member of the British Transport police and can sort the incident out, I am just incredibly grateful. They ought to get the same recognition and levels of support as any other police officer.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is completely right. The fact that those police are the responsibility of another Department is neither here nor there. They should absolutely be front and centre as part of the covenant. We want to ensure that all the wider police family is covered by the police covenant. The amendment would extend the covenant to the British Transport police, the Civil Nuclear Police Federation and the Ministry of Defence police.
The British Transport police are the specialist police force for Britain’s railways, providing a service to rail operators, their staff, and passengers across the country. They respond to and investigate all crimes committed on or related to the railway network, including the most serious. They also have a significant role to play in protecting the many vulnerable people who use the railway network and stations as refuge when in crisis.
The nature of the work of the British Transport police means that officers regularly deal with the most traumatic incidents, and I would like us to reflect on that. Around 300 people take their own lives on the railways every year. British Transport police are the ones who attend and manage all those scenes, so every year, 40% of British Transport police are affected by people taking their own lives on the railways. More than 1,000 staff are affected by two or more cases.
The British Transport police often do incredible work on county lines. The criminals are savvy to that and are increasingly using taxis and recruiting young people in the towns themselves, rather than putting them on trains, as the British Transport police are so good at spotting those vulnerable young people on trains carrying drugs to other towns. There is a lot of knife crime on the transport system because people might be moving from place to place and through transport hubs. Last year, at East Croydon station, which is a major transport hub in my constituency, there was a murder when two lads from different gang networks bumped into one another and one murdered the other, and the British Transport police were there to respond.
I will give one other example. Please forgive me for talking about Croydon—I know I am a Front Bencher, but it is hard not to bring my own examples. Last week was the start of the inquest into the tram crash in Croydon, when seven people died and many more were injured as a tram toppled over after going too fast around a steep corner. The nature of that horrific incident—the windows shattered and people came out of the tram—meant that many bodies could not be identified. Again, it was the British Transport police who were there as the first responders to that crisis.
Sarah Champion
I did not realise until I started working on child abuse that there is an amazing charity called the Railway Children based in Liverpool and in India. The train network is often the first point at which runaway children are identified, and it is the British Transport police who are there to offer them support. My concern is that if an officer is experiencing trauma themselves, it is much more difficult for them to give the necessary sensitivity to a runaway. I agree that it seems bonkers therefore to separate British Transport police and tag it on as an afterthought.
Sarah Jones
I agree. When we consider the severe and significant impact of such crashes and traumas, as well as the day-to-day experience, as my hon. Friend said, of trying to deal with people fleeing county lines or fleeing crisis, we need to ensure that the British Transport police are as strong as they can be in response.
British Transport police officers are often victims of assault when carrying out their duties. On average, 21.5% of British Transport officers and police community support officers—about one in five—are assaulted each year. In the previous year to date, there were 470 assaults on British Transport police officers and community support officers. In the last year, during covid, even though the number of people using the trains went right down, assaults increased marginally. I guess that is understandable given the nature of what those officers are trying to enforce: disputes over wearing face masks or coverings on a train. There have been several incidents resulting in spitting or coughing as a method of aggravation towards either the victim on the train or the British Transport police. The Opposition’s key argument is that the British Transport police’s service is no lesser just because it happens to sit with the Department for Transport. Surely we could bring them in as part of the covenant and give them the same status as those in other police forces.
In the initial conversations about why the British Transport police, the Civil Nuclear constabulary and the Ministry of Defence police were not included, we were told that it was not feasible to put them in the Bill because they sit in different Departments: the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. However, they are included in other parts of the Bill such as the clauses that refer to police driving standards. If we can include them there, presumably we could include them here.
The key point about the police covenant, which we heard in our evidence last week, is that we do not want it to be just warm words; we want it to make a tangible difference to the experience of those in the police service. It is possible to include all police forces in the Bill, and it is surely the right thing to do. I would be grateful for the Minister to confirm that she has heard and understands that and perhaps will take steps to address it.
I turn to new clause 44. We want our police to have proper mental health support, as we have heard, but we want local health bodies to have due regard to the principles of the covenant, instead of the Secretary of State reporting on these issues and presenting back to police forces. New clause 44 emulates part of what the Government have provided for the military in the Armed Forces Bill, which puts a legal duty on local healthcare bodies. The words, “due regard”, have previously been used in other legislation, such as the public sector equality duty contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which requires public authorities to have due regard to several equality considerations when exercising their functions.
We think it would be good to enshrine these measures into the police covenant and in law, particularly on an issue as crucial as health. By emulating the wording of the relevant section of the Armed Forces Bill, new clause 44 does not specify the outcomes but simply ensures that the principles of the police covenant are followed and that police officers, staff and relevant family members are not at a disadvantage. I am aware that this is one of many issues, but the stark figures that we have all been talking about this morning mean there is not really a reason why adequate healthcare support for police and retired police would not be included in the covenant.
Clause 1(7) says:
“A police covenant report must state whether, in the Secretary of State’s opinion”.
I want to pick up on that, because it is important to remember that the covenant should be about providing the police with support that has a meaningful impact on their situation. Chief Superintendent Griffiths put it well when he said at the evidence session last week that
“a police covenant is almost the sector asking the Government for additional support or assistance, or to rule out any adverse impact on police officers, and for the Government to play their role across all other public agencies to try to level the ground and make sure everything is fair and supportive for policing.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 29, Q44.]
I hope the Minister will consider supporting new clause 44, which I am sure would have the full backing of the House.
Finally, I turn to amendment 77, which is absolutely crucial and goes to the heart of how the covenant should work going forward. The amendment would set up an oversight board for the covenant, with an independent chair and membership of police organisations that would review the annual report before it is laid before Parliament. The amendment would also allow the Secretary of State to appoint other people to the oversight board as they deem appropriate. In essence, the amendment would ensure that the covenant does not have Ministers marking their own homework. The point of the covenant is not for the Home Secretary to decide whether the police are doing what they should be doing; the point is that the police should be working with the Home Secretary to make sure the police are getting the support that they need.
Alex Cunningham
I always think of the expression, “do with”, rather than “do to”, and I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that working closely with the different organisations outlined in the clause will add considerable value to what the Government are trying to achieve. Better than that, it will have better outcomes for the police officers involved.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is exactly right in how he describes what the covenant should be about and how it should work.
Maria Eagle
Does my hon. Friend agree that by including a broad spread of representative organisations at all levels of the police, whether trade unions or staff associations, and at all levels, from the most junior officer to more senior officers, it is much more likely that the kinds of events that lead to the outcomes that we were discussing earlier in the debate will be identified and can be tackled via the covenant, if those things are talked about across the whole range of organisations before fixing the report? Is that not the point of the amendment?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right, and all the police organisations have been really clear that this is how we get the best outcome from the covenant, and that this is how we can best define it. I mentioned the death of George Floyd, and all the major police organisations have been working together on black lives matter issues—for example, by looking at issues around discrimination across the police force. I have had many conversations with Martin Hewitt, John Apter, police supers and others in which they talk about how absolutely fascinating it has been to talk to police officers lower down in the force, understand what is holding them back and what changes need to be made, and drive that change forward. By bringing in all these organisations, we can deliver better policy.
John Apter, in an evidence session last week, said that
“in order to make the covenant meaningful for our members, retired colleagues and volunteers, I think that level of independence on the oversight programme, the oversight board and the delivery board, which would then lead in to the Government, is really important…It is not just the federation calling for this; collectively, we all believe very strongly in it.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 30, Q44.]
That is a powerful case, which I am sure the Minister understands. I hope that she will support our amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Thank you, Sir Charles. It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
First, I thank Opposition Members for the constructive tone of the debate so far. I very much take the point that this covenant meets with the approval of all the parties represented here today and, I am sure, others as well. We are all conscious of the terrible incidents that members of the police force and the wider policing family have to endure on a daily basis, but we are also particularly mindful—reference has been made to this—of what they have had to endure and the services that they have had to provide in the past 12 months. It has been a very difficult time for the whole of society, and it is, I hope, no surprise to anyone that members of our policing family have been at the forefront of that and have been protecting us through these very difficult 12 months. I am therefore really pleased by the constructive tone of the debate thus far.
I am particularly grateful to the hon. Members for Rotherham and for Croydon Central for tabling these amendments and explaining their reasons for doing so. As I hope will become clear, we very much understand the motivations behind the amendments and, indeed, we have great sympathy with what they seek to achieve. We may just have different ideas of how to achieve them.
Let me put the clause in context. I am pleased that parliamentary counsel decided to put this clause at the very start of the Bill, because it is a significant Bill—the largest criminal justice Bill that Parliament has considered for some time—and I think it right that the police covenant is at the very start. It sets the tone for the rest of the legislation.
This clause will enshrine in law a duty on the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the police covenant, which has been introduced with a view to enhancing support for the police workforce and their families—a very significant point. Even in this Committee Room, there are members of the policing family—they are not direct members themselves, but their fathers, mothers and so on have served in the service—and it is right that we include them in our consideration.
Sarah Champion
I appreciate the Minister giving way. She says, “and their families.” She has just done some exemplary work on the Bill that has become the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and knows that a disproportionately high number of cases of domestic violence and abuse happen within the police world. One would hope that, were we able to tackle the root cause of that by addressing the trauma at the very beginning and putting support in place, the knock-on repercussions would be prevented, which I am sure she and I both really want.
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. She is right: in the course of proceedings on that Bill, we examined the impact that domestic abuse has on members of the wider policing family. She is absolutely right, and I will come on to that point about the trauma, if I may. I do very much acknowledge it.
I will just explain the thinking behind the clause as currently drafted. The covenant takes the form of a declaration and is not set out in the Bill. In particular, the report must address the health and wellbeing of members and former members of the police workforce in England and Wales, their physical protections and support for their families. Over time, the report may deal with other matters addressed under the banner of the police covenant.
The clause is in the Bill because our police put themselves at risk on a daily basis, dealing with some of the most challenging, toughest and most heartbreaking situations—hon. Members have given examples of that during this debate. I will explain how the covenant came into being. We set out a frontline review, inviting police officers, staff and community support officers to share ideas, in order to change and improve policing. The results of that review identified the fact that more must be done to support the wellbeing of those across the policing community. We have therefore announced plans to establish a police covenant, to recognise the bravery, sacrifices and commitment of those who work, or who have worked, in policing. No member of the police workforce should suffer any disadvantage as a result of their role in policing, and the covenant will support that aim.
The examples that hon. Members have provided show, first, the challenges, difficulties and—actually—terror that officers must face on occasion. However, I also hope—I am grasping for silver linings—that some of the stories show the improvements in our collective understanding of the impact of trauma and post-traumatic stress disorder on mental health.
The example that the hon. Member for Rotherham gave of the officer who—I think she said that they were not even asked if they were okay, which, as the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood quite rightly said, should be only the beginning of the conversation; of course, much more must flow from that first question. However, the officer to whom the hon. Member for Rotherham referred had to leave the force in 1999. I hope that we all, as a society, have gained a better understanding of the impacts of trauma and so on on mental health since then.
Maria Eagle
Because the Minister has just said that trauma is now recognised, will she go the whole hog and include the word in her wonderful clause 1?
Victoria Atkins
I am developing my argument, if I may. The reason I referred to that particular officer, although other examples were given, is that under the covenant, as it is drafted, that officer—as a former member of the police force—is covered by the covenant, and we very much want it to support not just serving members but those who have served and have since retired, or had to leave.
We now come to the nub of the issue—the inclusion of words in the legal framework, as set out in the Bill. We believe very strongly that the consideration of the impact of working with traumatised survivors on the morale and wellbeing of members and former members of the police force is already within scope of the clause, as currently drafted. It falls within the broad categories of health and wellbeing, as set out in clause 1.
Again, just to give the Committee some comfort and, indeed, I hope confidence in what we intend to do, our initial priorities for year one, which will be overseen and monitored by the police covenant oversight board and the police covenant delivery group, will include working towards ensuring that occupational health standards, including for mental health, are embedded in all forces; holding chiefs to account for providing the right quality and investment in their workforce; further consideration of a new chief medical officer for policing in England and Wales; working on a review to establish what is a good support model for families, drawing on established good practice and research from other sectors and international partners; and once that is agreed forces will be required to implement locally bespoke schemes in their local infrastructure. It will include development training for GPs around the role of the police, similar to the military veterans’ GP training, and development of pre-deployment mental health support provided to the police workforce, particularly in the light of the pandemic and the effect that it will have had on the police workforce.
Rather like the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, whereby in the definition we set out the very broad legal framework, and there were many examples of domestic abuse behaviour in those categories, which were then put into the statutory guidance. The wording, “health and wellbeing”, provides the legal framework. Within that, it is for the board, the delivery group and, ultimately, the Secretary of State, to include those matters in the report.
Sarah Champion
The Minister’s words are giving me a lot of comfort, but could she clarify a little more? What she is talking about is retrospective support once the incident has happened. Is it her intent that there will be preventive action at the very beginning of police training, so people are aware what the trauma is in advance, rather than just focusing on once it has happened?
Victoria Atkins
I am sure that I will give further clarification in due course if it is needed, but I draw comfort from the fact that the wording I have here is the development of “pre-deployment” mental health support. If that requires further explanation, I am sure that I will provide that explanation in due course.
Victoria Atkins
I would just like to give comfort on this point. We also plan that the board should have its inaugural meeting to set its priorities during scrutiny of the Bill. Parliament will be able to assess the priorities that flow from that meeting within the scrutiny of the Bill. The approach in the clause is very much of openness and transparency. We want the concerns that have been quite properly put forward to be addressed within the legal framework as set out in clause 1, and the practical workings to have meaningful effect for officers, former officers and members of staff on the ground.
Maria Eagle
The Minister has been very generous in giving way. It sounds as if she is moving towards the suggestion that she might not accept the amendment. Although in broad terms, the word “trauma” can be encompassed in the widest possible definition of health and wellbeing, one of the difficulties faced thus far is that the culture has been that health is about physical health, and wellbeing is just about not being off work. Consequently, were she to accept the change in wording, it would give a very strong steer that Government see the importance of cultural change being at the heart of the issue.
Victoria Atkins
I would go further, because I would not want the Committee to understand that the covenant is the only work being done on mental health and understanding trauma and wellbeing. There is already work going on with some of the people who have been mentioned in the debate to improve local understanding of the impact. Chief constables are very alive to that.
The point of the covenant is to set the framework for recognition in relation to both mental and physical wellbeing, and to set up the structure so that the Secretary of State is accountable through the report to Parliament for those matters. It is drafted as it is because we do not want to fall into the beguiling trap where, in a year or three years’ time perhaps, people look at a list of conditions in a piece of legislation, and take that as exhaustive. We want professional curiosity and intelligence to be used in these matters. Our concern is that differentiating physical and mental health could have unintended consequences years down the line for how the terms of the covenant are deployed at local level.
Alex Cunningham
The Minister will have heard me quoting John Apter earlier. Having talked to the College of Policing, he said that there is a
“lack of ability or willingness to mandate particular aspects of training and support.”—[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 20, Q30.]
Does she not think that it is time they were given that ability so that, were willing, they could alter the training to suit changing circumstances and the needs of police officers?
Victoria Atkins
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He touches upon one of those imponderables, in that the police are operationally independent. There is always a balancing act, for Ministers of any Government, of any colour, in persuading, cajoling, directing and working with the police to ensure that their training meets both the expectations of the public and the needs of police staff. That is why the police want to come with us on this journey, because we are working together on this. I cannot be as directional as he is perhaps suggesting.
However, the fact that we are having these debates in Parliament is significant. We plan for the board to have its inaugural meeting during the scrutiny of this Parliament, and very senior people, who take what this House says very seriously, will be around the table. Having this debate will very much help them understand their responsibilities in this regard. I note that Paul Griffiths said in giving evidence last week:
“There is a need for consistency across occupational health standards, but I think that could be achieved through the programme management rather than through legislation.”—[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 20, Q30.]
That is really what we are trying to address in clause 1.
The hon. Member for Croydon Central kindly invited me to meet Sam from the Green Ribbon Policing campaign to discuss some of these issues, and I would be delighted to do so. We are very much in listening mode as to how we can improve our plans for this clause. We have kept the wording deliberately broad to ensure that there is room within the legislation to allow the Secretary of State to consider issues of importance as they arise, and the issues that have been raised here will be included in those considerations.
We have built flexibility into the clause through paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (2), to be addressed if considered appropriate. We very much want to strike the right balance, by directing the substance of the report without being too prescriptive. As the aim of the covenant is to focus on issues directly relevant to members or former members of the police workforce, we will be establishing a police covenant governance structure, along with key policing stakeholders, to feed directly into the police covenant report. This structure will support us in prioritising the most relevant issues to the police year on year, and ensure that the report reflects that.
Amendment 77 seeks to place the police covenant oversight board on a statutory footing. I hope that it is apparent from what I have said already that we do intend to establish such a board, albeit on a non-statutory basis, to drive the strategic direction of the covenant, to set priorities and to monitor progress, which will feed into the Home Secretary’s annual report to Parliament. The board will comprise key representatives from across policing, but we consider it appropriate for the board to be chaired by the Minister for Policing. As part of our plans to establish the board, we will ensure that its important work feeds into the police covenant report.
Sarah Jones
Does the Minister acknowledge that the reason we want to put the board on a statutory footing is that at the moment it falls to the Home Secretary to provide a report to Parliament only once a year? The power balance of who the covenant is for, who should be driving the improvements and who should be leading what is needed within the police is wrong. We believe that that balance could be put right if the Bill stated that it should be those police organisations, under an independent chair. If the Minister for Policing chairs the board, inevitably he will be marking his own homework. The whole purpose of the covenant is to enable the police to get the support they need in a way that is driven by the police for the police. It is not about the Minister deciding whether what is being done suits him.
Victoria Atkins
I am so pleased that the hon. Lady raises that, because the very first subsection of the Bill sets out the Secretary of State’s accountability. It is the Secretary of State who lays a report before Parliament, so they are accountable to Parliament for the contents of that report. I do not have a crystal ball, but I imagine that when the first report is laid, hon. Members from across the House will ask the Secretary of State searching questions about, for example, its observations and provisions in relation to mental health and trauma. In drafting the covenant, we have tried to keep the Secretary of State’s accountability absolutely on the face of the Bill. Just as the Secretary of State is accountable at the Dispatch Box, so too must the board be chaired by the relevant Minister, so that the flow of accountability to the Dispatch Box is there.
There are other important boards across Government that are not on a statutory footing but that assist and hold Ministers to account when it comes to how particular work is developed. The accountability point is that the Secretary of State must lay this report before Parliament, and then Parliament will hold the Secretary of State to account.
Sarah Jones
If the board is not on a statutory footing, it does not much matter who is chairing it, because there is no statutory line of accountability. If it is not on the face of the Bill, it does not matter. The Minister could agree to have an independent chair of the board if it is not going to be on a statutory footing. Her argument does not follow, in that sense.
Victoria Atkins
This is very speculative, so forgive me, but let us follow the hon. Lady’s example. If the board has an independent chair, and to everyone’s surprise they make recommendations to the Secretary of State that do not include measures relating to mental health, the Secretary of State is then in a very difficult position, because she is accountable to Parliament for the contents of the report, yet the work of the report, driven by a committee that is not chaired by one of her Ministers, has come to a set of results that she may not agree with and cannot account for. This is about the trail of accountability from the covenant through to the Dispatch Box. That is why—[Interruption.] I am so sorry; I have just been handed a note but cannot read the writing. I think I can get it. We have that chain of accountability through to the Dispatch Box, which is precisely what we are trying to achieve. We do not want the report or the Minister not to be accountable.
Sarah Champion
For clarity—I am sorry to labour the point, but it is important—will the board be on a formal setting? Is it an actual thing? Is it the same group of organisations that make up the report at present? If the board is an actual thing, my concern is this. To take the Minister’s hypothetical example, a new Home Secretary might not have any interest in mental health and wellbeing, but if the board is on a statutory footing, it still has a duty to push whoever is chairing it in the right direction. Could the Minister clarify whether the board is a formal body?
Victoria Atkins
Of course, and as with other boards, as I have said, the terms are set out and agreed. We want to be open and transparent on that. Its membership will include all the key policing representatives that one would imagine and, what is more, we have tried to go further by giving the Secretary of State the freedom to consult others. If there is a particular charity or organisation that is addressing a particular issue that the board feels is important that year, the Secretary of State has the power to consult that organisation. Again, to provide comfort, we will review the governance arrangements six months after the board is constituted, and we will consider the independence of the board’s chair as part of that.
Amendment 76 is an important amendment. We are exploring how the police covenant, as currently drafted, can apply to police forces and law enforcement organisations that do not fall within the remit of the Home Office, in particular the British Transport police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Ministry of Defence police and the National Crime Agency. We are very much alive to the points made both by organisations and in this debate. With that work ongoing, I trust that the hon. Member for Croydon Central will not press the amendment to a vote.
Finally, new clause 44 would place a duty on specified health service bodies to have due regard to the police covenant principles. I recognise that, in advancing this new clause, the hon. Member for Croydon Central has drawn on the provisions of the Armed Forces Bill 2021 in respect of the armed forces covenant. The difficulty is that the two covenants are at a different stage in their development. The armed forces covenant has been around for some years, and in that context it is right that it should now develop, with the new duty provided for in clause 8 of the Armed Forces Bill. In contrast, we are just getting started with the police covenant. At the moment, we do not think it appropriate to place a requirement on specific public bodies to have due regard to the police covenant. We must gather robust evidence and have careful consideration of the needs and consultation with the relevant health service bodies.
I want to reassure the hon. Lady that, through the reporting requirement that we have set out in the legislation and the governance process, we will be looking at the best way to ensure that our police can access the right care when they need it. In the light of my explanation and my assurance that we are continuing to consider how best to address the report requirement for non-Home Office forces, I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham will be content to withdraw her amendment.
The Chair
Before I call Sarah Champion, would the shadow Minister like to say anything in response?
Sarah Champion
The Minister is clearly in listening mode, and it is deeply appreciated how much time and consideration she has clearly given to the amendment. I am reassured by what she has said. If possible, I would like to have some more of the detail that she was talking about. At this point, I will not push the amendment to a vote, because of the chance to do so at a later date.
Sarah Jones
I thank the Minister for her responses. On amendments 76 and 77, I stress again how keen the police world is that we make some progress on those two issues. I noted that she said on clause 77 that there will be a review in six months that will consider the independence of the chair. I think it makes sense to have an independent chair and believe it is appropriate, given that we are suggesting that the board should review the annual report before it is published. It cannot say what it is—it cannot control that—so having an independent chair would give comfort. However, I heard what she said on that, so I will not push that amendment to a Division. On amendment 76, which she briefly responded to after she got the note that we should hurry up, she said that work is ongoing. I cannot stress enough how strongly the different organisations feel about that. Again, I will not test the view of the Committee on that.
Sarah Champion
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Nobody wants to press any other amendments to a vote, and new clause 44 will be dealt with later, so we come to the decision on clause 1.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Increase in penalty for assault on emergency worker
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. Clause 2 increases the maximum penalty for common assault or battery against an emergency worker from 12 months to two years’ imprisonment, thereby delivering our manifesto commitment. Our emergency services place themselves in harm’s way to protect us, and it is therefore right that we treat with particular seriousness any assault committed against an emergency worker, which is why we seek to legislate to increase the maximum sentence for assault against them from 12 months to two years’ imprisonment. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to our emergency services for the work they do on our behalf and on behalf of all our constituents, keeping us safe, looking after us and protecting us. I am sure the whole Committee will be united in expressing that sentiment.
We consulted last year on extending the maximum penalty from one year to two years and found overwhelming support for the move. In evidence last week, we heard representatives of policing and emergency services expressing strong support for the move as well. It will give courts the ability to pass higher sentences, reflecting the seriousness and severity of these offences. The clause does not change the definition of emergency workers. That is set out in section 3(1) of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 and covers police constables; National Crime Agency officers; prison and custody officers; fire, rescue and search personnel; and those people providing NHS services. The clause simply amends the maximum sentence that appears in that Act from 12 months to two years.
It is worth saying that, where more serious assaults occur against emergency workers, such as actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or grievous bodily harm with intent, those offences will be charged as those more serious matters, which of course have higher sentences. Actual bodily harm has a maximum sentence of five years; GBH, under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, also has a five-year maximum; and GBH with intent has a maximum sentence of life. We of course expect more serious assaults on our emergency workers to be prosecuted and sentenced accordingly.
It is worth noting that the proportion of defendants in assault cases against emergency workers receiving immediate custody went up last year compared with the year before, from 17% to 25%, and about 10,000 cases were successfully prosecuted and sentenced. This legislation is being used on a fairly wide basis.
No amendments have been tabled to the clause. I believe it commands widespread support across the House and among the public. I do not want to detain the Committee longer than necessary. I think I have covered the key elements of the proposals, and spoken about the importance of the work of our emergency services and the tribute that we pay to them. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Maria Eagle
I do not wish to detain the Committee for long; I have just a couple of points. The Minister set out that the consultation has gone on. It was obviously a manifesto commitment of his party, and I generally approve of manifesto commitments being implemented. Even if I might not agree with all the ones that were in his manifesto, I can see the point, but am I not right that the original intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who introduced the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act, was to have a two-year maximum, but it was reduced during the passage of the legislation to one year as a consequence of the Government of the day wanting it to be one year?
I understand that there have been consultations and a manifesto commitment since, but from where does this Damascene conversion come? It seems to me that the Government originally said, “We’ll support the legislation if the maximum is one year,” and within months of it being implemented they were saying, “It’s got to be two years,” which was what my hon. Friend actually wanted. He cut it in order to get Government support. I am interested to find out where that conversion came from. Was there some sudden bit of evidence that convinced the Government that my hon. Friend was correct, in which case I congratulate the Government on being willing to change their mind. I would be interested to hear from the Minister where that change of heart came from.
Secondly, I notice that the British Association of Social Workers and the Social Workers Union have submitted a petition to the Government, which I understand has quite a few thousand signatures, asking them to amend the legislation to include social workers in the definition of emergency workers. No doubt there are arguments for and against that, but I wonder whether the Minister has anything to say about whether the Government have any intention of doing that.
Sarah Jones
Clause 2, as the Minister, who is my parliamentary neighbour, has outlined, increases the maximum penalty for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months to two years. We absolutely support that provision. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood highlighted, the Opposition have been calling for it for years. On Second Reading of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda introduced, he eloquently said:
“An assault on anyone is wrong, but an attack on any emergency worker—whether that is a police constable, a paramedic, an ambulance driver, an accident and emergency doctor or nurse, a fire officer, a prison officer, someone working in search and rescue, or someone working on a lifeboat—is an attack on us all. And when we are all attacked, we all stand firm together.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 1103.]
Many Members, including the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, were present on Second Reading, and I remember well the huge support for that private Member’s Bill, with many Members wanting to speak.
During the covid pandemic, which has happened since that legislation was passed, there has been a shocking increase in the number of attacks on frontline emergency service workers, with a 31% increase compared with 2019. Over the last five years, attacks on frontline police officers have gone up by 50%. It has been clear through the pandemic that emergency services and shopworkers have been right at the forefront, risking their own health to serve their communities. Many have faced unacceptable attacks as they have worked to keep us safe, from being spat at and punched to being verbally abused and intimidated. Those attacks should be met with swift, meaningful punishment.
As I mentioned earlier, Sergeant Matt Ratana was murdered doing the job that he loved last year. All of us, I hope, would do everything that we can to honour his memory by campaigning to stop assaults on our police as best we can. The NHS figures are disturbing. Between January and July last year, there were more than 1,600 physical assaults on UK ambulance workers. In London, there were 355 physical assaults on ambulance workers and 239 incidents of verbal abuse. I experienced it myself when I rode out with some police officers, and we had to arrest people who were on drugs and being highly abusive. The ambulance workers arrived and were sexually assaulted by the two men. It is a daily occurrence, and we should not accept it.
The Government’s impact assessment states that over 11,250 cases of assault on an emergency worker were proceeded against in 2019, with around 9,050 resulting in a sentence. Of those, 1,900 cases received a fine, 3,600 a community sentence, 950 a suspended sentence and 1,550 an immediate custodial sentence. Of those receiving an immediate custodial sentence, most—67%—were sentenced to three months or less, 27% were given a sentence of three to six months, and only 6% received an immediate custodial sentence of six months or more.
We should pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and for Rhondda for all their work campaigning to achieve the change. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax originally drafted the “Protect the Protectors” Bill and campaigned relentlessly with the Police Federation for its introduction. The Bill was later picked up as a private Member’s Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, and received universal support to be passed into law.
As has been mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda had originally pushed for a two-year maximum sentence in his Bill, but the Government had wanted 12 months, to which he agreed in order to ensure that the Bill passed. It is a shame that the Government did not agree to it at that time and it would be useful to understand what the change in view is down to. There are still concerns around the stronger sentence only applying to convictions in the Crown court, and some in the police have raised concerns that it should come alongside effective sentencing guidance: magistrates should be able to sentence for longer to avoid clogging up the Crown court. Sentencing guidance has not yet been published in relation to section 2 of the 2018 Act, and while the increased sentence is welcome in the Bill, it would be good to hear from the Minister about his plans for new sentencing guidance.
Mr Goodwill
Is it also the case that, because we introduced the ability to appeal against lenient sentences, if judges and magistrates do not use the powers in the Bill available to them, it is open to the Government or law officers to challenge those sentences?
Sarah Jones
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It would be good to hear the Minister’s view on that in his response.
To finish my remarks on clause 2, which recognises the bravery of emergency workers and appreciates that there should be increased sentences for those who assault them, the Government could take many other actions that may also reduce the number of assaults against emergency workers. We should not lose sight of them. Being alone on a patrol increases the risk of assault, and that tends to be down to resources. The Government need to tackle that issue. We also have a woefully small amount of evidence as to why assaults are increasing. What is the evidence around what is happening, and why it is happening? What analysis has been done by the Home Office on where these assaults are taking place, and why?
Linked to that is the issue of protective equipment. There has been a big increase in body-worn cameras and spit guards in policing, but what lessons are actually being learned from covid, and from the experience suffered by our police officers and other emergency workers during this time, to ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect them in the future? In conclusion, clause 2 is a welcome step in the right direction.
Sarah Champion
Covid has obviously changed everything, including our definition of “emergency worker”. Several MPs have pointed out that emergency workers are not the only group suffering from frequent violent attacks, and provisions should be extended to all staff in the NHS and social care, as well as to shopworkers. In 2020, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers found that the vast majority of shopworkers—88%—were victims of verbal abuse in 2020. They were largely trying to implement the covid restrictions. Nearly two thirds were threatened, and nearly one in 10 were assaulted. Can the Minister explain what the Government are doing for those workers? They were on the frontline of the pandemic and should be given the same level of protection as emergency workers.
Chris Philp
Let me reply briefly to some of the points that have been raised by Opposition Members.
The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood asked about what had prompted the change from one year to two years and if there had been a “Damascene conversion.” The change is evidence that the Government are always willing to listen and to reflect. They have listened to organisations such as the Police Federation and to the results of the consultation. It is no bad thing that a Government are willing to keep things under review and to make changes, where there is public appetite or evidence to support them, rather than simply to remain with a particular position that was taken two or three years ago. It is a sign of maturity and wisdom that we are willing to make changes as appropriate.
Both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Rotherham asked about other workers, including social workers. The 2018 Act, which passed with widespread cross-party support, drew a particular distinction about frontline emergency workers—the police, firefighters, frontline NHS staff, rescue services and so on—who are putting themselves directly into harm’s way, because what they are doing is unique.
However, as both hon. Members and the shadow Minister said, other workers also have contact with the public, including retail workers and social workers, which is important. That is why the sentencing guidelines we already have rightly recognise that a victim might be working in the public sector or otherwise providing a service to the public, including working in a shop, as an aggravating factor. Because it is recognised as an aggravating factor, it means that if the victim is one of those people, the judge is duty bound to pass a higher sentence than would otherwise be the case, so that is accounted for in the way I just described.
The shadow Minister spoke a little about the sentences passed down and mentioned that in 2019 only 6% of sentences for common assault on an emergency worker were for six months or more. That went up a bit last year. The figures for 2020 came out just a few days ago, and it went up to 15% in 2020. The average sentence has gone up as well. By elevating the maximum sentence today, we in Parliament are sending a clear signal to the judiciary and others that we expect this offence to be taken extremely seriously, and sentenced accordingly and commensurately.
My understanding is that the Sentencing Council guidelines for the offence as it already exists are due to be published in the near future, possibly as soon as later this week. They will provide further clarity to the judiciary, but Parliament’s voice will be heard clearly today in signalling that we expect longer sentences for people who assault our emergency workers. I am sure the judiciary will hear that.
The shadow Minister made some points about ensuring that the police are properly protected. She drew particular attention to the risks of attending lone patrols and the need for resources. We are in the middle of a successful police recruitment campaign, which will eventually target 23,000 extra police. We are about a third of the way through that. The result of that extra recruitment will be to mitigate some of the risks that the shadow Minister mentioned. As a fellow Croydon MP and her constituency neighbour, I am well aware of those risks and was painfully affected by the awful murder of Sergeant Matt Ratana. I take the opportunity to join the shadow Minister in paying tribute to Sergeant Ratana and his family. He died in the course of duty after a long and distinguished career, and I am sure we all want to remember him and his family.
I hope that answers the questions that were raised, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Special constables and Police Federations: amendments to the Police Act 1996
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
Sir Charles, noting that there are no amendments, I do not propose to speak to the clause, which I commend to the Committee.
Sarah Jones
Thank you, Sir Charles. Clause 3 would allow police specials—volunteer police officers—to become members of the Police Federation, a proposal that we support. I wanted to say a few words because special constables play a vital role in keeping our communities safe. They have been of huge value to communities across the country, particularly through the pandemic. The special constabulary has a long and proud history and has made an immeasurable contribution to policing our communities.
Sir Robert Peel is often quoted:
“The police are the people, and the people are the police.”
That cannot be more applicable than to our special constables who volunteer to make our communities safer while working at other jobs. It is important that special constabulary officers feel valued and that their contribution is recognised. It is imperative that they have the support and opportunities to thrive and feel they have the protections they deserve for doing such an important job. I know this clause is close to the Police Federation’s heart and to that of former special John Apter, who has campaigned for police specials to join the federation.
The number of police specials has significantly declined. There were 9,126 specials in England and Wales in September 2020. That is 10,500 fewer than in 2012, a drop of more than 15%. John Apter argues that including the specials in the Police Federation will help increase numbers, as the representation that the change will bring may encourage more people to volunteer with the police. It would give specials a legal status, like that of police officers who are members of the federation. Putting the change into law will formalise that support for specials. In a survey about federation membership, 94% of respondents who were specials said that they wanted to join the Police Federation.
In Scotland, police specials are already part of the Scottish Police Federation. Scottish specials have the same legal status in the force as their regular officer counterparts. Both are appointed to office by the chief constable of Police Scotland, so there is no legal barrier to specials joining the Scottish Police Federation. The inclusion of specials in the Scottish federation has been uncontroversial, as far as I can see.
The Association of Special Constabulary Officers is supportive of specials being given greater access to the federation’s legal advice and assistance services. It says:
“As frontline volunteer police officers we are exposed to the same risks of complaints and injuries and conduct investigations, and the Federation has an unrivalled local network of capability on those issues already in place, which is required under police regulations and funded by forces. In this respect ASCO is supportive of the ongoing work.”
However, ASCO has voiced concerns about how much it will cost and the risk of specials losing their independent voice. ASCO wants to retain its role as the representative association and professional body for police specials, with the federation being the lead and expert organisation in respect of the elements of formal representation that it is funded to undertake.
The cost will be around £3 million, which is not being covered by the Home Office. If the number of specials increase, as we hope, back to 2012 levels, that would possibly rise to £6 million or £7 million. The chair, workforce lead and “citizens in policing” lead for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners have agreed in principle to fund membership for specials. They wrote to all current PCCs in June 2020, asking them to indicate their willingness to pay specials’ subscription fees. Although we support the relatively uncontroversial clause, will the Minister confirm that that £3 million cost is accurate? Does she think the cost of membership is proportionate? Is it appropriate for taxpayers to cover that amount out of the police precept, especially if the number of specials rise and the cost goes up to £6 million or £7 million?
Victoria Atkins
I note the time. Our special constables make a vital contribution to keeping communities safe, through their professionalism, dedication and sacrifice, increasingly fulfilling a range of specialised and frontline roles. They often face the same risks as regular officers while on duty and have the same powers as regular officers.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 25th May 2021
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPolice, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 May 2021 - (25 May 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
When we adjourned this morning, I was agreeing with the hon. Member for Croydon Central that special constables make a vital contribution to keeping communities safe, through their professionalism, dedication and sacrifice. Increasingly, as they fulfil a range of specialised and frontline roles, they face the same risks as regular officers while on duty. Given that they share the range of powers that regular officers can deploy, we are very pleased to have included this clause in the Bill.
The hon. Lady asked me about the funding. We understand that the Police Federation is currently exploring funding options for specials’ membership. The Home Office currently provides free access to an insurance policy for all special constables, to cover the costs of legal advice in the event of disciplinary and misconduct proceedings. We have no plans at present to withdraw from that insurance. I commend clause 3 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Meaning of dangerous driving: constables etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
We support clauses 4 to 6, which relate to police driving standards. The Opposition have been calling for some years for proper legal protections for police officers when they pursue suspects on the roads. We know that the police put themselves in incredible danger to ensure that suspects are caught, and they should not be criminalised for doing that job. One of the first events I attended as an MP was an event organised by the Police Federation, and this issue was part of the first conversation that I had with it. I pay tribute to the Police Federation and others who have campaigned for this change.
Clauses 4 to 6 amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 so that qualified police drivers are compared to what is expected of a competent and careful trained police driver, rather than what is expected of competent and careful drivers, for the offences of dangerous and careless driving. It makes a lot of sense to give the police these added protections when they are driving for police purposes.
For those who may have concerns about these clauses, it is important to consider the context in which this change is being made. The Independent Office for Police Conduct publishes an annual report on deaths during or following police contact. In 2019-20, 24 people died in road traffic incidents involving the police: 19 were pursuit related; three were emergency response related; and the two remaining incidents were classed as other police traffic accidents. The number of road traffic fatalities involving the police in 2019-20 was the fifth lowest figure since records began in the early 2000s.
The Police Federation has been campaigning since 2012 for the skills of police officers to be considered in dangerous and careless driving cases. John Apter of the Police Federation, giving us evidence last week, said:
“All that we are seeking is for the training and the purpose of the journey to be recognised in law, because I think the public watching this would be astounded if they were to see a police vehicle engaged in a pursuit or an emergency response and that driver is then judged as any other member of the public. So, you take away the blue lights and the police markings, and that vehicle is treated as one being driven by any other member of the public. That is bizarre; that should not be allowed to happen.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 22, Q34.]
The Police Federation says that the
“current legislation leaves drivers vulnerable”,
and that subjecting drivers to conduct and criminal investigations as a result of being held to the same standards as a normal driver caused significant distress and impeded their careers. The Home Office’s review of the law, guidance and training governing police pursuit in September 2019 concluded that it is not appropriate to hold officers to the same standards as regular guidance, and set out to consult on possible changes.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady aware that police forces have in place strict guidance on how police officers can use their driving skills? In particular, if a hot pursuit were to put members of the public at risk, they would have to desist from the pursuit.
Sarah Jones
The right hon. Gentleman is right; there are many other processes in place for when an accident occurs. As soon as an accident occurred, the IOPC would investigate why it happened. Measures are in place to ensure that the police do not do things that we would not expect of them. The amendment aims to make sure that it is very clear what is expected of them and what is not. When I spoke to the National Police Chiefs Council lead on those issues, it was clear to me that we have to enable the police to do what they need to do without fearing that they will be taken to court. There also need to be checks and balances to ensure that they do not overstep the mark.
The Government review was welcome. The IOPC concluded:
“Any change to legislation must not have the unintended consequence of reducing public safety or undermining the ability to hold the police to account effectively”.
That is very important. The change is welcome; it is not about the police driving without fear of scrutiny, but it is important that police are not prosecuted for doing what they have been trained to do.
It is also important to discuss an issue related to clause 4, which a number of police officers have raised with me. We tried to craft some amendments around this, but it was problematic, so I am just raising the issue. There was a concern that the number of officers who have undertaken the full level of driver training varies between forces, because there are various different levels of driving training, and what officers have will depend on where they are. Officers who do not receive the full training worry that they will be hesitant to do what may be required of them in the circumstances. For instance, if they were on a motorway and needed to ram a vehicle in order to save someone’s life on the road, would an officer take that risk if they could end up subject to a criminal investigation?
The police clearly have to strike a fine balance in the circumstances they are presented with. I have no doubt that, in the main, they will do what is expected of them. Subsection (3) states that
“the designated person is to be regarded as driving dangerously… only if)—
(a) the way the person drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful constable who has undertaken the same prescribed training, and
(b) it would be obvious to such a competent and careful constable that driving in that way would be dangerous.”
Can the Minister provide some assurance? If a police officer who has done the basic level of police driver training finds themselves in a situation where they have to respond to an emergency incident that would require higher levels of training, how would they be protected?
On a matter related to clauses 4 to 6, the College of Policing has said that it would be “highly desirable” for police vehicles involved in pursuits always to be fitted with black boxes, which monitor the performance of drivers. Some forces, such as the Metropolitan police, fit all vehicles with those devices, but that is not the case everywhere. Could the Minister look into that? The cost might be prohibitive, but what would it take for all vehicles used in police pursuits to have those black boxes? What safeguards will be in place to protect drivers who have not had the highest level of driver training? Will that lead to more IOPC and court referrals, or can we be comfortable that the clauses as drafted will provide that protection?
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am broadly supportive of the measures. When I go out with South Yorkshire police, I am always incredibly impressed by the amount of planning and expertise in the force, but I need to raise concerns made by the IOPC, which I hope the Minister will respond to. It, too, is broadly supportive, but it has raised a couple of reservations, including the fact that the lack of detailed information on the number and outcomes of investigations involving police road traffic incidents made it difficult to understand the full context of the proposed legislative change, and therefore how big the current problem is. It also says that any change to legislation must not have the unintended consequence of reducing public safety or undermining the ability to hold the police to account effectively. I wonder whether the Minister could comment on those points.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
On an almost minute-by-minute basis, highly trained police drivers respond to emergency calls on all our behalf. They rush to incidents of danger when others run away. They are highly trained and they deserve the protection afforded by the Bill, and to be judged by the standard of the training they have received, rather than the standard of a normal driver. This may seem a relatively unimportant feature of the Bill, but it is extremely important to the police officers who undertake these dangerous duties. It is a matter of great interest and concern that they should not be treated as criminals when all they are actually doing is performing their duties to the best of their abilities.
Victoria Atkins
Clauses 4 to 6 provide a new test to assess the standard of driving of a police officer. Should an officer be involved in a road traffic incident, this new test will allow courts to judge their standard of driving against a competent and careful police constable with the same level of training, rather than against a member of the public, as at present. Clause 4 applies the new test to the offence of dangerous driving, while clause 5 makes similar provision in respect of the offence of careless driving.
We believe that police officers need to be able to do their job effectively and keep the public safe. We are aware of concerns among some police officers over the legal position when pursuing suspected offenders or responding to an emergency. The hon. Member for Croydon Central asked about different standards of training. The proposed changes seek to strike the right balance between enabling the police to keep the public safe on the roads and pavements, apprehending criminals around the country who would otherwise pose a threat, and effectively holding to account the minority of officers who drive inappropriately.
The National Police Chiefs’ Council has worked closely with police forces to standardise police driver training across England and Wales. This will ensure that police drivers are trained to a similar standard, depending on their role, and that the legal test for police drivers will have a fairer comparator. This will also include different levels of training to reflect the training and skills that each role requires.
Sarah Jones
The NPCC made exactly that point: people will have different levels of training. It just wants reassurance about officers who are not trained to do something that they end up having to do in the line of duty. Will they be affected because they have not had a very high level of training when, for example, pursuing somebody?
Victoria Atkins
This will include different levels of training to reflect the training and skills that each will require, so that difference is reflected. We are pleased to introduce these clauses. There is a careful balancing act between the interests of the law-abiding public and police officers while ensuring that standards are maintained on the road. These provisions will also extend, I am happy to say, to police driving instructors when they carry out advanced police driving techniques for the purpose of teaching trainee police driving instructors and trainee police drivers in the territorial police forces and other police forces. We believe that this new test strikes that balance, so I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Duties to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence
Sarah Jones
I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 7, page 7, line 33, after “violence”, insert “and safeguard children involved in serious violence”
This amendment, together with Amendments 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88 and 89, would ensure specified authorities involved in the “serious violence duty” safeguard children at risk of or experiencing from harm.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 79, in clause 7, page 7, line 38, after “violence”, insert “and safeguard children involved in serious violence”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 92, in clause 7, page 8, line 4, at end insert—
“(d) prepare and implement an early help strategy to prevent violence and support child victims of violence and prevent hidden harm.”
This amendment would add a duty on specified authorities to prepare and implement an early help strategy.
Amendment 80, in clause 7, page 8, line 4, at end insert—
“(d) safeguard children involved in serious violence in the area, and
(e) identify and safeguard children who are involved in serious violence in the area as a result of being a victim of modern slavery and trafficking offences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 93, in clause 7, page 8, line 10, at end insert—
“(d) any children’s social care authority for the area which is not a specified authority for the area.”
This amendment would ensure that any children’s social care authority which was not already involved in the strategy would be consulted in the preparation of the strategy.
Amendment 82, in clause 7, page 8, line 30, at end insert—
“(7A) The local policing body for the area must provide an annual monitoring report for local safeguarding partners on actions undertaken as part of a strategy.”
Amendment 83, in clause 8, page 9, line 3, after “violence”, insert “and safeguard children involved in serious violence”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 84, in clause 8, page 9, line 6, after “violence”, insert “and safeguard children involved in serious violence”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 85, in clause 8, page 9, line 11, after “violence”, insert “and safeguard children involved in serious violence”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 86, in clause 8, page 9, line 11, at end insert—
“(d) identify and safeguard children who are involved in serious violence in the area as a result of being a victim of modern slavery and trafficking offences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015.”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 88, in clause 9, page 10, line 30, after “violence”, insert “and safeguard children involved in serious violence”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
Amendment 89, in clause 9, page 10, line 32, after “violence”, insert “and safeguard children involved in serious violence”
See explanatory statement to amendment 78.
New clause 17—Child criminal exploitation—
“At end of section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (meaning of exploitation), insert—
‘(7) Another person manipulates, deceives, coerces or controls the person to undertake activity which constitutes a criminal offence and the person is under the age of 18.’”
This new clause introduces a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation.
New clause 47—Duties to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce child criminal exploitation and safeguard affected children—
“(1) The specified authorities for a local government area must collaborate with each other to prevent and reduce child criminal exploitation in the area and safeguard affected children.
(2) The duty imposed on the specified authorities for a local government area by subsection (1) includes a duty to plan together to exercise their functions so as to prevent and reduce child criminal exploitation in the area and safeguard affected children.
(3) In particular, the specified authorities for a local government area must—
(a) Identify the kinds of child criminal exploitation that occur in the area,
(b) identify the causes of child criminal exploitation in the area, so far as it is possible to do so, and
(c) prepare and implement a strategy for exercising their functions to prevent and reduce child criminal exploitation and safeguard affected children in the area.
(4) In preparing a strategy under this section for a local government area, the specified authorities for the area must ensure that the following are consulted—
(a) each educational authority for the area;
(b) each prison authority for the area;
(c) each youth custody authority for the area.
(5) A strategy under this section for a local government area may specify an action to be carried out by—
(a) an educational authority for the area,
(b) a prison authority for the area, or
(c) a youth custody authority for the area.
(6) Once a strategy has been prepared under this section for a local government area, the specified authorities for the area must—
(a) keep the strategy under review, and
(b) every two years, prepare and implement a revised strategy.
(7) A strategy prepared under this section may be combined with a strategy prepared in accordance with section 7 (Duties to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence) or section 8 (Powers to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence).
(8) For the purposes of this section, “child criminal exploitation” means activity which would constitute an offence under section [Child criminal exploitation] of this Act.”
New clause 58—Training on child criminal exploitation and serious youth violence—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish a strategy for providing specialist training on child criminal exploitation and serious youth violence for all specified authorities to which Chapter 1 of Part 2 of this Act applies.
(2) Before publishing the strategy the Secretary of State must consult such bodies with expertise in providing relevant training as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Sarah Jones
This is a really important part of the Bill. The Minister knows that I came into this House in 2017 absolutely determined to tackle the scourge of rising levels of serious violence, particularly youth violence, and she knows that I set up and chaired the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime and violence reduction, which relentlessly champions the need to prevent violence through strong policing, of course, but also through prevention. We have been in many debates together, and she has kindly met constituents of mine who have lost family members to knife crime, and she has also spoken to the APPG.
There has been a long conversation in Parliament about bringing organisations together to look at the stories behind the headlines, and to look at the evidence of what causes violence, in order to understand that it is not inevitable and that it is something we can affect. There is plenty of evidence from many places on how to reduce violence. Many other hon. Members across the House have campaigned on this, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), who has done so much cross-party work on the issue.
Clauses 7 to 22, which place a duty on local authorities to plan, prevent and reduce serious violence, are welcome. At their core is the new duty on specified authorities to identify the kinds of serious violence that occur in a relevant place; to identify the causes of serious violence in the area; and to prepare and implement a strategy for exercising their functions to prevent and reduce serious violence in an area. That is significant. Although there are many “buts”, which we will come to as we go through the amendments, it is important to recognise that that is a good thing and will make authorities work better together and make them look to prevent as well as reduce violent crime.
Of course prison is absolutely crucial in terms of justice and punishing those who have wronged, but we know that it does not stop overall levels of crime increasing. Although policing is absolutely vital, at the heart of everything we are talking about, we know that an increase in resources and focus leads to a reduction in violent crime, but it goes up again over a couple of years. We can look at how knife crime goes up and down. It goes up, there is a significant intervention from the police, there are more resources, and it goes down. People are locked up, but then a few years later it starts rising again. We know that the real long-term solution is prevention, as evidenced in many parts of Scotland—the example often given—and in other parts of the world as well.
We have talked about this before, but we know that the approach to prevention and tackling violence is more effective when it is tackled in the way that the last Labour Government tackled teenage pregnancies. We had the highest teenage pregnancy rates in Europe. It was a massive problem and everyone was very concerned about it. There was a moral panic about why so many were getting pregnant. There was a 10-year intervention that looked at the causes of why these things were happening, so it was not just about trying to stop girls having sex; it looked at why on earth their aspirations were so low. Their education and ambitions were not what they could have been. A broad approach, targeted from the centre and delivered locally over a 10-year period, reduced teenage pregnancy by 50%—a huge, long-term reduction that has remained pretty static. It has delivered a societal change because of the nature of the approach.
It is argued that we can do the same thing with violence, as has been done in Scotland. Over a long period of time we can reduce violence, and those levels can become the societal norms. We can shift the norms and reduce violence. That is what many of us have campaigned for, and it is at the heart of this new part of the Bill.
I will give another example. In Croydon, there was a review of 60 cases of serious violence among young people, which involved people who were murdered, people who were imprisoned for murdering other people, and people who had been victims or perpetrators of the most serious cases. They looked at all those cases and where the similarities were, and it turned out that half of those young people were known to social services before they were five years old. That tells us everything we need to know about how the duties should operate. If someone is in care, is vulnerable, has experienced domestic abuse in the home, has parents with addiction or does not have parents at all, there are things that make them more vulnerable to getting involved in violence later in life. If we intervene at the earliest possible stages, we can have a significant impact not just on the lives of those young people, but on society and on the cost to society. Figures about the cost of a murder are bandied around, although I am sure they are now outdated. People used to say a murder costs about £1 million, but it probably now costs the public purse significantly more.
Sarah Champion
I just wanted to congratulate my hon. Friend on making such a powerful and relevant speech. I also wanted to give her a moment to get a glass of water
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to get a glass of water.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I am really pleased that my hon. Friend has raised the issue of looked-after children. When I was the lead member for children and young people in Stockton, there was forever a group of young people whom we knew needed extra support, yet we found out that many of these young people ended up in the prison system later in life, which was a terrible tragedy. More power to her elbow, because we really need to tackle the problem early. I am sure she agrees with that.
Sarah Jones
I completely agree.
When we talk about violent crime, there is often a moral panic about what is happening, and we often see very polarised responses. Either it is all about more policing and more resources, or it is about tougher sentencing—throwing people in prison and throwing away the key. Actually, we need to have a much more grown-up conversation about the causes of these issues and what the solutions are. I hope, and I think we all hope, that this part of the Bill is a step in the right direction towards doing that.
Moving on to the amendments that we have tabled, having held roundtable discussions and spoken to policing organisations, charities and others, I am concerned that, as currently drafted, the Bill will not deliver the results that we intend. There is a lot of talk of the need for a public-health approach to tackling serious violence that seeks to address the root causes, and we welcome the Government’s acknowledgement of the need to shift the focus towards that. However, we do not believe that, as currently drafted, the proposals amount to a public health approach. We, along with several agencies, are concerned that there could be a number of unintended consequences for both children and the agencies involved if the statutory public-health duty is created without achieving the desired result of reducing the number of children who are harmed by serious violence.
A vision for tackling serious violence that does not also help to protect children from harm, does not include the full range of partners and interventions needed, and does not consider some of the more structural factors that contribute to violence, will not deliver the outcome that we want. We need a broader strategy that equips the safeguarding system and the statutory and voluntary services to protect children from harm, with the resources and guidance to do so. It should embed a response that takes account of the context in which children are at risk and that is trauma-informed, as we were discussing this morning. A duty for serious violence that presents these issues as distinct from wider safeguarding duties could lead to a more punitive approach to those children, which evidence suggests is inadequate to reduce violence. Of course, implementation of a new duty without additional resources will be difficult for services that are already tasked with rising demand and crisis management options, and have low staff retention.
Amendment 78, and the amendments to other clauses, make the specified authorities involved in the serious violence duty safeguard children at risk of or experiencing harm. In particular, amendments 80 and 86 refer to children involved in serious violence in the area as a result of being a victim of modern slavery and trafficking offences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The point we are trying to make is that the statutory duty to reduce violence cannot be effective on its own, without a statutory duty to safeguard children.
As an example, I met police from Exeter because there is a county line from London to Exeter, and the police had been working to tackle that issue. A senior police officer told me that there had been a number of occasions on which they had picked up a child at the coach station because they can quite often tell if someone is bringing drugs to the area, as they will get off the coach on their own with just a rucksack—the police pick up young children who are doing that. On several occasions, that senior police officer had to sit with the child in his office for hours because nobody would come to collect them. Perhaps the child is in foster care, which is very often the case, and because they have been found with drugs, the foster parents will not have them back. The local authority might not have any emergency foster carers and so cannot take the child back, and nobody will come to look after them. That child is committing a crime, but they are also a child who ends up sitting there playing computer games in a senior police officer’s office in Exeter because nobody has worked out how to join things together and look after them.
Sarah Champion
Does my hon. Friend agree that those children are symptoms and casualties of crime, rather than the cause? We need some sensitivity in the Bill to recognise that.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is exactly right. We do not disagree with the premise of what is in the Bill, but we think those two things need to come together. I am sure we all have examples of cases where children are manipulated and groomed into committing criminal offences. They sometimes have no choice whatever, or they feel that they have no choice. Those things have to be looked at together or this will not work.
Amendment 92 would add a duty on the specified authorities to prepare and implement an early help strategy to prevent violence, support child victims of violence and prevent hidden harm. The Minister may say that that could be part of the wider duty, but we have tabled the amendment because that early intervention is crucial to prevent violence before it occurs, and that really ought to be in the Bill.
We in this place will all have spoken to and had presentations from people talking about ACEs—adverse childhood experiences—whether domestic abuse or a violent death, for example. Violent death in particular causes significant problems for young people and has not really been looked at enough. We know about all those ACEs, and we know that the systems and structures in place at the moment often intervene at the point of absolute crisis rather than intervening earlier and more effectively by trying to break the cycle of violence. Including an early help strategy in the Bill would ensure that that crucial element is not forgotten. That is part of a much wider issue that is out of scope of the Bill, including Sure Start, the importance of schools and intervention, and the funding of child social services, but we want the principle of early intervention to be included in the Bill. It is important that the Government, local authorities, the police and the voluntary sector have a joined-up approach to preventing, recognising and responding to violence. Central to that must be the need to prevent the criminalisation of children, as well as early intervention to prevent young people from becoming involved in violence in the first place.
Sarah Champion
This point is more to do with new clause 47, but it is appropriate now. Does my hon. Friend agree it is vital that the serious violence duty and accompanying strategy interact with local authority strategies to tackle child exploitation, the national violence against women and girls strategy and the national tackling child sexual abuse strategy as well as others?
Sarah Jones
Yes, my hon. Friend is right. They all need to join up, but some organisations have asked questions about how such things will join up effectively to ensure that offshoots of activity are pulled together as one whole.
New clause 47 would ensure that the bodies under the duty collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce child criminal exploitation and safeguard affected children. The new clause takes the definition of modern criminal exploitation from new clause 17, tabled by my hon. Friend, which would amend the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to introduce this statutory definition of child criminal exploitation:
“Another person manipulates, deceives, coerces or controls the person to undertake activity which constitutes a criminal offence and the person is under the age of 18.”
The definition would cover activities such as debt bondage and GPS tracking by gang leaders of those coerced into running county lines. When I was in Birmingham a few weeks ago, I heard about very young gang members. Yes, they were scared, but they were so invested in their criminal gang leaders, whom they saw as their family, that they were prepared to commit crimes that would put them in prison for very small amounts of money. They genuinely believed that was the most sensible choice available to them. They were clearly exploited, but there is not necessarily a definition in place to respond appropriately to that.
As my hon. Friend said, children who are groomed and exploited by criminal gangs are the victims, not the criminals. Many different organisations have flagged, as witnesses said last week, the fact that the absence of that statutory definition makes it harder for agencies to have a co-ordinated and effective response to vulnerable children.
The serious violence duty is a unique opportunity to bring together all the relevant authorities for training and action at a local level. In the past decade, county lines drug dealing has been a major driver of serious violence across the country. I am afraid that since the National Crime Agency’s first county lines assessment in 2015, the Government have been slow to respond, and cuts across the public sector have made things worse. Sadly, county lines drug networks rely on the grooming of vulnerable children to act as drug runners. They are badly exploited, then abandoned when they are no longer of use to the gang leaders. The Children’s Commissioner for England has estimated that 27,000 children are gang members. Modelling done by crime and justice specialists, Crest Advisory, identified 213,000 vulnerable children.
Children and vulnerable young people experiencing serious violence require a different response from that given to adults, and being involved in violence is often an indicator that children are experiencing other significant problems in their lives, such as being criminally exploited. Despite growing recognition of child criminal exploitation, there are still concerns that many children and young people involved in exploitation are not being identified or sufficiently supported by statutory services. Too often, these young people only come to the attention of the authorities when they are picked up by the police, caught in possession of drugs or weapons, or through involvement in a violent assault.
I should also mention the important issue of young girls who are involved in gang activity. I met a young girl who had been involved and had been injured as a result. She was in a hotel room with several gang members, who had money and drugs. The police had raided the hotel and arrested all the boys, but told the girl to be on her way because they did not know how to respond to her. She was in danger and was being exploited, but the police response was not there because they were not used to dealing with girls in that situation. Presumably they thought they were being kind, but they were actually leaving a girl who had been exploited to potentially still be in danger.
Alex Cunningham
When I was a member of the Education Committee, we carried out an inquiry around support, particularly for girls, and we had an evidence session with young people. A 16-year-old girl, who had been a victim of exploitation, had been placed in an out-of-town YMCA somewhere in Kent, to live there until the authorities sorted out what needed to happen with her. She told stories of men braying at her door at night asking her to come and party. That is all the more reason why we need a multi-agency approach, so that girls like her are properly protected.
Sarah Jones
Sadly, that tale is probably not uncommon. I am sure that the response of agencies to girls is better than it was, but it is still not joined up in a way that provides the support that is needed.
Children and young people who are victims of child criminal exploitation and gang violence are not being identified in time to save their lives, literally, and to save other people’s lives, despite frequent opportunities to do so. Communications between agencies and the recording and sharing of data is often poor, and support for at-risk children is inconsistent. As the 2019 report on gangs and exploitation by the previous Children’s Commissioner found, only a fraction of children involved in gang violence are known to children’s services.
The experience of being criminally exploited is extremely traumatising to children, and it is unlikely they will be able to escape these abusive experiences and rehabilitate without significant professional support. The approach to tackling child criminal exploitation must combine effective enforcement with long-term safeguarding and support strategies that are focused on managing long-term risks as well as the immediate ones. Too often vulnerable children receive crisis-driven care, not the long-term trust that they need, which would be provided by preventative support.
As part of criminal exploitation, children may be threatened into carrying knives or perpetrating violence against rival groups. It is important to understand the underlying causes of why children might be involved in violence and for these underlying causes in a child’s life or in the lives of children within a certain area to be addressed. This would involve adopting a more universal understanding of how children are coerced, controlled and threatened into serious violence, taking disruption action against those who coerce and control children, and ensuring that the response to children is centred on addressing their needs, fears and experiences.
Sarah Champion
I was struck by and am still musing on the fact that, earlier, when the example of a child carrying out a crime was given, the word “choice” was used. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the situation she describes, these children have no choice unless we add to the Bill the measures that she argues for?
Sarah Jones
I agree that they do not have a choice, but I have met young people who committed crimes as a child who believed that they did have a choice and that they were making the right choice because their parents had no money and they wanted to pay the bills. They believe that they are making sensible decisions, but they are children and they are vulnerable, and they are not. We need to provide support if we are going to stop them spiralling into a life of crime in the future.
New clause 58 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), who now co-chairs the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime and violence reduction, and who worked with Barnardo’s on the new clause. It would require the Government to publish a strategy for providing specialist training on child criminal exploitation and serious youth violence for all specified authorities to which chapter 1 of part 2 of the Bill applies. It is really important that all bodies involved in safeguarding children and the prevention of serious violence receive proper training in looking out for and preventing child criminal exploitation. The training of professionals can make all the difference when identifying children who have been criminally exploited and in understanding the dual nature of a child being an offender and a victim.
I have had trauma training, as I am sure have several people in this room. I cannot tell hon. Members how useful it has been to understanding the issues children deal with and which levers might be used. I was in a meeting with police recently, talking about a 15-year-old boy who had just committed quite a serious crime. The police officers, who had had trauma training, had a relationship with this child because they had been playing football with them for several months before the crime occurred. They were able to appreciate that the child had an alcoholic mother who was abusive, and we were able to talk to some charities about getting some support for that child. The police understood what interventions were needed to try to pull the child out of criminal activity and pushed towards a life of non-criminal options. It was amazing to see. Having that training and understanding some of these underlying issues is really important. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall for tabling the new clause, which we will support.
Sarah Champion
I want to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central for the amendments and new clauses she has tabled. Effectively, my new clause 17 underpins and provides the impetus for the work that she detailed, and I am grateful to the Children’s Society for helping me to develop it.
I start from the position of being the MP for Rotherham, where 20 years ago it was not uncommon for girls to be raped, abused by gangs or forced into carrying out crime on behalf of those gangs. They would get a criminal record and would be told that they were child prostitutes, and their lives were destroyed accordingly. We now have a definition of child sexual exploitation. That completely changed the attitudes of all the agencies, including the police and the social services, and the general population to the fact that exploitation of those children was happening.
It is clear that child criminal exploitation is going on, whichever heading we put it under, but we are quite a long way behind in our understanding of what that actually means. New clause 17 would place a statutory definition of criminal child exploitation in law for the first time by amending the Modern Slavery Act 2015. For it to be truly effective, the Modern Slavery Act must adapt as new forms of exploitation are recognised. Child criminal exploitation is the grooming and exploitation of children into criminal activity. There is a strong association with county lines, but it can also include moving drugs—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central for adding to my knowledge; I now know what “plugging” is, which children are forced to do—financial fraud and shoplifting. Obviously, that has been around for decades, but we are only just waking up and realising the harm and damage that those criminals are causing children. The true scale remains unknown, as many children fall through the cracks of statutory support.
The Children’s Commissioner estimated that 27,000 children are at high risk of gang exploitation. During 2020, 2,544 children were referred to the national referral mechanism due to concerns about child criminal exploitation, and 205 of those cases involved concerns about both criminal and sexual exploitation. My hon. Friend rightly highlighted that girls are criminally and sexually exploited by the same gang.
Alex Cunningham
I am just reflecting on the attitude of the professionals who do not actually understand or do not have a clear enough definition with which to work. What changes do they want to ensure clarity and that they can better protect people?
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. I am going off on a slight tangent, but The Times is tomorrow coming out with an article about child sexual exploitation. One of the key indicators of that is children going missing, and it cites the case of one girl who went missing 197 times, each time being reported to the police—this is recently—but the police still did not act. Just having the definition is not enough. This is about the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central described. It is about the training, public awareness, and all the agencies working together when they see that child. What I have found with the CSE definition is that having that hook does really sharpen and focus professionals’ minds around it. We have taken huge strides when it comes to child sexual exploitation, because we have that definition in place and because there is a level playing field when talking about it.
Sarah Jones
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the very powerful case she is making. It reminds me of a conversation that I had recently with police officers, who were talking about the number of children who go missing but are not reported to the police as missing, because the family have other children, siblings of the missing child, and are nervous that if they report that one child has gone missing—who will probably come back, because he is doing county lines—the other children might be taken into care. That underlines the case for training and understanding of these issues beyond just policing. It is through education and terminology that everyone can understand that all the different organisations involved in trying to reduce this can understand some of the issues and intervene when they need to.
Sarah Champion
Exactly. Once people have the definition, they have a list of the indicators, and going missing would of course be one of those, so the first thing that would cross the social worker’s mind, rather than “Oh, this is bad parenting,” would be, “Could the child be being sexually exploited? Could the child be being criminally exploited?” It really shifts the mindset of the professionals. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.
There is another potential nervousness that the Minister may have. I know that a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation was explored when the Modern Slavery Act was reviewed in 2019. I note that the reviewers’ main concern was about a narrow definition of child criminal exploitation that would not be future proof as the exploitation adapted. That is why the definition that I am proposing is broad and simple, focusing on the coercive and controlling behaviour that perpetrators display in relation to their victims, not on the very specific criminal act itself.
I know that the Home Office has raised concerns with regard to use of the section 45 defence in the Modern Slavery Act and children being able to take advantage of that. I am aware that colleagues have also raised concerns about unintended consequences that this definition might have for the use of that defence, but I do not believe that there would be those unintended consequences. A clear definition of child criminal exploitation would guide a jury far better than is the case now, as jurors would need to weigh up the evidence and consider the defence but would be aided by a much clearer definition of what constitutes relevant exploitation. That would in fact reduce the risk of the section 45 defence being used spuriously, which is a concern that colleagues have raised with me. This definition would not change the provisions under section 45, but I hope that the awareness raising that would come with a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation would enable genuine victims of exploitation to use the defence more routinely.
The Chair
Before we move on, I remind colleagues that they are meant to address the Chair. I am seeing quite a lot of backs. I do not mind seeing backs occasionally, but it does help Hansard writers and everybody here if we have a little bit of fluidity and motion. I call the Minister.
Victoria Atkins
Sir Charles, I am probably the worst offender for that, so forgive me—I will try to face forward.
Before I turn to the specifics of the amendments, it may assist the Committee if I set out why we feel it necessary to create the duty. Serious violence has a devastating impact on victims and their families. It instils fear in communities and it is extremely costly to society. It is always difficult to talk about economic cost when we are talking about children in harm and grieving families and so on, but there is an economic cost as well.
Incidents of serious violence have increased in England and Wales, and it is for that reason that we have decided to introduce the serious violence duty. The duty is a key part of the Government’s programme of work to prevent and reduce serious violence. It involves taking a multi-agency approach to understand the causes and consequences of serious violence, focusing on prevention and early intervention, informed by evidence. In addition to tough law enforcement, we need to understand and address the factors that cause someone to commit violent crime so that we can prevent it from happening.
Analysis of responses to our 2019 public consultation, which tested options for a public health approach to tackling serious violence, found an overall consensus that a legislative approach was preferred to a voluntary, non-statutory approach. We know that that is already being undertaken in some areas, such as those with a pre-existing violence reduction unit, but there is inconsistency across England and Wales. We envisage that the duty will create the conditions and legal basis to bridge that gap.
At its core, the duty will require specified authorities to work together and share data and intelligence. They will also need to formulate an evidence-based analysis of the problems associated with serious violence in their local area, and subsequently produce and implement a strategy detailing how they will respond to those particular issues. The duty will be placed on specified authorities from the police, justice, fire and rescue, health and local authorities. Education, prison and youth custody authorities will be under a separate duty to co-operate with the specified authorities where required; they can also choose to collaborate voluntarily with the specified authorities, or with each other, should they wish to do so. There will be requirements for authorities to consult all such institutions in their area as they prepare their strategy.
We know how important it is that we get implementation of this new duty right and that we ensure that the authorities understand what will be required of them. That is why we have published draft statutory guidance to support the implementation of the new duty. That guidance, which is available to hon. Members now, explains the requirements of the new duty and provides advice on how they can be met effectively, including examples of good practice. We have done that precisely because we want Parliament, charities and others to examine the document and feed in their thoughts on how it can be improved, ensuring that the guidance is as effective as it can be ahead of implementation of the new duty.
Sarah Champion
When the national referral mechanism was introduced, I was struck that the responses to my freedom of information requests showed that it was not UK children who were being referred. There was a perception that it was international children, whereas the act of trafficking can mean literally taking a child from one side of the street to the other. Has the situation changed, and will anything in this work make that apparent to local authorities and other safeguarding organisations?
Victoria Atkins
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. Sadly, the situation has changed and now the most common nationality of potential child victims of modern slavery is British. As she knows, the NRM is more than a decade old. The criminal world has moved on and the needs of the children we are trying to help, as well as those of adult victims, have changed.
The transformation programme is looking at whether there are different ways in which we can help victims, depending on the safeguarding arrangements that may already be in place and whether children have any family or parental links with this country. Clearly, the needs of a child from Vietnam who has no family links in this country may be very different from those of a child who has been born and brought up here, with parents looking after them and with brothers and sisters. We are trying to find ways to address the needs of all victims, but particularly child victims in this context.
Local authorities are of course already responsible for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of all children in their area, including child victims of modern slavery. Children’s services must already work in close co-operation with the police and other statutory and non-statutory agencies to offer child victims of modern slavery the support they require. With the background and context that it is already mandatory, we therefore conclude that it is not necessary to include that as a further requirement in the Bill.
I turn to amendment 92 and an early help strategy. The hon. Member for Croydon Central is right to point to the need for a focus on prevention, which is a key part of what the duty seeks to achieve. Early intervention is an important part of prevention work and reducing serious youth violence. The duty already sets out the responsibilities of specified authorities and the work they are to undertake, which includes risk factors that occur before a young person has become involved in serious violence. The specified authorities, including the local authority that has responsibility for children’s social care, will be required to consult education authorities in preparing the strategy. They can also be required to collaborate on the strategy. As such, the provision should already ensure that a strategy to reduce and prevent serious violence would encapsulate early help for this cohort, so we do not believe that an additional strategy is required. Again, I refer to the draft statutory guidance that already has early intervention running throughout it. Indeed, we plan to add case studies before formal consultation, to help explain and guide multi-agency partners.
On amendment 93, children’s social care authorities have a crucial role to play and significant insights to share, particularly for those young people at risk of becoming involved in serious violence, child criminal exploitation or other harms. However, local authorities that are already named as a specified authority under the duty are responsible for children’s social care services. Therefore, for the reasons I have already outlined, we do not believe it necessary for the clause to contain the explicit requirement to consult such services, because they are within the definition of local authority. Again, we will make it clear, as part of our draft statutory guidance on the duty, that social care services, among other vital services for which local authorities hold responsibility, must be included.
We believe that amendment 82 is also unnecessary, given the functions conferred on local policing bodies by clause 13, which are intended to assist specified authorities in the exercise of their functions under the duty and to monitor the effectiveness of local strategies.
I turn to new clause 17 and the important issue of child criminal exploitation. I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham for setting out the case for providing in statute a definition of child criminal exploitation. Child criminal exploitation in all its forms is a heinous crime, with the perpetrators often targeting and exploiting the most vulnerable children in our society. We are determined to tackle it. There is already a formal definition of child criminal exploitation included in statutory guidance for frontline practitioners working with children, including “Keeping children safe in education” and “Working Together to Safeguard Children”. In addition, as the hon. Lady noted, the definition is also included in the serious violence strategy, published in 2018, the Home Office’s “Child exploitation disruption toolkit” for frontline practitioners, and the county lines guidance for prosecutors and youth offending teams.
We have discussed the introduction of a further statutory definition with a range of organisations and heard a range of views. On balance, the Government have concluded that there are risks with a statutory definition. Some partners highlighted the changing nature of child criminal exploitation. Inherent to such exploitation is that it evolves and responds to changes in the criminal landscape and the environment. As such, there are concerns that a statutory definition could prove inflexible as the nature of child criminal exploitation adapts.
In addition, as the hon. Lady has rightly noted, the independent review of the Modern Slavery Act, conducted by Frank Field—now Lord Field—and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and Baroness Butler-Sloss, considered the definition of child criminal exploitation under the Act and concluded that it should not be amended, as the definition currently in place is sufficiently flexible to meet a range of new and emerging forms of modern slavery.
We believe that our focus should be on improving local safeguarding arrangements to identify and support victims of child criminal exploitation, and on working to ensure that the right support is in place locally to protect these very vulnerable children.
Sarah Champion
I appreciate, foresaw and understand all the objections that the Minister raises. As she is a former barrister and someone who uses the law, does she agree that it would help to have a definition, as our witnesses said?
Victoria Atkins
Well, we do have the definition in the Modern Slavery Act. Modern slavery cases are notoriously difficult to prosecute because, as with other hidden harms, they require the involvement of often very vulnerable people, including adults as well as children. They include people who might not have English as a language at all, let alone as a first language, and people who might be targeted precisely because of their vulnerability. Although we are looking very much at the context of children, we know that vulnerable adults have their homes taken over by county lines gangs to cuckoo and sell their drugs from, with all the horrendous violence and exploitation that vulnerable adults have to endure as part of that.
We will continue to look at this. As evidence develops, we will be open to that, but, on balance, we have concluded that it is preferable at this stage to focus on the local multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, and to work on the serious violence duty to get a level of understanding of all the good practice taking place at the local level, which the hon. Lady and others have talked about.
One should not view the Bill as being the only thing that the Government or safeguarding partners are doing to address concerns. We have increased the dedicated support available to those at risk and involved in county lines exploitation, and have provided funding to provide one-to-one caseworker support from the St Giles Trust to support young people involved in county lines exploitation. We are funding the Children’s Society’s prevention programme, which works to tackle and prevent child criminal exploitation, child sexual abuse and exploitation, and modern-day slavery and human trafficking on a regional and national basis.
We are also working on a public awareness campaign, #LookCloser, which was rolled out nationally in September and focuses on increasing awareness of the signs and indicators of child exploitation so that the public and frontline services report concerns quickly to the police. As I say, on balance, at this point, we do not believe that a statutory definition is the correct approach, but we are focusing on practical responses to exploitation.
On new clause 47, I have great understanding as to why the hon. Member for Croydon Central tabled it. It would require specified authorities to prepare and implement a strategy to prevent and reduce child criminal exploitation and to safeguard affected children. We have, however, built flexibility into the duty to allow areas to decide which specific crime types are a priority locally. We have done that deliberately so that local areas can react to what is needed in their areas. Indeed, the draft statutory guidance sets that out. Under the duty as drafted, the specified authorities will already be able to include child criminal exploitation in their local serious violence strategies, should that be of particular concern to them. I very much understand the motivation behind the new clause, but we are not convinced that a separate strategy is necessary.
Alex Cunningham
I am interested to hear the Minister say that there is training to address local issues. I accept that that is a factor. Surely, though, there should be a consistent training programme across all professions to ensure that everybody is approaching these matters in the same way, albeit taking account of local factors as well.
Victoria Atkins
I do not assume that the duty and the draft statutory guidance preclude that consistency of standard; but in this arena and also with other crime types that are hidden and which prey upon vulnerable people, I am very keen that we encourage innovation. We are seeing some really interesting work being conducted through the Youth Endowment Fund. The hon. Gentleman may be familiar with that; it is a fund that stretches over a decade. It is protected money of £200 million that is being invested across the country and is evaluated very carefully in order to build a library of programmes that work—and also programmes that do not work: we need to know both those things, to help local commissioners make good decisions about what they should be funding with taxpayers’ money. I am keen that we enable that sort of innovation.
Of course, consistency of standards is one of the reasons why we want to introduce the duty—precisely because we are aware that those areas that have VRUs may well be a few steps ahead of other parts of the country that do not have them because they do not suffer the same rates of serious violence as London or Manchester, for example. I very much take the point about consistency, but we believe that that can be addressed through the duty itself and the draft statutory guidance.
I am going to come to an end soon, Sir Charles. There is a requirement to include how inter-agency training will be commissioned, delivered and monitored for impact in the published local safeguarding arrangements. That is relevant to the point that the hon. Member for Stockton North just made. Safeguarding partners must also publish an annual report on their safeguarding arrangements, which should include evidence of the impact of the work of the safeguarding partners and relevant agencies, including training.
I am pleased that the Committee has had the opportunity to debate this duty. We have more debates ahead of us, I suspect. We believe that the three safeguarding partners already in place, through the multi-agency safeguarding arrangements that came into being in 2019, are the way to address some of the important issues raised by hon. Members in this part of the debate.
Sarah Jones
Sir Charles, I am sorry about turning my back previously. It was a very appealing amendment and it is hard not to look.
The Chair
It is a great debate, and I do not want to stop anyone. I totally appreciate that.
Sarah Jones
I thank the Minister for her response. In many ways, we are in the same place. We are trying to make this new duty as effective as it can be. I would like to test the will of the Committee on amendment 78, because it is important that, when we are trying to prevent and tackle serious violence, we safeguard children. I understand the Minister’s point about duplication, but not to have that in the Bill would be a huge loss.
The Minister talked about the Home Office funding that goes to the Children’s Society and the St Giles Trust for their incredibly important work. They are the advocates of this; they are the organisations saying to us that this is what we need to do. The Minister gives them money but should also listen to their argument, because it is fundamental and important. On the other amendments, I appreciate that the Minister is doing what she can through the guidance and other means.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Sarah Jones
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 7, page 8, line 4, at end insert—
“(3A) Specified authorities which are housing authorities must have particular regard to their housing duties when performing their duties under this section.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 52, in clause 7, page 8, line 10, at end insert—
“(d) each registered provider of social housing in the area.”
Amendment 53, in clause 7, page 8, line 15, at end insert—
“(d) each registered provider of social housing in the area.”
Amendment 51, in clause 8, page 9, line 11, at end insert—
‘(3A) Specified authorities which are housing authorities must have particular regard to their housing duties when performing their duties under this section.”
Amendment 54, in clause 8, page 9, line 18, at end insert—
“(e) each registered provider of social housing in the area.”
Amendment 55, in clause 8, page 9, line 23, at end insert—
“(d) any registered provider of social housing in the area.”
Amendment 56, in clause 9, page 10, line 45, at end insert—
“(f) a registered provider of social housing.”
Amendment 57, in clause 15, page 15, line 5, at end insert—
“(f) a registered provider of social housing.”
Amendment 58, in clause 16, page 15, line 37, at end insert—
“(e) a registered provider of social housing.”
Amendment 59, in clause 17, page 16, line 19, at end insert “or registered provider of social housing”
Amendment 60, in clause 17, page 16, line 22, after “authority”, insert “or provider”
Amendment 61, in clause 18, page 17, line 3, at end insert—
“(g) a registered provider of social housing.”
Amendment 62, in clause 19, page 17, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) In section 5 (Authorities responsible for strategies)—
(a) after subsection (1F) insert—
(1G) Responsible authorities which are housing authorities must have particular regard to their housing duties when exercising the functions conferred by or under section 6 or section 7.”
(b) in subsection (2), after paragraph (d), insert—
“(e) every registered provider of social housing in the area.””
New clause 28—Provision of accommodation to reduce or prevent risk of serious violence—
In the Housing Act 1996, section 189, after subsection (d), insert—
“(e) a person at risk of serious violence, if the provision of accommodation would reduce or prevent the risk of that person becoming a victim of serious violence.”
This new clause amends the Housing Act 1996 to add those at risk of serious violence to the list of those who have a priority need for accommodation, if the provision of accommodation would reduce or prevent the risk of that person becoming a victim of serious violence.
New clause 29—Code of practice on application of section 177 of the Housing Act 1996: prevention and reduction of serious violence—
“The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, issue a code of practice under Section 214A of the Housing Act 1996 on preventing serious violence to provide—
(a) that the application of section 177 of the Housing Act 1996 is to be applied to those at risk of serious violence so as to ensure that it is not deemed reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if the provision of alternative accommodation would prevent or reduce the risk of serious violence against that person;
(b) for the Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities to be updated to include a new chapter on the duties of local authorities under subsections 7(3A) and 8(3A) of this Act, with particular reference to preventing and reducing serious violence and safeguarding young people at risk of serious violence;
(c) that the police shall be responsible for timely collaboration with housing providers on the reduction of the risk of serious violence to individuals where the exercise of housing duties may reduce or prevent the risk of serious violence; and
(d) guidance on the disclosure of information in accordance with regulations under section (9)(2) of this Act by and to specified authorities which are housing authorities to prevent and reduce serious violence in a prescribed area, with particular reference to assisting the housing authority with the prevention and reduction of serious violence in the exercise of its duties under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996.”
Sarah Jones
These amendments have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). They are supported by a vast array of very sensible organisations, from Redthread to Shelter, from the St Giles Trust to Barnardo’s. This section of the Bill sets out the Government’s ambition to reduce violent crime and address the root causes of serious violence by making sure that public bodies work together to stop serious violence. The amendments seek to protect young people and their families from the growing problem of gang grooming, harassment and violence.
Many young people, including children in their early teenage years, experience serious violence and harm as a direct result of being groomed by criminal gangs in their neighbourhood. The common factor in these cases is the need for families and young people to be moved urgently to a suitable home away from the area of gang activity to mitigate the risk of harm. The Government’s serious violence strategy in 2018 identified homelessness as a risk factor for being a victim or perpetrator of violent crime and highlighted the significant growth in vulnerable populations, such as those facing homelessness, over the past decade.
In communities across the country, a lack of suitable and affordable housing options and difficulties in accessing alternative accommodation in a timely manner mean that vulnerable victims are at risk from serious violence and exploitation and have no way of escaping. Too often, desperate pleas by families to social landlords and local housing authorities to move a household to safety are not addressed. Housing providers are not part of planning, with either the police or social services, for the safety of their tenants, even when they hold vital information to help. I have sadly experienced several times in my relatively short time as a Member of Parliament a family coming to me and saying that they feel that their son is at risk of being attacked. They want to move, and the police support the move, but they feel that there is nowhere for them to move to, or there is no mechanism for them to be moved in an emergency. On two occasions, a child has ended up being stabbed because they were not moved away as quickly as they should have been, and in one case, before I became an MP in Croydon, a family who were desperate to move were not moved and the child ended up being stabbed and killed.
We see this in communities across the country—it is not only in London—but in areas of acute housing need it is particularly acute, as Members would expect. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow address these challenges, learning from the way in which domestic violence victims have been prioritised for housing to keep them safe, and ensuring that housing providers are statutorily required to play their part in tackling serious violence.
Research by Centrepoint in 2019 highlighted the links between youth violence and homelessness. Violence and exploitation drive homelessness and housing insecurity, and the experience of homelessness increases vulnerable young people’s exposure to criminality and risk. A survey of 227 young people with experience of homelessness in England and Wales found that one in six had taken part in criminal activity, such as selling or preparing drugs, in order to access a place to stay. The London charity, New Horizon Youth Centre, found that, of a sample of 102 young people accessing its specialist youth violence outreach programme, 95% had been or were currently homeless. Shelter has documented the fact that stable accommodation has long been linked to success in reducing reoffending and supporting rehabilitation. This is not new; I worked for Shelter years ago and we used to have the same debate on the impact of homelessness and bad housing. It is significant, and the likelihood of offending increases significantly if someone is homeless.
Two recent serious case reviews of 14-year-old children who were killed as a result of gang violence highlighted the failings in safeguarding them with regard to housing. In the case of one, an offer of accommodation made to his mother was withdrawn shortly before he was shot dead in a children’s playground in Newham in September 2017. The serious case review into his death found that there were
“clear gaps in risk assessments and risk management plans for Chris”,
including the failure to update the housing manager of the need to relocate Chris out of the area, and that
“there was a significant missed opportunity in the absence of a referral to access the Pan-London Reciprocal Housing Agreement. There were also significant gaps in information sharing between Children’s Social Care, the Police and the Youth Offending Team in relation to risk information that could have triggered such a referral.”
Chris’s mother has spoken of how she struggled to get housing outside the area where he was at risk:
“When it came to help, there was not much help. I was scared for him and he was scared for himself. It was just me and him left to sort this out. The most important one for me was housing, to get us out of the area. To be out of the clutches of the gangs so he could continue being a child.”
Mr Goodwill
When the hon. Lady talks about poor-quality housing, would she say that some of the appalling housing in Croydon—for example, in the Regina Road block—is an example of the sort of housing that we should be trying to improve?
Sarah Jones
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his political jibe. He is correct to say there are examples of bad housing in Croydon, as there are in other parts of the country. It has a massively serious effect on people’s lives. [Interruption.] I can hear the hon. Member for Croydon South muttering about it from a sedentary position.
I will move on to the issue that we are talking about. When an urgent move is required because of gang violence, temporary accommodation is often the only realistic option. The law currently does not prioritise families in this situation, in contrast with the requirement for victims of domestic abuse to be treated as a priority for rehousing. Section 189(1) of the Housing Act 1996 gives victims automatic priority need, so that victims fleeing domestic abuse are moved urgently and thus protected. That is not the case when the threat of violence is external, which means that families are often forced to choose between giving up a secure tenancy and making a homeless application to their local authority, or keeping their secure tenancy and staying somewhere where they are in danger. The child safeguarding practice review published last year notes a case where a family moved back to an area where they were at risk in order to prevent the loss of their right to permanent housing. Within months, their son was killed.
The problems do not stop there. Evidence from practitioners shows how people at risk of violence who approach their local authorities are often not given adequate support due to their not being categorised as priority need under section 189(1) of the Housing Act. Youth workers who work with victims of gang violence often try to identify mental or physical health needs in the family in order to create a workaround. This shows that the system is not responding to the needs of victims of violence because of their status as victims. Support workers at New Horizon Youth Centre in London state that when young people are found in priority need, it is often as a result of any mental health conditions that they have managed to have diagnosed during the centre’s work with them following a serious incident of violence—it is not on the basis of being a victim or being at risk of such violence. In most cases, there is police evidence of risk, but the support workers have found that this is not enough to secure a positive priority need decision.
Kate Bond, the youth outreach project manager at New Horizon Youth Centre, explains: “We have seen so many cases where violence or the threat of violence is rejected as a reason for young people to be seen in priority need under the Housing Act. We have cases where even though there is clear evidence that someone’s life is at risk—not only because of their current injuries, hospital letters and police reports, but also proof from a range of other relevant services—they are not found in priority need. Too often, we end up having to pay for these young people in emergency accommodation and spend a long time gathering proof under other grounds for priority need, keeping the young person in limbo. Traumatised young people are further demotivated by this process and the sense that their lives being at risk is not enough to secure them somewhere safe to live. This continues to put lives and communities at unnecessary risk. However, even that threshold for proof required by local authorities before they will place young people in temporary accommodation can be difficult to reach. Often, for example, young people cannot go to their GP because it is in an area where they feel unsafe, so securing medical proof becomes more challenging and the diagnosis of mental health conditions more difficult.”
Under sections 177(1) and 177(1A) of the Housing Act, a person is legally homeless if violence or the threat of violence means that they cannot be reasonably expected to remain in their current accommodation, but the homelessness code of guidance for local authorities currently provides no guidance for local authorities on how to consider whether an applicant might be in priority need because their current home puts them at risk of gang violence, harassment or grooming. Currently, there is only general advice on the assessment of violence in paragraph 8.36, whereas the assessment of domestic abuse is dealt with in some detail by the statutory guidance. The guidance also says that a shortage of housing could be taken into account when considering whether a family should be moved.
Housing providers such as local authorities or housing associations may also hold critical information that can be used as evidence to support the homelessness application, safeguarding, or police investigations. They may be able to support young people and families to access alternative accommodation. Practitioners are reporting, however, that housing representatives are often not included in relevant case forums and discussions on families at risk of harm. Similarly, when people fleeing violence present at their local authority for rehousing, there is currently no duty on the local authority to seek information from the police to ascertain the level of risk when assessing the housing application.
As I said, amendments 50 to 62, and new clauses 28 and 29, were drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow in collaboration with the co-chairs of the Housing Law Practitioners Association and Garden Court Chambers, and with the backing of many organisations such as Centrepoint, New Horizons Youth Centre, Shelter, Crisis, Barnardo’s, the Big Issue Foundation, St Basils, Catch-22, Redthread, Homeless Link, Nacro, the Revolving Doors Agency, Fair Trials and the St Giles Trust.
New clause 28 would ensure that we learn from best practice of housing support services for victims of domestic violence, and that those who are at risk of violence owing to gang behaviour are prioritised for rehousing away from harm. For children and adults affected by and at risk of serious violence, seeking support to secure a safe place to live can be extremely difficult. Evidence from practitioners shows how young people, care leavers, people with multiple needs, and families facing threats of violence are not given adequate support when approaching their local authorities to seek help moving out of harmful situations because, despite meeting the threshold for vulnerability, given that they have fled violence or threats of violence, they are not seen as in priority need. In many cases, they do not receive the initial duties and assessment to which they are entitled under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. New clause 28 is designed to remove that hurdle and set outs clearly that anyone at risk of violence is in priority need, whether the violence takes place inside or outside the home.
New clause 29 would ensure that the current homelessness code of guidance is updated to take into account the specific needs of those fleeing gang violence and exploitation. Serious cases reviews have shown that the current guidance is not sufficient and young people are paying the price with their lives. Victims of serious violence are often forced to choose between remaining in an area where they are at risk or making a homeless application and giving up a secure tenancy. In the financial year 2019-20, more than 7,000 households were recognised as being at risk of or experiencing non-domestic violence and abuse and seeking homelessness support. It is right that the departmental guidance provides specific guidance for people in that situation.
Homelessness and housing precarity are significant contributing factors to children and adults becoming vulnerable to violence as they respond to offers of accommodation from those seeking to exploit them. Prevention of that trend and early intervention to reduce the harm they may face requires their housing needs to be met quickly and appropriately. The current homelessness code of guidance highlights certain vulnerabilities faced by groups such as young people, care leavers and victims of trafficking, who should be considered as part of the housing application, but there is little guidance around young people at risk of violence and exploitation. By enhancing the current code of guidance so that local authorities take into account the needs of people at risk from serious violence, the Government would ensure that the needs of that vulnerable group specifically are considered by local housing authorities to protect them from further risk of violence. Amendments 50 to 62 would ensure that registered social landlords are involved and consulted in local efforts to reduce serious violence, and that there is timely co-operation between the police and local housing authorities to prevent serious violence.
Part 2 of the Bill outlines the model for multi-agency working to prevent serious violence. The horrific cases in the serious case reviews tell us that there is no effective multi-agency response to preventing serious violence that does not include housing. These amendments will ensure that registered social landlords are included in the new duty and ensure that there is timely information sharing between the police and RSLs for the purpose of preventing serious violence. By supporting effective multi-agency working between all partners, the Government can ensure that housing is considered as an essential part of a comprehensive public health approach to tackling and preventing the serious use of violence.
As I have said, there is provision in law and in practice for people fleeing domestic violence to have a route out of that violent situation, through their local authority and the definition of priority needs. There is not the same route out for those at risk of gang violence in their area, and I have seen the consequences of that. These amendments would put those at risk of serious violence on the same footing as those at risk of domestic violence. I would be grateful if the Minister could consider these amendments.
Victoria Atkins
We very much recognise the valuable contribution that local authorities and housing associations are able to make as part of local efforts to prevent and reduce serious violence. Local authorities are responsible for the delivery of a range of vital services for people and businesses in a local area, including housing and community safety. It is expected that such responsibilities will be key to the role they play in local partnership arrangements as they contribute to the development and implementation of the duty. As such, they will be best placed to provide a strategic overview of and information about housing and associated issues in the local area.
The statutory guidance for the duty makes clear that such duties are relevant and should be considered as part of the work to meet the requirements of the serious violence duty. We therefore do not consider it necessary to stipulate in legislation that such authorities must have due regard to their housing duties when meeting the requirements of the serious violence duty, as there will be a requirement for them to have due regard to the statutory guidance in any case.
Moreover, existing legislation is already designed to ensure that social housing is prioritised for those who need it most. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will continue to work with the relevant sectors to ensure that the guidance is clear and fit for purpose, in relation to this crucial point, ahead of the duty provisions coming into force. When it comes to recognising and protecting the groups of people most at risk of involvement in serious violence, we are aware that housing and risk of homelessness are factors to be borne in mind, but we remain to be persuaded that an explicit reference to registered providers of social housing within the provisions for the duty is the correct approach to take in this instance.
One of the key requirements of the serious violence duty will be for specified authorities in a local area to work together to identify the causes of serious violence and, in doing so, ascertain which groups of people are most at risk locally. Legislation already dictates that, where a local housing authority requests it, a private registered provider of social housing or registered social landlord shall co-operate to such extent as is reasonable in the circumstances in offering accommodation to people with priority under the authority’s allocation scheme. That includes lettings allocated to those in priority need and those requiring urgent rehousing as a result of violence or threats of violence. Statutory guidance on allocations was issued in 2012, and local authorities must pay due regard to it.
Furthermore, the Regulator of Social Housing’s tenancy standards make clear that private registered providers of social housing must co-operate with local authority strategic housing functions. Those who are at risk of violence should already receive support if they are in need of social housing and/or if they are at risk of homelessness. However, it is important that local authorities are able to respond according to the needs of the specific local area and of the particular person. We are concerned that the amendment, which applies only to the social housing sector and not the private rental sector, may inadvertently single out and potentially stigmatise social tenants as being associated with serious violence, which I am sure nobody wants to flow from that.
Sarah Jones
It is unusual for housing and the Home Office to be in the same conversation, which is possibly why the Minister was using strange terminology more akin to the MHCLG.
Sarah Jones
That is something that we need to try and shift over the long term and that is the point of the clauses and amendments.
I understand the Minister’s points. On new clause 28, there is a clear argument that there is provision on domestic abuse but not a provision for violence outside of the home in a similar way. Now is not the time to press the new clauses to a vote, because that comes at the end of the Bill’s time in Committee, and I am happy to leave the amendments. However, I hope the Minister will encourage housing organisations, through the process of the new duty, to be part of the conversation because they are absolutely crucial, as I have seen for myself. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Jones
I beg to move amendment 116, in clause 7, page 8, line 10, at end insert—
“(d) the local voluntary sector and local businesses.”
This amendment would create a duty to consult the voluntary sector and local businesses in preparing a strategy to prevent and reduce serious violence in an area.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 81, in clause 7, page 8, line 30, leave out “from time to time” and insert “every two years,”.
This amendment would require the specified authorities for an area to prepare and implement a revised strategy every two years.
Amendment 87, in clause 8, page 10, line 4, leave out “from time to time” and insert “every two years,”.
This amendment would require collaborating specified authorities for an area to prepare and implement a revised strategy every two years.
New clause 59—National Serious Violence Oversight Board—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a board, to be known as the National Serious Violence Oversight Board.
(2) The Board will be comprised of the Secretary of State, who will be the chair of the Board, and such other people as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) The duties of the Board are—
(a) to review local serious violence strategies,
(b) to share relevant data relating to such strategies, and
(c) to share good practice in the preparation and implementation of those strategies.
(4) Not later than two years after the date on which this Act is passed, and every two years thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report from the Board on the progress of the duty to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence.”
Sarah Jones
Amendment 116 would create a duty to consult the voluntary sector and local businesses in preparing a strategy to prevent and reduce serious violence in an area. As part of the new duty, several public authorities are required to consult each other, but some agencies are missed out, including the voluntary sector and local businesses. The amendment was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi). It comes from the all-party group on knife crime, who worked with Barnardo’s on this amendment.
The voluntary sector holds crucial information and intelligence about what really happens in families and communities. The sector includes organisations that directly support victims and offenders and can help to bring their voices and experiences into policy making. They often know what works and what does not. Local areas will not be able to tackle serious violence without engaging with the voluntary sector’s knowledge and local intelligence.
Local businesses are also crucial in tackling serious youth violence. If we have learned anything from our work in child sexual exploitation, places are just as important to safeguarding as people—shopping centres, cafés, taxi ranks and gyms. Preventing violence cannot be done without their input.
Sarah Champion
I appreciate that my hon. Friend is making that point because, when it comes to Rotherham and what happened in child sexual exploitation, the community did know about it and did try to report it at the time, but to very little effect, unfortunately. Crucially, the voluntary sector stepped up, with much of the work done through charitable funds to try and support the young people. That needs recognition in the Bill, not least so that some resources will flow through afterwards, because the voluntary sector has its arms around the community. It is the eyes and ears of the community. We ought to embrace that, and the statutory bodies ought to have a duty to negotiate, engage and listen to and respond to the voluntary community’s wishes.
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for her points about Rotherham. It is absolutely clear that the voluntary sector and local businesses are part of the solution and should therefore be part of the conversation and strategy. Their kind of preventive work will make the serious violence partnerships effective. Local businesses and the voluntary sector are a crucial part of that type of safeguarding.
Amendments 81 and 87 are straightforward. We felt that the language in the Bill was rather loose. For instance, it states that the specified authorities for an area must “from time to time” implement a revised strategy. Quite a lot of the organisations that we spoke to felt that “from time to time” could mean “not really ever at all” if they do not fancy it. Although I appreciate that the Minister might say that she wants local organisations to do what is right for them, “from time to time” felt too loose, so we suggested that the strategies should be refined every two years.
New clause 59, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, would require the Government to establish a national serious violence oversight board. The duties of the board would be to review local serious violence strategies, to share relevant data at a national level in relation to such strategies, and to share good practice in the preparation and implementation of those strategies. The board should be fed into by individual strategies for each local area to take into account the different patterns of risk, crime, vulnerability and exploitation found across the country. The oversight board could then feed in the relevant information across different Departments to achieve a joined-up approach to preventing serious violence.
Sarah Champion
The Minister has not said that the door is closed on the definition of child criminal exploitation. To take that one particular example: we would be looking at a range of definitions to which the local authority serious crime board could respond, meaning that we would again be in the dark days of a postcode lottery. Does my hon. Friend agree that, unless these definitions are in place, something like she is proposing makes absolute sense in order to get that uniformity of service? We are trying to prevent crime and support victims, so a simple measure would be to have an oversight body to make sure it happens.
Sarah Jones
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is always good to look back at what has worked in the past, and I go back to the example I cited earlier of the teenage pregnancy strategy. There was a defined strategy from central Government that was overseen centrally but delivered locally, so that there was room for local flexibility according to what was needed. However, there was also a clear set of parameters within which people should be operating, and an expectation of what they should be delivering with what was actually quite a targeted approach. The Prime Minister used to receive daily data on what was happening in each local area. I am quite a fan of gathering data centrally and trying to push change as much as possible, so I agree with my hon. Friend.
Similarly, a national serious violence oversight board would be able to analyse national trends and provide real scrutiny of what is and is not working across the country. Strategies need to feed into somewhere central so that the national landscape can be understood and that good and bad practice can be shared. The Minister talked earlier about that balance between what we allow local police authorities to do and what we set nationally. That conversation about how much we control from the centre and how much we allow people to feed in locally is always happening. The change suggested by new clause 59 is for a local and national mechanism in which at least the information can be gathered and analysed, so that we can see who is doing well and who is not doing well, and then respond appropriately.
Serious violence inevitably crosses boundaries. Effective responses to child exploitation, for example, are often hampered by the fact that it is a form of abuse that takes place across the boundaries of all the different police forces and local authorities in England and Wales. That creates inevitable fragmentation.
While the National County Lines Co-ordination Centre has helped to deliver a more joined-up approach to policing of child exploitation, the same joined-up approach is not found between the police and other agencies, or between different local authority areas. It would be impossible to tackle serious violence without some form of national oversight of the strategies. Learning and best practice can be shared at a national level. We see from the findings of the serious case reviews that sharing is still not effective, resulting in the same failings occurring again and again. We do not want that to happen with the serious violence partnerships as well.
Under the previous Prime Minister there was a serious violence taskforce, which was disbanded and replaced with the National Policing Board, but the National Policing Board looks at all parts of the policing system and has a different function altogether. We need some oversight that specifically addresses serious violence. When the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Theresa May) was Prime Minister, a unit to tackle violence was set up in the Cabinet Office, but I am unsure whether it still exists. Does the Minister know? Either way, she might consider the amendments suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and consider a kind of national co-ordination of the strategies to ensure that they are as effective as possible.
Victoria Atkins
We very much agree that voluntary and community sector organisations and local businesses are key to working with young people to tackle issues relating to serious violence and crime, and indeed to offering alternative opportunities to young people. One of the non-legislative measures that I am working on at the moment is bringing together the private and public sectors to offer opportunities by way of training, work placements and so on to young people who at the moment may believe that their life chances involve joining a gang and earning their money that way. We have to give young people a range of alternatives, so I very much agree with the motivations behind all these amendments, but particularly those that seek to involve charities and businesses.
I should point out that clause 9—“Power to authorise collaboration etc. with other persons”—is very much intended to include charitable organisations in the serious violence duty. We did not feel that it was right to put a duty on charities, but we did very much want to reference their ability to be included and involved in both the drawing up and the implementation of the strategy.
We are not persuaded that amendment 116 is necessary, because of the way it is drafted. It would potentially create significant new burdens if specified authorities were required to consult all voluntary sector organisations and businesses in the local area, as opposed to those that they considered to be most relevant to the local strategy for preventing and reducing serious violence.
I will shamelessly take this opportunity to mention, by way of example, the wonderful Louth Navigation Trust in my constituency. Wonderful charity though it is, I think it would itself accept that it is probably not able to assist in the drawing together of a serious violence duty in the way that specialist charities, such as St Giles Trust, Redthread and the other organisations that we all know and work with. will be able to do. That was a flippant example—forgive me—at 4 o’clock on a Tuesday afternoon.
Turning to amendments 81 and 87, we very much agree that it is important for serious violence strategies, required by chapter 1 of part 2 of the Bill, to be kept under review to ensure that they remain relevant and address the current issues affecting local areas at the time when they are being implemented. However, we are concerned as to whether an explicit requirement for revised strategies to be prepared and implemented every two years is the correct approach to take.
The duty is a key part of our work to prevent and reduce serious violence, focusing very much on prevention and early intervention, and informed by the evidence. We have been clear that a key focus of the duty, as I have said, should be on early intervention and prevention. That is why we have included a requirement for specified authorities to identify the kinds and causes of serious violence in the local area and the work that flows from that. It is therefore clear that local strategies should include a combination of short-term as well as longer-term initiatives aimed at preventing and reducing serious violence.
The draft statutory guidance for the duty makes it clear that local partnerships should review their strategy on an annual basis. Such reviews should consider how the interventions and solutions have affected serious violence in their area—considering, for example, crime statistics, and accident and emergency data. A review may well highlight the need for a refreshed strategy, for example where new and emerging crime types are identified—there may be the emergence of a new county line in their area—but we do not expect that to be the case every time.
We know that specific initiatives and actions that focus primarily on early intervention may not have a discernible effect on serious violence levels immediately. An assessment of the effectiveness of a local strategy conducted only two years after the strategy is first prepared may not capture the potential long-term impact and, therefore, may render it ineffective and in need of revision. Perhaps there would be a fairer analysis if a little more time were permitted to enable the interventions to take hold.
We want to ensure that local area resources are directed towards delivering on the strategies that they have prepared, instead of being diverted towards the preparation of revised strategies because there is a calendar they must keep to. I am reminded of a phrase about being driven by data and not dates, and wonder whether it is appropriate here.
I believe that specified authorities in local areas will be best placed to determine the necessary frequency of revisions in their own strategies, and that the existing requirement for strategies to be kept under review will ensure that a revision will be necessary and timely, rather than simply a formality. I see a role for hon. Members in that. I hope that they will watch closely what their areas are doing under this duty, and they will be able to highlight any concerns they have about the appropriateness, timeliness and so on of strategies and their revisions.
Finally, new clause 59 would require the creation of a statutory national serious violence oversight board, to be appointed and chaired by the Secretary of State. There will need to be a system in place to monitor progress in relation to the duty. There may be a useful role for the Government to support the process, but we question whether it is necessary to include the detail of such arrangements in the Bill. We will consider non-legislative options, which will in all likelihood feature in our statutory guidance for the duty. That will ensure that specified authorities are able to have a say in the arrangements, through a public consultation, following Royal Assent, including any proposed role for central Government, before they are established.
We expect to detail any role for Government in monitoring progress and activity in relation to the requirements of the serious violence duty to be included in the version of the draft statutory guidance, to be consulted on following Royal Assent. It is worth noting that specified authorities will already be expected to monitor their own progress, through the requirement to keep their strategy under review. Police and crime commissioners and those areas where mayoral offices have responsibility for policing will also have the discretionary power to monitor the performance of the specified authorities against their shared objectives.
Furthermore, community safety partnerships have a statutory requirement to keep the implementation of their strategies under review, for the purposes of monitoring effectiveness and to make any changes to strategies where necessary or expedient, and to publish the outcomes of each review. In the light of the explanations I have given, I ask the hon. Member for Croydon Central to withdraw her amendment.
Sarah Jones
I heard what the Minister said, in particular about amendments 81 and 87. She said that she did not want to push organisations towards having to prepare revised strategies all the time. She also said that the guidance advises them to review their strategies on an annual basis. We are in the position of having both things at the same time.
I hear what she says and am reassured by the need to look at it on an annual basis. I do think the phrase “from time to time” is slightly too loose to be in the Bill. We have seen the need for both short-term and long-term planning and we need to get that balance right. A lot of the violence reduction units, within PCC areas, say they want to be able to plan and get money beyond a year. At the moment, their money is given annually, which is very prohibitive. That is worth bearing in mind.
I heard the Minister say that there will be systems in place to monitor success and that she will look at what such systems could be. I was reassured by that and hope that she will ensure they have the teeth and resources to analyse what is happening across the country. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 8 to 10 stand part.
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Clause 11 stand part.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Sarah Jones
As I said, the Opposition welcome the intention behind the serious violence duty, which is to facilitate that multi-agency response to tackling and responding to violence in a local area. However, we have concerns about how the duty will operate in practice and how it will instruct local partners to respond, in particular to vulnerable children. As has been said in the Committee today and by a number of organisations, the duty as drafted will not facilitate a safeguarding response to children experiencing serious violence. I hope that the Minister will build and reflect on our debate on that.
I will take this opportunity to thank all the organisations that have attended so many meetings and done so much work in this area, particularly the Children’s Society, which helped draft several of the safeguarding amendments. Safeguarding and protecting children and vulnerable young people from harm should be the first priority of statutory agencies and any subsequent duty for these agencies to co-operate with one another. If a young person is found to be at risk of or experiencing serious violence, any responsible adult is duty bound to report that to child protection. Clauses 7 to 11, which set out the duty, do not mention the word “safeguarding” once, and nor do they signal the need for the specific involvement of children’s social care teams in creating a strategy to prevent violence in a local area.
It remains unclear what activity the Government want to see flowing from the duty to co-operate. Three measures of success identified in the guidance are homicide rates, hospital admissions for knife or sharp object assaults, and police-recorded knife crime. Having just those measures might have a short-term impact, but that will not address the underlying drivers of serious violence and therefore might not have the long-lasting impact we are hoping for.
The duty is clearly framed as a crime reduction initiative, and it is right that it should be, but it is not a safeguarding tool, and the Opposition believe that it must focus on both. As we know, violence drives violence, and if the Government want properly to follow a public health approach to tackling serious violence, they cannot treat violence as if it happens in a vacuum.
Improving children’s safety and the wider safeguarding of children are integral to tackling the drivers of serious violence. The Opposition believe that without that focus, the Government risk those well-intentioned measures leading to a more punitive approach to vulnerable children. It would be good if the Minister reflected on our points about safeguarding and perhaps thought again about that work as well as the child criminal exploitation points made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and supported by so many.
Without enough funding for this work to take place, it will be very difficult for local authorities, whose resources are already very squeezed, to put in place strategies that will have an impact on the likelihood of children getting involved in violence. One example that the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime and violence reduction looked at a lot was youth services, which on average have been cut by about 40% across the country. It is possible to map a correlation—we did this work with Barnardo’s—between those areas that have made the largest cuts to youth services and those with the largest increase in knife crime. Obviously, we cannot point to an immediate cause and say that a violent crime occurred because a youth centre closed, but there is a correlation between those areas with the highest cuts and those with the fastest increases in knife crime. With the wider issues of funding and supporting local authorities, whether that is children’s social services or youth work—all that important work—it will be difficult for the Government to achieve what they want.
Mr Goodwill
As a former Children’s Minister, I know that there is no direct correlation between funding and outcomes. Indeed, some of the most cost-effective local authorities in terms of children’s services are those that do not use a lot of agency work, which is cheaper than some of the least effective, which tend to spend more in some cases.
Sarah Jones
The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I can provide the evidence that maps those areas that have made the largest cuts to youth work and the areas that have seen the largest increase in violence. There was not a direct causation, but there was a pattern and a trend. Although these things are not absolute, the evidence for every local authority shows that there was an impact. Youth work is known to be effective as an adult intervention with young people who perhaps do not have parental involvement in the way that we would want.
Mr Goodwill
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but often it is the local authorities that are failing, with a big backlog of work, that find they cannot recruit, and therefore have to rely on agency social workers and foster carers. That means they are spending a lot more money. Some of the better ones, such as North Yorkshire, have very few agency workers because they can keep it in house and delivery it cost-effectively.
Sarah Jones
Yes, that is a separate point that the right hon. Gentleman is right to make. Agency workers are not invested in the organisation they work for; they do not know the area; they are more expensive and often not as effective. My point is that the significant reduction in funding for local authorities will inevitably have an impact on their ability to implement this duty. I hope that the Minister and the Home Office will push forward the argument for more funding for local authorities.
Victoria Atkins
I hope that the Committee feels that, in my responses to the amendments, I have dealt with the substance of most of the clauses. I want to emphasise that clause 8 is included to reflect the fact that, particularly in the instance of county lines gangs, criminal gangs do not respect county boundaries, police force areas or local authority areas. They will reach their tentacles across the country, wherever they think there is a market and they can do their harm. The clause encourages and requires authorities to collaborate to address those concerns.
Sarah Champion
Does the Minister agree that they are keen to look at the legislation to see where it is weakest, and to target accordingly?
Victoria Atkins
Very much so. Criminal gangs are very adept at spotting Government and local priorities and adjusting their behaviours. During the global pandemic, still some county lines were adjusting their methodology to evade detection when they were moving around the country. It is disgraceful, disgusting behaviour, and I hope that this duty and the requirement to collaborate will help to address that.
On the point that the hon. Member for Croydon Central made about housing priority need and the comparison with domestic abuse dealings in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, I will arrange for a letter to be written to her on that point. Unless there are any more interventions, I will sit down.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 12
Preventing and reducing serious violence
Sarah Jones
I beg to move amendment 91, in clause 12, page 12, line 34, at end insert—
“(5) In exercising their functions under this Chapter, specified authorities must have particular regard to reducing serious violence against women and girls, including street harassment, and reducing instances of hidden harm resulting from serious violence.”.
Sarah Jones
Clause 12(4) states that the duty introduced in chapter 1 will predominantly be focused on the most serious forms of violence, which are marked by:
“(a) the maximum penalty which could be imposed for any offence involved in the violence,
(b) the impact of the violence on any victim,
(c) the prevalence of the violence in the area, and
(d) the impact of the violence on the community in the area.”
While those are all extremely important, we would like the Government to emphasise in the duty protection and support for women and girls. It should be in the Bill that violence against women and girls counts as serious violence. We know that women are more likely to be victims of hidden harm and domestic abuse, which does not conspicuously contribute to the prevalence of violence or the impact of violence on the community in an area. During covid, we saw an increase in domestic abuse. I spoke to a primary school head in my constituency who said that in a year they would usually deal with one or two cases of domestic violence affecting their pupils, but at that point they were dealing with seven family cases. Those issues are often hidden and so, as I say, do not necessarily impact on the community in an area in the same way as violent street crime would.
Sarah Champion
Does my hon. Friend agree that some violence is gendered, and that recognition of that in the Bill is a necessary inclusion?
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which is exactly the point I was about to make. She is completely right. This is in some senses an addition. Perhaps the Minister will say it is for local organisations and agencies to decide what to prioritise, but the reality—this is not a criticism—is that this duty was conceived at the height of concerns about street violence, violent crime and knife crime, and we may all be a little bit to blame for not focusing as well on the gendered violence and hidden violence that does not make the headlines in the same way, but is equally important. One feeds the other: if there is violence in the home, there is often more violent behaviour from children because they learn that behaviour. Gendered violence is just as important but is perhaps not as highlighted and talked about as it should be.
Women from all parts of the country, from all backgrounds, young and old, are killed every week. Last year, the number of female homicide victims in England and Wales reached its highest level since 2006, up 10% on the previous year. That is true of not only murder but all kinds of violence against women and girls. For the year ending March 2020, the crime survey for England and Wales estimated that 7.1% of adults aged 16 to 74 years had experienced sexual assault by rape or penetration. Domestic violence, already endemic across Britain, increased significantly during the covid pandemic, with 260,000 domestic abuse offences between March 2020 and June 2020 alone.
Amendment 91 would ensure that specified authorities have particular regard to reducing serious violence against women and girls, including street harassment, and reducing instances of hidden harm resulting from serious violence. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment in the spirit in which it is presented. This would be a very useful thing for local agencies to do. It is incredibly important and is part of the wider violence picture and should therefore be included in the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
As hon. Members will be aware, tackling violence against women and girls is one of the Government’s key priorities. These abhorrent crimes have no place in our society. This Government are committed to ensuring that more perpetrators feel the force of the law and to improving our support for those who suffer at the hands of abusers.
We have taken action to tackle all forms of violence against women and girls by introducing legislation around forced marriage, female genital mutilation and the disclosing of private sexual photographs. More recently, the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 will bolster our response to domestic abuse at every level. The Act includes placing a duty on local authorities to provide support to victims of domestic abuse and their children in refuges and other safe accommodation, as well as many other things. What I have said about here it does not do justice to the Act, but we recognise also that legislation is not the only answer. Local authorities and others have a role to play in tackling violence against women and girls, which is why we provide funding to support victims of such crimes.
We have refrained from including in the duty set out in the Bill a specific list of crime types that must be included in a serious violence strategy for a local area. We have also refrained from prioritising one type of victim over another. This is to allow local strategies to take account of the most prevalent forms of serious violence in the locality, and the impact on all potential victims. Forms of serious violence will vary between geographical areas and we want to enable partners to adapt and respond to new and emerging forms of serious violence as they develop and are identified. That could include domestic abuse or others forms of violence against women and girls, but the Government believe, as set out in the duty, that it should be for authorities to determine what their specific priorities should be for their area. That is consistent with the model of police and crime commissioners and mayors who have policing responsibilities for setting priorities for policing.
In making any such determinations, they must consider the maximum penalty that could be imposed for any offence involved in the violence, the impact of the violence on any victim, the prevalence of the violence in the area and the impact of the violence on the community in the area. It is anticipated that work to answer these questions would form part of the development of a strategic needs assessment and strategy. The approach of including a specific offence, as is urged in the amendment, is not consistent with the wider approach.
We are committed to going further in our efforts to tackle violence against women and girls, which is why we will be publishing a new cross-Government strategy tackling violence against women and girls, which will be followed by a complementary domestic abuse strategy. I look forward to their publication to set out our approach to tackling all forms of violence against women and girls, including street harassment.
I hope these assurances and our commitments to future work in this area mean that the hon. Lady will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Sarah Jones
I hear what the Minister is saying and I applaud the work that has been done thus far on violence against women and girls, but I believe that the list in clause 12(4) that she just read out steers the whole process in the direction of serious street violence and youth violence, without a nod to the incredibly point about violence against women and girls, so I would like to test the will of the Committee on amendment 91.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Sarah Jones
I would be very happy for my colleague to speak, as I am slightly fed up of my own voice, but I will carry on.
Sarah Jones
I just wanted to raise a couple of concerns. We have not tabled amendments to the clauses, but I want to bring some issues that have been raised to the attention of the Committee.
Clause 14 would give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations regarding how PCCs or mayors can assist serious violence partnerships. It would allow education, prison and youth custody services to collaborate in order to prevent and reduce serious violence; it would also allow them to collaborate with SVPs. Subsection (5) places a duty on a relevant authority to collaborate with other relevant authorities for the purpose of preventing and reducing violence, if requested to do so by another relevant authority. The example provided in the explanatory notes is that
“a local young offenders’ institution may choose to collaborate with a secure children’s home located in the same area if they are experiencing similar issues with serious violence within their institutions.”
That makes sense, but we believe that there needs to be some nod in that process towards the focus on the safeguarding responsibility for children. It is important that the duty does not just become an intelligence-gathering exercise instead of a proper data-sharing exercise, so we want to ensure that people can be protected and prevented from getting involved in serious violence.
Clause 15 would impose a duty on education, prison and youth custody services to collaborate together and with SVPs when one partner organisation requests it, as long as complying with the request does not infringe on any of their existing legal duties. The explanatory notes call this a “permissive gateway” that
“would permit but would not require the sharing of information.”
The example given is that
“a clinical commissioning group could disclose management information about hospital attendances where serious violence was suspected, which could support the development of a local problem profile/strategic needs assessment.”
Again, that makes sense. However, the notes go on to say that
“any disclosure of information under this clause may be made notwithstanding any obligation of confidence or any other restriction on the disclosure of the information, save that disclosure would not be permitted if it would contravene the data protection legislation or the prohibitions on disclosure provided for in any Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.”
We have talked to organisations that are concerned that the need not to uphold any obligation of confidence or any other restriction on the disclosure of information could undermine some of the trust that children, particularly those who are vulnerable or who are being criminally exploited, have with teachers and educators. Will the Minister talk through what any other restriction on the disclosure of information means in this context, particularly when applied to an individual child in a school setting? Will she set out the key difference between the “permissive gateway” of information sharing and the multi-agency structures—for example, referrals to children’s social care—that already exist for information sharing about individual children?
Overall, there is no question but that information sharing between agencies and police forces is vital to achieving a proper understanding of serious violence, particularly involving the county lines drug network and the many vulnerable children who have been swept into it, but it is also important that the objective of information sharing is about the safeguarding of vulnerable people and children, as well as crime prevention and reduction.
Victoria Atkins
I will deal straightaway with the point about information sharing, as it would seem to me that the other clauses are understood.
Clause 15 provides a new permissive information sharing gateway for specified authorities, including local policing bodies and education, prison and youth custody authorities, to disclose information to each other. Sadly, we know that information sharing between agencies is not always as full and as timely as we would like, because of concerns that they are not allowed to share information. We do not want those concerns to get in the way of preventing serious violence.
Of course, we must operate within the law, so the clause ensures that there is a legislative framework in place to enable information to be shared between all authorities exercising functions under chapter 1 of part 2 of the Bill. In doing so, the clause permits but does not mandate authorities to disclose information. I reassure the Committee that, as required by article 36(4) of the UK General Data Protection Regulation, my officials have consulted the Information Commissioner’s Office on the proposed provisions within this clause and clauses 9 and 16, and no concerns were raised.
To be clear, clause 15 does not replace existing data-sharing arrangements or existing protocols that are already working well, including those under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Through the clause we are simply ensuring that all the specified authorities—local policing bodies and education, prison and youth custody authorities—are able to share relevant information with each other for the purposes of the recipient of the information exercising their functions to prevent or reduce serious violence. Such bodies should already have arrangements in place that set out clearly the processes and the principles for sharing information and data internally. Examples of data that could be shared include hospital data on knife injuries, the number of exclusions and truancies in local schools, police recorded crime, local crime data, anonymised prison data, areas of high social services interventions and intelligence on threats such as county lines, including about the activities of serious organised crime gangs and about drugs markets.
An important element of the duty would be to establish the local problem profile, and data sharing between the duty holders would be a crucial part of that process. By virtue of this clause, the authorities I have mentioned would be able to share information freely, providing it does not contravene data protection legislation or the provisions of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. I hope that reassures the Committee.
Sarah Jones
That is reassuring. I wanted to raise the point to ensure that we were all aware of that concern, which was raised to us by several organisations. I am grateful for the Minister’s response.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Jones
I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 16, page 16, line 14, at end insert—
“(8) A local policing body must report annually on the requests made under this section, including information on the bodies the request were made to and the use of information provided.”
This amendment would require local policing bodies to report on requests for information made to specified authorities, educational authorities, prison authorities and youth custody authorities for the purpose of assisting with its functions under section 13.
The amendment would ensure that when information was shared between partners, the local policing bodies reported back to their partners to explain how they were using the information. That would in turn help the partners better to understand the wider context to the issues raised.
The Children’s Society has pointed out that clauses 15 and 16 raise questions as to what information will be collected about individual young people and how that information may be used. It is keen that additional information sharing requirements do not result for some children in a more punitive response instead of a response that balances safeguarding and the prevention of violence escalating.
I will end my comments by asking the Minister further questions on the issue of data collection. Will the information and data collected through the duty be strictly management-level data, or case-level data? Will police forces be able to request information on specific vulnerable young people, and will policing bodies be able to request from specified authorities such as schools case-level information on children at risk of or experiencing serious violence? If so, how will the police use that information?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady asks a specific question—namely, will local policing bodies be able to request case-level information on children at risk and how will they use it? Police and crime commissioners and, in London, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, and the Common Council of the City of London, will have powers to work with the specified authorities to support multi-agency working. The specified authorities will need to co-operate with a local policing body when required to do so.
However, we will make it clear in guidance that the local policing body should consider the proportionality of additional requests and anticipated costs to specified authorities before making any such requests. That includes specific requests for data, which may be made only in order to fulfil its role of monitoring the effectiveness of local strategies. Such requests for data must relate only to the organisation that has generated it, except where functions are contracted out. Sufficient safeguards must be in place to ensure that information, including that which pertains to individuals, is disclosed in line with relevant data protection legislation.
Arrangements must also be in place to clearly set out the processes and principles for sharing information and data. Such arrangements should cover the sharing of information and data within the local partnership and with external bodies and should include the purpose of sharing the data, what is to happen to the data at relevant points, and clarity on respective roles. I hope that answers the hon. Lady’s questions.
Sarah Jones
I am pleased that that will be in the guidance. I think that issues flow from things such as the gangs matrix in London. There were concerns that information that was gathered in order to support people actually ended up being used as a way of profiling people—that the data was perhaps not used in the way in which people had thought it would be. That was the basis for the amendment. Given that that will be in the guidance, however, I am reassured that the purposes for which the information should be used should be clear. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
Directions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
Again, if it will assist the Committee, I am content to hear the hon. Member for Croydon Central set out her stall, as it were, and I will then respond.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
My concern is about clause 17(4), and indeed clauses 18(3) and 19(7), which all say that the Secretary of State must “consult” Welsh Ministers, rather than “seek the consent of”. This is an issue of long-standing concern for me, my party and, indeed, the Welsh Government. Given that it is long-standing and has been discussed before, I will not seek to press a vote on this tonight, although I may consider doing so on Report.
What are we talking about here? Clause 14(3) says:
“A relevant authority and a specified authority must collaborate”
with these requests. Clause 14(4) says:
“A relevant authority must carry out any actions which are specified”,
for example regarding strategy. Clause 14(5)(b) says that local governments “must collaborate”. Clause 16(4) says that a person must supply information to a policing body. I have no particular problems with these provisions, save for that it is the Secretary of State who has those powers in Wales, not the Welsh Government. The point is, of course, that the Welsh Government have responsibility for very relevant areas of government and policy in Wales in respect of the Bill—health, social services, education, local government and a good deal on top of that. Clause 17(4) says that the Secretary of State “must consult” Welsh Ministers before giving directions; clause 18(3) says they “must consult” before giving guidance; and clause 19(7) says they “must consult” before making regulations.
The Secretary of State has duties that must be carried out and powers to compel, but they must only consult, rather than seek the consent of, the Welsh Government or the Senedd. What will happen if there is divergence between Wales and England in policy or law? Of course, the Senedd is now a law-making body. There is a certain body of law—for example, on social services—that is different from that in England. That divergence may be accentuated and grow into the future as the Senedd flexes its muscles, as any half-competent democratic institution will seek to do, so we may have a situation whereby there is a good deal of divergence on the crucial matters that are relevant to the Bill.
Sarah Jones
I will be brief. I have three questions for the Minister, just to get a bit of clarity. The first is on clause 17, which, according to the Library briefing, gives the Secretary of State
“powers to issue directions to any SVP member, education, prison or youth custody service it thinks is failing to discharge its duties to prevent serious violence.”
It would be helpful if the Minister could provide an example of what that means. What direction will the Secretary of State be issuing? What is envisaged by that clause?
Secondly, the amendments in clause 19 require community safety partnerships to have regard to
“preventing people from becoming involved in serious violence”,
and to
“reducing incidences of serious violence”
when assessing crime and disorder in their area and formulating their strategies. It would be helpful if the Minister explained how that differs from what their strategies are doing already. Will there be a bit of an overlap of strategies there?
My final point is one that has been raised by the Local Government Association and has been drawn to my attention elsewhere. The community safety partnerships have had their funding steadily withdrawn since 2010, which has had an impact on their resources and their capacity to do things. It would be helpful if the Government could review the impact of those funding reductions on community safety partnerships—perhaps with a view to increasing that core funding—and on the ability of councils to address the range of crime issues they are expected to assist other partners in tackling.
Victoria Atkins
Serious violence has a devastating impact on victims and their families, instils fear in communities and is extremely costly to society, as I have already said. I hope the Government’s intention is clear from the discussions we have had today, but it is crucial that there are consequences if some authorities are not focused on what we are trying to achieve through the duty. On the rare occasion when a specified authority or educational, prison or youth custody authority does not fulfil its requirements under the duty, thereby risking the success of the whole partnership, clause 17 provides the Secretary of State with the power to issue a direction to secure compliance.
This power does not apply to probation services provided by the Secretary of State or to publicly managed prisons, young offender institutions, secure training centres or secure colleges. For such authorities, existing mechanisms will be available to ensure they are meeting the requirements of the duty, so we are trying to get consistency across them all.
For any directions relating to a devolved Welsh authority, the Welsh Ministers must be consulted before a direction is issued. We are continuing to engage with the Welsh Government on the operation of the direction, as far as it relates to devolved Welsh authorities, and I will be writing further to Minister Hutt shortly.
I was asked for examples of when we envisage that a direction may be given. It is very much expected that these powers will be used infrequently—I hope never—but we must have this ability to ensure compliance if that situation were to arise. It is very much a matter of last resort when all other attempts to work effectively in partnership with an authority have failed. Where necessary, we must have this backstop mechanism to ensure that all relevant authorities comply with the duty and play their part in reducing and preventing serious violence.
A direction may include requiring authorities to take the necessary steps set out by the Secretary of State in order to comply with the duty. If necessary, to ensure an authority complies, a direction can be enforced by a mandatory order granted on application to the administrative court in England and Wales. We very much hope that this power will be used rarely, if at all, but if, for example, an authority refuses to provide information that it is required to provide under the Bill, it is available as a last resort when all other attempts to work effectively have failed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clauses 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 18 to 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Tom Pursglove.)
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 27th May 2021
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPolice, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 May 2021 - (27 May 2021)
The Chair
Good morning. Before we begin, there are a few preliminaries. Can you switch your phones and electronic devices to silent please? The Speaker does not permit food or drink to be consumed during Committee. Please make sure you are observing social distancing and sitting in the appropriate places as marked. People should wear face masks when they are not speaking, unless they are medically exempt. Hansard would be grateful if you could email your speaking notes.
We will now resume line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. I remind Members wishing to press a grouped amendment or new clause to a Division that they should indicate that intention when speaking to their amendment. The temperature is wonderful in here, so feel free to remove your jacket if you so wish.
Clause 23
Duty to arrange a review
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be back here today. Before I get into the detail of the clauses, I want to put some questions to the Minister, to reflect on the importance of reviews when there have been homicides or unexplained deaths and to give an example.
I was reading the serious case review about Child Q, who was aged 16 when he died following a moped crash. One might think, “There’s a child who died following a moped crash. End of story.” but because he was a vulnerable adolescent there was a comprehensive serious case review into his life, his death and what happened.
At the time of his death, he was a looked-after child in children’s services and was living in the midlands with members of his extended family. On the day of the collision, he had been released on conditional bail from a remand court for breach of his court order. Family members and professionals had requested that he be made the subject of a curfew and tagging, but that, for whatever reason, was not put in place and he returned to London, where the fatal accident occurred.
He started his life as an aspirational boy and had wanted to be a professional footballer. His first conviction ended those aspirations and the motivation to play football. Throughout his life he lived with various family members and foster carers. He was often missing and was both a victim and a perpetrator of various offences. He was involved in high-risk behaviour and believed to be a gang member. When interventions were made, he appeared to understand that his life was very high risk, but seemed almost resigned to the inevitable risks that he was facing. During the latter stages of professional involvement, Child Q asked the professionals, “Where were you when I was six?”
This 16-year-old died because of a moped crash, but because of this review we can learn that bail conditions and tagging would have helped him to make the decision not to travel to London. We have learned that this child was in and out of care and often went missing, that interventions were not made and that the problems started very early. Although that could not in itself have prevented that death, there is a story behind that child that we can learn from.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend may not know that I used to run a children’s hospice. Child deaths are very rare, but a review such as this enables the family to have the closure that they need to move on, enables the lessons to be learned and enables the whole community to grieve and draw a line under something. Of course it is important to understand the failings that occurred so that they never happen again, but also in the broader context, conducting a review is a really important thing to do. In terms of costs and resources, these deaths are not that common; this does not happen that often, but when it does, it destroys a community, not to mention the family.
Sarah Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She speaks with great experience, and she is absolutely right: doing these reviews has wider benefits. Reading the review on Child Q and hearing the stories from the father, mother and family members about him, we can see, hopefully, some form of the beginnings of closure from the review. Therefore we are very much in favour of extending homicide reviews in the way provided for under the Bill. We have some amendments, but they come later, so I will not speak to them now.
To do the victims and their families and friends justice, we need to ensure that the lessons are learned. Part 2, chapter 2 of the Bill will require police, local authorities and clinical commissioning groups to conduct offensive weapon homicide reviews when an adult’s death involves the use of an offensive weapon. Police recorded 625 homicide offences in the year ending December 2020. Of all homicides recorded in the last year—the latest year that we have information for—37% were knife-enabled crimes. A large proportion of homicides involve offensive weapons. In the year ending March 2020, 275 homicides involved a sharp instrument, 49 involved a blunt instrument and 30 were homicides involving shooting. It is therefore absolutely right that the Government look to learn the lessons from those homicides not currently reviewed by multi-agency partners.
In my constituency, there have been incidents in which adults have been killed and an offensive weapon was involved. In one instance, there were incidents in the same area within weeks of each other. Those cases were not linked together, but actually, when people looked into the background and how those murders occurred, it turned out that they were linked.
It is therefore important that the pathways that lead people to be involved in homicides, whether as victims or perpetrators, can be understood and the knowledge can be shared. Offensive weapon homicide reviews will be similar to the domestic homicide reviews that already take place. Domestic homicide reviews are carried out when someone over the age of 16 dies as a result of domestic violence, abuse or neglect. The Government have committed to taking action to address homicide, but have not previously committed to introducing offensive weapon homicide reviews specifically.
Clause 23 will require an offensive weapon homicide review to be carried out when a qualifying homicide has taken place. A qualifying homicide occurs when an adult’s death or the circumstances or history of the person who has died meet conditions set by the Secretary of State in regulations. In accordance with clause 27, the purpose will be to identify lessons to learn from the death and to decide on actions to take in response to those lessons.
Clauses 24 to 35 do a number of things, including giving the Secretary of State the power to specify the relevant review partners in regulations and which of the listed public bodies will need to carry out the review in these circumstances, and to clarify when offensive weapon homicide reviews do not need to be carried out. Importantly, review partners must report on the outcome of their review to the Secretary of State. In addition, there are other key regulations about the obligations of offensive weapon homicide review partners.
Clause 33 is important, as it will require offensive weapon homicide reviews to be piloted before they are brought into force. The Secretary of State will be required to report to Parliament on the pilot. It is vital that offensive weapon homicide reviews are piloted before being rolled out nationally, but the provisions are fairly light on detail. It would be helpful if the Minister could provide any further information on the piloting. Can she clarify how many local authorities or police forces they will work with to pilot the reviews?
Standing Together, a domestic abuse charity, recently reviewed domestic homicide review processes in London boroughs. Its 2019 report identified several areas for improvement, including how domestic homicide reviews are stored and retrieved, how chairs are appointed, and how appropriate funding is secured. It also highlighted that not enough sharing of knowledge is happening.
We are glad that the pilot partners will report on these reviews before they are implemented, but could the Minister explain in a bit more detail what those reports will include? Will there be regular reporting and evaluation of these offensive weapons homicide reviews once they are implemented? Where there is an overlap, and a homicide fits into two different categories—for example, if there is a domestic homicide review and an offensive weapons homicide review—how will the lessons be learned? Will there be two reviews, or just one? I am also keen to hear how the lessons from all existing homicide reviews can be better understood and shared between partners to ultimately make our streets safer and save lives.
The Secretary of State is given the power to make regulations on offensive weapons homicide reviews, to provide information on how to identify which local services are relevant to the review and how local services can negotiate who carries out the review when the circumstances are not clear. This is defined in regulatory powers, not on the face of the Bill; perhaps the Minister could explain why, and also explain what her expected timeframe is for these powers. If the duty to conduct these reviews will not be carried out until the criteria are defined in regulation, will there be a delay? What period of time is the Minister expecting that to be—because those regulations will need to go through Parliament—and what will happen after the regulations are published? Can she provide any data on how many more homicide reviews this change will actually bring; what expected number of reviews will need to be undertaken? Finally, what are the plans for budgets to cover local safeguarding partners’ costs for the delivery of these reviews? That question was raised in evidence from the Local Government Association, so will the Home Office be submitting a case to increase the funding for local authorities? If not, how does it envisage that these reviews will be funded? I will leave it there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
It continues to be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Croydon Central for setting out some of the background to these clauses. Through the clauses relating to offensive weapons homicide reviews, we want to tackle the growing proportion of homicides that involve offensive weapons, for all the reasons that one can imagine: for communities, and for the families affected. As the hon. Lady has set out, there is at the moment no legal requirement to review such homicides unless they are already subject to review: if, for example, the victim is a child or a vulnerable adult, or the homicide has happened in a domestic setting. As such, we want to introduce these offensive weapons homicide reviews to ensure that local agencies consider the circumstances of both victims and perpetrators, and identify lessons from these homicides that could help prevent future deaths.
Taking a step back and looking at the Bill as a whole, this work will form part of the local authorities’ work on the serious violence duties. I hope there will be much cross-learning between those duties and the homicide reviews that may occur in local areas, as part of a joined-up approach to tackling such homicides. All persons, bodies and organisations with information relevant to the decision to conduct a review or to identifying lessons, such as schools and probation services, will be legally required to provide information deemed relevant to the review.
The hon. Member for Croydon Central has understandably asked where these reviews fit in with existing homicide reviews: child death and adult safeguarding reviews in England, and their equivalents in Wales, as well as domestic homicide reviews. To avoid duplication of work, the Bill provides that these new offensive weapons homicide reviews will be required only where there is not an existing statutory requirement to review the homicide, which I hope answers her question.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Given that the Minister is determined to learn the lessons of these reviews and given the importance of properly funding local agencies to carry out any such improvements, can she confirm today that additional resource will go along with this additional focus from the Home Office on implementation?
Victoria Atkins
I am very pleased to confirm that the Home Office will provide funding for the relevant review partners to cover the costs of the reviews during the pilot stage, and will meet the cost of the Home Office homicide oversight board. If the policy is rolled out nationally, funding arrangements will be confirmed after the pilot, but in that initial period that is certainly the approach.
I am trying to see whether I have further details about the pilots that I can assist the Committee with. Clause 33 requires that a pilot of the reviews takes place for one or more purpose, or in at least one area. We intend to pilot reviews in at least three areas and are currently in discussions to enable that to happen. We will announce the pilot areas in due course. We want to pilot the reviews in areas that have high levels of homicide and in areas that have low levels, and that represent regions in both England and Wales.
We will also specify in regulations the length of time that the pilot will last. We currently intend to run the pilot for 18 months to ensure that the review process can be tested properly in each of the pilot areas, but clause 23 allows us to extend the length of the pilot for a further period, which may be useful if further test cases are needed. Our approach is to ensure that the pilot provides us with the greatest insight and information as to how the reviews would work if we roll them out across the whole of England and Wales. In the interests of transparency, clause 33 also requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the operation of the pilot before the reviews can come fully into force across England and Wales.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 24 to 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Extraction of information from electronic devices: investigations of crime etc
Sarah Jones
I beg to move amendment 94, in clause 36, page 29, line 5, at end insert—
“(c) the user who has given agreement under subsection (1)(b) was offered free independent legal advice on issues relating to their human rights before that agreement was given.”
This amendment would ensure that users of electronic devices were offered free independent legal advice before information on their device could be accessed.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 36 stand part.
Government amendment 63.
Clauses 37 to 42 stand part.
Amendment 115, in schedule 3, page 198, line 29, leave out
“A person appointed as an immigration officer under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971.”
This amendment would remove immigration officers from the list of authorised persons who may carry out a digital extraction.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
New clause 49—Extraction of information from electronic devices—
“(1) Subject to Conditions A to D below, insofar as applicable, an authorised person may extract information stored on an electronic device from that device if—
(a) a user of the device has voluntarily provided the device to an authorised person, and
(b) that user has agreed to the extraction of specified information from the device by an authorised person.
(2) Condition A for the exercise of the power in subsection (1) is that it may be exercised only for the purposes of—
(a) preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting an offence,
(b) helping to locate a missing person, or
(c) protecting a child or an at-risk adult from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) an adult is an at-risk adult if the authorised person reasonably believes that the adult—
(a) is experiencing, or at risk of, neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm, and
(b) is unable to protect themselves against the neglect or harm or the risk of it.
(4) Condition B for the exercise of the power in subsection (1) is that the power may only be exercised if—
(a) the authorised person reasonably believes that information stored on the electronic device is relevant to a purpose within subsection (2) for which the authorised person may exercise the power, and
(b) the authorised person is satisfied that exercise of the power is strictly necessary and proportionate to achieve that purpose.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(a), information is relevant for the purposes within subsection (2)(a) in circumstances where the information is relevant to a reasonable line of enquiry.
(6) Condition C as set out in subsection (7) applies if the authorised person thinks that, in exercising the power, there is a risk of obtaining information other than information necessary for a purpose within subsection (2) for which the authorised person may exercise the power.
(7) Condition C is that the authorised person must, to be satisfied that the exercise of the power in the circumstances set out in subsection (6) is strictly necessary and proportionate, be satisfied that there are no other less intrusive means available of obtaining the information sought by the authorised person which avoid that risk.
(8) Condition D is that an authorised person must have regard to the code of practice for the time being in force under section [Code of practice] in accordance with section [Effect of code of practice] below.
(9) This section does not affect any power relating to the extraction or production of information, or any power to seize any item or obtain any information, conferred by or under an enactment.
(10) In this section and section [Application of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] to children and adults without capacity]—
‘adult’ means a person aged 18 or over;
‘authorised person’ means a person specified in subsection (1) of section [Application of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] to children and adults without capacity] (subject to subsection (2) of that section);
‘child’ means a person aged under 18;
‘agreement’ means that the user has confirmed explicitly and unambiguously in writing that they agree—
(a) to provide their device, and
(b) to the extraction of specified data from that device.
Such an explicit written confirmation can only constitute agreement for these purposes if, in accordance with the Code of Practice issued pursuant to section [Effect of code of practice], the user—
(a) has been provided with appropriate information and guidance about why the extraction is considered strictly necessary (including, where relevant, the identification of the reasonable line of enquiring relied upon);
(b) has been provided with appropriate information as to (a) how the data will or will not be used in accordance with the authorized person’s legal obligations and (b) any potential consequences arising from their decision;
(c) has confirmed their agreement in the absence of any inappropriate pressure or coercion;
‘electronic device’ means any device on which information is capable of being stored electronically and includes any component of such a device;
‘enactment’ includes—
(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(b) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, and
(c) Northern Ireland legislation;
‘information’ includes moving or still images and sounds;
‘offence’ means an offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom;
‘user, in relation to an electronic device, means a person who ordinarily uses the device.
(11) References in this section and sections [Application of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] to children and adults without capacity] to the extraction of information include its reproduction in any form.
(12) This section is subject to sections [Application of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] to children and adults without capacity] and [Application of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] where user has died etc].”
New clause 50—Application of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] to children and adults without capacity—
“(1) A child is not to be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] as being capable of—
(a) voluntarily providing an electronic device to an authorised person for those purposes, or
(b) agreeing for those purposes to the extraction of information from the device by an authorised person.
(2) If a child is a user of an electronic device, a person who is not a user of the device but is listed in subsection (3) may—
(a) voluntarily provide the device to an authorised person for the purposes of subsection (1) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices], and
(b) agreement for those purposes to the extraction of information from the device by an authorised person.
(3) The persons mentioned in subsection (2) are—
(a) the child’s parent or guardian or, if the child is in the care of a relevant authority or voluntary organisation, a person representing that authority or organisation,
(b) a registered social worker, or
(c) if no person falling within paragraph (a) or (b) is available, any responsible person aged 18 or over other than an authorised person.
(4) The agreement of persons listed in subsection (3) further to subsection 2(b) should only be accepted where, if it is appropriate, the child has been consulted on whether such agreement should be provided and the authorised person is satisfied those views have been taken into account.
(5) An adult without capacity is not to be treated for the purposes of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] as being capable of—
(a) voluntarily providing an electronic device to an authorised person for those purposes, or
(b) agreeing for those purposes to the extraction of information from the device by an authorised person.
(6) If a user of an electronic device is an adult without capacity, a person who is not a user of the device but is listed in subsection (7) may—
(a) voluntarily provide the device to an authorised person for the purposes of subsection (1) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices], and
(b) agreement for those purposes to the extraction of information from the device by an authorised person.
(7) The persons mentioned in subsection (6) are—
(a) a parent or guardian of the adult without capacity,
(b) a registered social worker,
(c) a person who has a power of attorney in relation to the adult without capacity, or
(d) if no person falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) is available, any responsible person aged 18 other than an authorised person.
(8) The agreement of persons listed in subsection (7) further to subsection (6)(b) should only be accepted where, if it is appropriate, the adult without capacity has been consulted on whether such agreement should be provided and the authorised person is satisfied those views have been taken into account.
(9) Nothing in this section prevents any other user of an electronic device who is not a child or an adult without capacity from—
(a) voluntarily providing the device to an authorised person for the purposes of subsection (1) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices], or
(b) agreeing for those purposes to the extraction of information from the device by an authorised person.
(10) In this section and section and [Application of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] where user has died etc]—
‘adult without capacity’ means an adult who, by reason of any impairment of their physical or mental condition, is incapable of making decisions for the purposes of subsection (1) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices];
‘local authority’—
(a) in relation to England, means a county council, a district council for an area for which there is no county council, a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London,
(b) in relation to Wales, means a county council or a county borough council, and
(c) in relation to Scotland, means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994;
‘registered social worker’ means a person registered as a social worker in a register maintained by—
(a) Social Work England,
(b) the Care Council for Wales,
(c) the Scottish Social Services Council, or
(d) the Northern Ireland Social Care Council;
‘relevant authority’—
(a) in relation to England and Wales and Scotland, means a local authority;
(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, means an authority within the meaning of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2));
‘voluntary organisation’—
(a) in relation to England and Wales and Scotland, has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989;
(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.
(11) Subsections (10) and (11) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] also contain definitions for the purposes of this section.”
New clause 51—Application of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] where user has died etc—
“(1) If any of conditions A to C is met, an authorised person may exercise the power in subsection (1) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] to extract information stored on an electronic device from that device even though—
(a) the device has not been voluntarily provided to an authorised person by a user of the device, or
(b) no user of the device has agreed to the extraction of information from the device by an authorised person.
(2) Condition A is that—
(a) a person who was a user of the electronic device has died, and
(b) the person was a user of the device immediately before their death.
(3) Condition B is that—
(a) a user of the electronic device is a child or an adult without capacity, and
(b) an authorised person reasonably believes that the user’s life is at risk or there is a risk of serious harm to the user.
(4) Condition C is that—
(a) a person who was a user of the electronic device is missing,
(b) the person was a user of the device immediately before they went missing, and
(c) an authorised person reasonably believes that the person’s life is at risk or there is a risk of serious harm to the person.
(5) The exercise of the power in subsection (1) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] by virtue of this section is subject to subsections (2) to (8) of that section.
(6) Subsections (10) and (11) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] and subsection (9) of section [Application of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] to children and adults without capacity] contain definitions for the purposes of this section.”
New clause 52—Code of practice—
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a code of practice containing guidance about the exercise of the power in subsection (1) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices].
(2) In preparing the code, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Information Commissioner,
(b) the Scottish Ministers,
(c) the Welsh Government,
(d) the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland,
(e) the Victims Commissioner,
(f) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner,
(g) any regional Victims Champion including the London Victims Commissioner,
(h) persons who appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of victims, witnesses and other individuals likely to be affected by the use of the power granted in subsection (1) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices], and
(i) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) After preparing the code, the Secretary of State must lay it before Parliament and publish it.
(4) The code is to be brought into force by regulations made by statutory instrument.
(5) The code must address, amongst other matters—
(a) the procedure by which an authorised person must obtain and record confirmation that a device has been provided voluntarily;
(b) the procedure by which an authorised person must obtain and record confirmation that agreement has been provided for the extraction of specified information, including the information which must be provided to the user about—
(i) how long the device will be retained;
(ii) what specific information is to be extracted from the device and why, including the identification of the reasonable line of enquiry to be pursued and the scope of information which will be extracted, reviewed and/or retained;
(iii) how the extracted information will be kept secure;
(iv) how the extracted information will or may be used in a criminal process;
(v) how they can be kept informed about who their information is to be shared with and the use of their information in the criminal process;
(vi) their right to refuse to agree to provide their device and/or to the proposed extraction in whole or in part and the potential consequences of that refusal; and
(vii) the circumstances in which a further extraction may be required, and what will happen to the information after the case has been considered;
(c) the different types of extraction processes available, and the parameters which should be considered in defining the scope of any proposed extraction from a user’s device;
(d) the circumstances in which the extraction of information should and should not be considered strictly necessary and proportionate;
(e) the considerations to be taken into account in determining whether there are less intrusive alternatives available to extraction for the purposes of subsection (7) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices];
(f) the process by which the authorised person should identify and delete data which is not responsive to a reasonable line of enquiry and/or has been assessed as not relevant to the purposes for which the extraction was conducted; and
(g) the records which must be maintained documenting for each extraction or proposed extraction, including—
(i) the specific information to be extracted;
(ii) the reasonable lines of enquiry pursued;
(iii) the basis upon which the extraction is considered strictly necessary, including any alternatives considered and why they were not pursued;
(iv) confirmation that appropriate information was provided to the user and, if applicable, agreement obtained;
(v) the reasons why the user was not willing to agree to a proposed extraction.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(7) After the code has come into force the Secretary of State may from time to time revise it.
(8) References in subsections (2) to (7) to the code include a revised code.”
New clause 53—Effect of code of practice—
“(1) An authorised person must in the exercise of the power granted under section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] have regard to the code of practice issued under section [Code of practice] in deciding whether to exercise, or in the exercise of that power.
(2) A failure on the part of any person to comply with any provision of a code of practice for the time being in force under section [Code of practice] shall not of itself render him liable to any criminal or civil proceedings.
(3) A code of practice in force at any time under section [Code of practice] shall be admissible in evidence in any criminal or civil proceedings.
(4) In all criminal and civil proceedings any code in force under section [Code of practice] shall be admissible in evidence; and if any provision of the code appears to the court or tribunal conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings it shall be taken into account in determining that question.”
Sarah Jones
As more and more crimes take place online or are enabled through digital devices and the internet, the extraction of information from electronic devices has increasingly become a routine part of criminal investigations, but the way in which such information can be made available to law enforcement, prosecutors and the defence has rightly received a great deal of attention and scrutiny in recent years, particularly in rape cases. It has become the norm for rape complainants to be asked to hand over digital devices and for most or all of the material to be checked through in detail. The Victims’ Commissioner said in her excellent evidence to the Committee last week that, through her recent survey of rape complainants and her network of stakeholders, she had heard that
“the CPS frequently seeks a level of material straight away, before it charges, and if a complainant refuses, the case just does not get considered for charge. That is very, very troubling, and it has a chilling effect not only on current victims, but on reporting, and it could impact victim attrition.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2021; c. 110, Q174.]
I will give some examples that have come to light and that reflect many people’s experience. These are the words of Courtney:
“After a two-and-a-half-year investigation into my sexual assault case, which had witnesses and a potential second victim, the police told me the CPS was going to drop my case if I didn’t give them a download of my phone. When I asked them what was the reasonable line of inquiry, they told me that I could be lying. There could be something that discredits me on there. I could be hiding something. And to me, that’s not reasonable. I was asked why I was concerned, but actually it’s totally rational to fear giving your phone over to the police. I think most people would not want to give the contents of their phone to their mother”—
I certainly would not—
“let alone the government or the person who attacked them who may, because of rules around disclosure, get access to it. When I refused my case was immediately dropped.
The CPS turned its back on me and treated me as a suspect—they made it so clear that I was alone and I was powerless. That anyone can rape me with impunity unless I submit to the court’s illegal demands.
And it became clear to me that I needed to work to change that, because it can’t go on. I had my power taken away from me from the assault, I had my power taken away from me from the criminal justice system. I was left in a really bad place. There were times, you know, I didn’t want to be here anymore. But taking up this case, working with the Centre for Women’s Justice, it’s been so important for my mental wellbeing. I feel like, for the first time in a while, I’m coming to terms with everything that happened to me.”
A woman who was raped by a stranger in London told The Independent newspaper that she dropped her case after the police demanded access to her mobile phone. She said:
“It made me very angry, it made me feel like I was the one on trial and they were trying to seek out ways it was my fault.”
She added that she was concerned that evidence of past one-night stands could be used against her in court. Another woman who faced the same demand after the Metropolitan police had identified her attacker using DNA told that paper that the investigation felt like “one intrusion after another”. She said:
“I’m not actually sure I would have gone ahead with the case if I’d known what was part of the process.”
In another case, the CPS demanded to search the phone of a 12-year-old rape victim despite the fact that the perpetrator had admitted the crime. The case was delayed for months as a result. Finally, a different woman reported being drugged and then attacked by a group of strangers, but the case was dropped after she refused to hand over seven years of phone data.
Analysis of a rape crisis administrative dataset conducted by the office of the Victims’ Commissioner showed that one in five victims withdrew complaints at least in part because of disclosure and privacy concerns. Victims in 21% of cases had concerns about digital downloads, about disclosing GP, hospital, school and employment records, and about a combination of negative press coverage. Home Office data also shows an increase in pre-charge withdrawal of rape complaints. In the year ending December 2020, 42.8% of rape offences were closed as part of what is called the “evidential difficulties” category—where the victim did not support further police action against a suspect—compared with 25.6% in 2015. As we know, the charge rate for sexual offences is just 3.6%, and for rape it is 1.6%.
Such stark figures will not help with the concerns of many senior police chiefs that there has been a fall in public and victim confidence in the police in relation to rape cases, in particular. The issue of digital data extraction plays a big role in that, which is why we have tabled amendments. I am sure the Minister will say that clause 36 is required to tidy up the law so that it is clear about what the police can and cannot do, but with our amendments we are seeking to define and improve the rights of victims so that it is clearer to them when data should and should not be extracted.
Amendment 94 would ensure that users of electronic devices are offered free, independent legal advice before information on their device could be accessed, and it was recommended by the Victims’ Commissioner. It is vital that victims understand their rights so that they can make an informed decision on whether to agree to handing over their device for digital download.
Sarah Champion
I can only speak from my constituency experience, but many women have come to me having gone to report offences against them in childhood or rape offences against them. They are not in a position to give consent; they are not even in a position to understand what is going on—they are in a highly traumatised state. Walking into a police station is a very shocking thing. They go up to the front desk, get a meeting—one hopes—with an officer, and they are then told to hand over their phones or the police cannot proceed. Will my hon. Friend comment on that inherent power imbalance and the vulnerability of people in that situation—they were all women in those cases—who are expected to make an informed choice?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about that power imbalance. I have not been in that situation myself, but I can only imagine the bravery that it would take for someone just to take those first steps into a police station and recount what has happened to them, given how awful that would make them feel, let alone potentially handing over everything on their phones.
We were all watching Dominic Cummings yesterday—well, some of us were. [Interruption.] Whatever we think of him, right or wrong, he commented, “Well, I would not just hand my phone over so you could look, just to fish to see if there was anything on it that you thought might be relevant.” It is the same situation here. If people have past sexual history, which most people have, the idea that that would be used against someone in that vulnerable position—
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend referred to a fishing expedition. Generally speaking in the criminal law, fishing expeditions are not encouraged, and court rules generally seek to discourage them and to prevent information gathered in that way from being used at trial. Is this any different?
Sarah Jones
That is completely right and why we think that having some advice would help in both directions. It would help be clear about when a phone should or should not be handed over, but it would also hopefully help give people confidence when handing it over is the right thing to do, because it is reasonable and proportionate for the police to ask for it, for whatever reason they have given. We hope that that legal advice and support at that stage would help stop anything from being just a fishing expedition, while also giving people confidence to hand over their phones when that is the appropriate thing to do.
I am grateful to the Home Office for funding a pilot of independent legal advice for rape complainants dealing with digital download in Northumbria. The Sexual Violence Complainants’ Advocate scheme pilot engaged local solicitors to provide legal advice and support to rape complainants in Northumbria, related to the complainants’ article 8 rights to privacy. The pilot demonstrated what was happening in practice and found that about 50% of requests were not strictly necessary or proportionate. Some police officers who participated in the scheme expressed concern about this culture. One said:
“I could talk all day about third-party material, and it is the real bone of contention. It’s one of the things that has given me sleepless nights over the years.”
They go on:
“I had a rape team investigator say to me on one occasion, or a former rape team investigator, say to me, ‘I had to like leave the rape team because of what I was asked to do, in relation to victims, I couldn’t do it’. And I think, you know, that, for me just spoke volumes. And lots of people were expressing their concerns, including me, but when that officer said that to me, I kind of thought, d’you know what, there’s something sadly wrong here.”
Another contributor said:
“I would love to see a document where somebody who has looked at third-party material has actually considered the Article 8 rights of the victim. ’Cos I don’t think you’ll find that anywhere.”
Furthermore, another said:
“In terms of the 3rd party material: I have obtained as much as I need from her phone. I have just received her Local Authority Records from [Council] and I am awaiting her medical records and school records. Once I have reviewed this material, I will be able to go to the CPS for a decision. Unfortunately, as you are no doubt aware, the CPS will not entertain any files for charging decision unless this material is reviewed without exception regardless of the circumstances.”
Sarah Champion
I think we all—well, most of us—got a fantastic briefing from Big Brother Watch, Amnesty, End Violence Against Women and so on. Within that, they refer to these things as digital strip searches, which tend to be carried out more often on women than men.
Perhaps I can read something out and ask for my hon. Friend’s opinion:
“The scale and depth of the police’s mobile phone searches are incomparable with the police’s legislative powers to carry out physical searches.”
An average phone
“would amount to police searching someone’s property and taking copies of all photographs, documents, letters, films, albums, books and files.”
Furthermore, some
“phones can contain over 200,000 messages and over 100,000 photos”,
and the information
“can run to many thousands of pages. An average individual’s mobile phone can contain the equivalent of 35,000 A4 pages of data.”
Will my hon. Friend, and indeed the Minister when she speaks, comment, first, on the relevance of that; secondly, on why, digitally, police have so much further reach, without the necessary applications to court in place; and, thirdly, on the impact—my hon. Friend rightly mentioned this—that that is having on court and CPS time, and the costs associated with it, in an already highly clogged-up court system?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend has made a series of correct points. Across the board, in the digital and the online worlds, when it comes to laws, we are behind what is happening in the real world. A significant number of changes need to be looked at to come up to date with what is already happening. We would argue that this is one of those examples.
As well as impacting victim attrition, this issue is a factor in deciding whether to even report a rape or a crime in the first place. The Victims’ Commissioner survey of rape complainants showed that, for some, scrutiny of their personal lives—including their digital lives—was a consideration in their decision not to report. For those who did report, the experience was felt to be “invasive” and “traumatic”, with many feeling that the process was not properly explained. The survey stated:
“Just 33% agreed that the police clearly explained why any request to access mobile phone and other personal data were necessary and 22% that they explained how they would ensure that data would only be accessed if relevant and necessary. Requests for these data were often considered invasive and intrusive, and survivors had serious concerns about this.”
A female is quoted as saying:
“I was also reluctant to do so because I felt my [F]acebook data and mobile phone information would not have supported my account as I had been friendly with the perpetrator before the incident.”
Another said:
“I was happy to provide my mobile phone for them to download all the vile messages that supported my assaults. The police said they would download all messages between me and my ex-husband but they actually downloaded all of my phone every message…and all my privacy was gone.”
Many respondents felt that they had no choice but to hand over devices for scrutiny, and that raises issues around what is meant by “voluntary” in the context of a police power. Arguably, it confirms the need for safeguards in legislation, which speaks to what my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said about the power balance and what “voluntary” means. The Victims’ Commissioner said:
“Many survivors said they wanted to help with the investigation and achieve a positive outcome. Some did not believe that they could refuse such requests, that they did not have anything to hide, or thought the request was simply part of normal investigation procedures. However, most survivors had concerns around the disclosure of personal data and access to records.”
A 2020 report by the Information Commissioner on mobile phone data extraction outlined that the way in which police were operating did not comply in a number of respects with data protection legislation, and argued that the gateway of consent that police had been reliant on was not open to them for a number of reasons. They could rely on “strict necessity” for law enforcement purposes, but that comes with a number of prior conditions that must also be met. The report also outlined concerns about the realities of such downloading and how it impacts on other’s rights to privacy, such as family and friends, whose sensitive data may also be contained on the complainant’s mobile, but from whom consent is never sought.
A great deal of work has been done at policy level to address some of the issues, but none of the work to date has sought to alter police powers to obtain and scrutinise a digital device. Existing case law legislation and guidance make it clear that agreement to digital extraction can be sought only if the officer believes that relevant material can be extracted from a phone for criminal investigations—that means that it is relevant to a reasonable line of inquiry.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend would be making an incredibly powerful argument if she was making it on behalf of the criminals, but she is actually making it on behalf of the victims of crime. Surely, this level of invasive behaviour as regards their most private and personal things, after they have been the victim of a crime, is truly shocking.
Sarah Jones
I completely agree. The issue of people having things on their phone that relate to their family or friends, which they feel it would be terrible for others to see, has not been thought through.
In the Bater-James Court of Appeal judgment, the judges were clear that there should not be speculative searches, and that there must be specificity based on a reasonable line of inquiry. The information should be extracted only in so far as it is strictly necessary and proportionate to the investigation, and the officer must be satisfied that there are no other, less intrusive means available to them of pursuing that line of inquiry. It is vital that the police can rely on “strict necessity” for law enforcement purposes from the perspective of data protection, but it is also vital that the victims agree to the download, meaning that they fully understand what is being sought, and that the agreement is freely given.
In an evidence session last week, we heard from Martin Hewitt of the National Police Chiefs’ Council that there is an ever-increasing
“volume of digital evidence that is required for almost every investigation.”
He said:
“That has created real pressure on the time limits of investigations and our ability to gather the evidence that we need to take an investigation forward. We have increased the capability. It is partly about equipment and having the right equipment to be able to extract digital evidence. It is also about having officers and staff who have the right capabilities to assess that evidence and produce it in an evidential form…However, the flip side and the really important point is making sure that what is being done is lawful, proportionate and necessary. Again, that side of the work is equally important…So we need the legal framework to allow us to do that properly and we then also need the resourcing and the capabilities to do it within the right time limits.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c.16, Q21.]
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very clear argument. She will recollect clause 36(10), which relates to the age of an adult. It suggests that in the context of extraction for information, an “adult” is someone who is 16 years old. Is it not all the more important that we have legal protections for children, if the Government insist that they are adults at the age of 16?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which was raised last week, and which I know the Minister has clocked. We have an amendment to shift the age from 16 to 18, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that if the age remains that low, we need to make even more sure that we protect victims.
Police forces carry out digital data extraction from victims’ phones in kiosks. In the police forces that have kiosks—not all of them do—the police often have to queue and wait to download their information. Martin Hewitt’s point about time limits is crucial; the police clearly do not have the right equipment for the new power to be used in the way that the law says it should be used. The police do not have the technology to draw out specific information from people’s phones, and the risk of incriminating family or friends can prevent cases from going ahead. I know that the guidance from the College of Policing says that police must immediately delete all data that are not relevant, but there is a big problem, in that so many cases brought to them do not go ahead. Will the Minister provide assurances as to how the Government will provide the police with the resources and capacity that they need to enforce what they need to do with digital extraction?
In the evidence sessions, we also heard from Dame Vera Baird that
“The police have now done a lot of work to try to shift policy backwards, and this new power—which has no obvious nod, even, in the direction of the protection of complainants—came out of the blue from a different Department of the Home Office, and has absolutely none of the protections that, in policy terms, the police have been looking towards for quite some time.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2021; c.111, Q174.]
New clauses 49 to 53, on the power to extract data from electronic devices, would protect the rights of complainants under article 8 of the European convention on human rights, particularly in sexual assault and rape cases. They would more clearly define that “agreement” in the legislation means informed and freely given agreement, to avoid abuse of this power. The new clauses would ensure that alternatives were considered before a request was made to a victim, and that only specified persons could agree and provide a device on behalf of children, who must be consulted before a decision is made. The same would apply to adults without capacity. The new clauses would oblige the code of practice to address a number of points about exercising the power, in order to better protect the rights and experience of victims.
I will run through the issues that we are seeking to correct through the new clauses. The first is that there is no definition of “agreement” in the legislation. As we have said, police all too often seek the agreement of complainants of sexual violence in circumstances where they are not fully informed—sometimes they are being coerced—so it is really important that the primary legislation defines “agreement”, which means agreement that is informed and freely given. Linked to agreement is the need for the police to be specific about what data they are seeking. Only if the police are specific can the data owner give informed agreement to extraction.
The second issue is that a reasonable line of inquiry is not clearly defined in the legislation. It nods to that by using the word “relevant”, but material sought from a suspect or complainant for the purposes of investigating and prosecuting crime will be relevant only inasmuch as it is part of a reasonable line of inquiry. It is vital that that be clearly defined in the legislation. Without a clear definition, the legal hoop for police is merely reasonable belief and relevance. This risks further embedding a culture of wholescale downloads and intrusion into privacy.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend talks about the being able to access the device only if there is a reasonable line of inquiry. Should the police or investigating body also look to follow that reasonable line of inquiry through other methods, rather than automatically making a call on that digital device?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: other means of investigating should be pursued before there is that intrusion of taking people’s phones. The Victims’ Commissioner has recommended that guidance be issued mandating that a record be made of the decision-making process of the authorised person in identifying a reasonable line of inquiry, so that it can be scrutinised at a later date.
The next problem is that clause 36(5)(b) states that an authorised person using the power should be
“satisfied that exercise of the power is necessary and proportionate to achieve that purpose.”
The Victims’ Commissioner advises that the test should be that the authorised person is satisfied that exercise of the power is strictly necessary and proportionate to achieve that purpose, and we have incorporated that language into our new clauses. Statute and case law insist on strict necessity as the only appropriate test in circumstances where sensitive data—such as health data, sexuality data, or information about others—will be processed. A complainant’s phone will nearly always contain such information, and as such will automatically require sensitive processing. In their clauses, the Government have removed “strictly” from the test, creating a far lower threshold than the one that the Data Protection Act 2018 intended for processing this type of material, and meaning that victims’ article 8 rights are less protected.
The next problem is that the phrase “reasonably practicable” in clause 36(7)(b) is incompatible with the data protection legislation, and there are concerns that this gives police a means of easily dismissing other options. The term
“strictly necessary for the law enforcement purpose”
under the Data Protection Act places a higher threshold on processing based on this condition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, controllers need to demonstrate that they have considered other, less intrusive means, and have found that they do not meet the objective of the processing. The test does not ensure that. Under the clauses, police could decide, having considered alternative means, that it is not practical to get the information via those means. The risk for rape victims is that, both culturally and due to operational constraints, the most practical or easiest path to obtaining the information sought will nearly always be the victim’s phone. Again, normal practice is being bolstered by this legislative power, and there are limited safeguards for victims.
The final point of concern for the Opposition is that in the clauses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North said, the authorised person has no obligation to obtain the views of children and those without capacity when seeking to obtain information from their phones. Neither the police nor the person giving agreement in those people’s stead is obliged to ensure that their views are considered.
Sarah Champion
This relates to amendments of mine that will be debated later. I wonder whether something needs to be inserted about language competency. My amendments deal with asylum seekers who do not have English as their first language. Should language competency also be a consideration, so that we ensure that people actually understand their rights?
Sarah Jones
Yes. Whenever people hand over personal information, they need to know why they are doing so, and the implications. That is as important for a child as for an adult, and we need to make sure that principle is enshrined properly in law.
It is important to safeguard the human rights of children, and to ensure that only specified persons can agree to handing over information and providing a device on behalf of children, who must be consulted before a decision is made. The same should apply to adults without capacity, and we have effected this principle in our new clauses.
Another issue—the Minister was looking at this last week —is that for the purposes of this chapter, clause 36(10) defines an adult as a person aged 16 or over, and a child as a person under 16. Hazel Williamson, chair of the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers, said in evidence to us last week:
“We should treat children as children until they are 18 and they should be sentenced as a child until they reach the age of 18. In an ideal world, we would look beyond that, because many people do not develop fully, in terms of brain development, until they are in their mid-20s.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2021; c.136, Q223.]
Our amendments would change the age from 16 to 18. I would like to learn from the Minister why the Government chose to define “adult” in that way.
While we welcome the code of practice attached to this legislation, there is no detail yet about what it may contain, and there is no duty on the Secretary of State to consult victims’ representatives or champions in creating it. Our new clause would require the Secretary of State, when preparing the code of practice, to consult a range of parties, including the Information Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and other regional and national bodies.
Our new clauses also list matters that the code of practice should address, because protection for victims should be in the Bill. Clauses 36 to 42 provide the police with a wide-ranging power to obtain and scrutinise victims’ phones, with virtually no safeguards for victims. It is said that some protections are intended to be put into the code of practice, but the police will not be obliged to follow it. There are concerns that the clauses will provide the police—and the Crown Prosecution Service, via the police—with a legal basis for carrying on as they have been. The police accept that the Victims’ Commissioner’s proposals are appropriate for their purpose, and would give a better balance as regards victim protection. I thank the Victims’ Commissioner and her team for all their work to guide us though this tricky area of law. I hope that the Minister will listen to the concerns we have raised.
Sarah Champion
I thank my hon. Friend for all the points she made, which, to be quite honest, are common sense, but would cause a huge shift in victims’ and survivors’ perceptions of their rights. I have questions for the Minister.
On data storage and security, I am sure we were all pretty shocked and disgusted to hear that images relating to Sarah Everard were not secure in the police system. While I have a very high regard for the police, they can be a leaky sieve—let us be honest. Why do we not simply clone phones at the point of taking them? Why is it months, or usually years, before the victim gets their phone back? Would it be possible to put in legislation or guidance a timeframe on how long that phone can be held for? Having spoken to officers, it seems that cloning a phone is complicated and geeky; it tends to be put in a back drawer until they absolutely have to do it. A timeframe would give a lot of comfort to victims and survivors; they would know it was only a week until they got their photos back, for example.
Finally, a myth has been perpetuated that victims and survivors have to hand over their phone or mobile data to the police or their case will not be taken forward. I have heard examples of victims and survivors being told expressly that if they do not hand it over, they are withholding evidence and could be prosecuted. At that point, unfortunately, a number of survivors drop out of the process and withdraw their charges altogether. If the Minister is able to give reassurance on that, that would be hugely appreciated.
I turn to amendment 115, on the list of people who may extract data. The list is pretty extensive, but one group stood out: immigration officers may request a mobile phone. A few months ago, I went to a large asylum hospital in my constituency, where there were 50 to 100 men—I do not know how many—and what concerned them most was that, literally as they entered the country, their mobile devices and indeed clothes were taken off them. There was no debate or explanation; it is just part of the process.
I completely understand the argument that very bad people, such as gangmasters, who come into the country may have a lot of contacts that are relevant to police inquiries. The police and transport police are already on the extensive list of people who may access electronic devices, so if an immigration officer was concerned, they could get a police officer to take the digital device away. That is not a problem. Extracting data is a complex process that requires specialist experience, and it ought to be managed under the law. I am concerned that we are asking immigration officers to be incredibly mindful, and to be trained and resourced, and to have all the skills, to request that device.
The people I met fell into three camps: economic migrants, who have paid to come over here; people who have been trafficked over here; and those brought in specifically for modern slavery. All the men I spoke to wanted to see pictures of their loved ones. They wanted those memories from home, and a mobile phone may be the best way to hold those memories and connections.
I do not know anyone’s telephone number aside from my parents’—it was the one I grew up with. I can call the police, the NHS helpline and my mum, but everything else is stored on my phone. If I lost it, I would not know how to respond—and I have back-ups that I can access, and English as my first language. When I changed phones, I did not download properly and lost five years of photos. That was so painful. Imagine someone being trafficked into this country, and probably horrifically abused on the way in. The one thing they can hold on to is their memories on that digital device, but that is taken away. They have no information about why it was taken, or when it will be returned, and all their contacts have been lost.
All the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central made apply in this case. Immigration officers are one of the groups who may take these devices—this is not a dig against immigration officers, who do a difficult job—but in any other situation a police officer or a court order would be required to take such detailed data. I ask the Minister please to remove immigration officers from the list.
Victoria Atkins
I welcome the discussion about this chapter of the Bill, because the framework we are setting out is a really important step forward in improving the expectations about and management of digital data that victims and complainants may have on their digital devices. Of course, completely understandably, the focus has been on complainants in sexual violence cases—I will go into some detail on that in due course—but the chapter applies across the board. If, for example, in cases that do not relate to sexual violence, a mobile phone is deemed to be relevant and the authorised person is satisfied that the exercise of the power is necessary and proportionate, this chapter will apply.
Victoria Atkins
Thank you. The Minister for Crime and Policing, my hon. Friend Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) answered the urgent question on the timing of the rape review. Colleagues will know that for the last two years, the Government have commissioned intensive research into each stage of the process within the criminal justice system of a rape case or a sexual violence investigation, from the moment of reporting through to the moment when the case finishes, whether by way of a verdict or if a trial does not go ahead for any number of reasons. We had very much hoped to publish that review by the end of last year. However, we were very understanding of the fact that the Victims’ Commissioner and women’s charities wanted to make representations, in particular looking at the shadow report by EVAW—End Violence Against Women. We were mindful that there was a super-complaint under way as well. Therefore, we have paused publication in order to take into account some of those factors.
The Minister for Crime and Policing informed the House this week that we plan to publish the review after the Whitsun recess. It will show the Government’s intentions in relation to this particular category of cases, sexual violence cases, and will of course sit alongside this Bill, but will go much further than the Bill. On some of the situations, scenarios and experiences that were described today and last week in evidence, I just urge caution until the rape review is published, because there may be answers in that document.
In terms of the legal framework, I think it is really important that we have this in the Bill and that the rights of victims and of suspects and defendants are set out and clarified and that we introduce consistency where that has been alleged in the past to be missing.
I note just as an example that one of the other ways in which we are really trying to help victims of sexual violence is through support for independent sexual violence advisers. We already have ISVAs working with victims across the country. This year, we have been able to announce the creation of 700 new posts, with some £27 million of funding. I give that just as an example. This is an important part of our work, but it is not the only piece of work that we are doing to address some of these very genuine concerns.
Sarah Champion
I am hearing everything that the Minister is saying. Knowing that the review is coming out—I assume it is something that she has been working on or very closely with, because of her intense involvement and support in this area—does she feel that the measures in the Bill are proportionate or are they something that, once the review comes out, she may look at changing, to ensure that the safeguards that she speaks of are embedded in the final Act that we see?
Victoria Atkins
We have been working together on this. We must not not forget that the background to the legal framework has to take into account the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and the more general disclosure rules, for example. But this has been very much a piece of work across Government, because we want this framework to give confidence and clarity to victims and to suspects, but also, importantly, to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, because they are the ones who must administer and work within the legal framework and the code of practice.
If I may, Mr McCabe, I will take a bit of time, because this is such an important measure and I am mindful that there are questions about it, to set out some of the detailed thinking behind the way in which the clauses have been drafted. The current approach to the extraction of information from digital devices has indeed been criticised by some as feeling like a “digital strip-search” where devices have been taken as a matter of course and where, in many cases, all the sensitive personal data belonging to a device user was extracted and processed even where it was not relevant to the offence under investigation. We absolutely understand the concerns that have been raised in relation to that.
Alex Cunningham
I think this is an appropriate point for me to lay the challenge on the Government about the decision to classify children as adults at the age of 16 in clause 36(10). The Minister has just used the expression “digital strip-search”. Is it really appropriate for a 16-year-old girl, or boy for that matter, to have a digital strip-search, giving up all their little secrets and everything else, because the Government think that they should be classified as an adult and that adult factors should be applied directly to them?
Victoria Atkins
I will deal with that in detail in due course. Just so that colleagues understand how that age was settled upon, in the drafting we carefully considered people’s views, including the Information Commissioner, about the freedoms and the feelings of power and authority that users of devices have. We settled on the age of 16 because we understand that a 16-year-old is different from a 12 or 13-year-old, if their parents have allowed them mobile phones, although I am banning my son from having a mobile phone until he is at least 35, but there we go. A moment of lightness, sorry.
I will deal with the point in more detail later, because it is important, but there is a difficult balance to maintain between rights of victims, suspects and defendants but also rights of users, particularly under the European convention, so that has been the Government’s motivation in this. However, we are alive to scrutiny.
Sarah Champion
I think this involves the focus that I hope the Minister is going to come to. I hear everything she has just said about the justification and I am going along with that, but it is clear in subsection (10):
“In this Chapter—
‘adult’ means a person aged 16 or over”.
Why was that specific wording chosen rather than “the remit of the clause covers people from the age of 16 onwards”, for example?
Victoria Atkins
I will come to that later, but the hon. Lady knows that I am in listening mode on this. The Bill includes requirements to obtain agreement to extract information; to ensure there is reasonable belief that the required information is held on the device; and, before using this information, to consider whether there are less intrusive means of obtaining it. That is an important point that I know hon. Members have focused on. The clauses will ensure that the victim’s right to privacy will be respected and will be at the centre of all investigations where there is a need to extract information from a digital device.
The Bill also includes a new code of practice. This will give clear guidance to all authorities exercising the power. It will address how the information may be obtained using other, less intrusive means; how to ensure that agreement is freely given, and how the device user’s rights are understood. All authorised persons will have a duty to have regard to the code when exercising or deciding whether to exercise the power. The clauses are also clear that the code is admissible in evidence in criminal or civil proceedings and that a failure to act in accordance with it may be taken into account by the court. It will give up-to-date, best practice guidance for selectively extracting data considering existing technological limitations. That will be updated as and when further capabilities are developed and extended to all authorities able to use this power.
Sarah Jones
The Minister is outlining how important the code of practice is. Is she therefore sympathetic to the view that we have put forward in our new clauses that that code of practice should be pulled together with a list of eminently sensible and professional organisations and people, and that we should define in the Bill some of what that should include because it is so important?
Victoria Atkins
We are going to be even more ambitious than that. We aim to publish a draft on Report, which means the House and the other place will be able to scrutinise the draft code of practice during the scrutiny of the Bill as a whole. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, we will consult formally on the code of practice, including with the relevant commissioners, to enable a more detailed draft to be laid before the House. Again, we are in listening mode on the ways in which the code of practice should be drafted, because we understand how important it is and how important it is that victims, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, among others, have confidence in the document.
Sarah Champion
I hear what the Minister says about cloning and the risk that it is not suitable for admission in court. Will the Minister comment on a kindness that could be done—giving a clone of photos to an asylum seeker, for example?
Victoria Atkins
I am so sorry—I have not quite understood the hon. Lady. On the taking of a phone, if I have just been told that we are concerned about the ramifications of cloning it, I do not see why we would clone it despite those reservations in order to provide photographs. I would be very uneasy about having differences in how the police handle digital data depending on the personal circumstances of the person from whom they have taken a phone, including nationality. I would be very cautious about going down that road.
Sarah Champion
I did not mean to be used in court. I meant for the individual who has lost their one contact with home—that they could get a copy or a print-out of photos, rather than the device just being taken away with no explanation of when they are going to get it back again.
Victoria Atkins
I am very cautious about distinguishing between different victims. Perhaps the hon. Lady is alleging that the person she is talking about is a victim. The framework is about consistency and clarity, and I would be concerned about having caveats here and there in order to fit individual facts. Part of this test is about relevance, necessity and proportionality. Those are the tests that we are asking officers to apply, and we would have to apply them across the board.
There are situations within the framework whereby the power can be used without agreement, such as to locate a missing person where the police reasonably believe that the person’s life is at risk. Under clause 36, the police may have good reason to believe that a device has information that will help to locate the person. In such circumstances, clearly the person is not available to give their consent, so clause 36 ensures that officers can extract data, if it is necessary and proportionate, to protect the privacy of the user. That also applies in relation to children who need to be protected.
New clause 49 raises the bar for the exercise of the power in clause 36(1). The necessity test under new clause 49 is one of strict necessity. I am not persuaded that adopting the phrase, “strictly necessary and proportionate”, instead of “necessary and proportionate”, will make a material difference. This phrase is well used in the Bill. I note that article 8.2 of the European convention on human rights—the very article that people are relying on in relation to the framework—permits interference with the right to respect for private and family life. Such interference is permitted where it is necessary to achieve various specified objectives.
Sarah Jones
I understand what the Minister is saying. The review in Northumbria showed that about 50% of requests were not strictly necessary and proportionate. That must be wrong, and we are trying to make sure that people know what they are giving over, that they do it voluntarily and that it is absolutely necessary that such information is requested. Apart from trying to be clear about what is proportionate and necessary, what solution can the Minister put in place to make sure we do not have 50% of cases involving asking for information where it is not necessary and proportionate?
Victoria Atkins
On what the hon. Lady has described, I am not sure what difference it would make. I am trying to put myself in the boots of a police officer. Would a police officer ask for data if they read the words, “strictly necessary”, but not if they read the word, “necessary”? Actually, the problem that has been identified by the figure quoted by the hon. Lady is police officers’ understanding of the legislation, which comes back to training. Article 8, on which many rely in this context and in this part of the Bill, refers to “necessary” interference, and I am not clear what “strictly necessary” would add to that.
New clause 49 seeks to provide that information may be extracted only for the purpose of a criminal investigation
“where the information is relevant to a reasonable line of enquiry.”
There are safeguards within the clauses to ensure that information is not extracted as a matter of course, and they have been drafted with respect for victims’ privacy in mind. They include a requirement that the authorised person has a reasonable belief that the device contains information that is relevant to a purpose for which they may extract information, and that the exercise of the power is necessary and proportionate to achieve that purpose.
Sarah Champion
I hear everything the Minister is saying and it is very plausible, but I want to challenge her assertions on necessary, proportionate and clear lines of inquiry, based on the answer I received to a written question to the Home Office on 11 November. I asked about the process of extracting mobile phones. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Croydon South replied:
“Immigration Enforcement search all migrants”—
at this point, “all migrants”, so we do not know yet whether they are an asylum seeker, being trafficked or are here for nefarious purposes—
“upon arrival at the Tug Haven at Dover. In the event that a mobile phone is discovered it will be seized as part of an investigation into the organised crime group involved in the facilitation.”
Again, we do not know if they are a criminal or a victim at this point, but the phone will be seized regardless.
“The migrant will be informed verbally that the phone will be kept for evidential purpose for three to six months. They are provided with a receipt and contact details. Attempts will be made to communicate this in their first language, although this can be challenging due to external factors.”
So people arrive here, immediately their phone is taken away from them and they might not even know why. It is great that within “three to six months”, they are meant to have that response—
Sarah Champion
Sorry, Minister? I do not think that the reality on the ground—the reality that the Home Office acknowledges—backs up what the other Minister is saying about reasonable, proportionate and lines of inquiry, because it is happening to every migrant coming into this country.
The Chair
I know this is important detail, but I remind the hon. Lady that interventions should not be too long.
Victoria Atkins
I cannot hope to do justice to a parliamentary question answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South, the Immigration Minister, because I know the care and attention he gives to answering such PQs. However, over lunch, I will attempt to extract an answer that will do justice to his response. I make the point that the hon. Member for Rotherham is referring to practice at the moment. Again, the point of this legal framework is to ensure that we have consistency and clarity of approach. I will try to do my hon. Friend justice when we return at 2 o’clock.
I will now move on to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and its code of practice, because those provisions on “reasonable lines of inquiry” will continue to apply to the investigation of criminal offences in England and Wales. We cannot—must not—view the extraction of digital data in a vacuum, apart from the rest of the powers of, and duties on, police officers and the CPS when it comes to a criminal trial.
In the context of mobile phones, iPads and so on, police forces will continue to use the digital processing notice developed by the National Police Chiefs’ Council for this purpose. It explains in lay language how the police extract the information, which information might be extracted, how long the device might be retained for and what happens to irrelevant material found on the device or devices. The notice makes it clear that investigators must respect an individual’s right to privacy and must not go beyond the reasonable lines of inquiry. That is the golden thread that runs throughout the Act.
It is imperative that the existing procedures for investigations set out in the 1996 Act are followed. Although the clauses in the Bill concern a broader range of activity than just criminal investigation, helping as they do in investigations for missing persons or to protect children, we do not want to introduce any ambiguity. I will therefore reflect on that, but we are clear that the CPIA provisions must continue in the context of criminal investigations.
I note that new clause 49 would omit subsection (7)(b) of clause 36. We are clear that police officers and others using the extraction power should always seek to obtain the information required in the least intrusive way possible. There are situations in which it may not be reasonably practicable to utilise the least intrusive means of obtaining information, and this clause ensures that authorised persons may make that judgment. That could be because the time it would take to gather the information might affect the investigation or increase the risk of harm to an individual, or because those methods would mean intruding on the privacy of a wider number of people.
I will give one example and then I will sit down. When searching for a missing person, information such as an image on a witness’s device might also be captured on CCTV. Identifying all cameras, and downloading and reviewing many hours of CCTV footage is a time-consuming process. The authorised person may decide that it is more appropriate to extract the information from the device in order to speed up the inquiry and to try to locate the missing person before they come to harm.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 27th May 2021
(3 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPolice, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 May 2021 - (27 May 2021)
The Chair
As you all undoubtedly observed, the Minister was just having a quick breather. We will now resume.
Clause 36
Extraction of information from electronic devices: investigations of crime etc
Amendment proposed (this day): 94, in clause 36, page 29, line 5, at end insert—
“(c) the user who has given agreement under subsection (1)(b) was offered free independent legal advice on issues relating to their human rights before that agreement was given.”—(Sarah Jones.)
This amendment would ensure that users of electronic devices were offered free independent legal advice before information on their device could be accessed.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 63.
Clause 37 stand part.
Clauses 38 to 42 stand part.
Amendment 115, in schedule 3, page 198, line 29, leave out
“A person appointed as an immigration officer under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971.”
This amendment would remove immigration officers from the list of authorised persons who may carry out a digital extraction.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
New clause 49—Extraction of information from electronic devices—
“(1) Subject to Conditions A to D below, insofar as applicable, an authorised person may extract information stored on an electronic device from that device if—
(a) a user of the device has voluntarily provided the device to an authorised person, and
(b) that user has agreed to the extraction of specified information from the device by an authorised person.
(2) Condition A for the exercise of the power in subsection (1) is that it may be exercised only for the purposes of—
(a) preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting an offence,
(b) helping to locate a missing person, or
(c) protecting a child or an at-risk adult from neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) an adult is an at-risk adult if the authorised person reasonably believes that the adult—
(a) is experiencing, or at risk of, neglect or physical, mental or emotional harm, and
(b) is unable to protect themselves against the neglect or harm or the risk of it.
(4) Condition B for the exercise of the power in subsection (1) is that the power may only be exercised if—
(a) the authorised person reasonably believes that information stored on the electronic device is relevant to a purpose within subsection (2) for which the authorised person may exercise the power, and
(b) the authorised person is satisfied that exercise of the power is strictly necessary and proportionate to achieve that purpose.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4)(a), information is relevant for the purposes within subsection (2)(a) in circumstances where the information is relevant to a reasonable line of enquiry.
(6) Condition C as set out in subsection (7) applies if the authorised person thinks that, in exercising the power, there is a risk of obtaining information other than information necessary for a purpose within subsection (2) for which the authorised person may exercise the power.
(7) Condition C is that the authorised person must, to be satisfied that the exercise of the power in the circumstances set out in subsection (6) is strictly necessary and proportionate, be satisfied that there are no other less intrusive means available of obtaining the information sought by the authorised person which avoid that risk.
(8) Condition D is that an authorised person must have regard to the code of practice for the time being in force under section [Code of practice] in accordance with section [Effect of code of practice] below.
(9) This section does not affect any power relating to the extraction or production of information, or any power to seize any item or obtain any information, conferred by or under an enactment.
(10) In this section and section [Application of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] to children and adults without capacity]—
“adult” means a person aged 18 or over;
“authorised person” means a person specified in subsection (1) of section [Application of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] to children and adults without capacity] (subject to subsection (2) of that section);
“child” means a person aged under 18;
“agreement” means that the user has confirmed explicitly and unambiguously in writing that they agree—
(a) to provide their device, and
(b) to the extraction of specified data from that device.
Such an explicit written confirmation can only constitute agreement for these purposes if, in accordance with the Code of Practice issued pursuant to section [Effect of code of practice], the user—
(i) has been provided with appropriate information and guidance about why the extraction is considered strictly necessary (including, where relevant, the identification of the reasonable line of enquiring relied upon);
(ii) has been provided with appropriate information as to (a) how the data will or will not be used in accordance with the authorized person’s legal obligations and (b) any potential consequences arising from their decision;
(iii) has confirmed their agreement in the absence of any inappropriate pressure or coercion;
“electronic device” means any device on which information is capable of being stored electronically and includes any component of such a device;
“enactment” includes—
(a) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(b) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, and
(c) Northern Ireland legislation;
“information” includes moving or still images and sounds;
“offence” means an offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom;
“user”, in relation to an electronic device, means a person who ordinarily uses the device.
(11) References in this section and sections [Application of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] to children and adults without capacity] to the extraction of information include its reproduction in any form.
(12) This section is subject to sections [Application of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] to children and adults without capacity] and [Application of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] where user has died etc].”
New clause 50—Application of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] to children and adults without capacity—
“(1) A child is not to be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] as being capable of—
(a) voluntarily providing an electronic device to an authorised person for those purposes, or
(b) agreeing for those purposes to the extraction of information from the device by an authorised person.
(2) If a child is a user of an electronic device, a person who is not a user of the device but is listed in subsection (3) may—
(a) voluntarily provide the device to an authorised person for the purposes of subsection (1) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices], and
(b) agreement for those purposes to the extraction of information from the device by an authorised person.
(3) The persons mentioned in subsection (2) are—
(a) the child’s parent or guardian or, if the child is in the care of a relevant authority or voluntary organisation, a person representing that authority or organisation,
(b) a registered social worker, or
(c) if no person falling within paragraph (a) or (b) is available, any responsible person aged 18 or over other than an authorised person.
(4) The agreement of persons listed in subsection (3) further to subsection 2(b) should only be accepted where, if it is appropriate, the child has been consulted on whether such agreement should be provided and the authorised person is satisfied those views have been taken into account.
(5) An adult without capacity is not to be treated for the purposes of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] as being capable of—
(a) voluntarily providing an electronic device to an authorised person for those purposes, or
(b) agreeing for those purposes to the extraction of information from the device by an authorised person.
(6) If a user of an electronic device is an adult without capacity, a person who is not a user of the device but is listed in subsection (7) may—
(a) voluntarily provide the device to an authorised person for the purposes of subsection (1) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices], and
(b) agreement for those purposes to the extraction of information from the device by an authorised person.
(7) The persons mentioned in subsection (6) are—
(a) a parent or guardian of the adult without capacity,
(b) a registered social worker,
(c) a person who has a power of attorney in relation to the adult without capacity, or
(d) if no person falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) is available, any responsible person aged 18 other than an authorised person.
(8) The agreement of persons listed in subsection (7) further to subsection (6)(b) should only be accepted where, if it is appropriate, the adult without capacity has been consulted on whether such agreement should be provided and the authorised person is satisfied those views have been taken into account.
(9) Nothing in this section prevents any other user of an electronic device who is not a child or an adult without capacity from—
(a) voluntarily providing the device to an authorised person for the purposes of subsection (1) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices], or
(b) agreeing for those purposes to the extraction of information from the device by an authorised person.
(10) In this section and section and [Application of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] where user has died etc]—
“adult without capacity” means an adult who, by reason of any impairment of their physical or mental condition, is incapable of making decisions for the purposes of subsection (1) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices];
“local authority”—
(a) in relation to England, means a county council, a district council for an area for which there is no county council, a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London,
(b) in relation to Wales, means a county council or a county borough council, and
(c) in relation to Scotland, means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994;
“registered social worker” means a person registered as a social worker in a register maintained by—
(a) Social Work England,
(b) the Care Council for Wales,
(c) the Scottish Social Services Council, or
(d) the Northern Ireland Social Care Council;
“relevant authority”—
(a) in relation to England and Wales and Scotland, means a local authority;
(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, means an authority within the meaning of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I. 2));
“voluntary organisation”—
(a) in relation to England and Wales and Scotland, has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989;
(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995.
(11) Subsections (10) and (11) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] also contain definitions for the purposes of this section.”
New clause 51—Application of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] where user has died etc—
“(1) If any of conditions A to C is met, an authorised person may exercise the power in subsection (1) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] to extract information stored on an electronic device from that device even though—
(a) the device has not been voluntarily provided to an authorised person by a user of the device, or
(b) no user of the device has agreed to the extraction of information from the device by an authorised person.
(2) Condition A is that—
(a) a person who was a user of the electronic device has died, and
(b) the person was a user of the device immediately before their death.
(3) Condition B is that—
(a) a user of the electronic device is a child or an adult without capacity, and
(b) an authorised person reasonably believes that the user’s life is at risk or there is a risk of serious harm to the user.
(4) Condition C is that—
(a) a person who was a user of the electronic device is missing,
(b) the person was a user of the device immediately before they went missing, and
(c) an authorised person reasonably believes that the person’s life is at risk or there is a risk of serious harm to the person.
(5) The exercise of the power in subsection (1) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] by virtue of this section is subject to subsections (2) to (8) of that section.
(6) Subsections (10) and (11) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] and subsection (9) of section [Application of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] to children and adults without capacity] contain definitions for the purposes of this section.”
New clause 52—Code of practice—
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a code of practice containing guidance about the exercise of the power in subsection (1) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices].
(2) In preparing the code, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Information Commissioner,
(b) the Scottish Ministers,
(c) the Welsh Government,
(d) the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland,
(e) the Victims Commissioner,
(f) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner,
(g) any regional Victims Champion including the London Victims Commissioner,
(h) persons who appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of victims, witnesses and other individuals likely to be affected by the use of the power granted in subsection (1) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices], and
(i) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) After preparing the code, the Secretary of State must lay it before Parliament and publish it.
(4) The code is to be brought into force by regulations made by statutory instrument.
(5) The code must address, amongst other matters—
(a) the procedure by which an authorised person must obtain and record confirmation that a device has been provided voluntarily;
(b) the procedure by which an authorised person must obtain and record confirmation that agreement has been provided for the extraction of specified information, including the information which must be provided to the user about—
(i) how long the device will be retained;
(ii) what specific information is to be extracted from the device and why, including the identification of the reasonable line of enquiry to be pursued and the scope of information which will be extracted, reviewed and/or retained;
(iii) how the extracted information will be kept secure;
(iv) how the extracted information will or may be used in a criminal process;
(v) how they can be kept informed about who their information is to be shared with and the use of their information in the criminal process;
(vi) their right to refuse to agree to provide their device and/or to the proposed extraction in whole or in part and the potential consequences of that refusal; and
(vii) the circumstances in which a further extraction may be required, and what will happen to the information after the case has been considered;
(c) the different types of extraction processes available, and the parameters which should be considered in defining the scope of any proposed extraction from a user’s device;
(d) the circumstances in which the extraction of information should and should not be considered strictly necessary and proportionate;
(e) the considerations to be taken into account in determining whether there are less intrusive alternatives available to extraction for the purposes of subsection (7) of section [Extraction of information from electronic devices];
(f) the process by which the authorised person should identify and delete data which is not responsive to a reasonable line of enquiry and/or has been assessed as not relevant to the purposes for which the extraction was conducted; and
(g) the records which must be maintained documenting for each extraction or proposed extraction, including—
(i) the specific information to be extracted;
(ii) the reasonable lines of enquiry pursued;
(iii) the basis upon which the extraction is considered strictly necessary, including any alternatives considered and why they were not pursued;
(iv) confirmation that appropriate information was provided to the user and, if applicable, agreement obtained;
(v) the reasons why the user was not willing to agree to a proposed extraction.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(7) After the code has come into force the Secretary of State may from time to time revise it.
(8) References in subsections (2) to (7) to the code include a revised code.”
New clause 53—Effect of code of practice—
“(1) An authorised person must in the exercise of the power granted under section [Extraction of information from electronic devices] have regard to the code of practice issued under section [Code of practice] in deciding whether to exercise, or in the exercise of that power.
(2) A failure on the part of any person to comply with any provision of a code of practice for the time being in force under section [Code of practice] shall not of itself render him liable to any criminal or civil proceedings.
(3) A code of practice in force at any time under section [Code of practice] shall be admissible in evidence in any criminal or civil proceedings.
(4) In all criminal and civil proceedings any code in force under section [Code of practice] shall be admissible in evidence; and if any provision of the code appears to the court or tribunal conducting the proceedings to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings it shall be taken into account in determining that question.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
As the Committee will remember, I gave a very quick example of circumstances in which it would be appropriate for the authorised person to use information extracted from a digital device: when a person is missing, it would be appropriate to do that rather than wait for a review of many hours of closed circuit television footage. I hope that has dealt with that part of new clause 49.
New clause 49 also incorporates a definition of “agreement”. In order for authorised persons to exercise the power to extract information from digital devices, device users other than children or adults without capacity must voluntarily hand over their device and agree to the extraction of information. Authorised persons must explicitly ask device users for their agreement. The code of practice will provide guidance on: how agreement is to be obtained by the authorised person; ensuring it is freely given; and how the device user is made of aware of their right to refuse. The code will set out the best practice that authorised persons should follow when obtaining agreement, such as providing a copy of the digital processing notice for the device user to read and sign.
The final change made by new clause 49 is that it would define an adult as a person aged 18 or over, rather than 16 or over, as set out in chapter 3 of part 2. I understand this was not raised by the Victims’ Commissioner, but we have listened, and have thought very carefully about the imposition of that age in the Bill. In setting the age at 16, we were keen to ensure that those aged 16 to 17 were given appropriate control over their personal devices. That is not dissimilar from the position in other legislation, such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which recognises the rights of young people aged 16 and 17. However, we note the concerns raised in the debate, and we will reflect on them.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
May I say how grateful I am that the Minister is clearly in listening mode on this issue? The difference with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is that it does not define 16 and 17-year-olds as adults. It is that particular word, not the inclusion of that age bracket, that we are concerned about.
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Lady. As I say, we will reflect on the issue.
New clause 50 would provide that, where the user of a device was a child or adult without capacity, their views were sought and taken into account when someone else was making a decision on their behalf regarding the extraction of information from their device. We agree on the point about children. Indeed, clause 37(4) makes an equivalent provision, so we are not sure there is much between us on this point. We rely on clause 37(4) to ensure that the views of the child are taken into account.
We do not, however, agree that it is appropriate to include equivalent provision for adults without capacity. With such people, it is the capacity of the individual user that is relevant, and that is determined on the basis of a case-specific assessment. It is only if, as a result of that assessment, the person is deemed not capable of making the decisions that someone else is asked to make it. Authorised persons using that power will still have to comply with their existing responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated code of practice or equivalent provisions in Scotland and Northern Ireland. We will, however, include guidance and direct authorised persons to the relevant statutory responsibilities in the code of practice.
New clause 52 seeks to expand the list of statutory consultees in respect of the code of practice to include the Victims’ Commissioner, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and representatives of victims and witnesses, but clause 40 already places a duty on the Secretary of State to consult
“(a) the Information Commissioner,
(b) the Scottish Ministers,
(c) the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
We believe this last line affords sufficient flexibility to capture those other persons listed in new clause 52. I can assure the Committee that we will work closely with the Victims’ and Domestic Abuse Commissioners, and other relevant groups, as we develop the code.
The new clause also lists matters to be addressed in the code of practice. We do not dispute the relevance of many of the matters listed in new clause 52(5), but putting such a list in the Bill is unnecessary. The code needs to be comprehensive and fit for purpose, and it will be prepared in consultation with interested parties and subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment 94 seeks to provide for independent legal advice for device users. Ensuring that victims are properly supported is a priority for this Government. The code of practice will make it clear that investigators should inform people about the use of the power, and ensure that they are fully aware of their rights. This information will include: why they are asking for agreement, what will happen to the individual’s device, what information will be extracted from the device, how long it may be retained for, and what will happen to any irrelevant material found on the device.
We are aware of the impact that requests for personal information can have on victims of sexual violence, and we believe that individuals should be supported in the process. We are fully committed to giving support to victims of crime, including access to independent sexual violence advisers, who we believe have a role in helping to explain the power to victims; as I have said, we are investing in 700 more of these posts this year.
We are exploring the findings of the sexual violence complainants’ advocate scheme, piloted in Northumbria, as part of the rape review, which will be published shortly. We do not think that chapter 3 of part 2 of this Bill is the right place to address this broader issue about the provision of legal advice to victims and witnesses, given the wider impact across the criminal justice system.
Amendment 115 to schedule 3 seeks to exclude immigration officers from the list of persons authorised to carry out a digital extraction. Immigration officers play a vital role in protecting vulnerable people, particularly those who may be victims of trafficking, and it is important that they are able to obtain information that may be vital in those and other investigations. The power in schedule 3 ensures that all authorities extract information in a consistent way, and put the needs and privacy of the user at the forefront of any request. Any person being asked to provide a device will be made aware of their rights, including their right to refuse.
The hon. Member for Rotherham asked about a parliamentary question that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Croydon South, answered. I am told that mobile phones are seized under statutory powers where there is a reasonable belief that evidence of a criminal offence will be found. The subsequent examination of the device will be conducted in forensic conditions, and in such a way as to target only the relevant material. The handset will be retained for as long as is required to support any criminal proceedings before being returned to the owner.
Finally, there is also a Government amendment in this group: amendment 63, which ensures that the definition of the common council of the City of London is used consistently throughout the Bill. The City of London Corporation has both public and private functions, and it is therefore appropriate that public legislation applies to the corporation only in respect of its public functions. Government amendment 63 provides that the reference to the common council relates to
“its capacity as a local authority”,
which brings clause 37 into line with other provisions in the Bill referencing the common council.
To sum up, this is the first time that a clear and consistent approach to the extraction of information from digital devices with the device user’s agreement has been written into primary legislation. The provisions remove legal ambiguity around the practice and, for the first time, enshrine the protections and safeguards that authorised persons must adhere to when exercising that power. It is a significant step forward in driving a consistent approach across the Union for the law enforcement authorities that exercise these powers, and for victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system. Of course, there is more to do outside the Bill in a range of areas, but we are committed to working with victims and survivors and with charities and commissioners to ensure that when implemented, the provisions command the trust and confidence of victims and witnesses. Many of the issues raised in the new clauses can and will be addressed through the code of practice, so I hope that the hon. Member for Croydon Central will feel able to withdraw her amendments and support Government amendment 63 and clauses 36 to 42 standing part of the Bill.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
We all agree on the problems here; we have suggested some solutions and the Minister has explained why she is not convinced. I think it would be hard for the Minister not to agree with quite a lot of what Vera Baird said when giving evidence. We will have to come back to some of those new clauses and decide how we vote at an another time.
Given what the Minister said on three points—first, that she would look at the age issue and the definition of an adult; secondly, that there would be a draft code of practice by Report, and that she would incorporate some of the measures we discussed into that; and thirdly, that the rape review will be published soon, and that in it, the Government are looking at work such as that done in Northumbria, and at police training—I am content not to push the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Application of section 36 to children and adults without capacity
Amendment made: 63, in clause 37, page 31, line 35, after “London” insert
“in its capacity as a local authority”.—(Victoria Atkins.)
This amendment clarifies that the reference in clause 37(11) to the Common Council of the City of London is to the Common Council in its capacity as a local authority.
Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 38 to 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 43
Pre-charge bail
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 95, in schedule 4, page 203, line 33, leave out
“If it is reasonably practicable to do so”
and insert
“Unless there is an exceptional reason not to”.
Amendment 96, in schedule 4, page 203, line 38, at end insert—
“(4AA) If it is reasonably practicable to do so, the investigating officer must consider the personal situation and the needs, as they appear to the investigating officer given all the circumstances of the case, of the alleged victim (if any) of the relevant offence on—
(a) whether any of the conditions that are relevant conditions should be varied under subsection (1), and
(b) if so, what variations should be made to those conditions.”
Amendment 97, in schedule 4, page 203, line 40, at end insert “and (4AA)”.
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
New clause 54—Offence of breach of conditions of pre-charge bail—
“(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is amended as follows.
(2) After Section 37 insert—
“37ZA Offence of breach of conditions of pre-charge bail
(1) Where a person has been arrested and released on pre-charge bail under subsection 37(7), that person commits an offence if they breach any condition attached to that pre-charge bail.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this Section will be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.””
Sarah Jones
The full package of these reforms will be named “Kay’s law” in memory of Kay Richardson, who was murdered by her ex-partner following his release under investigation despite evidence of previous domestic abuse. No conditions were imposed and the police gave Martin the keys back to the home he had shared with Ms Richardson. Martin let himself into the house and waited for Ms Richardson, who was 49, before attacking her with a hammer and strangling her. Kay’s mother Audrey Richardson said:
“They might as well have gone and opened the door for him”.
I think we will all want to keep in mind Kay and her family, and all victims of perpetrators who have caused harmed while on RUI, as in Kay’s case, or while continually in breach of bail conditions.
We are all largely pleased with the provisions on pre-charge bail, in that they reverse what amounted to mistakes made in the 2017 reforms, but it is important, if we want to achieve justice that is fair and efficient, that it comes alongside the Government investing in every part of our criminal justice system and tackling some of the many challenges that it faces.
To set the context, the reforms pursued by the Government in 2015 to 2017 introduced the presumption against the use of pre-charge bail. These reforms also introduced strict time limits on the use of pre-charge bail. They were designed to reduce both the numbers of individuals subject to, and the average duration of, pre-charge bail. That was supposed to address concerns that unconvicted individuals were being subjected to pre-charge bail conditions for long periods of time without due process.
The House of Commons Library says:
“There is no official data about who is released from police custody and how they are released. However, data obtained from various freedom of information requests suggest that the number of suspects released on pre-charge bail fell substantially following the 2017 reforms.”
The use of RUI
“increased rapidly as a result.”
A BBC investigation found that in one three-month period, 12 forces released more than 3,000 suspects of violent crime, murder, rape and sexual offences. Officers use RUI when they want more time to gather evidence and when the preconditions for pre-charge bail have not been met. There is no requirement for RUI suspects to report to the police, and the police have no power to place conditions on their movements or activities—although some RUI suspects will voluntarily attend further questioning at the request of the police. There are no time limits within which officers must conclude their investigations against RUI suspects and the police are under no obligation to keep them informed about the progress of their investigation.
Many stakeholders from across the criminal justice system have been critical of these 2017 reforms. The use of RUI, particularly in cases involving violent and sexual offences, puts vulnerable victims at risk because pre-charge bail conditions are not imposed on suspects. There are also concerns that the rights of RUI suspects are being undermined. Investigations against RUI suspects, on average, take longer and the police are not required to inform suspects about their progress while investigations are ongoing.
Zoë Billingham of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary said in December 2020, on the police and Crown Prosecution Services’ response to the changes, that the full consequences
“had not been thought through”.
The report said that of 140 cases examined, in 62 cases a suspect was released under investigation when bail with restrictions should have been used. The inspector said:
“These cases included domestic abuse, sexual offences and offences against children—serious crimes. This is extremely worrying, especially for the victims in these cases, who had no bail conditions in place to keep them safe.”
The report found one case where a suspected paedophile was arrested and, after three months, the bail restrictions lapsed. This was because delays in getting digital evidence from the suspect’s devices meant police feared they would fall short of meeting the threshold to get bail extended. The report also raised particular concerns about domestic abuse cases. Billingham said:
“It has a profound effect on victims’ confidence that they are being taken seriously and staying with cases that can drag on for months and years.”
We welcome the changes, but have suggested some amendments; I will talk about amendment 95 first. Part 3 of schedule 4 would impose a duty on officers to seek the victim’s views on whether pre-charge bail or street bail should be applied, and their views on what conditions should be attached, when it is reasonably practical to do so. Amendment 95 simply strengthens that wording, so that the views of victims must be sought by the investigating officer when setting pre-charge bail conditions, not
“if it is reasonably practical to do so”,
but unless there is an exceptional reason not to do so; it tilts the balance in favour of seeking the views of a victim. It is vital that there be greater consideration of the needs of the victim in setting bail conditions, to protect them and ensure that they are able to continue through the criminal justice process safely and with full confidence.
Amendments 96 and 97 would ensure that the personal situation and needs of the victim, as well as all the circumstances, are taken into account to ensure that any variations necessary to the conditions can be put in place to protect the victim. The needs and situation of the victims must be taken into account when setting pre-charge bail.
It has, sadly, often been the case that victims—largely female victims of rape, domestic abuse or sexual exploitation—are hesitant to provide complete evidence of their personal situation or needs due to fear that the perpetrator will find out and put them, or their family, at risk. It is not right that victims do not feel that the police can protect them enough. Pre-charge bail can be broken and, as this is not a specific criminal offence, the custody clock can currently be run down by continuous breaches of pre-charge bail conditions.
I will talk about the measures in the specific context of domestic abuse, which represents one third of violent crime recorded by the police, and approximately one fifth of all adult homicides—half of all adult homicides when the victim is female. It affected 2.3 million adults in the last year. The criminal justice system still has a long way to go in bringing perpetrators to justice and in providing a consistently good response for domestic abuse survivors.
Over the past couple of years, there has been a notable decline in the number of offences prosecuted by the CPS relating to domestic abuse, despite there being no reduction in prevalence and an increase in offences recorded by the police. Between April 2014 and March 2020, the annual number of domestic abuse-flagged cases referred to the CPS by the police fell by 37%, with similar declines in prosecutions and convictions. In the year ending March 2020, only 9% of domestic abuse-related crimes recorded by the police led to a charge or summons, and the CPS convicted 47,000 domestic abuse cases, compared to 758,000 police-recorded offences relating to domestic abuse.
As incidents of domestic abuse often take place in private, the complainant may be the only witness. CPS guidelines for prosecutors state that:
“Giving evidence may be very difficult for them, or may cause additional difficulties (for example, fear of reprisals; safety of their children; increased family pressures or serious financial repercussions; fear of being 'outed'; fear of a lack of support by the criminal justice system, or specialist support organisations; or, an emotional attachment or loyalty towards the defendant), leading to uncertainty about the course of action they should take.”
Sarah Champion
I support the amendments that my hon. Friend is putting forward, because the intention is to put the victim at the absolute centre of all of this. Does she agree that we also need the resources to enable the police to back that up, and to enable the voluntary sector and social workers to put in place the support that she is talking about?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Nearly 5,000 women are turned away from refuges each year, because the support just is not there and so much provision has been taken away. That applies across all kinds of different aspects of the support that should be in place.
It is well known that separation and reporting to police are periods of heightened risk in abusive relationships, and the effectiveness of bail conditions can be critical. The Centre for Women’s Justice has said that it hears from frontline women’s services that breaches of bail are extremely common, and that women often cease to report them once they find that nothing is done by the police after their initial reports. Some victims withdraw support for prosecution in such situations and sometimes disengage from the domestic abuse service. In its briefing, the Centre for Women’s Justice says that
“in the worst case scenarios women feel so unprotected that they reconcile with suspects and return to abusive relationships, because the separation has increased the dangers they face in the short term. As the only power available to police following a breach of pre-charge bail is to arrest the suspect and release him again on bail, officers sometimes say there is nothing they can do. Police often don’t contact a victim until some time has passed since the reported breach, and many breaches are by phone or electronic communications. In these situations there is little purpose in arresting and releasing the suspect on bail again, and it is understandable that officers take no action.”
New clause 54 has been tabled to probe the Minister and to seek some clarifications and assurances on a number of problems that the police deal with and that have been brought to my attention by several police organisations. New clause 54 would make a breach of any condition of pre-charge bail, such as not being allowed to go to someone’s house, to turn up at the school gates or to visit a certain restaurant, a criminal offence. That would prevent the custody clock being run down by purposeful breaches of bail, and it would particularly protect victims in domestic abuse cases, so that abusers are less likely to breach conditions by returning to the home of the victim. If the enforcement around breach of bail could be strengthened, it would likely drive down the number of offenders who breach bail conditions, and it would allow the police to focus on the worst offenders. It is a straightforward amendment, which was drafted with victims in mind but was recommended to us, as I say, by senior members of the police.
The Police Superintendents Association has spoken to us about making the breach of pre-charge bail conditions a stand-alone criminal offence. Paul Griffiths was clear about this in the evidence session. He said that the PSA has concerns about breach of police bail and that
“bail conditions are imposed and then suspects continue to breach those bails. Of course, those bail conditions would be there to protect victims or even the wider public. It could be extremely useful to us for that to be an offence in its own right. I note that there is an introduction to prevent the start of the custody clock, which was another risk that we thought may come from somebody who would consistently breach their bail, risking an impact on the investigation custody time limits for other aspects for which they were under investigation. The Bill suggests that three hours is sufficient to deal with that breach of bail, and that seems appropriate, but it could be beneficial to the police service for that to be an offence in its own right in terms of processing individuals for such breaches.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 30-31, Q45.]
Could the Minister give us her views on that opinion and on the problem that we are seeking to overcome?
I appreciate that part 5 of schedule 4 would make amendments to the functions of the PACE clock, as it would suspend a detention clock for three hours when someone is arrested for failure to comply with bail. The amendments are supposed to prevent suspects from running down their PACE clock by repeatedly breaching bail. However, the view of many senior police whom I have met is that it is not long enough and that they would prefer the breach of pre-charge bail conditions to be a separate offence. I am aware that the Minister might say that to make the breach of pre-charge bail conditions a stand-alone offence could create an imbalance whereby the breach of post-charge bail conditions is not a stand-alone criminal offence, but I would appreciate her giving her views on how we can tackle this issue.
The Centre for Women’s Justice had a slightly different proposal, which is a two-stage process whereby a breach of bail conditions triggers a presumption that the police will impose a domestic abuse protection notice and apply for a domestic abuse protection order. Once the order is in place, a further breach would be a criminal offence, so it creates a “two strikes and you’re out” process. Perhaps the Minister will give us her view on that.
I reiterate that we very much welcome these much-needed reforms to pre-charge bail. Can the Minister talk us through what plans the Government have to monitor the changes to ensure they are effective and how they will ensure that the data on how each police force deals with suspects after they have been released from custody is clear and can be sufficiently reviewed so that victims across the country can be better protected?
Sarah Champion
I am in the unusual position of having found out that things were going wrong with pre-charge bail at the same time that the Minister did. We were both in Rotherham with the National Crime Agency, to learn more about how it was investigating past cases of child sexual exploitation. There was a throwaway line by the officer about how things had got a lot more complicated since pre-charge bail was brought in through the Police and Crime Act 2017, and I have to say that I did not know anything about it.
Pre-charge bail does exactly what it says. Before 2017, the police were able to put in place restrictions on a person before they were charged, such as “You cannot leave the country” or “You cannot go within 100 yards of the victim.” This is really important in a place such as Rotherham, because the victims—the survivors—and the perpetrators are sometimes both still living on the same street, or their children may still be going to the same school, but also because a number of the perpetrators are dual nationality and there is a flight risk. The problem the police had was that there was a window of 28 days during which they had to make the charge, and with child abuse cases, particularly past child abuse cases, it can take months if not years to gather all of the evidence they need to make that charge. We found in Rotherham that the police were having to sit on their hands and hope that the perpetrator did not either flee or—as unfortunately happened in a number of well-documented cases—engage in intimidation. There was a lot of intimidation of victims and witnesses because the police were not, for example, able to put distance restrictions on the then alleged perpetrators.
I really welcome that these restrictions are back. I do not want to reflect on the omission in the intervening years—the fact that they were not in place. I am grateful that the police were creative and used release under investigation, because that was really all that they had, but it was not good enough, and it is not good enough. I am proud to support my hon. Friend’s amendments on this topic, which I think strengthen the Bill and make it even more victim-centred. However, I thank the Minister for listening to the women of Rotherham, the National Crime Agency, and all the other forces up and down the country. These events demonstrate to me that we make legislation with the best of intentions, but sometimes the unintended consequences are severe, so I am grateful that the Government have recognised that mistake and redressed it through this Bill.
What I would say, though—I have to say something, Minister—is that child abuse cases and many sexual offence cases are, by necessity, resource-heavy. If she can do more to put resources within the reach of officers so that they can speed up these cases as much as possible in order to eliminate the ongoing trauma that survivors go through, that would be deeply appreciated.
Victoria Atkins
Before I explain the clauses, we should remind ourselves why the 2017 Act was passed. Colleagues may remember that in the first half of the past decade, there were several very high-profile investigations into very serious allegations of child sexual abuse and exploitation. There was an understanding that in some cases—not all—we had to look at bail conditions and so on to ensure that these complex investigations were carried out as efficiently and quickly as possible. That was the driving sentiment behind the 2017 legislation. We have listened to the police and to victims and survivors and charities that work with them. We want to improve the efficiency of the pre-charge bail system and encourage the use of bail where necessary and proportionate.
The hon. Member for Croydon Central explained the background to this clause and schedule and its reference to Kay Richardson, whose murder has already been described. When we scrutinised the Domestic Abuse Bill, I said that the experiences of individual victims and their families were behind many of the measures introduced to improve court processes, for example, and to help with services and refuges. This is such an example. Colleagues will understand that we wanted to take time to work through the measures in this Bill and this schedule in order to ensure they were as effective as possible in helping victims. It could not be included in the Domestic Abuse Bill, but I am pleased it is in this Bill.
The motivation behind Kay’s law is to provide better protection for victims through the anticipated increased use of pre-charge bail and to refocus the system, with victims at its heart. The hon. Lady’s amendments and new clause allow us to discuss two significant elements of this reform package: the duty to seek views from alleged victims on pre-charge bail conditions and the consequences for a suspect who breaches those conditions.
As with other measures in the Bill, our reforms to pre-charge bail put victims at the centre of the changes we are making, to help ensure that they are better protected and involved in decisions that affect them. The views of victims on bail conditions and how these can best safeguard them are vital to enable the police to build a full picture of all the relevant circumstances.
I hope we can all agree that this must be balanced against the need for operational flexibility within policing and the need to balance victims’ rights against those of the suspect. While I would expect officers to seek the views of victims in the vast majority of pre-charge bail cases, that may not always be practicable. For a variety of reasons, a victim may be uncontactable by the police. The duties imposed by the legislation must be proportionate within the investigation. It would not be right, and could be disproportionate, to require officers to hold a suspect in custody longer than appropriate until that contact is made. The current wording goes far enough to ensure that the duty is followed in all cases where it is practical to contact the victim.
We are not of the view that the Bill should be amended to require that officers discharge this duty in every case, unless there are exceptional circumstances. We need this change to work in practice for the benefit of victims and the wider public. I make it very clear that this is the expectation within this legislation, but we have to reflect operational practicalities and the balancing act of ensuring the rights of both victims and suspects.
Amendments 96 and 97 seek to provide that the personal circumstances of the victim are taken into account where bail conditions are varied. I agree with this view but believe that the drafting of the Bill as is, coupled with the current legislation in this area, already provides for this. When imposing or varying conditions, custody officers must take into account a number of considerations, including the need to ensure that the suspect does not interfere with witnesses or obstruct the course of justice, and that will include consideration of the victim’s circumstances and needs. The duty set out in the Bill also requires further consideration by the investigating officer to determine which of the bail conditions are relevant conditions—conditions that relate to safeguarding the victim. I anticipate that that will also require consideration of the victim’s personal circumstances and needs as part of this overall assessment.
Finally in this group, new clause 54 aims to create a criminal offence of breach of pre-charge bail conditions. I understand that there is a long-held concern about the sanctions available when a suspect on pre-charge bail breaches their bail conditions. We should remember that officers will, in the first instance, consider whether the behaviour or actions that breached the conditions amount to a separate offence, such as harassment or intimidation. Equally, there are civil orders that can be put in place, breaches of which constitute an offence. I am thinking of a sexual risk order, a stalking protection order and when in due course they are piloted, the new domestic abuse protection orders. I also have concerns around creating an offence without an understanding of the number of people that it would be likely to affect. I am pleased to say that data collection in this area is being improved, but we do not yet have a full picture of what the effects of such an offence are likely to be on suspects, victims and the wider criminal justice system.
To support the increased data collection around breaches, the Bill includes provision for a pause on the detention clock following arrest for breach of conditions to encourage the police to arrest in those instances. The issues raised by the amendments are all ones that we would expect the College of Policing to address in the statutory guidance provided for in the new section 50(b) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In the longer term, across the board of Home Office policy, we will keep under review the case for any additional sanction where pre-charge bail conditions are breached as the reforms provided for in the Bill settle in and we have better data on which to make a decision. For now, however, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 43, accordingly, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr McCabe. The Opposition have an opportunity to respond to the Minister about whether to withdraw the new clause.
The Chair
I think you are just one step ahead of me, Mr Cunningham. We now come to amendments 95 to 97 for schedule 4, which have already been debated. Do you wish to press the amendments?
Sarah Jones
I will not press the amendments on the basis of what the Minister said on those ones. I was also pleased to hear that there is going to be better data gathering—she might come to that in a minute, I am not sure—on whether it should be a separate offence. I understand the point that we need more data about what is happening before we take a view on that. I therefore ask that the Minister keep an eye on that situation as the data emerges and keep an eye on the fact that the police are concerned about that.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 44
Arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 37—Retrial for child sexual offences—
“(1) Schedule 5 of The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph 14, insert—
‘Sexual assault of a child under 13
14A An offence under section 7 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.’
(3) In paragraph 15, leave out from ‘where’ to the end of the paragraph.
(4) After paragraph 15, insert—
‘Sexual activity with a child
15A An offence under section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity
15B An offence under section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
Indecent assault against a child under 16
15C An offence under section 14 or 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 where it is alleged that the assault was against a child under 16 by a person over 18.’”
New clause 39—Aggravated child sexual offences—
“(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended in accordance with this section.
(2) In section 14—
(a) in subsection (4), at the beginning, insert ‘Subject to subsection (5),’; and
(b) after subsection (4), insert—
‘(5) If one or more of the following applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life—
(a) the child has a mental impairment at the time of the offence;
(b) the child is subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in connection with the offence;
(c) the child dies as a result of physical harm suffered in connection with the offence;
(d) as a consequence of the offence the child is forced to engage in sexual activity with another child;
(e) as a consequence of the offence the child is forced to engage in sexual activity with a family member;
(f) more than 500 pounds were paid in aggregate for the commission of the offence or related offences.’
(3) In section 48—
(a) in subsection (2), at the beginning, insert ‘Subject to subsection (3),’; and
(b) after subsection (2), insert—
‘(3) If one or more of the following applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life—
(a) the child has a mental impairment at the time of the offence;
(b) the child is subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in connection with the offence;
(c) the child dies as a result of physical harm suffered in connection with the offence;
(d) as a consequence of the offence the child is forced to engage in sexual activity with another child;
(e) as a consequence of the offence the child is forced to engage in sexual activity with a family member;
(f) more than 500 pounds were paid in aggregate for the commission of the offence or related offences.’”
New clause 40—Communication for the purpose of causing or inciting sexual exploitation of a child—
“(none) Section 48 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Causing or inciting sexual exploitation of a child) is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (1)—
‘(1A) A person commits an offence if he communicates with another person, whether in person or remotely via electronic communication through the internet or other telecommunications, for the purpose of committing an offence under subsection (1), regardless of whether the sexual exploitation takes place.’”
New clause 41—Causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity—
“(1) Section 8 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity) is amended in accordance with sections (2) and (3).
(2) In paragraph (1)(a), leave out ‘to engage in an activity’ and insert ‘, having communicated with B by any means, to engage in an activity in any part of the world’.
(3) After subsection (1), insert—
‘(1A) For the purposes of this section “by any means” includes, but is not limited to—
(a) in person, and
(b) remotely via electronic communication through the internet or other telecommunications.’”
Sarah Champion
I will start with new clause 37 on extending double jeopardy. I start with a quote from Dean Radford in the Metro in 2019,
“Like many young boys who grew up with a dream of becoming a footballer, the sport was my whole life. It was the be-all and end-all. I didn’t even want to think about not being offered a contract. That dream looked like it could become reality when I made it to Southampton Football Club at 13 years old. They had produced some of my favourite football heroes and I was given the amazing opportunity to train with boys like myself, who wanted to be the next big thing in football. All of this came to a halt when I was subjected to sexual abuse at the hands of a coach I trusted and looked up to.”
In the 1980s, Radford was one of six boys allegedly abused by their football coach and scout Bob Higgins at Southampton football club. Higgins was acquitted of all charges in the ’90s and continued in same line of work. In 2016 the football abuse scandal rightly erupted, and more than 100 people came forward in relation to Higgins. Higgins was convicted of 45 counts of indecent assault involving 23 victims over a period from 1971 to 1996.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 sets out exceptions to the law of double jeopardy if the offences are considered “severe” or “serious”. Murder, kidnapping, serious drug offences, serious criminal damage offences, and penetrative child sex offences all come under that definition. The schedule does not exempt any offences relating to non-penetrative sexual assault or sexual activity with a child. Due to double jeopardy exemptions not applying in sexual assault or indecent assault, the original six complainants against Higgins from the 1990s were prevented from having their case reheard. I find it shocking that the law does not deem non-penetrative child abuse as serious or severe enough for retrial.
The Government is right to acknowledge that extending the list of qualifying offences is not something to be undertaken lightly, but any form of child sexual abuse, whether it involves penetration or not, should be considered a serious or severe offence. Survivors do not differentiate between the severity of different forms of sexual abuse; they do not have a hierarchy. They judge it by the impact on their lives, which tends to be both devastating and lifelong. Abuse of a child should be the very definition of a serious crime, regardless of whether penetration has taken place. I return to the quote from Dean Radford in 2019. He says:
“even though Higgins is in jail right now, he spends no time in his cell for the abuse he [allegedly] subjected us to. He sits in jail knowing he got away with it when it comes to us. He took away years of my childhood and ruined my adult life, without paying any consequences for it. There isn’t one day that I don’t feel sick to the stomach, or sleep through one night without waking up and thinking of what he did to me.”
New clause 37 would amend schedule 5 to the Criminal Justice Act to include child sex offences set out in sections 7 to 10 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and sections 14 and 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Will the Government at the very least commit to a review of the law in this area? It has been 20 years since the Law Commission conducted such a review. The proposed changes to the double jeopardy laws have received widespread support, including from the Victims’ Commissioner, the all-party parliamentary group for adult survivors of child sexual abuse, and over 15,000 people who have signed a change.org petition.
The case of Dean Radford, who was abused by Bob Higgins, is just one that devalues the fairness that should exist in our criminal justice system. Higgins was convicted of abusing a total of 24 boys, but the police, Crown Prosecution Service and clearly the criminal jury and judge appreciated the veracity and importance of Radford’s evidence, because as he was a witness at Higgins’ trial in respect of the abuse—but he did not get the conviction in relation to Higgins’ abuse of him.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. My constituent Ian Ackley was also abused, by Barry Bennell. He was one of the first whistleblowers on the sexual abuse of young men by football coaches, but because he was one of the first, he did not get the support that others got subsequently. As a result, he was encouraged to allow certain offences not to be pursued as much as he would have liked. Does she think that, with additional support, that would change—and how does that relate to her new clause?
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend knows that I have the great privilege of knowing and working with Ian. He is a remarkable survivor, who does everything he can both to prevent and to seek justice for child abuse. The problem in a lot of these cases is that the abuse happened in the past. As technology has moved forward—in the use of DNA, for example—the evidence available now will be so comprehensively different from that available to those brave enough and successful enough to try to get a case to court in, say, the ’70s or ’80s, that not to allow double jeopardy in the case of child abuse seems a really poor and morally reprehensible decision. We have the opportunity to change that now for these specific cases.
As I said, the last review into double jeopardy was conducted 20 years ago by the Law Commission. Since then, the disclosure in 2017 of abuse by Jimmy Savile and in 2016 of abuse within football, and disclosures in other parts of society have changed the societal landscape so radically that I ask the Minister to consider at the very least initiating such a review.
I will end with a question that I put to the Victims’ Commissioner:
“Non-penetrative child abuse offences are not seen as serious crime; therefore, they do not fall under the double jeopardy rule. Should they be?”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2021; c. 113, Q178.]
Her answer, in a word, was yes. I urge the Minister, if she will not accept the new clause, to consider a review into this important topic, which is widely supported by the public and a number of bodies.
I will now speak to new clauses 39, 40 and 41 together, while giving a little bit more detail on each one. They all relate to online sexual abuse of children. It might seem silly to say, but people seem to see online abuse as not as severe as abuse in a room, which is nonsense, because online abuse is a child being abused; they are just not in the same room as the abuser. I have to put a health warning on some of the examples that I will give, but I need to give them to explain. Hopefully no one in this room has any knowledge about what is going on out there on the internet, but unfortunately some of us work in this field and so do know. It is pretty chilling, hence my earlier attempt to put “trauma” into the police covenant.
I have worked really closely on these new clauses with the International Justice Mission, which is a fantastic organisation.
Sarah Champion
The Minister is nodding. The IJM is leading the way in working collaboratively with international justice departments, police departments and local voluntary organisations around the world. It gave me one example from its recent work in the Philippines, where it has been spending a lot of time. Recently, Philippines police rescued a three-month-old baby in an operation to free children from online sexual exploitation, and weeks later they brought a two-year-old to safety. This is what we are talking about when we talk about online abuse.
The International Justice Mission reports that children it has helped to rescue have been abused by family members. It has been supporting children who have, for example, contracted sexually transmitted diseases as a result of their abuse. Online sexual exploitation includes creating, possessing or distributing child sexual exploitation material such as photos or videos. Traffickers livestream the exploitation to satisfy the online demand of child sex offenders paying to direct the abuse in real time. That crime has been growing internationally, particularly during the covid pandemic, as online offenders have been at home with greater access to the internet and with fewer eyes on them, while victims have been locked into the same environment as their traffickers.
The National Crime Agency has stated its belief that the UK is the world’s third largest consumer of livestreamed abuse. That means that people here are sat in their homes directing the abuse of a child in another country. We must strengthen our criminal legal framework for apprehending those offenders in the UK. They may not physically not carry out the act, but they are directing it, and as far as I am concerned, that is as good as.
The International Justice Mission research shows a trend of relatively lenient sentencing for sex offenders in the UK convicted of abusing children in the Philippines, for example. Offenders serve on average only two years and four months in prison, even though they spent several years and thousands of pounds directing the sexual abuse of children. Those sentences do not represent justice for the survivors and, probably just as important, they do not deter the perpetrators. Prevention is vital, but a framework must be in place to give law enforcement the tools they need to act effectively.
I welcome some of the changes in the Bill, which will really help to deal with the problem, including clause 44 and the positive shifts on sentencing for those convicted of arranging or facilitating sexual abuse. We could go further simply by including online offences.
Sarah Jones
I cannot really argue with the points my hon. Friend makes, which seem completely correct. At the bottom of my road was the Shirley Oaks home, which was the scene of massively severe child abuse decades ago. Victims are still coming forward and being compensated for it. The internet now makes it possible for huge numbers of people to be involved in that kind of awful activity, so it is even more important not only that we catch up and stop seeing online offences as different criminal offences, but that we ensure that our response to that crime and our sentencing are such that we can stem the tide. We need to go even further, because that kind of abuse is so widely available that perpetrators can abuse children in any country around the world.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend makes absolutely the right point. I am talking about UK offenders abusing children internationally, but hon. Members, particularly the Minister, will also be very aware of the rapid escalation of abuse of UK children through online means.
I remember when I first started to research the issue. Simon Bailey, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for child protection, said, “Sarah, what you need to understand is that when a family is sat down watching ‘Antiques Roadshow’ on a Sunday night, and the six-year-old is there playing on their iPad, they could be being groomed and abused in the same room as the parents, and the parents just don’t understand that.” It always chills me. If I may deviate very slightly, Chair, it frustrates me enormously that the Government’s legislation for mandatory relationship education for all children from primary school age, which should have been introduced in September, still has not been brought forward. We have to address that because covid has really escalated the abuse faced by children in this country and internationally.