Victims and Prisoners Bill
Monday 15th May 2023
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Some years ago, shortly before I entered Parliament, I was stood in the Crown court at Birmingham, having been instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute five men accused of rape. It was alleged that they had groomed two young girls from Telford aged 15 and 16 and abducted them to Birmingham, where they subjected them to a weekend of degrading and humiliating sexual attacks, offering them up to their friends to do with as they pleased. What made the case even more chilling was that it was clear that the victims had been targeted because of their troubled backgrounds and sometimes challenging behaviour when interacting with authority figures such as the police. The defendants had made a cynical calculation that, if the girls ever did complain, they were unlikely to be believed. Well, they were believed. The jury got the measure of what had really gone on. After a fair trial, presided over by an independent judge, the defendants were all convicted of rape, robust sentences were passed and justice was done.
I mention that at the beginning of this Second Reading debate because it provided me, and I hope now the House, with a powerful example of how supporting victims can make a decisive impact on outcomes. In that case, it was only because all the moving parts of the system came together to support those vulnerable girls to give their best evidence that a just outcome was delivered: conscientious police officers liaised sensitively with the young women to help them record their accounts; compassionate CPS lawyers and caseworkers applied for special measures to assist the victims to give evidence in court; and victim support staff worked hard during the tense days of the trial to assist victims with information and updates.
Here is the central point: all those agencies recognised that, in order to deliver justice, victims must be treated not as mere spectators of the criminal justice system, but as core participants in it. That is the mission of this Government and of this Bill. It will boost victims’ entitlements; make victims’ voices heard, including following a major incident like the tragedy of Grenfell or Hillsborough; and deliver further safeguards to protect the public.
As the House will know, my predecessor met brave victims such as: little Tony Hudgell, who was so badly abused by his birth parents that he almost died; Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger, whose two-year-old son James’s murder shocked the nation; and Farah Naz, the aunt of Zara Aleena, who was tragically sexually assaulted and murdered last year. I want to pay tribute to them. Through their personal grief they have, none the less, found the strength to strengthen the system for others. We owe them a profound debt of gratitude. Their pain and their anguish spurs us on to strengthen public protection and to make sure every victim of crime is properly supported.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for introducing the Bill. As an MP, I have heard so many complaints from victims that no one is listening to them. Can he assure me that victims really will come first in the Bill?
Alex Chalk
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. That is exactly the point. If victims are to be not spectators but participants, from the moment of complaint they must be listened to by the officer on the case, the CPS prosecutor and the prosecutor at court. Being listened to is a critical part of victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Alex Chalk
Can I just make a bit of progress?
Before I return to the key elements I mentioned a few moments ago, I want to set out a little context. Hugely important work has taken place over recent years—this may perhaps answer some of the hon. Lady’s questions—to ensure that many of the standards achieved for those victims in Birmingham are now demanded as a matter of course. What it means in simple terms is this: no longer is it considered perfectly normal for a victim of a violent robbery to report their statement to the police, only to hear nothing until a curt instruction out of the blue to attend trial in a week’s time. The 2020 victims code requires that they be kept updated. Gone are the days when it was thought completely reasonable for a victim to arrive at court, give evidence and then have to rely on the media to find out whether the defendant had been convicted. The 2020 code requires that they are told the outcome of the case and given an explanation of the sentence if the defendant is convicted.
Alex Chalk
I will come to the hon. Lady in one moment.
The revised victims code, published in 2020, contains many additional entitlements. For example, right 7 is a victim’s entitlement to make a personal statement to tell the court how the crime has affected them, so that it can be considered when sentencing the offender; right 8 is the entitlement to be offered appropriate help before the trial and, where possible, to meet the prosecutor before giving evidence; and right 9 is the entitlement to be given information about the outcome of the case and any appeals.
Stephanie Peacock
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. My constituent Johnny Wood feels he has been let down by every part of the justice system after his sister was killed by four men with 100 convictions between them who were driving an HGV lorry. The legislation does not address non-compliance with the victims code, so can the right hon. Gentleman tell Johnny and the House how it will make a meaningful change for victims?
Alex Chalk
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that important case on behalf of her constituent. I will develop those points in due course, but let me make a core point first. We have gone from creating the important victims’ entitlements in the code to wanting to ensure that they have a profile, a prominence and an accountability, so that if things go wrong—and from time to time things will go wrong; that happens in any system—people can be truly held to account, and where agencies are failing that is made plain for all to see.
We have also strengthened the system of special measures, completing a national roll-out of pre-recorded examination and cross-examination for victims of rape and sexual offences. That spares them the ordeal of giving evidence in a live trial and having to stand in the same room as their alleged attacker. Really importantly, there has been the introduction of more independent sexual and domestic abuse advisers. These are specialists trained to support vulnerable victims through the justice process. From just the odd pilot scheme pre-2010, there are now over 700 working up and down the country to support victims, and we are rolling out 300 more. It is all part of an unprecedented investment in victim and witness support services, quadrupling 2010 levels.
That is the context. The difference between a decade ago and now is stark. Following those crucial advances, we are now taking steps to secure the entitlements and raise yet further the standards we expect the criminal justice system to deliver for victims. First, the Bill will enshrine the key principles of the victims code in law and provide a framework for the code in regulations, centred around the 12 key entitlements that victims can expect. That will ensure that the good practice I mentioned earlier, which has taken root in many courts and CPS offices around the country, becomes standard practice. The Bill will give these entitlements the profile, the prominence and the weight they deserve and ensure that they cannot be watered down by future Governments. It will place agencies within the criminal justice system, including chief constables, the CPS, British Transport police and others, under a new duty to make victims aware of the code so that every victim knows what they are entitled to.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about what was enshrined in the code, which he said happened in 2020. In 2021—I have just checked the date on my phone—I found out that somebody had been convicted of harassing and threatening me. I found out about it in The Guardian, so the code was certainly not enshrined in that particular courtroom in Birmingham, which I mention as he is leaning on Birmingham courtrooms. What right would I have in this Bill to any recourse and what would happen to the people who failed to inform me?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Lady should not have found out in a newspaper. She should have been kept updated and informed. If she would like to come to speak to me about that, I will find out what went wrong in that case. On her specific point, what I think is exciting and heartening about the Bill is that it contains a duty on the Secretary of State and police and crime commissioners not just to promote awareness of the code—important though that is—but to promote compliance. If there is not compliance, there is also a duty, effectively, to publish that, so that it is plain for everyone to see. The local PCC will be publishing that, which means that the hon. Lady can get some accountability. I reiterate that if she wants to come to speak to me, she must not hesitate to do so. In fact, knowing her, I know that she would not hesitate to speak.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alex Chalk
Let me make a little progress.
As I indicated, the Bill will make sure that everyone knows what they are entitled to and it sends a clear signal to the system about the service that victims should be receiving. Secondly, as I suggested, the Bill will ensure stronger oversight by placing a new duty on police and crime commissioners and criminal justice bodies to monitor compliance with the code, to provide the public and this Parliament with a clear picture of how victims across the country are being treated. Ministers will have the power to direct the inspection of justice agencies that are failing victims to help drive improvements using best practice from those agencies that are succeeding.
Thirdly, the Bill will place a duty on specific authorities to respond publicly to the recommendations of the Victims’ Commissioner and introduce a requirement for an annual report to be laid before Parliament. That will shine a spotlight on how the system is working and ensure that we have the transparency needed to drive change.
Fourthly, the Bill will provide better support for victims. It will help to ensure that critical support services are targeted where they are most needed by introducing a new joint statutory duty on police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities to co-operate and work together when commissioning support services for victims of domestic and sexual abuse and other serious violent crimes.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. The family of Declan Curran, who tragically took his life, pre-trial, aged just 13, wanted me to stress in this debate the importance of child victims of sexual abuse and their inclusion in clause 2, the victims code, and how they should be able to access comprehensive psychological services without any delay. This must not be seen as interference in the evidence of the trial, with victims’ evidence being recorded at the time of the crime. Will that be fully included in the Bill without delay?
Alex Chalk
It is incredibly important that child victims receive the support that they need, and that should not be a bar to their giving a video-recorded piece of evidence, for example, so that they can participate in that trial as well. I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the particulars. The general principle is this: if child victims, who are victims within the ambit of the Bill, need that support, they should get it.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Can the Lord Chancellor provide the House with slightly more detail on the commissioning functions? He has rightly touched on police and crime commissioners, ICBs, the duty of care and the duty of co-operation. In many walks of life, that co-operation completely fails and, basically, victims are on the receiving end of institutional state failure. It would give the House some confidence if he were able to explain how this will work.
Alex Chalk
I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend for her stalwart commitment to the rights of victims. I venture to suggest that no one in this House has done more to stand up for victims. She is absolutely right; there are plenty of organisations who have a duty in that regard—police and crime commissioners are one, but there are plenty of other providers. We want to ensure that the duty of co-operation means that there will not be duplication in some areas and deserts, as it were, in others. The aim is to ensure that across the piece, if someone needs to make sure that there is sufficient support for rape victims, for example, that that support is provided and there is no potential duplication between what the hospital might be doing and what the PCC might be doing. That is a statutory requirement to co-operate—not a “nice to have”, but a direct requirement. That is the difference.
I have already spoken about the importance of ISVAs and IDVAs. They do exceptional work, and we want to strengthen their role further by introducing national guidance to increase awareness of what they do and to promote consistency.
I can also tell the House that we will bring forward an amendment in Committee to block unnecessary and intrusive third party material requests in rape and sexual assault investigations. I know that routine police requests for therapy notes or other personal records can be incredibly distressing for victims, who can feel as though they are the ones under scrutiny. Some may even be deterred from seeking support for fear of their personal records being shared. Our Bill will make sure that those requests are made only when strictly necessary for the purposes of a fair trial.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Many of us welcomed this Bill and hoped it would transform and revolutionise the response, but it fails in several areas. We have heard about the duty of co-operation and collaboration, but there is to be no new funding to allow that to happen and to allow duty holders to commission new services to make the collaboration effective. How would the Government overcome that, and will they consider doing that in future?
Alex Chalk
I welcome the hon. Lady’s overall enthusiasm for the Bill. On that specific point, one of the things I am proud of is that funding for victim services has quadrupled over the past 13 years or so. It is a very significant increase. The money that goes to PCCs, for example, has significantly increased—I think it is more than £60 million or so—but there is additional money that goes directly to charities, such as the Gloucestershire Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre in my own constituency, which is directly funded. That funding has increased.
By the way, I should also note that during covid, when people were genuinely worried that those victim support services might fall over and collapse, the funding went in to sustain them during those very dark times. There is more money, and that is precisely why we want the duty of collaboration to ensure that those taxpayer pounds go as far as they can.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the measures he has brought through on third party disclosures. Could he, though, give a message to the survivors in my constituency and across the country who have been deterred from coming forward by that knowledge, and to those whose cases have collapsed because of their fear of that information getting into the public domain? What message does he have for them?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Lady does an important public service in raising that point and I thank her for doing so. Let the message go out from this Chamber: “Do not be put off coming forward, giving your evidence and reporting allegations of serious sexual harm because of concerns about therapy notes. Get the therapy support that you need.” I want that message to go out loud and clear.
We are going to change the law to make it crystal clear that there will be no routine access to therapy notes; there will be access only when it is absolutely necessary and proportionate, and not by the defence, but principally in the very rare circumstances where a prosecutor needs to look at it. The message goes out that victims should come forward and co-operate with the criminal justice system, if they can.
Part 2 of the Bill provides better support for victims and the bereaved after major disasters such as terror attacks. The House will recall the awful events at Hillsborough and the most recent fire at Grenfell Tower, as well as the Manchester Arena bombing. The impact of those terrible tragedies is still felt to this day, especially by the families and friends of the victims. I know there is consensus on both sides of the House that survivors and families of victims caught up in such disasters must be given every support. No one should be left to feel their way in the dark as they grieve.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), the noble Lord Wills and many others for their tireless campaigning on the issue. Indeed, one of the most moving debates that I have ever had the privilege of listening to was one to which the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood contributed on this topic.
The Bill will introduce the UK’s first ever independent public advocate—an advocate to give a voice to those who have too often felt voiceless. The IPA will be a strong advocate for victims, the bereaved and whole communities affected. It will allow us to hear everyone, including those who, in the darkest moments of their grief, may understandably find it impossible to speak up for themselves and their legitimate concerns.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Alex Chalk
I will just develop the point and then of course I will let the right hon. Lady come in.
From the earliest days after a disaster, the IPA will work on behalf of victims. It will be a crucial conduit between them and key public authorities, and it will focus resolutely on what survivors and the bereaved actually need, not just what others in authority might assume they need. The IPA will also help victims and the bereaved to navigate complex processes that most people would find deeply stressful and upsetting, such as investigations, inquests and public inquiries. On a practical level, it will give victims, the bereaved and the affected community a robust way of engaging the public authorities and Government—for example, by asking the coroner or the police for more information about inquests and investigations, or by pressing local government and central Government on their policies for victims.
Maria Eagle
I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman to his new role. I wonder whether he will be open to the idea—from those of us who have been working on this for some time—of strengthening the provisions in the Bill to improve them?
Alex Chalk
In preparation for today’s debate, I read the right hon. Lady’s Bill and have considered it with care. Of course, I am open to further discussions with her; she has lived and breathed this issue for a long time, and it is absolutely right that I consider those points. I think that there are—well, let us leave it at that and discuss those matters in due course.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend to his role as Lord Chancellor. I have been listening very carefully to what he has said in relation to suggestions made in all quarters of this House. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) recently proposed an excellent ten-minute rule Bill calling for tougher rules on the ability of sex offenders to change their names. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Victims and Prisoners Bill is a perfect opportunity to bring in tougher rules, and that they should apply not only to changes of name but to changes of legal sex?
Alex Chalk
There is real and clear merit in what my right hon. Friend says. Plainly, we cannot have a situation in which people can, at the stroke of a pen, evade liability for their abhorrent crimes. I look forward to discussing that important matter with him and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) in due course.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is making a powerful case on the role of a public advocate, which many of us support. We recognise that there may be more than one victim when traumatic events happen, so does he accept that it is right that the Bill also deals with strengthening support? In my community, a 16-year-old boy was murdered 10 days ago. The entire school community is traumatised. Getting them support, and recognising that his friends, as well as his family, are victims in this instance, is critical. Will he meet me and other campaigners to discuss that issue?
Alex Chalk
How could I not? I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady on that important issue.
Let me turn now to the measures on prisoners and parole—part 3 of the Bill. The first duty of any Government is to protect the public, including from those who have betrayed trust, robbed innocence and shattered lives. Victims want to know that the person who has harmed them, their families and friends will not inflict that pain on anyone else. Indeed, I heard that strong message from Denise Fergus when I spoke with her recently. One thing that I found profoundly moving is that, notwithstanding her own private grief, one of her principal motivations is to ensure that others do not suffer in the same way.
Overwhelmingly, the Parole Board does its difficult job well, taking care to scrutinise the cases coming before it for release decisions. Over 99% of prisoners authorised for release by the Parole Board do not go on to commit a so-called serious further offence, but occasionally things go wrong, and when they do, the implications for public confidence can be very grave. John Worboys, the black cab rapist, and Colin Pitchfork, who raped two schoolgirls, were both assessed as being safe to leave prison, only for Colin Pitchfork to have to be recalled shortly afterwards and the Worboys decision to be overturned on appeal. Such cases are rare, but they are unacceptable. The public must have confidence that murderers, rapists and terrorists will be kept behind bars for as long as necessary to keep the public safe.
We have already made changes to improve safety and increase transparency. The most serious offenders now face robust tests to prove they are safe to move into open prisons, and some parole hearings can now take place in public so that victims and the public can see with their own eyes how decisions are made and why.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his well-deserved appointment. My constituents Matt and Carole Gould have campaigned long and hard on the tragic murder of their daughter some years ago. They are concerned that, when the murderer is released from prison after an all too short 12 and a half years, he will be allowed to return to the village he came from and that they will bump into him in the street. Will my right hon. and learned Friend advise me what normal practice would be in keeping murderers away from the victim’s relatives? Is there not an argument that, in rural areas such as mine, the distance should be further than it would perhaps be in an urban area?
Alex Chalk
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that deeply upsetting and troubling case and for liaising with his constituents. Although I do not know the specifics of any licence conditions, it is overwhelmingly likely that those conditions would take into account precisely the point he raises. If family are living nearby, it is usual for licence conditions to indicate an exclusion zone, and that could be expanded to meet issues of justice and safety. Those are matters that the relevant authorities will be taking close cognisance of.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
On parole reform, will the factor determining whether someone is in the top-tier cohort always be the offence or offences committed, or will other factors sometimes be taken into consideration? With regard to top-tier offences, will Ministers have the power to add to or change the list of offences that put someone in the top tier?
Alex Chalk
I will come to those points in a moment, but it is broadly to do with the offences.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Applications can now be made for Parole Board hearings to be held in public, but as Gwynedd resident Rhiannon Bragg learned, they can be refused. She feels strongly that if the hearing for the perpetrator who stalked her and held her at gunpoint overnight was heard in public, it would help her as a victim—she would not face him in a private context, face to face, and the hearing would be covered in the public domain through the press. Will the Minister consider this issue?
Alex Chalk
There is now a power for hearings to be held in public, but it depends on the facts of the individual case. It will be important to weigh up what is in the interests of justice, but that of course also includes what is in the interests of the victim—indeed, that is a pre-eminent consideration. These decisions are necessarily fact-specific, and the Parole Board has to consider them on the facts before it. However, the hon. Lady makes a powerful point, which I am sure the Parole Board will want to take into account in relation to the facts of that particular case.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Alex Chalk
I will make a bit of progress and then I will of course come to the right hon. Gentleman.
As I indicated, the Bill takes steps to strengthen the system further. First, it will make public protection the pre-eminent factor in deciding which prisoners are safe for release, by introducing a codified release test in law. Secondly, it will impose a new safeguard— a new check and balance—in respect of the top tier of the most serious offenders, drawn from murderers, rapists, child killers and terrorists. In those cases where there is a Parole Board recommendation to release a prisoner, the Bill will allow the Secretary of State to intervene on behalf of the public to stay that release and enable Ministers to take a second look. That oversight will act as a further safeguard in the most serious cases that particularly affect public confidence. Plainly, of course, to preserve fairness in the system that ministerial intervention must be amenable to independent review, and the Bill properly safeguards that right.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his well-deserved promotion. I have recently been contacted by a constituent who discovered the murdered bodies of her sister and baby niece. She is a volunteer with a national charity called Support after Murder and Manslaughter. It has given me a list of concerns, which I would like to give to the Minister separately. However, the charity states that the Secretary of State will be able to make this parole decision, which will then be subject to appeal, but the victims will not have a voice at either stage—they will not be able to do impact presentations. Will the Minister look at this point again, because the victims feel that they are being excluded?
Alex Chalk
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that important matter on behalf of his constituents. The interests and rights of victims are absolutely at the heart of this proposal, because—this shone out from a conversation I had only today— some victims who are concerned about whether a prisoner gets released are of course concerned about what has happened to their family, but they are also worried about what might happen to others. That is why having public confidence in the safety consideration is so important. I will be happy to discuss my right hon. Friend’s points with him, but I emphasise that the rights of victims and the protection of the public are at the heart of this important measure.
Mr Carmichael
The volume and nature of the interventions on the Secretary of State show the difficulty of this area of law. While the changes to parole are welcome, is there not a danger that they will increase further the treatment of those who are currently in the system and those who are still in the prison system—somewhere in the region of 3,000 people—more than 10 years after we abolished sentences of imprisonment for public protection? The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who I see in his place, has called for a review. Sir John Major did the same recently. Would this Bill not be an opportunity to deal with that?
Alex Chalk
It is important to consider these things separately, but the right hon. Gentleman identifies something that is a stain on our justice system. The IPP system should never have happened. Trying to take the politics out of it, I sort of understand why it was proposed, but it was a bad idea. It was a big mistake, and it has left us with a difficult issue. I am considering carefully what the Justice Committee has to say about it, and I will be saying more about it in due course. It is important to treat that separately from the position I am talking about here, which is that in those most serious cases where the Parole Board has directed release, it is right that on behalf of the public the Secretary of State should have a second look, even if that is then susceptible to an independent review thereafter. It is a slightly separate issue, but I take the points that he makes.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I am pleased to see my right hon. and learned Friend in his place. On the issue of the powers taken in this Bill for a referral to the Secretary of State, in the Justice Committee we heard evidence of other routes for the Secretary of State to intervene: through reconsideration, which has been in place for four years, and through set aside, which is a power that the Secretary of State has taken more recently. That has the added benefit of including victims within the process. Can he just set out what it is that the Bill is trying to achieve that those routes cannot in ensuring that ministerial oversight?
Alex Chalk
There is a very important distinction. When the Secretary of State considers those most serious cases, he will look at this issue of safety for the public. That is not whether, for example, the Parole Board has acted in such a way as to not be susceptible to judicial review; it is a much wider consideration so that the public can be satisfied not just that the Parole Board considered safety, but that the Secretary of State did, too, and that is an important second check. That matters, because in these most serious cases, public confidence is hanging on the single thread of the Parole Board. We want to make sure that an additional thread goes into that structure, so that the public recognise that there has been that second pair of eyes. Plainly, Ministers cannot over-politicise this process, which is why there must be an opportunity to have an independent review of the Secretary of State’s decision. That will allow us overall to have a much more vigorous and robust process that stands up for victims, but is also mindful of the rule of law.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Robert Neill
I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, whom I warmly welcome to his place, for giving way. Can I just follow up the point made by my fellow Justice Committee member, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson)? There are passages in the Bill where, in carrying out that legitimate policy objective—I do not disagree with the Secretary of State on that legitimacy—in certain circumstances, as it is currently drafted, he may be asked to put his finding of fact and his opinion in the place of that of the parole board that actually heard the evidence. Could I therefore ask him to look very carefully at the evidence the Committee received—it is tagged to the Bill on the Order Paper—and find a more effective way to achieve his objective that is legally robust but fair, but does not place him and his successors in the very difficult position of trying to rehear facts at second hand, as opposed to taking the role of those who heard the initial evidence?
Alex Chalk
May I thank my hon. Friend, and say that I have read every word of that important evidence to the Committee? I thank him for the time he took to provide that additional scrutiny, which I found extremely helpful. He is absolutely right that the check and balance is a sensible one, but plainly it has to be operational. We have to be able to deliver it, and we have to be able to do so in a sufficiently timely fashion, ensuring that a decision is not offending against article 5 and so on, but also that all parties have certainty about what is actually going to happen. I hope he will be reassured by my saying that I am looking very closely at the operational aspects of this provision to ensure that it does what is intended, and provides that check and balance, while being deliverable and of course being consistent with the rule of law. If I may, I will now press on, because I know others want to speak.
Thirdly, we are already recruiting more ex-police officers to the Parole Board. Now we will ensure that individuals with law enforcement backgrounds can be included on panels considering the release of the most serious criminals. Their first-hand experience of assessing risk will bring additional expertise to parole hearings.
This Bill will also prohibit prisoners subject to a whole-life order from being able to marry or form a civil partnership in custody, subject to an exemption in truly exceptional circumstances. The rationale for this is simple. Those most dangerous and cruel criminals—the ones who have shattered lives and robbed others of their chance of happiness and a family life—should not be able to taunt victims and their families by enjoying that for themselves. It is simply unconscionable, yet as the law stands, prison governors cannot reject a prisoner’s application to marry unless it creates a security risk for the prison, however horrific their crime. Our changes will prevent whole-life prisoners from marrying or forming a civil partnership in prison or other places of detention. That is nothing less than basic fairness.
Jess Phillips
I could not agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman more. What I would also ask is that people in that situation, especially those who murder their wife and the mother of their children, should also have their parental rights taken away. Why is that not in the Bill?
Alex Chalk
As the hon. Lady knows, we have discussed these issues at some length in a different context, and she should know that I am ready to continue that conversation.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
This is a really excellent piece of legislation, and I congratulate the Secretary of State and his team on everything they are doing, but I could not miss this opportunity of raising the issue of the intergenerational impact of female imprisonment. As the Lord Chancellor knows, women make up just 4% of the prison population, yet two thirds of them have dependent children. Because they are so few, they are generally placed much further away from home and have much less access to some rehabilitative facilities than their male counterparts. That imprisonment can have a devastating impact on the children, so in many cases the children of women in prisons are victims themselves. There has been some fantastic work across the country by organisations such as Hope Street, run by One Small Thing, which I know the Prisons Minister—the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds)—has recently visited. Does the Secretary of State not feel that this Bill would have been an ideal opportunity to try to address that?
Alex Chalk
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. She mentions Hope Street, and the Nelson Trust, which I have visited, does excellent work in this regard. I think we do always have to remember that the job of Government is to ensure that the decision of the court can be upheld.
In other words, a court will of course consider the evidence from the prosecution at a sentencing hearing about what has taken place, will hear a plea in mitigation about the impact on the defendant of incarceration—including the impact on friends and children, their future and so on—and will then reach a decision based on all those matters about the correct sentence. So while I do not seek to downplay any of the really important points my hon. Friend mentioned, we need to do our bit within the criminal justice system to give effect to the order of the court, but to ensure it is done in a way that is humane and understands that there are family considerations.
We want prisoners to serve their time, but to be rehabilitated, and one of the critical ways of being rehabilitated is to ensure that family relationships endure. That is why there has been so much investment in courts in areas such technology to ensure prisoners can keep in contact with the outside, so that when they leave having repaid their debt to society they are in a position to pick up those important relationships.
In closing, I want to put on record my thanks to all who have helped to shape this Bill, in particular the victims who shared their stories and contributed to our consultation. I also pay tribute to my predecessors my right hon. Friends the Members for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) and for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) for the parts they have played in advancing this Bill.
These measures will help ensure that every victim, from the Telford teenagers I mentioned to the elderly victim of confidence fraud, secures the service from our justice system that they deserve. From the moment of report to the moment of conviction, and indeed beyond if required, victims’ interests must be paramount. That is how justice is done, and I commend this Bill to the House.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his appointment. I am sure all of us, in all parts of the House, wish him well, because victims need him to succeed. That is particularly the case when we realise that every year one in five people in the United Kingdom become a victim of crime: their freedom is assaulted; they are left feeling angry, fearful and sometimes even helpless.
Our system of justice, once a beacon to the world, should give victims of crime the ability to seek redress for what they have suffered. Victims deserve to be at the heart of the criminal justice system. Those who have wronged them deserve to be prosecuted and held to account in open court. Criminals should face punishment for the harm they have done.
Justice is a cornerstone of any modern and democratic society, the very foundation of law and order. Justice demands respect for the rules that govern the fair functioning of our society. But after 13 years of Conservative government, our justice system is broken. The Conservatives have let victims down time and again. Prosecution and charge rates are now so low that it is no exaggeration to say the Conservatives have effectively decriminalised many serious crimes. Only 6% of burglaries and 4% of robberies come to trial. Victims of car crime are told to report incidents online, and only rarely is there ever a police officer to follow up. Fraud is growing exponentially, with online scammers threatening people’s entire life savings, yet the previous Conservative Chancellor dismisses fraud as not an everyday worry.
Most shocking of all is the fact that fewer than two in every 100 reported rapes result in a prosecution and the average wait for a rape trial, for those very few that ever reach court, is now over three years for the first time ever. A three-year wait for a rape trial is devastating for victims, but under this Government three-year waits are the norm, not the exception.
I was contacted by the father of a 16-year-old girl who had been waiting two years for her attacker to face trial. Just four days before the trial was due to begin, his daughter was told it had been postponed for a further nine months. Just imagine how it must feel for a teenage girl who has survived such a horrific crime, and who had the bravery to stand up and report the attack, to then have to wait years and years for her attacker to face justice.
This weekend new research from the Labour party found that delays had become so bad that six out of 10 rape victims now drop their cases. They are left in absolute despair as their attackers remain loose on the streets. While Ministers routinely dismiss the reality of what they have created, the number of outstanding rape cases has almost doubled over the past year alone, and we must remember that over 98% of reported rapes never result in a prosecution anyway. The legacy of this Conservative Government is victims left facing the longest trail delays on record, which is an absolute disgrace.
But the criminal justice crisis extends way beyond the courts. The Government broke the probation system with a botched privatisation followed by a panicked renationalisation. Under the Conservatives, every week on average one murder and two rapes are committed by offenders who are supposed to be under supervision, but the probation service has never recovered from the wrecking ball that the Conservatives took to it. Some parts of the service still carry 40% vacancy rates. Probation officers are not routinely given full information about an offender’s full history when they are asked to risk assess them on release. That was how Jordan McSweeney’s risk rating was so catastrophically mis-assessed before he was released and targeted Zara Aleena in one of the most shocking and brutal murders of recent years.
Victims have a right to believe that offenders convicted in court of crimes that deserve a custodial sentence will be locked up—but they cannot under this Government, because they have run out of prison cells. The previous Justice Secretary wrote to judges telling them to avoid locking convicts up. Inside our prisons, violence and drug abuse are raging out of control. Drug and alcohol use in prisons has skyrocketed by more than 400% since 2010, and staff assaults have more than doubled. Instead of offenders being rehabilitated behind bars—that is what the Secretary of State just said he wants to see—they leave prison fired up by violence and high on drugs, posing an even greater threat to the public. Eight out of 10 crimes are committed by someone who has offended before—those are Ministry of Justice statistics. Under the Conservatives, the broken system is not stopping criminals; it is breeding them. If we do not stop criminals, we create more victims. It is a vicious cycle that leaves the law-abiding majority feeling weak and victims feeling abandoned.
Since 2014, convicted offenders have been sentenced to 16 million hours of unpaid work in community sentences that they were never made to carry out. That is a quite staggering failure. What message do the Government think that sends to offenders and their victims? It says: the system does not care. It tells low level offenders that they can get away with it, so they progress to committing more serious crimes. They have learned that they can get away with crime with no consequences under a Government who have gone soft on criminals. Under this Government, crime is not prevented, criminals are not punished and victims are not protected. No wonder victims feel abandoned when so many crimes, from antisocial behaviour to violent sexual assault, go unpunished.
It is eight years and eight Justice Secretaries since the Conservatives first promised new legislation to support victims. For all of that time, Labour has been telling them to act. Now—finally—we have a Bill, but I am afraid that it is a wasted opportunity because it fails in so many ways to rebalance the scales of justice and make a real difference for victims. The Bill lets down rape survivors. It offers no specialist legal advice or advocacy that will help them to navigate the justice system.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
On the hon. Member’s point about victims of rape who have been let down, does he consider that the Bill could protect child victims of rape from alleged child perpetrators where both the victim and the accused are due to attend the same school?
Steve Reed
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. He makes an important point. That is one of so many important ways in which the Bill could do more for victims. I hope that we will get the chance to make some changes to it and strengthen it as it passes through Committee and during the rest of its journey before it becomes an Act of Parliament.
Labour will table an amendment offering free legal advice for rape survivors. We want to ensure that survivors are supported every single step of the way from first reporting a rape at a police station right through to trial. It cannot be right that so many rape survivors describe their experience in court as so traumatising that it feels like they are the ones who are on trial. Labour has been calling for some time now for the protection of third-party material, such as counselling or therapy records, for rape and sexual violence victims. It is welcome that the Government are proposing some changes on that, but victims want more detail, and we will seek that as the Bill progresses. We need to support victims of crime throughout the justice system if we want to reduce victim dropout rates, which deny them justice and let criminals get away with their crimes.
There has, quite rightly, been a great deal of attention in recent years on victims of state failure that have led to major tragedies: Hillsborough, Grenfell and the Manchester Arena to name just three. Tragically, the Bill lets them down, too. Victims of major tragedies deserve the same legal representation as the authorities that fail them in the first place, but that does not happen, and the Bill does not put it right. Labour stands unequivocally with the families and survivors of those tragedies. Giving them proper legal representation is not only a matter of justice for them but helps the system learn from when went wrong, so that future tragedies can be prevented.
We will table amendments to establish a fully independent legal advocate accountable to families, as the Hillsborough families and campaigners have demanded; an advocate with the power to access documents and data not only to expose the full extent of failure but to prevent the possibility of cover-ups, such as those that denied families justice immediately after Hillsborough.
The Bill also lets down victims of antisocial behaviour. Those crimes can leave communities feeling broken and powerless, and lead to a spiral of social and economic decline that we should not tolerate. Whether it is gangs trashing local buildings, offenders intimidating local residents or selfish individuals dumping their rubbish on local streets and green spaces, we must support the law-abiding majority who deserve to feel proud of where they live.
Sarah Champion
Does my hon. Friend agree that not only does the Bill let down victims of antisocial behaviour, but its definition of a victim actively excludes them?
Steve Reed
As is so frequently the case, my hon. Friend makes an important and apt point. I hope that we will have opportunities to amend the Bill as it passes through Parliament. Victims of antisocial behaviour are victims of crime just as much as anybody else.
Labour wants to support victims of antisocial behaviour so that they can choose their own representatives to sit on community payback boards, where they can choose the unpaid work that offenders carry out to put right the wrong that they have done. Victims need to see justice carried out, as part of a functioning criminal justice system. To end the scandal of so many community sentences never carried out under the Conservatives, we would give victims the power they need to make sure that every sentence handed down by the courts is carried out in the community. Justice seen is justice done.
One of the most damaging experiences for any victim who reports crime is the years spent waiting for that case to come to trial, yet the Bill does nothing to cut the court backlog that warps the justice system under the Conservatives. Cases collapse as witnesses forget key details. Victims give up and criminals get away with it. This Government care so little that they have allowed the court backlog to reach record levels.
Ministers will routinely stand at the Dispatch Box and blame the pandemic, but that is just an attempt to cover up their failure. Court backlogs were already escalating to record levels before anyone had heard of covid-19. If the Government cared, they would do something, but there is nothing in the Bill to speed up justice for victims. Maria is a young woman who was subjected to multiple attacks by a serial rapist. She reported the crimes in March 2019, but had to wait three years and seven months for her case to come to trial. The pressure on her grew so intolerable that Maria attempted to end her own life, leaving her with life-changing physical injuries. That is abhorrent. Victims are sick and tired of hearing about failure on this scale while this Government refuse to take responsibility.
It is essential for victims that we speed up justice, but only Labour has a plan for that. We will double the number of Crown prosecutors to speed up trials. We will introduce specialist rape courts to fast-track cases through the system, to put criminals behind bars and get the wheels of justice turning again.
Sarah Champion
I am sure my hon. Friend welcomes the section 28 measures that came in recently, which allow pre-recorded information to be submitted and take a lot of trauma out of the sometimes hostile environment in which victims find themselves. However, from my experience, their use depends on the judge’s understanding and granting of them. Will the Bill contain anything to prevent that postcode lottery?
Steve Reed
Once again, my hon. Friend raises an important point that needs to be taken into account fully, not just as the Bill progresses but as we review the different forms of giving evidence that can make the experience of a rape survivor much easier, which makes it less likely that a case is dropped or collapses and that an attacker gets away with it.
In recent months, victims of the most horrific crimes have faced the insult of convicted criminals refusing to turn up in court to face sentencing in person. We have called on the Government to act on that and they have repeatedly said that they will, yet they have done nothing while killers, rapists and terrorists pick and choose whether they turn up to face the consequences of their crimes. Just imagine how the families of Sabina Nessa and Zara Aleena felt when the brutal men who had killed their loved ones refused to come to court to be sentenced. It is grossly offensive to victims and their families to let criminals have that hold over them at such a difficult and traumatic moment. It is disappointing that that is not part of the Bill, and I hope the Government will reconsider. If they will not act, the next Labour Government will. We will give judges the power to force offenders to stand in the dock, in open court, while they are sentenced, and we will do that because victims deserve nothing less.
With the Victims and Prisoners Bill finally coming before Parliament today, disappointingly there is still no Victims’ Commissioner in place. The Government have left the post vacant for six months now, and there is still no sign of a new appointment, which sends a message to victims about the Government’s intentions. I hope the new Secretary of State will be able to speed up that process. Whoever is eventually appointed, the Bill does nothing to strengthen the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner, which, at the very least, should include the necessary powers to enforce the victims code in full and to lay an annual report before Parliament. That would help immensely in holding the Government to account and amplify victims’ voices. I hope this too is something the Government might reconsider in Committee.
Victims will have serious concerns about some of the Government’s proposed parole reforms. It is essential that the Government should not politicise decisions that should be based on robust professional experience that keeps the public safe. Where the parole board has not been working effectively enough, the answer is to strengthen it, not to undermine it. While I am sure that the current Justice Secretary is reasonable, not all his predecessors have been. We need processes that work effectively and protect the public, whoever is in that post. There have been parole decisions that raised legitimate concern and there is clearly a need for appropriate intervention by a Justice Secretary without unduly politicising the whole system. We will return to that issue in Committee.
To conclude, the first duty of any Government is to protect the safety of citizens. The current state of the criminal justice system shows how badly the Government have failed in that duty. They have repeatedly let criminals off and let victims down. In many ways, this is a victims Bill in name only. Labour will seek to strengthen the Bill and rebalance the scales of justice in favour of victims and the law-abiding majority. We want to strengthen the Bill to speed up justice, to offer rape survivors the free legal support they need and deserve, and to give victims of antisocial behaviour a voice and the power they need to make community sentences really work. Our aim is to prevent crime, punish criminals and protect victims. That is what the public and, above all, victims expect a functioning justice system to do.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I start by warmly welcoming my right hon. and learned Friend to his position, to which nobody in this House is better suited. I know that he will fulfil it in the most distinguished manner; he comes to the position of Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor with a background in our criminal justice system that is second to none and a reputation at the Bar for scrupulous fairness and integrity.
My right hon. and learned Friend and I both used to deal in the same kind of work and we are both still in contact with many who work in the criminal justice system. His reputation as both prosecutor and defender was impeccable. It is right that the House should know that, and it is important because it means that he will know the importance of going on the evidence and of acting on a fair, rational and ultimately humane basis. The best prosecutors are the fairest and the most humane, and he was a very good prosecutor. I hope he will bring those attributes to the role of Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor.
My right hon. and learned Friend was also an active and distinguished member of the Justice Committee. I hope he will remember some of the work we did together. I am delighted to see another former Justice Committee member in the form of the Attorney General, who is sitting on the Treasury Bench as well. I feel a little like Banquo—not on the Treasury Bench, but the father of Law Officers. I am proud of having worked with both of them.
I turn to the Bill, which is an admirable place for the Secretary of State to make his debut. It is a bit dangerous to make classical allusions, but the Bill is a bit like Caesar’s view of Gaul—divided into three parts—and one can come to different judgments about those different parts.
Let me start with part 1, which relates to victims. It is welcome. It fulfils a manifesto commitment of our party, and I am glad to see it there. The Justice Committee very much appreciated the opportunity the Government gave us for pre-legislative scrutiny of part 1. That was helpful and I hope the Government found it so. We also welcome the fact that the Government accepted a number of our recommendations—in particular the inclusion of bereaved families specifically as victims in the Bill, the strengthening of the role of Victims’ Commissioner, and the statutory obligation on statutory agencies to make victims aware of the contents of the code.
Those are important steps forward, although, with respect, I think that more could be done. I particularly thank the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), for his constructive and full engagement with the Committee throughout the pre-legislative scrutiny. It was a good example of how such scrutiny can help the process. I might come back to that point in relation to other parts of the Bill.
I think that more could be done in some areas, but I nonetheless welcome the Bill. I suggest that we look at a couple of areas that the Select Committee picked up as the Bill goes forward. There are more areas as well. One is that although it is right to put the code on a statutory basis, there is a gap at the moment. If we give individuals legal rights, it is important to give them proper means of enforcing those rights and a proper remedy for their breach or for when there is non-compliance from the agencies charged with delivering those rights. At the moment, specificity is still lacking in that regard. As the Secretary of State knows, if we give somebody a right we must give them a remedy—that is basic sound law. At the moment, the clarity about the remedy is lacking. I hope that we can consider that as we go forward.
There is also an important point, which the Justice Committee report referred to, about victims of antisocial behaviour that does not end up being charged as a crime, for whatever reason. There would be no harm at all in adopting a more generous and broad approach on that issue, and I hope the Government will consider that. Our evidence on both points I have mentioned was pretty strong. Subject to that, however, this is a good part of the Bill, and I hope that we can work constructively across the House to improve some aspects of it.
Part 2, which deals with the appointment of an independent public advocate, is an addition that I broadly welcome. I know that there are those who will say that it does not go far enough, and I accept that. The Committee did not have a chance to look at it in detail, although we did hear some evidence connected with it in relation to other inquiries—notably from the Right Rev. James Jones, who did such fantastic work on the Hillsborough inquiry. I think there is something helpful to be learnt from that evidence. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), my fellow Committee member, for her exceptional work in relation to the Hillsborough disaster, and the work that has followed from that. Those in the House and beyond are in her debt.
While I think that the appointment of the independent public advocate will be valuable, I hope we can look at some other issues, in particular the scope of the scheme—the areas into which the advocate might be able to go—and the question of equality of arms for bereaved families at inquests when the actions of a state body are in question and that state body will inevitably be represented, at public expense, by lawyers, while the bereaved families are not. I hope that, for the sake of fairness, the Secretary of State will think again about that. Equality of arms is a concept with which both he and I are very familiar, and this strikes me as a gap in the system that it would not be onerous, in the overall scheme of things, to remedy.
Part 3 deals with prisoners and parole. Here I am afraid I must adopt a slightly different tone, because this is a rather less welcome addition to the Bill. That is not because the policy objective is wrong. As the Secretary of State said, it is clearly right and proper for the public to have confidence in our parole system, and that means there must be both a robust test of the grounds on which a prisoner can be released from sentence or moved to open conditions, and a robust system of ensuring that the test is applied. I think that the difficulty has been in the detail thereafter, and that may be reflected in the fact that this part of the Bill was not subject to any pre-legislative scrutiny. The Justice Committee wrote to the then Secretary of State offering to provide such scrutiny, but the offer was declined. I also note that the evidence we heard from the Parole Board only last week indicated only the most perfunctory engagement with the board itself. There was no face-to-face engagement; there was, I think, one meeting and a notification, effectively, after the event.
The Secretary of State, who has seen the transcript of that evidence session, will know that the Parole Board is a serious and expert body of people. As he rightly said, the vast majority of cases deliver results because people do not reoffend. It is perhaps surprising that a little more attention was not paid to the views of the board or, indeed, those of many other people working in the criminal justice system. The absence of outside consultation with almost anyone with knowledge of the system weakens the credibility of part 3.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
In his role as Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Gentleman has done some remarkable work on the Bill, and I pay tribute to him and his Committee. I was stunned, although not surprised, to hear that there had been no consultation with either him or the Committee on part 3. I am also not aware of any consultation with the broader non-governmental organisations, campaigners, charities and survivors. Is he aware of any such scrutiny?
Sir Robert Neill
The short answer is that none has come to my attention or that of the Committee. We did endeavour to secure a range of views, particularly from practitioners in the field. It is helpful to hear such views, and I therefore hope that as the Bill proceeds, the Secretary of State and his Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), will, as fair-minded people, find opportunities to take them on board.
What we want is a system that is robust, because that is critical, but also—as the Secretary of State said—a system that is operationally effective. One of my main concerns is that the evidence we did receive suggested, in respect of nearly all the principal aspects of part 3, that there were serious question marks over how operationally effective it would be. This is a classic case of where Committee improvements ought to be made, and I hope the Government will move to do that.
I want briefly to flag up some of those areas. The current test is a very short one of some 20 words, but it is robust. Essentially it says that the protection of the public comes first, and that is what we want to achieve anyway. It is expanded somewhat by a non-exhaustive number of other matters that can be taken into account. There is nothing wrong in that, but I hope that it does not make the test unduly complicated. It is also worth remembering that there is sometimes a misunderstanding, particularly in media reporting, in relation to the work of the Parole Board. That comes in two forms. First, as the Secretary of State said, in 99% of cases people released on parole do not reoffend, and that context is important. Secondly, there is a suggestion of some kind of balancing test, but that is not the case.
It is clear from the evidence that since the case of Knight in about 2017, the Parole Board very properly changed its guidance to reflect the primacy of the protection of the public test. I think there is an element in this part of the Bill of trying to solve a problem that does not exist and therefore a risk of over-engineering the system, which we might not need. So let us look again at the best way to do the test. There is nothing wrong with changing it, and perhaps nothing wrong with expanding it, but are we sure that we are getting this right?
The next matter is the way in which the Secretary of State will, from time to time, step in and review. There is nothing wrong with a review but I have two concerns about the way it is done. In certain cases set out in the Bill, it will be necessary, if the Secretary of State chooses to carry out those powers, to intervene and substitute the Secretary of State’s decision, including on the facts, for those of the board, which will have heard first-hand evidence. The Secretary of State is not in a position to hear first-hand evidence, so he would have to rely on a provision that enables a person to be appointed to interview the applicant for parole and then report to the Secretary of State. I do not think the Secretary of State would normally feel happy acting on hearsay in such circumstances, because at the end of the day it is second-hand evidence and he would have to substitute his judgment for that of those who had heard first-hand evidence. I am not sure that is a fair or satisfactory way of resolving that problem.
The second concern relates to the very proper means of review. As the Secretary of State rightly said, there has to be an independent review, but at the moment the suggestion is that, among other things, this could go to the upper chamber. I would ask him to reflect on the appropriateness of the upper chamber. Logically, the element within the upper chamber that would hear these cases is the upper tribunal. The upper tribunal, as a logical part of that, would be the administrative chamber, which is essentially there to deal with points of law; it is not a fact-finding body.
The route of application to appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision has two grounds. One is the normal ground of public law and judicial review—involving unreasonableness, for example—and that is fine. The administrative chamber no doubt deals with those kinds of things. This also includes an appeal on the merits, and it has to, to make it ECHR-compliant, but this would involve a rehearing, and the upper chamber has no experience of re-hearing the merits. So this route of appeal does not seem to be right or practical.
Another point to remember is that there is no requirement for leave in this route. If someone appeals to the upper tribunal on the ground of legal deficiency, such as unreasonableness, they have to get leave. If they apply on the ground that the Secretary of State got it wrong on the merits, they do not have to get leave at all and they can have a rehearing, so everyone who feels aggrieved at the Secretary of State’s decision will apply on the ground that they want to challenge the merits and therefore have a rehearing. The number of unmeritorious appeals will therefore greatly increase, which is hardly the objective of this piece of legislation. It would also put these matters into a chamber that—with absolute respect to those who sit in the administrative chamber—is not geared up to hear evidence to do rehearings. It is going to the wrong place, so I hope we at least reflect on a better means of achieving that end.
The same goes for the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene and rehear. Would it not be better simply to toughen the current power of redetermination? Surely asking for a case to be reconsidered by a differently constituted panel would be a more practical way forward. There are practical and sensible things that could be done, but unfortunately they were not picked up by the Bill’s drafting, perhaps because nobody who knows much about it was asked.
Clauses 42 to 44 disapply section 3 of the Human Rights Act for the purposes of these hearings. Whatever one’s view of the Human Rights Act, there is no evidence that this is a problem in such cases. In fact, the evidence we heard from practitioners, from both sides, is that it can be helpful to have to have regard to section 3 in these hearings. These clauses seem to be trying to solve a problem that does not exist, and I wonder whether we really need them. It is perfectly possible to have a robust system that still complies with section 3. This is a needless distraction that sends the wrong signal about a certain desire to pick unnecessary fights, which I know is not the current Secretary of State’s approach.
Clause 46 addresses the Parole Board’s composition and the appointment of board members. It is perfectly legitimate to have more people with law and order experience, which could be included as a category, but we must be careful to make sure there is no suggestion that the Secretary of State can say that a particular class of person should sit on a panel for a particular type of hearing, as that would go beyond independence. There is strong case law from our domestic courts, never mind elsewhere, to say that the Parole Board carries out a judicial function and therefore must have a proper degree of judicial independence. There is a risk that the clause, as currently drafted, offends against that.
The final issue that arises is with the power to dismiss the chair of the Parole Board. There is already a protocol for removing a chair of the Parole Board who loses the Secretary of State’s confidence, and it was exercised after the Worboys case—I think it is called the Mostyn protocol. Why do we need an extra statutory power when we already have a way to do it? Establishing a statutory power creates another problem, because clause 47 says that the chair of the Parole Board shall not sit on any panels of the Parole Board. When we heard evidence, no one could work out why, but it has subsequently been suggested to me that it would be interfering with judicial independence to remove a chair who is sitting on a panel.
Perhaps the answer is not to have the needless power to remove a chair, because we can see the illogicality: if we want a Secretary of State to be able to remove the chair of the Parole Board, we have to make sure they are not carrying out any judicial functions, because otherwise the Secretary of State would be interfering with judicial independence. But we already have a means of removing a chair of the Parole Board, and it works, so why go down this rabbit hole?
My observations on part 3 are intended to be helpful and constructive, and I am sure the Secretary of State and the Minister will take them on board.
The Victims and Prisoners Bill makes no mention of the continuing injustice, as the Secretary of State rightly said—the blot and stain on our judicial landscape—facing a particular class of prisoner: those imprisoned for public protection. The House recognised that indeterminate sentences had failed and so abolished them, but not retrospectively. An increasing number of people on open-ended sentences, which Parliament has abolished, are being recalled. People have no hope of their sentence coming to an end and, because they are also potentially subject to a life licence, more people have been recalled than are serving their original sentence. Something has gone badly wrong here, which is doubtless why Lord Blunkett, the creator of the sentence, said, “This has gone wrong and needs to be changed.” It is also why Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, a former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and not someone generally regarded as a soft touch in sentencing matters, said, “The only logical way to resolve this is to have a resentencing exercise.”
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I speak as an old boy of the Justice Committee. I do not want to rehearse the debate we had only a few weeks ago, but there seems to be some reticence among those on both Front Benches about the proposals the hon. Gentleman put forward through the Select Committee; they seem to think that they would result in the large-scale release of dangerous prisoners. Could he emphasise exactly what the Select Committee was proposing: a panel of experts carefully preparing a way forward on resentencing that balances public protection and the rights of the victims, with securing justice? That has the wholehearted support of organisations on the frontline, including the Prison Officers Association, the probation officers, the courts staff and, as he said, the former Home Secretary and the Supreme Court judge. This needs to be addressed now. If we do not use this Bill to introduce such a measure, we will lose the opportunity, possibly for another number of years.
Sir Robert Neill
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right and I agree with him. We are in a hopeless situation at the moment and there has been a misunderstanding. The Select Committee took careful evidence and made a number of recommendations, not purely on resentencing, but on a number of other practical measures that may be taken to improve the way in which IPP prisoners are dealt with in the system. Frankly, at the moment, they are set up to fail. They have to go on courses, which they are told about only a few weeks before their parole hearing and the course waiting list is two years in some places, we are told. They may be in a prison where the courses do not exist or are not available. They are then on permanent licence, where they can be recalled at any time. There is scope to have that removed after 10 years. We can see no evidence as to why the period should not be five years, rather than 10. If somebody has shown willing and gone straight for five years, there is no evidence to suggest that going on for 10 makes any difference to the reoffending rate. So why do that? Why set people up to fail?
On the resentencing exercise, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, we were not at all seeking to say, “Everybody will be resentenced immediately. Everybody will be released immediately.” Having acted in some cases that involved sentences of this kind, I know that some people will always remain very dangerous. There are some people who, by the nature of the index offence, will remain in prison for a long time and the determinate sentence that they ultimately receive under our scheme may be a very long one. So the idea that that approach opens the doors is wrong. What it does do is give certainty to everybody and give hope. Tragically, I was informed that, in the four weeks after the former Secretary of State rejected the entirely of the serious recommendations of the Select Committee, three IPP prisoners took their own lives. I hope that there was no connection there, but it does not say much for the sensitivity with which this has been handled in the past. I know that that is not the view of this Secretary of State, who is a deeply humane man and will want to do justice by this.
The resentencing exercise is not something that can be done quickly. It would require an expert panel of people, including lawyers, to say how best to do it and to work it through. I beg the Secretary of State to think again about using this opportunity. I have had a clause drafted that would give effect to the Select Committee’s recommendation. I would much prefer it if the Government said, “We will pre-empt that and bring forward our own proposals to set up an expert panel.” That may take some time and it may not come into effect for a period, but it would at least give people hope that something serious was being done, that work was being followed up and that there was a willingness to look at the matter again; I would have thought that that was only fair. Equally, it cannot be fair that soon some people will have served longer than the maximum sentence for the offence of which they were convicted. That cannot be just. This is not being soft. It is just being fair and just and that is part of the balance of the system.
I commend the good parts of the Bill to the House, and commend the Secretary of State to the House and to the legal fraternity, who respect him highly. In considering those outstanding matters, I ask him to apply exactly the same test as he and I, and any other advocate worth their salt, have set to juries day in, day out: try the case on the evidence, go on the evidence and apply your mind fairly and dispassionately. That is the right approach. If he does that, we will come to some changes in the Bill.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, on which I also sit. I agreed with much of what he said, particularly in respect of part 3 and some of the weaknesses in part 1, but I will begin with part 2. I suppose people would expect me to do that, given that it is about the independent public advocate, which I have been campaigning on and have had views about in this House for many years.
I welcome, again, the new Secretary of State to his place, despite the fact that having a whirlwind of appointments and eight Justice Secretaries in eight years does sometimes leave certain potential issues with continuity and ensuring that things happen in a sensible way, apart from the differences in approach and personality that one might come across. I know he cares about this particular issue. He responded to the Backbench Business debate—he made reference to it in his remarks—that I managed to secure following the final collapse of the Hillsborough criminal trials. That is some time ago now. There has been no reason since then—apart from perhaps turbulence in the Government, I say gently—for not dealing with this. The final collapse of the criminal trials was the last impediment to dealing with the recommendations in Bishop James Jones’s 2017 report, “The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power” in which he was asked to come up with—and did come up with—recommendations to learn the lessons of Hillsborough.
Bishop Jones was asked and commissioned to do that by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), whom I am pleased to commend for the work and effort she put in over the years when she had responsibility for dealing with the aftermath of Hillsborough. She developed a real understanding of some of these issues. The Secretary of State will be talking to various predecessors—people who have done his job and others who relate to it—and he could do a lot worse than sit down with the right hon. Lady. I am not trying to organise his diary—or hers, which would probably be more difficult—but she has a real insight from his side of the House into some of these issues. I recommend, if he gets the chance, that he sits down with her.
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman replied to the debate after the collapse of the last of the criminal trials arising out of the circumstances of Hillsborough, which is over 18 months ago now, he did promise, after being asked by me, to get out the response to Bishop James’s 2017 report by last Christmas; that was his hope. That has slipped for various reasons. The latest we have been told by Ministers on the Floor of the House is that it will be published in its full glory by this spring. I just say to him that we are nearly into summer and we still have not seen sight or sound of the response. I have read the Government’s response to the Justice Committee’s report into coroners. We were told that many of its recommendations would be dealt with in the overarching response to Bishop James’s report into the lessons to be learnt from Hillsborough. There are some outstanding recommendations, on which the Select Committee had what I would call a straight bat response from the Government. Perhaps they too can be dealt with when that response is completed.
I welcome very much the Government’s intent to legislate and the fact that part 2 is in the Bill. I would have preferred a stand-alone Bill, but that is neither here nor there. The fact that there are clauses in the Bill that relate to establishing an independent public advocate is very welcome; better late than never. The whole purpose of the independent public advocate is not to just add a further hoop for families to jump through, or a further stage that families need to go through at the beginning of the process. It is to stop the aftermath of public disasters going so badly wrong, as the aftermath of Hillsborough did.
It is more than 34 years since that disaster happened. We all remember that it was televised—there are hours and hours of film of that disaster. It is not as if it happened in secret and that what had really gone on had to be winkled out; it was televised live at the time. It cannot be right that it should have taken such a long time for those families to have properly acknowledged what happened to their loved ones, and for the very many thousands of traumatised survivors who witnessed that horror—they were not just from Liverpool, because there were two teams playing in that semi-final—to have properly acknowledged what happened. For that to have gone on for so long, with any controversy at all about what happened, when Lord Justice Taylor, within three months of the original disaster, set out in his interim report substantially correctly, although not totally correctly, the full causes and reasons, shows how badly things can go wrong in public disasters when there are interested parties who try to deflect the blame, and when state organisations, whether it be the police or others, try to make sure that their reputation is not trashed by responsibility being pinned on them and are willing to do anything and use any amount of resource to blame somebody else. That is what happened. So it is no surprise that things can go badly awry.
One could just say that Hillsborough was a terrible example, and it was. The circumstances of every disaster are different, but there are common elements. One common element is that, where state-funded organisations —the arms of the state—are involved, they appear to think that their reputation matters more than the truth. They appear to think that any amount of budget that they have over the years can and ought to be used to defend that reputation, and they often appear to think that it is perfectly alright to blame the victims, to blame others—to blame anybody but themselves. That is what we have to stop.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend has been an amazing campaigner on this, but does she agree that one of the commonalities between Hillsborough, Orgreave and child sexual exploitation in Rotherham was South Yorkshire police, so when these patterns are formed, the Government need to do something to step in?
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend is correct. Where that does happen, if there is no accountability for what goes wrong, especially where there is venality—which there was at Orgreave and which was shown again at Hillsborough by South Yorkshire police— and if there is no reckoning, that kind of behaviour will not be corrected. One value of making sure that the aftermath of disasters does not go so terribly wrong is that one can keep organisations that may be tempted to behave in that way on the straight and narrow. I remember that, after the King’s Cross fire, the person responsible for London Regional Transport, who was found to be responsible for the cover-up that happened, was sacked. That then makes a big difference to the way in which the organisations involved deal with the aftermath of a disaster.
The whole purpose of having an independent public advocate is to try to ensure that, in the aftermath of such disasters, things do not go wrong. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State has re-read my Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill, because I know he will have read it before. I have been introducing the Bill in this House since 2016, and it has been introduced in the House of Lords by my friend the noble Lord Wills. My Bill proposes what finally worked for Hillsborough—the Hillsborough independent panel. It was a non-legal process, because almost all the legal processes and cases failed, but it was used to shine a light of transparency on what actually happened and to stop cover-ups. If the cover-up at Hillsborough could have been stopped from the beginning, we would not be 34 years down the line trying to untangle all of the intervening processes. The Hillsborough independent panel would not have had to look at millions of documents; it could have looked at far fewer if it had been doing its work within, say, two or three years.
In addition, any organisation seeking to use its powers and its people to organise cover-ups would know that the rock was going to be lifted up, that a torch was going to be shone upon what was under it and that it would not get away with the kind of cover-ups openly organised by South Yorkshire Police after Hillsborough to subvert the findings of the public inquiry, the Taylor Interim Report, which clearly blamed the police, made remarks about the way the police have behaved and said that they should not have behaved like that.
The police then set about simply using the inquests to change the impression of the interim report—and didn’t they succeed in that? From then on, no legal process worked until the Hillsborough independent panel, 23 years later, was able to get a full acceptance of the truth by close examination of documents. If we had the power to do that effectively at an early stage in the aftermath of disasters, it would save millions of pounds and prevent things from going wrong for years and budgets from being reduced and diverted into looking at legal proceedings.
We see some of the same things happening elsewhere. Grenfell has already been going on for too long without a proper understanding of precisely what happened, who was to blame and what went wrong. I have constituents who lost a child in the Manchester Arena bombing; even with the inquests and the inquiry put together to run concurrently, it has still been over five years since the bombing. These processes can extend for many years.
There will unfortunately be more disasters. Although we can try to minimise their occurrence, they are by their nature events that go wrong in combination, in a way that means terrible things happen. However, if we have a way to stop their aftermath going as wrong as those of some of the disasters over the years, we will not only be doing a real service to the victims and survivors of those disasters, who have got quite enough to be dealing with having lost their loved ones, but saving a lot of money in the end for the state.
The investigations into Hillsborough over the years have cost millions upon millions of pounds. The budget of any public advocate would be a lot lower than that and, if they were able to stop things going wrong, we would be doing ourselves a favour. I value very much the fact that provisions are now published and the Secretary of State is intent upon legislating, but there are two main reasons why the Government proposals will not work as my Bill intends.
The Government proposals deny agency to bereaved families in calling the advocate into action. One of the things anybody who is bereaved in a public disaster will say is that they stop being an ordinary person out of the public limelight and, at a time when they are having to cope with the grief of losing a loved one, suddenly the spotlight of the entire nation is upon them and their family as they try to grieve. Things are done to the family; things are set up outwith their capacity to arrange them, such as the inquest, to which they are often not party so they certainly do not get legal aid, and the inquiry, at which perhaps they might not necessarily get representation. All those things happen around them while they are in a fog of grief, wondering what is going on. They feel powerless; they feel “done-to”. They do not feel that they have any capacity to influence or be a part of what is happening, or to speak any kind of truth to any kind of power. They often feel like spare parts, third parties, not involved. Yet the families of a disaster are the most deeply involved, because they have lost the most, so it is tremendously important to give them collective agency to decide that the advocate should be involved, rather than saying, “Oh, and here is another thing we are going to do for you and give to you, whether you want it or not, and you will not have any part in deciding.” My Bill does that; the Secretary of State’s proposals do not.
There also has to be a power to be not just a sign-poster. I do not object to the provisions in the Bill enabling the advocate to help, signpost and do those kinds of things for bereaved families—that can be helpful—but it cannot be only that. I know that the Hillsborough families had people trying to signpost them to things, and that did not work with what was going on at that time in respect of that particular disaster. The point of the proposals in my Bill, which are not currently in the Government Bill, is to enable the advocate to establish a Hillsborough panel-type arrangement to guarantee transparency, ensuring that the advocate is therefore a data controller and has the documentation that they need. It should be an awful lot less than the Hillsborough independent panel had to collect, because not as much time will have passed and one would expect it to be done at an earlier stage in the aftermath of any disaster.
If amendments enabling the advocate to be a data controller and to establish an independent panel were accepted, giving the families agency to decide for themselves whether they want the involvement of the public advocate, that would enable the provision to do what I want it to do—prevent the aftermath of disasters from going so disastrously wrong for bereaved families. I have dealt with a number of these kinds of issues in my constituency over the 26 years that I have been a Member of this House—I feel old enough—and if we were able to do that, we could prevent things from going wrong and would not therefore have any instances whereby, 34 years later, we in this Chamber are still discussing what went on, as we do with what happened at Hillsborough in 1989. We should not have to do that. Those families should have peace, but they still do not have it.
I believe very strongly that, if we can prevent that kind of thing from happening to other families who are, through no fault of their own, caught up in disasters that they did not want to be caught up in, resulting in bereavement and pain, we would do the whole country a service. That would help a small number of people, it would not cost that much, and it would save a lot of public money over time, but the provisions, as currently drafted, will not be effective enough to do that.
I see the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) in his place. I also had meetings with him about these provisions, and he was very helpful. I hope that the Secretary of State will keep an open mind and will think that we are all on the same side. We want something effective to be done; we do not want to add some kind of process that will not make things better enough, thereby missing an opportunity to make things better than they are.
I do not care who legislates for that. If it is a Labour Government, I will nag them just as much as I have been discussing it with Conservative Ministers, of whom I have met an awful lot over the past few years—many of them are in the Chamber now, in fact. I hope that, between us all, we can take this forward, because it would be a cheap way of ensuring that we save a lot of public money over time, and would really help the families of those who are needlessly and through no fault of their own caught up in future public disasters—we hope that they will be few, but disasters happen. It would provide the Hillsborough families with the comfort of knowing that the horrendous experience they have gone through over 34-plus years will not be suffered by anyone else unlucky enough to be caught up in a public disaster.
Now is our chance to tackle this issue, so I ask the Secretary of State please not to defend every word of the current drafting and to have a more open mind about what we can achieve. There is a real opportunity for us, cross party, to make a big difference to the lives of a small number of people who will have enough to deal with when their family gets caught up in a disaster and they lose somebody. We can really make a difference, and I hope the Secretary of State will be open to doing so. I am perfectly happy to talk to him and to the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), about how best to do that. We need this legislation now. Let us make sure we are better prepared if another disaster happens.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), and I will come on to the independent public advocate shortly. We have been in touch about the issue in the past; there is a great deal to say about it, and I agree with so much that the right hon. Lady said.
I am delighted that a victims Bill is finally here for us all on Second Reading. I am also delighted to see the Lord Chancellor in his place, and I welcome and congratulate him. I would like to thank the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who has been so constructive on victim engagement, which I have found refreshing. I have spent a great deal of time in government speaking to individual victims, and the Minister of State—like all right hon. and hon. Members—will recognise the importance of doing that and of learning the lessons so that we can be better legislators and give those victims a voice and strong representation.
I feel like I have been speaking about getting a victims Bill for some time—back in 2011, I proposed a ten-minute rule Bill—and we have also seen manifesto commitments from the Conservative party and other parties, so the day is long overdue. In the debate so far, we have heard frustrations about how the Bill has been drafted, what it covers and what it does not cover—I will touch on that as well—but, importantly, it is here at long last and it could be a really important piece of legislation. There is no doubt that it will be amended, but it is clear from the debate thus far that there is much to unite us on behalf of victims. We can work cross-party on so many aspects, and we should seek to do that.
I pay tribute to everyone who has been involved in the Bill and the pre-legislative scrutiny. I pay particular tribute to victims. I have spent days, weeks and months with victims, and I would do that all over again, because we in this House have a duty to them to represent them, and also to recognise the pain and suffering they have gone through and how we can bring about institutional change on their behalf. Many organisations representing victims have campaigned hard, and I worked with many of them in my time as Home Secretary. I was also once chair of the all-party parliamentary group for victims and witnesses.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who chaired the Justice Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill. I also pay tribute, for their work as former Secretaries of State for Justice, to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), who walked in just at the right moment to hear some important parts of the debate, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab). I have had the privilege of working with them both on behalf of victims as well as on so many other aspects of Government legislation, including policing, crime, courts and sentencing—the things that actually do bring about change.
We recognise that this legislation is needed to provide more rights and support for victims. They are human beings who are trying to navigate their way around the system of the state, and I have already mentioned institutional state failure, which I think will become a dominant theme in this debate and, I suspect, in Committee. It is important that we recognise that, because our duty is to redress the imbalance in the criminal justice system, where too often the needs of victims are forgotten, neglected, ignored or even just bypassed through process and bureaucracy. There is a ton of that in the system.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her kind words. It indeed was a pleasure to work closely with her and Home Office colleagues, meeting victims, dealing with their problems and individual cases, and being forceful about the agenda we wanted to pursue. Does she agree that in clause 15 of the Bill, which relates to guidance for independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers, we are now in law recognising the invaluable work that these experts do? It is shown, particularly in sexual violence cases, that the input of an ISVA will often make the difference between a case going forward and a case collapsing.
Priti Patel
I completely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. There is always more that we can do in this area, and there will be lessons we can learn from professionals and professional practitioners, and I believe they should be engaged and listened to. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) has already mentioned that in relation to part 3 of the Bill, and we must constantly learn, because we have all been shocked and horrified by the cases of victims—I will highlight some in the course of this debate—the types of crimes they have been subjected to and their treatment by the institutions of the state and the criminal justice system. That needs remedy, and we have the opportunity now to bring serious redress.
That redress will not be judged by words or pieces of paper; it is the implementation that matters. I have always focused a lot on delivery in government, and redress is about practical implementation. The Bill could be the game-changer in improving public confidence in the criminal justice system. All of us—this is not partisan—want that. We all want to ensure access to justice and that justice takes place in a swift and timely way. The improvement of services and support for victims of crimes must be a priority.
Progress has been made. One area to highlight from my time at the Home Office, was the work that we did collectively—because it was both parties—through the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which provided much more focus on practical support and services to victims. We should always put victims first and target resources to deliver the right outcomes and support services, including enshrining more rights in law, which is absolutely right.
We have also seen police and crime commissioners’ role being much more focused—and there is more we can do in this area—on supporting victims of crime, which the Lord Chancellor mentioned in his opening remarks. Working collaboratively across statutory services is important. I want to give a positive plug to some of my colleagues who are police and crime commissioners. Roger Hirst, the police, fire and crime commissioner for Essex, is outstanding. He has put a strong focus in his police and crime plan on supporting victims. He is an excellent commissioner, and my constituents across the county of Essex can absolutely see the changes that plan is bringing, supported by our chief constable, B. J. Harrington. Last week I met Alison Hernandez, the outstanding police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall, who is working with Victim Support. I spent many hours, weeks and months working with Victim Support when I chaired the all-party parliamentary group. There are first-hand experiences that we can learn about from those practitioners and bring into statute and practice, empowering parts of our statutory services, including these key roles, and that is vital.
The current code of practice for victims needs updating as the Bill progresses through the House, because we need to test the statutory provisions relating to the code. I want to see, learn and understand how they can be operationalised for delivery purposes. I want us to avoid the whole concept of a postcode lottery, where some parts of the country do better than others. We should be looking to drive consistency in outcomes and ensure that we have the right frameworks in place for accountability. Where the state fails, there should be sanctions, and I will come on to that shortly in relation to the independent public advocate. I would also like stronger assurance—not just further assurance, but stronger assurance—about the delivery of the code and how that will work.
Will Ministers in due course publish the proposed draft code, or highlight areas in the current code where they would like to see directional changes, because we need to get the balance right for victims? To ensure that the rights of victims are enforceable, a balance is needed between rights and the measures enshrined in statute, so that we are better off in terms of outcomes. That is where a number of victims charities and organisations supporting domestic abuse victims and survivors all have a great deal of knowledge and expertise. Ensuring a much stronger victim-centric approach to the criminal justice system is vital to drive the right outcomes. On that point, clause 6 rightly focuses on criminal justice bodies raising awareness of the code but does not include provisions directly to raise awareness among staff and the providers they may commission. I have no doubt that that will come under greater scrutiny in Committee.
On clause 1(2), which refers to victims being affected by criminal conduct, we want assurances that victims of antisocial behaviour will also be afforded some of the rights and protections under the Bill and the code. The lines between criminal conduct and antisocial behaviour are too often blurred. I hear what the Labour party says about antisocial behaviour—we all agree about this—but we must be crystal clear about the definition and its application within the criminal justice system. Antisocial behaviour blights lives and communities—that is a fact—and the perpetrators need to be held to account within the criminal justice system. That is in effect what we are trying to do, but we need to make sure that the current code is not weak in this area and that we have the relevant join-up in the system.
On victim impact statements, the Bill and the code need to examine how we ensure that the voice of victims is heard in the courts. At the opening of the debate an example was given of a victim who was unable to provide such a statement. That is sometimes because the police, the CPS and the courts make decisions that do not focus on the victims, and that is where we must get the right balance between victims and offenders. I am afraid that the process can often act fast for offenders with complete disregard to the victims—for example, in cases of theft or burglary, where quick disposal and, if I may say so, lenient sentences are prioritised over providing sentences that reflect the severity of offending and the impact on victims.
As an example, one of Britain’s most prolific offenders—responsible for hundreds of offences, including crimes against my constituents—was let off by the courts, let back into the community on a form of rehabilitation scheme, and given housing and access to services, but still went on to reoffend. The victims were not aware or informed until they saw this case in the media, and they were absolutely appalled. Their views of the impact of the offending on them had not been sought or heard, and they were completely ignored and dismissed. The Bill is an opportunity to shine a light on that area.
Another area where victims have been let down, and where we could provide improvement and a greater voice for victims, is compensation. There may be scope to amend the Bill in relation to compensation for the victims of crime. The courts have powers to issue compensation orders, which compel offenders to pay for their crimes and give recompense to their victims. However, sometimes —in fact, too often—these provisions are inconsistently applied. When there were the riots in 2011 which caused millions of pounds-worth of damage, I asked questions to the then Justice Secretary about the number of compensation orders issued and the data was not available. I suspect Members across the House have many individual cases in their constituencies, and I have many too and have been to my regional Crown Prosecution Service where I am afraid orders have not been followed through and there has been a huge sense of injustice. Back in 2011 many businesses and companies were left picking up the cost, but for individuals these crimes can be life-changing, severe and horrific, and the failure to enforce these orders can lead to devastating impacts.
A former constituent of mine was blinded by an abusive ex-partner, impacting on her ability to work. Not only did her partner get away with a short sentence and was let out before the halfway point, but no compensation order was imposed upon him. My constituent was left blinded in one eye; that has changed her life and she is a mother. I have spent a great deal of time with her over the years and it is a harrowing case. Sadly, she is a victim of our system and there will be many other similar cases.
I hope that during the passage of this Bill we can give light to such cases and examine how we can represent those victims in a much better way and ensure they are not let down by the courts or the CPS. I have spent many hours with our regional CPS on this; we need to find better ways to support individuals.
The subject of the independent public advocate has rightly already had a comprehensive hearing in this debate both from the Lord Chancellor and colleagues, and I pay tribute to all colleagues across the House. When I was Home Secretary I spent many harrowing hours with the families of the Hillsborough disaster, but, if I may say so, they were also deeply fulfilling hours when I was hearing from them. Bishop James Jones is a remarkable individual and his report is moving and very thoughtful. He has put forward great solutions with the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood and the former Prime Minister my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who spent a great deal of time with me. I also worked with other Ministers to understand the role of the IPA and push forward its establishment.
I welcome the provisions in part 2 of the Bill and the establishment of the IPA to support victims of major incidents. The tragedies of Hillsborough have been well aired in this House, but there are so many lessons to learn; the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood touched on all aspects of this and I do not disagree with her at all. The history of Hillsborough is littered with institutional state failure. State institutions have let down those families. I have heard so many comments through the discussions I have had with representatives, the families and Bishop James Jones about issues from cover-up and collusion to state-sponsored denial and the role of South Yorkshire police. The history of this is appalling.
There are other tragedies, too. We have recently received the Manchester Arena bombing reports. I set up that public inquiry and every single aspect of it was devastating and harrowing. I have also met many family members, including children, mothers, dads, uncles and grandparents. I genuinely think we can do much more as a Government and just by changing our laws to bring parity to the justice system to give them voice. That is very important.
I saw that with the Grenfell families as well. There is nothing more harrowing than going to meet them in the area where they used to live—their own community—and hearing about the injustices they have suffered. I pay tribute to all those families for their relentless campaigning: they are campaigning for good reasons and to give voice to their suffering because they do not want others to experience the tragic circumstances they have faced.
During my time at the Home Office we looked at this issue and the role of an IPA sitting alongside the “duty of candour”, which I absolutely support as it will help to rebalance the system. The duty of candour would bring so much to light. It would shine a spotlight and completely change and safeguard individuals’ ability to give evidence at public inquiries, and really ensure that voices are listened to. That is needed, because there is an imbalance in the system, with victims and families who are seeking trust, truth, assurances and answers facing what I can only describe as the machinery of the state. They just feel intimidated. As we have heard, they are told that they are signposted, but it is either totally inadequate or the wrong kind of signposting. That machinery of the state is often tooled up with expertise, lawyers and unlimited resources while they are grappling for resources, so they cannot get access to justice.
I have an example from my own constituency in Essex, where an inquiry is taking place into the deaths of mental health in-patients between 2000 and 2020. We are dealing with incredibly disturbing and harrowing cases, but families have faced frustrations over many years in seeking answers. I believe that an independent public advocate would help them. I have been pushing for that on their behalf and recently had discussions with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. However, I genuinely believe that this could be a breakthrough moment—perhaps we can bring about the right changes through amendments in Committee—where we can all work together to learn from the harrowing experiences and tragic deaths that have taken place to make for an effective, independent public advocate role and give it the independence that it needs.
I do not want to dwell on part 3—it has already been given an airing—but I will touch on the point made by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). There seem to be endless state failures in dealing with offenders. I have already spoken about institutional state failures on behalf of victims, but there must be a stronger and better way to deal with offenders who have been let down, perhaps through successive legislation and their rehabilitation. We have a cycle or revolving door of repeat offenders and offending, and I am afraid that sometimes judges and the courts are failing to send offenders to prison. There is a panoply of issues that we need to look at.
The public and the victims of crime expect offenders to be sent to prison to serve their sentences. But, at the same time, we see how often that does not happen and how offenders go through a cycle that does not address any of their offending, while the costs for the state continue to go up and up. This part of the Bill needs to be looked at. I believe in firm and fair sentences and have always been of that persuasion, but—we know, because we have all seen examples of it in our casework—we cannot have victims finding out about offenders being back in their neighbourhoods indirectly. All sorts of problems then take place in the community. So, areas of part 3 do need to be addressed.
The Bill is obviously long overdue. It could be a groundbreaking piece of legislation to address so many of the criminal justice system’s inadequacies, including the historical adequacies when it comes to giving voice to victims of all sorts of crimes. Crime is an awful thing for anyone to experience, but given the severity of the types of crime, we owe it to all the victims of crimes ranging from the Hillsborough disaster to terrorist events, domestic abuse and rape, to ensure that the Bill gives them representation, rights and access to the criminal justice system and deals with those anomalies and imbalances. I hope that we can all work constructively across the House to achieve that.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to speak on Second Reading. I commend right hon. and hon. Members for the contributions that we have heard so far. This House is undoubtedly at its best when we engage in serious debate free from tribal engagement.
My contribution is largely based on the experiences of the family of my constituent Michael O’Leary, who was murdered in what was described by prosecutors as a “carefully planned execution” in January 2020. His body was desecrated in an attempt to hide the crime. The key bit of evidence that secured the guilty verdict was only obtained in March 2020 when a search of the murderer’s property found tissue matter that matched Mr O’Leary’s DNA—a piece of the small intestine—in an oil barrel. I cannot imagine the suffering involved for the family, not only having lost a loved one in such a manner, but having been deprived of the opportunity to process their grief through burial of the body. Mr O’Leary’s son Wayne said that families face a “lifetime of unanswered questions.”
Following the murder trial, my constituents have campaigned for a new offence of desecration or concealment of a body, dubbed Helen’s law 2. Helen’s law, which was adopted in the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Act 2020, means that an individual guilty of murder would not be eligible for parole if they refuse to reveal the location of a victim. I pay tribute to Helen McCourt’s family, and all the other families. Helen’s law 2 aims to increase punishment for those guilty of desecration or concealment, or in the very least to amend sentencing guidelines to reflect the extra suffering imposed on the families of victims. We await progress on the campaign.
I understand that there are complexities, but I hope that the UK Government continue to seek a way forward, considering that, unfortunately, these sorts of heinous crimes are becoming more common. I can certainly say that in the experience of my constituents, the additional suffering of knowing what was done to their loved one after he was murdered is beyond comprehension.
Following discussions with my constituents, I would like to take the opportunity to raise their views on the Bill. Victims’ families are concerned that a Bill on victims’ rights has been brought forward even though the Victims’ Commissioner post has been vacant since last September, following the resignation of Dame Vera Baird. Upon her resignation, Dame Vera said that she was disappointed by the lack of engagement from the Government in relation to her concerns about the Bill as the primary voice of victims. The resignation letter is quite damning, with the former commissioner accusing the Government of “downgrading” victims’ concerns. I am sure that Ministers appreciate families’ concerns that a Bill has been brought forward without a key advocate on their behalf being in post.
The Bill obviously concerns a very emotive subject for families. Changing the title from the Victims Bill to the Victims and Prisoners Bill is, in itself, offensive to them. Families believe that a victims Bill should stand on its own—a point made by the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle).
From a Welsh perspective, there is concern that the key parts of the Bill refer to England only. I am sure that that is only a drafting error, but both clauses 12 and 14 refer to police authorities in England alone. I suspect that the four Welsh police authorities should be included.
Victims’ campaigners are concerned that the rights set out in the Bill are not legally enforceable. The former Victims’ Commissioner pointed out in her response to the Bill that there is no accountability mechanism if a criminal justice partner does not deliver on those rights, and no right of recourse for families. Perhaps the Government are concerned about the extra cost that may be incurred as a result of any enforceable rights, but without a right of recourse it could be argued that the Bill’s content on victims is aspirational—a point made by the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).
The former commissioner, Dame Vera, argues that the Bill should seek to emulate the Australian model. Policies pioneered in the state of Victoria provide a formal role for victims within criminal justice proceedings, leading to a cultural shift from, according to Dame Vera,
“agencies viewing victims as peripheral to their function – bystanders to proceedings – to a core and valued constituent part of the justice system.”
I am no expert, but strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner role would be one way forward. From what I can see, the Victims’ Commissioner performs an advocacy role at present. In Wales, the Welsh Language Commissioner has specific regulatory functions and powers, which include setting standards in the public sector and deciding on complaints and investigations. Following investigations, the commissioner has the power to initiate enforcement action. Strengthening the Bill in that manner would give the Victims’ Commissioner real teeth and would empower victims.
Under part 3, the new powers proposed will allow the Secretary of State to make Parole Board decisions on the release of prisoners. Families are concerned that they will not have the opportunity to make a victim impact statement or be included in licensing decisions, as is currently the case—a point made by the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel). Furthermore, families are concerned that they will not have a voice during the appeals stage, as prisoners would surely contest a decision by the Secretary of State to keep them incarcerated. They will further lose their rights to make a victim impact statement or contribute towards licensing decisions at this stage—a point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).
The prisoners section of the Bill was not part of the original consultation; therefore. its removal should be considered. Campaigners believe that a second consultation should have been considered before the latest draft was published. Campaign groups raise concerns that the scope of the Bill is not wide enough to include other rights for victims. As I stated, it is vital that rights must be considered while putting victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, such as through free transcripts of trials involving loved ones. Campaigners tell me that a bereaved family were recently quoted £14,000 in costs for the transcript of a 17-day trial. Clearly, that is prohibitive.
The Human Rights Act 1998 is referred to only in part 3. That is upsetting to victims and bereaved families, as it implies that human rights apply only to prisoners and not victims. That further exacerbates the imbalances of power that they believe exist between victims and offenders. Before the Bill proceeds to Committee, I hope that Ministers will increase engagement with victims groups and bring forward necessary amendments to alleviate their concerns.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I warmly welcome the Bill, and in advance I thank the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who I know, together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will engage thoroughly with all the issues raised. I thank the Justice Committee for an excellent piece of pre-legislative scrutiny; my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) who chairs the Committee does a great job for us all.
The Bill is complex and covers a great deal, from prisoners and parole to victims of major incidents. We have heard a lot about those two issues already. I will turn my remarks firmly to victims of crime—the first part of the Bill—particularly with regards to the victims code. This is a hugely important piece of legislation for victims. I believe that we have a strong justice system only if it is a deterrent that, yes, provides punishment, but also recognises and supports victims. Otherwise, we risk falling short. To be the victim of crime is not only devastating but can be incredibly disorienting. Attempting to navigate the complex criminal justice system as a layperson is not easy. The perpetrator has numerous agencies telling them what they can and cannot do. Certainly, that has been the way in the past. Largely, victims have been left to navigate life post crime themselves.
I am sure that the House will not mind me saying that quite recently I was a victim of crime, which led to a successful conviction of harassment by my local Crown Prosecution Service in Hampshire. I was listening to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips); I would not want to comment on what she said, but I cannot commend Wessex Crown Prosecution Service highly enough. Unlike the hon. Lady, I was kept thoroughly informed at every step. I will not comment too much on it because, unfortunately, the individual has transgressed and is before the courts again, but it is important to make the point that the CPS in Wessex got it right. It might not get it right all the time, but when it does, it is important for victims. I hope that the Crown Prosecution Service in the hon. Lady’s constituency takes a leaf out of the books in my area.
The 2020 code of practice was a good start and put some important principles in place. What is great about the Bill is that it takes them forward and puts them on a statutory footing. It seems perverse that the justice system could be better explained to perpetrators than to victims. The Bill will help equalise that disparity, by putting the victims code on a statutory footing, making what victims can and should expect even clearer than before.
An important part of the Bill is putting a duty on relevant bodies to raise awareness of the victims code with victims, which will make a big impact and be greatly welcomed. The victims code is a detailed document containing the important rights that victims can expect, but it is of little use if people do not know it exists, so it is right that those with responsibility for aspects of the code can make it clear to victims how they can use it.
We know that services working in isolation miss problems and opportunities for support, which is why I also welcome the Bill’s focus on co-ordinating services across relevant bodies and strengthening local services. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s recent report, “A patchwork of provision”, showed that the level of service and support that victims can reliably expect is not uniform across the country and depends greatly on where they live. I welcome the consistency that the Bill shows. We need to ensure we get that consistency across the whole United Kingdom, wherever people live.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) talked about the role of police and crime commissioners in getting local consistency embedded in our constituencies. I am pleased that my local police and crime commissioner, Donna Jones, has put in place similar initiatives to those mentioned by my right hon. Friend, as well as delivering, well ahead of time, an extra 600 police officers in our county. My police and crime commissioner is consulting on a victims hub—the consultation is ongoing—so that victims will know how to get the support that the Bill wants to ensure is available to them. Having quicker and tailored access to support services will be an important step forward in my own constituency. I urge anybody who is able to take part in the consultation to do so; it runs until Monday 21 May.
I add my support to the Bill’s provisions with regard to IDVAs and ISVAs. Indeed, I held a roundtable on Friday on the importance of tackling domestic abuse. We discussed the amazing work done by a number of different organisations in my constituency in ensuring that victims are well aware of the support available, and the hugely important role of IDVAs and ISVAs, particularly when cases come to court, which was underlined by my local police commander. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister help me to ensure that those expert individuals will in future be able to stay with victims in court? That issue was raised with me at the roundtable.
Having someone independent of the police present in the immediate aftermath of a crime can be crucial, but making sure they continue to be involved, when a case comes to court, can help with some of the problems that exist for victims because of the great deal of time it can take for relevant evidence and individuals to be brought to court. IDVAs and ISVAs are often the only people involved whose sole focus is the victim. As much as individual police officers regularly go out of their way to care for victims of crime, the reality is that police priorities will mean that sometimes their focus goes elsewhere.
I highlight to the Minister the section of the Bill about support for victims, because the victims code may go further than he thinks. In addition, I have raised the issue of the role of non-disclosure agreements with him on a number of occasions. They can cover up crimes, particularly those in the workplace and those that disproportionately impact women, such as sexual harassment or other forms of abuse in the workplace.
When it comes to non-disclosure agreements and sexual harassment in the workplace, the Government have been working on strengthening support for victims for a great deal of time. The Government have backed universities in banning the use of non-disclosure agreements to cover up misconduct, and they are looking at how they could go further in stopping non-disclosure agreements from being used inappropriately. Unfortunately, it is increasingly common practice for non-disclosure clauses to be included in settlement agreements, although it is perfectly possible to settle without them.
When victims of misconduct—often sexual misconduct and usually women—make allegations, an all too frequent response is a settlement in which an employer can see allegations dropped in return for a non-disclosure agreement that will stop the victim from speaking out, sometimes lawfully and sometimes not so much. No matter what, victims feeling that they cannot speak out cannot be what we want to see in this place.
An employee can feel trapped. When I chaired the Women and Equalities Committee, we published at least two reports on the impact on victims of non-disclosure agreements and we heard first-hand evidence that people felt not only that they could not speak out about their experience, but that it made them feel even worse and re-victimised. Sometimes, I am sure in error, legal counsel could put a non-disclosure agreement into a contract or severance agreement, but more often that is done by human resources departments, which probably take something offline and give it to an individual to sign. That means that a person who has experienced significant wrongdoing in the workplace can feel that they cannot speak out.
I hope the Minister might want to look at how the Victims and Prisoners Bill could take the excellent work that the Government have done with universities, calling out the appalling impact of non-disclosure agreements, a stage further. I am sure he is not surprised that I want to thank Zelda Perkins for the work that she has done through the organisation she has set up, Can’t Buy My Silence. She is continuing to campaign hard to stop non-disclosure agreements being used in the way they were against her and her colleagues, when she was unable to speak out about Harvey Weinstein and the appalling way that he treated a number of women in his organisation. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister is listening closely to how we could use this excellent Bill to take further the Government’s work on victim support and outlawing the misuse of non-disclosure agreements.
I was pleased to support the then Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), in launching the university pledge to stop the use of non-disclosure agreements in universities. I strongly supported the subsequent ban through the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. I call on the Government to expand the ban on NDAs from educational settings to other workplaces through the victims code in the Bill. In the not-too-distant future, I hope the Minister will have some meetings with me to see how we can ensure that the very real impact that the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham had on universities can have a broader impact. That will ensure we protect many more victims, over and above those he was envisaging in his first draft of the Bill.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller). I fully back her calls; as the Bill goes into Committee, I am sure we will work across the House to improve some elements it.
I find myself in the unenviable position of being ready to critique quite a bit of the Bill—not necessarily because of what is in it, but because of what is not in it. I say “unenviable” because without doubt the Secretary of State, who is not currently in his place, and the Minister have open ears for the things being said in this Chamber. The Secretary of State alluded to my contact with him over the weekend; I found him to be incredibly helpful about some difficult cases, specifically around the family court. I suppose I might focus my attention and ire about what is missing on the previous Secretary of State rather than the current one, who has been in post for a couple of weeks and I am not entirely sure has had the time to properly put himself into the Bill. I look forward to seeing that happen as we go through Committee.
We all agree that we do not want victims of crime to be left in terrible situations. We do not want there to be a postcode lottery or people who have suffered crimes not to get justice in this country—I do not doubt that for a second when it comes to the vast majority of people in this House. Unfortunately, however, when politics intervenes I sometimes see a huge amount of headline and very little frontline going on. Some of the things missing from the Bill need to be put into it, to make some of the Prime Minister’s words mean something more than a cracking headline in the Express. We have to work to get that to be the case. I will go over some of the things that should be included to make the Prime Minister good on some of his words.
I very much hope that sexual exploitation is not a wedge issue, but one that we would all focus on getting right. Recently, the Prime Minister talked about there being an element of charge around the duty to report in cases of sexual exploitation. If people fail on their watch as professionals to act collectively to report cases of sexual exploitation or any form of child abuse, they should be subject to a standard that they have to live by. The issue has been consulted on three times in the last 10 years—why on earth is it not in the Bill? The Prime Minister took to various plinths and said that he wanted it to happen. “Crack on!” would be my advice.
Nothing was released on the day the Prime Minister went out to talk about sexual exploitation, following years of many different inquiries from all over the country and amazing work by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). Why is none of it reflected in the Bill? Why is there nothing about children living in unregulated accommodation or about powers to change how we deal with the sexual exploitation of British children? I feel that there are huge gaps when it comes to things we have been promised—merely headline, rather than frontline.
The other area that is everybody’s favourite wedge issue —one that the Prime Minister certainly wants to lean on constantly—is the idea of specialist women-only services, which have become the absolute tour de force of a thing that people want to defend. Let me say what is happening across our country because of a commissioning environment created over the last decade. Specialist women-only services have given way to generic services that could offer a lower contract price in local authority areas. Nothing in the Bill says what specialist women’s services are—women do not even get a mention. Nothing in the Bill says what a specialist sexual violence or domestic abuse service is.
I am not talking about a Johnny-come-lately, “We noticed that people care about domestic abuse so we’ll set up a random domestic abuse charity and make it for everybody.” In the last 10 years, the commissioning environment created in local authorities, and police and crime commissioners, have seen specialist women-only domestic abuse services being told that they absolutely have to see men and will lose their contracts if they do not. Why on earth would we not just commission specialist men’s services if that is what we wanted? We want specialist LGBT services in this space, so why on earth would we not have a strategy to commission them?
What is happening in the broader area that I represent—not my constituency per se—is that contracts are given to generic housing associations or broader victims’ charities. I have a case of a woman who has been taken to eight multi-agency risk assessment conferences; she has been risk-assessed as being at high risk of harm and death eight times. Yet the same agency—apparently a specialist domestic abuse service; one I had never heard of—is also now supporting the perpetrator, who is claiming to be a victim of domestic abuse. It is completely and utterly dangerous to provide that kind of “specialist” service.
If the Prime Minister cared to make more of a headline out of the argument about women-only spaces, the Bill could make it incredibly clear what we mean by specialist women-only domestic and sexual violence services. I implore the Minister to make that happen. There is nothing that says what a specialist agency is. Even the duty to collaborate—honestly, I have heard so many serious case or domestic homicide reviews that say that people did not collaborate! It is not true: people do collaborate, but no one acts. This is about action. People talk to each other all the time. Agencies are constantly passing things on one to another, but people have to actually act and feel empowered to do something with the information.
The Secretary of State, a man I deeply like and respect, said a number of things earlier. The general patter in this place would make it seem that there are independent domestic abuse and independent sexual violence advisers everywhere, as far as the eye can see. That is laughable—in the area where I live, the wait for one at the moment would be at least a year, and they are rationed according to whether someone has come forward to the police. When I did the job, that was absolutely not the case—the victim did not have to be in an active process of police complaint to get access to an ISVA service, but that is exactly what is happening now across our country. The idea that IDAAs and ISVAs are everywhere or that there is anywhere near enough of them is for the birds.
The Secretary of State also said that of course young people should be able to access therapeutic support, to which I say, “Chance would be a fine thing!” I have tried to refer somebody who has been sexually exploited and is suffering from very severe suicide ideation to child and adolescent mental health services, for example. I have then been told that the assessment process will take two and a half years. It is great that the third-party thing that many in the House have campaigned for has come into force. Now let us get some counsellors for people to go to, so that there are some notes to go by. That might be an idea.
Many of us will have seen the letter today from Charlie Webster, a friend of many of us in this Chamber, and the story of her friend Katie who took her life after not being able to overcome the trauma of her situation. That is the reality on the ground.
Dame Maria Miller
I hear what the hon. Lady is saying about the availability of ISVAs in her area and about their only being connected with police cases, but should she not push back against that? There are three ISVAs in my local hospital, and they are certainly not connected with crimes; they would be called on by the staff in the emergency department as needed.
Jess Phillips
In fact, my area was the first in the west midlands to have ISVAs in a hospital, the Queen Elizabeth. I was one of the commissioners. What I want to see in a Bill such as this is not just a duty to collaborate, but a duty to commission. Every local authority area in the country, and every health provider, whether it is a public health provider, a mental health provider, an independent board, or whatever the bloody hell we call them this week—PCCs, PCGs—I apologise for swearing, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Let us just rewind to “whatever”.
Jess Phillips
Whatever we call them this week, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The vast majority of those bodies do not commission a single support service anywhere in the country to deal with sexual or domestic abuse. In the constituencies of nearly all those who are in the Chamber today, there will be a sexual health service with no ISVAs. How is it possible to run a special sexual health service without them? The worst offender, though, is mental health services. It is unimaginable that there should be mental health services in this country that do not have specific mental health provision for victims of trauma such as sexual violence or a lifelong experience of abuse and victimisation, but most of them do not.
There may well be more ISVAs funded from the centre than there have been previously, but those funded by local authorities and police forces throughout the country have been decimated. We give with one hand and take away with another. The decimation of local authority budgets over many years has undermined victims’ services to the point where specialisms no longer really matter, and there is a race to the bottom in lots of commissioning. I would want the Bill to reflect what specialism actually means, rather than just listening to people caring about it when it makes for good headlines—that is absolutely no criticism of anyone who is in the Chamber at the moment.
I want to make two more points specifically about things that are missing from the Bill, and what we in the Labour party will be pushing for. One, which I mentioned to the Secretary of State earlier, is Jade’s law. The Bill massively misses an opportunity in some areas—well, all areas—of the family court, which is diabolical for victims of crime, to the point where I think it is the worst part of our justice system with regard to those victims. There is a specific opportunity to say that, if someone has been sent to prison for the murder or manslaughter—so many of these cases go for manslaughter, but let us say the killing—of the other parent, they should never be entitled to parental responsibility. If I were to go out into the street and tell people that a father who had murdered a mother is allowed to decide whether the child could go to counselling, for example, they would think I was a mad, swivel-eyed feminist. However, that is the law of the land in our country and we have to do something to end that ridiculous injustice.
The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), did a fine and decent service to everyone in the Chamber with his critique of part 3. I look forward to the conversations in Committee, but I think it important to say now that this was always meant to be the victims Bill, and it has been subverted somewhat to become the victims and prisoners Bill.
We have already had conversations about Hillsborough and unfair arms with regard to legal aid and support. Currently, part 3 provides the opportunity for appeal and review, and I am not sure that anyone would argue with that, but what comes alongside the appeal and review is a lengthy process that victims—for example, mothers of murdered daughters and fathers of murdered sons—have to go through without a penny piece of support, or anything extra, but there is money to support the perpetrators. The only allocation of actual funding in this document is for the prisoners bit, not the victims bit.
That is not what the House has been pushing for 10 years. That is not what we asked for and it is not what we should have got. I look forward very much to working with the Ministers to make the Bill considerably better than it is now, as we would all want.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), with the experiences and perspectives that she always brings to matters such as this, and her ability to convey to the House the views of many people who do not feel that they have a voice in a way that makes them feel that they do indeed have a voice here.
The mere fact of the Bill’s introduction sends a clear message of intent to be on the side of victims of crime, especially as my good friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar)—are in charge of it. It was welcome to hear the Secretary of State say that victims should not feel that they are just spectators, but should be aware that they are participants and at the heart of the criminal justice system. I also note the excellent work by the Justice Committee, chaired by another good friend who is not currently present, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). Back in January, the Committee published the Government’s response to its pre-legislative scrutiny report on the draft Victims Bill. It is welcome that the Government have accepted 20 of the Committee’s recommendations, which strengthen both the Bill and work in this area overall.
The Bill can be broken down into three broad areas: victims of crime, victims of major incidents, and measures relating to prisoners and parole. Every crime has a victim, be it a person, a company, wider society or the taxpayer. Being described as a victim inherently covers a wide range of situations, from seeing something that one has worked hard to acquire or make destroyed or stolen, to serious sexual or violent attacks that can leave a person and his or her loved ones with an impact which lasts a lifetime. There will also be victims who are unaware that what happened to them was an offence, having been groomed or brainwashed into thinking that what was being or had been done to them was acceptable, and only realising when they talk to someone else, or many years later, that what happened was not just wrong but criminal. I am therefore pleased that clause 1 will establish a statutory definition of “victim”, helping to clarify who is being referred to.
I also welcome the move to include bereaved families, children who have witnessed domestic abuse and children born of rape in the definition of a victim, following the pre-legislative scrutiny. Those who lose a loved one as a result of another’s deliberate or negligent act will be victims for the rest of their lives, so it is right that they are included. Similarly, children born of rape who discover their heritage will need a unique form of support which reflects the fact that they too are victims of crime.
Alongside the definition of a victim, it is welcome to see the principles of the victims code enshrined in law, and a duty placed on criminal justice bodies with police and crime commissioners to review their compliance and raise awareness of the code. I note that the code will not be in legislation; that is logical, because it allows it to be flexible and adapt to needs rather than being rigidly set in statute. It would be interesting to hear some reflections on how it will be developed and implemented, and how the House, and Parliament more widely, will be involved in the process.
It was welcome to see Devon and Cornwall’s police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, in Parliament last week to launch a new website to help victims of crime. The new website, which is just one doorway to getting help, is aimed at helping victims to access the care and support that they need, and provides a single route for all victims, regardless of whether they have reported the crime. It was especially good to talk to the representatives of Victim Support who also attended the event. As the Minister may know, they are working in partnership with Alison’s office to deliver services to victims in a landmark 10-year contract, the largest contract of this type outside London. The partnership has a budget of £3.42 million for this financial year, and during 2021-22, a total of 41,112 people were supported through the pathway, with over 11,000 more people referred to therapeutic services than in the previous year. It is welcome to see this type of work being done, as it is vital that delivery at local level should match aspirations at national level. That is why the commitment to require a criminal justice inspectorate to undertake joint inspections on victims’ issues when directed to do so is also welcome.
That said, it will be interesting to hear the Minister say a bit more about how he will ensure that services for victims at local level are tailored to meet the requirements of each victim’s circumstances, rather than being a set process, which might feel to some like a tick-box exercise that does not respond to the nature of the crime. Speaking from my own experience, I had a phone call from my local police force to find out how distressed I was about paint being thrown at my office front door. That might be appropriate in that instance, but I would hope that people who had suffered crimes that had a greater impact on them personally would get a slightly different experience. How will the Minister ensure that this is not just a process that is done to meet a national standard, and that it will actually respond to the severity of the impact on the victim?
Going through the courts can be a major challenge for victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse, so I welcome the introduction of guidance on independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers. These roles can make a crucial difference when a victim has to relive the most difficult and traumatic time of their life and to keep going to ensure that justice is done. Ensuring that those advisers are there to provide support when needed is absolutely vital. I also very much welcome the indicated amendment on third party disclosure. We should always remember that it is the accused who is on trial, not their victim. That should be reflected throughout the process the victim faces when reporting an offence.
I welcome the move to simplify the process for victims of crime to make complaints to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman by removing the need to go through an MP where their complaint relates to their experience as a victim. Members across the House will always be happy to help a victim who wants to go to the ombudsman, but this aspect of the process can feel like a tick-box exercise as few would refuse a genuine request from a constituent for a referral. I would, however, be keen to ensure that local MPs are still sighted of the outcomes when a report on a complaint is produced, especially if it has implications beyond the individual case for how victims are supported within our constituencies.
The second part of the Bill covers support for the victims of major incidents. The origin of these changes is the appalling treatment of the victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families, and the systematic failures of the justice system that they experienced. A series of failings led to a tragedy that saw 97 football fans lose their lives in a disaster that was both foreseeable and preventable. Those who have heard me talk on this subject before will know that many of the Coventry City fans who attended the semi-final against Leeds in 1987 were all too aware of Hillsborough’s shortcomings, including a near crush that acted as an ominous sign of what was to come two years later.
As we know, rather than getting support, sympathy and justice, the Liverpool fans and their families faced a disgraceful mix of lies, smears and cover-ups, many of which were orchestrated by the very people who were supposed to enforce the law. All these things were being done by those seeking to avoid their responsibility for what had happened, and while doing so, they could take advantage of representation and resources that were simply not available to their victims. As was touched on earlier, there was a complete inequality of arms when they were making their case.
It is therefore welcome that part 2 of the Bill provides the Justice Secretary with the power to appoint public advocates to support bereaved families and victims of major incidents. Legislating for this independent public advocate is needed and, I have to say, long-awaited. I understand the model would be that advocates would be appointed if there was an incident, rather than holding a permanent position, and that they would be able to provide support in the immediate aftermath of an incident as well as assisting victims while any police or coroners investigations, inquests or public inquiries took place. It would be helpful, though, to provide as much clarity as possible about what the thresholds for these appointments will be and how Ministers will discharge this.
Understandably, particularly given the experiences of the Hillsborough families, there will be nervousness if it appears that advocates might not be appointed in cases where victims and their families have been impacted, although I appreciate that a set of strict rules could prove to be too rigid and have the opposite effect of not seeing an appointment where one was needed. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s reflections on how we can ensure that the victim’s voice is paramount in making their demands and that, by the creation of this role, they will never again see the ridiculous inequality of arms where families are trying to represent themselves while their own taxes are being used to throw at them every argument, defence and excuse in the book by those trying to avoid being held liable for their mistakes.
The third part of the Bill covers changes relating to prisoners and parole. Having been responsible for the General Register Office during my time in the Home Office, I welcome the move to prohibit prisoners serving a whole life order from entering into a marriage or civil partnership. Those who receive these sentences have committed the most heinous crimes and they should not be able to enjoy an event that they have almost certainly robbed their victim of the opportunity to share with their loved ones. We also have to question their motives in looking to marry and the motives of those who wish to marry them. This is a matter of public confidence in the criminal justice system. It is about preventing the most serious offenders from mocking their victims’ families by holding such an event while in custody.
I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley that it is ridiculous that someone can retain parental responsibility when they have actively taken away the other parent. I hope that the Government are listening carefully to some of these thoughts, and I share some of the comments made by Opposition Members on this. If I walked out on the street and said that a father who had murdered the mother should retain parental responsibility, few would see that as a logical, sensible or desirable outcome. It would be a bizarre one, given the reason behind it. I am sure that this is something we will revisit at a later stage of the Bill.
I also welcome the moves to clarify the meaning and application of the current statutory release test to ensure that minimising risk and public protection are at the core of decision making when determining whether to release a prisoner, rather than the balancing exercise approach articulated by the courts. The protection of the public should always be first when reviewing whether an offender is ready to be released and it is right that this is being changed.
I also welcome the intention to create a new top tier cohort of offenders: those convicted of the most serious offences who, if recommended by the Parole Board for release, will be subject to a new ministerial power to review their case. As outlined by the Secretary of State, the Bill creates a power for him, having reviewed a top tier case, to refuse to release the prisoner if necessary for public protection. This is not about arbitrary political power, as the measures clearly create a new route of appeal to the upper tribunal if the prisoner wants to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision to block their release, yet it is right that someone who is accountable to the public and to Parliament takes the final decision in relation to cases where the public’s faith in our criminal justice system may be on the line more broadly, as we have seen in some cases recently. It also makes eminent sense to require the Parole Board to include members with a background in law enforcement to help parole panels to make better decisions in assessing risk.
There are a couple of areas where I hope we can go further. One that has already been touched on is the ability of convicted sex offenders to change their name. Currently, sex offenders can change their name by deed poll and, in a bizarre loophole, the offender is the one responsible for notifying the relevant authorities of the change. This can render the child sex offender disclosure scheme, otherwise known as Sarah’s law, and the domestic violence disclosure scheme, known as Clare’s law, ineffective. Research carried out by the Safeguarding Alliance has shown that thousands of offenders are being lost from the system, posing a risk to victims and the vulnerable. I therefore wholeheartedly supported the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), and I very much hope that this Bill will allow progress to be made in this area. As I have indicated, it is bizarre that that loophole still exists, and it is time we shut it down.
A second area is spiking, which affects people across society. Prolific sex offenders are able to get away with their offences because spiking means that victims may not be aware of the offences being committed. I appreciate that the 1861 law provides options for prosecution, yet it is clearly far from sufficient. A growing number of Members believe it is time to create a specific offence, one designed for mid-21st-century offenders, rather than for those who purchased poisons from a Victorian apothecary. Any move that can be made in this area would be welcome, and I suspect the Government will face increasing pressure to make one.
I am conscious that there is a lot to cover in this Bill, and I could go on for longer than my current record set on a Friday, but I will draw my remarks to a close to ensure that others have a chance to set out their thoughts. The Bill is a welcome move both to support victims and to protect the public. It makes a clear commitment to support people who have been through the worst moment of their life, and to help people who have lost loved ones in disasters to get the advocacy they need to get answers and justice. There will inevitably be debates about details and aspects on which there may be a will to go further, but those are reasons for the Bill to pass its Second Reading this evening.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is with profound sadness that I express my devastation at the recent murder of my constituent Suma Begum. My thoughts are with all Suma’s loved ones at this most difficult and painful time.
As a survivor of domestic abuse, and as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, I will be concentrating my remarks accordingly. I am afraid that I share the concerns about whether the Bill will, in fact, strengthen victims’ rights. The Justice Committee said the draft Bill “does not appear” to do any more than existing legislation. Specialist domestic abuse organisations argue
“there is a long way to go before this Bill can truly make a difference”.
Even the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales has called the Bill “disappointing.” Indeed, it is very disappointing that the Government have failed to take on board such concerns and all the Justice Committee’s recommendations to strengthen the Bill. The End Violence Against Women coalition has argued that, despite the sector’s long list of priorities for the Bill, it instead delivers immense powers for the Justice Secretary to intervene in the parole process.
Despite the steps forward and the widely welcomed Domestic Abuse Act 2021, the truth is that it is extremely difficult for survivors of domestic abuse and other crimes to come forward. As a survivor, I know this from first-hand experience. The stigma, the structural and systemic bias against us, and the use of the courts and the law to threaten and silence us—never mind the trauma of the abuse itself—all too often seem insurmountable. In particular, evidence shows that black, minoritised and migrant groups are disproportionately victims of violence against women and girls, yet they also experience poorer outcomes in access to justice and support.
I know how threats of defamation and libel cases seek to shut us up, but this is not unique to my experience. We know of the libel cases in which wealthy men have sought to protect their reputation from women who accuse them of abuse. It is therefore clear that we need a comprehensive approach that provides support and consideration at every stage of the criminal justice system and, crucially, beyond. If the Bill is truly to centre on victims, it must provide rape survivors with independent legal advice and safeguards to protect them from excessive police requests for personal data.
I would also like to see a complete firewall between the police and immigration enforcement, ending the sharing of data that leaves those with insecure immigration status unable to seek justice and at risk of further victimisation. That demand has been made for decades, and it was also recommended by the Justice Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny.
Lawfare, the practice of abusers misusing the court system to maintain power and control over their former or current partners, sometimes called vexatious or abusive litigation—in other words, stalking through the courts—needs to be tackled. The House will know that, two years after being elected as the UK’s first hijab-wearing MP, I had to endure an eight-day trial, instigated by a complaint from my ex-husband’s brother-in-law, which brutally forced me to talk about painful and private experiences. The action was taken by my local council, on which my ex-husband was a serving councillor at the time.
Although I was found to be innocent of all charges, I fear that the ordeal of the trial will haunt me for the rest of my life. The matter of domestic abuse was used against me by the prosecution, which argued that the abuse was a motive for the alleged crimes. Raj Chada, the criminal defence partner at Hodge Jones & Allen who represented me, argues:
“Prosecutors and investigators need to better understand and consider how victims of coercive control and domestic abuse behave and how they are treated by the criminal justice system.”
It is commonly assumed that a woman should just leave, and then all her problems will be over, but this is far from the reality for many. It goes on and on, and the wall of institutional gaslighting is chilling, which is why I am working with MPs from all parties to call for a duty of care to be placed on employers and political parties to ensure that survivors of domestic abuse are not exposed to further harassment. This must recognise that post-separation control and harassment is itself a form of domestic abuse and can occur long after a relationship or marriage has ended, with different tactics of abuse being used.
This week is Mental Health Awareness Week, and it is important to recognise that domestic abuse can have a severe and lasting impact on mental health and that survivors often find it difficult to access the support they need. I will be closely following developments on counselling notes. Victims of coercive control who go through court proceedings may find their counselling notes being used by a perpetrator to further the abuse and harassment post separation.
IDVAs have been mentioned a lot in this debate and, where they are funded and available, they can be crucial, as I know from first-hand experience. Women’s Aid and others have raised concerns about the proposal to create a statutory definition of an IDVA. I urge the Government to hold discussions with specialist domestic abuse services as soon as possible to address this issue. My understanding is that a statutory definition is intended to create consistency, but IDVAs should be allowed a degree of flexibility in how they carry out their role, given that they could be sitting in a courtroom with one victim and dealing with multiple stakeholders and partners to support another. It needs to be taken into account that, for victims of domestic abuse, no two cases are the same. My case was unique in that I had to go through court proceedings while holding public office, and the support of my IDVA was crucial.
Funding is crucial to this debate. The funding crisis in support for those experiencing domestic abuse continues to put many at risk, and it means that too many are unable to access vital services. The Bill currently places a duty on key agencies, but it does not attach funding. Any expansion in victim support services, which already face unmanageable referral levels and caseloads, needs funding.
More action and funding are urgently needed. In the UK, two women a week are killed by a current or former partner, and 49% of these women are killed less than a month after separation. This is unacceptable, but it is also preventable. This Bill is too little and, with great solemnity, I fear it is too late for so many.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
That was a very sobering speech from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum). It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this important debate. I was a member of the Justice Committee for a considerable period of the pre-legislative scrutiny, although I was not involved in the approval of the Committee’s report. I had moved on by then, but I think it relevant to mention that I had the privilege of listening to many of those who gave evidence to the Committee at that time, including many victims who bravely relived some of their experiences. I should briefly declare other interests, in that I was previously involved with victims during my 12 years as a magistrate, including time on the Sentencing Council. In that role, the needs and requirements of victims were always very much in our minds. I have also served on the boards of the Youth Justice Board and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service.
That considerable experience across the criminal justice system prompted me in my maiden speech to say that I wanted to focus on putting victims right at the heart of the criminal justice system, and this Bill takes a big step towards doing that. It enshrines the principles of the victims code in law; it places a duty on PCCs to review their compliance; and it imposes a requirement on criminal justice bodies to raise awareness of the victims code. Each of those is significant in its own right, but together they have the potential to transform victims’ experience of the criminal justice system for the better.
The core provision of the legislation, to put the principles of the victims code on a statutory footing, has rightly been universally welcomed. We cannot underestimate the importance of setting out in law the services that should be provided to victims of crime. That, in turn, should dramatically improve compliance with the code. A report by the charity Victim Support found that currently
“as many as six in ten victims do not receive their entitlements under the Victims’ Code”.
It says that that can leave them feeling anxious, unsafe and frustrated. My own experience as a magistrate is that the process of hearings, trials and sentencing can be extremely difficult to navigate for victims of crime. Once in the courtroom, the terminology used by lawyers and the judiciary can be both complicated and challenging. All too often, victims feel as though they are the least important person in the room, notwithstanding the considerable efforts of the volunteers who make up the witness service in the court. Placing the code on a statutory footing, with much firmer requirements on compliance, holds out the prospect of a tremendous improvement in victims’ experiences.
One area where I am slightly disappointed, however, is that the victims code and, by extension, this legislation, do not require any specific action by the judiciary. I fully respect the need for a separation of powers, but I firmly believe that magistrates and judges can do much more to enhance the experience of victims. I would hope that that might be considered in future legislation.
I am pleased to see that a duty will be placed on PCCs to keep under review how the criminal justice bodies are complying with the victims code in their police area. The PCC for Thames Valley, Matt Barber, has welcomed this formal responsibility being placed upon him, and I know he will carry it out diligently across Buckinghamshire and the wider police area for which he is responsible.
Given the undoubted health impacts, whether physical or psychological, on victims of crime, the new duty for integrated care boards to collaborate with local authorities and PCCs when commissioning certain support services is important. My own experience, stemming from many meetings at local and national level, is that the NHS does not always regard involvement in the criminal justice system with the priority one might hope. Integrated care boards are still new and finding their feet; the one serving my constituency is already a cause of some concern, so I will be carefully monitoring its compliance with this new duty. However, the principle of the new duty is sound indeed.
The requirement to respond to recommendations made by the Victims’ Commissioner is another positive step, and will help keep to the forefront the needs of those who have so often been forgotten. Likewise, I strongly welcome the prospect of Ministers directing joint thematic inspections to assess the experience and treatment of victims throughout the entire criminal justice process. That has the potential for good practice to be shared, and it strikes me that that could be especially useful in developing further restorative justice schemes, which are extremely successful when they are implemented.
Having a code is good, but only if victims know about it; all too often, people do not get the service to which they are entitled because they are not aware of their rights or the services that exist to help them. So the duty in this legislation on specified bodies to promote awareness of the code is very welcome. I trust that experts in communications will be deployed to make sure the information is understandable, meaningful and appropriately disseminated; it is not good enough to have just jargon or just to put this information on a website that no one knows about.
Let me say a few words about part 2 of the Bill and the appointment of independent public advocates for the victims of major incidents. In doing so, I pay tribute, as many right hon. and hon. Members have, to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) for her unstinting work. As I have mentioned in this House previously, I was a student at Sheffield University at the time of the Hillsborough disaster, and a friend of mine lost his life in that tragedy. Events since have been inexcusable and unforgivable, and the introduction of an independent public advocate will, we hope, prevent any such outrages of cover-up from occurring again. I am pleased that the Government have committed to working with families of victims of Hillsborough and of other disasters to get the detail of the advocate scheme right. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who is on the Treasury Bench now, have indicated their openness to speak further with the right hon. Lady, who is undoubtedly expert in this arena.
I do have some sympathy with the view of the Law Society that legal aid should at least be considered to be provided to victims in cases where an independent legal advocate has been appointed. Of course, funding can never be unlimited, but it is important that there is an equality of arms so that victims are properly represented at every stage of an inquiry. In short, we need to ensure that victims’ voices are truly heard in the aftermath of such dreadful events.
Moving on to part 3 and parole, I understand the Government’s rationale for the changes that are proposed, and absolutely appreciate the concerns about public protection that have prompted the legislation, but I have my own concerns about the potential implications on the prison system and prospects for the rehabilitation of offenders. Many right hon. and hon. Members have made other points about the more general principles. I know from my very short time in the Ministry of Justice that prison capacity is extremely tight. My successor, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) has been to this House to describe actions he is rightly taking in response to that. The impact assessment for this part of the Bill predicts that, on the central scenario, an additional 640 new prison places will be needed over the next 10 years as a direct result of the implementation of the new parole clauses. Those are spaces we do not currently have in the prison estate. The impact assessment states:
“To accommodate a large increase in demand for prison places, we would have to consider demand reduction elsewhere in the system.”
To put it more bluntly, some other people would not be sent to prison.
I am very much in favour of taking a root and branch look at who is sentenced to custody, as I believe we have scope to make far better use of technology through electronic GPS tagging, for example. That could facilitate the introduction of a form of house custody in a comprehensive sentence such as the intensive control and rehabilitation order that was proposed jointly by the Centre for Social Justice and myself several years ago. I believe that that would both improve outcomes for offenders and reduce costs to the Exchequer. It is worth noting that house arrest was mentioned in the Government’s White Paper on sentencing, in 2020 or 2021, I believe, which was introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland). Disappointingly, it has not received further attention since. I would be interested to learn from this Minister whether there might be progress on that at some future point.
It is not just a question of space in prison from the changes to parole that we must consider. Again, the impact assessment paints a concerning picture when it states:
“Non-releases and a reduced licence period could disrupt offenders’ and family relationships and reduce rehabilitation in the community, potentially leading to higher reoffending due to less post-custody rehabilitation activity from the probation service.”
Consequently, I hope the Government more broadly will consider the implications of these clauses, not least His Majesty’s Treasury. Increased funding for prisons and probation is rarely popular, but it is essential if we are to provide accommodation that is fit for purpose, as well as being able to recruit and retain enough prison and probation officers to ensure that there is a genuine prospect of achieving the rehabilitation of the prisoners in their charge. I hasten to add that this would not be money for nothing.
We know that about 80% of those currently receiving cautions or convictions have offended before. We also know from the MOJ’s own figures that the economic and social cost of reoffending in England and Wales is approximately £18 billion a year. So, if we can improve rehabilitation in our prisons and in our probation service, that will cut crime and cut cost.
Just before I close, I will quickly mention additional ways where I believe victims could be helped by legislation. One such way would be to change the rules on sharing data between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. At the moment, police officers waste untold hours redacting information before it is sent to the CPS for review. I am not talking about disclosure at a later stage; I am talking about that very first stage. Although the Attorney General’s office has provided helpful advice and guidance to police forces, which should reduce the workload somewhat—it is showing some signs of doing so—I am definitely still hearing feedback that there is the potential for the Government to go further and scrap what is an unnecessary administrative burden. That would mean more time for police to do what they do best: catch criminals and help victims get justice.
To conclude, the Bill is extremely welcome. It makes it absolutely clear that victims are being taken more seriously than ever before. I look forward to contributing further as it passes through this House.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I am pleased that we are finally debating the long-awaited victims Bill today. Since I was elected almost two years ago, the victims Bill has been just one of a very long list of so-called Government priorities that have been delayed and delayed. That delay has meant thousands of victims will not have received the support or exercised the rights they should have been able to. As we have heard from across the House, the Government have come forward with a Bill that is only half-baked. What has taken them so long to produce such a flimsy Bill that will not, in its current form, deliver its stated aims?
First, why have the Government not included victims of one of the most damaging and victim-centred issues faced by so many people every day: antisocial behaviour? In Batley and Spen we have seen, as is the case in many other communities across the country, huge spikes in antisocial behaviour in recent years. Whether it is inconsiderate or dangerous parking, modified motorbikes screeching through neighbourhoods at all hours, abuse directed at bus drivers and shopkeepers, setting off fireworks or fires, the vandalising of community facilities or fly-tipping, all of which the Government somehow treat as low-level nuisances, these are the things that are blighting our communities and terrifying residents. They are increasingly unaddressed and out of control, with little or no support for those affected.
In the current Bill, victims of those behaviours are not recognised. They are not given the same rights as other victims and they will continue not to be taken seriously in the criminal justice system. Without treating antisocial behaviour with the seriousness it needs, our communities, including Batley and Spen, will continue to see the increase in lawlessness that is damaging our towns, villages and neighbourhoods. We cannot underestimate the impact of this so-called low-level activity. It damages property and terrifies people, and it means that residents feel afraid to walk their streets alone. They are certainly not seeing any justice that reassures them their neighbourhood is safe and, as my constituents tell me, there is nothing low level about that. I therefore strongly urge the Government to reconsider their approach to antisocial behaviour in the Bill, and recognise the damage it does to people and communities across the country.
Secondly, as has been discussed, the Bill does not have the teeth to deliver meaningful change. As the Justice Committee set out in its report, simply stating the victims code in legislation will not by itself ensure that victims receive the justice they deserve. Where are the measures to ensure that victims are aware of their rights? Who is checking that police forces and the CPS are carefully going through the victims code with victims to ensure they take up all the measures available to them? And, most importantly, where is the resourcing to give police forces the staff and time they will require to afford each case the attention it deserves?
I am very fortunate to have a strong working relationship with West Yorkshire police, and in particular the Batley and Spen neighbourhood policing team. Of the cases we discuss, the major barrier to ensuring that victims are supported, involved in the process and able to see justice being delivered is not legislation, but police time and resources. And let us remember that the new police officers that the Government like to boast about barely replace the police officers we have lost over the last 13 years. So until we properly resource our police forces, this legislation will be unable to function in the way the Government hope it will.
Finally, I would like to discuss victims of domestic abuse and rape. Victims of these crimes are perhaps the most let down by the criminal justice system. Less than 1% of reported rapes lead to a conviction. That is a horrifying statistic that should alarm us all. Colleagues will have seen the open letter sent to the Justice Secretary by the charity Rape Crisis and Charlie Webster, who, along with her friend Katie, was a teenage victim of sexual abuse over many years. Katie, as has been referred to already, tragically went on to take her own life. On the radio today, Charlie spoke about the disconnect between victims, the justice system and the Government. Jayne Butler, the CEO of Rape Crisis, said:
“I want to see a Victims Bill that gives victims and survivors what Katie and Charlie never had. If the government truly wishes to make a difference with this bill, it must provide the funding needed to support it.”
The demand for the services of Rape Crisis has gone up by 38% in the last year. Without the resourcing and wider reform of the criminal justice system, the Bill will prove meaningless. Without providing any new funding for victim support services, the Bill will fail to deliver meaningful change for survivors of domestic abuse, as the charity Refuge has stated. Independent domestic violence advisers and independent sexual violence advisers are fantastic, but I share the concerns of others on the importance of solidifying those positions and ensuring consistency of provision across the country.
Furthermore, I agree that it is horrifying that a victim’s counselling notes can be accessed to form part of a defence if a case of rape does go to trial. That should not be acceptable in any circumstances. It undermines the aims of the Bill to protect victims and it may well lead to a decrease in the reporting of cases of rape, which is already shockingly low. I will therefore be supporting amendments in Committee to address that and to provide victims with the protections they need in the criminal justice system.
In conclusion, I am pleased that we finally have before us a framework that can be built on to ensure that victims receive the rights and protections they deserve. However, in its current state the Bill is too flimsy, excludes too many victims and fails to address the underlying issue in our criminal justice system: the underfunding and under-resourcing of our police forces and courts system. I therefore urge Members to back our amendments in Committee to strengthen the Bill, which has the potential to deliver the long-overdue, meaningful change that victims of crime deserve.
Kate Kniveton (Burton) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of the Bill. I welcome the Government’s commitment to improving support and services for victims and survivors of domestic abuse. I want to speak in relation to part 1, and specifically how it affects those who have been victims of those crimes.
The impact of domestic abuse is staggering. I know what affect it had on my own life. Nationally, in the last year alone, over 2 million people were affected by domestic abuse and every year more than 100 people are killed as a result of it. However, despite those grim statistics, support for victims of domestic abuse remains inconsistent and often unavailable, particularly for those facing multiple disadvantages. Being in an abusive relationship is a terrifying and lonely place, and it is not easy to ask for help. The mapping work conducted by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s office shows us that there is much more to do to ensure that survivors receive the support and care they need and want.
The Government have taken important steps to improve our response to domestic abuse and I welcome that the Bill will put the principles of the victims code into law, but we need to ensure that the available support is what victims want and need. So much of this is crisis-related, and of course getting people to safety is hugely important, but what about after that? When the survivors of domestic abuse are often left traumatised and financially and emotionally broken, where is the counselling? What about the advocates to help them protect their children from their abusers, and battle through the endless challenges where they must recount their experiences time and again?
Even for those survivors who want to access some form of community-based service that is currently available, fewer than half have been able to access the support they want. Only 35% find it straightforward to access this help. The findings in the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report, “A Patchwork of Provision”, make for stark reading, and I urge all Members to read it. Surely we can do better than this. We have made great progress under this Government, but I hope that we can push to help more people access the support that they need.
It is very clear that the specialist domestic abuse sector is stretched and underfunded. If we are serious about wanting to make tangible changes for victims, we need to invest more in community-based support services to help those services provide that support. The economic case is clear: Women’s Aid find that investing a minimum of £427 million per year to fund specialist domestic abuse services across England could save the public purse as much as £23 billion a year.
However, it is not just the support available to victims that is the problem; there must be fundamental change in our criminal justice process to support victims of rape and sexual abuse. Five out of six women who are raped do not report it, and for men, it is four out of five. Knowing how poor our justice outcomes are for survivors, why would anyone choose to put themselves through this level of intense scrutiny and have their credibility called into question when the chance of prosecution is so low? It takes tremendous bravery and courage to do this, and it is hard to even begin to think about it when a victim’s initial focus is on the immediate safety and wellbeing of their family. Victims and survivors must have access to specialist legal advice and representation to support them to ensure that their rights are not undermined and disregarded.
In closing, I welcome this important Bill but urge the Government to recognise the urgent need for increased investment in services that support survivors of domestic abuse. It is imperative that we provide comprehensive and accessible resources to empower those affected by these crimes, ensuring their safety. If the necessary funding is not available then perhaps we need to explore alternative avenues, such as pursuing financial penalties against those found guilty of abusive and violent behaviour. If we hold perpetrators to account for their actions through both legal and financial means, we send a strong message that domestic abuse and violence will not be tolerated in our society, and that the Government truly are on the side of victims.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
In 2013, I first met Claire Waxman. She is now the Victims’ Commissioner for London, but then she was a survivor looking to bring forward a victims Bill. She did this to prevent the horror that she went through befalling any other survivor, and I pay huge credit to her for doing that. She worked at the time with Elfyn Llwyd, the former Plaid Cymru MP —having stumbled over his name, I will not even attempt to pronounce his constituency. He first brought this forward as a ten-minute rule Bill in 2014. In 2015, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) presented it as a private Member’s Bill, which was then, rightly, adopted by the then Government.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am grateful for the opportunity to name my predecessor, Elfyn Llwyd, who was very successful in bringing through the legislation. He worked closely with Harry Fletcher, who was formerly the assistant general secretary of NAPO, and Members from all parties across the House to that effect.
Sarah Champion
I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for putting that on the record and naming the former right hon. Gentleman, which I made such a poor attempt of doing.
I raised the private Member’s Bill because it was adopted by the Government eight years ago. This Bill is eight years in the making, and yet, despite endless consultations and excellent pre-legislative scrutiny, the Government have still failed to produce legislation that will genuinely improve victims’ experiences within, and external to, the criminal justice system. It pains me, as I know it does Members across the House, that this could be a missed opportunity.
I pay tribute to the civil servants and, indeed, the Minister for all their work on the victims code. That is what the Bill effectively makes statute. Its aim is to improve the support for victims and enshrine their rights into law. I pay huge credit to all the victims, the survivors, the charities and the campaigners for shining a spotlight on the inequalities in our current justice system. It is because of them that we are here today.
Not only does the Bill lack the teeth needed to enforce those rights, but, perversely—I use that word deliberately—the scope has been broadened to include prisoners’ release and give sweeping powers to the Secretary of State, raising human rights concerns, especially as we found out today that those provisions have not been properly consulted on or scrutinised. Personally, I find it an insult to victims and survivors that their one opportunity to have a Bill recognising the inequalities and hurdles that they face has been saddled together, in perpetuity, with the persecutors—the very people who made them victims. That sticks in my throat. I also find it challenging that the Government feel safe to put forward financial considerations for those prisoners—those perpetrators—but there is no money in the Bill to meet the needs of the victims. I really hope that the Minister is able to change that. I hope that that is an oversight, because it cannot be otherwise, so let us change that.
I am concerned that the addition of prisoners will minimise the much-needed attention that we have to give to strengthening the measures relating to victims and their needs. What is more, this comes at a time when the role of the Victims’ Commissioner remains vacant. The role is vital for providing a voice for victims across the country, yet the Government have not replaced Dame Vera Baird since September, leaving a huge gap in the scrutiny of this Bill.
Let me focus on some of the positives. I am grateful—genuinely grateful—that the Bill has finally been introduced. I am delighted that the Minister has today announced that new measures will be added to the Bill to tackle police requests for unnecessary and disproportionate third-party material. This is particularly common for rape and sexual assault victims, including the constituent whose counselling notes were investigated by the police and shared with the prosecution and defence teams. That approach perpetuates a culture of victim blaming and re-traumatises victims, resulting in even more cases dropping out of the system at a time when we need to see many more being brought.
I thank my constituent wholeheartedly for her work on that and congratulate Rape Crisis England and Wales on all its excellent campaigning to get the issue addressed. We must now ensure that the amendment to the Bill goes far enough to create a presumption against the use of that type of material and rebuilds victims’ trust in the criminal justice system.
It is particularly welcome that there is progress on the definition of a victim in the Bill and I thank the Justice Committee for all its work on that. I also take this moment to acknowledge the extraordinary work of my former constituent, Sammy Woodhouse. Her dedication has led to the recognition of children born of rape as victims in this legislation. That is a huge difference and significant progress. We must all applaud her and others who brought that forward.
However, the definition of a victim in the Bill is limited to those who engage with the justice system, which means that the majority of victims of crime are not covered by the legislation. The Government’s “Tackling Child Sexual Abuse Strategy” in 2021 noted that only 7% of victims and survivors informed the police at the time of the offence, and only 18% told the police at any time—they would not be included in the Bill. The most recent crime survey for England and Wales reported that only 41% of crime is reported to the police at all—those victims would not be covered in the Bill. The Bill excludes victims who have not reported their perpetrator, or who choose not to report their perpetrator, or whose case has not yet received a charge or conviction. Not least, it would exclude the majority of victims of antisocial behaviour. I ask the Minister to look again at ensuring that all victims can access the support they need, when they need it, no matter the context they face.
My overarching concern with the Bill is the severe lack of accountability and consequence if the victims code is not followed. Victim Support found that as many as six in 10 victims do not currently receive their rights under the victims code. Systemic issues are causing a lack of implementation. I ask the Minister to consider what measures in the Bill will make the code any more enforceable than it already is—because at the moment there is no enforcement. How will the Government ensure that victims are aware of the code and able to challenge non-compliance with it?
Reviews of compliance with the code by elected local police bodies are a step in the right direction but, again, there are no consequences if the code is not being upheld. We must also ensure that that mechanism does not deepen pre-existing regional inequalities. We need to see measures in the Bill to ensure effective monitoring of how well all victims’ rights are being upheld.
There is overwhelming consensus from charities, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Women’s Aid, that a national oversight mechanism must be established to monitor the commissioning of support services, particularly for those with protected characteristics. It is also vital that staff at criminal justice agencies are trained to have an in-depth understanding of the victims code.
The introduction of the definition of child sexual exploitation has been transformational for policing, support services and the courts. We now need to see the same for adult sexual exploitation and child criminal exploitation, to ensure that victims can be identified and supported rather than criminalised.
Clause 12 introduces a duty to collaborate on victim support, which is welcome, but it could go much further. I join the London Victims’ Commissioner and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner in calling for a joint strategic needs assessment and a duty to meet victims’ needs under the assessment, with the necessary funding being provided. The measures must also ensure that agencies are joined up, so that victims are aware of any parole decisions—unlike the experience of many of my constituents of bumping into their perpetrators in the community, having not being formally informed of their release.
I will give the House two examples, both of which happened within the last 18 months and within six months of each other. Two survivors of multiple child rape found out by accident that their abusers had been given the right to go to open prison and the right to come home at weekends. They had no opportunity to give a victim statement in the parole hearings, there was no safeguarding and there were no support systems in place for them. All I got, when I had to raise it on the Floor of this House because I could not get any other attention to it, was two written apologies and being told, “Oops, the system failed them.” Yes, we know—but it should not have, and there should be consequences for that.
Furthermore, charities are concerned that clause 12 does not include funding to resource the duty to collaborate and that it may place additional burdens on existing staff. Will the Minister please confirm funding for the specific co-ordinated roles to enable clause 12 to be effective?
The Bill is an opportunity to be ambitious about victim support, particularly for children, and it must provide a direction and core aims for the collaboration between those agencies. There are currently too many faults with the criminal justice system that are letting victims down. The Bill must also embed independent legal advice for victims, so that they can have support to understand and challenge disclosure decisions.
Clause 15 on ISVA and IDVA guidance is welcome, but Women’s Aid states that defining solely those roles risks creating a one-size-fits-all approach to victims’ needs. We also need to provide explicit guidance on community-based support services, especially for domestic violence, as well as on the vital roles of stalking advocates and children’s independent sexual violence advisers, or CHISVAs. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust has shown that stalking victims who were not supported by advocates had a one in 1,000 chance of their perpetrator’s being convicted, compared with one in four if they had a stalking advocate.
The Minister is aware that I desperately want to see the issue of registered sex offenders changing their names, without the knowledge of the police, being addressed. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for raising that matter earlier. He was the first Minister that I discussed it with when he was Immigration Minister, because offenders are changing their names and then getting a clean passport and clean driver’s licence, so they can then get a clean Disclosure and Barring Service check. I thank him for raising that again. That loophole causes irreparable harm to victims and survivors, and further harm to others by allowing those offenders to reoffend. It makes a mockery of our identity-based safeguarding system. We need to see that loophole closed. I know the Minister agrees with me, so I ask him to work with us on that, please.
Finally, I am disappointed that the Government delayed their response to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. I urge the Minister to tell us in his speech when the final Government response will be published, as this Bill provides the perfect opportunity to adopt its recommendations into law. I will be tabling amendments to ensure that all those gaps and failures are addressed; I hope to work with the Ministers and those on the shadow Front Bench in a cross-party way to put victims’ rights, voices and best interests at the heart of the Bill. This is not about politics; it is about fixing a broken system so that victims and survivors are not let down again.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and indeed to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Kniveton). We have heard some outstanding speeches in this debate on a huge range of issues, but for someone to speak of their own personal experiences of the criminal justice system, to try to empower others and to recreate that system so that it is better for other victims, is an incredibly difficult thing to do. To do so without losing her emotions takes great strength, so I pay tribute to my colleague, and I am very proud to be sat alongside her. I am sure there are many other people in this House and across the country who pay tribute to her for what she has said, for all she has been through and for how brilliantly she handles herself.
The speeches in this debate have been fantastic on a whole range of issues. I think the general emphasis is that this Bill is a welcome step in the right direction. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) outlined why enshrining the victims code in law is such an important aspect of the Bill. He did a great job of setting that out, so I will not try to repeat it.
I will, however, step back and say that the criminal justice system is a multifaceted beast that many people struggle to understand at the best of times, and when someone’s experience of it is difficult or not optimal, it can be incredibly disheartening. We have touched in a roundabout way in this debate on what it feels like to be a victim, but I am not sure we have really got to the heart of the strength it takes for someone to step forward and talk about what has happened to them, how difficult it is to repeat their experiences over and over again, or the strength that it takes to pursue justice.
I think that we have to see that in the broader scheme of things. We must entirely uphold innocent until proven guilty and maintain that central tenet of our legal system—something that is increasingly difficult in an age in which we are so connected and can comment on everything so quickly, through social media or just in passing. Equally, however, we need a criminal justice system that puts individuals at its heart. Those who have been victims need to be heard and to feel that they have faith in that system and that that system has faith in them.
The various statements, urgent questions and scandals we have sat through in this House, involving the Metropolitan police and others, are incredibly disheartening for many people sitting at home. It is also disheartening for many Members of this House. It is a blow to the criminal justice system when people in my own communities across the Bolsover constituency complain about not seeing police, or are victims of antisocial behaviour and low-level crime, and do not feel that the police take them seriously. That is a blow to the criminal justice system. When the papers report that sentences do not seem proportionate to the crimes committed, that is a blow to the criminal justice system and our faith in it. For those who go through the criminal justice system as victims, the level of bureaucracy and the impersonal nature of that process can so often be a blow to the criminal justice system and our faith in it.
It is nice to be standing here today putting victims forward and rebalancing the criminal justice system in favour of those whom it is meant to serve. A frustration for so many of us in this House is that it feels as if prisoners have a huge number of rights and are protected in many ways. Victims are often seen as almost inconvenient witnesses in the system, rather than the people against whom crimes have been committed.
The other bit that has so often caused an issue with the criminal justice system and our faith in it is the premature release of prisoners—that has been such a blow. Again, the Bill takes some welcome steps on the parole system. I disagree mildly with the hon. Member for Rotherham about combining the two things. I am not sure that victims of what we class “top-tier crimes” will find it difficult that there is now ministerial oversight of the potential release of prisoners. I think that, rather than combining the two, that would actually be a strength for victims, but I am sure that we will disagree over a cup of coffee at some other point.
Before I move on to the parole changes, I will mention covid-19, which undoubtedly had a huge impact on so many elements of our public services, particularly the health service. The criminal justice system certainly felt the impact of covid in a big way—not being able to gather in large groups obviously affected it—and we have explored the many ways in which we can try to catch up on the backlog. I do not think that it is fair to say that the system is continuing to fail; there has been a great effort to try to catch up on that backlog. I welcome the changes to the parole system, particularly in the release tests and the right to apply to attend a parole hearing, which is an important step—I am almost staggered that it was not there before.
The general theme of the speeches today has been that this is a good start but we could and probably should go further, so I suspect the Minister will be somewhat busy when the Bill reaches Committee. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) about the need for an individual approach to victims, not a tick-box approach—that is incredibly important. We should not see this as a one-size-fits-all approach. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) about antisocial behaviour, which is the scourge of so many working-class communities. To feel scared in your own home is a horrible experience; to feel like the streets are not yours is a horrible experience. Those people are victims and should be recognised as such. Ahead of the debate, I read the Victim Support briefing, which calls for the Bill to recognise victims of persistent antisocial behaviour. I strongly agree.
The Minister will have anticipated my next point—mostly because it has already been mentioned. I did not arrange for my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) to mention my ten-minute rule Bill on banning sex offenders from changing their names, but I had a decent bet on the hon. Member for Rotherham mentioning it. I may have pushed the stalking laws to their limits as I have followed the Minister around the estate for the past few weeks trying to persuade him that such a measure needs to be included in this Bill. He has been incredibly patient, as have Home Office Ministers.
My main reading ahead of the debate was “Trapped”, a book by a remarkable woman called Della Wright, whom the hon. Member for Rotherham and I have met. Della was here in the House of Commons last Thursday. She has worked alongside the Safeguarding Alliance, and has waived her right to anonymity so that she can campaign for what we have now dubbed “Della’s law”. If the Minister reads “Trapped”—I have already given a copy to the Minister for Safeguarding, and I am happy to purchase him a copy as well—he will see what it is like to be a victim when the system simply does not work for you. There are so many disheartening moments in that book. I think that every single Member of this House hates it when systems do not work for our constituents. So often, that is the point at which only their Member of Parliament is left to assist them.
Unfortunately, Della’s case is one of being failed for years and years, but she still has the strength to pursue justice. She talks throughout the last few chapters of the book about her experience of trying to go through the court process when she does not feel believed; when she gets notices of something happening at the last minute; when she simply does not understand what is happening with her case and how disheartening that is. Ultimately, the thing that drives her work now, and that will give her a sense of justice, is ensuring that sex offenders do not have the right to change their name. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay outlined how easy that is for them to do, and the hon. Member for Rotherham and I have made the same argument on a number of occasions. The perverse thing is that Della’s case was delayed in going to court because her offender, who was already in prison, changed his name. That meant that all of the documents for the case were in the wrong name, so Della had to relive the same experience six months later. It cannot be right that victims are failed in that way.
I was drawn to clauses 48 to 50, which prevent prisoners serving a whole-life sentence from marrying in prison. I thought to myself, “That is a proportionate response to a select group of people.” It sounds ever so much like the argument that I made in my ten-minute rule Bill earlier this year: that those who are on the sex offenders register should not be allowed to change their names. That is in the victims’ interests and it is proportionate, and it would be deserved even if it were only for Della, but there are hundreds if not thousands of victims up and down the country who have suffered because of that issue.
I say to the Minister that the Bill is a massive step in the right direction. It is absolutely right that we recognise victims, give them more support and enshrine those rights in legislation, but there is room for improvement, and although I am not sure that the criminal justice system can be fixed overnight simply by legislating, a wider cultural change is absolutely necessary.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a genuine pleasure to take part in the debate, which is increasingly becoming an example of this place at its best. We are all sharing our own experiences and concerns. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Burton (Kate Kniveton); to the esteemed expert, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion); to my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who are no longer in their places; and to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), who spoke before me.
We all bring with us a determination because, having waited so long for a piece of legislation that was explicitly about victims and their experiences, we really want to get it right. After all, for many of us, that is our day-to-day work as MPs. We all remember the first time that we read those emails, had that phone call or met that resident, and the meetings in which you feel a burning sense of injustice by the end of the conversation—tears flow, and you and your team need to take some time out to recover from what you have heard. It is privilege to meet the people we meet as MPs, because we cannot understand how they have been able to carry on, let alone champion such causes.
I have to say I was a little frustrated by some of the earlier conversation. It felt so much—I hesitate to use this phrase—like victim blaming, because we talk about wanting victims to fit our systems. The victims I have had the privilege to work with as an MP for 13 years are no wallflowers; they are people who have been wronged, and they need to be recognised as people who have none the less done their damnedest to speak up for themselves or for somebody they love who has had a traumatic experience. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover about the Casey report, and I fear there are issues within the CPS too. Therefore, when we look at this legislation, we are looking not to find ways to make more victims come forward, but to recognise that, for too long, the systems and institutions we had set up supposedly to speak for these people have been found wanting, and they need to change.
Let me try to add something different to the Minister’s inbox, although I agree with many of the points that have been raised cross-party. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham that this is absolutely a cross-party thing. I want to raise five points—I know that a list of five might seem frightening, but I promise to be quick—about what it is to be a victim; when something happens to a family member overseas; third-party harassment; the legal rights of victims; and the issue of IDVAs, ISVAs and advocates more generally.
Let me start with the concept of what a victim is. The Minister is hearing loud and clear from many of us our concern that setting out that a victim is only somebody who engages with the justice system might make sense in a process way, but it does not make sense in a person way—it does not make sense for the people we deal with. It would preclude people who experience antisocial behaviour, which is a blight on the lives of everybody in our communities. That often fills up a huge amount of our inboxes, and understandably so, as people tear their hair out over the fact that behaviour that stops them living their lives is not being addressed.
Another area where we need to be clearer about victims and victimisation is what happens when traumatic events happen to communities, and I note that we are recognising that now in the concept of a public advocate. We are long overdue a public advocate, and I pay tribute again to my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who is not here, for what she said; it was incredibly powerful, and it is absolutely right that we have public advocates. If we recognise that the trauma that comes from a severe crime can ripple through somewhere, it is right that we do not say that it is only when people speak up that we recognise that impact.
In my community, four people were raped—one of them was murdered—and I think about the impact that that had on the community. We fought for eight years for justice for Michelle Samaraweera. Her killer was not found until we fought and fought for him to be brought back from India. I think about the community at Kelmscott school, which lost one of its 16-year-old members 10 days ago. That community is grieving and traumatised, and we need to get it help and support. That is something we want to be able to build in from the start, because it helps the investigative process, but it also helps to address what has happened. That is absolutely critical.
It is absolutely welcome that we have talked about an advocate in major investigations, but there is a risk that we end up with a very narrow definition of a victim within a local community, which would be to the detriment of understanding how crimes affect people. I am pleased the Secretary of State said he would sit down with me and some of the campaigners and others working with the traumatised, victimised communities dealing with this epidemic of youth violence. There is merit, particularly when we are talking about serious harm, in taking a victim-led approach and in understanding that communities can be victims of crimes and how that might then influence the work we do.
The second area I would urge the Minister to think again about and that I would add to his inbox is when people are victims of crimes overseas and particularly when murders happen overseas. I have a phenomenal woman in my community called Sharon Matthews, whose beautiful son Tyrell was murdered brutally in Malia in 2013. We are still seeking to secure justice against the killers, and I can say “killers” because they were convicted in a Greek court, although they are here in the United Kingdom and have reoffended, so another family have lost a family member. Sharon faced a system that did not understand how to help her, and anybody who has ever dealt with a case involving someone who has been murdered or faced serious violence overseas, whether or not they were on holiday, will know how frustrating it is to deal with a different legal system and about the importance or otherwise of the victim in different jurisdictions. They will also know that that inconsistency is an injustice.
Let me be clear about some of the challenges that we have faced in supporting Sharon and her family through this. There was the idea that there would be a cap on the financial support available to the family. If someone is trying to get over to a foreign country to be at a trial, that is clearly a problem. There was no support for the witnesses to travel and give evidence. There was no support for us when we were trying to get video evidence involved to manage the costs. There was a horrific situation last year when, yet again in a retrial situation, the victim’s family and the witnesses were in the same hotel as the perpetrators’ families—clearly, a high-risk scenario. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Bolsover is shocked. Nobody was thinking about that family as victims, because this had all happened out of sight.
The victim in this instance was British, as are the perpetrators. A wider challenge for me in looking at the legislation is how we hold the police and the CPS to account when things to do with overseas violence lead to a possible risk here in the UK. Sharon’s case has been an absolute testament to her, as a mother, turning her grief into a determination to achieve justice for Tyrell, and she will always have my support in that fight.
I am absolutely shocked at how victims of crimes are treated. At one point Sharon was told she was not the victim, because the victim was Tyrell and therefore she was not entitled to any support. We have to change that because, sadly, this is an increasingly common experience. She got a letter—my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham touched on something similar—from the court saying that her son’s killer had been allowed to go on holiday, even though he had been convicted of a knife crime. Because they had decided to suspend his sentence for two weeks he could go on that lovely holiday, where he was then part of killing Tyrell. That is just one chink of the injustice that she has faced simply because the crime took place overseas. Again, the victims code and Victim’s Commissioner need to understand these issues.
The third issue I want to raise is third-party harassment —I have recently experienced this myself—and organisations using third-party organisations to harass victims of crime. We see this particularly in domestic abuse courts. We see this with the family courts. My hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse and for Birmingham, Yardley powerfully set out the need to act. The idea that somebody would kill the mother of their children and then have access is incredible. It does not have to be about death. If we prove that someone is involved in domestic abuse, this does not have to go through other courts, so that they can be re-victimised time and time again through third-party organisations.
My own experience was with the use of social services to try to target and harass. Again, that is a loophole where there is no criminal offence that can be used to protect safeguarding and make sure that we stop those people who use these institutions to try and target people, or indeed to join up those experiences. When I challenged the police about my experience and the fact that they wanted to use a community resolution, I was told that it would be nice if, as a victim, I agreed with what they wanted to do, but it did not matter. There has to be a process whereby the victim’s voice is heard, and heard loudly, and that voice must be supported wherever a perpetrator might use a different institution to cause harm, particularly if they use third-party institutions for malice.
Fourthly, there is the issue of legal protections. It is a welcome win to recognise that asking for someone’s medical records should be allowed only in very exceptional, very specific circumstances. At this point, I would not be doing her justice if I did not call for Claire Waxman not only to be recognised as the Victims’ Commissioner but, frankly, to be knighted for the work she has done. She shows so clearly the power of having somebody to hold organisations to account, but she has found that extremely frustrating. Her own work on compliance showed that only 11% of victims were being made aware of their right to criminal injury compensation, and only 25% knew of the victims code at all. Claire’s work shows us powerfully why this cannot just be about the idea that, somehow, sunlight is a disinfectant—that, somehow, if we publish data about who is not supporting victims and who is not doing what we would ask of them—that will be enough to lead to change. The honest truth is that we have had the evidence—indeed, MPs’ casework provides the evidence.
We have all dealt with these challenges for years and years. So I join others in this place in asking Ministers to go further and to give teeth to this legislation, and not just to have publications. They should bring back the independent victims champions and make them a requirement for all police and crime commissioners, as Claire has so powerfully advocated, but also give those agencies real powers to hold people to account not just in a generic sense but in a specific sense. The sad truth is that we know how difficult that will be even if there are powers.
We have to give the Victims’ Commissioners the ability to do something. There have to be legally defined rights. There has to be a system to tackle non-compliance that goes further than just a spreadsheet and a dataset. We are all sick of seeing those letters of apology and of having those meetings where people say, “Let us try to learn the lessons”, when we can see those lessons happening time and time again.
Finally, I join everybody who is a fan of what IDVAs and ISVAs can do, and I have seen it in many cases. Sadly, she is not in her place, but I wish to draw something to the attention of the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller). I am pleased for her that she has such coverage of IDVAs and ISVAs, but the SafeLives survey shows that in only 74% of areas in this country do we have enough people doing those roles. I agree that we risk inadvertently restricting what they can cover. I pay tribute to and thank Laura Richards, who did huge amounts of work bringing forward the domestic abuse, stalking and harassment risk assessment and making the arguments around stalking and the stalking register. We need to go much further in understanding how that crime is being prosecuted.
IDVAs and ISVAs show the role of direct day-to-day advocacy, particularly when dealing with a crime where there are vulnerable people. I ask the Minister to think about this. When it comes to violence outside the home and people at risk of gang violence, we have seen how difficult it is to get people to be able to give evidence and to come forward. The lesson from IDVAs and ISVAs is that we should be rolling out systems of advocacy to help those vulnerable victims and to give people someone to guide them through that process on a range of crimes. We are dealing with an epidemic of youth crime. I can think of many cases in my local community where witnesses and victims have been terrified to come forward and terrified to go to court. They are often seen as potential perpetrators in their own right and not given that advocacy. I urge the Minister, rather than restricting what role an IDVA or ISVA plays, to think about independent advocates generally and how we might be able to use them to make sure that we get the prosecutions, the support for courts and the joining up of services that people need.
I also put on record my support for what was said by the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). I note that the Corston review was in 2007. That gave us huge lessons about what we could do to reform prisons to support the very few women in prisons and to deal with the issues that might lead to women ending up in prisons. That review is long overdue implementation. I also support what the right hon. Member for Basingstoke said about NDAs.
There is so much here that could be done, because there is so much that needs to be done. I hope that the Minister will take in good spirit many of us adding to his inbox and wanting to see those things happen. We fear it may not be just another eight or nine years before we get a Bill to get it right; if we do not get this right, there may not be another one within our lifetimes. We have those conversations in our community with those people dealing with crime, those people who are survivors and those people who are grieving, and across this House we owe it to every one of them to do what it takes to get it right. The Minister will have my support if he does that, but he will also have my challenge if he does not.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Before I start my speech, may I take a moment to pay tribute and respect to Lord Peter Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, who sadly passed away this weekend? Members may know that he was the Member for Cities of London and Westminster for 25 years from 1977 to 2001, and in that time he was a Cabinet Minister in the Thatcher and Major Governments, Northern Ireland Secretary and National Heritage Secretary. I send my condolences to his widow Lindsay and the family.
It is a privilege to speak on Second Reading of the Victims and Prisoners Bill. Victims should and must have confidence in the criminal justice system, from making an allegation to the police investigation, court case, conviction and all the way through to the parole stage. After all, we know that a victim’s experience of the criminal justice system does not stop after the perpetrator has been found guilty. I praise the Lord Chancellor and the Minister for listening to victims, survivors and their families and bringing forward this legislation, which enshrines victims’ rights in law.
Rightly, part 1 of the Bill seeks to improve positive outcomes and provide that much needed support for victims at every level. As it stands, it does that by enshrining the key principles underpinning the victims code in law, simplifying support during and after the criminal justice system process, strengthening the Victims’ Commissioner’s role and introducing a joint statutory duty on PCCs, integrated care boards and local authorities to work together when commissioning support services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violence.
Those things are all welcome, but I gently ask the Minister to consider what survivors such as the broadcaster Charlie Webster and the London’s victims’ commissioner Claire Waxman are highlighting, specifically their campaign to give teeth to the victims code and ensure that there are proper resources in place for survivors and those supporting them. The Minister will remember from when he and I sat in Westminster City Council’s cabinet—he in charge of adult social services; me in charge of children’s social services—that Governments are very good at providing local authorities with statutory duties, but it is important that funding comes with that. The Victims and Prisoners Bill will strengthen the defined rights to drive the cultural change needed to improve the treatment of victims in the criminal justice system.
I have read the letter that Charlie has written to the Secretary of State, which highlights the death of her very close friend Katie, the victim of sexual abuse. I pay tribute to the work that Charlie has done in this arena. Charlie is a constituent of mine, and I first met her when we were both volunteering during the covid pandemic. She told me about her experience as a victim of domestic abuse and sexual abuse, and I was proud to sit on the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee and see through an amendment for which she had lobbied—those who know Charlie will know she is very good at lobbying—to ensure that children were included as victims of domestic abuse.
Charlie’s letter and Claire Waxman’s campaign show that this is evidence-led legislation responding to the lived experience of victims. It gives legally enforceable rights to justice and support. With their personal understanding, they know the needs and requirements to improve the system. As the Bill progresses through Parliament, will the Minister or the Secretary of State meet me and Charlie to hear more about her experience and her campaign, which makes some astute recommendations regarding long-term funding for victim support services?
I turn briefly to part 2 of the Bill. Expanding provisions for support to those affected by major incidents is welcome. Many colleagues in the Chamber today have highlighted the horrendous experiences of the Hillsborough victims and families. My constituency, the Cities of London and Westminster, has sadly through the years seen its own share of major incidents from the 7/7 bombings, the 2017 Westminster bridge terrorist attack to, most recently, the 2021 Fishmongers’ Hall attack. London has hundreds of victims, survivors and their families who have often felt left on the sidelines of support. We had the public inquiry for the Manchester Arena bombings recently, and I found the testimony from many victims and surviving family members moving, and I pay tribute to their bravery. I hope that the Bill reflects on that powerful testimony.
I have a great deal of sympathy with creating an independent and appropriately resourced advocate for victims of major incidents, because when a victim dies, the crime does not die with them. Often if the victim has been killed, it is their surviving family who continue with the lifelong consequences of the perpetrator’s actions. It is incredibly important that when we consider victims, we consider the families, too. The same principle applies when we consider parole.
Part 3 of the Bill includes proposals to provide the Justice Secretary with powers regarding granting release to certain individuals who fall into the top tier of serious cases. I note in particular the support of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) for Carrie Johnson in her campaign to prevent the killer of Joanna Simpson from being allowed his automatic release from prison after serving only half his sentence. When looking to improve the Parole Board process, one group that must not be ignored is the victim’s surviving family. I have been struck in researching this Bill by just how many families, like Joanna’s mother, Diana Parkes, and her children—have been neglected during the Parole Board process. They should have more of a say, so I welcome the Bill’s introduction of the right for families to apply to attend a parole hearing.
I am very aware that this is a complex issue and one that will benefit from debate, but I believe we need to nuance this. After all, no one crime is the same and no one victim’s experience is the same, so making sure there is a sympathetic approach, with appropriate powers in place for the Justice Secretary and the Parole Board so that they can deliver for all those affected by a top-tier crime, will be critical to the success of this Bill. That said, I certainly welcome the Bill as a whole and, of course, the measures that will go a significant way to change a victim’s experience.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Like the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), I would like to send my condolences to the family of Peter Brooke.
It is a privilege to speak on Second Reading of the Victims and Prisoners Bill. There really is a feeling in this Chamber that is very unfamiliar to me, but also very pleasing, which is the sense of victims needing to be at the forefront of the Bill. I do hope that, in Committee, the significant changes that are needed will indeed be made.
Some 1.5 million violent incidents took place in the year ending March 2022. There has been a fundamental loss of faith in the criminal justice system by victims of rape and sexual abuse. Indeed, five in six women who are raped do not report it, along with four in five men. This Bill really does need to increase victims’ confidence, and the confidence of the public, that victims will indeed get justice. Victims from all backgrounds need justice, and I refer to the nine protected characteristics in the Equality Act 2010. In particular, I want to speak about young women, women and people of colour, because they are mainly the people who have spoken to me about their injustice and being victims in these types of situations.
Victims need justice, but they also need emotional support. A victim from my constituency—a woman—was kidnapped at knifepoint and raped well over a year ago, but she is still waiting for therapy. She is also worried about where she is going to be living when the abuser is eventually released from prison. Victims need a holistic sense of support, which includes support from victim support agencies, but also for housing. Although the organisation that supported her, called Athena, was able to offer some initial therapy, it was only for a set period of time and really was not enough, so much more funding and concentration is needed in looking at this.
On prisoners, the prison system is being let down by the Government, and the Government are letting down victims and, indeed, the public. I say this because the Prison Service is in crisis. We know that because prison officers are difficult to recruit and difficult to retain, along with the fact that a dispute about the high pension age is causing prison officers to leave early. Prison officers are doing their best, and I thank them for all the work they do, but the rehabilitation of prisoners is challenging. Because prison officers are not there, training is not able to take place. There are often delays in the reports that need to be done by prison officers, and prisoners are often kept in their cell for up to 22 hours. This needs to change.
Earlier this year, the Justice Committee, of which I am a member, published a report about prisoners struggling to cope with mental health issues. There are various other issues, and I do hope that the Minister will pay close attention to all the Justice Committee’s work on prison and prison officers and on victims.
I recently spoke to a young person who was in a young offenders institution. His release date was at the end of January, but his release was delayed because suitable accommodation cannot be found for him. That means he has spent three months longer in the young offenders institution, when he should have been put in accommodation with the public. That is a concern, because how many other young people or prisoners is this happening to, and how many more delays are taking place at a cost to the public purse?
As we know, this Bill is split into three parts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) spoke with conviction and passion about the public advocate provision. There is really nothing further for me to say on this, but I want to put on the record that the proposed advocate is welcome, but should be fully independent and accountable to families.
On part 1, I support the intention of clauses 1 to 21, because victims must be supported. Another teenager recently shared a horrific story with me. She went to the police station to report a rape, but she was speaking to a male officer, so she already felt self-conscious and intimidated, and it was very difficult conversation. What was even worse was that the police officer went on to ask, “What were you wearing at the time?” It implied it was her fault, and that should not be happening. At all levels of the criminal justice system, we need to make sure that victims are supported in a compassionate, caring and sensitive way, but one that gets the information needed.
The constituent who was kidnapped, raped and threatened with a knife made a statement at the police station, but she was also held at the police counter, and this was deeply traumatising for her and extremely difficult and painful. I therefore support measures to enable victims to escalate complaints about their treatment. However, I am sceptical about how certain measures will work in practice. The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), set out well the issues with just having a victims code. The victims code needs to be enforced and there need to be consequences. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) also mentioned that eloquently.
I would welcome the Government listening to and considering Labour’s plan to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, such as by offering free legal advice and other advice to rape survivors, along with giving victims of antisocial behaviour a voice. That is a huge issue across our nation, and as we have heard in the Chamber, people who experience antisocial behaviour really need to know they are being viewed as victims and are getting the crucial support they need. I impress on the Government again to look at a holistic approach to victims. They really do need more than just prosecutions; they may need support and services for themselves.
Clauses 46 and 47 provide the Justice Secretary with powers to change the Parole Board rules, and I again refer to the Justice Committee evidence on this. So much that came out was about scrutinising the changes that the Secretary of State for Justice was proposing, and there are real issues coming out of this—not only the cost, but the time this will take—that are very concerning.
The issue of IPP legacy prisoners needs to be addressed, not ignored. No one should be in the state of no hope —it causes mental health issues, self-harm and, indeed, suicide—but that is what many IPP prisoners have felt and experienced.
Finally, we must all treat people how we would wish to be treated—fairly, with respect and with justice. Let us hope that the Government can achieve that with this Bill.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I, too, welcome the introduction of this Bill in so far as it enshrines victims’ rights in law. Reference has already been made to my predecessor Elfyn Llwyd and the legislation he worked on about stalking and coercive control. I also welcome the move to reduce the material the police may request of victims, although I would bring the House’s attention to section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which said that evidence should be requested only when relevant. We need to be very careful about the detail of what may be requested in case it can still be used by defence lawyers in court in ways that suit them, not the victims.
I am disappointed, if not surprised, to see that the Welsh Government have stated that there has been a lack of consultation by the UK Government prior to the publication of the Bill, even though it appears that the Bill touches on areas of devolved competence. In particular, I suspect that it will interact with legislation such as the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015. It most likely will also impact on the approach of commissioning services in Wales, including the Welsh Government’s current plans for sustainable commissioning, so I seek an assurance from the Minister that the implications for Welsh legislation and victims in Wales will be given thorough consideration in Committee if that did not happen at pre-legislative scrutiny.
Victims have consistently been overlooked in the justice system in Wales, and this has been exacerbated by the massive programme of court closures in Wales, where over 20 Crown courts and magistrates courts have closed since 2010. This has reduced the ability of victims to get to court, especially in rural parts of Wales where public transport is poor. I am also told that some victims are reluctant to travel to court if they have to use public transport because they then face the possibility of meeting the person who made them victims.
There are, however, examples of good practice of commissioning victims’ services in Wales, such as the Goleudy service in the Dyfed-Powys Police force area. It is a holistic victim support service, established by Plaid Cymru police and crime commissioner Dafydd Llywelyn, that offers practical and emotional assistance for victims of crime. However, the fractured nature of commissioning services means that services such as Goleudy are not available to everyone, as provision and access to victim support varies wildly across Wales.
The resignation of Dame Vera Baird, the Victims’ Commissioner, last September highlighted how far down the priority list victims have fallen. What she said is significant. She said that the
“downgrading of victims’ interests in the Government’s priorities, along with the side-lining of the Victims’ Commissioner’s office…make clear to me that there is nothing to be gained for victims by my staying in post”.
It is also worth noting that in April the chief executive for the office of the Victims’ Commissioner announced that she, too, would be standing down next month.
The Bill makes specific reference to services in London but is silent on Wales and devolution, despite many of the victim support services being devolved. That cannot be right. Given the comments of the Victims’ Commissioner, the lack of engagement with the devolved Government in Wales on the Bill, and what we already know about the jagged edge of justice in Wales, I believe it is time for us to establish the role and office of a victims’ commissioner for Wales to lead on creating a consistent service across Wales and to champion the voice of victims in the changing landscape of legislation and devolution. A victims’ commissioner for Wales is vital for linking up victim support services with the justice system and making it accountable to the people of Wales, in co-ordination with services such as health and communities, which are of course already devolved.
The flow of services needs to be streamlined. As Victim Support said in evidence to the Thomas commission on justice in Wales, we must not “re-victimise” victims by telling them they have to tell their story several times over to several agencies. A one-stop shop for victims is similar to the idea of “victim care hubs” as advocated by the Victims’ Commissioner for London, and similar to the Goleudy model to which I referred earlier.
The Justice Committee concluded that the draft Victims Bill published by the UK Government would not fully secure the rights of victims, and many of its recommendations have not been adopted by the Government. I urge the Government to revisit some of the Justice Committee’s recommendations in its pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, including recommendations to address sustainable funding for community-based victim support services.
Welsh Women’s Aid also told me that the penalties in the Bill for non-compliance with the victims code are toothless, and that clause 5 needs to be reworked with stronger sanctions so that criminal justice agencies are incentivised to uphold the rights of victims.
There are concerns that the Bill’s requirement for data sharing between services may put at risk migrant victims whose immigration status is insecure. Wales is a nation of sanctuary and the Bill should acknowledge this. There is also no reference to access to services for those with no recourse to public funds. There is also a lack of direct reference to specialist support available for child witnesses and victims.
Finally, I turn to part 3 of the Bill. The Prison Reform Trust says that part 3 raises significant constitutional questions regarding judicial independence and the UK’s compliance with human rights obligations. As co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group, I also note that Napo, the probation staff union, is against any attempts to undermine the independence of the Parole Board or politicise the decisions of the board.
What the Government could have done with part 3 instead was bring forward changes to parole that would benefit victims and strengthen their rights. I welcome the Government’s decision to enable some Parole Board hearings to be held in public from last year onwards, but I urge them to look at the issue again to see what can be done to give victims greater say in the decision to enable a hearing to take place publicly. This is in relation to Rhiannon Bragg of Gwynedd, who campaigned for the parole hearing of her perpetrator to be held in public, only for the chair of the Parole Board for England and Wales to rule that Bragg’s perpetrator’s mental health issues could be exacerbated by a public hearing. That was after the Ministry of Justice accidentally sent Ms Bragg’s stalker intimate details of the anguish he had caused her and her family because of his horrifying actions—it sent her medical details to prison. It should be possible for a public hearing to be held if that would be in the interests of the victim, and that could be included in the Bill. The Bill’s title puts victims before prisoners, but that is not reflected by Parole Board measures at present.
In conclusion, I support the majority of the Bill’s aims, but it must be improved upon to ensure that it is strengthened to cover all victims and support services, and that compliance and enforcement of the victims code is maintained. Overall in Wales we would be better served with our own commissioner and the ability to align services properly, placing victims at the heart of the system, and I will do my best to make sure this place appreciates that Wales has a different legislature and all that implies.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow so many great speeches in this debate.
I personally do not love the word “victim”: it makes some of us feel as though we have neon signs above our heads, flashing away and marking us out as weak, naive or stupid enough to have ignored the signs that led us to be treated so badly. I wince whenever I read that description of myself, despite knowing that it was not stupidity or weakness and that actually anyone could find themselves in a similar situation.
There are many women who grow up with only this expectation of relationships, not even imagining anything better for themselves. The privilege I had is that I knew that I did not deserve it or had to just accept it—that it was totally wrong and had to stop. Being in this place, having been plucked out of a previously ordinary life of low-paid work, single parenthood and constantly juggling money around, gave me the new tools to recognise that I did not have to put up with living my life in constant fear. I found the confidence and courage to say “No”, but before living this extraordinary life I know I would not have done. I would have carried on feeling isolated and invisible, and I know that finding a way out would have been infinitely harder.
As MPs, we regularly meet or hear from non-governmental organisations and charities that centre on victims or deal in the business of domestic abuse, but in ordinary everyday life people living in that situation have to first come to the realisation that their constant fear is not okay. Then they have to decide that it is not okay for them, and then to fully realise and accept that they deserve better. That part is the hardest.
I have colleagues and friends here and professional briefings that reminded me of that constantly. Despite not discussing my own personal home life much, the logos of those NGOs were always in my inbox. MPs wore badges. These issues were talked about and debated, but not in most people’s homes. We have to break through to those who need us and make sure as legislators that these processes are as easy and stress-free as we can make them, and currently they absolutely are not.
I know that as MPs we want to encourage all victims to come forward to report rape, domestic abuse or stalking, and we want to reassure them that they will be listened to and helped and justice will be served. But can any Member here today look their constituents in the eye and promise that the current horrendous delays and the experience of handing over the intimate details of their lives for brutal and crass scrutiny, and to be regurgitated all over newspapers, is going to be worth it?
The Bill comes too late for me. I know that and that is something that I will never be able to do for myself. The prospect is unbearable, frankly. But I have been able to put myself and my life back together, although of course there will always be broken and missing pieces.
The Bill’s aims are to be welcomed, but we also need to see real and tangible changes, rather than simply hear a wish list put forward by both sides of the Chamber. We need first and foremost to listen to victims and experts delivering services on the ground, such as the Centre for Women’s Justice, Dr Karen Ingala Smith, Aurora New Dawn and many others who have been helping victims for a long time, and who centre women and prioritise their needs. They know as professionals that, as Dr Karen Ingala Smith said:
“A trauma-informed safe space creates space for action and recovery from violence and abuse and places the woman victim-survivor in control and in the centre.”
That is why it is essential for women to be able to access recovery spaces free from men. I am afraid that that must also include those who may no longer identify as men, in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. I refer to services such as Beira’s Place in Edinburgh.
Women who have experienced rape and male violent abuse will re-experience that trauma in the presence of biological men, whether it is considered kind to say so or not. That must always be something that we can say without fear of being cancelled or essentially constructively dismissed from our roles, whether in the sector or in politics. Likewise, men who have experienced domestic abuse or violence from a female perpetrator must also be able to heal and rebuild their lives in a setting free from women, if that is right for them, and receive specialist care.
Let us please use the Bill to make positive changes to improve the experiences of victims who need protection, support and justice. Let us ensure that it is worth victims coming forward, that they have safe and protective services, spaces and refuges if they need them and that they are not simply having to relive their trauma over and over again.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
At the outset, I would like to say that the Liberal Democrats are of course pleased that we are debating the Bill. It has been a long time coming. As we have heard from across the Chamber, it has taken a good number of years to reach this point. On Second Reading, it is right that we are focused on the positives. It is great that it is here, but let us also focus on how we can make it better and what is missing ahead of Committee. I noted in the Secretary of State’s opening remarks that he knows of one amendment that he is tabling. I hope that that is the first of very many from him and the Government and that they will be open to listening to those across the House, because it has been a consensus-driven debate. Many people have been working on the issue for many years and there is a lot of expertise in the Chamber.
However, certain things that are wrong with the Bill need to be highlighted. For example, it does not give specific provisions for victims of burglaries, fraud or antisocial behaviour. My inbox is full of constituents who are keen that those are specifically mentioned because they are concerned that they will be considered too low-level to be dealt with. I dare say that that is linked hand in glove with a perception that law and order is not taken seriously right now. In Thames Valley, for example, 174 crimes remain uninvestigated every single day, let alone whether the police will come and investigate, whether any charges will be brought, or whether the case will be heard in court. Too many people feel let down by the criminal justice system. It seems complex, alienating and ineffective. The Bill is a missed opportunity to tackle some of those issues.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill’s founding aims of improving end-to-end support for victims of crime and amplifying victims’ voices in the criminal justice system. In particular, we are pleased to see the victims code setting out the minimum level of service that victims can expect from criminal justice agencies enshrined in law. However, we question how much it will change the victim experience in practice.
The Justice Committee said that this is not strong enough to deliver the cultural change needed in the treatment of victims in the criminal justice system. Even clauses related to the victims code enshrine just four broad overarching principles in primary legislation, rather than a comprehensive set of standards with legal purpose. That code, as we have heard, is not legally enforceable. I hope that Ministers have heard loud and clear in the debate how important the House feels that point is. It is all very well having a code but, when it goes wrong, what is the recourse? I am sorry, but a newspaper headline saying, “x people and x agencies found that the code was not abided by” is not going to cut it. We can do better than that and Parliament’s clear will is that we should. I hope that the Minister takes that on board; that was mentioned in so many speeches.
Funding is almost just as much a cause for concern. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State when he said that funding has increased. That is great and everyone of course welcomes that. However, I urge him to look not at how much it has increased by from a low baseline, but at what is needed to deliver what we all want. Ultimately, we want people to feel that victims are properly supported in the system. Let us listen to, for example, survivors of domestic abuse. Women’s Aid Federation England estimates that adequate sustainable funding for specialist community-based services would cost £238 million a year. Eighty-five per cent. of frontline workers surveyed in a report by the domestic violence charity Refuge said that their service was being impacted by insufficient funding. So for real change to take place, by all means, say what has increased, but also look at what is needed. That is the shortfall that I am sure all of us in the Chamber are more interested in. Is it actually delivering what we hope it is?
In various speeches, there has been reference to having to start early with young people to make them aware of their rights. I highlight the campaign of my constituent, Faustine Petron, who came to see me in a village hall when I was doing my summer village tour. She has started a campaign called “Make it mandatory”. She set that up as a survivor of domestic abuse with nine friends, who recognise that, as young people in the school system, they had no idea about their rights, consensual relationships or any space for them to discuss that. I appreciate that that is for the Department of Education, but I sincerely hope that the Ministry of Justice will converse with the Department for Education on what can be taught in schools, particularly on the rights under the victims code that will be enshrined in law. That would be very much in line with what Faustine and her brave survivor campaigners would want.
The last thing that I will talk about specifically, which again came from my surgery—this all comes from us, as MPs, talking to our constituents—is non-disclosure agreements. I was approached by young women at Oxford University who had been effectively silenced by their colleges because, following incidents of rape and sexual abuse, they were asked to sign gagging clauses from their colleges. They were sold to them at the time as, “This is for your protection.” I cannot begin to describe the effect that that had on these young women. It stopped one of them talking to her GP. The clause said, “If you break this clause, you are going to lose the right to study at this university.” It was not explained that she could talk to her parents or to her GP. It is just nonsensical. That was not an isolated incident; young woman after young woman came to me from different colleges, and it soon became obvious that it was a pattern of behaviour. They then linked up with other campaigns across the country and realised that there was a pattern of behaviour at universities.
The issue was picked up, quite rightly, by the Government. I think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) tabled an amendment and the Government accepted it. Now, non-disclosure agreements are banned in universities, but they are allowed everywhere else: charities, businesses and political parties. We know that they happen in political parties, as they have been reported. They should not be happening at all in those specific cases. If Ministers want to know more about this issue, I have a Bill ready that mirrors the wording that was passed in legislatures in Canada—this has happened before.
The point is that non-disclosure agreements should not be banned in one type of institution in this country—the Government have conceded that ground—yet still be allowed in other institutions and organisations. We can put that right in this Bill. I pay credit to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel); when I met her as Home Secretary, she said that this Bill might well be the vehicle for us to do that. The campaign has broad cross-party support. It came from constituents, who raised it in the first place. It has been in various manifestos for the best part of a decade. I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister to engage with the campaign. We have spent a long time working on it. It is time that the voices of victims are amplified. At the very least, can we make sure that they are no longer silenced?
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
First of all, I pay tribute to all those who have spoken in this important debate. We have heard powerful speeches and personal testimonies from those who have shared their extensive knowledge and experiences of how the criminal justice system has failed victims. I pay particular tribute to those who have spoken about their personal experiences: my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), who is not in her place, and the hon. Member for Burton (Kate Kniveton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who both spoke powerfully.
We heard from the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), who lost a friend in the Hillsborough disaster; the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) paid tribute to Peter Brooke, and I extend my condolences to his family and friends. We heard the strong voices of my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) and for Lewisham East (Janet Daby)—strong women speaking powerfully for the victims they represent and speak out for. I look forward to working with them as the Bill progresses. I hope the Government will listen to their proposals in Committee.
It is great finally to be here after so many years as the Government bring forward the victims Bill—I am sorry, my mistake: the Victims and Prisoners Bill. The Government almost succeeded in delivering what was promised, but they could not quite let victims be the sole purpose of the Bill—they now share the stage with prisoners. I fully support much of what the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), eloquently said in his powerful speech: adding in that part with no pre-legislative scrutiny, engagement or consultation with the sector is reckless, to say the least, and belittles the Bill for victims.
It has taken us eight years and eight Justice Secretaries to get to this point. I appreciate that the Government have been a little preoccupied with tanking the economy and forcing people to choose between heating and eating, but victims should never have dropped so far down the list of this Government’s priorities. The Bill is weak, has no teeth and is a colossal missed opportunity to introduce the vital change desperately needed to protect victims. We have heard today that everyone on the Opposition Benches knows that, as does everyone on the Government Benches.
Only last Friday, I was at the victim support hub in my constituency, answering calls on their 24-hour helpline. The line was inundated with calls. The staff there do incredible work, but it is clear that victims repeatedly return to that service because they are not supported throughout the justice process. I saw the real human impact of the criminal justice system on its knees—a direct result of 13 years of successive Tory Governments.
Let us look at what that has led to: almost half the courts across the country have closed; the court backlog stands at 63,000 cases; over a third of victims said they would not report a crime again; fewer than two in 100 reported rapes lead to a charge; for those that do lead to a charge, there is an average wait of three years for the case to be heard; nearly two thirds of rape survivors drop out of the system; antisocial behaviour victims are denied support because of the Government’s refusal to acknowledge them as victims; and the Victims’ Commissioner role has been vacant since September last year, allowing the Government to avoid scrutiny entirely throughout the Bill’s introduction.
But that is all fine, because now we have this ground- breaking Bill to address all those issues, and we have a Government plan to tackle the court backlog, increase charges for rape perpetrators, and ensure victims’ rights are upheld and supported throughout the system. However, none of that is in the Bill. As it stands, the Bill is a tick-box exercise for the Government, allowing them to say they tried. Currently, there are no defined rights for victims, the Bill states only that agencies “should” comply with the four overarching principles of the victims code, and the Government have failed to address the issue of non-compliance with the code. How is the code enforceable? Where is the accountability when it is not upheld?
One survivor who I spoke to was raped as a teenager. Sophie was not told about her entitlement to an ISVA for eight months after she reported the crime to the police. After two torturous years of uncertainty and neglect, she finally had her day in court, but she said she felt as if she was treated like a criminal on the stand, while being forced to look at a picture of the perpetrator that caused her to have a panic attack, reliving her trauma. The witness assistant, trying her best, told Sophie to “pull herself together”, but there is absolutely nothing in the Bill that would have improved Sophie’s experience. Without an enforceable victims code, it is nothing but words on a page.
Survivors such as Sophie are not the only victims who will suffer if the Bill in its current form is passed. The families of the victims of the disasters at Hillsborough, Grenfell and Manchester Arena will have nothing more than a Conservative puppet if the Government go ahead with their proposed idea of an independent advocate. The role of public advocate needs to be filled by a fully independent, permanent figure who is accountable to families and survivors. I pay tribute to the campaigners who are continuing to work towards that, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood who made a powerful argument, clearly and robustly, in her speech. Labour would introduce a robust Hillsborough law and ensure those families who have endured so much would see justice delivered and not denied.
Labour’s plan would ensure that victims of rape are fully supported, providing free legal advice to rape survivors. One victim I spoke to, Molly, was raped at a party by a boy she believed was her friend. When she reported it to the police, she was treated like a suspect, and subjected to questions about her clothes, alcohol consumption and sex life, all while traumatised from the night before. Nothing in the Bill will change what happened to Molly, but free independent legal advice would have helped her feel supported through one of the scariest things she would ever do. When five in six women who have been raped do not report it to the police and prosecution rates are at an historic low, free legal advice is essential to protect the victim, and also to ensure that those rapists are caught and charged.
We welcome today’s Government announcement on stopping the use of third party material in a court case. Labour has been calling for the past year for the protection of third party material, such as counselling records for rape and sexual violence victims, so I am glad that the Government have finally listened and introduced that, and heeded our calls on the issue. But how many victims would have been saved the torment and how many sexual predators would have been imprisoned if the Government had listened to us sooner? We have yet to see the Government’s policy detail, and the thresholds remain unclear. I look forward to scrutinising the proposal in Committee.
Labour will recognise the devastating toll it takes when someone feels unsafe in their own home and will recognise victims of antisocial behaviour for what they are—victims. My own constituent, Sarah, came to me having suffered a miscarriage due to the stress she had undergone from repeated antisocial behaviour against her home. It was that traumatic. She was singled out and targeted. How can the Government say that Sarah is not a victim? That issue must not be omitted from the Bill.
Unlike Government Members, we believe independent scrutiny to be a vital part of democracy, so we will strengthen the Victims’ Commissioner role—in fact, we will have a Victims’ Commissioner in the first place. We will grant them the necessary powers to enforce the victims code and lay an annual report before Parliament. The Government would have to respond to the report within the allotted timeframes, in contrast to their current practice. I understand that the Domestic Abuse Commissioner is still waiting for a response to their “Safety before status” report three months after the deadline.
Finally, campaigners such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who tabled his own victims Bill way back in 2016, and London’s Victims’ Commissioner Claire Waxman, have campaigned for a victims Bill for a decade and more. This legislation is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enact meaningful change that will improve the lives of thousands who have experienced some of the worst crimes imaginable. However, this weak Victims and Prisoners Bill catastrophically fails to do that. Victims such as Sophie, Molly, Sarah and many more we have heard about today, who have to relive their trauma every day while trying to move on with their lives, will not find comfort in the Bill. The Bill must truly place victims at the heart of the criminal justice system and not simply pay lip service.
We will not seek to divide the House on Second Reading, but we want an extended and more robust version of the Bill, preferably with our proposed changes placed in statute during the Committee. The human cost of the Government’s callous neglect of the criminal justice system cannot be understated. The Government have a genuine opportunity here, and victims across the country are watching.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the Minister, I want to say how important it is for those who have participated in a debate to get back into the Chamber in good time to hear the wind-ups. If nobody came back, Opposition Front Benchers would be speaking to an empty Chamber and the Minister might well be in the same position. Some who participated are still not here, and I hope that the message will be passed back that it is really important for Members to get back in good time. If they do not do so, it is discourteous to the Front Benchers.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to deliver the closing speech in this Second Reading of the Victims and Prisoners Bill. I give my genuine and sincere thanks to right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House for their thoughtful contributions. The tone, by and large—with the exception of Opposition Front Benchers—has been measured, thoughtful and considered. Actually, given the nature of the issues, the debate has been remarkably non-party political.
Let me start by paying tribute to previous Lord Chancellors who have worked on the Bill—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis)—and, indeed, paying tribute to the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), for the work that he did on the Bill in his previous incarnation in the Ministry of Justice. I will turn in due course to the speeches made by Members today, but first I want to pay a particular tribute to all the victims, and victims’ families, who have talked to us, worked with us, told us their stories and helped to shape the Bill. Despite their own personal tragedies, they have worked tirelessly to improve the system for others, and we are incredibly grateful to them.
As we heard earlier from my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, this is a crucial Bill, and as one who was victims Minister between 2018 and 2019 and is now in that post once again, I must say that it is a particular privilege for me—as it is for my right hon. and learned Friend and others—to hear from victims who have come to see us to tell us about their experiences so that we can understand them just a little bit better. They come with bravery and relive very traumatic events in their lives to share them with us, and it is extremely humbling when we have those conversations. I see that the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), is now sitting on the Front Bench; I know that he took a close interest in this issue when he was in the Ministry of Justice.
The Bill makes good on three long-standing manifesto commitments—three promises that the Government made to the British people. First, we promised to introduce a victims’ law, and we are fulfilling that commitment. For instance, we are enshrining the principles of the victims code in law so that victims, as well as every agency in the criminal justice system, are in no doubt about the service that victims should receive. Secondly, we promised to introduce an independent public advocate to support survivors and the bereaved after major disasters. We seek never again to see victims suffer as the Hillsborough families have, as the Grenfell families have, and as families have following the Manchester arena bombings. Thirdly, we promised to strengthen the parole system so that public protection would be the pre-eminent factor in every decision about whom it is safe to release.
As my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of the debate, if justice is to be delivered, victims must be treated not as mere spectators of the criminal justice system, but as core participants in it. That is the mission of this Government and the mission of this Bill. Huge progress has been made over the last decade for victims: that progress includes boosting the ranks of our police officers to tackle crime and bring criminals to justice, locking up the most dangerous criminals for longer as a result of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, improving the response to rape and domestic abuse victims through the End-to-End Rape review and our landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, unparalleled investment in victim and witness support—we are more than quadrupling the 2009 levels of funding to support victims—and introducing a clearer, strengthened victims code. However, we rightly committed ourselves to doing more, and today we are doing more. The Bill will boost victims’ entitlements, bring greater oversight, amplify victims’ voices, and deliver further safeguards to protect the public.
Edward Argar
I will, very briefly. There are a number of colleagues to whom I want to respond.
Sarah Champion
I recognise and truly respect the work that the Minister did in his last role as victims Minister. Will he tell us whether he will fight to secure the necessary funding for all the measures that he is proposing and those that are already in legislation, because it is not there right now?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady and I have worked together in the past, and I thank her for her intervention. I will come to the subject of funding in a moment, because it was mentioned by a number of other Members in this context.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Select Committee, for his work in respect of the Bill and for his typically thoughtful and forthright expression of his views on behalf of his Committee. Those who worked with me on both sides of the House on the Health and Care Act 2022 will know that I am always willing to engage with and genuinely listen to colleagues during the Committee and Report stages of legislation, as, indeed, is my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. That does not mean we will always be able to agree with everything, but we will engage, and we hope to make it a genuine engagement.
We have heard some sincerely held views expressed today. In respect of the independent public advocate, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and indeed to Lord Wills, whom I have met, as well as the other colleagues across this Chamber who have engaged with these issues. I had the privilege of meeting the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood along with the shadow Lord Chancellor and other Members recently to discuss the independent public advocate. What has emerged from the debate today, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), is a general desire to make part 2 of the Bill work for the victims and their families and to ensure that, while disasters may sadly occur again, no one has to go through what those victims and families went through.
The right hon. Lady was very clear with me about the importance of agency and empowerment. She was also clear about the context and about how those victims and those families who had lost loved ones had come to this point and what they had experienced, as well as the need for them to trust in the process and the concerns they had about when the state or powerful organisations seek to use their power to conceal or to make their lives much harder in getting to the truth. I understand where she is coming from, and my commitment and that of the Lord Chancellor is to work with her and other colleagues to see whether we can reach a point where everyone is content with part 2 of this legislation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) spoke powerfully, and I am grateful for her kind words. She has played a huge role on behalf of victims and those who want to see crime tackled and criminals brought to justice. I look forward to working closely with her as this legislation progresses. She rightly highlighted the importance of police and crime commissioners, a number of whom I have met recently, including Matthew Barber, Lisa Townsend and Donna Jones, and Sophie Linden, the Deputy Mayor of London. They do a fantastic job.
One of the issues that hon. and right hon. Members have raised is whether a victim chooses to report a crime and the impact that can have. I am happy to reassure the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) that whether or not someone chooses to report a crime, they will still be able to benefit from the victims code, and the clauses in this legislation that link to it will read across. I hope that gives her some reassurance. That point was raised by other Members as well. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) raised the issue of NDAs. Without prejudice to the scope of this legislation and where we might land, I am always happy to meet my right hon. Friend and the hon. Lady.
Hon. and right hon. Members have highlighted a number of areas today where they would like to see the legislation go further in some cases and perhaps go less far in others. The only caveat I would gently add relates to scope. Some of the things they wish to push for may well be in scope, and I suspect that those who end up on the Bill Committee—I am looking at the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who I suspect I might see sitting across the Committee room—will wish to explore them, but I just caution that there might be some areas that, just through the nature of scope, will not be able to be debated. It is important for those watching our proceedings to understand that the nature of scope is determined by what is already in the Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke touched on ISVAs and IDVAs, as did a number of other hon. and right hon. Members including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley. Last Thursday I had the privilege of speaking at the national ISVA conference and of meeting a number of them. There was strong support for guidance around their role, although I appreciate that the sector has mixed views on this. We are explicitly not seeking to create a hierarchy of support services but rather to recognise the professional role that ISVAs and ISDAs undertake and to help to bring greater consistency to it and greater awareness of their work across the criminal justice system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) comes to this debate with a huge amount of experience of the criminal justice system. He spoke thoughtfully and he knows of what he speaks. He also served as a Minister in the Department. His comments on part 3 were measured, and I will always carefully consider what he says. He touched on the requirements on the judiciary, and I gently caution that we are limited—quite rightly, given the separation of powers—in what we can and cannot tell the judiciary to do, but I suspect the Judicial Office will be following these proceedings carefully.
Edward Argar
I will make a little progress, as I want to speak for roughly the same amount of time as the shadow Minister, to be fair to her.
The hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), for Rotherham, for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Kniveton), all spoke movingly, powerfully and personally about their interactions with the criminal justice system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton spoke movingly about her experience of domestic abuse, and the whole House will admire the courage shown by all Members who spoke in such very personal terms. The hon. Member for Canterbury, in particular, demonstrated a huge amount of courage in giving a powerful and emotional speech, and she spoke for many who perhaps do not have the ability to speak for themselves in conveying what she did. She touched on third-party material, as did a number of hon. and right hon. Members, and that is one reason why I welcome the additional step we have announced today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who was my ward colleague on Westminster City Council for a while, invited me to meet Charlie Webster. I know Charlie from my previous incarnation in the Department, when we visited a number of services together. I am always happy to meet Charlie, and my office may already be trying to arrange a meeting. My hon. Friend also touched on her support for the IPA, which I very much welcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) and the hon. Member for Rotherham touched on the recent debate, and my hon. Friend’s ten-minute rule Bill, on prisoners changing their name. I hope to be able to meet my hon. Friend very soon to discuss the matter, and if the hon. Lady wishes to attend that meeting, I am always happy to see her, as I was when last we worked together.
Like the hon. Member for Rotherham, I pay tribute to Claire Waxman, with whom I have worked very closely in both my previous and my current role in the Department. The hon. Lady also mentioned Sammy Woodhouse, and I believe I engaged with her on the issues raised by Sammy last time I was in the Department and, like her, I am pleased to see the progress we have made in this space.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) was typically thoughtful, but I gently say to her that we have engaged throughout with the Welsh Government on the victim provisions. Indeed, back in early December, I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton received a letter from Mark Drakeford thanking him for the close engagement with the Welsh Government on this Bill, and we will continue to engage on the newer provisions, such as the IPA. As with the Health and Care Act 2022, I am happy to engage with Welsh Government Ministers.
Finally, the hon. Member for Walthamstow asked for clarification on the definition of a victim. I hope I have given her some reassurance that, whether or not a crime is reported, an individual can still come into the orbit of the victims code. One thing she uniquely mentioned, which I will look at with her if she wishes, is the overseas angle. I am always happy to engage with her, and this time it is not about the private finance initiative in hospitals.
Sir Julian Lewis
Among the long list of points the Minister addressed, I did not hear the one about murderers who refuse to appear in person in court to face their accusers and their sentencing. Does he think that that would be within the scope of this Bill?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. My understanding is that that would probably not be within the scope of this legislation, but he will have seen that the previous and current Lord Chancellors have been clear in their determination to explore legislative options to address exactly that issue.
I very much look forward to engaging across the Committee Room with the shadow Minister and indeed with all those on the Committee, because genuinely important views have been expressed today, from particularly personal perspectives and with particular angles on elements of this legislation. That has been underpinned by a determination on both sides of this Chamber to make this work and a commitment to making the Bill an effective piece of legislation. I approach it in that spirit, as I hope the Opposition will.
As I bring the debate to a close, I say again that victims are not bystanders. Their views and experience matter greatly. They deserve to be treated with respect, compassion and dignity at every turn in the criminal justice system. It is only with their engagement and immense bravery in coming forward that we can bring criminals to justice and make our streets safer. That is why we have acted. That is why the Bill will put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, where they belong, so that every victim’s voice is heard, every victim gets the support they need and every victim is empowered to seek the justice they deserve. This is about giving victims, and the British public, confidence that the parole system will keep them safe. We will ensure that they are listened to. We will ensure that justice is done. We will work to ensure that more criminals are caught and brought to justice, which is why we are delivering today on our manifesto promises to bring this legislation before the House. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
VICTIMS AND PRISONERS BILL: PROGRAMME
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Victims and Prisoners Bill:
Committal
1, The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 13 July 2023.
3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Jacob Young.)
Question agreed to.
Victims and Prisoners Bill: Money
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Victims and Prisoners Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Jacob Young.)
Question agreed to.
Victims and Prisoners Bill: Carry Over
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),
That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Victims and Prisoners Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(Jacob Young.)
Question agreed to.
Victims and Prisoners Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 20th June 2023
(2 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 June 2023 - (20 Jun 2023)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. First, it is very warm, even after the thunderstorm, so if people want to remove their jackets or cardigans, that is fine. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Date Time Witness Tuesday 20 June Until no later than 9.55 am Domestic Abuse Commissioner Tuesday 20 June Until no later than 10.40 am Rape Crisis England & Wales; Southall Black Sisters; SafeLives Tuesday 20 June Until no later than 10.55 am Children’s Commissioner for England Tuesday 20 June Until no later than 11.25 am Dame Vera Baird DBE KC; Victims’ Commissioner for London Tuesday 20 June Until no later than 2.45 pm Nottinghamshire Police and Crime Commissioner; Association of Police and Crime Commissioners; National Police Chiefs’ Council Tuesday 20 June Until no later than 3.00 pm Parole Board Tuesday 20 June Until no later than 3.30 pm Crown Prosecution Service Tuesday 20 June Until no later than 4.00 pm Local Government Association; NHS England Tuesday 20 June Until no later than 4.45 pm National Association for People Abused in Childhood; Victim Support; We Are Survivors Thursday 22 June Until no later than 12.00 noon The Right Reverend James Jones KBE; Ken Sutton Thursday 22 June Until no later than 12.15 pm Lord Wills Thursday 22 June Until no later than 12.45 pm Nick Hurd; Tim Suter Thursday 22 June Until no later than 1.00 pm Refuge Thursday 22 June Until no later than 2.30 pm Jenni Hicks Thursday 22 June Until no later than 2.45 pm Dr Stuart Murray; Grenfell Next of Kin Thursday 22 June Until no later than 3.15 pm Sophie Cartwright KC
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about questions before the oral evidence session. In view of the time available, I hope we can get through these matters quickly, as I am sure we will.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 20 June) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 20 June;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 22 June;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 27 June;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 29 June;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 4 July;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 6 July;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 11 July;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 13 July.
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 11; Clauses 16 to 21; Clauses 12 to 15; Clauses 22 to 33; Schedule; Clauses 34 to 55; 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 13 July.
The Chair
The Committee will therefore proceed to line-by-line consideration of the Bill on Tuesday 27 June at 9.25 am.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Edward Argar.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room and will be circulated to Members by email.
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.—(Edward Argar.)
The Chair
We will now go into private session for a few moments to discuss lines of questioning.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we hear from the witness, do any Members wish to make declarations of interests in connection with the Bill?
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on restorative justice.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I would like to declare, in the interests of full transparency, that prior to my election I was a non-executive director of what was then Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and a member of the Sentencing Council. I was also a magistrate for 12 years and previously a member of the independent monitoring board of HMP Young Offenders’ Institution Feltham. I hope that covers the full gambit.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
In that case, I should probably declare that I have run sexual violence services, domestic abuse services, female offender services, human trafficking services and sexual exploitation services, as well as being the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on children at the centre of the family court and the vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic abuse. I think that is it.
The Chair
Thank you. I am happy to take declarations throughout proceedings if any Member thinks there is something they need to declare as we go through.
I welcome our first witness this morning, Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. We will now hear her oral evidence.
Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. For this session, we have until 9.55 am. Could I ask Nicole Jacobs to introduce herself for the record, please?
Nicole Jacobs: Good morning, everyone. I am Nicole Jacobs. I am the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: Thanks for having me today. In general, I have huge hopes for this Bill. If amended and changed, which I am sure we will talk about, it could really produce momentous change for victims of domestic abuse. I am here to talk about victims of domestic abuse. You obviously have a wider scope of victims to consider, but victims of domestic abuse are highly prevalent; in my mind, that also includes and has a very strong link to so-called honour-based abuse, forced abuse, sexual violence, stalking and harassment, because, for the vast majority of people in those categories, you would find that their perpetrator is either a current or former partner.
It is hugely important to think about, in each and every part of the Bill, where we could improve and how we could go further to make it more meaningful on the ground. That is my interest. As things stand now, my topline view is that there is a lot to work with here, particularly regarding the duty to collaborate. That has huge potential to transform services on the ground, if the provisions are implemented correctly, which is what we need to spend some time talking about.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: First, I hope you will consider the mapping report that my office produced; I will tell you a little about it. When I became commissioner, that was one of the responsibilities of my role, and last year we produced a mapping report of services for England and Wales. That is a very important document, partly because we have not had one before. It brought together information from commissioners, from domestic abuse services on the ground, and, really importantly, from thousands of victims who fed back about their experiences of seeking services in the last three years—on what they wanted, what they got, and what is actually out there. We have not had that information at our disposal before. We have a sense of what is out there and we have other types of reports, but this is pretty comprehensive.
The report showed how huge the gaps are. Part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 brought us the accommodation-based duty, which of course was a huge step forward, but we have to appreciate that 70% of victims go to community-based services, which is what you are looking at in this duty to collaborate and how it is funded. We know that the vast majority of victims—over half—were not able to find services that they wanted or needed in that category. There are higher rates when it comes to services for children, and lots of variability regionally in services for children and domestic abuse. We are looking at huge gaps in mental health counselling and therapeutic support, and in services for perpetrators to change.
The stark reality that I want to get across to you—although you will know this, because you have constituents—is that there are huge gaps. We have come a long way in our thinking and our legislation about domestic abuse, but the services are not sustainably funded. That is simply the reality. I ran services myself, before I was in this role. To give you a sense of things, the charity I ran had about 34 different funding streams, which were always cutting off, with cliff edges at various points. It was a struggle to make ends meet and to keep services continuing. That is what the services are doing. They are not sitting in core budgets. Money is coming to them—and the good news is that, in particular in the past few years, we have had great money through the Ministry of Justice and other sources—but it comes to the local area in a not very coherent way for the services to plan and think about filling the gaps.
The duty to collaborate, therefore, is potentially truly transformational, but to be so it is not as simple as saying, “You must collaborate”, which is how I read some of the Bill as it stands. Services will have to plan for collaboration and bring partners together, while sometimes the geographical mix does not fit exactly and certainly the timescales do not fit. There has to be a joint strategic needs assessment, which sounds administrative, but it is the only way to make the best of such duties. That takes some time. Under part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act, money was set aside for the needs assessment of housing and accommodation-based planning, and we have seen that in other types of things, like our serious violence duty. A very practical way to make sure that the duty is implemented well is to have the joint strategic needs assessment.
Also, very importantly, when partners get together and look around the table, cobbling everything together and getting everything in line as perfectly as they can, inevitably they will find that they do not have funding for certain things that we would all agree that we need—services for children particularly, or for domestic abuse. They will then need some kind of mechanism to feed back to us here and to decision makers in Government to say, “We have this gap. How is it going to be filled?” There has to be some kind of responsibility back and forth. That is the only way we will move in any kind of meaningful way to fill the gaps.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: Absolutely, and there needs to be some kind of language that creates a responsibility for when the gap remains and how it is dealt with at the national level.
One other quick thing to point out from the mapping is the need for “by and for” services. What I mean by that is services that are very specific to particular groups: deaf and disabled survivors; black and minoritised survivors; LGBTQ+ survivors. What we found in our mapping is good news—that they are, by any measure, the most effective services for victims. We can see that because in our survey we could compare people who got to those services and how they felt with people who did not. That is very unusual, because usually we hear from reports and surveys of all people who made it to a service; it is great to hear about that effect, but in this mapping we could compare the two groups, so we can see how effective the services are.
We can also imagine how those services could be not effectively funded at the local level, because their geographic footprint might be a little larger, so the planning needs to be more regional or national. Another thing that has to be recognised at this stage is that there is a need for a “by and for” pot, which would help to supplement what is then implemented locally.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: Certain parts of it could. Of course, that is highly dependent on what kinds of services are out there and what they are funded to do. On the definition of an independent domestic violence adviser and an independent sexual violence adviser, that work really needs refining, as does the duty to collaborate in terms of community-based services. You are absolutely right: most victims do not report to the police. The reality is that it is probably one in six. We published a report where we scoped specifically which community-based services are oriented to criminal and family court proceedings. For the family court, it is much less—around 18%. We can send that to the Committee.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: I would, and I would go even further. You will spend a lot of time in this Committee hearing from people who will tell you about how to correct the criminal justice response as if it starts only with our statutory partners—the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and others. I beg you to realise—I have done this work myself—that the real meaningful work for a victim is when you have the community-based service, the IDVA or ISVA, in the mix and interacting with the police and those partners on a daily basis. That is where the problem solving is. You will get to a point where you will not have to worry as much about invoking the victims code because everything is taken care of.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: That is a really important point. Imagine that you are on a team at a local level—that was my reality before I came into this role. In central London, in the year before I was appointed, 4,000 victims were referred to the service. They cannot be supported by a team of IDVAs as if that is all that is needed. The most successful teams are ones that are surrounded by other types of role that recognise that not all people will interact with the police or the criminal justice system, but they will need help and very practical support. I do not know whether I am putting that in the right way.
These roles have huge caseloads, just like a lot of our frontline services. They cannot be everything to everyone. A big step forward in the process would be to carve out and be clear. I am not as concerned about what roles are called; it is about the skills and knowledge that one needs to be at the table advocating with and alongside victims in the criminal justice system and other systems—housing, health and children’s social care. What are the skills and knowledge, and what tables should they sit at? The best work that I have ever done was when I was in a working system where I knew that there was an operational group with the police, the CPS and others that was oriented to that work. You could problem-solve. You could bring issues to the table that everyone grappled with together. You cannot do that without the advocate for the victim being in the mix and being supported to do that.
There is another thing that, if it were in the statutory guidance or provisions, would allow a huge step forward. We have done a lot of funding of these roles, but not a lot of development of what that really means. What is the salary? What are the skills and knowledge? What is the practice development for this type of criminal justice advocacy or family court advocacy? That would move us substantially forward. Those are all possibilities that we can achieve in the Bill if we get the guidance, funding and language right.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nicole Jacobs: No. I had heard something along the lines of there being an interest in making sure that there were improvements to parole. I was surprised, and I understand the arguments made about the optics of it. On a practical level, I feel strongly that we really have to achieve the ambition of the Bill.
On the parole reforms, I talk to families, particularly bereaved families, and they often do not have a very good experience of the parole system, in terms of feeling informed and feeling that their concerns about release are being dealt with. One of the things that I am most curious about regarding the last-minute changes is how strong the parole provisions will be and how the family liaison care will be improved. I am very interested in what mental health assessments will be required when prisoners are released who have committed domestic abuse or murder. You are right: my thinking about this is probably less developed, because this was added on quite quickly.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Q
Nicole Jacobs: I think broader is really positive. If you were to limit the definition to people who are accessing criminal justice remedies, then when it comes to domestic abuse, for example, that would narrow it way too much. Of course, the Domestic Abuse Act has a definition of children as victims in their own right. I am quite comfortable with the definition and feel good about what it is signalling, which is that in the victims code we want support for all victims, regardless of whether they engage with the police, for example. Services should be there.
One of my main concerns when it comes to genuinely providing services for all is that with domestic abuse, you are still leaving out migrant survivors and people who are in this country as students or with some other visa status; they have trouble accessing domestic abuse services. That could be fixed quite simply by allowing recourse to public funds for domestic abuse services for the period when a migrant is here—often victimised by a citizen here, let’s keep in mind. Having the provision of care that any other victim has: that is the one key thing I would highlight.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Nicole Jacobs: When I think of the impact of the victims code, the broadening of the victim definition impacts the fact that we want services for all in terms of what they need. A victim of domestic abuse, for example, may not ever have talked to the police, but may need housing support or support for their children and all sorts of things. Having that in place is really important. When you are talking about the obligations in the code in relation to people being informed about their case and all those things, to some degree quite a lot of victims will not need that if they are not engaging. In other words, I do not think it adds a huge amount of pressure that does not already exist on the statutory services in that regard.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Nicole Jacobs: I would not want the Committee to believe that there are not existing ways of training. Earlier in my career, I myself was part of developing the core training for IDVAs and doing that initial training, so I am fairly familiar with that. It is an accredited training. A lot of commissioners at the local level will require that level of training when they are tendering for community-based domestic abuse services, for example. I think you will hear from some charity CEOs later who can give you some more detail. Where we are is that while that is often included in commissioning standards, we need something more specific, more uniform, so that we—and, frankly, all our statutory partners—are really clear on what skills and knowledge these roles bring. I feel that we have this ability and need to carve out very specifically for criminal justice work and family court work what the skills and knowledge are that you need in particular.
The Chair
You have three minutes left.
Nicole Jacobs: Sorry. This is my job—I could talk about it all day. I think there is real scope to better define what good looks like for that, and that will impact the victims code and compliance with it. It impacts the multi-agency working at the local level. That would be a huge step forward.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Q
Nicole Jacobs: The skills.
Sarah Champion
Q
Nicole Jacobs: No, I see that a lot more as a role at the local level.
Sarah Champion
Q
Nicole Jacobs: I would have thought the Secretary of State, but I don’t know. You will be the best people to decide those kinds of things.
Sarah Champion
Q
Nicole Jacobs: Of the services that domestic abuse victims access, 70% are community-based services. Having worked at them, I can say that you do not need to compel them to fill the gaps. They exist only to provide those services, and they desperately want to provide more. They will engage with absolutely any process that would help fill gaps for the people they are working with.
Sarah Champion
Q
Nicole Jacobs: I would expect there to be a meaningful assessment at the local level—a joint strategic needs assessment—where the potential funders come together alongside service providers and experts in their area and think very critically about what opportunities they have. That will not be totally precise, because some of it would depend on bidding, so they would have to decide together.
Sarah Champion
Q
Nicole Jacobs: The Bill could open recourse to public funds to all survivors. It could also create a firewall between the police and immigration enforcement so that people who are desperately needing protection would not fear calling or talking to services because of negative repercussions. They would just know that they would be made safe. They would have safety before status.
The Chair
I am afraid that that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank the witness, on behalf of the Committee, for giving evidence this morning.
Examination of Witnesses
Jayne Butler, Ellen Miller and Dr Hannana Siddiqui gave evidence.
The Chair
There is a slight technical problem, so we will start with the witnesses who are here, and we will continue to try to get the other witness online as soon as possible.
We are now going to hear oral evidence from Jayne Butler, chief executive officer of Rape Crisis England and Wales; Dr Hannana Siddiqui, head of policy and research, Southall Black Sisters; and, if we manage to get the technology working, Ellen Miller, interim chief executive officer of SafeLives, via Zoom. Could the witnesses quickly introduce themselves for the record?
Jayne Butler: I am Jayne Butler, chief executive of Rape Crisis England and Wales.
Dr Siddiqui: I am Dr Hannana Siddiqui, head of policy, campaigns and research at Southall Black Sisters.
The Chair
Lovely. We now have Ellen joining us as well. Ellen, could you introduce yourself, please? [Interruption.] Ah. We will carry on, and hopefully Ellen will be able to join us as time progresses. Can I ask Anna McMorrin to ask the first question, please?
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Q
Ellen Miller: I hope you can hear me okay. I am Ellen Miller, interim CEO at SafeLives.
Anna McMorrin
Jayne, can you tell the Committee what you think the Bill will do to tackle the historic low rates of rape prosecutions? Can you set out what you have said in your report today?
Jayne Butler: We had a lot of hope that the Bill would really change things for victims, particularly given the commitments that were made two years ago in the rape review. While there has been some positive progress on some things, there has been nowhere near enough to make a difference to the figures, and to the people on the ground who experience sexual violence and go to court. We can see that in the stats. It is evident, and does not really need me to speak to it.
There are still huge issues to do with the charges, conviction rates and use of scorecards. We talked in our report about the lack of understanding of who is using the criminal justice system and how, and a range of other things to do with victims and the specific legislation. For example, currently we do not have protection for counselling notes when victims come to court, and the Bill will not solve that. We do not have the security that victims will get support throughout the process and beyond. We hear time and again from people who report through the criminal justice system, then get to the end of the process and feel discarded. Those are the ones who are coming in, which we know is a tiny proportion of those affected by these crimes.
We feel that there is no genuine legacy in the Bill for ISVA roles, which have been really prioritised by the Government and funded at a much higher level than they were previously. They are highly regarded roles, but we still do not see the impact of them on the ground, and there is nothing to change that in the Bill. We see lots of hints at rights in the Bill that will not necessarily result in a genuine change for victims on the ground, because they will not have a way to pursue them—for example, through having independent legal advice that would help victims to challenge decisions that are made on their behalf, and to deal with it when the interests of the criminal justice agencies do not necessarily align with their own. That needs to be there, too. There is a whole raft of things; I could be here all day.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Jayne Butler: We know that rights are effective only if they go with equivalent responsibilities and accountabilities for not being upheld. To really make the rights in the Bill meaningful, and to actually change things for anyone who is pursuing a sexual violence issue within the criminal justice system, we would need an independent legal advice model that supports victims in understanding what is happening to them and how to make challenges. The Bill provides rights to people, and the idea that you can make a challenge—but no funding, no support and no way of actually making those challenges.
We are in a system where the criminal justice agencies are failing victims. The Bill gives victims more rights, but what does it do to support those already failing agencies to change anything? Right now, the responsibility for doing that falls time and again to the voluntary sector—to services that are underfunded and that constantly need to do more, challenge more and pick up issues and failures that come from individual cases and from systemic issues. Without any funding or decent proposal to give victims advice, the Bill leaves victims with nothing, and the voluntary sector with not enough funding and massive demand to pick up.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Jayne Butler: Sure. We would like to see a national hub provided for legal advice. We are not looking for that legal advice to give victims party status in legal proceedings; that is not what we are asking for. It is much more about ensuring that every time a victim has a problem to overcome, they can get some legal advice about how to challenge it. That might be a right to review; it might be a disclosure request for counselling notes or something else that is being asked for that they do not feel is relevant and that they feel is invasive and further traumatising them within the system.
We want it to be an independent service that will operate outside the current criminal justice agencies to ensure that victims feel that they have somebody who will act in their interests. A pilot has already been successful in Northumbria, and there is a strong evidence base that such models exist in other jurisdictions, including Australia, California and Ireland. We have put in a really detailed written submission to the Committee about this.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Jayne Butler: Not as it stands, no. Our concern is that it will not really deliver any improvements to victim services, partly because there is no funding attached to it. How do you ask people to collaborate around a massive demand without actually putting money in to provide those services? Often, we find in commissioning processes in this sector—and probably in others too—that as commissioners gain responsibilities, they pass some of the risk on to a provider, so we will start to see services being commissioned to deliver x within three working days for very small money. We have seen this across the board in other sectors before, and that is the real concern around this—that the duty to collaborate is not strong enough to give victims’ services, usually provided by the voluntary sector, a decent enough voice in talking about what is needed, demonstrating the demand and getting those service actually available for victims.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Jayne Butler: Potentially, yes. It is not necessarily my area.
Jess Phillips
Q
Jayne Butler: If it is one, I will be surprised. It is probably not—
Jess Phillips
Q
Jayne Butler: Not that I am aware of.
Jess Phillips
Q
Hannana, I will come on to you. My first question is: do you think that migrant victims of domestic abuse are currently included in the Bill?
Dr Siddiqui: Definitely not. The whole Bill is lacking, properly and in any meaningful way, any inclusion of protected characteristics. Black and minority women, for example, are not included, and migrant victims are definitely not included. The migrant victims should be central to the victims code, the definition of the victim and throughout the Bill. It is the only way that we can ensure all victims are provided for by the Bill.
Jess Phillips
Q
Dr Siddiqui: No. I think that most migrant victims do not approach the police or the criminal justice system to report domestic abuse and other forms of violence, primarily because they can be treated as an immigration offender and become criminalised, or they can be arrested, detained and deported. The fear of deportation is often the reason that prevents migrant victims coming forward. That is why a firewall, which is a total separation of the data sharing between the police and immigration enforcement, is absolutely necessary in order for them to come forward.
Jess Phillips
Q
Dr Siddiqui: Yes, there has to be a firewall and other legal reforms—for example, around no recourse to public funds. That needs to be lifted, so that victims can go to statutory agencies such as the police for help and support without the fear that they will be destitute as well as deported.
Jess Phillips
Q
Dr Siddiqui: There are hardly any. I mean, I would say that there should not be a statutory definition of IDVA and ISVA because it excludes most advocacy services that we have in community-based organisations, including “by and for” services. Southall Black Sisters, which is a pioneering organisation in advocacy services, does not fit the current MOJ model, which is very criminal-justice focused and largely looks at high-risk cases. We provide holistic services for victims of domestic abuse and a lot of that is advocacy work that sits outside the current definitions. You know, IDVAs and ISVAs also need development. They need guidance and improvement in pay and conditions. But I do not think that that needs to be done through a statutory definition. They definitely need more funding and you definitely need to give more funding for the “by and for” services with a wider definition of what an advocate is.
Jess Phillips
Ellen, can you hear me? I do not know whether I should make this declaration, but Ellen went to the same school as me. Ellen? Okay, I cede the floor if Ellen cannot hear me.
Elliot Colburn
Q
Dr Siddiqui: There is a duty to collaborate, but there is actually a lot of collaboration at a local level with funding agencies at the moment, but unfortunately they do not support migrant victims or victims from black or minority communities sufficiently to provide adequate services. You cannot have a duty to collaborate without having a duty to fund community services. More specifically, you need to fund specialist “by and for” services that are at the frontline in the community, providing services to enable migrant and other minority women to access mainstream services, including the criminal justice system.
There is also a need to change the law. The Bill on its own will not do it. You need to be able to remove the no recourse to public funds requirement for victims of domestic abuse so that they are able to come forward to and present themselves at the police, social services and elsewhere for help and support. At the moment, they cannot do that because they are frightened of being destitute or being treated as immigration offenders and deported. If you are going to look at protected characteristics, you have to look at migrants, at their specific experiences and at how they cannot use the criminal justice systems and local services. There is a need not only to improve funding for services, but to change the law.
Elliot Colburn
In the interest of time, I will cede the floor to my colleague.
Sarah Champion
Q
Jayne Butler: The announcement made in the Bill does not specifically mention counselling material. In our opinion, it does not bring about any new protections, but just effectively reinforces what already exists in law around the Data Protection Act.
Sarah Champion
Q
Jayne Butler: What we would like to see is a model that changes the legal threshold for access to survivors’ counselling records. This is not a blanket ban. What we are asking for is a test of substantive probative value. Again, we have seen this be successful in other jurisdictions. It would mean that CJS agencies have to make applications for access to a judge. There would be judicial scrutiny at two stages: a first one at the stage of access to the police, and a second one if it gets to the stage of being disclosed to the defence. It really protects that without, we believe, compromising any right to a fair trial or any rights that a defendant might hold in that circumstance. We have put a detailed written submission in to the Committee about this.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dr Siddiqui: There should not be a statutory definition, because under the current meaning of ISVAs and IDVAs, they tend to be criminal justice-focused and only deal with high-risk cases. They do not deal with the wider forms of advocacy services we provide, which tend to be on the whole more holistic and do not just focus on the criminal justice system; they look at the family court, the health and welfare system and provide services over a long period of time to women. It also does intersectional advocacy, which is about looking at a whole range of different issues, but it also looks at equalities.
Not all of them fit into the current definitions, and I think that if you define it, it will narrow what the definition is of an ISVA or IDVA. That means that the local commissioning bodies may not fund those services. The current services, of which a lot are run as “by and for” services that do not fit the current definitions, will not get funding. Historically, they are underfunded anyway, so they could disappear as a result.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dr Siddiqui: Yes, I think that a range of services—holistic services—are what the IDVAs should be dealing with. That is not just for high-risk cases. I would include medium and standard-risk cases, because risk changes rapidly. The models that exist for the community that are provided by the “by and for” sector include a whole range of things, including support services, outreach services, helpline advice and advocates. They do not fit the current models. The current model has always been restricted, and we have said so. Defining it in law means we could lose the funding we currently have for the range of services we offer.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dr Siddiqui: We would like a ringfenced fund that provides sustainable, multi-year funding to the “by and for” sector from central Government. There should be a duty to fund those services. I think the DA Commissioner estimates that there is about £300 million you need to give for the by and for sector. Imkaan, which is a voluntary umbrella organisation, estimates that £97 million is needed just for the “by and for” sector in black and minority communities. There needs to be sufficient funding that is long-term and provides holistic services that victims need in the community.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dr Siddiqui: No, most of the women we help do not actually know about the victims code. There needs to be far greater awareness, and it needs to be more inclusive in terms of language. It needs to be very explicit about protected characteristics and around migrant victims in order for it to reach and include everyone.
Rob Butler
Q
Dr Siddiqui: I wish I had the time to do that. I do not have an estimate, but I know that others have done those calculations. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has done a calculation, which is about £300 million. Women’s Aid, Rape Crisis and Imkaan are all organisations that have done an analysis of what is needed.
Rob Butler
Q
Jayne Butler: I do not. There is a piece of academic work going on at the moment to estimate this. We all know that it is less than what these crimes cost society. What it costs to deal with victims and the long-term impact of these crimes in society is a lot less than victim support services. We would ask for more things. We have not talked about prevention. We want to see these crimes stop and that will cost money.
Rob Butler
Do you think we are talking tens of millions, hundreds of millions, or even more?
Jayne Butler: Hundreds of millions.
Rob Butler
Q
Jayne Butler: We have definitely seen incremental funding increases and recognise that those have been made. I do not think it is yet enough. We still have this really patchy provision of services. There are long-term issues around organisations that have been funded in the past and therefore exist versus where there are gaps. A lot more is needed to fill some of those gaps. Our waiting list in Rape Crisis is some 14,000 a year and increases constantly. We have seen an increase in demand of about 38% in the last year. We are seeing huge demand for those services, but that funding never quite touches it.
We also need to acknowledge that some of the delays in the last few years in the criminal justice system have really exacerbated things and mean that sometimes that new funding is not about helping new people. It is about the cost that they sit in the system for so much longer. I would like to know more about to what extent it is really making a difference to help more people.
Rob Butler
Q
Jayne Butler: I don’t think that people do always understand. It depends on what access to support they have had along the journey and who they are, but there is definitely more work that could be done on that and also in terms of how their individual cases are communicated. We hear time and again from people who have found out at a day’s notice that their court case has been postponed for months, if not years. So it is not only about knowing what is going to happen, but about being told when there is a variance and when that is changing for them individually.
Rob Butler
Dr Siddiqui?
Dr Siddiqui: I think you need an advocate to help you navigate the system. The information provided by the criminal justice system or by the courts generally is usually very little and victims do not really know what to expect. The fact that we are there as advocates and as a specialist service means we are able to give them the confidence to move forward. That is critical throughout the pre-trial, during trial and after trial. Nobody really cares about the aftermath except us. We are the ones who have to give them the ongoing support after the trial, so it is essential that the two work together.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Q
Dr Siddiqui: As I have said before, the victims code needs to be very clear about protected characteristics, particularly for migrant victims who lack the trust and confidence in the system to use it and to come forward. You need a wider definition of what a victim is. It needs to include witnesses. Also, a lot of our cases are transnational. When you are talking about what a victim is, you have to include families, friends and victims who have been dealing with international cases, which at the moment are not really being addressed. A lot of forced marriage cases and honour killings, for example, may take place overseas, but the families do not get any support in this country from the police and other agencies when they try to bring justice, even though the perpetrators may live in this country.
There is another thing that we need to include in the victims code when trying to define what a victim is. We know that a lot of women are falsely accused of perpetrating domestic abuse by their abuser, or defend themselves against abuse and may be treated as offenders as opposed to victims. It is really important that victims who defend themselves or who are falsely accused are seen as victims by the system. Groups such as the Centre for Women’s Justice are even asking for a statutory defence when women are driven to kill a violent partner out of self-defence. There is a need to look at our defences, and how we should treat those people as victims, not perpetrators.
Jayne Butler: To double what Dr Siddiqui just said, in terms of prevention work, we clearly do not want people to keep becoming victims. A whole host of work has been done on that. I refer back to the recent report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse on the ongoing scale of such abuse. We also see huge numbers of adult rapes, with vast numbers of people affected, so it is obvious that we ought to be doing some prevention work. We had the Enough campaign through the Home Office, but we do not have a wholescale approach. Possibly some kind of public health approach is needed, because this is such a big issue, which continues to affect so many people.
In terms of gaps and counselling, the ISVA role gets a lot of focus. That is really important because support for victims of sexual violence who are going through the court process is invaluable, but people also need access to therapy. Often those services are not funded. Most of our waiting lists are for counselling as opposed to ISVA support, because the funding has been put into the ISVA side of things, without the need. Charlie Webster wrote an open letter recently, which I think was mentioned on Second Reading, about her and Katie’s experiences. They just did not get that kind of support.
Janet Daby
Q
Jayne Butler: Our waiting list for therapy is about 12,000 people across services across England and Wales.
Janet Daby
Thank you. Ms Elliott, I should have declared that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on children in police custody, and I sit on the Justice Committee.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Q
Dr Siddiqui: I do not know how the firewall could be abused. It is important that, if there were a firewall, it would give victims the trust and confidence to come forward and seek help, and would ensure that the perpetrator was held accountable. At the moment, a lot of the victims—because they have insecure status—are told by the perpetrator that they have no rights in this country. Usually, that means that if they go to the police and are arrested for being an offender, or are reported to the Home Office, what the perpetrator has said is reinforced by the system. Basically, the perpetrator is able to weaponise victims’ status to control and trap them. David Carrick is a high-profile example: he trapped a woman with an insecure status. He told her that if she went to the police, no one would help her. That is true for many cases we deal with.
Some of the evidence for how many people are being caught out by that is from The Guardian, which did some FOI research with the police. It found that in a period of two years, about 2,500 people facing serious crimes including domestic and sexual abuse, as well as trafficking, were being reported to the Home Office. A lot of women were in that: in one quarter, about 130 women who were victims of domestic abuse were served with an enforcement order. We are talking about a hostile environment for migrants, and we must remove all barriers to victims of abuse being able to access their rights to protection, safeguarding and justice by giving them the whole toolkit that they need to access those rights.
The firewall—where there is complete separation from sharing of data between the police and statutory agencies, and immigration enforcement—is one way of increasing trust and confidence among migrant victims. I do not see a problem. If they are referred to agencies like ourselves, usually we will help them to report the abuse, but we do it by being their support and being able to advise them, and dealing with any issues that might arise with the police when they report it.
After getting legal advice on their immigration status, migrant victims are able to think more clearly along the lines of, “Yes, I should report it, because I want safeguarding and some justice. I want to hold this perpetrator to account.” At the moment, perpetrators have impunity, because they know that the women will not get any help from the police, even if they turn to them.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Dr Siddiqui: If the migrant victims have done a crime, the police do their normal duties to investigate crime. It depends what that crime is. If they are seen as immigration offenders first and foremost, rather than victims first and foremost, they will not get any of the help and support they need. They do not even have a chance to get legal advice on their immigration status before they are reported. They do not have a chance to go to a “by and for” organisation to get any support or advocacy, so it is essential that they have the chance to do that before there are any kinds of communication with the Home Office. Usually, that communication should be done through their legal representatives, rather than by the police.
A lot of police officers say to us that they do not agree with the fact that there is no firewall. A lot do not even realise that there could be negative consequences if they report migrants. There is some international work, and even some in the UK, on having good guidance or a firewall. For example, there has been work in Amsterdam and in Quebec showing that a firewall works. The potential for abuse is minimised. In Northumbria and Surrey, the police are all looking at ways for how to improve responses to migrant victims without reporting them to the Home Office as their first response.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dr Siddiqui: If they have committed a crime, of course they need to be investigated like anyone else.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dr Siddiqui: Yes; there is no automatic sharing of data.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dr Siddiqui: No, I think there is a postcode lottery. “By and for” services, in particular, are very thin on the ground. Even in areas where there is a high black and minority population, “by and for” services are not necessarily commissioned locally. That is why I am saying that the duty to collaborate is not enough. You have got to have a duty to fund and you have got to have ringfenced funding, particularly for “by and for” services and specialist services, for that to work. At the moment, the system does not work and I do not think that this will necessarily improve it enough.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
Q
Dr Siddiqui: A joint SNA is important if you are going to have collaboration at a local level and it will help to highlight which gaps could be filled by which agency, but at the moment some of that work is being done locally and some of the gaps are still not being filled. For those with no recourse to public funds, there are hardly any services on the ground. For those from black and minority communities, or “by and for” services, there is hardly any funding in the local area—so even where a gap may have been identified, there is not the funding to fill it.
Jayne Butler: There has been a little bit of work done on this, in terms of the recommissioning of the rape support fund and thinking about how to share that geographically. The result, when you have the same pot overall, is that you end up reducing services in some areas. If we start to look at where the gaps are, but we do not put any more funding in, and we are just revisiting what is already there, the result will be that some services that are funded now, which have high demands, will be reduced. There is nobody sitting there who is seeing people within a week, or sometimes even a month or six months.
Edward Argar
Q
Dr Siddiqui: Our demand has really rocketed, particularly after the covid pandemic, and it has not really gone down. It has doubled in size. We deal with 20,000 cases and inquiries every year. Before, we had half that.
We must remember that the mapping report by the DA Commissioner has shown that only 6% of Government funding was being made available to the “by and for” sector. Even though the demand has gone up, the funding has not gone up. In fact, a lot of “by and for” services are in crisis and are having to close down or reduce their services.
The cost of living crisis is adding to the problem. Services are not able to pay their staff enough. They have to find more resources for service users. We are having to find money to supplement the rent and subsistence of victims with no recourse to public funds. Although we have money from the support for migrant victims pilot project at the moment, that is temporary and it does not give us enough money. It does not give a universal credit rate. It does not give us enough money to pay rent for a refuge. It does not give enough to cover living expenses. We are having to find that extra money in the cost of living crisis situation. That is really not sustainable.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for this panel. I thank our witnesses, Dr Hannana Siddiqui and Jayne Butler, for answering questions in the room. I also place on record our thanks to Ellen Miller, who was on Zoom, intermittently without sound, and gave up her time this morning to try to give evidence.
Examination of Witness
Dame Rachel de Souza gave evidence.
The Chair
Could I ask you to introduce yourself for the Committee, Rachel?
Dame Rachel de Souza: I am Rachel de Souza, Children’s Commissioner for England. I am very grateful to be here.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: Absolutely. I have been a big supporter of the Bill. I have to say that the ministerial team’s civil servants have worked incredibly well with us throughout the Bill’s passage. One of the things we have been pressing them on is making sure that children’s voices and experiences as victims are at the centre of the Bill. That is obviously why I am here today. I am happy to see the duty to collaborate there, but I would like a bit more accountability around it, which goes the last person’s comments. I am really pleased that they are there, but if we are going to put children as victims in the Bill, we have to make sure that we recognise that they experience crime and being victims differently. What we need to put around them to make sure they are supported, and can process things and get justice, is different. I would almost like a duty of accountability as much as a duty to collaborate.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: I had intended to reserve my comments to children as victims, because that is what I am here to talk about. I do not want to let perfection be the enemy of good. I want a victims Bill that has children at the centre and understands children’s unique experiences. From what I saw yesterday, there is a lot of work to do. There is a lot of work to do in terms of defining children as victims, looking at the support they need and making sure that the victims code of practice is in the right place for children. That is what I want to focus on.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: Yes, absolutely. I was going to bring that up with the definition of children as victims. When I go around the country and talk to children, wherever they are—whether that is being held in police cells or children who are involved in drugs or whatever—I realise just how complex the situations are. You realise that these children are as much victim as perpetrator. Children tell me all the time that their experiences with the police make them feel like they are not victims but criminals. That is what we need to sort out.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: I have seen some very diverse and excellent services. I would first point out The Lighthouse, which I am sure you are all familiar with and which is a superb example of services coalescing around children’s needs and understanding where children are. Some of the sexual assault referral centres for peer-on-peer sexual abuse are also fantastic, but we do not have a national network so that every child gets the same experience. Every child should get the best support, and it is just not there.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: I have made an initial examination of what has been proposed around Jade’s law. We have to protect children. Obviously we need to ensure that there are not unintended consequences and we need to look in detail, but I would say, on the face of it, that the protection of children must have primacy, so I support it.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: That is a deeply complex question, but I would be deeply concerned. Children in those situations are often the victims of abuse themselves, and we must protect them. I would not say that I can read the mind of any particular father, but we find time and again that everyone in the household has had that experience.
The Chair
We have less than eight minutes left and five Members are indicating that they wish to come in, so please keep questions brief.
Rob Butler
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: I was pleased to see the victims code published yesterday. There is more work to do on it, particularly in relation to having a clear definition of children and ensuring that it is child friendly all the way through. We have been working with the team to try to do that, and there is a lot more work to do.
Rob Butler
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: I think there is, but it is wider than that. We also need to look at children with special educational needs and ensure that we take into account and make use of the expertise around working properly for those children.
Rob Butler
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: Yes. When you talk to children who are victims you very quickly discover that they do not necessarily understand or report their experience in the same way as adults. Often, there is often quite a lot of delay in their coming forward, and the kind of support they need is far more complex, which is why I am so keen on an approach like that of the Lighthouse, where the services really see the child as an individual and coalesce around them. Children talk to me a lot about having to tell their story lots of times. They experience the courts completely differently. I have pages and pages of testimony of young people who have had dreadful experiences in the courts, because the courts just do not understand that they are children.
Rob Butler
Some of us tried.
Dame Rachel de Souza: Yes, but kids say, “I gave them my texts, I gave them my statements, but look—they’re not taking it forward.” We need the advice around the child to recognise what it is to be a child; they do not necessarily have that step-back view.
We need to do more. I was pleased to see the mention of advocacy; we could develop that a lot more, rather than just say, “This public service needs to deal with it, or that one.” It is about the individual child advocate and the services coming together around the child. It does not necessarily have to be introduced at vast new expense. I think there is a question about how we can regroup services to work in a way that works.
Rob Butler
Okay. I am going to interrupt you, if you do not mind, because I know that so many colleagues want to pick up. But thank you very much.
Janet Daby
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: First off, and it is the point I made before, it is about recognising in the definition of victims children who have been criminally exploited; that comes up time and again. If I had more time, I could give you pages of quotes from children who, because of their experiences—whether it was being strip-searched or something else—have spent years feeling that they were in the wrong when they were actually the victims. That definition would be protective in itself, to start.
However, we also need to recognise that children get very worried if they have not come forward to the police to say they have been victims. We need to make sure that they are recognised in the victims code as well. I think that would help and I have some definitional changes and some word changes that I can write to the Committee about, which I think could help there. Often, it is about just two or three words, but it could make that work.
Elliot Colburn
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: We heard a lot from the people before me about how services really are not set up for children, and we have started to talk about how they can be set up to deliver for children. Ultimately, of course, Government and Government Departments have a responsibility, but I think it is about ensuring accountability at local level as well. It is always going to have to be multi-agency, because there are different strands of support for children, but we need to find a way, and with children it is probably in relation to the victims code. There is some value in focusing on youth justice holding that, but we need to try to go for the holy grail, which is to make multi-agency support work. I do not want to sound like a broken record, but I think that looking at how the Lighthouse has done it in Camden, where it has drawn together the different strands of health, social care, policing and youth justice, and actually made that work, can give us a blueprint for how to go forward.
Sarah Champion
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: Yes. I was so delighted during the passage of the Bill that Daisy’s law was taken seriously; we worked with Daisy. I think that is a really important step forward, and I feel similarly about children of paedophiles, because it will be the same argument.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: We have good intentions, but what will be important is that that is in the VCOP and that we operationalise it properly, because I absolutely agree with you that when these situations arise, the earliest possible intervention to deal with parental conflict is what needs to happen.
I think we have—
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank Rachel de Souza for her evidence this morning.
Examination of Witnesses
Dame Vera Baird and Claire Waxman gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I am Dame Vera Baird KC.
Claire Waxman: I am Claire Waxman, independent Victims’ Commissioner for London.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Dame Vera Baird: No, it does not. First and most important for me, it does not deal with people who suffer from serious antisocial behaviour. Despite the fact that the behaviour is often criminal, it is not dealt with as criminal by the police, but is instead called antisocial behaviour. I am particularly worried about people who are persecuted at home. It is not about every bit of antisocial behaviour—if someone chucks a can into my garden, I do not expect to have victims code rights—but this Government legislated well to introduce something called the community trigger about seven years ago. It says that when it escalates to a particular level, you have a series of remedies to get all the agencies together to put it right. If it gets to that level, then it is seriously persecuting, and there are people who are suffering that.
I had cases when I was an MP years ago but they still came to me when I was the Victims’ Commissioner. A woman is in her home; lads sit outside drinking beer and chuck the can into her garden. If she complains, they chuck something at her window. They stamp on her plants. They kick the ball against the gable end all the time. They shout abuse. They have just picked a place to mess around, but often the person affected is already vulnerable. That is very worrying, but it is not treated as criminality; it is treated as antisocial behaviour. But if we look at it, stamping on the plants in her garden is criminal damage; chucking something at her, if it might hurt her, is an assault; much of this behaviour is likely to cause a breach of the peace, but it is never dealt with like that. Since the key to the Bill appears to be that you are a victim of criminal behaviour, the question is: who makes that decision?
If I go to Victim Support and say, “Please help me. This is happening at home,” does the fact that it is obvious that part of it is an assault make me a victim or not? I think that is a key question to answer in the Bill. Who decides what is criminal behaviour? Often, it is wrapped up exactly as I have described but dealt with quite differently by the police. If someone pinches a spade from my garden, I am entitled to my victims code rights, but if someone behaves like that to an older person, they have nothing. That is a very serious omission. It is very widespread and it is very scary for people.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Dame Vera Baird: Yes, it is imperative. Of course it is. To be fair, the Government did consult us. It took about two years to get the victims code together. In fact, I am not sure if Mr Argar was not the Victims Minister when it started the first time around. It took a very long time. We wrote back four or five times, although I have to say we brought no change. There must be meaningful consultation, but the Victims’ Commissioner has to be in there. Indeed, in all the provisions about drafting codes and making changes, where it says you should consult the Attorney General, you have to consult the Victims’ Commissioner as well. This is about victims.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Dame Vera Baird: I feel that they should be elevated. The third duty of the Victims’ Commissioner is to keep the code under review. They cannot do that unless they can bespeak data. That is not in the Bill. What happens to the data is that it is collected by police and crime commissioners, promoted locally—that is fine—and if it has failed locally, it is promoted to the Secretary of State. It needs to go to the Victims’ Commissioner as well; otherwise the Victims’ Commissioner cannot perform that bit of their statutory role unless the Secretary of State chooses to give them the data. That is obviously the wrong way around, because the commissioner will want to have a say in how it is collected, what the nature of it is, and what to do with it. I think that definitely needs elevating.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Dame Vera Baird: You are talking about the duty to collaborate?
Anna McMorrin
Yes, the duty to collaborate in the Bill.
Dame Vera Baird: I think the main deficit in that duty is that it needs to be a joint needs assessment, rather than a duty to collaborate in some way after each individual organisation has decided what its needs are. There is a role for a victims’ champion in every police and crime commissioner area. We have a fabulous example of a Victims’ Commissioner who is a victims’ champion here, but we do not need a full-time person in a little place like Durham, or a relatively minor place like Northumbria. You need somebody charged with the task, however, so locally they can pursue the interests of the victim.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Dame Vera Baird: It will do nothing to bring change—if that is really your question. I am happy that there will be a duty to promote it to the public and to victims. Actually, it is a very odd, one-sided duty to promote it to everybody except the agencies that have to deliver it. There is no duty to promote it within the agencies themselves, and they do not know much about it.
There is a statistic—from 2020, I think—that 70% of people who have been through the criminal justice system as victims have never heard of the victims code. We used Office for National Statistics data in 2021 and showed that 80% of victims who had gone through the entire criminal justice system had never heard of the victims code. The first code was in 2006, so it has been completely ignored for 18 years. The agencies that are obliged to deliver it have no duty in the Bill to promote it themselves. They have no budget to train their staff, because, as I understand the Bill, there is absolutely no funding of any kind behind it—I think it is called financially neutral. Any training, development or promotion has all got to be done out of somebody’s back pocket.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Claire Waxman: Sadly, no, not in its current form. I spearheaded the campaign nearly 12 years ago for a victims’ law; the ambition was to give victims legally enforceable rights to justice and support. We have had the code in place since 2006. Compliance with the code has always been low, and even though the Government have reformed the code four or five times now, that has not driven better compliance. This Bill is the legislative opportunity to improve that. I remind everyone that even delivering the code is a minimum level of service to victims. Even if agencies are complying and delivering it, it is still a minimum level.
The Bill is a legislative opportunity to transform the way that victims in this country are treated once they report and come into the criminal justice system. It is an opportunity to help them easily access support services to help them through recovery and their justice journey. Unfortunately, the Bill in its current form, when it is translated into practice, will not have any meaningful impact for victims who are going through the criminal justice system or trying to access support services.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Claire Waxman: I think it has a huge impact on the Bill. As I said, the original ambition was to give victims legally enforceable rights. Part 1, which is where it should be addressing that, is very thin, weak and insufficient. A lot more focus has now been put on to part 3. A huge amount of funding has been allocated to Parole Board measures—more than the entire Parole Board budget, I think—and what has been put forward in the measures is not what victims or families have called for.
I work directly with bereaved families in London and the agencies that support them, and not one bereaved family has actually called for these measures. The Government have said that it is about public safety, but if it really is about public safety then where is the reform on probation, which is underfunded and understaffed? That is a public safety issue that needs tackling, but that is not in the Bill.
Part 3, I am sorry to say, is a vanity project. I think it is a power grab by our previous Justice Secretary. We have a Parole Board in place who are the right people to make the decision on release. I am with families who have been eight years in the process; it comes around for them every four or five months. They can barely recover. They are in this process and it is relentless. Putting these measures in gives them a false sense of hope. We are telling them that there is a chance that the Justice Secretary can veto the Parole Board decision and that the prisoners will not be released.
What will actually happen in reality is that, yes, the Justice Secretary might veto, but that prisoner will then have legal aid to appeal the decision. They will appeal every decision, pulling the bereaved families into even more distress and trauma. When I asked the officials in the Ministry of Justice what allocation had been given to provide extra support to the families during this process, no support had been given—only to the prisoners to appeal. I have to say very strongly that part 3 is nothing short of shameful.
Anna McMorrin
Thank you. That is pretty strong.
Claire Waxman: Yes, because this is a victims Bill and we are here for victims.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Claire Waxman: Absolutely. Sadly, I work with too many victims of domestic abuse, rape and stalking who have tried to leave abusive relationships. Many will not have the courage to report to the police, so they just want to flee and leave the abusive relationship. If children are involved, unfortunately those victims are then pulled into family court proceedings, which are retraumatising and place them and their children at further risk because there is no support provision in the family court to identify who the real victims are and what support is in place to protect them.
If they do report to the police, the two jurisdictions do not work together. You can be a victim in the criminal court but be accused of parental alienation in family court, and your victimisation has been dismissed. I see far too many victims who are victims of crime, may not have had the confidence to come forward to the police, and are being treated very poorly in family court. Unfortunately, this Bill will not address anything for those victims.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Claire Waxman: I have published two London rape reviews and heard from many, many rape victims in London. One of the biggest issues that comes up for them is the request for their personal records, especially their counselling records. Many victims will decide to withdraw from the process and feel pushed out because they have to make a decision as to whether they are going to pursue justice or hand over their counselling records, which are about their thoughts and feelings and trying to recover from the crime.
I know the Government have brought forward some measures now, but those measures are already in place. The police and CPS should be requesting these personal records only if absolutely necessary. We need to have judicial oversight, and that is where the Bill needs to go further. We need to ensure that therapy notes are only requested and that the judge makes a decision around that. Yesterday the Government announced that the CPS would meet rape victims before going to court, to raise confidence, but that is not going to work if we are requesting therapy notes from rape victims. That alone—just requesting those notes—is a deterrent and will push many rape victims out of the justice system, and then we will be allowing serious offenders to act with impunity.
Anna McMorrin
Vera, may I invite you to comment on that issue?
Dame Vera Baird: I think back to being a barrister more than a decade ago, when there was no pursuit whatever of this kind of material. It simply was not done. Very occasionally, if it came up in evidence that there was some issue about someone’s medical records, for instance, they would be sought, because it was directly relevant. There would be an occasional case, but none of this was ever looked for.
What the issue is about is what Operation Soteria, the new way of policing rape, talks about—there not being investigation departments for rape in police stations, but there being credibility investigation departments for complainants. Before the tendency to want to question the credibility by looking at the most intimate details about the complainant emerged, the conviction rate was actually better, very considerably better, than it is now. It dropped catastrophically in about 2016, and that was about the time when this started to emerge. So if we can do fair trials without that material, we do not need to get it.
In order to deal with this now, there can be no complete ban, clearly. After a decade or more in which the police and the CPS have treated it as axiomatic that you take these documents from a complainant, we must make someone else take that decision. It has to go to the court, so that a provisional hearing can decide whether the material should be accessed by the Crown and whether it should go to the defence. And of course the complainant needs to be represented fully at that hearing.
What is badly missing from this Bill—well, a whole range of things are. I completely concur with Claire that it is not going to make any difference to the ordinary victim, because there is no means of enforcing their code rights. But for victims of rape, the announcement that Alex Chalk made recently will make not a jot of difference as long as it is the same police and CPS that are using the test and it is the test that has been there throughout.
Independent legal advice is missing. You need to just put that counselling stuff into the court, and that is that: you need a good reason for accessing it, and the court will decide. As for the need for representation in that court, there is a need for representation at an earlier stage so that, if possible, we can avoid the cumbersome court. If you have, as we piloted in Northumbria a couple of years ago, independent legal advice when the material is requested by the police in the first place, you can often negotiate it away by just asking forceful questions about what is necessary about it. Independent legal advice could serve that purpose, but then would offer representation if there was a serious demand for the material.
This has been happening in New South Wales, with an identical jurisdiction to ours, since 1998 and is in every other state in Australia, save for Queensland, which is taking it on. Claire has been to Canada, and I believe it is very effectively run in Canada, too. In the end, of course, it deters people from pursuing this kind of material, because they take a second look at whether they need it. And that might put us back where we ought to be.
In short—never a ban; always judicial oversight. We do need to get rid of this massive deterrent. I think that according to some figures that possibly you, Anna, or someone else in the Labour party produced, 70% of those who accuse people of rape now withdraw. A huge factor—a huge factor—is when they realise that their most intimate secrets are going to be disclosed to a CPS and police force that, for quite understandable reasons, they do not see as their allies. And then, perhaps, the material goes on to—even worse—the defendant, who caused them their trauma in the first place.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Claire Waxman: I very much support Jade’s law. I worked with a family many years ago whose daughter was murdered, and they tried to adopt the grandchild. The prisoner—the murderer—had the right from prison to stop that adoption, and to cross-examine the bereaved family as well. He got legal aid. They did not get anything. At that point there is a presumption of no contact—of course he did not get contact—but they were still pulled into the most inhumane proceedings after their daughter had been killed. We need to stop that and to ensure that those convicted of murder do not have parental rights to access those children for the duration of the prison sentence. That needs to be reviewed very carefully to ensure that the family are well protected from engaging with the prisoner.
Edward Argar
Q
I will ask a couple of questions if I may. One might be specifically for you, Vera, and I think the other will be broader. Adding to what you have already said, are there any other aspects of the role of Victims’ Commissioner, in the context of the legislation, that you would wish to see elevated? I know we used to talk about, for example, your report being put before Parliament and similar. There is a lot more here than that, but what other aspects would you wish to see elevated in terms of the role?
Dame Vera Baird: It is nice to see that the Victims’ Commissioner must lay their report before Parliament; we have done that for the past two years. We had to crusade our way in, but it seemed important to me that victims’ rights were elevated to a parliamentary responsibility, and that the report did not just go to the Secretary of State. That is already being done, and it is good that it is in the legislation.
The most critical thing is to get data in the way I have already explained, but a big gap—make no mistake, you do need to put this right—is that there is no means to enforce any of the rights under the victims code: not one. It is not even expressed in terms of rights.
Let me give one quick example; I am a nerd on this, even though I have tried to forget in the last couple of months. Right 8.5 allows you as a victim to have a separate entrance and a separate place to wait from the defendant at court. That could not be more important. If my child had been run down by some driver, the last person I would want to meet when I walked through the door of the Crown court would be him—still less with his posse round him, which often does happen.
That is a very good right, and the right continues, but most courts do not have separate entrances and waiting areas. If you let the court know you are worried, it will do its best, but this is supposed to be a right. Many, many times—I am sure Claire will confirm this from an up-to-date perspective—people do come face to face with the defendant as they walk into court, and it is quite terrifying. You have to put the victims code in terms of rights in the first place, but you also have to be able to enforce it. If in default that ultimately must come to the Victims’ Commissioner, so be it.
I have a completely different plan for how we should enforce the code, but there is a statutory rule stopping the Victims’ Commissioner from being involved in individual cases. We still have 70 or 80 cases a month individually sent to us, so there would be a lot if that were done centrally. My notion is that we should have a local victims’ commissioner in the PCC’s office. That need not be a draconian imposition on a PCC; it could be someone who was there for two days. Truly, in Durham, where there are about 1,000 police officers, you do not need a Claire. You need a much smaller status of person.
That person could be the recipient of the complaint, but their working practice ought to be that they have a duty to promote, which needs to be put into the legislation, with respect to victim support services and the use of the code, which is not there properly either. Obviously, you have to have a duty to promote the code internally, so the CPS, the police and the court know they have to deliver it. Then, the victims’ services commissioned by the PCC could argue that a certain person needed an interpreter, or ask whether they had been guaranteed a separate entrance to court. If that was not happening, you could go to the PCC’s office with a working practice of trying to put the problem right in the case. I would not want to meet the person and be able to complain afterwards that I had met him by accident. I would never want to see him.
If you have that local resolution, ultimately for complaints but in the first place to try and intervene through local tentacles—PCCs are quite powerful people now—then you could stop a lot of this damaging material. If you do not, the recipient of the complaint in the first place could be that Victims’ Commissioner champion, who would then take on dealing with that on a local basis.
In the end, I think there have to be penalties. I think police officers should be docked pay; I think the CPS should have something done to them. The first code was in 2006. Now it is 2023 and 80% of people have never heard of it, even though they have gone right through. It is not just that there is nothing to impel it; there is a culture of disregard built on there. You need to change that. If you started there, then somebody has got to take a complaint that is not reconcilable locally up higher and that could go to the Victims’ Commissioner, if that were an appropriate route.
Edward Argar
Q
One of the things you have both talked about is the need for people to be able to understand their rights, access them and know what they are, particularly in the context of the legal advice point for victims and complainants. I would be interested to hear both your perspectives. I know, Vera, that you ran a pilot programme on this up in Northumbria when you were PCC, which was done through you as the PCC. Were that to happen, what would be the right model for it? Would it be PCCs doing that, a national service or a regional service? To both of you: how do you think that might look were such a provision to be made, whether on a pilot basis and then extended or otherwise?
Dame Vera Baird: Two sentences. We could only do it the way we did it by recruiting solicitors from solicitors’ firms because we could not offer people contracts beyond the time of the pilot. So that is how we did it. However, the best way, in my view, is to have a lawyer in a place where independent sexual violence advisers—ISVAs—are also working so that the lawyer is steeped in the ethics and culture of what is going on and has that to draw on for cases coming through. Claire, you probably have more to say.
Claire Waxman: Looking at how this role has worked in London gives us a really good example and evidence of what should be changing. Some of the key issues that we see with victims is that, while the Bill is putting a duty on partners to promote the code to victims, we are still leaving the onus on victims to try and claim their rights. Victims who are just recovering or trying to get over a crime and go through the criminal justice system are not going to be in any state to claim those rights. We need someone to help them navigate that system.
On Vera’s points, first, there is no enforceability; the code is not even really defined as legally enforceable in the Bill and that is an issue. Secondly, there is no enforcement mechanism either. Most victims want to see some redress on their cases. They do not want to go through a lengthy complaints process. What is missing is having that separate entity or agency that works alongside the police and the CPS, so that the moment the victim reports to the police, there is someone supporting all the agencies to ensure that those rights and entitlements are being delivered to victims at the right time. We take the onus off victims to try and battle their way through the criminal justice system and claim those rights.
We also pick up problems if rights are not being delivered, as to how we tackle it there and then in order to keep the case moving all the way through the justice system. That is missing and those are really important mechanisms if we want victims to access their rights and we want to see better justice and recovery outcomes for victims. It is critical that we look at the Bill and how we can use this legislative opportunity to really transform the way victims are treated through the criminal justice system.
The Chair
Order. We have 15 seconds left, so that brings us to the end of this morning’s allotted time for asking questions. I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence.
Victims and Prisoners Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 20th June 2023
(2 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 June 2023 - (20 Jun 2023)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again, and proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start, I am happy for people to take off jackets, cardigans or whatever; it is very hot today, particularly in this room.
We will now hear oral evidence from Caroline Henry, Emma Barnett and Sophie Linden. I ask the witnesses to introduce themselves for the record.
Caroline Henry: Good afternoon. I am the police and crime commissioner for Nottinghamshire, and because of that I would just like to take a moment to mention the terrible events in Nottingham last week. I repeat again to the families and friends of those affected: you are in our thoughts.
This Bill proposes to introduce a requirement to collaborate. Partners are already working together to support victims in Nottingham, and in many other parts of the country.
Sophie Linden: Good afternoon. I am deputy Mayor for policing and crime in London, but I am joint lead on victims for the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners.
DCC Barnett: Good afternoon. I am the deputy chief constable of Staffordshire police, but I am the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for victims and witnesses under the criminal justice co-ordination committee.
The Chair
Thank you. I ask people to speak up, because the acoustics in this room are dreadful.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Q
Caroline Henry: We, as PCCs, absolutely welcome the duty requiring agencies to share data and to collaborate. PCCs take a big role in that. As police and crime commissioner for Nottinghamshire, I started a local criminal justice board, and I see those boards as an excellent forum where agencies can meet and collaborate.
Sophie Linden: You might get on to some of the points that I wanted to raise. We obviously welcome the Bill, but how it will work in practice will depend on what else happens in terms of strengthening the Bill, what the data collection is, what duties there are on other criminal justice agencies to provide the data to police and crime commissioners, and what the mechanisms are for when that data is not provided or for non-compliance with the code. If those mechanisms are not strengthened, there will be no step change in practice and in how victims are supported.
Jess Phillips
Q
Sophie Linden: I do think that, but the Bill could also look at other things. For example, police forces have a duty to provide data to police and crime commissioners, but the other criminal justice agencies do not have that duty. You could look at something like that—each of the different agencies having that duty. Then there has to be the guidance that sits underneath it for the criminal justice agencies to provide that data. The Crown Prosecution Service, for example, will provide data nationally. It is very difficult to get it regionally. The courts do not provide data, so there has to be clear guidance and practice—not just in the Bill—on data being collated in a consistent way and in a way that is useful to the police and crime commissioners. It has to be at force level.
Jess Phillips
Q
Sophie Linden: There is quite a reliance on relationships and the convening power of police and crime commissioners. There needs to be more strength and robustness put into the Bill in terms of enforcement and data collection.
Caroline Henry: You are spot on. What happens if we do not get the data? What do we do? It does not say what happens if we do not get it. That should be stronger.
Jess Phillips
Q
Caroline Henry: We can raise it with the Minister.
Jess Phillips
I am sure the Minister will be thrilled.
Sophie Linden: I am sure he is always pleased to hear from us.
Caroline Henry: There is a duty to collaborate, but there are no penalties if people do not.
Jess Phillips
Q
Caroline Henry: Funding has been talked about, potentially to give us an analyst. I am really keen that there is flexibility on a local level around what we might need, because it depends on your relationships. Analysts are great, and it is very hard to get hold of good analysts; that is a real challenge. But we might also need somebody to support the local criminal justice board as a manager to make sure that everybody collaborates and works together. There should be some flexibility in the funding we can have to help us make sure that we can pull everything together.
Sophie Linden: On the compliance issue, I think there needs to be something in the Bill, or that can flow through the Bill, that is akin to the way the Information Commissioner’s Office can work. If you have escalated it and nothing is happening, the Information Commissioner’s Office can ask for an action plan and impose fines. There has to be something like an end point by which if you have not got compliance and you are not getting the data, there is an escalation and enforcement route.
Jess Phillips
Q
Sophie Linden: I think it should be included in the code. The duty to collaborate is really important, but we have to make sure that what is in this Bill aligns with, and does not duplicate or cause complexities with, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. There is obviously a duty to collaborate on domestic abuse accommodation, and there is the serious violence duty. From my point of view, speaking as deputy Mayor of London, I would want to see that duty to collaborate made wider for all victims. You should not start with the offence; you should start with the needs of the victim. At the moment, there are three categories, but I think it should be wider for all victims.
Caroline Henry: The definition of victims has been on my mind recently. It is a very tight definition in the Bill. The question is, how much wider do you need to make it? I would like to think about the included areas and get back to you in writing. ASB is one of the things that, as a police and crime commissioner, comes across my desk most. The victims mentioned in here, however, are on a different scale. It is so important that we get this right.
There is the word “victim” as well. I commission a lot of victim care. With what has happened in Nottingham, the word “victim” has put some people off getting help, because they are witnesses or have been traumatised by what they have seen—they are not immediate victims, but they have still been impacted by the terrible events of last week. The word “victim” is quite tricky to define.
Jess Phillips
Q
DCC Barnett: It is a long time.
Jess Phillips
Part 3 of the Bill seeks to increase the number of board members with law enforcement backgrounds, to give a different perspective of offenders. Will that help to strengthen public confidence in the Parole Board?
DCC Barnett: The first thing I would say is that the dealings of the Parole Board are not specifically in my portfolio, although I have a view. It is a very positive thing to include a breadth of perspective in the Parole Board setting and to give confidence on experience of risk management, risk assessment, decision making and so on, which can add value for the Parole Board.
Let me turn to a couple of other points you made at the outset. First, policing welcomes the victims Bill and its intentions. I guess we are in a unique position, because we are very used to the accountability mechanism that is proposed through local PCCs, recognising the independent nature of chief constables and the local accountability that exists through the elected bodies. If the Bill is to be a success, that will be around how that accountability spreads beyond policing across all the agencies, so that the victim’s experience can be understood from the point of reporting to the police right the way through to resolution and even beyond, into the parole setting. We welcome the understanding of where accountability may be strengthened through what is proposed to include the other criminal justice agencies that we work alongside.
We know that in the delivery of some of the rights, for example, our success in delivery is dependent on other agencies supplying us with the information we need to be able to pass on to victims. That is about how we work together and the local arrangements that are put in place. That is the strength of relationships. We welcome the opportunity of good visibility of data to understand compliance.
Jess Phillips
Q
DCC Barnett: I think this is a broader issue around how we collaborate as agencies with all victims. So much of that is based on how information flows, for example, so that we can keep victims updated about the experience of their case, their investigation, their court case and so on. We must have that good understanding of how we can work together to have the information to service the needs of victims.
We have been working closely with the Ministry of Justice on the suitability of metrics and—this is really important, because it is not only about the metrics of compliance with the code—on the victim’s experience: the qualitative information in the victim’s voice, the victim survey and the work of the Home Office to generate a victim satisfaction survey. Again, that is very much focused on policing, but I think it will start to give some good insights into the whole victim experience.
We are confident in a number of compliance measures going forward. We need to understand fully how we go about collating that information, and then passing it on in a transparent way to PCCs and criminal justice boards.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Q
Caroline Henry: I agree that not enough victims know that the code exists. That is why we need the Bill; we need to let people know that the code exists.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Caroline Henry: We need to increase transparency around whether the victims code is being complied with. We all need to be talking about victims more, and keeping victims at the heart of this all the time.
Sophie Linden: As with any Bill, it will come down to practice and how it is delivered. The underpinnings of the legislation, and getting compliance and enforcement right, will help with that. I monitor it from my position in the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime; we monitor policing compliance with the code. It is very low, but we have done some work with the Metropolitan police around trying to raise the awareness of officers, and making it much easier for police officers to let victims know what is in the code. For example, we have helped the Met to produce a victims care leaflet. Something as simple as that, which has information about the code in, has started to make a difference with victim satisfaction and with compliance.
There is, however, a long way to go. You need all the agencies to have that legislative framework, so that there is compliance, there is an escalation and then there is enforcement. Those two things together, and proper monitoring, which is going to be down to the police and crime commissioners, should help improve awareness of the victims code among victims, and, importantly, among professionals. It is the professionals who are there to support the victim, and it is their duty and responsibility to ensure that the victims know about that.
DCC Barnett: I would not say anything different. It is key for all police forces. When we launched the revised code back in April 2021, chief constables had a responsibility for how that was delivered across their forces. We have training materials through the College of Policing and all forces will be monitoring their own compliance with the code, as well as the qualitative side through victim satisfaction.
Awareness of the code cannot just be around the agencies turning up to deal with the victim. That is a key part, but it is almost too late at that point. There should be a heightened awareness of the code anyway, so that if people are then unfortunate enough to be a victim there is an understanding of what the code is. It is also about being really clear on what aspects of the code are relevant to a victim at any given time. Obviously, that will change as they go through their experience of the criminal justice system.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
DCC Barnett: I think it is a really positive step forward. One of the real challenges with the delivery of victim rights is when we get to post charge. At that point, you start to bring in a number of different agencies. It goes back to the earlier point around how information flows and communications are delivered; if you are not careful, it can become a very confusing time for victims. I think it is our responsibility as agencies to streamline that process as much as possible and make the communications as effective as possible.
A victim should not have to worry about who, at a particular time, they are entitled to see or who should be supporting them. The notion of the CPS having those visits is really positive. I think they are a good engagement to have, but I think they need to be carefully operationalised around the other contacts and support that might be available to a victim, so that it does not become too confusing or an overload.
Caroline Henry: It is really important that wherever we can we have an independent sexual violence adviser to support and help with CPS contacts—to hold people’s hand as they go through the system.
Sophie Linden: Obviously I really welcome that, but I think it is just part of what needs to happen. At the moment, as I am sure you are all well aware, the victim has interaction with the police, the CPS and the courts. What you really need to look at is how that becomes a seamless service with one point of contact. In London—I am speaking on behalf of London now—we are exploring the victim care hub, which would bring all that together so that there is one point of contact and the victim is able to get updates and understand what is happening right across the piece.
Of course, the individual agencies have their specific roles to play, but the Bill could help that to happen. For it to happen, there has to be the relevant data sharing and there has to be the ability to track the victim through the system—not through policing, then the CPS and then the courts. At the moment you are tracking the crime, you are tracking the case and then you are tracking into court, and those things do not meet. You therefore have different points of contact for the victim, and you need to be able to either—at a minimum—interrogate the different databases or look at how you bring all that together. I think the Bill could make it easier for the agencies to share that data.
DCC Barnett: I would really support that. We look at this—again, I think the Bill does this—as a process of separate agencies, each with its own touch points to a victim’s experience of the criminal justice process, as opposed to looking at it from a victim’s perspective. Where do they get the information that they need? Where do they get the support that they need, whether that is reporting the crime with no further action or whether it goes right the way through to waiting for their court dates, what it means to give evidence in court, the outcome, parole consideration and so on?
Caroline Henry: I would just add that the victims who choose not to go down the criminal justice route or to report to the police still need support from all the agencies.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Q
Caroline Henry: I would absolutely like some of it in part 1, but we do need to remember that if you stop people reoffending, you are actually stopping us getting more victims as well. Parole and preventing and managing reoffending are really important.
Sophie Linden: I would always go for additional. But in terms of the duty to collaborate, at the moment it is a duty to collaborate literally on a strategy—there is no additional funding for the services and the gaps that might flow from that in the way that there was for the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and the duty to collaborate around safe accommodation. There was significant additional money provided for that, which was welcomed.
Also, in terms of code compliance and the analysts that are being talked about by the Ministry of Justice—we are having discussions with them—at the moment my understanding is that it is a one-size-fits-all of two analysts per force area. Now, forces are vastly different in size and—just speaking on behalf of London, West Midlands, Greater Manchester or any other force with more complex arrangements—there are different numbers of organisations that they are going to have to make sure are complying. So this is just not going to be right—you cannot have one size fits all.
Then we have to really look at whether this funding really adds up to what is needed. For example, in London we recently did a needs assessment on sexual violence services. That cost us £110,000. If you add that up for other forces, this is not going to meet what is needed in terms of additional burdens.
DCC Barnett: I would support that in terms of looking again at part 1. With the duty to provide the data, we have a nervousness around the cost implications for forces. A lot of the measures are based on dip samples and having a really close assessment of what has been undertaken. There is no provision at the moment for additional resource to do that or to assist in taking forward the insight that that information gives us. This is an opportunity to work with PCCs to understand the roles that are accommodated and how the data is used.
The other point that I would make is about the demand for our witness care units and witness care officers, who have a lot of responsibility under the code to deliver the information to victims on what is happening with their case post charge and post first hearing. They are under a lot of pressure, given the time it takes for cases to come to court and the additional complexities and vulnerabilities of victims. Anything that helps us with managing those pressures and giving additional training and support, in terms of resourcing, would always be welcome.
Maria Eagle
Q
Sophie Linden: I think they could, but it will be dependent on proper support for victims. It is a difficult thing. There has to be a proper assessment of what victims’ needs are for them to be able to participate. There needs to be proper support for victims to do that, and then there will have to be funding to provide those support services.
DCC Barnett: I would agree. I think it is a very well-intended notion, but there are some risks around the impact on victims as well as around raising expectations.
Maria Eagle
Q
Sophie Linden: I think it could improve, but it is not strong enough. My overarching view is that it needs strengthening, but we welcome the Bill. It needs significant strengthening in the way that I have talked about, in terms of compliance, enforcement, proper data sharing, duty to provide the data and then the ability to access other agencies’ databases, at a minimum. It would be better if we could track a victim through the system, rather than tracking them through policing, then the CPS, then the courts. I hope that there will be significant amendments to strengthen the Bill.
Caroline Henry: It is great that work has been done together already. I would like to thank the Ministry of Justice and yourselves for letting the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners be involved with putting the Bill together. I do think that it will definitely improve things for victims, because it puts things on a statutory footing. That is what we need.
DCC Barnett: If I speak on behalf of the policing role, I think it does put it on a statutory footing, and it is a real opportunity to continue the work we have been doing over recent years to strengthen our overall performance within forces around the service that we deliver to victims. The question mark for me relates to making sure we take the opportunity within the Bill, whether that is through a strengthening arrangement around compliance or the accountability piece, so that we can understand how the victim traverses the criminal justice system and their experience of it. It must not just be—as I think it is at the moment—front-loaded around the code and the policing activities. It has to be seen as a whole. That is an opportunity in the Bill, and if we take that, overall service should improve.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Q
Caroline Henry: Personally, I feel that I have a directly elected mandate to be the champion for victims in Nottinghamshire and to make sure that they get the justice and support they need. That is what my office does, so I am happy that my office will continue to support victims. I do not think we need a separate victims’ champion; I think it could be confusing locally if that happened.
Rob Butler
Q
Sophie Linden: I know you had Claire Waxman in front of you this morning, and you are well aware of her role as an independent Victims’ Commissioner. It was an incredibly important development, when the Mayor was elected, that we appointed an independent Victims’ Commissioner. There is a very clear distinction between my role in holding the police to account and her role in bringing in the voice of the victim and advocating for victims. There has been no issue with the confusion of roles in London on that.
I am speaking for myself, not on behalf of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, because there is a difference of opinion, to be frank, but I think every force should have a victims’ advocate who is there purely as a victims’ advocate. The police and crime commissioner should use that voice coming into the commissioner’s office in order to be able to improve the services we commission.
Rob Butler
Q
Sophie Linden: My experience is that the Metropolitan police take my voice seriously and take Claire Waxman’s voice seriously. I think it makes it more powerful that there is a very clear voice coming in that is absolutely grounded in the experience of victims that she brings with her office and the work she does—for example, the rape review and her own analysis of victims code compliance in London—and then I am there as deputy Mayor and as police and crime commissioner to hold the police to account, having taken her advice.
Rob Butler
DCC Barnett, do you have a view on that?
DCC Barnett: I guess it is about being really clear about the lines of accountability. It is very clear that PCCs hold chief constables to account. That said, someone who brings the voice of the victim is absolutely going to help to shape service delivery. The two roles do not need to be the same. We can be very clear on a distinction around absolute accountability, but there is a wealth of information and experience that a victims’ commissioner can bring to a force area and all the criminal justice agencies.
Rob Butler
Q
DCC Barnett: I guess it may well be covered in other legislation. It is about recognising that there are a number of requirements on policing in order to further an investigation for consideration by the Crown Prosecution Service. I know that a lot of work is done around minimising those requirements, because we would all like to see speedier access to justice. We also recognise that there are good reasons why those requirements are in place. Whether those can be addressed through the Bill, I do not know; I would have to give that a little more thought.
Rob Butler
Ms Henry?
Caroline Henry: I know that the police officers and staff would much rather not be redacting all that information, but be getting on with their job. It would be a great vehicle if it could be included in the Bill. Going back to the independent victims’ champion, one of the ways I listen to victims is through the local criminal justice board; we have a victims sub-group, which feeds into the board. I also go out to speak to people all the time.
Rob Butler
Q
Caroline Henry: Our police work really hard. That wouldn’t be the first thing you’d want to do, would it?
Sophie Linden: An important issue is whether you are enforcing against the institution or the individual. In the Bill, you should be looking at the institution.
DCC Barnett: I absolutely do not support that suggestion. It is not about individuals; this is about the organisation’s ability to deliver. I will say that we have a robust complaints process, so if someone wishes to make a complaint about the police aspect, the code delivery or the service that people have had, they can make a complaint. That will then be assessed—it might be service recovery or quick resolution, or there might be a performance issue with an individual or a conduct issue if it is very extreme—and that works very well in policing. I would not advocate anything like what you suggest.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Q
Caroline Henry: I would like to give some written evidence on that, if that is okay, because I have a lot to say.
Janet Daby
Fair enough.
Sophie Linden: On the face of it, that sounds extremely interesting. I would be in favour of looking at how the Bill focuses on children. We know that trust and confidence—coming forward to the police—can be a real issue for young people and children. I would be interested in looking at the Bill to see what it means for children, where that compliance fits in—with the youth offending teams, which is partly there—and how the duty is enforced and monitored.
DCC Barnett: Again, the code defines victims, and that includes children and young people. Whether that is something specifically around how you might define a child when you first deal with them, I do not know. I would have to give that a little more consideration. I will put it in some written evidence. I am not totally sure that I understand exactly where Rachel de Souza is coming from, but perhaps I can understand that a bit more first.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Q
Caroline Henry: The definition of victim here would not include indirect victims who were not a direct witness of, or directly impacted by, the crimes that happened in Nottinghamshire last week, but they so need support too. As a commissioner, I have commissioned Notts Victim Care to be there to pick up the calls from people who are grieving and are traumatised, even though they were not directly impacted. It is having such an impact and such a ripple across our city, and not just our city: people have gone home from university and are all over the country. They might not think of themselves as victims, but what happened last week has made them so.
Maggie Throup
Q
Caroline Henry: It would be nice if there could be something in this Bill, but I am keen for it to get through. There are so many things I want to add on.
Maggie Throup
Q
Sophie Linden: Indeed. There are two things here. The role of an independent public advocate is an important one and we would support it. We should probably get back to you with more detail in terms of looking at the Bill and what we might or might not want for that independent public advocate. It is important because of what Caroline says about when those tragic events happen with a lot of witnesses, and that can be a problem.
In London, the way we have commissioned the London Victim and Witness Service has enabled us to stand up that response for events, but that does not mean—I will put it the other way: we do support an independent public advocate because I think there is a role for them.
DCC Barnett: Again, the Bill describes that role of an independent advocate, which I think is supported. In times of major incidents, as part of the overall response you will get support from family liaison officers, for example, but they also work closely with victim support services to identify those who would benefit from support. As for whether there needs to be more within the Bill itself, I think we would have to give that further consideration.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Q
One of the things we have heard from earlier witnesses is that a larger group of people should be covered by the term “victims”. For example, it could cover people involved in anti-social behaviour cases, and somebody suggested that people who are migrants and worried about their status should be dealt with in the Bill in a special way. Of course, the duty to collaborate and the services covered by that duty are quite specific, and there are a limited number of advisers who have been trained in independent domestic violence and sexual violence work. We have heard that there is quite a need to develop those roles—to have some core skills that are understood and so on. Is there a danger that we expand the definition of victim to the point where the services that are available just cannot cope?
Caroline Henry: The independent domestic violence adviser and the independent sexual violence adviser work is very niche and absolutely essential. I would welcome more funding for more. I know we have quadrupled funding for it, but we still have a waiting list, especially because of the court delays.
Sophie Linden: I support the expansion to include victims of anti-social behaviour, because I think it should be the victim, not the offence, that is given the support. The danger is not funding it enough. In order to mitigate that risk, there should be funding; it should not be that you are ringfencing only a certain type or a certain offence. That is where I would come from, because we should be led by the victim’s needs, by their vulnerability and by revictimisation. So I support antisocial behaviour being part of the definition of victims.
From my point of view as deputy Mayor of London, one of the things we are pushing quite strongly and have been lobbying for is that, for migrant victims, we are keen to see in the Bill the ability to keep a firewall for victims who have insecure immigration status. We know that it is putting people off and victims are suffering.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for questions. I thank the witnesses on the Committee’s behalf for their evidence.
Examination of Witness
Martin Jones gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Martin Jones: I am Martin Jones, chief executive of the Parole Board. I have been undertaking that role since 2015.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Q
Martin Jones: I certainly think there would have been a benefit. I always think there is benefit in pre-legislative scrutiny. I have taken legislation through in the past as an official and there would certainly be benefit in Parliament understanding what the impact would be.
On consultation with the Parole Board, it would be fair to say that it was very limited ahead of the provisions being introduced to Parliament. The root-and-branch review was published in the spring of last year, setting out what the proposals would be. Ahead of the Bill’s publication, the details of what it contained were shared with us, but I would not say that we were asked for our views on what was contained in the legislation.
Ellie Reeves
Q
Martin Jones: The current release test is set by Parliament. It is a very clear, simple test as to whether the prisoner’s continued detention remains necessary for the protection of the public. That means that public protection is always paramount in our decision making. Of course, when we make those decisions, we have to have regard to all the different factors involved in a prisoner’s case: the progress they have made in custody, the nature of their index offences, whether they have been well behaved in custody, whether they might have taken drugs in custody, and whether they might have done positive work, such as education and training. We take account of all those factors when we reach a Parole Board decision.
I would say that what is on the face of the Bill, in reality, gives effect to what the Parole Board already says in its guidance that we should take into account. We think that the legislation should make no significant changes to our practice.
Ellie Reeves
Q
Martin Jones: The slight danger is that the Parole Board practitioners start to view the matters that are on the face of the Bill as more important than other factors. The Bill is clear that it is not an exhaustive list, and the Parole Board can, of course, take account of whatever factors it believes to be relevant in the individual case, but the fact that Parliament puts a certain set of factors on the face of the Bill means that you will always have to have regard to that.
Allegations is a particularly important area when you are assessing the risk of a prisoner. It most commonly comes to the Parole Board when, for example, you are talking about an allegation of domestic violence. It often comes up, and particularly with somebody being recalled to custody. It may not be a proven allegation, but what the Parole Board may see is a pattern of behaviour with a person being arrested on a number of different occasions, alleging perhaps an assault against a partner. Those charges may not end up being brought to court and may not be proven, but when we are deciding whether someone is to be released, we want to ensure that we understand the pattern of behaviour. It was certainly something that was important to us as part of the DSD case—that is the Worboys case—in relation to how we take account and what weight we add in making those decisions. So previous allegations is a really important point for us.
Ellie Reeves
Q
Martin Jones: It is important to be clear that the Parole Board has always taken the view that it is important that you are able to challenge a Parole Board decision if either the victim, the Secretary of State or a prisoner thinks we have got our decision wrong. Ultimately, our decisions are judicial decisions made independent of Government and based on evidence and the law.
In 2019, the Government introduced a reconsideration mechanism that enables parties to come to the Parole Board and say, “We think you’ve got it wrong.” It is very closely based on the grounds for judicial review, and that provides a way for us to then review that case, normally via a judicial member of the Parole Board looking at all the evidence that the panel took account of and deciding, via a decision that is now published and available for the public to see, whether that decision was rational and fair. We have no problem with people challenging that.
The problem with a block on the decision and the veto amounts to two issues, one of which is: will it subsequently stand up to legal scrutiny? Parliament and the courts have been very clear that the final decision on whether somebody is safe to be released or not has to rest with a court. Until this Bill came along, that court has always been the Parole Board, subject only to judicial review. If you have the Justice Secretary intervening and blocking that release, it will have to go up, according to the Bill, to the upper tribunal to decide whether that decision should stand, and they will apply very similar principles of judicial review to look at the rationality of our decision.
In almost all cases, in my experience, when the Parole Board makes a decision, the reason we release somebody is because the professionals—the offender manager, the prison officers, the probation officer and the psychologists —say that the person is safe to be released. It is really important that we do not make decisions out of the air: they are based on the evidence presented to the panel. In my experience it would be highly unusual for us to go against that. But, of course, we are a court and we have to look at the evidence independently.
It is very difficult to see how, if the decision gets blocked and it goes up to the tribunal, and you look at all the evidence and the evidence is pointing towards release, and it gets blocked, that will withstand a subsequent challenge. The Parole Board has suggested that an alternative way would be to have a substantive appeal—which could indeed be wider than judicial review, if that was what Parliament decided—and that would provide an effective mechanism to stop and have a review of Parole Board decisions if you genuinely think we have got it wrong. That would add additional balance into the system.
My concern would be building up unrealistic hopes in the eyes of victims. I meet loads of victims: they are getting terribly upset and you can understand it. If you have been the victim of a serious crime—20 or 30 years ago you have lost a member of your family—and that person is up for parole, that is always going to be a difficult experience. But I am not sure that simply delaying release by two to three months is good for victims if a significant number of the decisions do not subsequently stand up to scrutiny by the courts.
Ellie Reeves
Q
Martin Jones: You are absolutely right: generally speaking, particularly in what we describe as the tier 1 cases—cases of murder, rape, terrorism, or causing or allowing the death of a child—the average size of the dossier of information provided to the Parole Board will be somewhere between 500 and 1,000 pages. Our members will in most cases ordinarily consist of a judge—a retired judge, sometimes a retired High Court judge; an independent member, who might be a retired police officer, a retired probation officer or prison officer; and maybe a psychologist or a psychiatrist if somebody has a mental health condition. They will consider that in detail and spend anywhere between half a day to a day hearing evidence from all the people at the hearing to determine whether that person is safe to be released or not.
If the Secretary of State then usurps that, how will he get sight of the evidence that the panel has carefully weighed in the balance to make the final decision? Decision letters are normally 15 to 20 pages long, explaining the legal basis of why we think that person is safe to be released or not. You certainly need an equivalent process if that is going to withstand a challenge subsequently in the tribunal.
Ellie Reeves
Q
Martin Jones: That would be an additional challenge. At the moment, I guess the closest approximation you have is the mental health review tribunal, which makes decisions about the release of people from hospital or prison. If you have mental health conditions, that goes up to the tribunal. But this would be new work for the tribunal.
It certainly seems to me that the tribunal would need training in relation to risk assessment. The lifeblood of the Parole Board is understanding the progress that somebody has made and ensuring the processes work. Clearly, if you are going to have, under one part almost, a reconsideration of the case as a whole, that will be quite a complex decision if you are potentially dealing with a significant volume of cases being challenged.
Maria Eagle
Q
Martin Jones: In my seven years of experience running the Parole Board, I cannot think of a single case where we would say that we cannot make that decision. We would say that is our job—take the evidence presented to us, do a risk assessment and decide whether that person is safe to be released—on some incredibly difficult, complex and sometimes controversial cases. I cannot imagine a circumstance in which a Parole Board would not deal with that.
The only circumstance I could possibly imagine is where we did not believe we had the full information to enable us to make the decision—perhaps on a terrorist case where there is sensitive information. But over the last three years, particularly following London Bridge, we have worked very closely with the Department and other agencies to ensure that the Parole Board always sees the most sensitive information in those cases, to make the right decision. That includes ways of seeing very sensitive information without disclosing the full information to the prisoner. That is really important to ensure that the public are kept safe.
Maria Eagle
Q
Martin Jones: First of all, it is important to be clear that we already have police officers on the Parole Board. They are an incredibly important part of our decision making, alongside all the other experience—the judges, the psychologists, the psychiatrists and others. We have had a look at the release rates by different types, and in reality our members are trained and we bring in people who are driven by the evidence, not by their vocation.
I think there is a problem in saying that a particular person must be on the panel for a particular group of cases. Certainly, it adds an additional layer of operational complexity to us to ensure that we have enough police officers. If you look at the numbers in the explanatory memorandum, it is about 2,000 cases a year; we would need quite a lot of police officers on the Parole Board to ensure that those cases are appropriately panelled.
Ultimately, it goes back to the fact that the Parole Board is a court in law. In reality, it is best for the court to decide who are the appropriate people on cases, depending on the complexity. Sometimes, we might have a case in which somebody was convicted as a child and has severe learning difficulties. It might be more important to have someone with that experience on a panel, rather than a police officer.
Maria Eagle
Q
Martin Jones: My concern would be about the nature of the decisions we are asked to make. Parliament has decided that we should decide upon the release of people convicted of the most serious offences. Ordinarily, the classic would be someone serving a life sentence for murder or other very serious offences of rape, terrorism and other things. None of those decisions are easy; none are decisions that will not have caused potential public anxiety and huge damage to the victim.
If you look at the numbers, we make around 16,000 decisions a year about whether people are safe to be released. We release about one in four, so 4,000 people each year. We probably get a controversy and lots of media attention in around five of those decisions, so it is a tiny number of cases. I have been working in public service for 30 years, and I understand why you get that attention on particular decisions if they are high profile, but I think there is a danger in trying to take aim at the chair of the Parole Board, who has had nothing at all to do with the decision in that case. Indeed, under the Bill they would not even decide who should sit on that case, but they could be told that they should be removed.
I would say that, of course, it must be right that if someone is not up to the job, there should be a way of removing them from that job. I think we would all expect that, living in public life. There is already a protocol in place that would allow a Secretary of State to follow a process in a fair way to remove the chair of the Parole Board if they believe they are not fulfilling their functions. My concern is that if it is used simply because the Parole Board has made a controversial decision, that potentially impacts on the independence of the Parole Board.
The Chair
That brings to a close the questions for this session. Thank you for coming this afternoon and answering questions.
Examination of Witness
Jan Lamping gave evidence.
The Chair
Jan, could you introduce yourself for the record, please?
Jan Lamping: Good afternoon. I am Jan Lamping, the chief Crown prosecutor for CPS Service Yorkshire and Humberside and the chief Crown prosecutor with the thematic lead for victims.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Q
Jan Lamping: The CPS is very positive about the Bill and we support its aims of improving the service to victims. The aims align with our victim transformation programme. We think it is positive that, for the first time, principles of the code are included in legislation.
As far as whether any category of victim is missing, there has been discussion about victims of antisocial behaviour. It would be a matter for Parliament as to whether they were included, but from a CPS point of view, we only consider cases that are referred to us by the police, so if there were a case with a victim of antisocial behaviour, we would apply their code rights in the usual way.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Jan Lamping: Our staff are really committed to complying with the rights. As an organisation, that is really important to us, so our practices and policies are written with that in mind.
Obviously, there can be problems and it is important that victims are able to complain, should they feel their rights have not been met. We have a robust complaints procedure that has several stages. At the first and second stages, the complaint would be dealt with within the local CPS area—at the second stage, by a very senior manager. With a service complaint—non-compliance with code rights would be a service complaint—there is a right for victims to complain to the independent assessor of complaints. The independent assessor has the power to make recommendations about our practices and procedures; to recommend that we give an apology, if we haven’t already; and to make a payment. There is the parliamentary and health service ombudsman as well. That is not the only oversight; there is oversight by our inspectorate as well, and we are superintended by the Attorney General
Anna McMorrin
Q
Jan Lamping: They are two very different things. The “Speaking to Witnesses at Court” guidance says that when witnesses attend court, we would speak to them at that point. When they arrive on the day to give evidence, we introduce ourselves as prosecutors or paralegals, and explain what is going to happen on the day.
The new duty is different, in that it would apply to every rape and serious sexual offence victim after a not guilty plea. It would be a more detailed meeting, so we would make the offer following the not guilty plea. We hope that people would take us up on it. It is an opportunity for us to try to give witnesses confidence in the process, because we know that there is likely to be quite a long time before the trial, to reassure them and to make sure that support is in place, because speaking to witnesses at the court stage would be too late. It is just one part of the service that we are working to provide under the victim transformation programme.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Jan Lamping: The fact that the Bill places a spotlight on all agencies complying with the code will make a difference. Obviously, that is only one aspect, though; we need to work well together, including locally. In my area, we work really closely with our police and crime commissioners and other justice partners. That is not to say that we always agree with one another, but we are working together through our local criminal justice boards to address barriers to providing a better service. I think that collaboration is what is really required.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Jan Lamping: The Bill in itself will not make a big change to the length of time that takes. Other work that is ongoing will hopefully do that, such as Operation Soteria.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Jan Lamping: Well, the Bill is really about compliance with victim code rights, and there are other pressures that lead to, for example, delays in the court process.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Jan Lamping: Obviously, only a part of that—a significant part, I accept—is our responsibility. The meeting with the victim following a not guilty plea is important given that cases are ongoing for longer. As I mentioned, this will be one part of our enhanced service to the victims in greatest need under our transformation programme. It will offer a more tailored, more bespoke service to those people. We completely accept that as cases go on much longer, people will need more support.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Jan Lamping: From a CPS point of view, our part would be to make sure that the right special measures are in place. Obviously, we do not provide the support services; that is not our role. However, we make sure that people are signposted to local support, that the right special measures are in place, and that we have kept people updated. Victims told us that they wanted to be kept updated, even if nothing was happening.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Jan Lamping: As the aims of our victim transformation programme align with the aims in the Bill—
Anna McMorrin
Q
Jan Lamping: I think the Bill, as I said before, puts a spotlight on things. Our work is aligned with that, and the two things go together, along with collaboration across the system.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Jan Lamping: Going back to our transformation programme, we have recognised the need to improve our communication with victims. I appreciate that you are talking not just about the CPS, but communication across a whole system. The principles in the Bill are aligned with what we are trying to do, and we fully accept that we need to improve our service to victims. That is why we commissioned independent research, and that is why we are now on our transformation programme.
Anna McMorrin
I was actually referring specifically to the CPS, because that was raised in the report. Thank you.
Rob Butler
Q
Jan Lamping: We want to ensure that we are responding to what victims need from us. That is why we think it is really important to have some flexibility about who from the CPS meets. There will undoubtedly be times when the right person to meet with the victim is the prosecutor in the case—for example, when a legal concept is to be explained or when we know that a victim has a particular question about a legal aspect. On other occasions, perhaps the victim may have questions about the practicalities on the day, and in those circumstances, it might be more appropriate for the victim to meet with one of our trained paralegals who are at court on a day-to-day basis and are more involved with speaking to victims. I think it is more about what would be of genuine benefit to the to the victim on a case-by-case basis.
Rob Butler
Q
Jan Lamping: No, we are absolutely committed to delivering this. The people who are presenting these cases in court would not be the people meeting with the victims, so—
Rob Butler
Q
Jan Lamping: That person will meet the victim under the “Speaking to Witnesses at Court” guidance, but the person making the decisions in the case is the reviewing prosecutor. I think it is really about what the victim needs from the meeting.
Rob Butler
Q
Jan Lamping: From the information that we have had so far, from the testing that we have been doing under Operation Soteria, victims and support services are telling us locally that the victims find it really useful to meet with the prosecutor.
Rob Butler
Q
Jan Lamping: Prosecutors in the magistrates court will deal with lists and have received them the day before, for example.
Rob Butler
And sometimes it is much shorter notice than that.
Jan Lamping: That is not my own experience. I accept what you say about that from yours.
Rob Butler
Q
Jan Lamping: We are committed to doing that. That is why the victim transformation programme that is aligned with the Bill will help us to work towards that.
Rob Butler
Q
Jan Lamping: In terms of resources, obviously the Ministry of Justice accepts that we will need to have the right resources in place—for example, for the meetings. As far as skills are concerned, we will need to train our people in, for example, how to speak to vulnerable victims, and we will need to use the expertise of those around us—not necessarily within our own organisation —to help us with that.
Janet Daby
Q
Jan Lamping: It is important that where victims feel that they need to have legal representation, they are able to obtain it. We would certainly engage on any proposals in that respect. We understand that issues relating to disclosure of personal information in particular cause anxiety for victims, and while we apply the law as it stands, we would engage on any proposals regarding independent legal advice.
Jess Phillips
Q
Jan Lamping: I was explaining about my personal experience in the areas I had worked.
Jess Phillips
Yes, that was my understanding.
Jan Lamping: We have offered the meetings, and they have tended to take place with an ISVA there as well.
Jess Phillips
Q
Jan Lamping: I accept that not everybody knows what questions to ask. That is why I said we would engage on any such proposals.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Jan Lamping: As I said, we apply the law as it is now, and our guidance that is in place now should provide adequate safeguards, in that we should request such material only if it is relevant and necessary, and only in pursuance of a reasonable line of inquiry. That should provide safeguards. As for it being a judicial decision, there is a danger that that would introduce further delays. It is important that we follow our guidance and the police follow their guidance, so that victims are protected from unreasonable intrusion into their private lives.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Jan Lamping: It is difficult to know from a CPS point of view, because we deal with the cases that are referred to us by the police. We do not know what has been a deterrent before that in terms of what the police have asked for, so I do not think that that is something I can comment on. It could be a deterrent, yes.
Janet Daby
Q
Jan Lamping: It is obviously a new concept, and we are interested in what the detail will be. We can certainly see the benefit from the point of view of the people affected by these terrible incidents. There are some things that we would like to work through. Prosecutors would have responsibilities for speaking to, for example, bereaved families in any event, and there are some concerns about whether there might be duplication.
I know there is mention that it could be a community representative who is the independent advocate. That may be fine, but it may be that a community representative does not represent everybody in that community. There are things to be worked through, but we understand why that is being suggested and are certainly happy to work on the detail.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Jan Lamping: In what sense?
Sir Oliver Heald
Obviously, you have a duty to the court. The judge is in charge of the procedure and the law. Does that create any limitations for the role of an independent advocate working for a witness?
Jan Lamping: In terms of the independent advocate, for the prosecutor?
Sir Oliver Heald
Well, the prosecutor clearly would want to be in charge of the prosecution, because that is your duty. Is there a limit to what the role of the independent advocate can be, and if so, what would it be?
Jan Lamping: I think there is. From what I have read about it, the independent advocate is more about the link between the people affected by a major incident and the agencies either investigating or prosecuting; it is more that kind of role, as opposed to in court.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Jan Lamping: No, not at all.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Jan Lamping: When the police refer a case to us, they provide information to us about the conversations they have had with victims about what kind of support would help them to give their best evidence. There are numerous special measures available that we then consider, from live links to giving evidence remotely, giving evidence in private in certain circumstances and pre-recorded evidence.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Jan Lamping: It happens at different points. There are initial conversations between the investigating officer and the victim and then conversations between ourselves and the police once we get the information from them, but certainly one point would be at that meeting. It may well be that we have already had the information and special measures are in place, so the meeting might be more of a check of whether those are still the appropriate measures and whether any changes need to be made.
The Chair
There are no more questions, so I thank the witness, Jan Lamping, for coming and giving evidence this afternoon. We will end that session and move on to the next session a few minutes early. I warn people that we are expecting a vote fairly soon, so we will have to interrupt proceedings when that happens.
Examination of Witnesses
Councillor Jeanie Bell, Kate Davies and Catherine Hinwood gave evidence.
The Chair
Can I welcome the witnesses and ask you to introduce yourselves for the record, please?
Kate Davies: Good afternoon, everyone. I am Kate Davies, a national director in NHS England. My formal title is the director of health and justice, armed forces and sexual assault services commissioning, and I have recently taken on a senior responsible owner role for the programme of work that NHS England is doing on domestic abuse and sexual violence.
Catherine Hinwood: Hi everyone, it is lovely to be here. I am Catherine Hinwood, NHS England’s lead on domestic abuse and sexual violence.
Cllr Bell: I am Councillor Jeanie Bell from St Helens Borough Council and I am here representing the Local Government Association.
Jess Phillips
Q
Kate Davies: Thank you very much, Jess. We welcome the Bill and we welcome the duty to collaborate. From the perspective of sitting giving evidence or suggesting amendments, the Bill probably is not as up to date as we in NHS England would like it to be with the new legislation of the integrated care boards, the integrated care partnerships and the different elements of commissioning. There are some additions that would help to strengthen that reality of work that is now happening with 42 integrated care boards. I think that a lot of that was in good faith, and in consultation with the Health and Care Bill becoming an Act in July 2022, but there is certainly more that could be produced to give a clear element of prioritisation and advice to 42 integrated care boards, which ultimately are the population-based commissioning for NHS services.
NHS England has mitigated that collaboration element by putting together a single national programme of work on domestic abuse and sexual violence, which I am pleased to say Catherine Hinwood is the senior lead for, because we take very seriously the fact that we want to support, influence and also use legislation and current Act work to prioritise the needs of the 1.5 million people who are seen by the NHS every day, whether in primary care, hospital trusts, mental health or within some of the services that I directly commission.
I think the answer to the question is, “Yes, that is great,” but the Bill is probably in the past in the way that has been written and put. If we are looking into the future and what we now know, we could look at strengthening that for NHS collaboration with local authorities and also at how the ICPs in particular work across their populations with the voluntary sector, lived experience, the criminal justice sector and police and crime commissioners.
Catherine Hinwood: If I could just add to that, I started leading this programme at the back end of last year. I visited a lot of ICBs and a lot of commissioners and I have spoken to the third sector. There is fantastic collaboration going on in some areas, so I welcome strengthening the collaboration through a duty, but there are a couple of things that I think we need to be mindful of.
The first is the serious violence duty and the duty in relation to prevention, ensuring that whatever we do in terms of thinking about the local structures and local infrastructure that exist—also in relation to the implementation of the Domestic Abuse Act and domestic abuse partnership boards—all comes together to be a really person-centred, locally focused duty that supports and enhances the structures that are already there at the moment, rather than comes in and brings in something new. From my perspective, there is great work that is already being done. Ensuring that collaboration is at the heart of the way in which key local partners work is brilliant, but I want to make sure that whatever we are doing aligns well with what is happening in local structures.
The next thing I would want to say is that I really welcomed the focus in the women’s health strategy on looking at violence against women and girls—in which, of course, we include men and boys as well—as a public health issue. One of the things that I would really like to see through the Bill, and across Government more widely, is thinking about violence against women and girls, domestic abuse and sexual violence through a public health lens, as well as the really important criminal justice lens. I would like to see the Bill thinking a little bit more about, and interacting a bit more with, that public health approach that we are taking to serious violence.
Jess Phillips
Q
Historically, health services have not been a commissioner in this particular space. When Rape Crisis England and Wales gave its evidence earlier, the witness said that she could not think of a mental health trust in the country that commissioned a specialist trauma service for victims of rape and sexual violence, and that has certainly been my experience as well—not that I could not think of one, but that it is very patchy. Kate, I noticed that you said it would be better if they had better advice. Do you think that the duty is strong enough to make the ICBs actually fund any of this work?
Kate Davies: I think one of the reasons why I am also sitting here is that I do commission £50 million-worth of sexual assault referral centres—47 across the country—and NHS England has increased that from what was actually £6 million when it first came in as part of the Act of 2012-13, and also developed all the paediatric services as well as adult services. Most recently, the long-term plan in 2019 increased a baseline of £4 million of mental health trauma-informed services around sexual violence, and in fact, I announced another £2 million for that only last week.
I think the reality with this area of work is that, when you are working within the NHS in a busy hospital trust or a GP’s surgery, of course we give some brilliant support every day of the week to men, women, girls and boys who are victims of rape and sexual assault, and also other elements of violence. However, this could be an opportunity to look at how the resource, generically within the NHS as well as maybe a more targeted element, can support people’s knowledge, people’s understanding and sometimes people’s fear—how that can be an earlier intervention, as well as a targeted intervention. That is why I am sitting here, and that is why we are sitting here for the NHS. I think that answer is yes.
Jess Phillips
Q
Kate Davies: I will have to say yes; I think it will. We would like to see that consistency. One of the works that the national programme does, as well as obviously across ICBs with Steve Russell—who is actually the board sponsor for this work as the chief delivery officer for NHS England; it is a great approach, through both Steve Russell and Amanda Pritchard as chief exec—is to really evidence that importance to our ICBs, for not only patients but staff. We have 1.3 million staff, and certainly from a recent campaign we had a lot of feedback on the improvements we can make and also the good practice.
We have some great work going on. We have just done some audit work around ISVAs in some of our acute trusts and actually found out that we are doing more that is commissioned through the health budgets and through ICBs than we ever realised before. We have to build on that good practice, to be honest with you, but this is a very busy time in the NHS. It is really important that we can maybe use some additional resource that can target how this can be understood and also be focused as part of a planned programme of work.
Jess Phillips
Q
Cllr Bell: I do not know if this will be controversial or not, because I am not sure what everybody else has been saying. Although I tried to tune in as much as I could on my train journeys down, the wi-fi has not been great. I would say that no, actually, I do not think that the duty alone is enough to make the collaboration work. Collaboration is formed on good relationships, good professional relationships and information sharing, and that is developed through strong partnership working practices. You cannot have that unless it is funded properly.
My concerns from what I see in the proposed Bill are that the funding assigned to it is for almost like a convener role to pull things together, whether that is at PCC level, who will help run the meetings and provide the support. Actually, we have local authorities and the NHS with significant capacity issues. I would go as far as to say that PCCs have capacity issues and cannot do everything either, so we cannot get away from that resource and capacity issue. It is an increasingly complex landscape.
We have to be really careful, when we talk about capacity in this context, that we are not duplicating as well. We have talked about the Domestic Abuse Act and the serious violence duty, but we also have collaboration happening through the combating drugs partnership. You have all these additional collaboration duties coming in—which we all want to comply with, because ultimately we all want a better service for victims—but there is no additional funding for victims in all this either, which is a concern.
I suppose the last thing I would say is when we look at the duty to collaborate, that will not solve the problem around the footprint that this will operate on. In terms of PCCs, ICBs, local authorities and violence reduction units—of which you have only 20—you are talking about lots of different organisations, some of which will be operating on different footprints, so how will you ensure that when you talk about the duty to collaborate, you have that flexibility built in to ensure that at a local level you can work in a way that meets the needs of your residents? You will all know from your own constituencies how complex that can be within that footprint, so there has to be a degree of flexibility as well.
Jess Phillips
Q
Cllr Bell: The pressure will increase. I was the previous cabinet member for community safety, which included housing, domestic abuse services, homelessness, asylum and refugees, as well as community safety and our band A properties, which are for most urgent need. Domestic abuse is in that band A category. A person could still be waiting for a minimum of a year.
Ultimately, our refuges fill up very quickly. They remain at capacity and that can be seen right across the country. That is not specific to my authority either, so you will see it right across the landscape. There are not enough houses being built to provide accommodation that is safe for people. I know that that is not necessarily what we are here to talk about today, but you do have to address that. That is why I have a concern about the duty to collaborate. Obviously, I want it to work. I want us all to work together, but I just do not think that the duty alone is enough.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Q
Catherine Hinwood: I am going to talk to you about the implementation of the serious violence duty and the way in which that worked, and some of the lessons that I think we should learn from that. Under the serious violence duty, police and crime commissioners were given the responsibility of overseeing the implementation of the duty and overseeing all of the funding for labour costs, which were given to responsible authorities for the set-up of the duty, as well as allocating the money for commissioning costs, which, again, were given once a new duty was put on responsible authorities.
What we saw with the way in which PCCs have taken that responsibility is that it has had a very justice-focused lens in the way that they decided to distribute labour costs. We know from the Home Office’s implementation work that a significant amount of money that ought to have been spread evenly across responsible authorities has not gone to ICBs. A significant number of ICBs did not receive their implementation costs.
What we have learned from the serious violence duty is that if you want to have some kind of equality of arms across responsible authorities to be able to ensure that they are all implementing the duty— I think that it is a great point about wanting to see ICBs much more in this space; they are talking about the fact that they want to be more in this space. If you put a PCC, for example, as the lead body—the convener—in relation to this, then the implementation of it needs to be done in a way that you are ensuring that funding is distributed equally and that responsibilities are clearly set out. I am not sure that I would put a lead authority or a lead body in place for the duty. There must be a way of ensuring equality between each of them.
Elliot Colburn
Q
Catherine Hinwood: The way that I have read the legislation and the way that I understand the guidance is being considered is that there will be local flexibility as to what kind of body will be the convening body. For example, one area might say that they will use an integrated care partnership, one might use a violence reduction unit, and another might use a criminal justice board. If you build that flexibility in, I do not know how you can then give one body the oversight for the implementation. It might be that a national body needs to oversee it, I really do not know. But this is the kind of stuff that we need to work through, and work through in the guidance.
The Chair
Order. I will suspend the Committee for Divisions in the Chamber. I will suspend for 15 minutes for the first Division and 10 minutes for the second and any subsequent ones. We are expecting at least two votes, so we will suspend for at least 25 minutes.
The Chair
We shall carry on with the session, and I would like to bring in Siobhan Baillie to ask a question.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Kate Davies: It is obviously our responsibility within NHS England, when there is a particular area like commissioning some victim services—as I do—to work with Bills as they are coming in. I worked across that with Catherine in a previous role; I declare that as an interest. We are aware of it from working with our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care as well. We now realise, because of the Health and Care Act of 2022—there are obviously lots of issues coming in as a Bill turns into an Act—what that means. We know much more than we did then, and I think it is fundamental now to look at how, with ICBs and ICPs, we can make better use of the local authority and NHS population-based commissioning. There is also a requirement with the voluntary sector. One of the objectives with ICBs is about health inequalities.
All those elements are now legislation. All those elements give us a real focus, a real lens, on, in particular, survivors and victims within a population, whether they come through a GP’s door or through a local authority door for something to do with housing. It is a question of that needs assessment at local level to say that we have a duty and the responsibility to work with that population number and also support that, whether that is through collaboration or governance. It goes back to Elliot’s earlier point about ensuring that we come round the table to ensure that that happens. I think the current wording in the Bill is helpful, but does not go far enough to ensure that there is that responsibility, accountability and governance in order to collaborate and provide as part of that needs assessment.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Kate Davies: There have been discussions with the Department of Health and Social Care recently on that, so I think that is an important element to go back to you on.
Catherine Hinwood: I think we are going to submit written evidence on this, so we are really happy to do that.
Rob Butler
Q
In the context of, frankly, ICBs that are struggling to fulfil their core duties, I wonder how they will really do what is needed for victims through this proposed legislation, because I do not think that they are going to see it as their No. 1 priority. I wonder how you can leverage to ensure that this important legislation and the concepts behind it are delivered on by ICBs.
Catherine Hinwood: ICBs now have a duty to set out in their joint forward plans how they are going to support victims of abuse, and it is specifically set out that they must talk about victims of domestic abuse and sexual abuse. We are starting to work with ICBs to help them. We issued guidance on what they might want to do to be able to fulfil that duty and how they might approach it, but we are starting to work with them in the coming months to assist them in how they are approaching that. I agree that they would be at different levels of maturity, but it is certainly something that we within NHS England have had to focus on in assisting them with and will over the next year, as they grapple with a number of different responsibilities. You are absolutely right: this focus that they have on victims of abuse is a new one. It is a different one and it did not come with any funding—it did not come with any ringfenced funding—so we are helping them to think about how they might be able to mature in this space.
Kate Davies: One of the things at the moment is the maturity of the NHS, with the recovery from covid and everything else. I remember being in a forum during covid and looking at the issues of serious violence, victims and survivors. There are victims and survivors walking through the door of every GP, hospital trust and, perhaps, accident and emergency department. We have too much evidence or representation of people coming in years after they have actually been a victim— this may be related to childhood sexual abuse or to domestic abuse.
It is fundamental that someone in an NHS service has the opportunity to feel safe enough and supported enough to be part of their needs and requirements. They might come in for something else—for example, we have just done some work on cervical screening. I have to say that we are talking about superb interventions through lived experience. How do we get every woman who has cervical screening as part of their requirement also to have the opportunity to say, whether they know this or not, what needs they have or what support they need? This is about, “How can we support you? Have you ever been a victim of rape, sexual assault or domestic abuse?” It is those opportunities that we should be supporting.
I have been with the NHS quite a long time, so I am not saying this because I am sitting in front of the Committee, but there are massive amounts of evidence that people want to do more in this space, because that is part of so many people’s experiences, either personally or professionally; this could be as a clinician, with someone in front of them as a patient. This is a great opportunity to talk about the duty to collaborate, but it is also a great opportunity, as you say, when you have maturity of ICBs at this early stage, to make it a priority.
Lastly, as people are aware, I sat in front of a number of Committees to do with armed forces, as I am the senior commissioner for armed forces. I had exactly the same conversation about that maturity. Four or five years later, we had the armed forces covenant and a really important requirement around armed forces’ mental health and trauma, whereby we have commissioning and supporting a dedicated pathway. That is really why we have been commissioning more mental health enhanced services for sexual abuse recently, through the long term plan. It is a really good opportunity to build on this and build on that good practice, as well as to say where it is not working—we have to be honest about that, too.
Rob Butler
Q
Cllr Bell: Yes, it can. Let me just to come back to add a little more detail. At a local level, we are talking about ICBs and we are quite heavily focused on them. They will be feeding into your health and wellbeing boards on your local authorities. Your community safety partnership should be feeding into your health and wellbeing boards, and there should be a joint commissioning approach to local services running through that process as well. When we talk about not duplicating, we need to look at them; we need to look at what is already in existence and how we can deliver that duty to collaborate without creating additional layers of bureaucracy that may not actually do anything other than exacerbate the pressure on capacity. If we do not have to reinvent the wheel, let us not do so—let us look at what is there already.
Local representation in the ICBs is a funny picture at the moment, because different places are operating in different ways. Let me talk from my experience. Our clinical commissioning group was integrated into our local authority a number of years ago, so we had an integrated health and social care model already. Our director of adult health and social care was also our director at the CCG, and is now the head of our ICB. It works quite well and quite seamlessly. Our cabinet member sits within that structure as well.
Rob Butler
Q
Cllr Bell: I do not want to overstretch. From my experience, it works well in our authority. I am certainly not a health specialist. Those are the people you should speak to, given their knowledge. In my experience, at our level, it has worked extremely well.
The Chair
If there are no other questions, I thank the witnesses for coming along this afternoon and giving evidence, and I apologise for the intervention of democracy. We will now move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Gabrielle Shaw, Rachel Almeida and Duncan Craig gave evidence.
The Chair
I welcome the three witnesses. Thank you for coming along. Would you all introduce yourselves briefly for the record, please?
Duncan Craig: Hi, my name is Duncan Craig. I am the founder and chief executive of We Are Survivors, an organisation supporting boys and men, like me, who are affected by sexual abuse, rape and sexual exploitation. Thank you for inviting me.
Rachel Almeida: I am Rachel Almeida, the assistant director for knowledge and insight at Victim Support.
Gabrielle Shaw: Hi, my name is Gabrielle Shaw. I am the chief executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood. NAPAC is a national organisation that supports adult survivors of any kind of childhood abuse, trauma or neglect.
The Chair
I repeat what I said earlier: people should speak loudly, because the acoustics in this room are dreadful.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Gabrielle Shaw: This is my “Mastermind” subject—thank you. First and foremost, it is good that we have the Bill. It is imperfect, as you will have heard today, but the fact that it is here and will potentially recognise victim status in statute is great, and there are some really good bits in it. My big thing is around the definition of a victim, because it is not currently explicit that you are a victim if your case has not been reported to the police. Clause 1(4)(b), which defines criminal conduct, states that, although you may be a victim,
“it is immaterial that no person has been charged with or convicted of an offence”.
By omission that implies that you have to have reported the criminal conduct to the criminal justice system. We are automatically cutting out the huge majority of victims.
In its 2020 crime survey for England and Wales, the Office for National Statistics showed that there are more than 8.5 million adult survivors of some kind of childhood abuse or trauma. Colleagues know that only a tiny fraction of survivors will ever report or even disclose their abuse. If the Bill could be made more explicit to include that you do not have to have reported the criminal conduct, it just needs to have happened, what a win that would be. How important it would be to victims and survivors on the ground to think, “What happened to me mattered and I am entitled to support.” As you can probably tell, I am a big fan of making the definition more explicit to cover that.
Rachel Almeida: This Bill is really welcome and has a lot of potential to improve the experiences of victims. We previously heard from the Minister that the Government’s intention is for victims who have not reported to be within scope, but given that there is a question around that, we would suggest that it could be made more explicit so that those who have not reported feel that the rights are for them. We welcome the additions to the definition in the draft Bill, and we would support widening the definition to include victims of non-criminal antisocial behaviour. Similar to what Vera Baird said earlier, we believe that a lot of victims are hugely impacted by persistent ASB. We agree that there needs to be a threshold for it to be persistent ASB, but we believe that their not having any rights means they are unable to access the support that they really need. We welcome the Bill and think it needs to be strengthened.
Duncan Craig: I am really pleased with the Bill. I remember speaking to Minister Argar, and I believe that this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create something. I absolutely echo what my colleagues have said. As a child abuse survivor, a victim of sexual exploitation and a victim of rape, I have not reported to the police any of what happened to me, despite the fact that I have spent the last eight years training police officers, using my story in various different working groups and sitting on various different boards. Although I hear what Gabrielle is saying and I think there is a really powerful statement in there about strengthening the Bill, what is really important for us victims is to be seen. We can talk about the semantics of it, but it is not about that; it is about being seen and knowing that all of you see people like me.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Duncan Craig: Are you talking about mandatory reporting?
Anna McMorrin
Yes—and a definition.
Duncan Craig: I get a bit nervous around this particular subject, because no matter where I have worked—whether it is the past 15 years within my organisation, or working over in Australia or the States—no one has ever been able to fully explain what it means for adult survivors. I absolutely think that what we need is 100% clarity to make sure that if any individual—professional or volunteer—knows that a child is being harmed, we will use all our powers to stop that happening now. I am not too sure how we carry on with that, to be honest.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Gabrielle Shaw: I am not—
Anna McMorrin
Q
Rachel Almeida: The code is a really important document, which the Bill puts on a statutory footing. We really believe that if the code was put into practice, it would hugely improve the experiences of victims. There are a huge number of valuable rights in there that, if delivered, would provide victims with clear information, confidence in the system that they will hear what will happen to their case and support at court. We know that that does not happen in practice and we want a step change—a systemic change. We know that code compliance is really poor and what we need from the Bill is for that to change. We are concerned that, as the Bill stands, the change that is needed will not happen. A few things need to be done to strengthen the Bill.
The Bill refers to regulations being introduced to collect prescribed information. It needs to be more explicit that that applies to every single right. We want compliance with every single right to be monitored. From evidence we have seen, that will not necessarily happen, so it needs to be really clear that the regulations cover every single right.
We also believe that it should be made clear what level of compliance is acceptable. We know that compliance is quite low and, at the moment, the Bill hangs on the thread of transparency. It mentions collecting data—at the moment, the data will not necessarily be across all rights—giving the PCC oversight, although not powers to drive or compel agencies to comply or improve their compliance; that can be done only with the police, but it should be done across other agencies to drive compliance. That is lacking.
The Bill talks about information and reviewing the data, which is then shared with the Secretary of State. We do not believe that that level of oversight is enough. There is no enforcement mechanism or clarity that, if agencies do not comply across the board—we know that there are systemic issues with compliance—there will be any consequence; that anything will happen. We would like the Secretary of State at a national level to set out, as part of the regulations, a minimum threshold that criminal justice agencies are expected to meet. If they do not reach the required levels of compliance, there should perhaps be a warning period when they are given the opportunity to address the lack of compliance. However, if that compliance does not improve, we would like steps to be taken. For example, an inspection of the agency could be triggered to understand why they are failing to comply. There should also be clear recommendations that they need to remedy, and accountability around that.
That is not the only way it could happen, but we feel that it is a way that could work. Without that, at the moment, it is data being collected and published, but there are not really any teeth, which we would like to see.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Rachel Almeida: Yes.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Gabrielle Shaw: Yes. That is a really good point. I love what you just said about the tangible difference it makes to victims and survivors. It comes back to accountability. Building on Rachel’s points, accountability has to be built in from the start to make the Bill really effective. I was watching the previous session, when the Committee asked many interesting questions about collaboration and the duty to collaborate—ICBs, PCCs. That is great, but how do we measure the effectiveness of that collaboration? Will it just be a meeting once a year with collaborators? It has got to be stronger than that. I like what you are saying about strengthening the Bill. That is really important.
There is currently a duty on PCCs to oversee compliance with the victims’ code of practice—I read it quite a few times to make sure that I knew what I was talking about— but there is no similar duty to oversee compliance with the delivery of victim support services. That goes back to the making a difference on the ground that you mentioned. Compliance is patchy. There is really good stuff, but more consistency across the piece would make that tangible difference.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Rachel Almeida: Definitely. It should be at least on a par with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s powers, particularly the powers that criminal justice agencies are compelled to co-operate with. That is really important. Those powers are not currently proposed in the Bill for the Victims’ Commissioner.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Rachel Almeida: It is enabling the Victims’ Commissioner to be that champion for victims and have that independent voice and ability to investigate where there is a lack of compliance, where areas are not improving and where they are seeing issues raised with them. They will have ways to address that and drive forward change.
Duncan Craig: Could I make a comment on the victims code and the question you asked my colleagues? It is really interesting that when we started off talking about victims’ rights, we called it victims’ rights, and then all of a sudden we started calling it the victims code. I think there is something really important about that. All of the 2,500 men who come through our service every year and all of the thousands of women who go through Jayne’s service—Rape Crisis England and Wales—need rights, not a code. In the victims code as it is—again, I do not think it is semantics—section 32(1)(b) says that it relates to “any aspect of the criminal justice system”, but, as I go through the Bill, I see that nobody is holding my organisation to account, and actually somebody should be.
Once we have moved the police out of the way, even though so many people do not report to the police, as well as health and SARCs—in Greater Manchester, only 10% of people who access SARC are males and 83% of those are prepubescent children, so that is exactly where they should be—there is something about ensuring that the rights of the victim are held not just by statutory agencies but by the voluntary sector, who provide the majority of the services that people want and access. So there is something about making sure that the voluntary sector is in here somewhere. We know—I have a really bad personal experience of going to a voluntary sector organisation; it made things worse.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Duncan Craig: Absolutely, and not just locally either, but nationally. There is something about commissioner oversight that should be better anyway—I think we should be spending smarter—but there is definitely something about real consequences for not adhering to victims’ rights.
Anna McMorrin
Q
Duncan Craig: Part 3 was a huge surprise. I had been part of the working group—the task and finish group—for the victims Bill for quite a long time, and I was part of the end-to-end rape review. I think I even asked a question of where that had come from, because it just had not been talked about.
My organisation has services across all 15 north-west prisons commissioned by NHS England, and I just cannot see how this is going to help. It is so easy to draw a line between victims and perpetrators, but the absolute reality is that for so many people there is a really blurred line, particularly in prison. It is quite easy to write certain people off, and it makes me sad that we are doing that, because quite a lot of the women in prison and the men in prison have suffered various things in their lives as well. What we really need to do is help, and it feels like part 3 is more of a hindrance.
Gabrielle Shaw: To add to that, it did come as a surprise—it came out of left field—but at least it is here, and we will work with what we have. Duncan makes an important point about the blurred lines between victims and perpetrators, and the crossing back and forth of it. It could have been, and perhaps could still be, a good opportunity, so let us work with what we have and turn it into an opportunity. In the earlier session, Catherine or Kate said that we need to look at this as a public health issue. If we are going to look at this in the round for victims, let us look at abuse suffered in childhood, what that means for life chances, and what that means if they go on to offend. There is a real opportunity here, and if we can turn it around, I will support that.
Rachel Almeida: I agree that it was a surprise. We expected a victims Bill, and we would welcome it returning to being a victims Bill.
Anna McMorrin
We have been waiting eight years for it.
Rachel Almeida: I feel like the level of scrutiny given to the first part has not been allowed for the other two parts. We obviously suggest that that should happen.
Janet Daby
Q
Duncan Craig: When we talk about paedophilia and child sexual abuse, about 87% of paedophilic offenders are victims, but only about 3% of victims ever go on to offend, so vampire syndrome—the idea that if you have been bitten by a vampire, you will go on to become a vampire—does not exist. All the research shows that that does not stack up.
In my service—I am only talking about 15 north-west prisons, but some have category offenders—I am not necessarily interested in dealing with the offenders and their crime; I am interested in the root cause. My organisation sadly lost one of our survivors the other day. One of the things that I will carry with me about him is that I met him in prison—I was his therapist in prison—and we dealt with a lot of his experiences. I fought for the service to go into that prison because nobody was interested in dealing with his victimhood; they were interested only in dealing with his perpetration of the crimes he committed. That is right, but there is something here that nobody is talking about or dealing with. He was in a small group of people I approached as a survivor, as a therapist, as the chief exec of an organisation. I had a challenge from a couple of our service users, who said, “What are you doing, Duncan, about reducing offending?” and I could not tell them. What we are really good at in victim services—Jess, you know this from all your time in domestic abuse—is cleaning up, but when are we going to stop cleaning up and start preventing?
With part 3 of this Bill, we could do some incredible work in prisons and with prisoners around prevention so that, when people come back out of prison and into the community, there is a better sense of self and better support. What happened was only because I have an amazing commissioner in NHS England North who just took a punt, quite frankly—I am sure there is a proper word for that in commissioning, but it was a punt—and actually, 897 prisoners are now on our waiting list, they are being seen and are dealing with the things they needed to deal with.
Finally, when I started talking to Michael and said, “I think we need to do something; I think we need to do something about that 87%. What do we do about those men?”—they nearly are all men—“How do we make sure that they are not going back out and offending against women, children and other males? Maybe we need to deal with their root cause.” He said to me, “Everything in my body says no. Why should we deal with them?” And then I think, “Maybe if somebody had dealt with the guy who abused you, Dunc—maybe you would not have been abused.” It hits right there in the middle, and I think that this is a phenomenal opportunity for us to not just do stuff around victims but to prevent us from even having victims in the first place. That was a very long answer; apologies.
Janet Daby
Thank you, Duncan. Sorry about your loss, as well.
Duncan Craig: Thank you.
Gabrielle Shaw: Great question. It is a hard act to follow.
To answer your question, there is an opportunity to name it in the very least. That would be such a great start here—to acknowledge the facts that Duncan just set out, and the proportions, and say it is a public health issue and really go hard on the public health and prevention aspect. Otherwise, we all know what is going to happen. If the comms message gets twisted, it will be “Oh gosh, everybody who has been abused as a child is going to go on to become a perpetrator.” We need to be really careful about how we message that. It could be about keeping the generalities—acknowledging the fact that a lot of abuse does come on to being part of a perpetrator—but talking about why we need to deal with it with money, resources, therapy and with all those things we know about, because that prevents and it makes people safer in the future.
At NAPAC, on our telephone support line, we hear from tens of thousands of survivors with many different stories and backgrounds. Survivors are not a homogenous group—there are so many individual stories out there—but I can say that there are key themes that come through. Probably the No. 1 key theme that we hear from survivors is “I wish it had not happened to me and I do not want it to happen to anybody else.” I do not purport to speak on behalf of survivors, but I can relay that theme to you as a Committee and help to tie that to your question. Put it in there; make it count.
Janet Daby
Rachel, did you want to say anything or are you okay?
Rachel Almeida: I am okay.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Duncan Craig: I did, pre-pandemic. I used to go to the local training school. For a specially trained officer—an old-fashioned Nightingale officer—the 999 call comes in, and they go and lock down the scene, with the scene even being the individual themselves. They used to get five days’ training in forensics and so on, and they would have a whole day with me on working with male victims, because everything else that was talked about was around female victims. Then, on the very last day they would do role play with an actor and get scored. Effectively, it was a bit like an exam.
Now, I go to a university. I have done two classes now. I am really angry about this: in the first class, as I was telling my story—a story that I have told for seven or eight years—an individual put their hand up. There is a picture of me in the room where it happened. They put their hand up and said, “Yes, but do you not think that you should push them all off a cliff?” [Interruption.] I had exactly the same reaction as you; I was absolutely astonished. In seven or eight years, I have never had to kick anybody out of a classroom and I have never been surprised by it. It could just be a one-off, so I spoke to the tutors and said, “Just watch that.” Two weeks later, I went back to the same university, where a new cohort of police officers were being trained, and we kind of got the same thing. I do not know what has happened, other than we have moved from police training school to university, but I am terrified. I am terrified about what we are getting and what I am seeing on the ground now. There used to be a moment in time when I had done some training with every single police officer in my force, and I was really confident. I have zero confidence at the moment, and it is frightening.
Gabrielle Shaw: I come at this from two perspectives. What we hear through the NAPAC support line, from thousands of survivors, is that some of them have disclosed to the police. Of course, people who contact NAPAC are a self-selecting cohort, but over the past five years the number of positive experiences relayed by survivors to NAPAC has risen. I think that is no coincidence, because I know at a national level—I will come to this in a second—there has been a huge drive by national policing to improve response to childhood sexual abuse. The hydrant programme has done a lot of work on this, as well as College of Policing and the NPCC. There has been a huge national drive.
As Duncan described, the issue is how that national drive, the national guidance and all those really good intentions translate down to force level. I can hear the chief constables now saying there is a squeeze on the training budgets and so on, but we need to maintain that pressure and the good intentions that have set at a national policing level, to ensure that trickles down properly. What Duncan described is not a rare or isolated experience at all. There is good practice as well, but there needs to be more consistency to get that real drive across all levels.
Duncan Craig: I am not overly concerned about the current detectives at the moment, because we have a great relationship with them, but they are about to leave because they have done their service. It is exactly like the prevention bit—the bit that I am extremely concerned about is the new people.
Jess Phillips
Q
Duncan Craig: I am a bit conflicted, if I am honest, about whether the Bill should contain the guidance around IDVA—
Jess Phillips
I am not conflicted; I don’t think it should.
Duncan Craig: To be honest, Jess, I am probably leaning more towards your thinking. My organisation had the first male ISVA service nine or 10 years ago, and I know it is really patchy across the country in terms of what the judiciary and different judges will allow ISVA to do and not do, so my happiness about it being contained in legislation is that it is really clear what they are.
My unhappiness is about how restrictive it could be. What about people who have not been trained as ISVAs? What do we call them? Are we creating a hierarchy that does not need to be there? I definitely think we need some level of guidance, not necessarily for the ISVAs and for our services, but for the judiciary. What we do not want to see is an ISVA going into the witness box in an ITV drama and then everybody thinking that that is what ISVAs can do. We want clear guidance. I am worried about it being restrictive.
Jess Phillips
Q
Duncan Craig: Absolutely.
Jess Phillips
Me too, 100%.
Duncan Craig: I think they should be able to do whatever the witness wants them to do.
Jess Phillips
Yes, me too. But Victim Support runs the service that is allowed to sit in the witness box.
Rachel Almeida: Not all of them. Again, it varies hugely. In some areas, there are services where there are two courts, and one they are allowed in and one they are not allowed in. What good looks like is if the guidance could make it really clear that the roles need to be really independent. There is a role there to help establish the independence of the role and that these services should be independent from statutory organisations. The second thing is for the guidance to lead to improved and more consistent access, so that ISVAs can do their role fully and the support the victim-survivor through the court system. That is exactly what is needed. If the victim’s family wants them to sit next to them, they should be allowed to—they should be allowed in the court building—and that role should be recognised.
Jess Phillips
Q
Rachel Almeida: Further, I would say, in relation to section 28—whenever they are cross-examined, which may not necessarily be in the court building but could be in pre-trial cross-examination—that they should also be included in that room. Also, in the introduction of a CPS meeting, the ISVA should be there, invited and included as part of that process.
Duncan Craig: In Greater Manchester, we have been trying, with the deputy Mayor, to do an opt-out of ISVA. As soon as someone is identified, they have an ISVA, partly because, particularly when we are talking about something that happened last night, we seem to ask the individual 25,000 questions when all they want to do is go home, have a shower, go to bed and have nobody talk to them—let alone decide whether they want an ISVA, an IDVA or whatever.
What we learned in some of our discussions with our clients was, if we gave them one, they just accepted—in some way, shape or form—and it meant that we could properly see somebody right through to the end. If we asked, “Would you like an ISVA?” they always say, “No, I’m fine.” Then it is not until three days before going into court that someone has a breakdown and we have to try to fly somebody in. It is about working a little bit with some agencies. I am very proud of our north-west CPS, because its first question is, “Who is their ISVA?” The police need to do a little bit of that and health really needs to do a lot of that.
Jess Phillips
Q
Duncan Craig: That is the next bit. I did not say that we—
Jess Phillips
You could not possibly guarantee that every single rape victim would have one.
Duncan Craig: Completely. It would be nice to.
Jess Phillips
I mean, I would.
Rachel Almeida: I just want to come back to the guidance. Something that we are really keen not to happen is exactly what Duncan said: for it to lead to a hierarchy. A range of roles work in these services, and they are really valuable roles. There is a range of needs and victims, and the guidance needs to make sure that it does not end up excluding certain services or roles from being recognised as important in providing the support that is needed to victims. A concern we have is that all funding is channelled into ISVA roles only and then you lose the expertise and the recognition of the wider roles.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank the witnesses for attending this afternoon and giving evidence. I apologise for the slight delay.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Fay Jones.)
Victims and Prisoners Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 22nd June 2023
(2 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 June 2023 - (22 Jun 2023)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and proceedings are being broadcast. I call the Government Whip to move a motion to amend the programme order agreed on Tuesday. The purpose of the motion is to enable us to hear from a witness who was unable to give evidence on Tuesday because of technical difficulties.
Ordered,
That the Order of the Committee of 20 June be amended, in paragraph (2), in the Table, in the entry for Thursday 22 June until no later than 1pm, at end insert “; SafeLives”—(Fay Jones.)
Examination of Witnesses
The Right Rev. James Jones and Ken Sutton gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from the Right Rev. James Jones, chair of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, and Ken Sutton, who was adviser to the panel. I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to the timings in the programme order that the Committee has agreed to. I welcome our witnesses and invite them to make a brief opening statement.
Rt Rev James Jones: No, thank you very much. I am happy to answer the questions. I welcome the proposal to set up an independent public advocate.
The Chair
Mr Sutton, would you like to say anything?
Ken Sutton: Thank you for the invitation. I headed up the secretariat that supported the Hillsborough Independent Panel and worked with Bishop James Jones in that capacity, as I have done ever since. I hope that my experience can shed some light on the independent public advocate.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Q
Rt Rev James Jones: We had to gain the trust of the families, understandably. At the outset, families were not instantly persuaded that the panel, which was set up by the Government, would do what we were charged with doing, which was to access all the documents available from public authorities, analyse those documents with a team of experts, and write an account, so that there would be greater public understanding of what happened on that day. In the end, I think we gained the confidence of the families, and due to their tenacity and the expertise of the various panel members, we were able to shed light on what happened on the day and in the aftermath.
Maria Eagle
Q
Ken Sutton: I think the success of the panel did not come from its powers; as a non-statutory form of inquiry, we did not have any powers. I think the success of the panel was built on the relationship that the panel members and the secretariat established with the Hillsborough families from the start of the work. At the heart of that—I think this is very relevant to today—was the fact that the panel listened to the families. That may sound like a very simple statement, but the experience of the Hillsborough families and others was that they were not listened to. Individual Hillsborough families made the point to the panel, and to me, that they felt listened to for the first time when the panel was established. There is a clue there for the work of the independent public advocate going forward: they should, first and foremost, be listening to the families affected.
Rt Rev James Jones: To add to what Ken has said, Maria, the title of the second report, which was about learning from the families’ experiences, was “The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power”. That is exactly how the families felt that public authorities were treating them over those years.
Maria Eagle
Q
Rt Rev James Jones: Contrary to the Government’s proposal, I believe that there should be a standing independent public advocate. Why? Because in the immediate aftermath of a public tragedy, people are grief-stricken and traumatised. They are unprepared and disorientated, and they no longer feel in control of their life. It is in that immediate moment that they need an advocate—somebody who will represent them to Government and signpost them to the agencies that are available to support them in that moment of trauma.
Maria Eagle
Q
Rt Rev James Jones: I do. I think the independent public advocate should have the right to engage with the families, but the families should also have a right to call upon the IPA if the IPA has not taken that initiative. My view is that the independence of the IPA has to be at the moment of decision. Unless the IPA is free to make the decision about engaging with the family or families, then I think the IPA is just a public advocate, and not an independent public advocate.
Maria Eagle
Q
Rt Rev James Jones: I am afraid I do not. I welcome the Government’s initiative, and I welcome their determination to continue to listen to various parties as they shape this appointment. However, I do not think that that independence is sufficiently guaranteed by the Bill as it stands; I think it can be guaranteed only if it is a standing appointment.
Maria Eagle
Q
Rt Rev James Jones: I do think the IPA has a role, but I think there is a difference between the IPA and the Hillsborough Independent Panel. I will leave it to Ken to differentiate those two things. As to your question about what specific responsibilities the IPA should have, I would list them as follows. First and foremost, the IPA should be able to instruct all implicated agencies to keep, and not to destroy, public records. We should not have to wait until a panel or public inquiry is set up to instruct those agencies to keep all records. Secondly, I think the IPA could call on all implicated agencies to adopt the charter for families bereaved through public tragedy, which in essence calls on those agencies not to put their reputation ahead of the interests of the families of the victims and the survivors.
I think, too, the IPA can advise the Government on the setting up of an appropriate review, be that a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, an independent panel or a different form of review or commission. I think, too, the IPA is in a good position to advise the Government on the terms of reference for such an inquiry or panel. One problem that I have observed over the years is that terms of reference are often cobbled together at very short notice, at the last minute, and are not adequate to the task.
The IPA could also advise the Government on the sponsoring Department. I draw attention to the infected blood inquiry: the families were very concerned about the fact that the sponsoring Department was the Department of Health, which was implicated in many of the allegations. Indeed, I was asked by the families whether I would petition the Prime Minister to transfer the sponsorship of that inquiry from the Department of Health to the Cabinet Office, which Theresa May, when she was Prime Minister, did, to the satisfaction of the families. The IPA could also have a role in scrutinising whether lessons really have been learned from the inquest or inquiry, so that those lessons can be embedded across Government and prevent future tragedies.
Ken Sutton: It was crucial to the success of the Hillsborough Independent Panel in the task that the bishop has described that it was, and was seen to be, impartial and certainly not merely an advocate for the families. Had that not been the case, we would not have had the success in publishing the documents that were published, because we would not have had the trust of the public authorities in exercising that role. I think it is important to distinguish the role of the panel from the role of an independent public advocate, going forward.
There is one other point that I think is relevant. I had the privilege of consulting the Hillsborough families about the membership of the panel, but I was very conscious that I was doing that 20 years after Hillsborough. If we were talking about a similar disaster now, where an advocate was needed, that is not the conversation that would be relevant to the families at the time of the disaster. The Bill is in some danger of creating a conversation with families that is not the right conversation to have at the moment of bereavement. I worry that the well-intentioned idea of consulting the families about prospective advocates would be more damaging than helpful at that time, and that it is wrongly placed in the process.
That is why I agree with the bishop that the better option would be for the independent public advocate to be appointed in advance, so they can discuss with the families the help that they can bring, and be immediately available for that purpose. That does not rule out there being a panel of advocates; I can well see that the independent public advocate might want to bring in a panel, or advise on other panel members being appropriate. That might be relevant for reasons to do with skills, if there are other panel members, geography, or possibly the multiplicity of incidents, if there is more than one at the same time, which is conceivable in the terrorist context. There is some learning from the Hillsborough Independent Panel, but it is important to distinguish that what the panel did is not what the independent public advocate would be doing.
Maria Eagle
Q
Ken Sutton: Honestly, I do not think it is a matter of powers; I think the independent public advocate will have a voice. The importance for me is the authority of the person in taking forward this work. That person would have the authority, and maybe in legislation could be entitled to express a view on what form of inquiry should go on alongside their work.
If I put myself momentarily in the shoes of South Yorkshire police, I would not have wanted or welcomed the panel being created through an independent public advocate who is there, by definition, for the families. The decision on an inquiry has to be for the Government, but the independent public advocate, having talked with the families in the immediate aftermath, would be well placed to offer advice on the form that that inquiry should take.
The Chair
Could I just interrupt for a moment? We do not have a lot of time and we have quite long answers. Does anybody else want to ask a question? Would you mind if I interrupt, because I want to get other people in? Sir Oliver Heald and then Sarah Champion. Please can we have short answers?
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Q
Ken Sutton: They are very different roles. It is welcome that the Government recently made it clear that the purpose of the independent public advocate is not to be the legal advocate for the families involved. I think the independent public advocate would have a role in making sure that the inquest or inquiry properly engages the families as participants. I am conscious of your remarks, Chair.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Q
Rt Rev James Jones: Could you specify what bit of part 2 you are referring to, in terms of needing more work?
Sarah Champion
No, because it is not in front of me. Do you think that the Bill would get you the independence that you want, and give the families a voice?
Rt Rev James Jones: At the risk of repeating myself, no, I do not. I think independence can be assured only by there being a standing public appointment.
Ken Sutton: I agree.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Q
Rt Rev James Jones: Yes, I think that there should be a duty of candour on all public officials. Anybody who accepts public office should bind themselves according to their own conscience to speak with candour and not to dissemble when called upon to give the truth and an account of what has happened. But I do not think that that is part of this Bill.
Janet Daby
It is not, but it could be included, so it is important to get your perspective. Ken?
Ken Sutton: The bishop referred to how the independent public advocate could urge the public authorities not only to adopt the charter, but to live by it. I think the influence of the independent public advocate would be to bring about more candour in the terrible circumstances that we are imagining, beyond what would otherwise be the default. Unfortunately, we have seen many examples where candour has not been apparent in those kinds of circumstances. The IPA could help to hold public authorities to a position of candour.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Q
Is it the proposal that a standing IPA would basically step aside once the specific IPA got involved? How do you see it all working in practice? That is what I cannot get my head around.
Ken Sutton: I certainly have not seen them standing completely aside. The independent public advocate would have an authority through that office that would be beneficial going forward.
Siobhan Baillie
It is basically doubling up.
Ken Sutton: But I can see that they might decide that, for a particular tragedy, an advocate with medical experience, let us say, would be appropriate. We were greatly aided on the Hillsborough panel by Dr Bill Kirkup, whose work was decisive to the outcome of the Hillsborough independent panel. I can see circumstances in which that kind of advocate could be brought on board when you know the nature of the so-called incident. But I do not see the independent public advocate washing their hands, as it were, of an incident going forward.
Siobhan Baillie
Bishop?
Rt Rev James Jones: If we look at Hillsborough, we see that it was the immediate aftermath that compounded the tragedy—the role of the emergency service, the police, the media, the coroner. Within 48 hours, a narrative was being shaped over which the bereaved and the survivors had no control whatever.
My concern about not having a standing IPA is that there would inevitably be a process in which the Lord Chancellor would then consult with his team to see whether or not they should set up an IPA. But even in that short space of time, a false narrative can be created. I feel that in that short space of time, too, the families, who are disorientated and traumatised, feel even more bereft.
The Chair
Q
Rt Rev James Jones: Just to say thank you very much for inviting us. We stand ready—we have made this point to the Government—to share out of our own experience information that would help to shape the IPA. The Government have put it on the record that they want to continue to consult, and the families themselves have much to contribute to this proposal.
The Chair
Thank you very much for speaking so clearly to us on a very difficult subject. We are very grateful.
Examination of Witness
Lord Wills gave evidence.
Maria Eagle
Q
Lord Wills: I thank the Committee for inviting me to give evidence today. Let me start with the good bits of the Bill. The Government have endorsed the concept of an independent public advocate and have seen through the promise they made in the 2017 Queen’s Speech. I am grateful for that, and grateful to all the Ministers and officials who contributed.
In my view, however, the Bill is flawed in two main areas. When the Justice Secretary introduced the Bill on Second Reading, he said that
“in order to deliver justice, victims must be treated not as mere spectators of the criminal justice system, but as core participants in it.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 583.]
Exactly right—but that is not what the proposals for the independent public advocate do. They do not give the families effective agency.
As I understand it, the Bill gives the Secretary of State unfettered powers to appoint an independent public advocate or not to do so, and unfettered powers to dismiss an independent public advocate. It also gives the Secretary of State sole right to require the independent public advocate to produce a report. As I understand the Government’s proposals, the independent public advocate will not have the right enjoyed by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, for example, to be an independent office that has the right to produce reports on its own initiative. In that way, the Bill does not fulfil the original intention of my Bill, which was to give bereaved families and surviving victims of public disasters effective agency.
Secondly, and crucially, the Bill does not give the independent public advocate the power to convene something like the Hillsborough independent panel, which after two public inquiries and, for the families, decades of campaigning was the first time that full transparency was achieved in finding out why Hillsborough happened, and what happened in the crucial hours and days after, when, as the bishop so rightly said, a false narrative was being created that was enormously distressing for the families, who were already suffering unimaginable grief.
Maria Eagle
Q
Lord Wills: I recognise that, as Ken Sutton said, in the end the Government have to have the final say. My original Bill denied them that. I can see the case for the Government having the ultimate say, but there is a halfway position between that and this Bill as drafted. This Bill could and should fetter the Secretary of State and the Government in such a way that they must, for example, have regard to the wishes of the families, to the public interest, to full transparency and so on. That would be quite a significant fetter on Executive power, and I would like to see it incorporated in this Bill. It would not give the families full agency, but that itself is complicated: there is a question of which families and how you define the families, which is for the detailed drafting of this Bill. It would give the Secretary of State some sort of discretion, but we have to go further than this Bill does in giving the families better agency.
Maria Eagle
Q
Lord Wills: It is important to remember that at the time the Hillsborough independent panel was established, there had already been two public inquiries chaired by distinguished judges, both of which were flawed in different ways and both of which had failed to prevent the false narrative that the bishop referred to—the cover-up by the police, the brutal commentary in some of the popular press—from taking root, causing enormous trauma for the bereaved families. What I was concerned about was making sure that finally, in any kind of panel and if any documents were to be released, the families should have full transparency. There were issues with that to do with data protection regulations. We thought we would get round them by putting the panel in the position of data controllers, so they would have the power to review all the relevant documentation and would then be able to publish their report. As it happened, they did publish a very large number of the documents they reviewed, although not all; a few were redacted. Crucially, I think the fact that the panel had seen everything gave the families confidence that they were getting something very, very close to the full transparency that they had been denied up until that point. That was a crucial lesson.
The other point that might be worth making is that setting up the Hillsborough independent panel, which is now seen as a great success due to the work of the bishop and Ken Sutton—indeed, all the panel—was not easy. Politicians and Ministers often have mixed motives, and while everyone was extremely sympathetic to the families, pretty much the entire Cabinet, for various reasons, was against my efforts to set up the panel in the way that I did. Fortunately, the one member of the Cabinet who did support me was the one who really mattered, and that was the Prime Minister.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Lord Wills: Yes, I believe it should be a standing appointment, for the reasons that the bishop set out extremely well. In the turmoil of the aftermath of a big public disaster, it is important that someone is on the ground immediately to support the families. I do believe that, and I think it is a perfectly achievable position to have. A secretariat could be drawn together at short notice—a standing secretariat, as it were. It would be doing work within the civil service, but when a public disaster happened it could be brought to bear to act as a secretariat for the independent public advocate.
I hate to think of what might happen. If you imagine a big terrorist incident, for example, the Government would be in turmoil anyway, and then they would have to find the time and space to go through all the selection processes, find out people’s availability and negotiate terms of reference. In the meantime, the poor families are left without anyone to support them, as they always have been up until now. It rather defeats the object of this whole exercise. So I am in favour of having a standing appointment.
As for who the independent public advocate should be, when I originally drafted my private Member’s Bill I had it in mind that it would almost certainly be a lawyer of some sort, and they would function in a similar but not identical way to the reviewer of terrorism legislation. In other words, they would be a distinguished lawyer with a lot of experience in these sorts of areas. Every public disaster is different and it would be very difficult to find someone who had expert knowledge in every possible area, but the broad parameters would be the same.
The main point would be to be able to guide the families through all the various processes that might be taking place, and above all to secure full transparency about what had happened and produce a report on it. As I say, I had it in mind that it would be a lawyer. They are usually extremely useful in these circumstances— I do not speak as a lawyer—but it is not impossible to imagine that it could be someone else with a similar sort of expertise.
Forgive me: there was another part to your question, but I have forgotten it.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Lord Wills: I do agree with that. That is one part of the Bill that is probably sensible. I can understand why it is in there and I can see possible conflicts of interest with professional lawyers, so I do agree.
Janet Daby
Q
Lord Wills: The prevention of a cover-up is essential in the wider interests of our democracy. People are losing faith in our democratic institutions. When they feel that Governments are covering up things that are crucial to them, they lose faith. In my view, that is worrying and dangerous. We have to do everything we can to protect against that, so anything we can do to raise the barriers against those sorts of cover-ups is crucial. That is why I would also support the introduction of a duty of candour.
We have to accept that a cover-up is part of the pathology of a big public disaster. It is human nature. When something happens like Hillsborough, the Manchester Arena bombing or Grenfell Tower, it is a huge story for the nation, and obviously those in power at the time, who feel they might be blamed for it, will feel that they have to cover up in some way. We saw what the police did with Hillsborough: they created a false narrative as part of that cloud of unknowing that they wanted to create, to cover up. What they feared, rightly in the end, was that they would be blamed for it.
That is true of pretty much every public disaster: obviously the details are different, but there is that essential pathology. There is always a risk of cover-up. I hope this Bill, suitably amended, will raise the barriers against that, but it does not mean that we can drop our vigilance against the potential.
Janet Daby
Q
Lord Wills: Again, the Secretary of State has too much unfettered discretion. I am not opposed to them having the ultimate responsibility, but you have identified there a very good example of giving the Secretary of State what, in my view, they should not have.
Sarah Champion
Q
Lord Wills: You have put your finger on the whole problem with the Bill—lots of powers to the Secretary of State and very few for the independent public advocate. There are various details of the Bill where the drafting could be improved.
I return to two main points. In some way, families have to be given effective agency, and that must mean some fettering of the powers on the Secretary of State. I am agnostic about the way to do that, and I have always accepted that my private Member’s Bill was not perfect. I am agnostic about how you fetter the Secretary of State, but something like ensuring that the Secretary of State “has regard to” the wishes of the bereaved and surviving victims would be a good start in making a way forward.
The other point, as I have said, is transparency, which I cannot stress enough. We have to get to the truth as quickly as possible. The Hillsborough Independent Panel did a magnificent job in a very short space of time, when it was inevitably more difficult, because 20 years had elapsed. Therefore, my view is that there has to be a presumption—not a requirement, because there has to be an element of discretion—in the statute in favour of an independent Hillsborough-type panel being set up. The important point is it is not adversarial. Big public inquiries very easily become adversarial; all sides have lawyers that argue and dispute, so that often a fog of dispute comes over these events. The Hillsborough Independent Panel had none of that. It was an impartial search for the truth. There must be a presumption in favour of a similar type of panel in all future public disasters. That should not be an absolute requirement, but there should be a presumption in favour of it.
The Chair
Thank you very much for your evidence, Lord Wills. That concludes this session.
Lord Wills: Thank you.
Examination of Witnesses
Nick Hurd and Tim Suter gave evidence.
The Chair
Our next witnesses are Nick Hurd, the independent adviser to the Prime Minister on Grenfell, and Tim Suter, a solicitor at the Manchester Arena inquiry and the Hillsborough inquest. Welcome, Nick; you are appearing via Zoom. Who wants to lead off the questions? Is it Maria again?
Maria Eagle
Q
Nick Hurd: Thank you for the welcome, Chair, and thank you for the question, Ms Eagle. Every disaster has its own specific context. I will take a minute to clarify my role in Grenfell and how it came about before answering your question.
The specific context of the Grenfell disaster was that, at the time, I was Minister for Policing and the Fire Service. I had some involvement in the co-ordination of the response in the aftermath, which was inadequate. The combination of the disaster and the response resulted in a situation in which there was zero trust—negative trust—between the communities affected and the state in the form of both the local authority, which many blamed for the disaster, and the national Government, which many blamed for the inadequate response to the disaster. I was asked by the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, to play a special role. It might have had some parallels with the role that Tessa Jowell played in a different context, that of 7/7. My role was to build a bridge of communication between the communities affected—the bereaved, survivors and residents close to the tower—and the state, in particular the central Government, who were more involved in the aftermath than they had expected to be. That was the specific context: I was not an independent advocate, but a Minister trying to build bridges of trust and communication.
To answer your question, I think that the central point is the one that Michael Wills made. The central difficulty that I faced was the lack of trust that the community felt and their lack of agency. In the specific context of Grenfell, many felt that they were victims of the state, and they found it difficult to believe that the state had an interest in supporting them or that they had any agency or voice in that process. In hindsight, that was one of the biggest challenges that we faced. I support the emphasis that Michael Wills put on it.
Maria Eagle
Q
Nick Hurd: If set up in the right way and with the right individual, the role could be very valuable in helping families to believe that there is someone on their side, given that of course they do not understand the system—why should they?—and feel that it is not listening to them and is not on their side. In principle, I am supportive.
I would enter a caveat around expectation, however. To the point that I think you were making, sometimes it takes a long time to get to the truth and to justice, which is the word that is used in the Grenfell context; “accountability” is a softer word. That process takes time. In the case of Grenfell, the public inquiry is generally extremely well regarded for the rigour of its processes and how it is led, but it is inevitably going to take quite a long time to get to the point of ultimate truth and accountability. I doubt that there is very much that an independent public advocate can do to speed up the process in the context of formal public inquiries and inquests. I would have a concern about expectation management and about how the thing is set up in a way that the system is required to respond to an independent public advocate.
Maria Eagle
Q
Tim Suter: Thank you for the question, and thank you to the Committee for inviting me along today. Let me just give you some context about my experience. I am a solicitor, and for the last 15 years I have helped those conducting inquests, inquiries and investigations. You referred to the new inquest into the Hillsborough disaster; I was the solicitor to that, and I am the current solicitor to the Manchester Arena inquiry. I also assisted the inquests into the Birmingham pub bombings and the 7/7 inquests. Through those and other investigations, I have had lots of experience and exposure to the difficult issues that those cases have to investigate, but also to the bereavement and anguish that those who are at the heart of those investigations go through. It is clear to me that the role of an IPA is very valuable. To be frank, I think there is some confusion in the Bill about the role that the IPA could and should fulfil, but at its core I fully support the need for an IPA.
As people gave their evidence, I jotted down words that absolutely ring true for me—references to “anguish”, “impotence”, “distrust”, “patronising” and “lack of access to power”. I have experienced all those things. On the flip side, there was talk of “agency”, “voice”, “empathy”, “the truth” and “compassion”. At its heart, that is the purpose of an inquisitorial process such as an inquest or inquiry. If the IPA can help with that in the right way, I think it is absolutely right.
Maria Eagle
Q
Tim Suter: I think the bishop summarised it very well in referring to a standing IPA. In my mind, I have characterised it as a standing office—the office of the IPA—whereby there is almost a chief IPA who is appointed. That would be a process that happens as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. It would be properly resourced; or it may not be resourced, but it should be absolutely firm that the resources for the chief IPA to fulfil their job are available. I think they should have the power to appoint IPAs in the light of a particular disaster. They may or may not be involved themselves; it depends on the nature of the disaster.
There are some issues in the Bill as well about the terms of appointment and the resignation of the IPA. I did not really understand why that is there. It needs to be much more forceful and brought almost into line with how the 2005 Act is framed, which is much clearer about the appointment process and the need for that appointment only to be terminated in very particular circumstances.
I have some questions—perhaps points of granularity—about how an IPA is going to advocate on behalf of those under 18. For the Manchester Arena inquiry, many of those affected were under 18. No one should be excluded just because of age from the vital work that an IPA would do. For me, that came across as needing a little bit more work and analysis. There was an intriguing reference to “no immunity” in the Bill as well, which I thought seemed a little out of kilter—perhaps I just do not know the detail. Why does the Bill refer directly to the IPA having no immunity? Then you go through to the process of reporting; as far as I can see, a report is not necessarily laid before Parliament, where it would get the protection of parliamentary privilege. All of felt that it needed to be reviewed with a little bit more scrutiny.
Sir Oliver Heald
Having a standing appointment or an office would mean that you could have speedy action. I was asking the previous witnesses whether they thought the role should be an impartial one, as the Hillsborough panel inquiry was. What sort of skills and qualifications should the person have? Do you agree that that person should not be able to undertake legal activity? For example, at an inquest, they would be an interested party and could be represented, but they would not be doing the representation themselves.
Nick Hurd: Oliver, good to see you. I have not thought it about very deeply.
Sir Oliver Heald
I have just one more question, Chair, which will be very quick. Please go on, Mr Hurd.
Nick Hurd: I am quite attracted to the idea of a standing body because I think it can begin to accumulate knowledge, experience and insight into what is required in these situations. The Government system struggles with that, not least with people moving on. I am attracted in principle to the idea of a standing body and my instinct, like yours, is that the person leading that should not be engaged in legal activity. That would be my instinct as well.
Tim Suter: I find the point about impartiality quite difficult because I think the role of the IPA is, in its very nature, to assist the victims of that disaster. I am not sure you can do that if you are properly going to be impartial. I have a question: they must be independent of Government, but I question whether that is different from the impartiality point. They should be able to really advocate on behalf of the particular victims.
There is also a question about how disaster is always, by its very nature, complex. There will be different types of victim—those who are bereaved, those who have suffered physical harm, those who have suffered mental harm. They will all have different needs from the IPA, which leads you through to the question about perhaps needing a number of IPAs and how that duty of impartiality would work across all of them. That gets quite complex.
As for skills, I would say this, but I think you probably have to have a lawyer. That may be something that everyone has a different view on. In terms of not undertaking legal work, I strongly agree with that. We may get on to it, but I do not think that they should be an interested person in an inquest, because there is a real risk of duplication and confusion. Provided that a bereaved family has access to a lawyer and that lawyer is properly funded so there is equality of arms, they should be the person who is standing up and advocating on behalf of a family in an inquest, not the IPA.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Tim Suter: No.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Tim Suter: Yes, I think the change was happening before Hillsborough. The 7/7 inquests were actually the process that introduced pen portraits—the memorialisation of the deceased—and the opportunity to say, “This was my loved one, and this was who they were as a person.”
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Tim Suter: That was Dame Heather Hallett. That actually came from an inquiry into an air crash in Canada, so taking learning internationally is really important. Hillsborough was a journey—it has been a very long journey—where I have had the privilege to take a small part, but yes, it did give a voice to families. It undoubtedly could have done more; any process can always do more. That is why I would support the role of the IPA to be able to report on the experiences of victims in these processes, because I think being able to be held to account for the process you have been involved in has to be of real value. You need to ensure that there is still judicial independence in that process, and not going behind the decisions reached, but I think it is absolutely understanding the experience of those. The Hillsborough inquests were a very important part of that.
The Chair
We have three more people. We have Janet Daby, then Sarah Champion, then Jess Phillips.
Janet Daby
Q
Tim Suter: I do not know all the ins and outs of the legal aid regime. For a public inquiry, section 40 allows the chair to make the provision for lawyers—for legal representation—at public expense. In that sense, there is already the ability to grant funding. For inquests, I absolutely agree that it goes to equality of arms, and that there must be the ability for bereaved families to be properly legally represented. It makes my job harder, sometimes, but that is a thoroughly good thing—that I can be asked, “Why are you advising the chair or the coroner to take this view? Have you taken this into account?” Having that makes it a proper inquisitorial process—a search for the truth—so yes, I agree.
Janet Daby
Q
Nick Hurd: Yes, I do. It came up in the Grenfell context. You will understand that what I call the system tends to try to stay rational in these situations and try to respect their processes and structures, but in my experience in these seismic moments it is better to be decisive, up front and generous and just show that you are on their side with a decisive offer such as that.
Janet Daby
Q
Nick Hurd: I have discussed this with the bishop. I am, again, in favour in principle of the duty of candour.
Janet Daby
Wonderful. Tim?
Tim Suter: The duty of candour obviously makes sense. I would just urge some caution in terms of the process of, the role of, the IPA for getting access to material, if that is a duty that is brought in. I think there is a risk of duplication of effort and added complexity if the IPA is to have the role of gathering and holding material. I think it should have the ability to direct public authorities to retain material, but I do not think it should go further. I think there might also need to be a check in the Bill about the role of FOIA, the Freedom of Information Act, because for the 2005 Act, an inquiry is not a public authority that is subject to FOIA. Here, I think that does not necessarily carry across, so that probably needs to be looked at.
Janet Daby
Q
Tim Suter: I think the organisation should retain it, because there will be materials that are subject to legal professional privilege and materials that are subject or potentially subject to public interest immunity; there will be other confidences attaching to materials. Embarking on a process of redaction of that material by the IPA—when, gosh, you are in the foothills of what is going to be a very long process, I suspect—will take the IPA away from its key job of advocating on behalf of the families to make sure they get access to services. So I would urge caution.
The Chair
I had better go to Jess now, because she has not had a question, and then Sarah.
Jess Phillips
Q
Nick Hurd: I would have genuine concerns about that, fully respecting the need for speed and decisiveness. There need to be systems in place so that not least those affected by the disaster at that moment in time have some confidence in the integrity of the process, because ultimately, the individual who is appointed to that role has a very short window of opportunity to build trust. People will form a view very quickly about whether they are useful, so the recruitment is critical and I would think the system would be well advised to build in processes that increase the chances of trust from early doors.
Tim Suter: I agree wholeheartedly with that. I wrote down four words: speed, trust, confidence and independence.
Jess Phillips
Q
Tim Suter: Absolutely. In saying that a lawyer can do it, I completely agree with you. That is actually something I have seen improve remarkably through the course of the cases that I have been involved in—to the extent that for the Manchester Arena inquiry, there was something called the NHS resilience hub and it was fantastic. It was able to guide, support and assist the bereaved and victims. On the need for victim support and people who have specialist skills, I absolutely agree there is a role for that within the IPA.
Sarah Champion
Q
Tim Suter: Sorry, I used my shorthand for the Inquiries Act 2005: section 1—matter of public concern, set up inquiry.
Sarah Champion
Q
Tim Suter: I only looked at it quickly, but I just thought that it is almost saying that the IPA, through another support agency, can give you the voice of that child, or that person who is under 18, but it is not representing. I do not know where representing features in terms of the IPA.
Sarah Champion
Q
Tim Suter: I would like the IPA to be able to directly represent, subject to parental consent, someone who is under 18. It is just as important for those under 18, if they want to, to have that agency through the IPA. I think there is a real risk it gets lost.
On the Manchester Arena inquiry, we had a number of people under 18 giving evidence and they expressed the impact of the bombing on them so well, so clearly and so powerfully, and there is a real risk of creating a lacuna.
Sarah Champion
Q
Tim Suter: I just think that there is a risk that they will not be able to access services in the same way and I think we all realise that those under 18 may have a need for very specialist services. So, just making sure that it is absolutely crystal clear that the IPA can help those victims under 18 to access the services that are more specialist is going to be important.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, that concludes this evidence session. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Examination of Witnesses
Ruth Davison and Ellen Miller gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Ruth Davison, chief executive of Refuge, and from Ellen Miller, interim CEO of SafeLives. Ms Miller, thank you very much for coming; I know there was a problem on Tuesday, so thank you for coming in person.
Jess Phillips
Q
First and foremost I suppose, could you could give a brief assessment of whether you think what is currently in the Bill will make a big difference to the victims that you support—victims of domestic violence and, in lots of cases, sexual violence?
Ruth Davison: Speaking as Refuge, we are obviously the largest provider of specialist services to women who are experiencing gender-based violence, particularly domestic abuse. We absolutely support the intention of this Bill and its founding principles: to give greater voice and power to victims. Unfortunately, however, as it stands, my best description of it is a missed opportunity. Without any funding attached, we do not see any opportunity for the transformational change that these women desperately, desperately need.
To give you some sense of scale, still one in four women in this country will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime. It is one of the most heinous and prolific crimes that we have in this country, yet when we are calling for full funding of community-based services, which is only estimated at £238 million a year by the Women’s Aid Federation, we are not seeing any traction on that.
So, while it is great that there is a duty to collaborate and it is very positive that statutory bodies come together and look holistically at the needs of victims, without a corresponding duty to fund, I am afraid we do not think it will make any difference to the women we are supporting, the vast majority of whom do not report to the police anyway, because confidence in the police and criminal justice system is so low and retraumatisation is so high, as you try to work through that process, that they are not really included in the scope, even though they are covered by the technical definition.
Jess Phillips
Q
Ruth Davison: Absolutely. I understand that the victims code focuses on criminal justice practitioners, but I would absolutely enshrine not just four overarching principles but the specifics of the code in the law. We met some survivors, here, two days ago. One of the panel asked them whether they knew what the code was. Only one woman in that room knew what the code was, never mind knew how to uphold and access her rights. They absolutely need to be listed in the Bill and they need to be legally enforceable as a last resort.
Jess Phillips
Q
Ruth Davison: Absolutely, I do. Victims who are experiencing domestic abuse, through no fault of their own, are suddenly having to navigate housing, the family courts and social services, as well as the criminal justice and policing system. There is no tied-up approach and yet we know that so much trauma and so much post-separation abuse is perpetrated in the family courts at the moment.
Jess Phillips
Q
Ellen Miller: Thank you; I am real! It is a shame the link does not reach as far as Blackpool, but never mind.
I will focus in on two things. We would much rather have this Bill than not. There are two things I would focus on. The first is duties. The second is teeth.
I spent 20 years in local government. I would liken putting in a duty to collaborate to when somebody puts in a planning application, send an email to the Environment Agency and, three months later, it sends one back saying, “No, we haven’t got any record of protected newts.” Any duty that you can effectively discharge by email, you might as well not bother putting in. That is what we have at the moment. If I may politely do so, I would suggest that, instead, we look at a duty to listen—to listen to survivors and hear what their lives are like, and to see them as real people.
Secondly, we should look at a duty to acknowledge the level of need. You have heard about the joint strategic needs assessment. That exists in so many other fields of the social sector and social change work; why can we not have that for victims and survivors of domestic abuse?
Thirdly, there is the duty to act. When I say that, I do not just mean the duty to act on people who come to the police force at a moment of crisis, which is the majority of people for whom there is funding at the moment. We have to have that, but at the moment the system we have is a bit like having an NHS that is just A&E. We are never going to solve the systemic issues around domestic abuse unless we have a duty to not just immediately protect, but to prevent and ensure recovery, and to allow people to have the lives they should have the right to.
I would put those duties in the Bill, if you want to take my advice on it.
Jess Phillips
Oh, I will.
Ellen Miller: The other area is teeth. I have worked in the field of victims for a long time. I have seen so many atrocious things that are not in line with the victims code of practice. The code of practice is great, if only it happened. A screen when you go into court that is 4 foot high—that is not protecting a witness. Giving them a fold-out leaflet in English—that is not telling somebody what their rights are. This just does not happen. Please, let’s have some teeth. Let’s have some accountability around this. Let’s recognise the rights that should be there.
Jess Phillips
Q
Ellen Miller: Absolutely, and that is why I really wanted to come down, apart from the duties point. There was a history; there was initially funding for the equivalent of A&E-type stuff. In order to make that credible, the IDVA role was set up. In the past, the IDVA has been associated very much with only doing those really high-risk cases.
Let us deconstruct what an IDVA is. An IDVA is somebody who has gone through a 12-day training programme. This is not a master’s degree or an impossible bar; it is a really basic level of minimum threshold that you should get to. Everybody who works in domestic abuse should have the right to that level of training. We expect it in the care sector—we expect care workers to know how to safely manage cases, to report safeguarding, and to understand the dynamics of power and control within the care setting. We expect that in care. We should expect that in domestic abuse.
To us, the biggest provider of IDVAs, it is a programme of knowledge—a starting point. It does not give you cultural competence, which you have if you are a “by and for” organisation. It does not give you in-depth knowledge around things like non-fatal strangulation, honour-based violence and so on. It is your basic core concepts. It gives a bit more power and respect to individuals who do not have parity with the police officer, the psychiatrist and the social worker—it gives them a status. I wish it was not the case that you need a badge to be respected and listened to, but on the other hand it gives the credibility of a level of basic knowledge. To me, it is about a set of learning, so it is therefore useful, but it is only a starting point.
Ruth Davison: I would build on that, and echo what the Domestic Abuse Commissioner said to the Committee on Tuesday, which is to look at and value all the community outreach roles. When we are in the context of an absolute drought of funding, there is a potential unintended consequence of elevating the IDVA and ISVA roles over and above other roles that are equally skilled and vital—as Ellen said, particularly those roles that focus on cultural competencies and serve the “by and for” community. There is a real concern from us as a sector that we could unintentionally, by elevating one role, make it even harder to access funding for those culturally specific roles in the “by and for” services, which are already six times less likely to receive statutory funding.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
Ellen Miller: I would look at enforcement through the inspection and reporting regime. First, we must ensure that there is a Victims’ Commissioner and a Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and that they have the right to be very public and open. Ruth will have done this, and we have done this: when you have data and look at the differences in the level of funding, it is absolutely shocking and it is not reported. Some things that, for example, the victims grant gets spent on are just jaw-dropping. There is not that level of accountability. Accountability comes through inspections, the roles of the independent commissioners and reporting—and the right to properly kick-off in a way that will actually lead to something. There needs to be the equivalent health and care ombudsman: a proper complaints process.
Ruth Davison: I agree with what Ellen is saying. It comes back to putting the four overarching principles into the Bill. We have already seen reports saying, “That won’t go far enough. It won’t lead to the cultural change that is so necessary if victims are actually to be able to access those rights—not for those rights to just exist on a piece of paper that they may or may not be able to read even if they receive it, but to be acting throughout the whole process.”
Missing from the Bill as a whole is a recognition of how far there is to go in terms of tackling culture. The fundamental understanding of domestic abuse and of many of the crimes that are faced by women in this country is missing. We are calling for mandatory training for police forces, which would lead to the kind of enforcement and teeth that Ellen is talking about.
Sarah Champion
Q
Ruth Davison: No, it is not enough. You were there at the event, so you heard women saying, “What is this?” If they do not know what it is, it is not being upheld at the moment. We do not think that reasonable steps to raise awareness and make people aware of the code is adequate. Making it enforceable gives it teeth. I feel like I am repeating what Ellen is saying, but we need to go further.
These are women who are in a period of crisis in their lives. They may be being forced to flee their home with their children in the middle of the night, leaving friends, family, pets, and toys behind. They are dealing with all these institutions through no fault of their own. Those institutions need to have very clear and holistic approaches to their support. That is what is done on the frontline of community-based services, whether or not they enter the criminal justice system, report to the police and have their case dismissed due to lack of evidence, or endure the re-traumatisation of testifying again and again in the family court or in the legal case. Recognising that holistic support is essential, and embedding that in the Bill through the victims code being enforceable feels like a critical part of it, alongside the funding I am calling for.
Sarah Champion
Q
Ruth Davison: If they do, I do not think they are communicating it—so, no. I still think we find absolutely shocking responses from frontline policing, and at the moment obviously the level of police-perpetrated domestic abuse and sexual offences coming to light is only deterring people further from reporting to the police. The first place that many of them come—the frontline—is the national domestic abuse helpline or their local frontline community service, not the police. That needs to change, because police need to understand the dynamics of domestic abuse. I often say that if I spotted a suspicious package on the bus on my way here and I phoned it in, no one would say, “But what are you wearing and why were you on that bus on your own at that time of the day? Had you been drinking?” People would say, “Tell us where the package is,” and they would deal with the package, not start to interrogate me as if I were the criminal.
Far too many victims are unfortunately still receiving victim-blaming language and feeling as if they are criminalised themselves when they come forward. That is even before you get to the points made very well by Southall Black Sisters on Tuesday about the absolutely desperate need for a firewall to separate statutory services from immigration services, because women thinking they could be criminalised or lose their right to stay in this country is another massive deterrent to them feeling safe to come forward.
Ellen Miller: Can I add to that? There should also be a firewall to separate independent support for victims from the statutory organisations that have so often let down these individuals. That is why people are not going to the police. People are worried that their children will be taken away from them. They are worried about getting the father of their child in huge amounts of trouble. They are worried about what it might mean to them—they may not speak English in a particularly strong way, but have had it explained and know their rights. They may feel they do not have any chance of having their rights realised. Independence really matters, and that is something that is absolutely not universal in the support for victims. It is very hard, in some places, to get independent support. We see that in care: we have the independent health advocate, which is again written into the Care Act, but we do not have that provision for survivors of domestic abuse. That is a legislative issue.
Sarah Champion
Q
Ruth Davison: Maybe this comes back to understanding the dynamics of domestic abuse. An abuser will isolate you, gaslight you, tell you no one will believe you and cut off your routes to support. Something we hear time and again from survivors who come to us—survivors who phone the helpline and come to community-based services—is the unbelievable relief of someone believing you, having some empathy, listening to you and treating you like a human being. Obviously, there is then all the practical guidance that the independent advocates are able to give, but not having anywhere to speak and being silenced through these processes that are highly traumatic is dangerous for women, dangerous for their mental health, dangerous for their children and dangerous for their recoveries. Having a safe space in counselling as well as with your independent advocate in a community-based service is absolutely critical. That should not be automatically accessible by the police—who we know unfortunately have a whole habit of using that against you and looking into your past, rather than the past and motivations of the perpetrator. A firewall is absolutely essential if we to start to see confidence rebuild.
Ellen Miller: There is something about what this crime is, as well. Intimate violence does the most awful, traumatic things to your brain, and it gives you the hugest impacts that will stay with you for a lifetime. I myself have survived sexual violence—35 years ago, briefly, in an attack. That stays with me forever. The gap between that happening then and going forward to a case and prosecution—what that did to me. I have worked with survivors of sexual and domestic abuse and violence. How can we leave people—women, mothers, fathers—without someone to help them sort that out? They have been severely damaged by what has happened to them, and it feels to me callous and appalling that we then have ISVAs who have to say, “Well, I know you really, really need support, but the choice is you can have support or you can have justice.” That is just not okay.
Siobhan Baillie
Q
The Chair
Very short answer.
Ruth Davison: The default should be non-disclosure, but a judge decision, yes—not an outright ban. Hopefully that was quick enough.
Janet Daby
Q
The Chair
Very quick answer.
Ruth Davison: Very briefly, at the moment women who have no recourse to public funds are completely locked out of any provision. We would like to see that change, and that has been costed by Imkaan. We would also like to see that there is more funding and more support for the “by and for” services, which is where our slight concern around definitions of IDVA and ISVA would come in—
The Chair
Order. Thank you very much for taking the trouble to come in person. I know you have come a long way, but it is a lot better when people come in person. Thank you so much.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Fay Jones.)
Victims and Prisoners Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 22nd June 2023
(2 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 22 June 2023 - (22 Jun 2023)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public again, and the proceedings are being broadcast. We now hear oral evidence from Jenni Hicks, a Hillsborough justice campaigner. Good afternoon, and thank you for coming. Do you want to say anything briefly at the start or do you just want to take questions?
Jenni Hicks: I have got something to say. Would you like to hear a little bit about my story?
The Chair
Q
Jenni Hicks: About my journey, I should say.
On 15 April 1989, my then husband Trevor and I, along with our daughters Sarah, who was 19 years old, and Vicki, who was 15 years old, drove from our home in north London to the Hillsborough football stadium in Sheffield to watch our team, Liverpool, play Nottingham Forest in the FA cup semi-final. We were all Liverpool season ticket holders and had been allocated four tickets for the semi-final at Hillsborough.
Trevor and I drove home from Sheffield that night with an empty back seat in our car, having had to leave Sarah and Vicki in body bags on a dirty gymnasium floor at the Hillsborough football stadium. After identifying Sarah and Vicki, we were told that they were no longer our property; they were now the property of the coroner of South Yorkshire. We were questioned by two police officers for over an hour about our movements that day since we had left home that morning—mainly about how much alcohol we had had to drink. Trevor was asked to make a statement, which was later used at the Taylor inquiry. No solicitor was present when we were being interviewed. It felt more like an interrogation than an interview.
That night in Sheffield, we were treated like criminals by the police, who did not show an ounce of compassion. What followed is the reason I support the urgent need to appoint an independent public advocate panel. The lies, corruption and dirty tricks campaign began immediately, informing the press, media and anyone who would listen—hideous, nauseating lies about the Liverpool fans’ misbehaviour. I will not repeat those now disproven hideous lies here, as that would give them some kind of credence and publicity, which is what South Yorkshire police had intended.
It took 26 years for the Liverpool fans to be exonerated; however, the mud from those lies and that corruption still sticks in certain quarters of society to this very day. It took what seemed like a lifetime of banging our heads against brick walls and climbing seemingly unsurmountable barriers before—following the 20th anniversary of Hillsborough, and thanks to the courage of the then PM Gordon Brown and the foresight of Lord Michael Wills, my unsung hero—the process of setting up the Hillsborough Independent Panel began.
With the release of previously withheld documentation, enabling families to finally find the truth about the causation of their loved ones’ deaths, a second inquest found that all 96 at the time—children, women and men—had been unlawfully killed; a 97th victim was added later. This is why we need an independent public advocate, with a public advocate panel based on the format of the Hillsborough Independent Panel. That’s me up to now. I have written down some other points, so that I do not forget anything. If you bear with me, I can read them out and then you can ask me questions if you like. Is that okay?
The Chair
I am afraid we only have half an hour. Why don’t we just take questions—then perhaps you can add some points. Is that all right?
Jenni Hicks: Well, there’s something important that I would like to say. I won’t read the whole thing; I will just jump about a little bit.
It took me and the other bereaved Hillsborough families 23 years of campaigning to finally hear from the Hillsborough Independent Panel in 2012 the truth about how our loved ones had died. It then took another four painful years to finally have, in 2016, the correct inquest verdicts that all 96 victims had been unlawfully killed, which I am sure you know is gross negligence manslaughter to a criminal standard. Importantly, the 96 innocent children, women and men—the Liverpool fans who had been cruelly blamed for causing the disaster—were also exonerated at the inquest of any blame whatsoever.
Here we are 26 years later to hear that truth. That can’t happen again. It mustn’t. Other families must not suffer what the Hillsborough families suffered. I mean, 26 years is over a quarter of a century of your life, just to have the truth and the correct inquest verdict. That cannot be allowed to happen. This is why I wholly support an independent public advocate—I keep stressing “independent” because the clue is in the title—and an independent public advocate team. In my opinion, it must be set up in the same way as the Hillsborough Independent Panel was. All the documents should be available to the independent public advocate and his team or her team right from the very start. People should not have to wait 23 years to have documentation of the truth. That is a summary of what I am saying in these notes.
The other point I made in these documents—as you say, I do not have time to read it all out now—is the fact that as it stands at the moment, the Government’s suggestions for an independent public advocate just would not work. It would just not be independent, because it is too dependent on the Minister. It seems that the supposedly independent public advocate will be answerable to the Secretary of State, which does not sound like independence to me.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Q
Jenni Hicks: Well, if they are an independent public advocate, they should be like the Hillsborough Independent Panel were; they did not have to answer to anybody. They looked in, saw the documentation, and then reported on what they saw. They were not answerable to anybody, I don’t think. Is that correct, Maria?
The Chair
We are very grateful to you—this is a very moving testimony and you have had the most appalling experience—but we cannot have a general conversation; we have to have set questions. Can I now ask Maria Miller to ask her questions?
Jenni Hicks: Yes, sorry about that.
The Chair
That’s all right—we quite understand.
Jenni Hicks: I am an amateur at this, I am afraid.
Maria Eagle
It is fine. I have been called some names in my time—usually Angela.
Maria Eagle
Q
Jenni Hicks: That is why I automatically asked Maria. I do apologise.
Maria Eagle
I am just making it clear that I do know the witness.
Jenni Hicks: Maria is the only person that I know here.
Maria Eagle
Q
Jenni Hicks: I am hoping that an independent public advocate and their team would be able to have sight of the documentation that is needed to get to the truth. There has got to be transparency. We did not have that transparency until 2012—it took 23 years for us to have transparency about how our loved ones died. That is the difference that I am hoping it would make. That is such an important part.
Obviously, the independent public advocate would be able to guide people towards help in other ways, but for a major public disaster like the Hillsborough disaster, which was surrounded by a lot of lies and corruption, just to have transparency about the truth of what really happened was vital. We would never have known the truth without that. That is what was so good about the Hillsborough Independent Panel: it operated through transparency and sight of the documentation that it needed to come to its conclusions.
Maria Eagle
Q
Jenni Hicks: Yes.
Maria Eagle
Q
Jenni Hicks: It was horrendous. It was cruel. We were put through such an inhumane process. Not only had we lost our loved ones—in my case, my two daughters—but we did not have the truth about how they died. It was surrounded by lies.
I was there on the day. We were there as a family, and my ex-husband was there on the pitch with the girls, so we knew that the propaganda was lies. We were up against organisations like the police and the Government—like I said in my statement, those were huge, huge obstacles at the time—but we still carried on fighting, because we knew in our hearts what the truth was. Finally, 23 years later, we did have that truth, but it was a long, hard and gruelling process. It is not something that I would want anybody else ever, ever to have to go through.
It is bad enough to find yourself as part of a disaster and to be bereaved by a disaster. Then, when you cannot even get to the truth about what happened—or you know the truth and you know that lies are being put out there—it is not good. Nobody should ever, ever have to be put through that process again. I would like it to be a legacy for the 97 people who died that nobody else has to suffer like the Hillsborough families did.
Maria Eagle
Q
Jenni Hicks: No.
Maria Eagle
Q
Jenni Hicks: Yes. We felt on our own with this huge fight to find out what had really happened, or in our case—because we were at the match and knew what had happened—it was to find the evidence of the truth. We basically knew the truth but we could not get hold of the evidence; nobody could. It was not until the Hillsborough Independent Panel that we had that evidence, finally, and we finally—as I say, four years after HIP—had the correct inquest verdicts. The first inquest put a 3.15 cut-off in, so a lot of the vital evidence after 3.15 pm could not be heard. There was absolutely nothing we could do about it. It is very, very frustrating.
Maria Eagle
Q
Jenni Hicks: Yes, that is vitally important. That is why I am supporting it. That is why I am here today speaking about it—because I think it is vitally important that we have this facility, but that we have it correctly and they do keep their independence. When you are caught up in disasters, particularly if there is propaganda surrounding it, you need to be able to trust—you would need trust in a public advocate in a team. By having to report to a Minister, you are thinking, “Well, who is in charge of this? Is it the public advocate or is it the Minister?” I do not think that would go down very well.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Q
Jenni Hicks: Thank you, but it was not just me. It was me and the rest of the families, and the whole city of Liverpool, which suffered a huge injustice that day.
Rob Butler
Q
Jenni Hicks: I actually think this is the point in having an independent advocates panel. I think we need to have experts on that panel, as the Hillsborough Independent Panel did, such as an archivist and a researcher—perhaps even a historian, certainly a trauma expert and perhaps even a forensic pathologist. We were given incorrect evidence about the pathology and everything, so you need people who are experts in their field, in my opinion, as part of the independent panel.
Rob Butler
Q
Jenni Hicks: Yes, I think that is really important. I have some bullet points here, and that is what I have got down here—even a lawyer who knows, but certainly people with the skills needed.
Rob Butler
Q
Jenni Hicks: That is a huge question. I think that as long as the Hillsborough families were happy, it would work. Yes, they are going to support families, but there also has to be an independence when you are looking for the truth, from both sides; that is how it worked with the Hillsborough independent panel. As long as the families felt that the advocate and the teams were independent and there was not anybody on the panel they particularly had an objection to, I think it would work.
Rob Butler
Q
Jenni Hicks: Yes. Transparency is so, so important.
Rob Butler
Q
Jenni Hicks: If we had had the transparency, it would have prevented having to wait 23 years for the truth. They could also have pointed us in the right direction and they could perhaps have helped with people who needed support in other ways—counselling, perhaps, or whatever support they needed. That is why you have experts on the team who could help with the various issues that come up. But for me the most important part is to have the transparency.
As Hillsborough families we did not have a level playing field of funding, either. As Maria rightly said, when we went into the first inquest in 1990, we had a junior barrister who the families had all clubbed up to pay for: I think we all paid £3,500 each, 40-odd of the families, but all we could afford was a junior barrister. He was up against 12 top QCs with all their teams of lawyers. You can imagine.
We had this junior barrister and he did very well, considering. He ended up having to speak about every fan—not just the people who died, but everything that had happened with Liverpool supporters. He had a huge, huge job on his hands. We were told by the QC that we could either have him, the Rolls-Royce, or have the clapped-out Mini, which was the junior. That was Tim King, who we had. He did his best, but there certainly was not a level playing field of funding for families. As Maria quite rightly said, too, it did become very adversarial, considering it was an inquest.
Sarah Champion
Two quick questions from me. First of all, can I just say thank you so much for coming and sharing your experiences? I am so deeply sorry for what you and so many others have gone through.
Jenni Hicks: Thank you for having me.
Sarah Champion
Q
Jenni Hicks: How soon can you do it?
Sarah Champion
One of the examples that we heard from earlier witnesses was that they have a series of people who are on stand-by, so they could literally come in immediately.
Jenni Hicks: I didn’t realise that.
Sarah Champion
Q
Jenni Hicks: Yes. I think it has got to be immediately.
Sarah Champion
Q
Jenni Hicks: Because, certainly in our case, there was a huge cover-up. The longer you wait, the longer the cover-up stands, so it has to be immediately. Also, it is in the immediate aftermath that the victims’ families need the support anyhow, so it has to be as soon as. In fact, I think there should be somebody in place or on stand-by.
Sarah Champion
Q
Jenni Hicks: Oh yes, and to have the correct cause of death on the death certificate.
Sarah Champion
Q
Jenni Hicks: I have four death certificates for Sarah and Victoria. The first two said, “Sarah Louise Hicks. Cause of death: accidental death”, and the same for Victoria, who was 15. Twenty-three years later, we had the death certificates reissued and they said, “Sarah Louise Hicks; unlawfully killed” and “Victoria Jane Hicks; unlawfully killed.” That is very important—extremely important. I agree with the family from South Shields.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Q
Jenni Hicks: Certainly, because we finally had the evidence of what had really happened and the second inquest got to see that evidence where, in the first inquest, because of the 3.15 cut-off, how the victims died and how long they lived afterwards was not put to the jury, because the jury did not ever get to see that evidence. It was deemed at the first inquest that everybody who died had received their injuries before 3.15, which was blatantly untrue. That is why I am saying the transparency of and having that documentation and evidence, if you want to get the right inquest verdict, is imperative.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Jenni Hicks: Certainly. One of the major things at the second inquest was when we did our pen portraits of our loved ones. That was a pivotal moment for everybody in the inquest. We had an opportunity to talk about the person who had died. They were not just a number; they were a person. When you are involved in a huge disaster where numerous people died, you do become part of just that number. Like I said there, I would like the independent public advocate to be a legacy for the 97, but, at the second inquest, it was broken down into individuals. I learned a lot myself just listening to the other families’ pen portraits about their loved ones. That is very important. I am pleased that the inquests are going that way now.
Sir Oliver Heald
Q
Jenni Hicks: Thank you. All the families are saying it—the city as well.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Q
Jenni Hicks: That is huge—there has to be a duty of candour. I do not just mean a duty of candour where you—how can I put this without being offensive to anybody?
Anna McMorrin
Don’t worry about that.
Jenni Hicks: Where you do not lie, but you do not tell the truth. I am talking about telling the proper truth, because often you do not actually lie, but you do not tell the truth. If it is a duty of candour, it has to be a proper duty of candour, and there should be consequences if you do not tell the truth.
When I spoke to the last Committee, we had Paul Greaney KC here and he said, “Apparently, there is some sort of duty of candour at the moment, but there is only a £2,000 fine.” To big organisations, that is just pocket change. It should be something a little stronger than just a £2,000 fine if you do not tell the truth. That and transparency are the two really important things.
The Chair
Thank you very much, Mrs Hicks. We salute your courage. Thank you for coming.
Examination of Witness
Kimia Zabihyan gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Kimia Zabihyan of Grenfell Next of Kin. I think we are having some technical problems with Dr Stuart Murray, so we have just one witness for this quarter of an hour session.
Maria Eagle
Q
Kimia Zabihyan: Actually, I started off on the ground as a volunteer. There were many, many people who came to the area affected by the tower. I have my roots in that borough and I grew up there, so it touched me very deeply, but the thing that struck me the most was seeing pictures of the missing people. Many of them looked like people who were familiar to me, because they looked like my family members. It really felt very personal, because 85% of the people who died in the tragedy were black and brown people. I felt that it was really important to make sure that there was advocacy for that, particularly given that most of the people who died were recent migrants.
It is very different from the Hillsborough experience and many other experiences—the Marchioness, for instance. This was the first national tragedy that predominantly affected black and brown people, and it became very obvious that the system responding to the moment was entirely white. That created dissonance, and it felt as though there was room to advocate for those people, because the majority of them did not have roots in this country; they were recent migrants.
Immediately, we were told, “Don’t talk about race. Let’s just deny that whole part of it, because it will turn off public sympathy.” These were the things that I was experiencing and seeing as someone from that background and that heritage who is very blessed with the advantage and privilege of a good education, life experience and work experience. It felt really important to play a role, so that was really what brought me there and kept me there. I am still there after six years.
Maria Eagle
Q
Kimia Zabihyan: That is a really big question. Actually, it is not just those few years; we are still in exactly the same place. We are still stuck in the same place because we do not have an independent public advocate and there is no recognised role for it, really, even though I am called an advocate by all the systems and I engage with all the systems. Ultimately, it has been one of choice, and in a way you are trapped by it, because you know that if you step away, there is nothing in its place. There is nothing to take that place.
With those families who have lost immediate family members, several things happen. In the first instance, it will be a disaster by its very nature, because it is not expected. There is chaos—absolute chaos. The people who know pretty quickly that their family—their child, mother, father, husband or wife—is missing are in shock. What happens is that immediately there is a separation; they become invisible, because they are sort of protected by the police—quite rightly—and the victim support units etcetera, so they are literally invisible on the scene.
We had survivors on the scene and we had systems engaging with survivors, but we did not have anything in place for the actual bereaved—nothing. None of the policies addressed their needs and their specific characteristics, which in this case were essentially rooted in their otherness, if you like. Their otherness became even more othered, and they became even more marginalised. The system responded with policies for the tragedy, but it was very much through one particular prism, which was through only the survivor prism. To this day, we still do not have any policies that actually address the specifics of the next of kin of the deceased, because there was never that public advocacy role.
Maria Eagle
Q
Kimia Zabihyan: No, not at all. I am passionate about the fact that there needs to be a public advocacy role, to the point where I have basically been doing it pro bono for six years, because I cannot believe that we do not have such a thing in place. Coming back to some of the questions you were asking Jenni Hicks earlier, it is really important to have that whole system set up, because disasters do not make appointments—they happen. You need to have a system and structure in place that can just be instigated as part of a resilience plan or disaster response. It needs to be extremely diverse, and it needs to have people who are awkward and definitely on the side of the victims.
Maria Eagle
Q
Kimia Zabihyan: It is very difficult, because what does independence really mean? You can call a person independent, but actually they are really not that independent. The pool of people you need to be looking at are people who have a huge amount of integrity and a footprint in speaking truth to power. If a person has that sort of credibility, it does not matter who they are reporting to.
The disadvantage of their being completely separate from our democratic system is that essentially they are toothless, so this independent person just becomes another report that is given to the Minister. It does not have any weight; it does not have any power. It needs to be someone who has the power to make policy interventions and decisions, at ministerial level—appointed by the PM even, not Ministers.
With Grenfell, we had a conveyor belt of Ministers. We had three name changes and six Ministers. The Department started off as the Department for Communities and Local Government, then it became the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and then the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and Ministers do not really mean anything, because they come and go. It has to be at Prime Minister level.
More importantly, “independent” can mean different things to different people. It was interesting watching the covid inquiry the other day, when Sir Oliver Letwin talked a little about that. It is about having people in the room who ask the awkward questions and are able to make a difference. We do not want someone else who just writes another report that goes nowhere. That is why it can take 30-something years.
We need to do that for our democracy and for our efficiency. You would be amazed at how much money has been wasted in the Grenfell response and recovery—ridiculous amounts of money—because the whole system is so inefficient.
Maria Eagle
Q
Kimia Zabihyan: To give you an example, very early on, when it became apparent that the majority of the people who had died were ethnic minorities in this country, because this is London and it happened in London—Grenfell will not be the last time this happens—the system did not know how to respond to that. The next of kin tended to live abroad, so we had to locate them and arrange for visas and what have you to bring them to the UK for the processes of identification, DNA tests and that sort of thing.
At the time, we were very lucky, because Amber Rudd came down and got it very quickly. She absolutely got it very quickly. The one thing that happened really promptly was that she allowed for that; she made sure that we had processes to identify the next of kin, get them on a plane and make sure they had visas—or even, sometimes, just to get them on a plane and issue the visa as soon as they arrived at the airport. People were coming from conflict zones, places where there might not be an embassy or places where they would not even be allowed past the first security gate. We had people from Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan and all sorts of places that were quite awkward.
The assumption that the system makes is a sort of myopic, white middle-class assumption about who victims are and therefore what the responses should be. The IPA or the panel has to be really quite progressive, sophisticated and understanding, and it has to have the experience that the world does not really function like that any more.
That was an example of something that worked—just doing something very practical—but only Amber Rudd had the power to do that, because she was the Home Secretary. We are now at a stage where we are trying to execute things that respond to the need of the next of kin, but time passes and the system moves at a different pace—it is on a different timeline. Six years for those in the system is, “Oh, we’ve sorted everything; we’re at the six-year mark,” whereas for the people who are affected, the six-year mark does not mean anything, because they are still at ground zero trying to get policies or attention for issues that speak to their particular characteristic.
If we have a panel or an independent advocate who can speak to Ministers and make policies that address the specificity of the victims, that will serve not only the victims, but our democracy. It will also save a ton of money.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Q
Kimia Zabihyan: I have, but I can only speak of my own experiences. The majority of my experience has been with the immediate family members, and they were the ones who defined what is a disaster, or a national disaster. It is the sort of tombstone imperative: once you get a certain number of fatalities, it is a thing. That was made very clear to me by someone very senior in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, who said, “You do realise that if less than 10 people had died in the tower, we wouldn’t even be obliged to rehouse everybody.” They would have just gone on the housing list. They might have got lots of points, but they would have had to wait on the housing list for appropriate accommodation. It is because of the number of fatalities that the thing becomes a thing, yet they are denied that power, or respect.
The Chair
Order. I am sorry, but we have to stick to the programme motion, according to the rules of the House. I am given no flexibility. We have to end your evidence there, but we are very grateful.
Kimia Zabihyan: You are more than welcome. I am always available to anybody who would like to have any kind of conversation, because I think what you are doing is really important. Everyone has a contribution to make, but Grenfell is the last disaster that presented specific challenges, and we are very frustrated that there is no learning from it.
The Chair
Our next witness is Sophie Cartwright KC, a solicitor at Deans Court Chambers.
Janet Daby
Q
Sophie Cartwright: Good afternoon. Just for clarification, I am not a solicitor; I am a barrister.
On legal aid, specifically in respect of the IPA it is slightly different because they are not to provide legal activity, but absolutely there should be non-means-tested legal aid available for victims of major incidents. That to some extent cures part of the issue around ensuring that there is access to the necessary advice and support for victims of major incidents, which, as the genesis of the IPA was, is a landscape that is daunting, confusing and overwhelming. Allowing non-means-tested legal aid so that victims can get access to appropriate advice through solicitors and latterly barristers, if necessary, is essential to address the concerns that led to the proposal for the IPA.
Janet Daby
Q
Sophie Cartwright: I think there is a slight confusion at the moment about what is set out in the Bill, particularly in clause 27 on the functions of an IPA. What is slightly confusing is that the IPA has been given the role of an independent public advocate, but it is not meant to be an advocate in the classical sense of being an advocate that provides legal activity, because that is precluded under clause 27(6). Essentially, therefore, the IPA is not intended to be an advocate in the legal sense of the word.
When one looks at the function envisaged in clause 27, it is to
“provide such support to victims…as the advocate considers appropriate”.
To that extent, I think there is still some confusion about what the purpose of the IPA is intended to be—whether it is just to provide support in the immediate aftermath, or whether it is to be a signposting service. There is a slight disconnect, because what is proposed is that the Secretary of State will appoint IPAs after major incidents occur, which will inevitably create delay. You will almost have a vacuum when a major incident occurs, because you do not have an IPA in place to give that support.
There will then be a whole process of liaison with the Secretary of State to appoint an IPA, so there is likely to be a recruitment, with a number of people putting themselves forward to be that IPA, which will inevitably cause delay. If the IPA is to have that clear role of offering support in the immediate aftermath of a major incident, they really need to be in place already so that they can provide the support as envisaged. If there is then to be a negotiation with the Secretary of State about the appointment, the terms of the appointment, the remuneration and what their functions can be, the IPA will inevitably get bogged down in delays, meaning that it is not providing what it is intended to provide in the immediate aftermath of these major incidents.
Janet Daby
Q
Sophie Cartwright: If there is a commitment that there needs to be an IPA, and if there is to be such a person or individual, then in my view it should be a function that is in place and appointed, with someone already in post, whether or not it is full time. It is envisaged that part of the role of the IPA, if they are individually appointed, is that they have a report-writing function and capture the views of victims. That necessarily allows the work of an IPA to be taken more slowly, in order to capture the victims’ experience and to learn lessons from major incidents that can bring about lasting and meaningful change.
I know that as part of this process you are speaking to a number of victims of major incidents. I think every victim and family experience will capture learning or things that could be done to make the process better for them. There is a lot that victims of major incidents have said about the intrusion of the press, and about not knowing where they need to go. If the IPA’s role is full time, that can allow them, when they are not dealing with the quick-time, immediate aftermath of these devastating major incidents, to be putting in place the system for capturing the victim experience, to feed into report-writing, and to ensure that there are recommendations and that lasting change occurs in respect of how to make the victim experience better and the structure and systems that are in place.
Rob Butler
Q
Sophie Cartwright: Yes.
Rob Butler
I am not sure whether you heard the evidence from previous witnesses, but Jenni Hicks of the Hillsborough campaign in particular was talking about a panel of support, with people who have different skills and different experiences. What do you think are the roles that are most important to the function of a successful IPA?
Sophie Cartwright: Certainly the IPA should have a trauma focus. Plainly, there should be a knowledge and experience that involves an understanding of the impact of trauma, so almost supporting from a resilience point of view with accessing necessary support through psychological services. In our experience of the Manchester Arena, we were absolutely blessed with the work of the resilience hub, which had a team of psychotherapists and psychologists who were providing that trauma focus. Essentially, the work of that body should not make things worse and should have a trauma focus to it.
I would definitely say that if there is to be a panel, it needs to be people with the right skillset, so that in their dealings with victims and obviously with victims’ families, they are not making things worse. They would definitely need a background that involves a psychological, therapy-type role, so they have that understanding. Also, if there is to be that practical support, it has to have the necessary skillset.
Clause 28 also envisages that IPAs will be asked to be properly interested persons at inquests. There needs to be clarity as to the purpose of the IPA, because that certainly suggests that there will be a form of providing advice. In terms of functions, clause 27 also talks about assisting with investigations by public authorities and assistance with the inquest and inquiry. Those are very much almost legal roles. The IPA should not in any way be a substitute for the access of families and victims to their own independent legal advice and representation.
Rob Butler
Q
Sophie Cartwright: Part of the function of the IPA is said to be a signposting role, but if it is not in place in the immediate aftermath and then there is this delay in putting it in place, I cannot quite see what the function is, if it is not to replace the role of legal representation, which it is not intended to do.
If it is not in place to deal with the immediate aftermath, for support and signposting, I do not see what its functions really are in terms of challenging public authorities, unless it is going to be a role that is linked to the changes on the duty of candour, which is being massively championed on the back of the work of Bishop James Jones, and that sort of role for challenging public authorities.
It is about clarity on what the function of the IPA is intended to be. At the moment, I do not see, practically, as the role is envisaged through the Bill, that it is going to be meaningful or what the IPA is intended to achieve by way of support and signposting for victims of major incidents, if it is not in place and ready to go. That is the concern, particularly when under clause 25 there have to be terms of appointments and then agreement, which is inevitably going to have delays. To what extent, then, is it really discharging what was intended to be its signposting and supportive role, if it is not there at the get-go of a major incident?
Maria Eagle
Q
Sophie Cartwright: Yes, that certainly seems to me to be a measurable and proportionate role for an IPA. It should be something that exists so that, when incidents happen, families know that the body exists and know where to go, rather than thinking, “Who is the IPA? Who has been appointed, and who will it be?” and the experience being dependent on who that IPA is.
If it is a body that exists, where families know that they can go as part of that search for the truth or to seek advice, I absolutely see that as more what was intended when the IPA was initially proposed. Certainly, the genesis of the IPA was very much the experience of Hillsborough. There has been a lot of discussion around it having a role holding core public authorities to account. I do not necessarily know how practically that would work when there is an inquest and a coroner is discharging their investigatory duty or—if there were to be an inquiry—how a chairman would discharge their role as the chairman. There has to be some thought around that to ensure that it does not trespass within the investigatory roles and the statutory functions of other investigators post major incidents.
The original concern was that public authorities had not shown candour in their approach to investigations, so that may be a function of the IPA. Certainly, when the IPA role was first announced in March by Mr Raab, a lot of the support seemed to be around saying, “This should be a role for the IPA around Hillsborough’s duty of candour.” I really cannot comment more broadly on that, but that was what was intended originally when the IPA was first proposed, which would fit with the evidence that you heard this morning. I apologise that I have not had access to that evidence in advance of speaking to you today.
Maria Eagle
Q
Sophie Cartwright: If the IPA had existed then as a place where the families could go for help, then certainly. The IPA could have a function to assist with that immediate intrusion that can occur to families. A lot of the families and witnesses that gave evidence to the inquiry talked about the massive intrusion on them by the press after the major incidents. If the IPA had a role to hear families’ concerns around press intrusion, and it liaised with editors and the like to stop that form of intrusion before lawyers were in place, I can definitely see that being an avenue to go down.
There was also a lot of concern from a number of family members about the blue light-type agencies, which immediately afterwards were putting out their own media and documentaries about events. I know that for a lot of the families the content of that material caused real concern. Again, the IPA could be somewhere they could go to speak about that and raise concerns, and the IPA could then be enabled to speak to the relevant representatives of those public authorities to ventilate the families’ concerns about that material, as well as to help explain the process to them.
After the Manchester Arena bombing, a lot of good work was done by the coroners and family liaison officers involved. I think having another place where victims could go to seek support in the immediate aftermath would be good. Anything that allows victims an avenue to try and understand what is happening is definitely for the good.
Janet Daby
Q
Sophie Cartwright: If it remains as intended at the moment, that is not really clear, because obviously the terms of appointment will depend on the agreement with the Secretary of State. If there is to be a report-writing function that captures the victim’s views, it is going to be a longer-term thing. It certainly seems to be a role that is envisaged as running alongside an inquest and inquiry process, which is why it is quite difficult if it is a number of appointments of different IPAs rather than a full-time position of the office of the independent public advocate, with a head IPA that can appoint individuals as and when necessary.
Again, if it is envisaged as a role in the immediate aftermath for signposting and support until victims have their own lawyers, who then can very much discharge the roles and functions of an IPA, it might just be a shorter-term thing. But if it is intended to also capture the victim experience and have a report-writing role, that is a much longer-term thing. We need to consider the functions of the IPA and whether it is intended to be a full-time appointment. As it is currently drafted, it is intended to be multiple IPAs that apply for the role of the IPA and are then appointed with terms of reference. That is a very different thing, and it potentially has a longer shelf life.
Janet Daby
Q
Sophie Cartwright: It envisages significant numbers by reference to death or serious injury. It seems that the function of the IPA is around those incidents where there is death, but as drafted the Bill also covers a major incident where there is not death—where you would envisage an inquest or inquiry process—but serious injury. If it is intended just to cover major incidents, there is no definition of “significant”, but I know the guidance gives a comparable definition by reference to the Manchester Arena incident, Grenfell and Hillsborough. I think there is vagueness around significant numbers of deaths or serious injuries, but as drafted it would also capture major incidents where there is just injury.
The other thing I want to flag is that at the moment it is intended to cover only major incidents that occur in England and Wales. Again, there might potentially be a disconnect if you are excluding the IPA from having a role. One can well imagine the Tunisia inquest that occurred, which was to assist victims of a daunting, confusing and overwhelming process. As it is currently drafted, it seems almost to exclude major incident types where large numbers of British nationals get caught up in incidents overseas. I cannot see, on the face of it, why it would exclude major incidents where a large number of British nationals are caught up overseas. I wanted to flag that as a potential area where there may be a real role for the IPA: if there are large numbers of victims caught up in major incidents overseas.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
Q
You alluded earlier to the interaction between an IPA, as envisaged in the Bill, and other judicial or investigatory processes, whether they were inquests or other public bodies performing their work in the aftermath of a major incident. There have been a number of calls for the IPA to be a data controller, so that it can access data. We heard this morning from another lawyer, Tim Suter, who argued that that would not be the best approach and that individual public bodies should remain the data controllers, but with the IPA being able to view or access the data in that way. Do you have any reflections on that point? Once a statutory public inquiry is set up, how would the interaction between the IPA and the inquiry work best? On the data controller point, I can see arguments from various perspectives, and I am interested in your reflections.
Sophie Cartwright: Clause 30 deals with some data aspects. It goes back to having clarity as to the intended purpose of the IPA. If it is to discharge the role as per the evidence you heard this morning from the original proponent of the IPA role, it is for the IPA to have a data controller-type role in terms of seeking material and records. That could, though, be fraught with complete complexities that will then bog down the IPA role.
If it is envisaged at the moment that it will just be that supportive role, and interacting, it can become quite complicated, particularly if the IPA is not intended to have a role that involves legal activity. To that extent, anything around data controlling and making requests for records and properly retaining and looking after them is definitely more in the water of legal activity.
As the Bill is currently drafted, I think it would become an absolute nightmare if you were requesting the IPA to have the data controller function and require documents and records. Anything that involves requests for documents and controlling, retaining and storing them definitely has to have a legal activity-type oversight, so I can well understand why Mr Suter gave evidence today to the effect that the public authorities should remain the data controller.
It goes back to having a clear clarity of purpose as to what the IPA is. If it is intended that the IPA will have a candour role and make requests for documentation, it is inevitable that data protection and GDPR issues will have to be properly looked at and considered, because that is a very complex landscape. At the moment, that would not in any way come near what is intended in clause 30 on the data-control aspect of the IPA’s role.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank you very much for your testimony. We are very grateful.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Fay Jones.)
Victims and Prisoners Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 27th June 2023
(2 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 June 2023 - (27 Jun 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We will now start line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Hansard would be grateful if you could email any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk, or pass them to the Hansard colleague present. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. 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 list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment will be taken when we come to the clause to which it relates. Decisions on new clauses will be taken once we have completed consideration of the Bill’s existing clauses. 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.
Clause 1
Meaning of “victim”
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) where the person has experienced, or made allegations that they have experienced—
(i) sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, or
(ii) bullying or harassment not falling within paragraph (i).”
This amendment would extend the definition of “victim” to include someone who has experienced, or made allegations that they have experienced, sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, or other bullying or harassment.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The victims’ code must make provision in relation to people who have experienced, or made allegations that they have experienced—
(a) sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, or
(b) bullying or harassment not falling within paragraph (a).
(3B) Provision under subsection (3A) must include—
(a) provision relating to the enforcement of non-disclosure agreements signed by such victims, and
(b) provision about legal advice and other support for such victims in cases where they are asked to sign, or have signed, a non-disclosure agreement.
(3C) In this section—
‘non-disclosure agreement’ means an agreement which purports to any extent to preclude a victim from—
(a) publishing information about a relevant complaint, or
(b) disclosing information about the relevant complaint to any one or more other persons;
‘misconduct’ means—
(a) sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, and
(b) bullying or harassment not falling within paragraph (a); and
‘relevant complaint’ means a complaint relating to misconduct or alleged misconduct by any person.”
This amendment would require the victims’ code to include specific provision for people who have experienced, or made allegations that they have experienced, sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, or other bullying or harassment.
Sarah Champion
I appreciate the opportunity to serve under your guidance once again, Sir Edward. I rise to speak in support of amendments 2 and 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). It is important that the Bill aims to improve end-to-end support for victims of crime and to amplify victims’ voices in the criminal justice system. The amendments focus on a widespread practice that disempowers victims and silences their voices: non-disclosure agreements. NDAs are contracts that were created to protect trade secrets, but when used incorrectly they become secret settlement contracts used to buy the silence of a victim or whistleblower. They have become the default solution for organisations, corporations and public bodies to settle cases of sexual misconduct, racism, pregnancy discrimination and other human rights violations.
In some cases, those in charge do not even realise that an NDA was used. NDAs have become boilerplate contractual language for so many organisations, and they are extremely harmful. They most often protect an employer’s reputation and the career of the perpetrator, not the victim, who could be protected by a simple one-sided confidentiality clause. They prevent a victim from speaking out and accessing the support they need by preventing them from reporting, speaking to family and friends about their experiences, or warning others. In one case of a university student who signed a gagging clause after she had been sexually assaulted, the agreement was so poorly explained that she took it to mean that she could not even speak to her own GP.
We have had this discussion many times before, specifically in relation to a different piece of legislation: the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, an amendment to which, tabled by Lord Collins of Highbury, sought to restrict universities from using NDAs in cases of harassment and bullying. The Government accepted that amendment. I and many others who have campaigned on this issue were delighted that students gained that protection in the 2023 Act. If students should be protected from NDAs and gagging clauses, why would the same not apply to other victims? Amendments 2 and 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, are intended to do ensure that it will.
Amendment 2 would expand the definition of a victim to expressly include victims of harassment, including sexual abuse, sexual harassment, sexual misconduct or other forms of bullying. Amendment 3 would then make provision in the victims code for those victims relating to non-disclosure agreements. The language of the amendments was drawn from the 2023 Act—language that the Government have already agreed to. As I said, the protection should not be limited to students; every victim deserves the right to speak out.
We have a golden opportunity with the Bill to enshrine in law the principle that no victim should be silenced, prevented from speaking out about their experiences and scared away from vital support services. There is support across the House for these changes—I refer to amendment 1, tabled by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller)—and I hope that the Minister will accept the amendments, seize the moment, take firm action and stamp out this practice once and for all.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Edward. I hope the Minister will consider accepting these amendments. I can well see that he might have some concerns about what he may see as an open-ended extension of the definition of victims. I can see that, in the position he is in—deciding on policy—he may come to the view that a line has to be drawn somewhere when we define victims.
The Bill’s current definition does extend to a wide range of people, and there are other amendments and concerns that may extend that definition to an even wider range. As somebody who has been in the Minister’s position, making policy decisions about where a line ought to be drawn in the middle of a grey area, I understand that there is a natural tendency to resist. I hope he will resist that natural tendency in this particular instance, because my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham has made a compelling case and the amendments are important.
One of the worst aspects of being subjected to this kind of behaviour is not being able to talk about it afterwards. One understands why an employer would like to obtain a non-disclosure agreement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, it has become a standard clause that anybody negotiating such a settlement on behalf of the employer would stick into every agreement in any instance; I imagine they are all drafted on computer systems ready to be simply splurged out at the drop of a hat. But the consequence for the individual who is signing up to the agreement—not always, as my hon. Friend has made clear, with the full information about what the legal implications are, and what they do and do not cover—can be extremely damaging, not only in the immediate aftermath of such an agreement, but possibly for years into the future.
Surely the Minister will accept, as I am sure you would, Sir Edward—although not in this Committee, of course—that the whole point of the victims code is to try to minimise the impact on victims by giving rights and access to provisions that enable them to recover swiftly from whatever it is that they have undergone that ends up causing them an issue. That is surely the very definition of what the victims code is meant to be doing. It would therefore be an omission if the amendments were not accepted.
Although I fully understand the concerns the Minister might have about extending the pool of people who may fall into the definition in the legislation, it would be remiss of the Government to exclude this particular group, who really do need such assistance. I hope that he will have something positive to say to us about these amendments when he gets to his feet.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I want to speak to these important amendments, which have been brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. Amendment 1 gets to the heart of what the Bill is all about. It would ensure that there is no impediment to providing evidence of behaviour that may be criminal misconduct after signing a non-disclosure agreement.
We have all seen examples of these agreements. Some simply attempt to buy off the victim and halt any prospect of them using knowledge of a person or an organisation which may have been the perpetrator of any kind of criminal misconduct, ranging from financial impropriety to sexual assault. The agreements work by effectively threatening people that if they decide to share their experience or knowledge, they will be subject to costly sanctions.
I hope the Committee will agree that individuals or organisations trying to hide their criminality using non-disclosure agreements is not only wrong, but that it is also a licence to get away with all manner of activity that could lead to large fines and even imprisonment. Why should someone responsible for sexual assault be able to hide away? They should not be. Amendment 3, importantly, would ensure that that protection is enshrined in the victims code, which we will get to later. We want to ensure that there is no wriggle room to allow potential criminals to escape the law because of, in effect, an agreement that is designed to do just that.
Amendment 2 could also be said to sit at the heart of the Bill; we absolutely support the essence of the amendments. Amendment 2 would add to the clause the specific definition of a person who
“has experienced, or made allegations that they have experienced…sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, or…bullying or harassment”.
We want to work constructively with the Government, and I hope that we can start now, with the Minister addressing the serious concerns that Committee members have raised, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham who moved the amendment. We need amendments to significantly strengthen the Bill—which we finally have, eight years after it was first proposed.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for raising this important topic and enabling the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran)—and, by extension, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller)—to be debated in Committee.
The amendments recognise that non-disclosure agreements are misused if they prevent someone from speaking about an experience of crime, for example, to relevant professionals. Amendment 1, though not selected for debate, is intended to include those who have signed NDAs that prevent them from speaking about criminal conduct in the definition of a victim. Amendment 2 and 3, which I will turn to shortly, are intended to go a little further—potentially beyond criminal conduct. I will address that point in a second.
Although confidentiality clauses can serve valid purposes—for example, to protect commercially sensitive information—the Government have been clear, as I think is the Opposition’s position, that they should not be used to prevent disclosures to the police, regulated health and care professionals, legal professionals and others. It is illegal for an NDA to be used to conceal a criminal offence, pervert the course of justice or stop someone co-operating with the police. As the hon. Member for Rotherham alluded to, we have already made reforms around the use of NDAs in higher education.
I know that the hon. Members who tabled, signed and spoke to the amendments are particularly interested in ensuring that individuals are aware of their ability to access support, regardless of having signed an NDA. Anybody who has suffered harm as a direct result of criminal conduct, regardless of whether that crime has been reported or is covered by an NDA, is already covered as a victim under part 1 of the Bill and the victims code. That means that they are entitled to access relevant support services, and, as the Law Society guidance on the matter makes clear, it would not normally be appropriate for non-disclosure agreements to prohibit disclosure to professionals for legal, medical or therapeutic reasons. In most circumstances, those qualified professionals would be bound by a duty of confidentiality to their client.
Maria Eagle
The Minister makes an excellent point, but how does he get across to those who have signed non-disclosure agreements that they are not restricted in the way in which the law requires that they be unrestricted if nobody has told them that? Could he do something to ensure that those who sign such agreements get proper information about what they really mean?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. I do not want to test the Committee’s patience too much with the amount of notes that I have, but I will come to her point. I hope that I can give her a little succour in terms of her asks of me in her speech.
I reassure Members that if anybody suffers harm as a result of sexual abuse, bullying or harassment, where that behaviour amounts to criminal conduct it is already covered by the definition of a victim in part 1 of the Bill. Therefore amendment 1, which would include those individuals explicitly in the definition, could be deemed unnecessary, as they are already covered. However, I will turn to amendment 1 in my final remarks.
Amendments 2 and 3 seek to go further to include those who have experienced behaviour that may be covered by a non-disclosure agreement but which is not criminal. As the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood alluded to, that would expand the definition. We are clear that we have to strike the appropriate balance in drawing the definition in a way that is practical and functional but that does not exclude those who we feel should be included. Part 1 of the Bill seeks to restrict the definition to victims of crime, and we believe that that is the right approach. However, I suspect we will debate on the coming amendments and over the course of today whether that balance has been struck and whether that line has been drawn in the right place. We may disagree on some elements; I expect we will explore that further today.
The relevant definition of a victim is focused on improving support services for victims of crime and increasing oversight to drive up standards of criminal justice agencies working with victims of crime. That does not mean that individuals who have suffered as a result of behaviour that is not criminal, albeit harmful, are prevented from seeking support. Outside the provisions in the Bill, they can still access support services where those are available to them.
Amendment 3 would require the victims code to include provisions for those who have experienced or made allegations that they have experienced sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, or other bullying or harassment. It would also require the code to include provisions for those who have signed NDAs for those incidents.
It is vital that the victims code works for different types of victims. The code covers a wide range of entitlements for victims of different crimes and with different needs. To give us the broadest flexibility to serve the changing needs of victims without having to amend primary legislation, we have not explicitly listed entitlements or specific provisions for particular types of victims in the Bill, as the amendment would do. Instead, we have placed the overarching principles of the victims code in primary legislation and specified that the code can provide different entitlements for different types of victims.
We believe that is the right approach to allow the flexibility to amend the code and to reduce the risk of inadvertently excluding some groups of victims or the relevant provision that the code should make for them. The Bill as presently drafted means that the code could include provision about the matters referenced in the amendment, where they relate to victims of behaviour that amounts to criminal conduct. We have committed to consult on an updated victims code after the passage of the Bill. As mentioned on Second Reading, I am open to working with Members on whether we can go further in that respect.
I appreciate the points made by the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, by the shadow Minister the hon. Member for Cardiff North, and by the hon. Member for Rotherham and the sponsors of the amendments. Therefore, although I encourage the hon. Member for Rotherham not to press the amendments to a Division at the moment, I am happy to work with her and other hon. and right hon. Members, including those who support the amendments, to explore further before we reach Report stage whether there might be something we can do to help address their concerns.
As I say, I do not believe that amendments 2 and 3 as drafted are the right approach. I am looking carefully at the issues addressed by amendment 1. I am not in a position to make any firm commitments at this point, other than to work with the hon. Member for Rotherham and others to further explore this important issue. With that, I hope that she will consider not pressing this amendment to a Division.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister very much for his welcome words. I echo the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood about the chilling effect of NDAs, and the lack of awareness of victims. That is at the nub of what we are trying to address.
I know there is a lot of interest in this issue across the House, so I will withdraw the amendment so that we can debate it on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Anna McMorrin
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) where the person has experienced anti-social behaviour, as defined by section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2014, and the conditions necessary for an ASB case review under section 104 of that Act have been met.”.
This amendment would include victims of anti-social behaviour in the definition of a victim.
As the Committee may be aware, our sessions in Committee will run over ASB Awareness Week, which is poignant. It is quite disappointing to be here today, fighting once again to have antisocial behaviour victims protected in the Bill.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that victims of antisocial behaviour are indeed victims of crime and should be included in the victims code?
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Government have repeatedly ignored advice on this, so I am here again to be a voice for the voiceless, who will remain voiceless if the Bill passes unamended.
Rachel Almeida, assistant director for knowledge and insight at Victim Support, told us last week that a huge number of victims are impacted by persistent antisocial behaviour. She said:
“We agree that there needs to be a threshold for it to be persistent ASB, but we believe that their not having any rights means they are unable to access the support that they really need.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 71, Q148.]
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
As constituency MPs, we all receive reports of antisocial behaviour. A constituent came to me because her neighbour regularly throws human waste out of the window. Can it really be right that she would not be considered a victim under the Bill?
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not think there is a Member here who does not have discussions with constituents, has not received casework about it, and has not seen antisocial behaviour when they are and about. This is a major issue that needs to be addressed, and the amendment would address it.
Antisocial behaviour can make victims’ lives a living nightmare, causing stress, misery and despair. It can often be the precursor to very serious crimes, including knife crime and gang activity, so it is important that it is taken seriously by the agencies that respond to it.
For example, if I had ordered a new outfit online and it was delivered to my house and left in the doorway, and someone pinched it, that would be a crime. It would be an unfortunate or upsetting incident, but it would have minimal impact on my wellbeing, because I could request a new outfit or get a refund. As a victim of that crime, I would be eligible for support services to help me cope and recover, regardless of whether I thought that was necessary. I would be eligible for all the rights under the victims code, including having my complaint recorded.
If I were a victim of antisocial behaviour, the situation would be entirely different. I might have people parked outside my home drinking, being disruptive, throwing cans into my garden, kicking a ball against my wall, and coming back night after night, swearing, spitting and being aggressive. I would feel persecuted in my own home and so targeted that I might become afraid of leaving the house. The longer it persisted, the more traumatised I would become. But as a victim of antisocial behaviour, I would have no access to victims’ rights and no guarantee of support. That disparity must end.
Dame Vera Baird KC, the former Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, told us last week that a key problem with the Bill is that it does not deal with people who suffer from serious antisocial behaviour.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Was not the point that Dame Vera was making that there are cases of antisocial behaviour that are criminal behaviour, but for some reason the police and others do not treat them as criminal matters? They say, “Well, that’s antisocial behaviour—a matter for the council.” Is this a question of amending the Bill, or is it about changing the attitudes of those who investigate these matters?
Anna McMorrin
I am just talking to the point that Dame Vera Baird made. We absolutely need that change, but we also need this amendment to ensure that things change for the victim and they can access those services.
Sir Oliver Heald
The clause refers to a person
“being subjected to criminal conduct”.
A lot of the things that the hon. Lady has mentioned—harassment, threatening behaviour and all those sorts of things—are criminal offences, it is just that they are not treated in the way they should be.
Anna McMorrin
They are not treated in the way they should be, but there is no system or support available for antisocial behaviour, yet if the amendment were agreed, there would be. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge just mentioned, the two things are not mutually exclusive.
Despite the fact that the behaviour is criminal—which is what Dame Vera Baird was referring to—it is not dealt with as criminal by the police. Instead, it is called antisocial behaviour. She said:
“I am particularly worried about people who are persecuted at home”,
as I have illustrated. She continued:
“It is not about every bit of antisocial behaviour—if someone chucks a can into my garden, I do not expect to have victims code rights—but this Government legislated well to introduce…the community trigger about seven years ago. It says that when it escalates to a particular level, you have a series of remedies to get all the agencies together to put it right. If it gets to that level, then it is seriously persecuting, and there are people who are suffering that.”
Dame Vera illustrated her evidence with the example of a woman sitting in her garden, minding her own business, when some lads who are sitting outside drinking beer throw a can into her garden. It is a relatively small incident—it is not particularly pleasant, but it is antisocial behaviour—but if she complains,
“they chuck something at her window. They stamp on her plants. They kick the ball against the gable end all the time. They shout abuse.”
They keep going and going, making the woman’s life a misery.
As Dame Vera said, often the person impacted is already vulnerable, and this intensifies that vulnerability and creates trauma. She continued:
“That is very worrying, but it is not treated as criminality; it is treated as antisocial behaviour. But if we look at it, stamping on the plants in her garden is criminal damage; chucking something at her, if it might hurt her, is an assault; much of this behaviour is likely to cause a breach of the peace, but it is never dealt with like that. Since the key to the Bill appears to be that you are a victim of criminal behaviour, the question is: who makes that decision?”
I hope the Minister addresses that in his response to the amendment.
Dame Vera continued:
“If I go to Victim Support and say, ‘Please help me. This is happening at home,’ does the fact that it is obvious that part of it is an assault make me a victim or not? I think that is a key question to answer in the Bill…If someone pinches a spade from my garden, I am entitled to my victims code rights, but if someone behaves like that to an older person, they have nothing.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 27-28, Q62.]
My constituent Sarah suffered a miscarriage due to the stress of being the victim of repeated antisocial behaviour on the part of her neighbour. Sarah should have been entitled to specialist support for what she went through, but she was not. She was not entitled to anything. Victims of antisocial behaviour are not second-class victims, second-class citizens or second-class anything, and they do not deserve to be treated as such.
The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 established a trigger of three reported incidents of antisocial behaviour over a six-month period, at which point the victim can seek a community resolution meeting of the responsible agencies to resolve what is by then persistent ASB. The Home Office’s guidance in support of the Act acknowledges
“the debilitating impact that persistent or repeated anti-social behaviour can have on its victims, and the cumulative impact if that behaviour persists over…time.”
It also explains that the community trigger is an important statutory safety net for victims of antisocial behaviour and that it helps to ensure that “victims’ voices are heard.”
The community trigger can be activated through notice to a local authority, a police and crime commissioner or the police when a victim or victims have reported antisocial behaviour incidents three or more times within a six-month period and no effective action has been taken. A councillor or Member of Parliament may also activate the trigger for a constituent, and I am sure that some hon. Members are supporting constituents in that way. The trigger is intended to be an opportunity for citizen empowerment—an important part of our democracy.
When the victims or victims have activated the trigger, all the agencies, such as the police, local authorities and housing associations, must come together to address the situation and fix the problem. However, despite the intention that the trigger should be a solution to a complex problem, it has not delivered the intended results. A report by the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales found that awareness of the trigger remains low among the public and that even some of the relevant agencies are not using it. Including the community trigger threshold in the definition of a victim, as amendment 10 intends, would help to rectify that problem, as well as providing much-needed support to these usually very vulnerable victims.
Some police and crime commissioners offer support to antisocial behaviour victims through discretionary funds, because they cannot do so from Ministry of Justice victim funds, but that is pot luck: some police and crime commissioners do not. That means that whether support services are provided for victims of ASB depends on where they live, which creates a concern that some victims who are suffering significant stress from persistent ASB do not get the emotional and practical support that they need to cope and recover. Victims of persistent ASB whose suffering has entitled them to activate the community trigger must be recognised as victims of crime in their own right, with all that that entails.
What is even more bewildering about the Government’s stance is that the previous Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), said on 4 December 2021, as reported exclusively in The Times, that the Bill would give antisocial behaviour victims new rights and protections. He committed to putting victims of antisocial behaviour “on a par” with victims of crime. The article quoted a Ministry of Justice source, who said:
“It’s about recognising there is never a ‘victimless’ crime.
It’s about making sure people who aren’t directly part of the criminal justice process, where crime has wider implications, that there is an opportunity for that wider impact to be articulated in the process.”
Is this a U-turn, or will the Government support the amendment and bring forward the support that victims of ASB so desperately need? Why are those victims suddenly deemed unworthy of protection? For so many people across the country, the toll of being made to feel unsafe in their own home is unbearable. My constituent John came to me in despair after being passed from pillar to post by different authorities. John’s wife is disabled, and their home had been targeted repeatedly by a group that congregated outside on most nights. John and his wife were bereft, overwhelmed by anxiety and stress, and felt unsafe in their own home.
Antisocial behaviour is a national issue. It should not be a party political issue. We see it across constituencies and in all neighbourhoods. The amendment would simply include the Government’s own guidance on such incidents in the Bill, so that people like Sarah, and John and his wife, are not treated as second-class victims. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and support the amendment.
Maria Eagle
I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North in pressing the case for amendment 10, or at least seeking an explanation about why antisocial behaviour is not included in the clause, given the undertakings made by the Minister’s predecessors. I admit that there have been a few of them, and catching up can sometimes be a little difficult—institutional memory dissipates swiftly these days on the Government Benches.
I urge the Minister to take another look at this issue, because the essential point that has been made by Opposition Members is reflected in my constituency experience. Believe it or not, Sir Edward, it is 26 years since I was first elected, although it does not seem that long. Some of the most distressing constituency cases that I have ever had to deal with relate to antisocial behaviour, as it is somewhat underwhelmingly called.
When the former Victims’ Commissioner gave evidence to the Committee, she was correct in noting that some of the individual bits of behaviour that make up what we call antisocial behaviour are indeed crimes. She made reference to criminal damage, assault and battery, which are very familiar. Perhaps an individual incident would not be enough to meet the threshold that most of our police forces use these days for deciding whether to proceed against individual perpetrators, but as a course of behaviour over time, such incidents certainly add up to very serious crime. Over the years, I have had many instances in my constituency where that has undoubtedly been the case.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North set out using examples from her constituency, the impact on victims is very serious indeed. It is certainly more serious than what some victims, who would fall within the definition in other instances, have experienced. Many of the people who perpetrate antisocial behaviour against their neighbours are lawless in other ways, and they are often on the radar of the police for other reasons. If they are not, they are frequently on the radar of other agencies, and the only way to deal with some of these people is to get everybody together to problem solve.
My concern is twofold. First, leaving those who are subject to antisocial behaviour out of the definition of “victim” suggests a hierarchy. Victims are often told by police and other agencies, “Oh, it’s below the threshold”; “We can’t do anything about it”; “It’s a civil matter”; or, “It’s just a neighbour dispute.” They are frequently told that, when it is nothing of the sort. If we leave victims of antisocial behaviour out of the definition of “victim” when so many others are included, it reinforces the idea that legislators are not taking seriously the consequences for victims of antisocial behaviour, as opposed to the consequences of other types of crime for which we are legislating to improve victims’ rights.
Janet Daby
My right hon. Friend is making a great speech. If somebody is afraid, fearful or worried, or does not want to return home because of that, surely they are a victim and should be part of the victims code.
Maria Eagle
I very much agree. I have had constituents come to me who are in the most dreadful state as a consequence of repeated instances of antisocial behaviour, sometimes over many years. Sometimes it can take years until they come and see me, and I then have to say to them, “These are difficult issues to resolve. I’m going to try this, and I’m going to try that,” but I cannot say to them, “I’m going to get all the agencies together and force them to do something.” I have to expectation manage myself when they come to see me, because one knows from experience that it is just not possible to promise to solve these issues.
Perpetrators are canny, and one of the things they do is complain to the police first. For the citizen who has never broken the law and would never dream of inflicting this kind of behaviour on their neighbours, going to the police is a last resort, but for some perpetrators, going to the police is a first resort so they can induce the impression among the police that it is a dispute between neighbours.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about the victim and the perpetrator’s actions. We see at first hand that there is no thought about the effect of the antisocial behaviour on the victim, who may be a veteran and may have post-traumatic stress disorder, so working across agencies is vital in supporting our constituents.
Maria Eagle
Indeed, and that is what usually happens. One of the cases that springs to my mind involves a veteran—I will not use the gentleman’s name—who for years has carried around a little rucksack with all the things he values in his life, including his service medals, so he can get away from the flat he lives in because he is worried about what the perpetrators might do. Although the issue has been going on for many years, I have not been able to deal with it to his or my satisfaction, even though some of the instances he has told me about have been quite awful. If he were to see that antisocial behaviour is not included in the Bill, and that it is seen as a lower level of crime—not even as crime—he would not be very impressed, quite frankly.
The right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire made the important point that the agencies are not doing their job, and I agree. It is like a hot potato: they say, “Oh, it is not for us,” and they send it to the police, who send it to the council, and nobody problem-solves. Obviously, the job of MPs is to try to knock a few heads together and get some problem solving going on to resolve an individual matter. We all do that, and in some instances we are successful, but with antisocial behaviour it is very difficult. The signal we are sending by leaving antisocial behaviour out of the definition of “victim” is that it is somehow below a threshold. The Bill will not encourage the agencies to up their game if they do not see that kind of behaviour in the definition of “victim”.
That is why I hope the Minister will have a think about the amendment. I know he will stand up and say, “Well, if it reaches the threshold of crime, it is included,” because he said that in respect of the previous two amendments. Of course, that is technically correct, but in the real world, where agencies are starved of resource and always have to ask, “Which issue should we deal with as a priority?” because they cannot deal with all of them, sending the signal that antisocial behaviour is not as important as something that comes above a different threshold and counts as crime means that it will be left out and these problems will not be solved. Our many constituents who suffer from serious antisocial behaviour—which does amount to crime, but try getting the police to handle it in that way—will be left feeling that they are second-class victims yet again. I do not think that is the intention behind the Bill and of legislating to put the overarching principles of the victims code into law. If the Minister cannot do something, that would be a regrettable omission. I hope he will give us some good news and say that he will implement the commitments made by his predecessors.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am interested to hear what the Minister says in response, and I hope he will take on board what hon. Members said about the changes since the previous Lord Chancellor, who was quite outspoken about these issues, was in post. It is important to investigate whether the real issue is the implementation of the existing legislation and guidance, or whether it a lack of legislation, which we can fix here.
I have been sat here thinking about how slow and clunky this place is; it has taken so long to get to this Bill. I have had two children quicker than some Government projects have been completed. It takes forever. I have also been thinking about how creative antisocial behaviour has been getting recently, and about the TikTok videos showing youngsters storming into people’s houses, often with gangs of people. That would be a one-off incident, so presumably it would not reach the threshold of the community trigger, but it leaves a victim in its wake. I also understand—please correct me if I am wrong, Minister—that trespass is not criminal if someone storms into a house but it is pre-arranged. That it is very scary, but we possibly would not reach the threshold for the victims code.
I want to know that the Department is thinking through the rise of social media, the way that TikTok is being used and how gangs of people try to harass and attack people. If this legislation is a way to address this social media stuff, which the public are pretty outraged by, we need to think that through. I want to hear that the Department has gone through case studies and interrogated to see whether a change of legislation is appropriate, or whether the Department is still satisfied that what is available would deal with this latest nonsense, because this will not stop. There will be new ways of getting at people. People called Wizzy or Mizzy or something like that will try to get their ridiculous little videos, but there are victims in the wake of those videos, so I am interested to hear the Minister’s views.
Sarah Champion
I want to build on the points that have been made. I will start with those made by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Herefordshire—
Sarah Champion
We are off to a bad start now, aren’t we?
Some levels of antisocial behaviour are a crime, so they would immediately fall within the proposals, but many victims of antisocial behaviour are not covered by the victims code, which means that they do not have access to the support and information found in it. In particular, that means that they do not have the right to be referred to support services and that PCCs face spending restrictions on victims funding for antisocial behaviour support services as a consequence. The cumulative nature of what would be seen as low-level annoyances literally drive people insane, get them to move house and have them in a constant state of anxiety. In amendment 10, it is clear where that threshold is. On the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood made, that needs to be recognised in black and white so that the services, particularly the police, recognise the significance to people’s lives of antisocial behaviour and view it as something that ought to be covered under the victims code.
I also say to the Minister that this issue was raised a lot on Second Reading and was highlighted by witnesses. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North said, the former Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird, called for this specific thing in an evidence session. To be specific, she emphasised the fact that
“this Government legislated well to introduce something called the community trigger”,
so that
“when it escalates to a particular level, you have a series of remedies to get all the agencies together to put it right.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 27, Q62.]
If the antisocial behaviour gets to that level—amendment 10 seeks to address this—those affected must be classed as victims under the legislation. I really think that the amendment would ensure that victims of persistent antisocial behaviour would be entitled to the rights as they are set out in the victims code and, hopefully, the victims Act, so I support the amendment.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff North for her amendment and for providing us with the opportunity to debate this issue. I suspect that we will return to it again, but this is a useful opportunity that allows us to get into more detail than is perhaps possible on Second Reading.
The amendment would include victims of antisocial behaviour in the definition of “victim” if they have suffered harm as a direct result of the conduct. As the hon. Lady sets out in the amendment, it would use the definitions in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and would therefore cover
“conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person…conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises, or… conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person.”
Therefore, that would also include non-criminal antisocial behaviour.
The Government agree with the hon. Lady that antisocial behaviour is a blight on our communities, and the impact on individuals cannot be overestimated. It is a national issue and it has a huge impact. Every Member of the House and of the Committee has probably dealt with casework on behalf of constituents relating to antisocial behaviour. As Dame Vera kindly acknowledged, that is why the Government took action on the community trigger, which helped to address the line between what is criminal conduct and what falls short of it.
Sarah Champion
I might have cut the Minister off too soon—he might be about to answer my question—but this is about the persistent level of low-grade behaviour, which would not reach the criminal threshold. It is like a dripping tap or a mosquito buzzing in the room; that is what really drives people into frustration.
Edward Argar
I was about to come to that point, so the hon. Lady’s intervention is prescient.
All of the speeches that we have heard have acknowledged that the behaviour that is being referred to is often criminal, even the low-level behaviour. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff North said that if something is thrown in the direction of an individual or if plants are trampled, that would be criminal behaviour. It may not be charged as such, but it would still entitle people to those rights under the code.
Dame Vera’s key point was about who decides what criminal behaviour is, how we ensure that people know that those rights are available to them and that the service providers acknowledge that those individuals are entitled to those rights. The behaviour we have heard about is included, but we do not believe that including it in the Bill in this way is the right approach to address the issue, to raise that awareness and to ensure that people can access the rights that are already there. However, I will turn to that in just a second. The right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood again managed to pre-empt an element of what she thought I would say in my speech, and she is not inaccurate in her presumption.
A point was raised about the previous Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton. My only reflection on that is that, first of all, in my recollection—the right hon. Lady is right that this is going back a while—the articles cited an unnamed source and Government sources. We on both sides of the House have experience of how that can work. That is not official policy, but I will mention, on official policy, that that Lord Chancellor confirmed the content of the draft Bill and the full Bill, so it is not accurate to suggest a U-turn. It was the same Lord Chancellor who confirmed what we are debating today as what he wished to see in legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud raised a number of points. We do not believe that a lack of legislation is the challenge here. We believe that there are key aspects, which the hon. Member for Cardiff North rightly highlighted, about raising awareness and the different public authorities and bodies engaging in a concerted manner to tackle the problem—treating it seriously and suchlike—but we do not believe that putting something in the Bill is the right way to raise awareness and to change those behaviours.
My hon. Friend raised some particularly distressing cases that have recently been on social media. I tread warily because I am not a lawyer—I am looking at one or two of the lawyers across the room—but she is right to say that trespass is a civil offence. I want to be careful, because I do not know the details of each of those incidents, but it is quite possible that a number of those incidents reported on social media may well have encompassed elements that were criminal in what was done. However, as a non-lawyer, I am cautious about saying that with any certainty, without knowing the details of the cases. Again, in those cases where there was an element of criminality, those individuals would be encompassed under the provisions for support under the victims code and in the legislation.
As Dame Vera alluded to, a significant number of individuals who have been harmed by antisocial behaviour are already defined as victims under the Bill. The definition as drafted covers a huge range of antisocial behaviour: where the behaviour itself is a criminal offence, such as criminal damage; where the behaviours, when taken together, constitute a criminal offence, such as harassment; or where a civil order has been breached, thereby incurring criminal penalties. In essence, where the antisocial behaviour amounts to criminal conduct, victims harmed by that behaviour can already benefit from measures in the Bill.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I was going to intervene on the Minister earlier, when he kept saying that we should not put this in the Bill, to ask, “Why?” If it is already included, why not write the words down?
Edward Argar
First, we do not need to do this in the Bill—the points that the hon. Lady makes are essentially two sides of the same coin. I will turn to this in more detail, but we are seeking to be permissive in the breadth of the definition, rather than prescriptive by naming individual groups. Again, that risks causing the effect that she does not want: if we name A, B and C, does that create a hierarchy, and if we miss out D—as this place occasionally does—are we suddenly excluding something unintentionally? We have sought, by criminal conduct and victims of crime, to include as broad a definition as possible. A vast majority of individuals who are sadly victims of antisocial behaviour will be effectively victims of a crime.
The challenge, which I am happy to work with Members on both sides of the House on, is how we can ensure that we address Dame Vera’s key point—in my view, we would not do this on the face of the Bill—which is who decides and how we empower individuals to say, “Police may not have proceeded with it, but I know this is a criminal offence, so I wish to access these services and have a right to do so.” We need to address that key point. I am not sure if that is best done through legislation, but I am happy to work across the House to address that issue.
Anna McMorrin
The amendment seeks to include a clear community trigger that will set off victim support. That is very clear in the amendment, and it will allow those agencies, organisations and authorities to work together in support of people who are victims of repeated, consistent and persistent antisocial behaviour.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady and I will address that point in my remaining remarks—I will give way again if she feels that I have not done so. In terms of those who suffer from persistent antisocial behaviour that does not amount to criminal conduct, we disagree that putting this in the Bill, rather than seeking other means to achieve an outcome for them, is the best approach. As I set out in my remarks on the previous group of amendments, we have deliberately defined victims in part 1 of the Bill to cover victims of crime. The measures have been designed to ensure that all the criminal justice agencies work together to engage and support those who are victims of crime. We also seek to strengthen the victims code.
A whole range of behaviours are included, and every speech has mentioned behaviours that contained elements of a crime that would therefore enable those individuals to get support. There are different agencies and procedures, as the hon. Member for Cardiff North said, for cases of antisocial behaviour that do not meet the criminal threshold or where there is no specific criminal offence involved. That means, for example, that victims of persistent antisocial behaviour can make a request for an antisocial behaviour review to any of the main agencies responsible, such as the council, police and housing providers.
That does not mean that individuals who have suffered as a result of harmful but not criminal antisocial behaviour are prevented from seeking support. Outside the Bill and the victims code, they can still access support services in their local area. Police and crime commissioners, as well as local authorities, can and do commission support for victims of all types of antisocial behaviour, and can help victims of all kinds of ASB, both criminal and non-criminal, to resolve their issues. Some of the funding they receive is rightly ringfenced for particular criteria and causes, but they do have a degree of overall discretion in their budget as to whether they wish to fund such services.
Anna McMorrin
As I set out in my speech, the police and crime commissioners decide in each area. If someone is a victim of antisocial behaviour, they are not guaranteed any support. Victims of persistent antisocial behaviour have no idea where to turn to access support because the authorities pass them from pillar to post. What the Minister is setting out does not happen; the amendment would ensure that it did.
Edward Argar
I am afraid I disagree with the shadow Minister’s last point. I do not think the amendment would address the operational or on-the-ground implementation issues that she highlights.
On the initial point the shadow Minister made, we have often debated in the House how to strike an appropriate balance in support services for victims of all crimes and of particular types of crime—how to ensure a tailored local support service that reflects the local community, while also ensuring a baseline of services, and a national response when a local community may not commission a particular service because the police and crime commissioner may have to make prioritisation decisions and the number of people likely to use that service in their locality may not be sufficient that they can afford to fund it. We always have this debate about the appropriate line between a national, consistent service, and local tailoring and local empowerment to police and crime commissioners, who are of course directly elected and accountable to their communities for the services they provide—notwithstanding turnout, as I think the shadow Minister indicated.
Sir Oliver Heald
Dame Vera was making the point that these matters are not being taken seriously enough, but there is an offence of harassment. That is repeated behaviour, and it can be antisocial behaviour or bullying. That was treated as a serious matter by Parliament—it is a summary offence—and there is also the more serious offence if fear of violence is involved, which has a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. Is it perhaps time for the Minister to discuss with the Attorney General and the Home Office whether there is a need for more impetus to be put behind that provision, whether through guidelines or the prosecution college hub?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. We are discussing these issues more broadly not only with the Attorney General but with the Home Secretary, given the cut-across and the importance that is rightly attached to these issues by those who send us to this place and by Members on both sides of the House. I reassure my right hon. and learned Friend that we are looking cross-Government at how we can make such responses more effective.
More broadly, the Government are taking clear action to crack down on antisocial behaviour and to build confidence that it will be taken seriously and, where appropriate, punished. Backed by £160 million of funding, our antisocial behaviour action plan, published in March this year, will give police and crime commissioners, local authorities and other agencies more tools to tackle the blight of antisocial behaviour across communities in England and Wales. That includes increasing policing in hotspot areas and a new immediate justice programme to make sure that offenders are made to undertake practical, reparative activity to make good the loss or damage sustained by victims, or to visibly support the local community in other ways, such as by litter picking. If things go wrong, the antisocial behaviour case review is there to ensure that those affected can seek a solution from the appropriate agency.
The Government will continue to take action for those who suffer as a result of persistent antisocial behaviour. The vast majority of examples given in evidence sessions and in today’s debates have, however, contained elements that would constitute criminal behaviour, which would therefore mean that the individuals were included in the rights under the victims code and the details that we are discussing in the context of the Bill.
We have sought to be less prescriptive and more permissive to make sure that we do not inadvertently tighten the definition too much. We do not share the view of the shadow Minister that adopting the amendment is the right way to address the point, but we do accept the points that Dame Vera and others made. There are two questions or challenges, which are not, in my view, best dealt with by legislation, but which do need to be addressed. First, who decides what is criminal? Secondly, how do we raise the awareness of authorities and individuals, so that people know their rights and that what has happened constitutes criminal behaviour, even if it is not prosecuted and even if there is no conviction? Therefore, those entitlements and rights are there.
Maria Eagle
That is one of the most important points. The victims are told that the police cannot do anything about it because it does not reach certain thresholds. When people understand that they may have rights that relate to being victims of crime, first, they will not have thought that they do—unless someone tells them—and secondly, they will ask the question, “If that is the case, how come the police aren’t doing something about the crime?” That is the conundrum. The Minister’s solution to the issue—not accepting the amendment—does not deal with it.
Edward Argar
The right hon. Lady makes two points. I suspect that in a number of cases the police will look at an offence and say, “We don’t think it meets the threshold for prosecution,” but that dextrous lawyers—we have some in Committee—could probably find a way to have it constitute a criminal offence and be prosecuted. Decisions on prosecutions, however, are made by the independent Crown Prosecution Service, based on the evidential threshold, the public interest and whether there is likely to be a conviction. I will not intervene or interfere in the CPS’s prosecution decisions.
Nevertheless, I am happy to work across the House to find a way to increase awareness. I do not believe that legislation and the amendment are the right approach, but there must be ways to increase awareness among victims that they are victims and among criminal justice agencies and others, so that they understand that, where a criminal offence has taken place, even if it is not prosecuted, individuals should be entitled to support.
Anna McMorrin
I thank the Minister for his response and everyone who has contributed to this important debate. I know that the number of people across the country who suffer from persistent antisocial behaviour—whether that is extreme or slight but persistent incidents which, as I illustrated in my speech, cause people to be locked in their homes and afraid to venture out to the shops, scared even to walk outside their front door—is hugely underestimated. This is a serious issue that must be addressed in the Bill. The amendment would do just that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood made excellent points about how the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour jump the gun. Many of them know the system and will make a report to the police in extreme circumstances and where the incidents are criminal, so the police are left not knowing whose side to be on, thinking it is a neighbourhood dispute or something that can be resolved. I, too, have tried to support such victims of antisocial behaviour in my constituency, and it is very difficult to get the agencies and authorities to understand that those people are victims. Including the amendment in the Bill will ensure that they are seen as victims and will have access to services that support them.
The hon. Member for Stroud made an important point about trespassing and storming into houses, which has seen a worrying rise among young people on social media such as TikTok. I know the Minister responded to that in his speech, but it would be good if he could look at the issue again. He said he was not able to address it here and now, but perhaps he could look into it and come back to the Committee—or write to us—on what the Department, the Government and he will be doing to address it.
All that goes back to the main point, the community trigger. With it, we need to ensure that services, the authorities and the criminal justice agencies work together to support the victim. That is what the amendment is intended to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham made the good point that the authorities need to know where they can step in, which they do not currently know. It should not be in every case for the victim to have to go to their MP, and for the MP to step in to bring the authorities together, as my hon. Friend stated. That is an impossibility for everybody out there. The Minister made the point that people can access lawyers; who in our communities has that knowledge and awareness, especially when they face that trauma? They may be vulnerable and may not have access to the finances to get legal advice.
Edward Argar
I fear the shadow Minister misunderstood what I was saying; I was referring to police and CPS lawyers, who will be able to find ways to prosecute some of these cases, I would hope—not to individuals.
Anna McMorrin
I thank the Minister, but the police and the criminal justice agencies just do not do that. They are stripped of resources. They do not have the ability to look into each case. If the community trigger is reached, support can kick in. Then at least those victims of antisocial behaviour know that they have something to lean on and some way of accessing support. That is why the amendment has been tabled, why I moved it today and why I spoke to it on Second Reading. It is particularly poignant that it will be Anti-Social Behaviour Awareness Week in just a couple of weeks. This is a really good opportunity for the Government to support the amendment, which is why I will press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Anna McMorrin
I beg to move amendment 17, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) where the person has experienced child criminal exploitation;”.
This amendment would include victims of child criminal exploitation in the definition of a victim.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 51, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) where the person has experienced adult sexual exploitation.”
Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(c) ‘child criminal exploitation’ means conduct by which a person manipulates, deceives, coerces or controls a person under 18 to undertake activity which constitutes a criminal offence;”.
This amendment provides a definition for the term “child criminal exploitation”.
Amendment 52, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(c) ‘adult sexual exploitation’ means conduct by which a person manipulates, deceives, coerces or controls another person to undertake sexual activity.”
This amendment would provide for a statutory definition of adult sexual exploitation.
Anna McMorrin
The Minister should not be surprised that we are debating child criminal exploitation once more; my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham tabled a similar amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 just two years ago. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, the Government voted against that amendment, so two years on we still do not have a definition of child criminal exploitation in statute. Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society define child criminal exploitation as when
“another person or persons manipulate, deceive, coerce or control the person to undertake activity which constitutes a criminal offence where the person is under the age of 18.”
That is the definition that we would like to see on statute.
Child criminal exploitation takes a variety of forms, but ultimately it is the grooming and exploitation of children into criminal activity. The current reality is that, across each form that child criminal exploitation takes, children who are coerced into criminal activity are often treated as perpetrators by statutory agencies, rather than as victims of exploitation. That is partly because safeguarding partners work to different understandings of what constitutes criminal exploitation.
Recently, child criminal exploitation has become strongly associated with one specific model—county lines—but it can also include children being forced to work in cannabis factories, being coerced into moving drugs and money across the country, or being forced to commit financial fraud, to shoplift or to pickpocket. The lack of shared understanding of what child criminal exploitation is and the guises it can take means that the questions are not consistently asked when children are identified as being associated with criminal activity, either at the time of arrest or during court cases in which the possible coercion of a child has taken place.
Ellie Reeves
Throughout the country, children are being used by criminal gangs to do their bidding, and they are often subjected to the most sophisticated coercion, intimidation, duress, abuse and, sometimes, sexual abuse, so does my hon. Friend agree that it is indefensible not to have them listed as victims in the Bill?
Anna McMorrin
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is completely indefensible not to have the definition of child criminal exploitation in the Bill to make sure that, as she says, such children are seen as victims, not perpetrators.
The lack of shared understanding that I mentioned also means that children are often arrested for crimes that they are forced to commit, whereas the adults who exploit them are often not investigated or brought to justice, leaving them free to exploit other children, which happens. All this is because of the absence of a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation, the true scale of which is completely unknown. We know that it is happening all over the place—it is off the scale, essentially—but many children who are exploited or groomed fall through the cracks of statutory support so are not identified in official statistics.
In England in 2021-22, there were more than 16,000 instances of local authorities identifying child sexual exploitation as a factor at the end of an assessment by social workers; 11,600 instances of gangs being a factor; and 10,140 instances of child criminal exploitation being a factor. It has been estimated that in England alone there could be as many as 200,000 children aged 11 to 17 who are vulnerable to serious violence because of the levels of crime or income deprivation in their community.
Research carried out by Dame Rachel de Souza, the Children’s Commissioner for England, found that 27,000 children who were at high risk of gang exploitation had not been identified by services and as a result were missing out on vital support to keep them safe. The research also found an even higher number of children who were experiencing broader risk factors linked to exploitation, with one in 15 teenagers—or 120,00 young people—falling through the gaps in education and social care. These are children who are being excluded from school, who are persistently absent or who go missing from care, and many face a combination of factors that leave them vulnerable to exploitation.
In the evidence sessions last week, Dame Rachel de Souza spoke about the importance of including a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation in the Bill. When asked whether it should be in the Bill, she said “absolutely”, and that she had wanted to bring it up herself. She said:
“When I go around the country and talk to children, wherever they are—whether that is being held in police cells or children who are involved in drugs or whatever—I realise just how complex the situations are. You realise that these children are as much victim as perpetrator. Children tell me all the time that their experiences with the police make them feel like they are not victims but criminals. That is what we need to sort out.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 24, Q50.]
Jess Phillips
I think that, last year, four people were charged with child trafficking, and one person was convicted. I believe that last year also saw the highest rate of young boys being trafficked into the system and being recorded in the national referral mechanism. Although the number of victims has gone up over the past 10 years, the number of trafficking convictions has gone down.
Anna McMorrin
I thank my hon. Friend for absolutely illustrating the point.
I want to raise a real case of child exploitation. A 15-year-old boy, whom I will call Robbie—not his real name—was picked up with class A drugs in a trap house raid by the police. He was driven back home by police officers, who questioned him alone in the car and used that information to submit an entry to the national referral mechanism, which did not highlight his vulnerability but instead read like a crime report. Robbie subsequently went to court. His national referral mechanism failed, and his barrister, who did not understand the NRM process, advised him to plead guilty, which he did.
Janet Daby
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and speaking up for the rights of children. I am sure we all have cases where we know a child has been exploited and is vulnerable—by definition, a child is a vulnerable person. If a child is criminally exploited, it means that their vulnerability is increased. Does my hon. Friend agree that it makes no sense for them not to be included in the victims code?
Anna McMorrin
That is an excellent point. My hon. Friend has absolutely reinforced the point that such children must be included in the Bill as victims.
I move on to talk about Robbie’s experience—as I said, that is not his real name. In June 2019, he was referred to the Children’s Society’s disrupting exploitation programme. The programme helped Robbie challenge the national referral mechanism decision, and those supporting him attended court sessions with him to ensure that his vulnerability was outlined and that he was recognised as a victim, instead of an offender. That enabled him to retract his guilty plea and access vital support. However, that was just one case. He was lucky: he had the Children’s Society programme there to support him. We know that does not happen for the majority of child victims.
Jess Phillips
Is my hon. Friend aware that had Robbie arrived on a small boat and been trafficked out of a hotel and into a cannabis factory at the age of 10—Channel 4 has found such a case—he would not be entitled to any support from the NRM under the proposals of the Illegal Migration Bill, even though he would be a 10-year-old child who had been groomed into drug dealing?
Anna McMorrin
Absolutely. That illustrates yet more child criminal exploitation. The whole thing is just horrific and absurd, which is why this issue needs to be addressed.
Back to Robbie. As the drugs that he had been selling were confiscated by the police when he was picked up in the raid, there was debt bondage in Robbie’s case, as he now owed the groomer money for the drugs that had been lost. In turn, that resulted in threats to him and his family. The programme then worked with the police to complete intelligence forms and make sure that Robbie’s safety was paramount. It put markers on the home and made sure that the police were aware of the situation, so that they could respond quickly if anything happened. The programme supported Robbie to continue his education.
Amendments 17 and 18 are absolutely vital to make sure that we take the necessary steps to protect vulnerable children and to focus agencies’ attention on the adults who exploit them and are linked to the much, much more serious crimes that are taking place. Protecting children and bringing true criminals to justice—I do not see how anyone, least of all the Government, can object to such a notion. I will push the amendments to a vote later, but I hope the Minister will seek to include them in the Bill.
Sarah Champion
I start by apologising to the Committee. For each month that the Bill was delayed, I tabled another amendment, so I have quite a few today.
I will speak to amendments 51 and 52, which stand in my name, and then to those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North. My amendments seek to provide a definition of adult sexual exploitation and are informed by my experiences of child sexual exploitation. I hope to make the argument that one very often blurs into the other, and the same arguments stand for both.
In 2009, the Department for Children, Schools and Families introduced a statutory definition of child sexual exploitation for the first time. I can honestly say that it has been transformational in ensuring that child abuse and exploitation are understood and that children receive the necessary support. We now need to accept in this Committee that adults can also be sexually exploited.
The STAGE group is supported by the National Lottery community fund and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley. It is a fantastic group that highlights the nature and extent of the sexual exploitation of adult women across our communities and seeks to change legislation to give them better support. STAGE brings together a number of charities to provide trauma-informed support for women who have been groomed for sexual exploitation across the north-east and Yorkshire—including, in my constituency, the amazing organisation GROW, which I say to the Minister is severely underfunded at the moment.
Adult sexual exploitation is a specific form of sexual abuse. It occurs where an individual or group takes advantage of an imbalance of power to coerce, manipulate or deceive a person aged 18 or over into sexual activity, usually in exchange for something that the victim needs or wants—often drugs, alcohol or indeed love. It is also usually for the financial advantage or increased status of the perpetrator or facilitator. The victim may have been sexually exploited even if the sexual activity appears to be consensual. It can happen online as well, of course. The victims cannot give informed consent if they see no reasonable alternative to engaging in the activity, or if they have a reasonable belief that non-engagement would result in negative consequences for themselves or others.
Adult sexual exploitation does not always involve physical contact; it can also occur through the use of technology. My amendment 52 reflects the wording used in the statutory definition of child sexual exploitation, which the Government already use. The Government need to accept that not just children are exploited: many women—it is usually women—are exploited as adults, too. They are victims and deserve support, and that begins with ensuring that their abuse is recognised through a statutory definition of this form of sexual abuse.
One case study from the STAGE group is N, whom I will keep anonymous. N is a 22-year-old first-generation British Pakistani woman, who grew up in Leeds in a devout Muslim household. From a young age, N began experiencing sexual abuse from a male in her extended family. N began to spend more and more time outside of the family home; she could not talk to her family about the abuse because she did not want to be seen to bring shame into the household. During her time spent out of the house, N was introduced to a “friend”, whom I will call H.
H began to groom N, supplying her with drugs and alcohol to the point where she developed a dependency. He used her fear about shame as a form of control—to ensure that she did not speak out about the abuse he would subject her to. N was 15 at the time. Between the ages of 15 and 18, N was seen as a victim of child sexual exploitation. She was trafficked around Yorkshire by H, being picked up in taxis and taken to properties to be raped repeatedly. Professionals did all they could to safeguard N, but the abuse continued. N experienced a breakdown in her mental health due to the repeated trauma that she was experiencing, and she began drinking heavily on a daily basis.
When she was 18, the exploitation continued on a weekly, sometimes daily, basis. However, since she moved into adult services, the police and adult social care brought into question whether N was making “unwise choices” in respect of whether she was getting something out of these exchanges. So N was seen as a victim of child exploitation while she was 17—364 days—but the following day, when she turned 18, this victim of adult sexual exploitation was making “unwise choices”.
A lot of work from STAGE partner Basis Yorkshire was put in place, including advocating for N—although she was not a child any more, by law she was experiencing sexual exploitation. Over the past few years STAGE has lobbied health, police and social care services to ensure that N is recognised as a victim of grooming and exploitation. Although she might seem to “choose” to get into a taxi or to meet H or one of his associates, that is in fact a result of the coercion and control that takes place in grooming and exploitation. In legislation we recognise coercive control.
Jess Phillips
I should declare that I am chair of the STAGE group. Is my hon. Friend concerned, as I am, at the disparity when it comes to women who are British citizens? When sexual exploitation is considered as part of human trafficking, a foreign national is far, far more likely to be considered a victim than a British person. In many regards, British victims of sexual exploitation—adults and children—get lesser services.
Sarah Champion
Sadly, I am concerned and I absolutely agree. That is partly why we need a definition. The national referral mechanism was mentioned. By moving a person from one side of the street to the other they are trafficked, so they could fall under the national referral mechanism for modern slavery or just be prosecuted. But without a definition, services are not taking a joined-up approach and using the resources already in place.
The same arguments about choice and risky lifestyles in relation to adult victims of sexual exploitation were used in Rotherham. Having a definition would mean police forces being trained in what the definition means. Legal arguments would be put forward, and judges would receive training so that when they saw a young person in front of them they would understand that their behaviour was a symptom of being sexually exploited. There is a domino effect once a legal definition is in place. That is what happened with child sexual exploitation, so I hope that that will happen with adult sexual exploitation. I will come on to child criminal exploitation, but I have said to the Minister what needs to happen with adult sexual exploitation.
Manipulation by perpetrators, cultural expectations and family and community dynamics make it difficult for women to identify that they have experienced abuse. But sadly, sexual exploitation, as I have said, is not widely understood by professionals. It is vital that the Ministry of Justice use the Bill as an ideal opportunity to create a statutory definition of adult sexual exploitation to ensure a consistent understanding and recognition of the ways that sexual exploitation continues and presents itself in adulthood.
Amendments 51 and 52 would be a huge step in the right direction by recognising people who have experienced adult sexual exploitation as victims and entitling them to the crucial support available under the Bill. That must also come, of course, with support and funding for training to be given to police and justice staff to identify the signs of sexual exploitation.
I will now speak in support of amendments 17 and 18, which are about the definition of child criminal exploitation. The amendments would place a statutory definition of criminal child exploitation in law for the first time by ensuring that children who are being exploited are classed as victims under the Bill. 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 involve moving drugs, financial fraud and shoplifting on demand. That our laws catch up with our reality and realise the harm and damage that those criminals are causing children is long overdue. The true scale remains unknown, as many children fall through the cracks, but we have some evidence that indicates the scale of the abuse.
The former 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. The pandemic has only made the situation worse. Children in Need reported that during the pandemic children faced an increased risk of online grooming or exploitation due to time online, not being at school or college, and increased exposure to harmful online content such as inappropriately sexualised or hyper-violent content.
In the evidence sessions last week, the current Children’s Commissioner fully supported introducing a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation. She explained that the situations facing the children affected are very complex and that police make many feel like criminals rather than victims, as my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North, highlighted.
It is clear that thousands of children are being criminally exploited every day and the response for those children must be immediate and properly resourced. Experts believe that a lack of understanding of child criminal exploitation prohibits an effective and joined-up response. The lack of a single definition means that local agencies respond differently to this form of exploitation across the country. The Children’s Society data shows that a third of local authorities had a policy in place to respond. That means that two thirds do not. Given the nature of this exploitation, a national shared understanding is imperative. That is what a definition would provide.
Let me for one moment contrast the situation with that of the response to child sexual exploitation, which I spoke to on a previous group of amendments. Police officers across the country say to me that, because the police and politicians understand CSE, the police get resources specifically to address CSE. That is great and I support that provision, but it takes away from the resources we need for CCE. They are treated as two separate issues, even though the same gangs often promote both forms of exploitation. They are using these children for criminal exploitation, whether that be sexual, drug running or shoplifting. Accepting the definition would mean that we see criminal exploitation of children and sexual exploitation of children just as “exploitation of children” and we can pool the resources and expertise to try to prevent this crime.
Many children who are criminally exploited receive punitive criminal justice responses, rather than being seen as victims. Again, I take colleagues back; that is what happened 25 or 15 years ago with child sexual exploitation victims.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making some incredibly powerful points and I have sympathy with a lot of them, but on several occasions, she has mentioned circumstances that would constitute criminal conduct. For example, she talked about victim N, who was raped. Rape is clearly criminal conduct. Does she accept that children in that situation would be covered by the provisions in the Bill?
Secondly, she is making a point about how young offenders are dealt with. I am a former youth magistrate and member of the Youth Justice Board. Does she accept that the judiciary dealing with young people are now trained and encouraged to find out whether the defendants in front of them have been subject to this kind of exploitation, and that that is therefore considered in the way that they are dealt with?
Sarah Champion
I will deal with those points in reverse order. My first reaction is to question why they were in front of a magistrate in the first place. How have those children gone all the way through the system to be in front of a magistrate, rather than it having been recognised at a very early point that there is something going on with the child? Why is a 15-year-old repeatedly running drugs across county lines? What is happening? What is behind that? The professional curiosity is not there.
That leads me to the hon. Gentleman’s opening point. Of course, raping a child or raping an adult is a crime. We all recognise that. First, there are very low levels of reporting, and—as I hope I made clear with the adult sexual exploitation argument—a lot of people do not recognise it. They just think, “I’m a drug addict. He’s my dealer. I have to do this in order to get my drugs.”
First there is the reporting situation, and secondly there is recognition. In the case of N, she was seen as putting herself in a risky situation, so she would not be seen as a credible witness. We are not seeing the overall picture and the patterns of behaviour—the fact that the same children might be in the same location day after day—and then going back upstream to see what the motivator is and who is controlling the situation. I hope that having the definition of both terms will enable the police forces, the judicial services and the support services to see the broader picture and place the victim in that broader context. That is where I am coming from with both amendments.
Rob Butler
The hon. Lady posed a direct question to me. In terms of those young people coming before the youth courts, will she acknowledge that there is now a far greater use of diversion at the very early stage by the police and youth offending services, which means in fact that far fewer young people are coming to court? I was directly addressing the situation she raised about what happens when they are in front of that judicial process. In fact, there has been a huge amount of progress in trying not to bring children in front of magistrates or judges if it can possibly be avoided. Does the hon. Lady accept that there will be occasions when the level of offending is so great that society rightly demands that those people must face justice, at which point judges and magistrates can consider all the factors in determining what action to take?
Sarah Champion
I fully accept the hon. Gentleman’s points. There was no criticism implied, but I will give one example. In 2013 I worked with Barnardo’s, and we did an inquiry to see whether the justice system was fit for purpose for child sexual exploitation cases. Something that we found, which I alluded to, was that when a victim was in front of a judge as a witness, they were often seen as chaotic, aggressive and unreliable. We identified that if the judges had training on what a victim of child sexual exploitation presented like or as, it would make a difference. Indeed, it has made a dramatic difference now that that training has been rolled out.
If we got the definition of child criminal exploitation, a judge would automatically get training on the identifiers, so one would hope that the outcome would be more informed on the basis of having understanding of the young person in front of them, rather than just looking at the crimes. That is not to say that there will not be young people who are bad ’uns, who will use this and exploit what they see as a “get out of jail free” pass—I fully accept that could happen—but if the judge has a proper understanding of criminal exploitation, one would hope that they would then be able to challenge that a little more from an informed position and make the right decision for the young individual in front of them.
I have now covered quite a lot of my points—happy days! Another thing that really frustrates me is that many children who experience child criminal exploitation come to the attention of services once they are arrested for crimes. Again, if we had the definition in place and the awareness in the services, one would hope that the child presenting would be seen as a warning sign, rather than as a criminal. Individuals who exploit children for criminal activity are not being held to account. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North said, only 30 charges under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 were flagged as child abuse in 2019-2020, against the 22,000—I think that was the figure—recognised by the Children’s Society in the same period.
Organised crime groups are aware of this situation and they are deliberately targeting children, because they know that by putting them on the frontline, it is much less likely that they themselves will be in the dock. The Government rightly adopted the statutory definitions of domestic abuse, coercive control and child sexual abuse, so I urge the Minister to do the same for vulnerable children experiencing criminal exploitation; they are victims, just as children of CSE are victims.
I will end with an example. I imagine that two thirds of Members, if not more, get here each week by train. I set those Members a challenge: speak to a train conductor, and I guarantee that they will be able to give daily examples of child criminal exploitation. They see the children going backwards and forwards, often without tickets but often with tickets paid for by the gang leaders. On my train, staff say that now they do not even bother looking for the children, because the common denominator is the bag that they carry either the drugs or the money in. It is different children going up and down, up and down, up and down—so conductors look for the bag and then report it to British Transport police.
British Transport police is funded by the railways. The service has a small budget and there are very few officers, so the likelihood of one being there when that train arrives is slender. Organisations like Railway Children try to support those children, but I guarantee that if Members speak to the conductor on their train, they will say, “Yes, that is happening on my train.”
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
We are all very concerned about the example given by the hon. Lady. Why are the conductors and British Transport police not reporting those children to the police? That does not seem to be to do with the Bill; it seems to have something to do with what is happening in our criminal reporting processes.
Sarah Champion
Sadly, they are reporting it to the police, but the scale of the issue is so enormous and the resources are so intensive that nothing happens. I suggest the hon. Lady speak to her conductor. Normally what happens is that the child will be offered some support, but will then be very up front with the conductor, saying, “No, no—it’s my bag!” and so on. The child then gets off and there are not the resources to have a member of the British Transport police there, and that genuinely is not a criticism of them; I think there are only 4,000 officers for the whole country.
Sarah Champion
British Transport police are the specific police for incidents that happen on the railways and transport networks. Even if we were looking at the Metropolitan police—I am going back and forth to London—the scale of the issue is so enormous that there is not the capacity to deal with it.
Jess Phillips
As somebody who has called the police in those circumstances, we are talking about a nine-day wait for anyone to come out. That is a problem.
Sarah Champion
Minister, it seems a ridiculously simple act to accept these two definitions, but the cascading of support and recognition within the victims code and our justice system would be enormous as a consequence. I have seen that at first hand with child sexual exploitation. I urge the Minister to look seriously into the two definitions.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Fay Jones.)
Victims and Prisoners Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 27th June 2023
(2 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 27 June 2023 - (27 Jun 2023)
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 51, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) where the person has experienced adult sexual exploitation.”
Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(c) ‘child criminal exploitation’ means conduct by which a person manipulates, deceives, coerces or controls a person under 18 to undertake activity which constitutes a criminal offence;”
This amendment provides a definition for the term “child criminal exploitation”.
Amendment 52, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(c) ‘adult sexual exploitation’ means conduct by which a person manipulates, deceives, coerces or controls another person to undertake sexual activity.”
This amendment would provide for a statutory definition of adult sexual exploitation.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
Amendment 17 seeks to include in the definition of a victim those who have experienced child criminal exploitation and have suffered harm as a direct result. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for raising this issue, which the Government agree has a devastating impact. This morning, right hon. and hon. Members did what this House does well: they gave a voice to the voiceless.
I want to reassure hon. Members that large elements of the amendment are encapsulated in the Bill, and I hope I am able to offer something that goes at least some way to satisfy the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Cardiff North. The Government are committed to tackling county lines and associated child criminal exploitation, and outside the Bill we have invested up to £145 million over three years to crack down on criminal gangs exploiting children and young people.
In addition, as part of the county lines programme, the Government continue to support victims of child criminal exploitation. We have, for example, invested up to £5 million over three financial years—2022 to 2025—to provide support to victims of county lines exploitation and their families. That includes a specialist support and rescue service provided by Catch22 for under-25s in priority areas who are criminally exploited through county lines to help them to safely reduce and exit their involvement. It also includes a confidential national helpline and support delivered by Missing People’s SafeCall service for young people and their families.
As the shadow Minister said, it is important to remember that although county lines is often the first issue to catch the attention of the media or this House, child exploitation goes way beyond that crime. We are therefore also targeting exploitation through the Home Office-funded prevention programme, delivered by the Children’s Society. That programme works with a range of partners to tackle and prevent child exploitation regionally and nationally.
I assure hon. Members that children who have been exploited for criminal purposes are indeed victims in the context of the Bill if the conduct they have been subjected to meets the criminal standard. Regardless of whether the crime has been reported, charged or prosecuted, those victims are already covered under part 1 of the Bill and the victims code.
Child criminal exploitation is already captured by a number of criminal offences under the Serious Crime Act 2007, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015. However, as the hon. Member for Rotherham highlighted, in some cases the exploitative conduct may not itself be criminal. The measures in part 1 of the Bill have specifically and fundamentally been designed for victims of crime and seek to improve their treatment, experiences of and engagement with the criminal justice system. Therefore, where the criminal exploitation is exactly that—criminal—the victims are already covered by the Bill’s definition of a victim of crime.
The definition of a victim, as I said previously, is deliberately broad. Within reason, we are seeking to be permissive, rather than prescriptive, to avoid the risk that specifying particular subgroups could inadvertently exclude those who do not fall into specific descriptions and definitions.
Amendment 18 seeks to provide a definition for child criminal exploitation. The Government recognise that the targeting, grooming and exploitation of children for criminal purposes is deplorable, and we share the hon. Member for Rotherham’s determination to tackle it. The Government have already gone some way to defining child criminal exploitation in statutory guidance for frontline practitioners working with children, including in the “Keeping children safe in education” and “Working together to safeguard children” statutory guidance. We have also defined child criminal exploitation in other documents, such as the serious violence strategy, the Home Office child exploitation disruption toolkit for frontline practitioners, which was updated in July last year, and the county lines guidance for prosecutors and youth offending teams.
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 states that when children who are under 18 commit certain offences, they are not guilty if they were committed as a direct result of exploitation. Prosecutors must consider the best interests and welfare of the child or young person, among other public interest factors, starting with a presumption of diverting them away from the courts where possible.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Minister highlights the problem: there are lots of different documents with lots of different Departments and support teams where the Government have felt comfortable defining child criminal exploitation, and there is fragmentation across Government. The Bill offers the opportunity to define child criminal exploitation so that it is seen clearly that such children are victims of that exploitation. I will be frank with the Minister: the victims ought to be recognised in the Bill, but they are not. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North and I are trying to use this as an opportunity to force the Government’s hand to make that definition, so that any person in the public or private sector who sees those children can understand that they are victims.
Edward Argar
When I conclude in a moment, I hope that I might have given the hon. Lady a little more reassurance. In respect of her specific point, the Government have previously explored the introduction of a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation with a range of operational and system partners. They and the Government concluded that the existing arrangements allow sufficient flexibility to respond to a range of circumstances while still ensuring actions when that consideration was undertaken.
I reassure the hon. Members for Rotherham and for Cardiff North that we continue to keep under review the issue and the legislation. The previous consultation with partners suggested that the right tools, powers and offences were already in place to tackle the issue.
Sarah Champion
I wonder who the Minister is talking to, because this amendment is supported by the children’s sector, including the Children’s Society, the NSPCC and Barnardo’s. The children’s sector wants this, so I do not understand who he is talking to who does not.
Edward Argar
I mentioned operational partners, and in this context, that refers to partners in the criminal justice system, such as the prosecution authorities, the police and others. I take the hon. Lady’s point about the wider stakeholder and sector support. If she allows me to make a little progress, we will see if it reassures her sufficiently.
Turning to amendments 51 and 52, amendment 51 seeks to ensure that persons who have experienced adult sexual exploitation are explicitly referenced in the definition of a victim. Adult sexual exploitation could be considered to consist of numerous criminal acts, some of which include human trafficking, controlling and coercive behaviour, causing or inciting prostitution for gain, controlling prostitution for gain, and rape and other serious sexual offences. I reassure hon. Members that adults who have been subjected to such criminal conduct are victims under part 1 of the legislation and under the victims code. My concern is therefore that the amendments would duplicate the existing coverage of the definition of a victim of crime. Again, the definition is deliberately broad to avoid inadvertently excluding a particular group or victim through being overly prescriptive.
Amendment 52 is intended to create a definition of adult sexual exploitation. Acts that can constitute adult sexual exploitation are, again, already covered by a number of existing offences.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
While they are covered by a number of different offences, much like domestic abuse, there is no charge or crime of domestic abuse, yet the Government felt it important to define domestic abuse in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 for all the same reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham tried to point out: it is currently written nowhere in any Government guidance, or any strategy to tackle adult sexual exploitation. That is what the amendment is intended to address.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She may well push me in a slightly different direction, but I am always a little cautious of seeking to read across a precedent in one piece of legislation to a range of other areas. There may be occasions when it is universally applicable, but in other cases I would urge a degree of caution.
We have yet to see unequivocal evidence that a single definition or approach would better achieve delivery of our commitment than the current approach. However, I am happy to discuss it further and work with the hon. Member for Rotherham, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff North, and others between Committee stage and Report. As is the nature of the Committee stage, the amendments were tabled a few days ago—last week—and inevitably, when something significant is suggested, it is important to reflect on that carefully. I intend to reflect carefully on the points that have been made. I will not pre-empt the conclusions of my reflections, but I will engage with the hon. Member for Rotherham, and the shadow Minister if she so wishes, to see what may be possible between Committee stage and Report. On the basis of that commitment to engage, I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham and the shadow Minister might, at this point, consider not pressing the amendments to a Division.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response and the Committee for this debate on child criminal exploitation. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham for tabling the two critical amendments that look at adult exploitation as well as child criminal exploitation. She made excellent, and really quite emotive, points about a victim of child sexual exploitation, of course due to coercion and control, reaching the age of 18, when it is suddenly questioned as “unwise choices”. I appreciate the points that the Minister made. He appreciates that there is a real issue. As I set out earlier, there is widespread concern among all the agencies and charities working on this that child criminal exploitation takes a variety of forms. Ultimately, the grooming and exploitation of children into criminal activity needs to be addressed.
To take up the Minister’s point about using one statutory definition, at the moment safeguarding partners are working to so many different understandings, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, of what constitutes criminal exploitation that there is no meaningful or consistent response across criminal justice agencies and safeguarding partners, which is critical when dealing with such matters.
I appreciate that the Minister is prepared to work together, and I hope that he has listened to our arguments. It sounds as though he is coming to the agreement that we will work together to address this matter in the Bill. Therefore, on reflection and having heard those points today, I will seek to bring this proposal back at a later stage of the Bill but will not press it today.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister. We have worked together for a long time, and he knows that I can be like a dog with a bone when it comes to things like this. I will take what he has said absolutely at face value. I am really grateful for the opportunity to explore the matter with him further, and because of that, I will not press my two amendments at this point.
Anna McMorrin
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 46, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) where the person is the child of a person posing sexual risk to children.”
This amendment would include children of a person posing a sexual risk to children (that is, paedophiles (including perpetrators of offences online), suspects or offenders) as victims.
I don’t get out much, Sir Edward—and neither do you, because of that! I ask the Committee to listen to my speech on this issue with an open mind, because when I first came across it, it took me a little time to get my head round it, but to me now, it seems the most obvious thing. I am talking about recognising the children of paedophiles as victims. That is what my amendment seeks to make happen. Just as we have now—I thank the Minister and the Ministry of Justice—made a huge step forward in defining children born of rape as victims in this legislation, so we need to ensure that other secondary victims will also be entitled to rights under the victims code. The children of any paedophile are disproportionately impacted when their parent is investigated, charged and jailed, and I make a plea for them to be considered within the definition of victims.
Just like domestic abuse, the illegal activity is committed, most often, within the family home—the child’s “safe space”. Social services view the parent as potentially posing a sexual risk to any child from day one of an investigation, not from a guilty verdict. I will give the Committee an example from my constituency. About five years ago, a lot of single mothers were coming to me with real concerns about the heavy-handedness of social services around child protection—their child’s protection. They were really confused as to why social services were doing this. When I intervened on their behalf, I realised that it was because the other parent of the child was being investigated for—in this case—organised child sexual exploitation. Social services could not tell the mother what was going on, for fear of tipping off the other parent, but they had serious safeguarding concerns in respect of that parent in that house because of the father’s activities. This is a very real thing that happens; it has a very real basis.
Amendment 46 is crucial, because it specifically identifies children of a person posing sexual risk to children. These people are known as PPRC—persons posing a risk to children—by the police when they are under investigation and not just once they have been charged. The family unit structure, including the household economics, is generally impacted in a dramatic way—irrespective of the outcome of the investigation—because of the immediate protective measures put in place by agencies. For the family’s safety, the nature of the investigation is almost always kept confidential, thus increasing the vulnerability of these children within the whole secrecy around CSA. Investigations and convictions shape the child’s childhood, as interactions with the parent are controlled by restrictions imposed by the judicial system. The child loses all autonomy within the relationship with the suspect or offending parent, for safeguarding purposes—which we can completely understand—until they are over the age of 18.
Negative community judgment for close associates of CSA suspects is highly prevalent and can be magnified by media coverage at the court. If we think about our local papers, once someone is charged with such crimes, their name, address and photos all get into the public domain, whether by media, once the conviction has happened, or most likely by Facebook and well-meaning neighbours trying to protect their own children. The stigma that causes for the child is untold.
I have worked with the survivor Chris Tuck for many years. She is an active campaigner on child protection. She has asked me to read her case study about what happened to her:
“I grew up in 3 domestic violence households where witnessing and experiencing abuse every day was the norm.
My dad and step mum were not good for each other or to us children. The abuse intensified via domestic violence and child abuse.
This chaotic dysfunctional abusive home life led to us being vulnerable to abuse outside the family home. I was sexually abused by a school bus driver in 1979…In 1980/81 my dad George Frances Oliver was convicted of child sexual abuse against some of the children in the household (not me).
I remember very clearly when my dad was arrested for his crimes.
It was an odd day; 3 of us children came home from school and dad was lying on the sofa reading. It was eerily quiet, my step mum, my sister and stepsisters were not there.
We were just speaking to dad about this fact when there was a loud crashing noise and lots of shouts of ‘Police! Police!’.
The police stormed into the room and arrested my dad, it was very frightening to witness and caused us a lot of distress. We did not know what was happening.
I remember the police taking us 3 children to our eldest stepsisters’ house where my step mum, other stepsisters and sisters were waiting.
That is where I was told what my dad had done. I didn’t believe it. I couldn’t believe it.
In my head I was trying to reconcile what the school bus man had done to me and now my dad had done those things and worse to other children in the house.
I felt sick, I felt dirty, I felt shame. I felt betrayed and let down by my dad. The man I loved at the time.
Dad was put on remand and eventually convicted of his crimes. I find out about this at school, in the playground. One day a boy shouted out ‘your dad is a paedo....dirty paedo’.
I didn’t know what that word meant. But I knew it was bad by the way it was said and I knew what my dad had done. I had experienced a little of what my dad had done via my own experience of sexual abuse and the internal examination I had at the Police station.
Dad’s sentencing had been written up in the local paper. Again, it felt like everyone knew. Everyone was judging me, us, for the crimes committed by my dad.
Again, I felt sick, I felt dirty, I felt shame. I felt bad to the very core of my being. This I carried with me well into my adulthood.
Again, no support was given to any of us as children and young people.
The legacy of my dad being a convicted paedophile lived with me into my mid 40s when I paid for specialist professional help and support to deal with the trauma from deep unexpressed feelings and emotions.
When I left home at nearly 16, I wrote my childhood off, I never told anyone about anything. I put on a mask for over a decade and I tried to build a new life for myself. I battled with bulimia and anger management throughout my teens and twenties.
If I had been classed as a victim, as a child and young person and given the help and specialist support at the time of each incident throughout my life I would not have had the hardship of dealing with the trauma and ill-health (mentally and physically) I have experienced as a result during my adulthood.
Recognising children and young people as victims of crime perpetrated through association needs to be recognised because there is a trauma impact as I have described.
Just knowing what is happening when it comes to the perpetrator and their movements—where they are imprisoned, when they are going to be released and where—is a must for the peace of mind of all involved.”
That experience has become even more common with online child sexual offences, which have increased dramatically. The trauma for the child usually begins once police execute a search warrant of the family home, often referred to as “the knock”, after the police have received the information regarding the online suspect. That, I would say to the Minister, would be the ideal point to intervene to prevent further trauma, but currently that is not happening. Records for 2021 show that there were 850 knocks a month. Children were present for 35% of those knocks. That compares with 417 knocks per year in 2009-10, and I fully expect those numbers to keep on going up, with all the police are telling us about the exponential rise of online child abuse.
Children are unseen victims of this crime, but are not recognised as such or given the support they need. Often, families do not receive information about the offence, court proceedings or sentencing until they are told by the offender, if they are told by the offender. If the children were defined as victims, they and their parents would be entitled to receive such information. Having the victims code apply here would address some of the key issues for children and for non-offending parents, including information from police and access to support services.
Let us be honest: the knock disproportionately affects women, who are often forced to give up their job as a consequence, take time off sick, move home, supervise access, manage childcare, manage supervision and take on the burden of minimising the suspect’s risk of suicide or reoffending. Women are effectively treated as a protective factor, but they have no protection themselves.
I have worked on the amendment with Talking Forward, a charity that funds peer support for anyone whose adult family member has been investigated for online sexual offences. It is much more common than Members realise. Currently, three police forces refer families automatically to Talking Forward, but that could be broadened out nationally, if the amendment is accepted. Lincolnshire police now have a dedicated independent domestic violence adviser-type role for such families. Again, if the amendment is accepted, that could be rolled out more broadly to provide specialist support.
The first step must be to recognise children of child sexual abusers, whether physical or online, as victims. That will reduce costs in the long term, whether that is by ensuring children have immediate support or reducing costs to the family courts. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.
Edward Argar
As the hon. Lady set out, amendment 46 would include persons who have suffered harm as a direct result of being a child of a person who poses a sexual risk to children, for example a paedophile, in the definition of a victim. I am grateful to her for raising this important issue and I reassure her that the Government absolutely sympathise with the challenges faced by the unsuspecting families of sex offenders and those who pose a sexual risk to children.
If family members in these circumstances have witnessed criminal conduct, they are of course already covered by the Bill’s definition of a victim—that is, if they have been harmed by seeing, hearing or otherwise directly experiencing the effect of the crime at the time the crime happened. I think the hon. Lady would like to go somewhat more broadly, to those who may not have been there at the time or have directly witnessed the crime, but who may still suffer the impacts of that criminal behaviour. I know that she is interested in support more broadly for the families of offenders and those impacted.
As the hon. Lady rightly said, that cohort would not come within our definition of a victim, which is deliberately crafted in both the Bill and the victims code to be designed for those who have been harmed directly by the crime in question and therefore need the broader entitlements in the code to navigate the criminal justice system, as well as to receive support. On this occasion, therefore, I must resist the broadening of the scope of clause 1 that the amendment would bring.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
The Justice Committee, in its pre-legislative scrutiny of the clause, did ask the Government to extend the coverage of these provisions to include children born of rape as secondary victims, and they responded positively. Is there a difference between the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham made for the children of paedophiles and the concession—that is the wrong word for it; it is technically correct, but I am not trying to suggest that the Government have given in—made in accepting the Justice Committee’s suggestion that children born of rape should be included? Is there a technical difference, because I am failing to see it at the moment?
Edward Argar
The technical difference, or the difference as we see it, is that in the case of the Justice Committee’s PLS recommendation the individual was born as a direct consequence of a criminal act. In the case to which the hon. Member for Rotherham referred, the individual is not experiencing something as a direct consequence of a criminal act, but there are of course impacts on them. That is the difference that we draw, but it does not mean that this cohort is not deserving of support on their own terms, and I will touch briefly on what is available.
His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service funds the national prisoners’ families helpline, which provides free and confidential support for those with a family member at any stage of their contact with the criminal justice system. There are also several charities—I suspect that the hon. Lady works with them on these issues—that provide specific support for families affected by the actions of a family member, including support for prisoners, people with convictions, and crucially their children and families, and support for families that have been affected by sexual abuse.
We will continue to consider how best to support and protect those impacted by crime as well as victims of crime, who are directly covered by the Bill. I therefore gently encourage the hon. Lady not to press her amendment to a vote at this stage. She may wish to return to it, but I will continue to reflect carefully on what she has said. We sit and listen, but we may miss some nuances, so I will read the report of what has been said carefully.
Sarah Champion
I am grateful to the Minister for keeping an open mind. What is needed most is information on the criminal justice process for those family members, which would automatically be afforded under the victims code. I am grateful for his offer to read the report and see whether there is something that we can do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Jess Phillips
I beg to move amendment 54, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) where the death by suicide of a close family member of the person was the result of domestic abuse which constitutes criminal conduct.”
We have all had a long time while the Bill has been going through to campaign, successfully, on various things through various means, including, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood mentioned, around the pre-legislative scrutiny. Those of us who have been fighting for child victims born of rape were pleased to see that concession. Another area that many of us have campaigned on is recognition of people who are victims of homicide but not direct victims. If someone’s daughter is murdered, they are a victim of that crime. Both those concessions have come about, and not dissimilarly to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham I wish to push the envelope a little further, and talk about those who die by suicide as a direct result of being a victim of domestic abuse.
I met a mother at a memorial service for violence against women and girls. Just yesterday, she emailed me. Her daughter died in 2018. She wrote:
“If my daughter hadn’t met him, she would still be alive, her children still have a mother, me my precious only daughter…Why is the associated link between ‘domestic abuse’ and ‘suicide’ ignored? Overlooked are the ‘compensating’ mechanisms—substance abuse, alcohol, ‘mental health issues’ then used by so called ‘professionals’ as the reason ‘why’ they have taken their lives...the link is the perpetrator and the victim, NOT the substances. They are often used by the victim to ‘escape’ from the relentless mental, physical abuse and torture. They don’t want to die, merely ‘escape’ from the traumatic situations. They are in Hell.”
Families who have lost loved ones to suicide following domestic abuse should be recognised as victims, in the same way as those who lose family members to murder are supported.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I want to mention the family of Gemma Robinson. Gemma was the victim of a horrific assault by a former boyfriend. She took her own life in 2020 due to the fear of facing her attacker in court. Gemma’s sister, Kirsty, has spoken about the devastating impact of Gemma’s death on the whole family. The family were then left to face the sentencing of the perpetrator, Gemma’s inquest and the domestic homicide review all on their own, without support. Does my hon. Friend agree that Gemma’s case highlights why it is so important that relatives in these types of cases are recognised as victims?
Jess Phillips
I thank my hon. Friend. Our hearts go out to Gemma’s family. That is exactly the reason why I tabled the amendment and why the Labour party seeks to have these people recognised. That recognition would allow such relatives to access the support and care they need, and begin to shine a light on a shamefully under-scrutinised and ignored sphere of criminality and wrongdoing.
We do not need to look much further than the facts of the cases and the experiences of the families to realise that those relatives should be recognised and have the support and guidance that that would, or should, bring. The criminality and wrongdoing in those cases, the interaction with court processes and the justice system, and the trauma experienced, make the argument for inclusion clear. Although in many cases, they may not ever get a criminal sanction against the perpetrator, there are inquests and domestic homicide reviews, as my hon. Friend said. Honestly, to be a victim in this country, whether that is one recognised by this Bill or not, is hard work. Imagine doing that work when your daughter or your sister has died.
There are other concerns about why this recognition is important, which are to do with unchecked criminality and wrongdoing. In these heartbreaking cases, where the deceased took her own life—I use the pronoun “she” due to the gendered nature of domestic abuse—there is clear evidence that she was driven to suicide by the abuse she suffered at the hands of a domestic abuse perpetrator.
The feelings of injustice for bereaved families when the abuser escapes all responsibility for the death must be unbearable. Families find themselves in an agonising position of having watched their loved one experience horrendous criminality—violence, abuse, coercive control—and the unrelenting horror day after day, hour after hour, until their loved one was driven by desperation to take their life. Currently, in those cases, criminality is going completely unchecked, un-investigated and unchallenged. Perpetrators remain free to harm again and again. Bereaved families are left feeling failed by the justice system, and the opportunities to address issues and learn lessons are being missed.
There has been one successful prosecution of that type of case. In 2017 R v. Allen, the perpetrator pleaded guilty to manslaughter—if we are relying on cases where men plead guilty, we are on a hiding to nothing—in respect of the death of his former partner, Justene Reece, who had taken her own life after experiencing years of coercive control, stalking and harassment. Justene had left a suicide note explaining that she could not endure her stalker’s behaviour any longer. That case is a clear precedent.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Only last week, we heard from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who said that the broader the definition is, the better it will be for victims.
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. I have worked with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. There is a huge area of hidden homicide that we are concerned about, and suicide is one of the areas where we are just not getting the data about how many women are dying because of domestic abuse, unless they are directly killed.
The case that I described provides a clear precedent, and there is hope that more cases will follow, but currently families find very limited access to such justice and answers. It is clear that for such prosecutions to happen, police officers must proactively undertake evidence gathering for domestic abuse offences post death, for example by listening to the concerns of family members, taking witness accounts, reviewing records held by medical, statutory and third sector agencies, and looking through financial records and electronic communications. This is not commonplace in cases of domestic abuse where the victim is alive. It is certainly not commonplace in cases where the victim has died.
The police seem to have a distinct lack of professional curiosity in such cases. In research by Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse and the University of Warwick, titled “An Analysis of Domestic Homicide Reviews in Cases of Domestic Abuse Suicide”, families reported police failing to investigate adequately, police not acting on the information given by families and friends about perpetration of domestic abuse, evidence not being captured, evidence and personal effects of the deceased being returned to the surviving partner or ex-partner, police not considering domestic abuse when attending suicide cases, and a lack of senior police oversight in investigations of suicides.
One family member included in the research submitted 74 exhibits of screenshots and photographs in the aftermath of her daughter’s death, but felt dismissed out of hand by the officer in charge when she presented them. She said:
“I said to him, I’ve brought this because I think it’s important information. Every time he took a piece of paper off me…[he] slammed it on the desk. I said to him, are you not going to look at them? He said, there’s no point…it’s irrelevant…your daughter took her own life…It was like she wasn’t important when she was alive and…she’s not important now she’s dead.”
Other institutions also deny these families any form of justice or an understanding of what happened to their loved one. Take domestic homicide reviews. In many cases, even though the statutory criteria are met, families have to fight tooth and nail to ensure that a domestic homicide review is commissioned, normally only with the help of an advocacy organisation such as AAFDA. Inquests and coroners courts often demonstrate a lack of understanding of domestic abuse. In the research I mentioned, one DHR chair reflected that, in their experience,
“Coroners often see...women as kind of weak, they’re so misguided and they take their own lives, and they should have stood up for themselves and left…So you get that kind of reference to, you know, extreme attention-seeking. And it’s not that. It’s that you’re utterly worn down by someone who often is so cleverly manipulative…I don’t think Coroners understand that at all and the barriers to leaving and all those sorts of things…I don’t think they have an understanding of how all these little things are really damaging.”
Those examples of interactions with criminal justice systems or inquest procedures clearly highlight the crucial need for advocacy and support for families who lose a loved one to suicide following domestic abuse. One family member explained that
“you’re thrust, in a nanosecond your life flips on its axis, and not only are you dealing with the impact of losing someone so precious, especially in circumstances like this…you have to learn a whole new language…and then there’s timeframes, you’ve got to have this done by that…you’ve got this agency asking you for that, you’ve got someone questioning you, the police are calling you up”.
Research has found that having access to support and advocacy is overwhelmingly positive for families, helping them to feel empowered, but for most that support comes about only by luck or lengthy effort on their part. The mental health impact must not be underestimated. The trauma experienced by families is unimaginable. As one professional who works with such bereaved relatives put it, losing a loved one to suicide is
“one of life’s most painful experiences. The feelings of loss, sadness, and loneliness experienced after any death of a loved one are often magnified in suicide survivors by feelings of guilt, confusion, rejection, shame, anger, and the effects of stigma and trauma. Furthermore, survivors of suicide loss are at higher risk of developing major depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal behaviors, as well as a prolonged form of grief called complicated grief. Added to the burden is the substantial stigma, which can keep survivors away from much needed support and healing resources. Thus, survivors may require unique supportive measures and targeted treatment to cope with their loss.”
It is clear that families who find themselves in that devastating situation desperately need more support to navigate the complex legal processes and get access to the support they need.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley for raising this important issue and for referring, as the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood did, to pre-legislative scrutiny. I hope to have given Committee members some encouragement that on occasion I agree to changes, and perhaps to a different approach from that in the original draft of the Bill.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley set out, her amendment 54 would extend the definition of a victim in the Bill explicitly to include families impacted by the death by suicide of a loved one as a result of domestic abuse. In her remarks, the hon. Lady quite rightly went wider than that, highlighting investigatory issues and broader prosecutorial issues. I have—as, I suspect, does every member of the Committee—huge sympathy for the families in the position that she set out. Before I turn specifically to the impact of her amendment, and I wish to touch on some of the support available for them,.
The Ministry of Justice provides police and crime commissioners with grant funding to commission local, practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types, based on their assessment of needs. The Department for Health and Social Care has committed to publishing a new national suicide prevention strategy later this year and is engaging widely across the sector to understand what further action can be taken to reduce cases of suicide. The strategy will reflect new evidence and national priorities for suicide prevention across England, including actions to tackle known risk factors and targeted actions for groups at particular risk or groups of concern. An additional £57 million is being invested in suicide prevention by March 2024, through the NHS long-term plan.
I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of the issue. With regard to her amendment, we are not convinced that explicitly extending the definition of a victim of crime in the Bill and the code is the right approach to appropriately support the families. Part 1 of the Bill specifically sets out how victims who have suffered harm as a direct result of criminal conduct are treated by and supported to engage with the criminal justice system. Our view is that that group is largely covered by the Bill’s definition of the bereaved family of a person who has died, including by suicide as a direct result of domestic abuse, which is captured by clause 1(2)(c):
“where the death of a close family member of the person was the direct result of criminal conduct”.
In the context, domestic violence is criminal conduct. I appreciate—this is potentially where the nuance lies, and why the hon. Lady might be pushing for greater clarity—that that will be fact-specific for each case in the circumstances. It is a complicated area and each case will be complicated but, as I say, we believe that clause 1(2)(c) captures this.
I know that we have discussed the need for clarity and awareness about entitlements among victims and agencies. As I am sure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley is aware from her shadow ministerial role, the Government are consulting on and clarifying the position in the domestic homicide review to formally recognise this cohort of victims. With her permission, I will gently encourage her not to press her amendment at this point, but in the context of the broader work being done I hope she will allow me, in the short term, to write to her with greater clarity on our interpretation of clause 1(2)(c)—she may wish to challenge that in the future, of course; she is entitled to—and to see if we are able to factor in the broader work being done before we reach Report.
Jess Phillips
I thank the Minister. I would absolutely welcome it if he wrote to me and the Committee about exactly how clause 1(2)(c) encompasses what I seek, so that those families have an opportunity. It is good when Ministers say things in Committee that we can use to ensure that families get support. I will withdraw the amendment at this stage. I am not always especially keen on the Government, but the level of progress in the area of hidden homicides, certainly under the previous Home Secretary, is to be admired. I do not think that the Government are without concern on the issue of suicide in cases of domestic abuse. Thanks to what the Minister says, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 63, in clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) where the person is a child under the age of 18 who has suffered harm and is a victim of, or a witness to, criminal conduct.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 42, in clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The victims’ code must make provision for services for victims who are children under the age of 18 who have suffered harm and are victims of, or witnesses to, criminal conduct.
(3B) In determining what services are appropriate under subsection (3A), the Secretary of State must have regard to the provisions of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 in respect of children under the age of 18.”
This amendment would require the victims’ code to contain specific provision for children who are victims or witnesses, in line with the provisions of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
Sarah Champion
Amendments 63 and 42 are supported by the NSPCC; I am grateful for its help, which has enabled me to table them. They are designed to ensure that all children under the age of 18 who have experienced harm as a victim of or witness to a crime are within the scope of the Bill and have access to special measures in line with the existing provisions on vulnerable witnesses in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
The inclusion of children as victims of domestic abuse within clause 1, in accordance with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, is welcome. However, children experience many different forms of abuse, exploitation and serious violence, as shown by the remit of the Bill. In many cases, children can experience more than one form of abuse at the hands of one or multiple perpetrators.
The scale of child abuse in this country, as we know, is devastating. The Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse estimates that, based on the available evidence, one in 10 children in England and Wales are sexually abused before the age of 16. At a conservative estimate, the number of children sexually abused in a single year is around half a million. In 2021-22, there were more than 16,000 instances in which local authorities identified a child sexual exploitation case as a factor at the end of an assessment by social workers. There were 11,600 instances in which gangs were a factor, and 10,140 in which child criminal exploitation was a factor. Research by the Children’s Commissioner found that 27,000 children were at high risk of gang exploitation but had not been identified by services, and were therefore missing out on vital support to keep them safe.
For the Bill to truly support all young victims and witnesses, clause 1 must refer to the eligibility criteria in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which provides for enhanced rights and special measures for those under the age of 18 at the time of the offence. The victims code of practice also recognises the issue, under its definition of “vulnerable or intimidated” victims, by affording eligibility to under-18s to have access to enhanced rights and special measures. Special measures include, but are not limited to, screening witnesses from the accused, providing evidence by live link, the removal of wigs and gowns, and video-recorded cross-examination.
However, despite the Crown Prosecution Service stating that special measures are available for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses to give their best evidence in court—and to help to relieve some of the stress associated with giving evidence—the Victims’ Commissioner has found that young victims were neither informed about nor in receipt of all their rights under the victims code, including access to special measures. For many children, the current justice system is simply not supporting their needs. That often compounds the abuse that they have suffered.
In oral evidence last week, this Committee heard the Children’s Commissioner explain that children and young people do not necessarily understand or report their experiences in the same way as adults. NSPCC research has previously found that special measures were seldom used. Being accompanied by a neutral supporter of the young witness’s choice, closing the public gallery in sexual offence cases, combined special measures—such as preventing the defendant’s view of the child on the live link—and giving evidence over a live link, away from the trial, were sadly rarely used. Some areas had no non-court remote sites at all.
Our courts desperately need the funding and resources to ensure that there are suitable facilities accessible for all victims’ needs and preferences. I welcome the roll-out of section 28 pre-recorded evidence in all courts, but it is key that the victim or witness can provide their evidence how they choose. For children, we must ensure that that is an informed choice.
NSPCC research also found that 150 witnesses waited an average of 3.5 hours at magistrates courts or youth courts and 5.8 hours at a Crown court, despite the victims code committing to ensure that victims giving evidence
“do not have to wait more than two hours”.
It is imperative that all victims under the age of 18 be recognised as eligible for special measures under section 16 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, so that they are recognised by all relevant agencies as vulnerable and therefore receive their enhanced rights. We need to actively include children within the definition of a victim so that they can be afforded the appropriate support to which they are entitled, in a way that they can understand and access. Will the Minister explain whether he will take any additional steps, either in the guidance or separately from the proceedings of the Bill, to ensure that all child victims and witnesses can access their rights, particularly special measures?
Edward Argar
Amendment 63 seeks to add wording to the definition of a victim to explicitly state that it includes children. I reassure the hon. Lady that children who are
“a victim of, or a witness to, criminal conduct”
are already covered by the definition of a victim under part 1 of the Bill, and included in the current victims code. The relevant provision of the Bill—clause 1(2)(a)—says
“where the person has seen, heard, or otherwise directly experienced the effects of, criminal conduct at the time the conduct occurred”,
and that is not an age-specific or age-exclusive point; it is universally applicable.
The definition of a victim covers individuals, including children, who have suffered harm as a direct result of being subjected to a crime. It also covers persons, including children, who have suffered harm as a direct result of certain circumstances, including the death of a close family member as a direct result of criminal conduct, and being born from rape. The hon. Lady quite understandably made a number of broader points about the operation of the criminal justice system and the courts. I will confine my remarks to the amendments, but I note those points.
The Bill’s definition of a victim has been amended, as the hon. Lady touched on, to align with the full definition of domestic abuse in part 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which will also be set out under the new victims code. The purpose is to have clarity and proper read-across between different pieces of legislation. The Bill therefore defines child victims who witness or experience the effects of domestic abuse as victims in their own right.
Individuals—again, including children—who witness a crime are covered by the Bill. We have described that as seeing, hearing or otherwise directly experiencing the effect of a crime at the “time the conduct occurred”, which ensures that we do not exclude individuals who have been harmed by witnessing a crime even if they were not physically present when it occurred. For example, they may have seen it occur online as it was happening if it was being streamed or similar.
We recognise that individuals will be affected differently after witnessing a crime. That is why we have specified that an individual will be defined as a victim only if they have suffered harm as a direct result of witnessing criminal conduct. In that context, amendment 63 is unnecessary as children are already covered by the definition in the Bill, which, as I said, also aligns with the DA Act 2021.
Amendment 42 would require the victims code to contain specific provision for children who are victims or witnesses. Again, I reassure the hon. Lady that the definitions in both the Bill and the victims code include adults and children alike. Children are also explicitly recognised in the current victims code as vulnerable victims. Some of her points—for example, on how a court case is run and the length of time given for evidence—will, to a degree, be down to the way a judge runs that particular case with judicial independence and discretion. However, that explicit recognition in the victims code means that children have entitlements and “enhanced rights”, such as getting information about key decisions more quickly.
That recognition is set out in the enhanced rights section of the code, which specifies that victims are “eligible for enhanced rights” if they are
“under 18 years of age at the time of the offence”.
Young people are automatically eligible for the special measures included in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which the hon. Lady mentioned, when they are giving evidence. Such measures can include communication assistance through a registered intermediary, giving evidence by live link or having their evidence pre-recorded, subject to the agreement of the court or the judge.
I fully support the aim of making the victims code as clear as possible about the different and distinct needs of children. The hon. Lady is aware that we will be consulting on a new victims code after this Bill gains Royal Assent, and we have published a draft to inform the debate prior to that formal consultation. This is one of the areas that we will be focusing on in reviewing and updating that code.
Sarah Champion
The Minister is right to say that the special measures are subject to a judge’s discretion. I wonder whether, when he is looking at updating the guidance and the code, he could look quite closely into that, because of the example in Rotherham, where we have the ongoing past cases of grooming gangs. We are finding that the National Crime Agency tries to go for one judge, who is very aware of the need for special measures and very supportive of that. The concern is that, across the country, other judges are more subjective with regard to whether they think special measures are an automatic right and what the threshold is. Therefore, when the Minister is doing his review, will he look specifically at the guidance to judges about whether to allow special measures?
Edward Argar
I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me if I resist the temptation to stray into areas that are properly judicial—related to judicial independence and, indeed, training and the Judicial College. I am very cautious about trespassing on judicial independence. She has made her point on the record, but as a Minister I have to be a little cautious in that respect.
The Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, when she gave evidence to the Committee last week, welcomed the fact that work with her office had already begun. We are looking forward to working with her and others—including, indeed, in this House—as we prepare a further draft code for consultation. Given that the current code already includes provision for child victims and witnesses and that we have made a commitment to make that clearer in the new code, and given the definition in clause 1(2)(a), I hope that I will persuade the hon. Lady not to press her amendment to a Division at this point.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for everything that he has said. I have comfort at this point, so I will not press the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 40, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, after “that” insert
“no report of the conduct has been made to a criminal justice body and that”.
This amendment aims to ensure that a person could meet the definition of a victim without needing to make a report to a criminal justice body.
I am nearly done with my amendments—on this clause. [Laughter.] Sorry; but I will say up front that this is a straightforward probing amendment, which aims to ensure, in relation to determining whether a person is a victim for the purposes of this legislation, that the scope is expanded to include those who do not choose to report an offence to the criminal justice system. Clause 1 of the Bill has been substantially improved since the drafting. I am relieved that it states that
“in determining whether a person is a victim by virtue of any conduct, it is immaterial that no person has been charged with or convicted of an offence in respect of the conduct”.
However, I am keen for the Minister to clarify that this also does not require the victim to report the crime to a criminal justice body.
Janet Daby
I want to refer again to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who said in her evidence to us:
“You are absolutely right: most victims do not report to the police. The reality is that it is probably one in six.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 7, Q4.]
I just want to emphasise that point: many victims do not report to the police. Of course, there is a question following that, as to whether a prosecution takes place.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as is the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. That is why it is imperative that all victims and witnesses, particularly children, can access support through this legislation without needing to engage with the criminal justice process.
I have worked with the NSPCC on this amendment, as it raised concerns due to the fact that the majority of crimes against children and young people are not reported to the police. It can be extremely difficult for victims and survivors to speak about their experiences of child sexual abuse, as revisiting traumatic childhood experiences often causes significant distress. Prior experiences of being silenced, blamed or not taken seriously by the justice system can discourage victims and survivors from disclosing child sexual abuse again.
The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse found that child sexual abuse is dramatically under-reported. The 2018-19 crime survey for England and Wales estimated that 76% of adults who had experienced rape or assault by penetration did not tell anyone about their experience at the time. A large number of the inquiry’s investigation reports noted that the true scale of offending was likely to be far higher than the available data appears to suggest. The Government’s own “Tackling Child Sexual Abuse Strategy 2021” noted that:
“People were even less likely to tell the police—only an estimated 7% of victims and survivors informed the police at the time of the offence and only 18% told the police at any point.”
Can the Minister guarantee, on the record, that the definition of victim includes those who choose not to report to the criminal justice system? The majority of victims, who choose not to report an offence, must still be able to access support under the Bill.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the amendment, which she has clarified is a probing amendment; she is seeking clarity from the Box, as it were, that someone can come within the definition of a victim in the Bill without needing to report the relevant crime. Let me reassure her at the outset that that is already the case in the Bill’s existing definition.
Victims of crime are considered victims under part 1 of the Bill, whether or not the offence has been reported to the police or any other criminal justice body. This is a fundamental part of the Bill, because we want to make it clear that victims of crime are able to access support services, regardless of whether they have reported a crime.
The point is covered by clause 1(4)(b), which sets out that,
“criminal conduct” means conduct which constitutes an offence (but in determining whether a person is a victim by virtue of any conduct, it is immaterial that no person has been charged with or convicted of an offence in respect of the conduct).”
I am happy to clarify and build on that for the hon. Lady: reporting or conviction is not required to meet the threshold. That echoes the current victims code and approach, which is clear that relevant entitlements are available,
“regardless of whether anyone has been charged, convicted of a criminal offence and regardless of whether you decide to report the crime to the police or you do not wish to cooperate with the investigation.”
In the new draft code that we have published, that point is further highlighted in the opening section on who is a victim under the code, which explicitly sets out:
“The term ‘criminal conduct’ reflects the fact that you do not need to have reported the crime to the police to be considered a victim of crime. Some of the Rights under this Code apply to you regardless of your engagement with the criminal justice system.”
The reason it is worded that way is because some of the rights are clearly worded as only to be directly relevant if someone is in the criminal justice process. It is explicit there that the code would apply to the individuals that the hon. Lady seeks to ensure are encompassed in this context.
I appreciate that the amendment seeks to make the fact that reporting is not required as clear as possible. Our view is that the amendment is not necessary because of the current drafting of the Bill and the wording of the revised victims code.
Noting the hon. Lady’s words that this is a probing amendment, I hope she will not feel the need to press it further.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for that clarity. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Anna McMorrin
I want to put on the record my thanks to the Clerks here, but also to Claire Waxman and Dame Vera Baird, who have steadfastly demonstrated their commitment to championing victims’ rights.
Dame Vera’s commitment has not wavered, even though she left her role as Victims’ Commissioner last September. Victims and advocates have continued to step up and make their voices heard, even when the Government have delayed the promised Bill time and again—we have been waiting eight years for it. Many victims, advocates and groups have continued to campaign and champion the issues. I particularly commend Claire Waxman, who has been pushing for this Bill for 10 years. Without those people, we would not be where we are today—at long last sitting here and scrutinising the Bill, line by line.
Anna McMorrin
Yes, that is what I am looking at right now. I wanted to make a couple of general points, because we are beginning the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, if you will just allow me to do so, Sir Edward; you are being very generous—thank you.
We can only do this by working together. I turn to the amendments that we have discussed today—the critical ones tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, who is a steadfast champion for the rights of those who have been abused and for the rights of children. I commend her for that work. The amendments we have discussed seek to strengthen clause 1 on the definition of a victim, and they particularly consider antisocial behaviour and child criminal exploitation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, when speaking to her amendment 54, made some emotive points on death by suicide and the impact on family members.
I hope that we can work together as we move forward in our consideration of the Bill, so that amendments, including those to clause 1, are discussed and debated, and so that we can amend the Bill later down the line, and so that victims’ rights, particularly the rights of child victims, are clearly defined in the Bill and that we strengthen the Bill as a result.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to right hon. and hon. Members for their points. It is important and right that we have taken a considerable amount of time to consider this clause on the definition of a victim, which of course is central—quite understandably—to what this Bill is about. It is a piece of legislation that I am pleased to be taking through Committee. If it does not harm my prospects with the Whips to say so, I will say that when I first entered this House in 2015 I took a close interest in working on this issue, alongside the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), having both been elected at the same time.
The hon. Member for Cardiff North mentioned the role of Victims’ Commissioner, which, as she will appreciate, is an extremely important post. We have seen a number of changes of Lord Chancellor in recent years. As she would expect, the new Lord Chancellor takes a very close interest in the position and is determined to make sure that he gets things right, gets the right person and that the process is properly followed. I know that he is as keen as she is to see the post filled, but filled properly.
Anna McMorrin
I appreciate the Minister’s answer. Could he come back to the Committee with a timetable for the appointment?
Edward Argar
It is probably premature to offer a prescriptive timetable, but I know that it is very much on the Lord Chancellor’s mind and that he recognises the importance of the role.
I am grateful for the debate on clause 1 and the various amendments. It is clear that we all agree on the importance of the clause. As I have alluded to, I am happy to work across the House where possible to see whether there are ways that we can address the points that have been raised.
Our intention in clause 1 is to define “victim” for the purposes of the relevant clauses in part 1 of the Bill, so that it is clear who is covered and entitled to benefit from the measures. If I may put it this way, we have sought to be more permissive and less prescriptive to avoid inadvertently excluding particular groups. In resisting some of the amendments, we have tried to avoid an approach that is duplicative. We do not need to put something in the Bill if there are other ways that we can achieve the same objective.
The clause focuses on victims of crime, which is relevant to the Bill’s measures designed to improve support services for victims, regardless of whether they report the crime, and to improve compliance with the victims code. I am grateful for the constructive engagement on the clause. I believe that the definition as drafted is a good definition, but there are certain points that I will take away and reflect on further.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Champion
On a point of order, Sir Edward. Amendments 44 and 49 have been grouped together, but they have little to nothing to do with each other. Is there any way to separate them, or am I stuck with that group?
The Chair
Well, I can ungroup them. We will deal with them separately.
Clause 2
The victims’ code
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) should be provided with information from all state agencies with responsibilities under the victims’ code, including the NHS, to help them understand the criminal justice process and beyond, including grant of leave or discharge.”
This amendment would extend the principle that victims should be given information about the criminal justice process to explicitly include the NHS, in order to bring mental health tribunal decisions in line with the rest of the criminal justice system.
I tabled amendment 44—and amendment 45, which we will come to later—because victims of serious crime committed by mentally disordered offenders currently do not get the same rights and entitlements as victims of offenders who are not mentally disordered. I apologise for the clunky terminology. Amendment 44 is vital, as critical information is often withheld from victims when the offender is mentally disordered.
In diminished responsibility cases, the psychiatric evidence is often considered and agreed in private by the Crown Prosecution Service without any meaningful disclosure to the victims. In those cases, there is often no trial, just a brief sentencing hearing where the evidence is not examined or tested in open court, which leaves victims completely in the dark. Often, offenders in such cases will have been patients of local NHS mental health trusts, which will have conducted their own investigations into the care and treatment of the offender. Many of those investigations are not shared with the families as they should be, with NHS trusts often ignoring official national NHS guidance without sanction. NHS trusts seem unaware of their responsibilities and duties to victims under the victims code.
I am speaking about the issue from personal experience. I have worked with the brilliant charity Hundred Families on this amendment, as well as amendment 45, because it has been supporting a bereaved family in my constituency that has been affected by this type of case. In February 2022, my constituent’s son, Paul Reed, was murdered on a ward in Rotherham Hospital by a fellow patient. Although there is clear NHS guidance requiring the trusts to investigate serious incidents, the hospital did not even consider Paul’s murder a serious incident. Initially, the hospital claimed that it had done a full investigation but would not share it with the family; then it turned out that it had not done an investigation at all. It required many letters, and finally my direct involvement, to get it to start a proper investigation.
That case, like others, shows that the Bill needs specifically to include the NHS to get it to take its duties to victims seriously. This is, sadly, a widespread issue; I know that Committee members have direct experience of it with their constituents. There are around 100 to 120 mental health-related homicides in the UK each year. In December 2022, there were 4,580 restricted patients —mentally disordered offenders who have committed serious crimes and are considered dangerous—in psychiatric hospitals in England and Wales. Around 2,979 restricted patients are discharged every year, although 268 were recalled to hospital according to the latest figures from 2020.
There is a very high rate of reoffending by such patients on their release. A recent long-term academic study found that 44% of offenders discharged from a medium-secure psychiatric unit were reconvicted following release, mostly for assault. Nearly 30% were convicted of a grave offence such as robbery, arson, wounding, attempted murder or rape. Another study of patients released from high-secure psychiatric wards found that 38% were reconvicted, 26% of them for serious offences. These are very sensitive cases that may raise broader concerns about processes, but victims and families deserve access to information, just as they would if the case went through the criminal justice system.
The amendment would ensure that the NHS is explicitly included among agencies that have a duty to inform victims of decisions made about an offender. I genuinely cannot understand why that is not happening now, and I really hope that the Minister will address that serious oversight. These families have already experienced immense grief and shock. They must be able to remain informed about the case, just as they would if the offender did not have any mental health issues.
Maria Eagle
I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend’s amendment. She has touched on an important point: the difference in treatment between offenders who end up in jail and those who end up in some form of secure hospital or mental health unit. That is something that struck me when I was a Minister at the MOJ, in what now seems like the dim and distant past—in fact, it is.
The main reason for the difference is that the offender in the mental health hospital or secure unit is treated by clinicians, who have that person’s clinical recovery at the core of what they do. They are very much focused on that and not so much on the broader issues of public safety, as would be the case in the criminal justice system, in the prison and at the Parole Board. I am not saying that clinicians do not consider those issues at all; I am saying that the focus is different.
Therein lies one of the reasons for the difference that my hon. Friend’s amendment highlights: the focus is on getting the individual who is in mental health provision up on their feet and back out operating in society, rather than on the broader public safety issues that may arise from that person’s being back out and about. Putting such an obligation on health service organisations is the kind of prompt that would make clinicians—and treating clinicians in particular—think a little more about the broader issues, instead of focusing entirely on the recovery of their patient.
One can understand why a clinician focuses on the recovery of their patient. I am not criticising that, but often there is not the overview of the broader public safety implication of any decision. I hope that the Minister, with his very open mind, which he has already demonstrated today, will consider that there is an issue here, and that there has been for many years. Depending on the kind of offence, it is easy to end up in either mental health provision or jail; some offenders could end up in either, yet the way they are treated can be very different, as can the reasons that decisions are made.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for tabling the amendment and airing this issue. The amendment seeks to ensure that victims are given
“information from all state agencies with responsibilities under the victims’ code, including the NHS, to help them understand the criminal justice process and beyond, including grant of leave or discharge.”
I recognise the importance of ensuring that victims receive the information they need to help them understand the process, including when the release—temporary or otherwise—of offenders detained outside the prison system is being considered.
The hon. Member for Rotherham drew attention to cases where an offender was subject to a hospital order. As the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood highlighted, such offenders are subject to a different process from offenders in the prison estate. They are viewed through the prism of health as opposed to criminal justice, and decisions about their detention under the Mental Health Act are taken by the mental health tribunal or the Secretary of State for Justice, rather than by the Parole Board. However, I want to reassure hon. and right hon. Members that communication with victims about those processes is handled in the same way, through the HMPPS victim contact scheme.
Under the scheme, the victim liaison officer will share information about the process for considering release and will notify victims when the patient is having their detention reviewed. The victim liaison officer will also support victims and make representations to decision makers on conditions of discharge in appropriate cases. The victim liaison officer is best placed to communicate with and support victims in such circumstances, as they will be expert in the process and have victims’ interests at the centre of their work.
The victims code includes some information about the process and what victims can expect from those involved, under right 11, the right
“to be given information about the offender following a conviction.”
I think it is right to keep the detail of who will deliver services, and how, in the code rather than in the Bill, in order to build in flexibility so that it can continue to be updated and to enable the inclusion of more operational details, such as those I have outlined. However, I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood and the hon. Member for Rotherham about how we get an organisation such as the NHS—I had the privilege being the Minister of State for Health for two and a half years—to engage with that in what is understandably a different context, because there is often a medical mindset rather than a criminal justice one. My plea to Members is that this is better considered in the context of the revised code, and that perhaps we can use that to better draw out victims’ rights.
Sarah Champion
Could I push the Minister to say that he will consider this in the revision of the code? I hear everything that he says, but it relies on all the different parts working together, which simply is not the case.
Edward Argar
Notwithstanding any legislative reason or primary legislation that might limit our scope, I am quite happy to look at it in the context of the code. We have published a pre-draft to give colleagues and organisations the opportunity to engage with it and make suggestions before it goes to the formal consultation process, and so that it is available to members of the Committee during our deliberations. I encourage the hon. Lady to engage with that.
With that, I hope that I may encourage the hon. Lady to treat this as a probing amendment, rather than one she wishes to press to a Division.
Sarah Champion
I will indeed treat it as a probing amendment. I am given confidence by the Minister’s words. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Anna McMorrin
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out “should” and insert “must”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, leave out “should” and insert “must”.
Amendment 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 22, leave out “should” and insert “must”.
Amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 24, leave out “should” and insert “must”.
Anna McMorrin
In his opening speech on Second Reading, the Justice Secretary stated that
“in order to deliver justice, victims must be treated not as mere spectators of the criminal justice system, but as core participants in it. That is the mission of this Government and of this Bill. It will boost victims’ entitlements”
and
“make victims’ voices heard”.—[Official Report, 15 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 583.]
On paper, it sounds like the Government are dedicated to putting victims first, yet they stumble at the first hurdle. Clause 2(3) states only that agencies should comply with the four overarching principles of the victims code, making those principles weak and open to interpretation.
Ellie Reeves
Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Bill is really going to serve victims, it is important that it sets out what must be done rather than what should be done? We all know that when the word “should” is used, it often simply does not happen, and that is not good enough.
Anna McMorrin
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. That is at the core of why I would like the Government to agree to the amendment. The principles are at the core of the Bill and agencies must comply with them. If they do not, that will call into question the essence of this entire piece of legislation.
I understand from the Government’s response to the Justice Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny report that they believe the wording cannot be “must”—I am probably predicting what the Minister will say—because agencies require flexibility. However, having spoken to various stakeholders, I have seen no example where such flexibility would be required or reason why we could not reflect it in the code, rather than by watering down victims’ rights in the Bill.
As the Government’s reasoning remains unclear, I hope the Minister might clear that up for us today. If the intention is to prevent civil litigation from victims, the Bill already achieves that. Victims deserve some form of accountability from criminal justice agencies, and weakening victims’ rights by using the word “should” will result only in a Bill that fails to make a difference on the ground.
The victims code has been in place since 2006. Compliance with the code has always been low; even though the Government have reformed it four or five times, that has not driven better compliance. The Bill is an opportunity to improve that, but by stating that agencies only “should” comply, it absolutely fails to do so. I will repeat what London Victims’ Commissioner Claire Waxman said during the evidence session. She said that
“delivering the code is a minimum level of service to victims. Even if agencies are complying and delivering it, it is still a minimum level.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 29, Q67.]
As shadow victims Minister, I speak to survivors every day. Their harrowing truths and inspiring bravery helps shape what we do in this place, and I thank every single one of them for sharing their truth with me. I want to pay tribute to one of them, Sophie, who spoke to me. She was raped when she was just 19 years old. After Sophie reported the rape to the police, she was brought in to be interviewed, after which months went by with little contact or communication about her case and what was going to happen. She was not told of her entitlement to an independent sexual violence adviser for eight months after speaking to the police and had to wait two years for her day in court after it was pushed back several times. Sophie was told by the detective on her case that it would help her to give evidence in person in court, which she did, even though she was absolutely petrified and the thought of it retraumatised her. She desperately did not want to.
Her Crown Prosecution Service barrister looked at Sophie’s case for only 30 minutes before the trial. He had no communication with her before that—not even a conversation before the trial began. Sophie told me that she felt like a tick-box exercise for the CPS to just get its stats up and get the case into court.
During the trial, Sophie was put behind a screen to protect her from seeing the perpetrator—a little screen that goes up, knowing that the perpetrator is there—but the defence barrister persisted and used a horrific scare tactic to throw Sophie off. He asked her to open a booklet that was in front of her. She opened it to page 1 and in front of her was the image of the man who was the perpetrator. Her own barrister did absolutely nothing to stop that. That not only had a very real mental health impact there and then—she suffered a panic attack and anxiety and had to leave the courtroom—but she could not gather herself afterwards because it had retraumatised her. She said to me that she thought she was going to vomit there and then in the court, and nobody did anything to stop her. The witness assistant, who was of course trying her best, said, “Pull yourself together, Sophie. You need to go back in there and do this.”
Sophie told me that because of the technique used she was unable to remember any of the important details of the incident, and we know what trauma does: people cannot recall really important incidents and detail. The intense stress and anxiety she was experiencing meant that she just could not remember. She believes that that led to the not guilty verdict.
After waiting a torturous two years for justice, Sophie was retraumatised and her attacker walked free. Although I agree with the four overarching principles, I do not agree that they are a step in the right direction for victims. We must make sure that the Bill is fit for purpose and that agencies have a duty on them. That is why the amendments and changing “should” to “must” are essential.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for the amendments and the opportunity to debate them, and for her articulating her rationale for them so clearly. I hope you will allow me to address all four together, Sir Edward, as they each seek to ensure that the victims code is required to make provision for services for victims that reflect the overarching code of principles in the Bill—as the hon. Lady has said, replacing “should” with “must”.
I want to explain the reasons behind the approach we have taken. The principles provide a legislative framework for the code, which ensures that the code captures the core issues that we know victims are most concerned about—the right information, the right support, the opportunity to have their views heard and the ability to challenge decisions that affect them.
I reassure the Committee that the detailed entitlements for victims are set out in the victims code. As it is a statutory code of practice, there is already a clear expectation that agencies will deliver the entitlements that it sets out, and agencies are required to justify any departure from it if challenged by victims or the courts. The hon. Lady gave the example of particular cases. There will be many others. Without straying into decisions made by judges in those cases, she illustrated through that example why the principles matter.
Jess Phillips
Does the Minister agree that if this was written into primary legislation and it did not happen, a victim who sought to challenge that would have a case in law to do so, and would not otherwise?
Edward Argar
I will turn to non-compliance and why we believe that the approach that we have set out in the clause is the right one. I suspect that Opposition Members may take a different view, but after making a little progress, I will hopefully address some of their points—whether or not to their satisfaction.
Maria Eagle
Will the Minister give way again, before he goes on? I am not seeking to try his patience.
Maria Eagle
Dame Vera Baird, the former Victims’ Commissioner, said in evidence:
“There is a statistic—from 2020, I think—that 70% of people who have been through the criminal justice system as victims have never heard of the victims code. We used Office for National Statistics data in 2021 and showed that 80% of victims who had gone through the entire criminal justice system had never heard of the victims code. The first code was in 2006, so it has been completely ignored for 18 years.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 29, Q66.]
How will the Minister’s wording tackle that better than beefing up the language in the Bill would?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, but there is a slight difference between her two points. That survey refers to the number of victims who were not aware of the code; that does not necessarily mean that their rights were not available to them, or even that they were not given to them. They may not have seen it through the prism of the victims code, but they may have been kept informed. She is right to highlight that under Governments of all political complexions there is more to do in driving this, but the key point that that evidence points to is the importance of raising awareness of the code, ensuring that people know it exists and understand what it can do for them. As we progress through the other clauses, I suspect that we will touch on how we can do more on that. Raising awareness of the code’s existence and what is in it is the crucial first step to empowering people to request, push for and demand their rights under it.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
In terms of raising awareness, does my right hon. Friend agree that the language used in any explanatory materials needs to be crystal clear, and tested for comprehension by people of all levels of ability and understanding? We know that many people in prison who come up against the criminal justice system from that side have very low reading ages. It is really important, because some offenders are also the victims of crime, that what we put into legislation with every good intention is clearly understood.
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is one of the reasons, but not the only reason—I suspect we may touch on this when we come to amendment 49—why our approach is to place a greater reliance on the victims code, because the nature of legislation is that there is often a requirement for it to be phrased in a certain way with particular language for good legal and drafting reasons. With a statutory code such as the victims code, there is greater flexibility to ensure that it can do what it aims to do, which is to make it accessible. As I said, I suspect we may touch on this when we discuss amendment 49 from the hon. Member for Rotherham.
On addressing non-compliance, the Bill places a new duty on criminal justice bodies to collect and share code compliance information with police and crime commissioners, who in turn are under a new duty to share information with the Secretary of State. We also intend for information to be shared within national oversight structures, and there is a duty on the Secretary of State to publish information, which will allow the public to assess, through greater transparency, the compliance of public bodies with the code. Where issues are identified by police and crime commissioners or others, operational agencies can take action to address them and enforce standards. Should local solutions fail, senior figures in the criminal justice system will provide national oversight to drive improvements at a system level. Ministers already have powers to intervene where systemic failures occur, such as the ability to direct inspections or direct measures to remedy failures.
When things go wrong, victims can make a complaint. The Bill will simplify the process for victims of crime to escalate complaints. It does that by removing the need to raise a compliant through an MP before it can be made to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Instead, it allows victims to make a complaint directly or through a nominated representative. I know that Members of this House are always diligent in considering PHSO requests and forms from members of the public and their constituents—we look at them, we review them and we sign and submit them where appropriate—but we believe that this simplifies the process in these circumstances and provides for direct access. The PHSO will investigate complaints and can recommend that an organisation issues an apology, provides a financial remedy or takes action to resolve the complaint to prevent the same thing from happening again. Crucially, it can follow up on whether action has been taken and report to Parliament where an organisation has failed, not only providing a remedy for individuals but being a driving force for improvements for victims.
In summary, our view is that the Bill provides an appropriate legal framework for the victims code that sends a clear message on the principles that are important for victims, alongside new monitoring and oversight measures to drive up compliance with the code. I hope that the shadow Minister will not press her amendments to a Division, but I will wait and see.
Anna McMorrin
I thank the Minister for his response. As I predicted in my outline—I must admit, I am not psychic, but I do read the Minister’s responses to the Justice Committee and in pre-legislative scrutiny—I am disappointed that the view has not changed, because when speaking to agencies and victims, that is what they all tell me is needed to provide the support that victims so desperately need. I outlined that in the emotive response from Sophie, who spoke to me about her awful experience, but we know that that is just one experience. These experiences happen time and again across the country, and I am sure that because all of us here have an interest in victims and the justice system, we will all have heard similar cases.
I am disappointed that the Minister has not understood that and is not seeking to change “should” to “must”. As we heard clearly in the evidence sessions, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood mentioned in regard to the former Victims’ Commissioner, who talked about the need for this to be outlined, criminal justice agencies do not know that the code even exists. Changing “should” to “must” would be a vital way of ensuring that this is on the face of the Bill. Victims deserve some sort of accountability from these agencies, and the weakening of their rights through using only the word “should” will not make a difference on the ground. I hope that we are trying to work together today to make that difference for victims on the ground. The victims code has been in place since 2006, but as has been outlined today and in statements from our witnesses, it is not being used. It is therefore not making a tangible difference to victims’ experiences and the criminal justice agencies are not using it to its full potential.
I will not press the amendment to a vote now, but may bring it back at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert
“in a language or format that they can understand;”.
As the Minister predicted, this amendment dovetails nicely into his remarks. The prominence of right to understand and be understood in the code is genuinely welcome and has the potential to significantly improve the experiences of victims who speak English as a second or additional language—EAL. However, for these basic rights to be upheld and to make meaningful change, they must be enforceable. It is therefore vital that they are enshrined in more detail in primary legislation. In particular, the entitlements underpinning the right to understand and be understood must be enshrined more directly in the Bill.
Failing to address and respond to communication barriers could risk the police having incomplete information and evidence from victims due to a lack of support to ensure that they are understood. SignHealth has highlighted a case where a deaf victim did not want their family to be involved and requested to make her disclosure outside of the home. Instead of having the conversation at the station, the officer took a statement from a British Sign Language user in their car, using a pen, paper and gestures. She was left vulnerable and unable to fluently express herself. When she attended a meeting with the police, no support or interpretation services were provided. She was handed a “no further action” letter that provided no rationale. She had no understanding of what the letter meant and had to struggle to use Google Translate to understand the decision. Such examples highlight how failing to respond to communication barriers can also result in cases not being adequately investigated, and subsequently closed.
It is deeply concerning that statutory bodies are enabling perpetrators to exploit these vulnerabilities and to keep controlling victims while remaining unpunished themselves. Amendment 49 is essential to ensure that all victims can access information in a language or format they can understand. It is crucial that this is explicitly on the face of the Bill, because if a victim cannot understand the information provided, their rights have not been met.
Currently, spoken language is not recorded systematically within the criminal justice system. There is no accurate data available on the number of victims who speak EAL. There is also evidence that criminal justice practitioners often make do with alternative forms of support, such as the use of Google Translate, which victims report to be much less helpful than professional language support. The absence of interpretation provision has been linked to a number of adverse outcomes, ranging from inaccurate statements being taken to a negative effect on victims’ wellbeing and trust in the police. This is not acting in the best interests of the victim and does not enable us to achieve justice, so I hope the Minister will focus on these issues.
Maria Eagle
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham for tabling the amendment. It is very easy to forget about disabled people in our public services, and there is an obligation under the Equality Act 2010 to provide access to public services in a way that works for disabled people, which can often involve proper translations or formats. Given that disabled people are disproportionately victims of crime, it is particularly incumbent on us, when considering the victims code, to make sure that it is accessible to those who are likely to benefit from it or who could benefit from it. The more vulnerable a victim is, the more likely they are to benefit from proper access to the rights in the code and the support it provides. It would be an omission if we did not make it clear.
Sarah Champion
There is also a common misunderstanding that deaf people will be able to understand information in written form, but English is not their first language—British Sign Language is—and we have now rightly recognised it as a language in its own right. They are being asked to read something in a second language that they may or may not be competent in.
Maria Eagle
Absolutely: prelingually deaf people in particular do not have English as a first language. British Sign Language is their first language and we cannot just assume that they will be able to read written English in the same way in which they could understand proper sign language interpretation. That is a misunderstanding and a lack of awareness on the part of those who provide services. If we do not make it clear that access has to be provided, with reasonable adjustments to ensure that deaf people can understand what is being said and can exercise their rights, we will not be doing a proper job.
It is all too easy to think about this as an added extra—that it would be good if we had enough money in the budget to translate the victims code into different languages—but translating the code is an essential part of ensuring that it is implemented and usable by many victims. If we do not do this, we will not have the success that we all hope for from putting the principles underlying the code into legislation. We can have as much flexibility as we like by not putting the draft code into primary legislation, but we need to make sure it is accessible to those who need it. The amendment is important. It is not a nice added extra: it is an essential part of ensuring proper awareness and that the victims code is usable and benefits those who need it to access their rights and to be able to deal with the criminal justice system as victims.
Edward Argar
Amendment 49 would amend the first principle of the victims code, which says that victims should be provided with information to help them to understand the criminal justice process, to state that the code should be provided in a format or language required for a victim to understand.
The victims code includes an entitlement—indeed, it is the very first entitlement—for victims to be able to understand and to be understood. The right states:
“You have the Right to be given information in a way that is easy to understand and to be provided with help to be understood, including, where necessary, access to interpretation and translation services.”
Not only is it implicit in that that the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood and the hon. Member for Rotherham are addressed, but in the revised draft of the victims code that we have published, footnote 28 on page 15, which sets out right 1 in more detail, explicitly says that the right
“includes both spoken and non-spoken interpreting, for example if a victim is deaf or hard of hearing.”
It is there in the code not only implicitly, but explicitly, particularly in respect of the circumstances alluded to by the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood.
We appreciate that the criminal justice process is complex and on occasion can appear impenetrable. The code is absolutely clear in right 1, which is “To be able to understand and to be understood”—
Edward Argar
I will finish my sentence, then of course I will. The code is absolutely clear in right 1 that all providers are expected to consider any relevant personal characteristics that may affect a victim’s ability to understand and be understood, and to communicate with victims in simple and accessible language—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury in his intervention —to help them to understand what is happening.
Sarah Champion
I began my speech on the amendment by welcoming the new changes, but the fact of having it enforceable is the nub of the amendment. Is the Minister able to speak about that? I have the right to be treated with respect in this place, but it does not always happen.
Edward Argar
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point. I will just round off my point, then address her point specifically. Right 1 of the code is clear that victims who, for example, have difficulty understanding or speaking English—the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood alluded to the fact that some people’s first language will be not English but British Sign Language, so they would be encompassed in the wording—are entitled to use an interpreter when being interviewed by the police or giving evidence as a witness, and so on. It also sets out the circumstances in which victims are able to receive translations of documents or information and makes it clear that all translation or interpretation services must be offered to the victim free of charge. The approach we have adopted throughout, and continue to support, is that we set out in the Bill the overarching principles that are important to victims and underpin the victims code, but the operational detail of how they are delivered sits in the code itself.
To address the hon. Member for Rotherham’s point, it is of course a statutory code, and we are strengthening that in the way we are approaching it in this legislation, but I appreciate her point. When she reviews the code, if she has suggestions about how right 1 on page 15 might be made more explicit—it is there, but she might argue that the footnote 28 at the bottom of page 15 could be made rather more prominent—I am happy to reflect on them and, equally and more broadly, any suggestions that she or other right hon. and hon. Members have on how the code might be made more accessible, including in its language, which goes to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury’s point in the debate on a previous group of amendments.
We are clear that given that the focus in the code is on the need to provide information in a way that is understood by those who need it, the amendment is unnecessary. We believe that the code is the right place for the right to be articulated, and on that basis I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham will consider not pressing the amendment to a Division.
Sarah Champion
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
I have agreed to a further request to vary my grouping for debate. We will now debate amendment 45 separately, and then amendments 48 and 50, along with new clause 7.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert
“and with all state agencies with responsibilities under the victims’ code, including HMCTS and the NHS when considering leave or discharge;”.
Amendment 45 follows on from my amendment 44, which was about access to information for victims of mentally disordered offenders. Amendment 45 focuses more on release decisions. Victims need information beyond the arrest, prosecution and conviction of the offender: they also have a right to receive information about the offender’s leave and discharge. In all other situations that right is a given, but we need to ensure that it also works in practice for victims of mentally disordered offenders.
Mentally disordered offenders who have committed serious crimes are typically granted leave or discharged by mental health tribunals, also known as first tier tribunals. Hundred Families, with which I worked on the amendment, says that there is no evidence of mental health tribunals taking victims’ rights seriously—a bold statement. Victims are not considered to be interested parties when the release of dangerous offenders is being considered. Mentally disordered offenders who have committed very serious crimes can apply for leave or discharge within six months of conviction and every year thereafter. Victims of such mentally ill offenders are granted only very limited rights to comment in the tribunal hearings, particularly in comparison with when parole boards consider the discharge of offenders who have committed serious violence.
At the parole board, victims can make a personal statement, attend the hearing, receive copies of any decisions and appeal the decision. At mental health tribunals, victims cannot make any personal statements. They are not allowed to attend the hearing, do not receive decisions and have no means of challenging any decision, because they are made in secret and not publicly disclosed. I draw the Minister’s attention to his remarks about my amendment 44: what I have said brings them into dispute. I am interested to hear his thoughts about that.
Other jurisdictions—notably Scotland, but also Queensland, Australia—allow victims’ participation at mental health tribunals without any known problems. Amendment 45 simply aims to bring these victims’ rights in line with those of any victims participating in the parole process.
Edward Argar
As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her speech setting out the rationale for amendment 45. She seeks to give victims the opportunity to make their voices heard during particular types of proceedings. The amendment seeks explicitly to include the NHS and HMCTS within the victims code principle that victims should have the opportunity to have their views heard in the criminal justice process. It seeks to cover cases in which the full or temporary release of offenders detained outside the prison system under the Mental Health Act 2007 is being considered.
Eligible victims are able to provide their views on release conditions for offenders, but they are not able to explain to the decision makers in the mental health tribunal the impact that the crime had on them. We agree with the hon. Lady: we do not think that is right. Victims are able to give such explanations in the courts and the parole systems through a victim personal statement, and we believe that that should be the case regardless of where the offender is detained. That is why the Government have committed to making provision in the new victims code for victim personal statements to be submitted to mental health tribunals considering the release of an offender.
That commitment is reflected in the draft code that we have published. Right 7, the right to make a victim personal statement, includes draft text to show how that would apply to victims eligible for the victim contact scheme. We are working through the details with our partners, including the judiciary, to consider how we can appropriately achieve our aim in a way that recognises the particular sensitivities relating to the offender’s health records and conditions in these settings.
We have committed to consult on an updated victims code after the passage of the Bill. As always, I am open to working with the hon. Lady on ensuring that the new provisions relating to mental health tribunals meet the needs of victims. We will keep her updated on the work we are doing. For reasons of flexibility, it is right to keep the detail of who will deliver the provision, and how, in the code itself rather than in the Bill, but I hope that I have reassured the hon. Lady that we share her view and that we are working to deliver on that, both through the code and with the judiciary.
Sarah Champion
Indeed, and I thank the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 48, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert “, including on parole decisions;”.
This amendment seeks to clarify that the principle that victims should have the opportunity to make their views heard in the criminal justice process includes parole decisions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 50, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert
“and should be provided with appropriate support to communicate these views;”.
New clause 7—Parole Board: victim engagement—
“(1) It is the duty of the Parole Board to monitor and report on how they support victims to make their views heard in the criminal justice process.
(2) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Parole Board must report to the Secretary of State on their effectiveness in—
(a) engaging victims at all stages of the criminal justice process, including informing them of outcomes, and
(b) informing victims of their right to make a Victim Personal Statement.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of any reports received under this section before Parliament within 15 days of receiving them.”
This new clause would require the Parole Board to monitor and report how they support victims to make their views heard in the criminal justice process.
Sarah Champion
I tabled the amendments and new clause because I have had to deal in a short period of time with two constituency cases of pretty horrendous child sexual exploitation in which victims of extremely serious crimes were not notified when an offender was considered for transfer to open conditions until after a decision had been made and, in one case, after the decision had been implemented, which goes completely against the existing practice that is detailed in the code and should be enforced across all our justice systems. That happened despite the statutory duty on His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to notify victims. Neither constituent had the opportunity to express a view on the transfer, to outline their concerns or to contribute in respect of the conditions of the release. Instead, in a bolt out of a blue, they were told, seemingly by accident, that their offender was out on the streets. It is hard to imagine the shock and terror that caused them.
When I raised the cases with the then Secretary of State for Justice, I was told that both incidents were the result of human error. The two incidents were markedly similar and affected people in a relatively small geographical area in an extremely short period of time, so I find it very hard to believe that they were isolated and not, instead, a system failure. It is difficult to understand how such errors can be made if well-understood processes are in place, as we are expected to believe, and those processes are underpinned by statute. The changes in the amendments and new clause would strengthen the statutory underpinning, hopefully to thereby avoid similar incidents happening in future and ensure that such devastating mistakes could not happen again.
Amendment 48 would add “including on parole decisions” to clause 2(3)(c), which says that victims
“should have the opportunity to make their views heard in the criminal justice process”.
That should already be happening but sadly is not, and victims are being left vulnerable, uninformed and without their rights being met.
New clause 7 would place a core responsibility on the Parole Board, as the statutory body, to ensure that the right of victims to make their views heard is fulfilled, by monitoring and reporting on how it supports victims to ensure that their views are heard.
Amendment 50 would, similarly to amendment 49, ensure that victims have the opportunity to make their views heard in the criminal justice process and that they should be provided with the appropriate support to communicate their views. The amendment is supported by, among others, the Bell Foundation, to which I am grateful for its support. The amendment is vital for the victims the foundation works with to ensure that they can be involved in parole decisions.
As I stated in my remarks about amendment 49, Google Translate is used too frequently and is not an effective tool for ensuring that victims can understand and be understood. An example from Rape Crisis refers to a victim of domestic abuse and sexual violence whose first language is not English. When she attended a meeting with the police, no support or interpreting service was provided. She was handed a “no further action” letter that provided no rationale and gave no understanding of what it was. She had to struggle to use Google Translate to understand the decisions that had been made. How is she supposed to communicate her views about a parole decision if she is unable even to understand the process?
All victims deserve the right to be involved in parole decisions, but we must first ensure that they can be understood when they give their views and that they also understand the process.
Edward Argar
Before I turn to amendment 48, let me address amendment 50, which would add to the victims code the principle that victims should be provided with appropriate support to make their views heard in the criminal justice process. It is right that victims are able to make their views heard, and I agree that they may need support to help to navigate the process effectively. That is why there is already support in place for them to do so, including support provided by organisations and services, such as independent sexual violence and independent domestic violence advisers, and other victim support services that can help explain and help victims navigate the justice system. A victim personal statement is key to the victim being heard in the criminal justice process. That allows victims to explain in their own words how a crime has affected them.
Under code right 7, “To make a Victim Personal Statement”, the police are expected to provide victims with information about the victim personal statement process, so they can decide whether to make one. The College of Policing provides guidance for the police on what victims need to know about the process of making a victim personal statement. To help victims, the Ministry of Justice has published guidance called, “Making a Victim Personal Statement”, which explains what it is, how it works and what the victim needs to do.
Support at court if the victim is due to read out their victim personal statement may include special measures, such as the use of a screen or live link, and support from the witness service can include accompanying the victim when they give evidence or read their victim personal statement. If giving a victim personal statement during the parole process, victims who are part of the victim contact scheme will have a victim liaison officer, who can help them write their statement and let them know how it will be used during a parole hearing. I hope that I have gone some way to satisfy the hon. Lady that support is already in place.
Sarah Champion
I will be quick because I know we have a vote coming. I agree that the instruments are in place, but the problem is that it relies on humans to actually let the victim know or the Parole Board to let the victim support know, and that is where it is breaking down.
Edward Argar
I hope I might address that to some extent as I turn now to amendment 48 and new clause 7, which relate to the role of victims in the parole system. Amendment 48 would add parole decisions to the principle in the victims’ code that victims’ views should be heard in the criminal justice process, and new clause 7 would place a duty on the Parole Board to monitor how it supports and enables victims to give their views to the Parole Board. It would be required to report that to the Secretary of State, who in turn would be required to publish it. It is vital that victims are informed of the parole process and are given every opportunity to engage with it so their voices are heard. The parole process can be distressing for victims, so it is crucial that they understand how the system works and receive support to effectively engage in the process.
We have made improvements to the way victims can receive information and participate in parole proceedings, including the introduction of decision summaries and public hearings. Parole hearings are part of the criminal justice process, which extends beyond the trial. That means the principle that victims should have the opportunity to make their views heard in the criminal justice process already includes relevant parole decisions, so the amendment is not necessary.
Right 11 in the victims code already sets out victims’ entitlements to submit a victim personal statement as part of the parole process. Where the victim chooses to make a victim personal statement, the Parole Board Rules 2019 require that it is included in the dossier of written evidence submitted to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State. Right 11 of the code then requires the Parole Board to read the victim personal statement, if one has been made. We have committed to developing a process to allow victims the opportunity to make written submissions to the Parole Board in addition to their victim personal statement. Information in the submissions could include their views on the offender’s potential release and questions to the Parole Board. Provision for victim submissions will be included in the new victims’ code.
It is vital that victims are supported during the process, that there is oversight to ensure they are being given the opportunity to have their voices heard and that they feel supported to do so. However, the proposed new clause seeks to put duties on the Parole Board in relation to support for victims. The reality is that the Parole Board does not liaise directly with victims. In practice, the responsibility for supporting victims through the parole process lies with probation service victim liaison officers, who sit within His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. They are specially trained to work with and support victims through the parole system, including ensuring that they can submit a victim personal statement and be informed of the outcome of the review.
Under the current code, victims are entitled to be given information about the offender following a conviction and to be told about how to make a victim personal statement. That is delivered through the referral of eligible victims to the victim contact service, and they are then assigned a victim liaison officer. That means that compliance with those entitlements can be monitored and reported on via clauses 6 and 7. The clauses place a duty on HMPPS to collect and share information on the delivery of victims code entitlements and to jointly review this with police and crime commissioners, and on police and crime commissioners to report to the Secretary of State, who will publish relevant information.
On the basis that we can monitor this important information by different means, and that an updated victims code will include the information regarding representations to the Parole Board, I encourage the hon. Lady not to press her amendment to a Division at this time.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for what he says, but it does not given me the reassurances that I want, because things are not working in practice. I will not press my amendment to a vote now, but I am minded that the new clauses will come at the end of our consideration. I may well press the matter then if he is unable to give those reassurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(e) should be able to access and, where appropriate, be referred to restorative justice services;
(f) should be able to access and, where appropriate, be referred to services and support that are tailored to their individual needs.”
I am grateful to have been called to speak, Sir Edward, but I appreciate that my speech may not last for long before we are called somewhere else. My amendment relates to the inclusion of restorative justice in the victims code set out in clause 2. That was a recommendation that the Justice Committee made in its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, but I have tabled the amendment as a Back-Bench MP and as chair of the all-party group on restorative justice.
To give a little background and context, I was inspired to do so because of a heartbreaking and harrowing story. I know that the Minister has heard it before, but I will repeat it for the benefit of the Committee. A lovely couple living in the London Borough of Sutton, Ray and Vi Donovan, suffered the most unimaginable tragedy when their son Christopher was murdered. [Interruption.]
Elliot Colburn
I will resume by telling the story of Ray and Vi Donovan, a couple who live in the London Borough of Sutton. They went through the tragedy of losing their son, who was murdered several years ago.
A long time ago, Ray and Vi recited to me their experience of going through the criminal justice system. The police found the three boys who were responsible—they went to trial, were convicted and put behind bars. But Ray and Vi said that they never felt that they—as victims of the crime, and having lost their son in such tragic and gruesome circumstances—had had a voice at the trial. They did not have the opportunity to share their side of the story or explain how it had impacted them; it was all to do with the perpetrators.
Ray and Vi acknowledge that some time has passed since the trial; however, they have made it their life’s goal to set up a restorative justice charity in Christopher’s name and to work with wider restorative justice providers around the country to promote its use, where appropriate, and to improve access to it. That is the premise of the amendment. Studies show that only about 5% of victims are aware of restorative justice; it is often buried in a large pack or binder that victims of crime get handed.
I want to be clear about what I mean by restorative justice, because it often gets confused with the American version. The UK does it very differently. Restorative justice has no impact on sentencing, parole or anything like that; in the criminal justice space, restorative justice is the opportunity for a victim of crime, in appropriate circumstances, to meet the perpetrator. That allows them to ask questions. The most obvious question that victims of crime have is, “Why did this happen to me?” Restorative justice is designed to answer the important questions that victims often have, to which the court is often unable to provide answers.
Restorative justice is not meant to make a sentence more lenient, or to be something that a victim or perpetrator is forced to go through. Obviously, there will be circumstances where that would not be appropriate. Not every victim will feel like they want to take part, and it would not be appropriate for every victim. For example, in some cases a child would not be appropriate for restorative justice. Equally, there will be perpetrators who will not engage constructively—use the opportunity only to further traumatise their victim. The amendment is meant not to mandate the use or promotion of restorative justice, but simply to make it a right in the victims code that a victim of crime be made aware of the potential for restorative justice, and allowed to access it where necessary, after taking into consideration all the required safeguarding provisions.
I hope that the Minister will say a little more about the work that his Department wants to do in the restorative justice space. I appreciate that he may not want to accept the amendment today; however, I would be grateful for some reassurance that the Bill will enable and empower victims who want to go through the process. I stress that RJ must always be victim led. It always has to come from the victim. I would welcome some reassurances from him on how the Bill could achieve that.
Rob Butler
My hon. Friend makes some important points about restorative justice. I have seen it work very effectively both in the courts and in the prison and youth justice systems. Does he agree that there are already some very successful examples of restorative justice, particularly in our prison, probation and youth offending services, and that quite a lot of work is already being done—including for children, who he said he would probably rule out of scope? In fact, restorative justice can be very effective for under-18s.
Elliot Colburn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would certainly not agree with a blanket ban for children, but I appreciate that additional safeguarding concerns would need to be considered for young victims. I agree with him; I have seen this myself. I have been invited to witness such sessions happening in prisons, and some amazing work is going on. The results cannot be understated. Something like 80% to 90% of offenders will not go on to reoffend if they go through restorative justice, according to studies. I cannot remember the name of the university that conducted them, but I am happy to clarify it to the Minister later.
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for making such a great speech in favour of restorative justice; I am with him on that point. Restorative justice is effective in prisons, courts and education, but would he agree that if it is to have the necessary impact in prisons, it needs to be fully resourced?
Elliot Colburn
The APPG that I chair produced a report into the state of restorative justice in the UK, and looking at resourcing RJ was one of our nine recommendations. I ask the Minister to take a look at those recommendations again to see how we can better allow victims to access RJ when they feel that they want to and when it is appropriate.
I do not deny that excellent work is being done. I commend the practitioners and prisons engaging with the issue, but far too often I hear from victims who want to go through this process that they find it a struggle—or else victims have no idea that restorative justice exists. That is why enshrining it as a right in the victims code would help to raise awareness and ensure that victims can access it if they want to. I will bring my remarks to a close, but would be grateful to hear any reassuring remarks from the Minister.
Edward Argar
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he and the all-party parliamentary group that he chairs do on this important issue. I am grateful to him for giving us an opportunity to debate restorative justice. He and I have spoken about it in the past; as I have highlighted, we are committed to the effective use of restorative justice in appropriate cases.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting Ray and Vi Donovan’s case and situation as an example of how restorative justice can work well. I know that when it is delivered in the right circumstances it can result in improved victim satisfaction and reduced reoffending, bringing benefits to victims, offenders and their communities.
We support local agencies providing restorative justice in the devolved model that came in a few years ago. We looked to police and crime commissioners to fund services locally, as they are best placed to assess local need. We are encouraging greater co-commissioning between police and crime commissioners and regional probation directors.
The second code principle in the Bill is already clear that victims
“should be able to access services which support them (including, where appropriate, specialist services)”.
That covers all types of support services. We would consider it to include restorative justice services where appropriate.
The code also goes further. Right 4—to be provided with information when reporting a crime—is clear that victims are entitled to information from the police about restorative justice and how to access such services in their local area, and that all service providers will consider whether victims would benefit from this information at any stage of the criminal justice process. We are also using the Bill to create a duty for agencies to raise awareness of the code, including information about restorative justice, so that victims know what services they can, and should, receive.
I hope my hon. Friend will not press his amendment; he said that it is essentially a probing amendment. Specifying different types of support services in primary legislation might, we fear, inadvertently narrow the current broad coverage, but he raises some very important points.
First, we must be cautious of a general entitlement to access to restorative justice. That would not always be appropriate because offenders must voluntarily agree to participate, as my hon. Friend highlighted. To give him some hopefully positive news, I am open to considering alternative approaches that the Government can assist with to promote the effective use of restorative justice in appropriate cases. I read his report carefully and, as luck would have it, I have written to him—I think I signed it today—responding over four pages to his nine recommendations. In that letter to him, I offered to meet with him outwith this Committee to engage on these issues and see what more we can do to work together. Given that, I hope my hon. Friend will not press his amendment to a vote. I look forward to exploring the issue with him in more detail in that meeting, should he wish to take me up on it.
Elliot Colburn
I am grateful to the Minister. That is incredibly reassuring and I look forward to reading his response when it lands. On the basis of those reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 38, in clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
‘(e) should be able to access appropriate compensation.’
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 39, in clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
‘(3A) In accordance with subsection (3)(e), the victims’ code must include provision requiring that—
(a) all victims of child sexual abuse, including online-based abuse, are entitled to compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme,
(b) victims with unspent convictions, whose offences are linked to the circumstances of their sexual abuse as a child, are entitled to compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, and
(c) victims of child sexual abuse may apply for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme within a 7 year period of whichever of these two dates is the later—
(i) the date the offence was reported to the police, or
(ii) if the offence was reported whilst the victim was a child, the date the victim turned 18.’
This amendment would provide that all victims of child sexual abuse (CSA), including online, are entitled to compensation under the CICS and that those with unspent convictions directly linked to the circumstances of their abuse can access compensation. It would also extend the period by which victims can apply.
Amendment 55, in clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
‘(3A) In accordance with section 1(2)(b), the victims’ code must include provision requiring that all children born of rape are entitled to compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.’
Sarah Champion
I will speak to amendments 38 and 39, which are linked to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Victims of violent crime in England and Wales may be awarded compensation under the publicly funded criminal injuries compensation scheme. I have campaigned extensively to reform that scheme and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority that administers it.
When I started supporting victims of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham, it soon became apparent that CICA was simply not fit for purpose. An agency that should have existed to support victims seemed instead to believe that its duty was to find any excuse possible not to make an award. Several constituents were affected by that. Indeed, many had claims rejected on one of the three grounds: first, that they were out of time; secondly, that they themselves had unspent criminal convictions; or, appallingly, thirdly, that they had somehow consented to their own abuse. That last reason was recognised to be deeply wrong and legally contradictory. I am pleased to say that it has now been removed, although not before it caused much harm.
The other two grounds remain in force and are particularly problematic for victims of child sexual exploitation, many of whom may take years to disclose their abuse. The trauma of doing so may further delay launching a claim. Furthermore, a well recognised and understood part of the grooming process is that abusers may involve victims in other criminal activities as a further form of coercive control, which is also seen as blackmail and, indeed, an insurance policy. It goes without saying that we should not be holding symptoms of abuse against victims when determining whether their suffering merits compensation.
Amendments 38 and 39 will ensure that all CSA victims, including online, are entitled to compensation under the CICS and that those with unspent convictions linked to the circumstances of their abuse can access support. The period by which victims can apply for compensation is also extended.
There is broader support for change in the scheme. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse—IICSA —published its interim report in April 2018. That report, along with the “Accountability and Reparations Investigation Report” published in 2019, made several recommendations to improve access to the scheme for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. Despite that, concerns about the scheme remain, in that its continued focus on crimes of violence fails to consider that child sexual abuse and particularly online sexual abuse may occur without physical contact.
Under the 2012 scheme, no award is made to applicants who have unspent convictions for offences that resulted in certain sentences or orders. That fails to recognise the impact of child sexual abuse and specifically that abuse may have directly contributed to instances of offending; there is often, for example, a close link between sexual exploitation, grooming and criminal behaviour. There is also a two-year time limit for making a claim. Even though that may be extended where there are exceptional circumstances, such a period is inadequate for victims and survivors of child sexual abuse, who often do not report their abuse until adulthood.
Victim Support strongly believes that the unspent conviction rule unfairly penalises some victims of violent crime, in particular the most vulnerable, such as the victims of child sexual abuse. It says that victims of child sexual abuse, sexual exploitation and grooming are often targeted by their abusers, in part because they are vulnerable, lack adequate support and supervision and may be perceived by offenders as easy to manipulate on those grounds. Such victims are often from challenging backgrounds and therefore, for various reasons, may be more likely to have criminal convictions prior to the abuse taking place. That should not be held against them.
Further, the fact of being abused in itself makes it more likely that a person will themselves go on to commit an offence, either as part of the abuse and under the coercion of the abuser, or in reaction to the abuse. It is now widely recognised that victims of crime have an increased likelihood of committing an offence. The relationship is particularly acute where the individual has suffered sexual abuse. Ministry of Justice data reveals that almost a third—30%—of prisoners experienced emotional, physical or sexual abuse as a child.
The 2008 criminal injuries compensation scheme, which the current scheme replaced in 2012, also set out that an award for compensation would be withheld or reduced to reflect unspent convictions, but it allowed for claims officers to use their discretion if they considered that there were exceptional reasons. That claims officers could use their discretion to decide on levels of reduction was also set out in the accompanying guidance for the scheme, which makes it clear that claims should not be rejected where the convictions are related to their child sexual abuse.
The Government should reinstate the ability of claims officers to use their discretion in this area and remove completely the blanket ban on making any payments to the victims, which is set out in paragraph 3 of annex D to the guidance on the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Victim Support would also support changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme time limits rule. Currently, claims made outside of the two-year limit can be considered by CICA in exceptional circumstances, but that does not provide enough clarity or certainty for victims and is therefore not fit for purpose. The policy disproportionately affects victims of sexual abuse, who are concerned that their claim may affect their ability to receive justice and that the fact they have made a claim will be used against them in court.
It is welcome that, as part of the review into criminal injuries compensation, the Government undertook a review of the exceptional circumstances clause and found that 63% of cases submitted outside the time limit still received a reward. However, that still shows that over a third of claims submitted outside of the time limit were denied.
Additionally, the Government’s review does not consider the victims who did not submit a CICA claim because they believed they were too late to do so. The court backlogs also mean that victims concerned about applying to the CICS before the trial ends, who are already struggling to cope with the delays, will have the additional risk of being ineligible. I urge the Minister to listen to my constituents, victims, charities such as Victim Support, and the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and accept the changes.
Jess Phillips
I rise to speak to amendment 55, which I tabled to clarify that one of the groups that has now been included in the Bill—that is, children born of rape—will also be able to access the criminal injuries compensation scheme as victims of crime. Many brilliant people have been involved in the campaign to ensure that children born of rape are considered to be victims: Daisy, who has been involved with Daisy’s law; the Centre for Women’s Justice; and the very passionate campaigner and Rotherham sexual exploitation victim Sammy Woodhouse.
I want to read a letter that I received about this issue:
“Dear MP
I hope my email finds you well. I am the son of Sammy Woodhouse. I am aware you have publicly supported my mothers campaign, which I would like to thank you. I am writing you this letter with her help and support as I have never reached out to an MP before, I have done so as this is a campaign that is very close to me.
I wish to express how difficult it has been for me to learn that I was conceived by sexual violence and some of the challenges I have had to face. I want the government to take it seriously and to help others. Not only have I felt very alone but I have struggled with my Identity, my mother was raped by my ‘father’ and he is known as the UK’s most notorious rapist, this alone faced its challenges and left me confused. Emotionally I have closed off and shut down and at times I’ve wanted to scream from the rooftops.
Despite me never being identified publicly, we were known within our community so therefore I was subjected to death threats, followed and had my picture taken, called ‘rape baby’ and told I would also become a rapist. We had to move home and schools and even then people came to our home and posted our address online. I’ve been targeted and lied about on social media, and professionals encouraged me to have a relationship with my father rather than safeguard me. This was all done by the people in our local community even when my mother remained anonymous. I was 12 years old. There are many like me.”
Edward Argar
I turn first to amendment 38, which seeks to include victim compensation as an additional victims code principle, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for her explanation of it. I should put on the record at this point that I am aware of the hon. Lady’s tireless work to support victims of crime, particularly victims of child sexual exploitation. She and I have worked on this issue in my previous incarnation in this role and I know that during my interlude in the Department for Health and Social Care—and, very briefly, in the Cabinet Office and the Treasury—she has continued relentlessly to pursue this cause. Now that I am back in the Ministry of Justice, it is nice that we can pick up some of the issues that we were discussing back in 2018 and 2019.
I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment. It is quite right that, in appropriate circumstances, victims should receive compensation for the harm that they have suffered as a result of a criminal offence. She made one point that was particularly interesting. When I have previously talked to staff at the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, I have found that their preference is for less discretion and more prescription, from the perspective that it makes their job easier because that is black and white—that is the decision—rather than there being any potential grey area that causes uncertainty for claimants and applicants.
Responding to the hon. Lady’s key point, however, I will say that this issue is already reflected in the victims code. Right 5 for the victim is:
“ To be provided with information about compensation”.
That includes an entitlement for victims to be told about how to seek compensation, and is covered by the existing code principle in the Bill that victims should be provided with information to help them to understand the criminal justice process.
Compensation can come from several sources: court-ordered compensation; the taxpayer-funded criminal injuries compensation scheme; and civil compensation claims. The code provides for victims to be made aware of routes through which they might obtain compensation for the harm or loss that they have suffered, but the code is not in itself a mechanism for providing compensation and the eligibility of individuals for compensation is determined by the courts or other bodies, such as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, that operate independently of Government. For that reason, it is our view that the existing entitlement to information about compensation is the right one for the code.
I turn to amendment 39, which seeks to provide that victims of child sexual abuse are entitled to and can access compensation under the statutory criminal injuries compensation scheme by including it as a requirement in the victims code and changing the scope, time limits and unspent convictions eligibility rules of the scheme.
As I have already alluded to, I am aware of the hon. Lady’s long-standing interest and work in ensuring support for victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation. I recall that she raised concerns about time limits and other aspects of the scheme in a debate, which I think I answered, on the Government’s victims strategy in 2018. I welcome her contributions to the review of the scheme that we announced in that strategy. However, our view is that the victims code is not a mechanism through which changes to the scheme can be made. Changes such as those that the amendment seeks to bring about need to be made in accordance with the primary legislation under which the scheme is made and to follow the appropriate procedures for any changes. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995 requires that before a new or amended scheme can be made, a draft must be laid in Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
We are actively considering the issues that the hon. Lady raises in relation to the scheme itself, which of course reflect recommendations made by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. We have committed to consult on whether to change the scope and time limits of the scheme, and we hope to do so in the coming months. I caveat that by saying that, of course, the scheme must be financially sustainable; that will be one of the elements that we will need to consider.
As the hon. Lady will know, this will be the third consultation of our review, as we have already consulted on reforms to the scheme as a whole in 2020, which was the process that she worked with me to kick off when I was last in the Ministry of Justice, and then again in 2022 on whether to amend the unspent convictions eligibility rule, following—I believe—a court judgment requiring that review.
My intention is to publish a single response to all three consultations as soon as they are all completed and as soon as is practically possible. I am seeking, as the hon. Lady will see, to get through some of the unfinished business that I had in the Department when I left it and went to the Department of Health and Social Care. We have brought this proposal forward. There are a number of other issues that still remain in my in-tray that I recall from when I worked with her pre-pandemic.
For those reasons, I encourage the hon. Member for Rotherham not to press this amendment to a vote, having put on the record her clear views.
I turn to amendment 55, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, and seeks to provide that children born of rape are entitled to and can access compensation under the statutory criminal injuries compensation scheme by including it as a requirement in the victims code. As the hon. Lady has already alluded to, the Bill explicitly recognises, for the first time in legislation, people born of rape as victims in their own right. This will help them to access vital support services. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady and to other campaigners who have relentlessly pursued this cause and successfully campaigned for this change.
In relation to criminal injuries compensation, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley may know, the statutory scheme has eligibility criteria that are approved by Parliament. The core purpose of the scheme is to provide compensation to victims who suffer a serious physical or mental injury attributable to their being a direct victim of a crime of violence. The scheme defines a crime of violence and specifies when a person will be eligible for a compensation payment for injury directly resulting from that crime. Under the current scheme, the birth mother of a child born of rape would be entitled to apply for compensation as the direct victim of a sexual assault and a crime of sexual violence. An additional payment can be made where a pregnancy directly results from the sexual assault.
The scheme also provides for compensation to be available to a person who sustains injury while taking an exceptional and justified risk in the course of limiting or preventing a crime, or if they have been present at or witnessed an incident or its immediate aftermath in which a loved one sustains a criminal injury. Provisions in the Bill do not affect eligibility for the scheme and, as I have already said, the victims code is not a mechanism through which changes can be made. A change such as that which the amendment proposes would need to be made in accordance with the primary legislation under which the scheme is made.
I hope that I can give the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley a little bit of reassurance, as I did for the hon. Member for Rotherham. We are in the process of finalising the third and final part of the consultation. When we have done that, we will come forward to Parliament with our response, and of course that will have to be laid before Parliament as a new scheme. I hope that might give both hon. Members the opportunity to raise these issues in the correct way, when the scheme is being considered by the House.
Sarah Champion
I welcome all that the Minister is doing. If I can help or support him in any way, obviously I will. The victims code is a fantastic tool, but it is only useful if victims know about it. Unfortunately, therein lies the nub of most of our arguments. However, I have heard what he said, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
I am afraid that I am now leaving you for the rest of the Bill, because my fellow Chairmen are taking over. May I thank you for a very interesting and moving day? Thank you so much.
Victims and Prisoners Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 29th June 2023
(2 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 June 2023 - (29 Jun 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I should say that it is still very warm in the room, so people are welcome to take jackets, cardigans or whatever off—I do not want people collapsing on me.
Clause 2
The victims’ code
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The victims’ code must—
(a) require criminal justice bodies to take all reasonable steps to identify and record any change of name by a perpetrator, and
(b) require criminal justice bodies to inform a relevant victim when a perpetrator changes their name.
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A)—
‘perpetrator’ means a person whose conduct or alleged conduct results in another person being a victim as defined by section 1 of this Act;
‘relevant victim’ means a person who becomes a victim as a result of the perpetrator’s conduct.”
This amendment would require criminal justice bodies to monitor name changes of perpetrators and inform victims of any name changes.
The amendment is about sex offenders who are changing their names to avoid detection. As of yesterday, it had been signed by 24 MPs from five different parties, including a former Home Secretary. I hope hon. Members, and particularly the Minister, will take on board the severity of the consequences of this practice, which is happening daily across the country.
For nearly three years, I have been raising this serious safeguarding loophole. Registered sex offenders are changing their names without the knowledge of the police, and I will evidence that as I go on. Unless that loophole is closed, it will continue to make complete nonsense of the schemes on which the public rely to detect offenders: the sex offenders register, the child sex offender disclosure scheme, the domestic violence disclosure scheme and the Disclosure and Barring Service. Of course, a number of these schemes are named for victims and survivors. The domestic violence disclosure scheme is also known as Clare’s law—it enables someone to check whether their new partner has a history of domestic violence offences—and the child sex offender disclosure scheme is also known as Sarah’s law. All these schemes become redundant if the offender changes their name.
It is breaking the law for registered sex offenders to change their name. They are meant to notify the police within three days of doing so. That is very clear, but it relies on a registered sex offender—someone who, by their very nature, looks for vulnerabilities in systems that they can exploit—to do the right, honourable and legal thing and to tell the police that they have changed their name. I say to hon. Members that that is as likely to happen as—well, I don’t know, but something that is very, very unlikely to happen. And the evidence backs that up.
For those three years, I have been raising this issue with Ministers in both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. So far, as a consequence of that, there have been two reviews, but it has been decided that they should be internal. I understand the reasons for that—we do not want to give sex offenders a handbook on how to do these things—but nothing has been published about any changes that have happened as a consequence of those reviews, and we should all be deeply concerned about that. If the Minister can tell me today that changes have been put in place, and it is just that we have not been notified, I will be very comfortable with that and very reassured; I will say that the Minister is doing his job by ensuring that these things happen. So I look forward to his reply.
The issue is not just sex offenders changing their name; they are also meant to notify changes of address—changes of personal details. These are referred to as notification requirements. The issue currently is that, when they do not inform the police about changing their name, they literally disappear. I raised this loophole with my former district commander, and he did not even know about it. He said to me, “Sarah, how am I meant to catch someone who has breached their notification requirements, when I don’t know who they are?” That is a very good point. This is not “Luther”—or whatever other detective show it is that we watch—where there is this great, amazing database and all these CCTV images, and it is possible to track all these thousands of people. It just does not work like that. We rely on people doing the right thing, but unfortunately sex offenders rarely do.
In response to my written parliamentary questions, the Home Office confirmed that more than 16,000 offenders were charged with breach of their notification requirements between 2015 and 2020—in that five-year period, 16,000 were charged. But, again, we have to know who they are to be able to charge them, so the true scale will be much bigger. The Safeguarding Alliance freedom of information request to the Crown Prosecution Service found that over 11,500 registered sex offenders were prosecuted for failing to notify changes of information between 2019 and 2022. I need to say, for transparency, that the breach could have been for a change of name or other details—for example, a change of address—but it is still concerning that they are not notifying these things.
Although it is clear that offenders are changing their names and not disclosing their new name to the police, the exact scale remains impossible to capture. New data secured by the BBC a couple of months ago demonstrates the same ongoing pattern, allowing offenders to slip through the cracks. Over 700 registered sex offenders have gone missing in the last three years. It is highly likely that they breached their notification requirements without getting caught, making them an active risk to the public. I am sorry, but there is not the rehabilitation that we need for sex offenders, and they continue their pattern of behaviour. However, only 31 of the 45 police forces responded to the BBC FOIs, so the scale will be much bigger than we know.
Della Wright is an ambassador for the Safeguarding Alliance and a survivor of child sexual abuse. I have worked with Della and the Safeguarding Alliance throughout, on both this amendment and raising the risks, and I am incredibly grateful to them for all the help and support they have given. Della has bravely chosen to speak out and tell her story in support of so many other victims affected by this serious safeguarding loophole. I pay huge credit to her; her tenacious campaigning is what brought this issue to public attention and, initially, to me.
When Della was a child, a man came to live in her home, becoming one of her primary carers and repeatedly sexually abusing her. Years later, when Della reported the abuse, her abuser was already known to the police; he had committed many further sexual offences against many more children. During that time, Della was made aware that his name had changed. He changed his name at least five times, enabling him to relocate under the radar and to evade justice.
When Della’s case was finally brought to court, her abuser had once again changed his name—this was between being charged and appearing in court for the plea hearing. That is not uncommon, and it slows down the whole court process, because the court papers need to be issued in the new name. That places additional distress on the victim and makes a complete mockery of the court justice system. Just think how tightly packed the court system is; on the day, the court will have to pull the case and try to find another spot, which inevitably puts trauma on the victim. The victim will have been working for months with their independent domestic violence adviser or independent sexual violence adviser, friends and family to get them to a point where they can be a witness, and then, on the day, the case gets dropped because someone can change their name.
At this point, let me just pause and say that, by the time I finish this speech, any hon. Members here could have changed their name legally. It can be done online for free. There is an enrolled and an unenrolled deed poll. I think the enrolled is £45, and it then gets published. I completely understand why a victim of domestic violence or stalking might not want to go on that. There is also the unenrolled, where it costs on average about £10—but it can be done for free—to change a name.
Sadly, Della’s case is far from unique, and I imagine that a number of Members here will have had survivors in their constituency come to them. There are survivors who have discovered that their abusers have reoffended, but it is discovered that they are using a different name only once they have been caught. My amendment would require criminal justice agencies to actively monitor name changes by perpetrators, including before their trial, so that victims can remain informed. That could prevent a lot of trauma for victims, help to reduce the number of offenders going missing and help us to put in the associated safeguarding.
I thank the Clerks for their help in drafting this amendment. Up to this point, I have focused on the people who are already on the registered sex offenders list; they are a known risk to us. However, police forces around the country have alerted me to the common practice of offenders of changing their name at the point of, or just before, being charged. They do that to keep their birth name clean so that if they are charged or convicted under the new name, at the end of the process they can revert to their original name and have a clean record. I did not realise that that was a common thing. There is also the issue of people with dual nationality who do that. If they hand over their passport as a condition of pre-charge bail, they will still have their original passport in their original name. Such a practice is a real, live risk.
When someone is investigated before they are charged, we have pre-charge bail conditions. When someone is accused of such grievous offences, which they are likely to continue, I do not think it is in any way a violation of their human rights—or whatever the argument is that is going to be put—if one of those pre-charge bail conditions is that they cannot change their name. Obviously, if the investigation goes forward and the charges are dropped, those conditions would be dropped. Once that person is off the sex offenders register, that requirement would be dropped. Given the gravity of the offences that they are accused of and the likelihood of their perpetuating them, that is something we should take seriously to protect everyone.
I have spoken a lot about sex offenders, but the amendment could, at the Minister’s discretion, cover other offenders too. One notable example I am sure everybody is familiar with is Colin Pitchfork—a rapist and murderer who changed his name. I raise this example to show that, although we might be familiar with a case, we might not know about someone changing their name. When we look at local papers, it is quite common to see “aka” and that people are changing their names on a regular basis.
Families deserve to know if their relative’s murderer is living under a new name, because that at least guards against the trauma of relatives not knowing that that person has been released, for example. Sadly, in the cases I know, Facebook seems to be the most common way that people find out about this.
I think the reason that Ministers have not acted on this issue to date is not that they do not understand the risks—when I have raised it with them, they have all understood the risks—but because it goes into the “too difficult” drawer. I get that; this is messy, and there are likely to be some associated costs. So I have tried to find a solution for the Minister.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech on an incredibly serious matter, which other hon. Members have raised. She supported the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), and the matter was also raised on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), so I know that colleagues feel very strongly about it. The hon. Lady mentioned that it is put into the “too difficult” drawer”. May I urge the Minister through her to ensure that that is not the case? Although this issue might be difficult, that does not mean that we should not tackle it.
Sarah Champion
I very much hope that the Minister has heard that. This is an issue that, when we start looking for it, we start finding it. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) came to it after a constituency case, and we have been working together to try to find a solution. I am sure that all of us will have examples; we just do not necessarily know what is going on at the time.
Experian and RELX believe that their business model uses enough data to track offenders if the police ask them to, and the police are currently asking them to on other areas of concern. For example, if the offender created a new mobile phone account or started registering bills to a new name, Experian and RELX could then inform the police of that pattern of behaviour. There are solutions to this problem if we have the will to implement them. More than that, we already have a solution in place: the College of Policing’s guidance states that police can take pre-emptive action where an offender is likely to change their identity or leave the country—and I suggest to the Minister that almost every sex offender is likely to change their name if they think they can get away with it.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I really thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue, because she is highlighting things that I think many hon. Members are unaware of, as indeed are many organisations that work with vulnerable people and children. What she says is so serious that the Minister cannot fail to agree to take it on board.
Sarah Champion
I am a Back-Bench MP, yet I know just from my own digging that this is about tens of thousands of people. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: organisations that work with children and vulnerable people think that they are doing the right safeguarding things by getting a DBS check.
Sarah Champion
They are being deceived, and we are all being deceived. The confidence that a DBS check should give us is not there: it does not exist while this loophole exists.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a fantastic point. Does she agree that we should not restrict this to driving licences or passports? It should include citizenship cards—in fact, perhaps we should use the term “any form of identification that is used”.
Sarah Champion
The hon. Lady makes a really good point. A number of people have come to me and said that the social security number is the way to go, because that number follows us through our life. It seems a really sensible way forward. I do not have the resources to look into it and check, but the Minister might be able to do some research. I genuinely do not know whether the Government’s internal reviews have flagged this as a logical way forward. It seems sensible to me, but they have not shared that information with us at all. That is what I am saying: we might already have those trackers on us if necessary, but the Home Office has not told us what it has done with the internal reviews. At the moment I am going on the knowledge that I have, and the gaps in that knowledge.
One thing I do know is that police guidance gives the police the right to put markers on file for passport and driving licence applications. However, it also states:
“To avoid unnecessary or high volumes of requests to these agencies, enquiries should be limited”.
I say to the Minister that the case of a registered sex offender is an example where the police should be given free rein to put those markers on and to follow up any cases in which files are flagged. I get it that there is a cost when a police officer looks into flagged cases, but where a registered sex offender applies for a passport or driving licence in a new name, enabling them to get a clean DBS check, the risk is so great that I think it deserves an hour or so of a police officer’s time and the associated costs.
Janet Daby
I am sitting here, listening intently to every word my hon. Friend is saying, and getting more annoyed. I would perceive not dealing with this as negligence.
Sarah Champion
I believe that is the right word. Surely a Government’s duty is to safeguard citizens; to know the scale of this problem and that there is a solution but not to act is to be negligent. I withhold that allegation from the Minister, because I know he is a good man who wants to do the right thing.
I was first contacted about this three years ago by a journalist. It is not that I thought they were having a laugh; I thought they were wrong—that this could not possibly be true. Then I looked into it. As my hon. Friend knows, I get obsessed about certain things, and I am obsessed about this because it worries me. While this loophole remains, every system we have in place to safeguard the vulnerable is undermined. I believe that this form of electronic marking must be mandatory for all registered sex offenders. That would help criminal justice bodies to keep track of offenders who were trying to change their name secretly, rather than having to rely on offenders doing the right thing and notifying them.
The hon. Member for Bolsover argued that registered sex offenders should be banned from changing their name. I have sympathy with that view and want the Minister to reflect long and hard on it. Sentencing allows other rights to be withdrawn, so that may well be something that the Minister should be looking into.
And that, Minister, is that. I hope that I have made a convincing argument. I know that the Minister is aware of this issue, and I hope he is able to find some way to work with me and others to close this loophole. It cannot go on any longer.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I woke up this morning and told myself not to talk too much today, but the hon. Lady has inspired me to contribute. I have changed a number of people’s names in my career. As a junior lawyer 20 years ago, I used to get calls from reception saying, “Will you come down and do a deed poll for George Michael?” George Michael had previously been Jon Bon Jovi; Pamela Anderson used to turn up, too. The public do not understand how easy it is.
I decided to speak because we have officials in the room, and I want the Ministry of Justice to have a word with gov.uk. We can all see the seriousness of the situation and the problems it causes with DBS checks and things like that, but at the moment gov.uk sets out how simple it is to change one’s name. At the end—the very end—of the page, under the headline, “If you’re a registered offender”, it says:
“You must tell the police you’ve changed your name within 3 days if you’re a registered: sex offender”
or a violent offender. It tells people that they must go to the police station to do so. Then, after an exclamation mark, which shows that this is serious, it says:
“It’s a criminal offence if you do not tell the police you’ve changed your name.”
The headings beneath that are, “Next”, followed by “Make your own deed poll”.
I cannot overemphasise how serious this is and why it is important that people are honest about this process. People will rarely choose the enrolled deed poll option, because it costs an extra 42 quid. While we are debating what people can or cannot do, will someone please have a word with gov.uk?
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham—not only for her powerful speech today, but for the huge amount of work that she has done on this very, very important issue. All of us here today can hear how absolutely important it is that the Government act on this issue. We fully support her in her endeavours and urge the Minister to respond positively and to find a way through. Registered sex offenders cannot be allowed to change their names without informing the police, and without the police then being able to take action. Leaving that loophole open calls into question the integrity of all the schemes that the public rely on. We all think that the public are safe through such mechanisms, as my hon. Friend set out.
I am stumped for words by what my hon. Friend has called out, some of which is deeply shocking. The child sex offender disclosure scheme, the domestic violence disclosure scheme, and the Disclosure and Barring Service all rely on having the correct name. If they do not have that, how do they go about safeguarding the many survivors and victims out there? My hon. Friend pointed out that an offender can easily change their name from anywhere, even prison, and there is no joined-up approach between the statutory and other agencies. I understand from the data that she collected that the Home Office has confirmed that more than 16,000 offenders were charged with a breach of their notification requirements just in the five years between 2015 and 2020.
The BBC discovered that 700 registered sex offenders have gone missing in the last three years alone, so it is highly likely that they breached their notification requirements without getting caught. Families and survivors deserve to know if a perpetrator has changed their name. Relying on a system that depends on registered offenders self-reporting changes in their information is dangerous, and an enormous risk to public safety. I hope that the Minister will respond with the positive message that he will go back to his Department and work with colleagues to change that.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Elliott. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for her amendment and the debate that it has provoked, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) for his campaigning on this issue and his ten-minute rule Bill. I congratulate the hon. Lady on her dexterity in bringing the matter into the scope of the Bill, but above all I recognise the serious concern that certain categories of offender, such as sex offenders, might change their name to evade monitoring, which would clearly not be right. I pay tribute to Della and the Safeguarding Alliance for their work; I hope to meet them in the coming weeks to discuss the matter.
The UK already has some of the toughest powers in the world to deal with sex offenders and, more broadly, other offenders who pose a risk, but we are committed to ensuring that the system is as robust as it can be. The majority of offenders released from prison are subject to strict licence conditions to manage the risk of harm that they pose. In July 2022, a new standard licence condition was introduced that requires offenders to notify their probation practitioner if they change their name. Failure to disclose it is a breach of licence and could result in recall to custody.
However, as the hon. Lady ably illustrated in her remarks, that relies on those individuals doing the right thing. Given the nature of the offences and of the individuals concerned, I suggest that that poses a significant level of challenge. I will ask my officials to take away the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud raised about gov.uk, which sits with the Cabinet Office, and ask that it be looked into.
As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, there are multi-agency public protection arrangements designed to protect the public, including victims of crime, from serious harm by sexual offenders, violent offenders, terrorists and other dangerous offenders. They require the local criminal justice agencies and other bodies dealing with offenders to work in partnership. Measures are also in place that legally require registered sex offenders to inform the police of any name change; where a registered sex offender poses a specific risk in relation to name changes, the courts can restrict their ability to change their name, although again the same challenge exists.
Disclosure of any name change to victims is currently decided on a case-by-case basis. There will be a careful risk assessment process to consider whether disclosure of a name change is necessary for the protection of a victim, or whether it could provoke threats to the family of the offender or others, which could put them at risk. The process does need to be managed on a case-by-case basis. I do, however, fully understand the intention behind the ten-minute rule Bill, the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham, and indeed the strength of feeling in the Committee today—and which I think we saw through attendance in the House when the ten-minute rule Bill was debated—to ensure that there are no loopholes that allow sex offenders to change their names unregistered.
Sarah Champion
I know that the Minister takes his brief incredibly seriously and recognises the severity of the consequences as things currently stand. I think he has also heard the degree of support within this room—and, I am quite sure, within the House—to do something quite dramatic to close this loophole. I will therefore gladly accept his offer, but I really need to see something different on the face of the Bill at a later stage, because we have to do something.
Edward Argar
Because of the nature of the parliamentary Session and the carry-over, we will have a period between this Bill’s leaving Committee and its returning to the Floor of the House on Report, which I suspect will happen around Christmas time, given uncertainty over the timing of the King’s Speech. I am happy to use that period to work with the hon. Lady to see whether we can find a way forward ahead of Report stage.
Sarah Champion
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I feel certain that between the heads of the people in this Committee Room, some progress on this issue could no doubt be made. The area where I have concerns—not only because of my own brief—is that Home Office Ministers need to be brought on board, because this relates to Home Office policy. Will my hon. Friend seek from the Minister a commitment that the Home Office might take part in some of this work?
Sarah Champion
The Minister can address sentences and conditions, but we absolutely need the Home Office on board.
Sarah Champion
With the Minister’s nodded confirmation that that will happen, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The victims’ code must make provision about pre-trial therapy for victims, including—
(a) a requirement that all criminal justice agencies inform victims of their right to pre-trial therapy, and
(b) a requirement that the Crown Prosecution Service annually review their pre-trial therapy guidance and its implementation.”
This amendment would include in the victims’ code a requirement to inform all victims of their right to access pre-trial therapy, and require the CPS to annually review the implementation of pre-trial therapy guidance.
The amendment is about access to pre-trial therapy, around which there are currently so many problems—particularly for victims and survivors of sexual offences. My former constituent contacted me a couple of years ago after she raised a complaint with the police regarding how she was treated throughout the criminal justice system. In 2011 to 2012, she reported her child abuse to South Yorkshire police. In her email to me, she wrote:
“After I had completed my video evidence, the officers told me it would complicate the trial if I sought any mental health support and to wait until it was over. That took 18 months, 18 of the most difficult months when I was emotionally abused and outcast by family for reporting the abuse. I had nowhere to turn, needed to see a psychologist for support and I was utterly traumatized. Today, I suffer from post-traumatic stress from that trial and feel that was related to being denied my human right of access to mental health support. If the police denied anyone cancer treatment during court proceedings, there would be uproar. We need to see mental health in the same way.”
She goes on:
“Despite it not being illegal to see a counsellor, it appears to be more convenient for the police if one is not seen. When someone in such an immense position of trust indicates it would be better not to see a counsellor, the victim is so vulnerable and so strongly lead by the police that I fear that it will continue, even if off record.”
Jess Phillips
I agree with everything my hon. Friend is saying. The week before last, I was in court with a victim of child sexual violence—she is no longer a child; she is now 22—who had waited seven years for her trial. As in the case that my hon. Friend has highlighted, she was not allowed to access mental health support for seven years, from the ages of 13 to 22.
Sarah Champion
Sadly, this is standard practice; systemic change is needed. Receiving counselling or mental health support should not be seen to make a victim an unreliable witness, which is what it feels as though the police believe. That culture within the criminal justice agencies perpetuates victim blaming. I hope that the threshold will be raised, so that there is a presumption against disclosure of mental health records as evidence in court. I think we will come to that in a later amendment.
I am relieved that the Minister is trying to tackle the use of counselling notes through new clause 4, which we will debate later in our proceedings, but it is vital that we also ensure that access to pre-trial therapy is also on the face of the Bill. My amendment is essential, as it would require the Crown Prosecution Service to review the implementation of its pre-trial therapy guidance. If the guidance is not effectively rolled out among prosecutors and officers, they should respond accordingly.
I think the current situation is a fundamental misunderstanding by the police, who are trying to do the right thing—get a prosecution—by trying to prevent victims’ counselling notes or victims being seen to be coached in any way before the trial, so that that cannot be used against them and unravel the case. The Minister is aware that that is not the case; people are able to access such provision. Former Secretaries of State and the CPS have confirmed to me that victims can access pre-trial therapy, but unless it is on the face of the Bill and in the victims code that that is their right, the myth perpetuates and it is having a very damaging effect on victims.
Anna McMorrin
I support and endorse much of what my hon. Friend has stated on access to mental health services. I speak to many victims and survivors each week who are so traumatised by the current process, given the state that the justice system is in and the delays that they are facing—week upon week, month upon month, year upon year, waiting for their day in court, but with no access to support, going through the trauma day after day after day. I add my support to the essence of the points made by my hon. Friend.
Janet Daby
I, too, endorse the proposals brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. In 2021, the former Victims’ Commissioner stated that 43% of rape victims pulled out of cases. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that trials can be especially difficult for victims, and that therapy guidance for victims pre-trial must be of a high standard and advertised to victims if the Government are to tackle worrying attrition rates in rape cases. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Edward Argar
Amendment 53 would place in the victims code a requirement to inform victims of their right to access pre-trial therapy, and require the CPS to annually review the implementation of its pre-trial therapy guidance. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for provoking this debate by tabling the amendment.
It is vital that victims get the support they need to cope and recover from the impact of crime, and pre-trial therapy is a hugely important part of that. The hon. Member for Lewisham East commented on the number of complainants and victims who withdraw from a case—the technical phrase is victim attrition; it is not the best phrase in the world—or do not see it through. A variety of reasons and a range of factors sit behind that. Lack of therapeutic support may not be the only one, but it is undoubtedly one of them. I am aware of instances where victims have mistakenly been advised not to seek the therapeutic support they need and to which they are entitled while they are involved in a criminal justice process. That should not happen, and I am again grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for raising that.
The first part of the amendment would require the victims code to include a specific requirement on all criminal justice agencies to inform victims of a right to pre-trial therapy. I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady to a degree that there are already many provisions in the Bill and, indeed, beyond it to make victims aware of how they can access pre-trial therapy. What came through in her remarks is that the challenge is not the obligations in the Bill or other legislation, but how they are operationalised and pull through into the experiences people have when interacting with the system.
The Bill already includes the code principle that victims should be able to access services that support them, including specialist services. The code itself includes the detail that those services can include pre-trial therapy and counselling, and we are introducing a new duty in the Bill on certain criminal justice agencies, including the police and the CPS, to raise awareness of the code and the rights within it. None the less, I am open to considering how we can make information relating to pre-trial therapy clearer in the new victims code, as it is critical that practitioners do not, even inadvertently, deter victims from seeking the support they need.
As hon. Members will be aware, we have committed to consult on an updated victims code after the passage of the Bill, and as I have said on previous occasions, I am happy to work with the hon. Member for Rotherham and others on the Committee on the new code. We have put out an indicative draft, which is almost a pre-consultation consultation, but that allows the flexibility for hon. Members and others to reflect back their thoughts on it.
Jess Phillips
As a point that may be interesting as we try to get this right established is that when I ran a rape crisis counselling service, this was not particularly an issue. Something has happened—something chilling—in the last eight years that means it is now a pressing issue. It was never the case, and rape crisis counsellors would always just make very sparing notes. Something has gone wrong, and in trying to move forward we should do a piece of work on where it started to go wrong.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady brings to the House and this Committee a huge amount of experience from having worked in this sector and seen changes to it, and an interest that she has maintained since being elected to the House—at the same time as I was—and through her shadow ministerial roles. She is right; it is important that, if things have changed, we seek to understand the genesis of and the reasons for that change, and how to address it.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
The point being made about delay is important. The pandemic was of course a very difficult period for the courts. Is the Minister able to give us any reassurance that the courts will be able to hear these cases more quickly? I suspect one of the reasons for this situation is that, if there is a very long period between the incident and the time of trial and there are counselling notes over an extended period, there is a temptation to see if there is an element of coaching—the hon. Member for Rotherham made that point—or even inconsistent statements, as a period of time has lapsed.
Edward Argar
My right hon. and learned Friend is right to highlight the importance of this point. On the big picture of court backlogs, it is important to remember that 90% of cases are dealt with in magistrates courts swiftly. It is the serious cases, such as those we are discussing, that are sent to the Crown court, and that is where we do see delays. There has been investment in Nightingale courtrooms—a new sort of super-court, if I can put it that way—just up the road from my constituency, in Loughborough. We are implementing a range of measures to tackle the backlog. He is absolutely right that the timeliness of a case being heard is a key factor in a victim sticking with the process and being able to give their best evidence. He is also right that the longer the delay, the greater the temptation to seek more “evidence”, more documents, over that period. Timeliness is hugely important.
We will also continue to take action to ensure that victims are not put off from seeking support due to fear that their therapy notes may be unnecessarily accessed as part of a criminal investigation, including through the proposed Government amendment that was alluded to, which will place a duty on police to request third-party materials that may include pre-trial therapy notes only when necessary and proportionate to the investigation.
Sarah Champion
I want to explore the Minister’s phrase about victims giving their “best evidence” in court. I have tried to get to the bottom of what is going on in the minds of the police. I think they see victims of crime as witnesses, rather than victims in their own right. They are trying to protect the evidence, effectively, to get the conviction that they want. The police need to understand that a well-supported victim is able to give the best evidence, because they have confidence and clarity of mind, and the support of knowing that there is someone there who has got their back. The reason I am arguing for a provision in the Bill—perhaps under an expansion of what specialist services means; I am happy if it is in the guidance—is to make the police aware that there is no chilling effect from a victim having pre-trial therapy.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady makes an important point. I think progress is being made. In saying that, I point to, for example, the work being done through Operation Soteria. I pay tribute to the work of Chief Constable Sarah Crew and her officers in Avon and Somerset, and there are others working on these issues around the country, trying to change that understanding. There is of course more to do, which is why the hon. Lady has brought forward the amendment, but I see some encouraging signs, particularly in the work that Sarah has been leading.
The second part of the amendment would place a requirement on the Crown Prosecution Service to annually review the implementation of pre-trial therapy guidance. I reassure the hon. Lady that the Crown Prosecution Service already has a robust compliance and assurance regime across all its areas, which includes specific questions on consideration of the privacy rights of victims. The CPS is also a key part of Operation Soteria. Next month, the CPS will relaunch its individual quality assessment guidance, which is its assurance tool to make sure it is delivering high-quality casework. That will include additional information on consideration of a victim’s privacy rights during an investigation, which I hope will help bring consistency across the CPS.
I urge the hon. Lady not to press the amendment to a Division, as I do not believe that including this measure in the Bill is necessarily the best approach. As I have said a number of times, I am happy to work with her in respect of the code, the consultation and how we might draw this out a bit more clearly, but also on an operational basis more broadly. I suspect that we may be spending a lot of time together over the summer and coming months, given the number of commitments I have made to work with her. There may be ways that we can also work with colleagues at the Home Office, the police and others to make sure that what is already there is fully understood and operationalised.
Sarah Champion
Given those assurances, I will withdraw the amendment. I agree with the Minister that it is about the first or second community officer someone speaks to—that seems to be where the misunderstanding is, so we have to find a way to filter the message down down. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Anna McMorrin
I beg to move amendment 64, in clause 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The victims’ code must provide that victims must be informed of their rights under section 63 (Special measures in family proceedings: victims of domestic abuse) of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”
I am incredibly grateful to be here today to discuss what I believe is a national scandal: what is going on in family courts across the country. Before speaking to the amendment, I want to set out the context. Cases of domestic abuse, rape and child sexual abuse are still routinely dismissed or minimised—so much so that support services are now dissuading victims from disclosing abuse or child sexual abuse for fear of accusations of parental alienation, which will result in children being removed from a safe parent.
What is clear is that family courts are continuing to breed a culture that promotes contact with those who have been accused of abuse. Survivors of domestic or coercive abuse are facing counter-allegations of parental alienation as a stock response to their own abuse allegations, which is shocking. Courts have continued to instruct unregulated experts who are connected with the parental alienation lobby and who are known for dismissing domestic abuse victims. As a result, unsafe decisions are being made, with sometimes catastrophic consequences for child contact. We are now hearing of more and more cases of protective parents—most commonly the mother—losing all access to their children, who are instead placed with the abusive parent. Just last week at the UN Human Rights Council, Reem Alsalem, the UN special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, said:
“The tendency of family courts to dismiss the history of domestic violence and abuse in custody cases, especially where mothers and/or children have brought forward credible allegations of domestic abuse, including coercive control, physical or sexual abuse, is unacceptable.”
The Government’s harm panel report in 2020 was meant to address many of these issues, but progress has been slow. It is three years this week since that report was published, and the situation is now critical. Many vulnerable victims and children are being dragged by their perpetrator through the family courts and a system that has no understanding of the abuse that a victim and their children have faced and continue to face.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a really powerful speech. Does she agree that many of us have seen cases in our surgeries where mothers who have escaped domestic abuse tell us that they have been re-traumatised by the family courts, that abusive ex-partners often use the process in the family courts as a further form of abuse and control, and that the children are weaponised?
Anna McMorrin
I absolutely agree, and that gets to the core of the point I am making. Domestic abuse is the central issue in private law children’s proceedings in family courts, and evidence shows that allegations of domestic abuse are present in at least half of all such proceedings. A study by the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service published in 2021 found domestic abuse allegations in 62% of cases and that special measures in those cases were not being upheld.
Earlier this week, I met Dr Charlotte Proudman, a barrister who specialises in family law at Goldsmith Chambers. She has worked with many survivors and victims of domestic abuse, taking their cases to appeal and being successful when she does so, which shows that there is a problem. Her dedication to those mothers has brought hope to many women and survivors of domestic abuse, but it should not take going to appeal or having a barrister take a case to appeal, or overturning those cases, to expose the problems in the family courts.
The rights of victims of domestic abuse under section 63 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 are not implemented consistently or, even worse, they are not informed of those rights at any point in the process. Many of the survivors report suffering, revictimisation and retraumatisation caused by the family justice system. It is clear that the special measures introduced in the 2021 Act have made no difference whatsoever to victims’ experiences on the ground. There is an opportunity in this Bill to change that and to strengthen the victims code to place a duty on agencies to inform domestic abuse survivors of their rights under section 63, “Special measures in family proceedings: victims of domestic abuse” of the 2021 Act. I hope the Minister agrees that we should put this in the code to overturn what is happening now.
Sarah Champion
Does my hon. Friend agree that the nub of the problem is the total lack of transparency—I would go so far as to say the secrecy—around family courts? We are unable to do our job of scrutinising whether rights are offered or special measures are given, so it is only when an acute case gets into the public domain that we find out about these failings, so I support her amendment.
Anna McMorrin
That is absolutely part of the problem: we cannot see what is going on here, and that is why it is important that we are here discussing this issue. This is a vital debate, and I know many survivors and victims will be looking on keenly at our debate and how the Minister responds. They will take hope from the fact that we can do something about this absolute tragedy and travesty happening in our family court system to survivors and children.
Provision for special measures in family proceedings is made in part 3A of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, supported by practice direction 3AA. Those rules provide that victims of domestic abuse and other parties or witnesses are eligible for special measures in their proceedings if the court is satisfied that the quality of their evidence or their ability to participate in the proceedings is likely to be diminished due to their vulnerability. The court needs to consider a wide range of matters to assess whether a victim is vulnerable before determining whether any special measures are necessary to assist them.
The Family Procedure Rules 2010 state there is a duty on the court to identify whether a party is vulnerable by virtue of being a complainant or victim and if so, what participation directions they need in order to ensure they can effectively participate in proceedings and give their best evidence. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 assists by making it clear—in statute, which is important—that that is a requirement in the family courts. If the court fails to address the issue of special measures, the court has failed in its duties and the judgment is likely to be successfully appealed. It is a requirement under the rules to hold a ground rules hearing in each case to determine what special measures are required. That is simply not happening in family courts at all.
Jess Phillips
To pinpoint the devastation so that we can get the point across, the harm panel review largely came out of a report written by Women’s Aid, which showed that, over a 10-year period, the murders of 19 children had followed family court decisions to place them with an abusive father.
Anna McMorrin
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Evidence from Women’s Aid still shows that survivors are disbelieved. Children have continued to be forced into unsafe contact arrangements with abusive parents, and perpetrators have continued to use child arrangement proceedings as a form of post-separation abuse. It is vital that the right support is signposted and that survivors are able to access that support. Parental alienation allegations in the family courts mean that many survivors of domestic abuse and coercive control are themselves made out to be the perpetrator. That has to stop.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield raised a case where social services had parental responsibility for a baby whose parents were horrifically abusing it. The judge in the family court overruled the recommendation of the social services team to have a six-month integration period. The baby was put back with the family within six weeks, and it was dead in a couple of days. In his reply, will the Minister talk about access to the victims code for someone who is not themselves a victim but for someone with responsibility for a child?
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is really important that all those wrapped up in the system understand their rights and that we strengthen the Bill with this amendment, so that survivors, victims and guardians get the support they need.
The United Nations recently published the report of the special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences. The report addresses the link between custody cases, violence against women and violence against children, with a focus on the abuse of the term “parental alienation” and similar pseudo-concepts. Evidence showed a tendency to dismiss the history of domestic violence and abuse in custody cases. That extends to cases where mothers or children themselves have brought forward credible allegations of physical or sexual abuse.
The report also found that family courts had tended to judge such allegations as deliberate efforts by mothers to manipulate their children and separate them from their fathers. That supposed effort by a parent alleging abuse is often termed “parental alienation”. Research and submissions received by the UN, however, demonstrated that the perpetrators of domestic violence misused family law proceedings to continue to perpetrate violence against their victims, resulting in secondary traumatisation, which then goes on and on and on. Parental alienation is used deliberately as a tactic.
One study cited in the report found that parental alienation was mentioned in all 20 cases studied in the context of coercive control and child sexual abuse. Even when it was not explicitly used, the underlying ideas were still present. The use of parental alienation is highly gendered and frequently used against mothers. Common to the gendered use of parental alienation is the depiction of mothers as vengeful and delusional by their partners, courts and expert witnesses. Mothers who oppose or seek to restrict contact, or who raise concerns, are widely regarded by evaluators as obstructive and malicious, reflecting the pervasive pattern of blaming the mother.
The Chair
The hon. Member is making a speech with some harrowing detail. However, I would draw her attention to what the amendment says. The hon. Member has to relate what she is saying to the amendment.
Anna McMorrin
The reason I am illustrating this point is that it is relevant in setting out the context of why we need the amendment. It relates to getting special measures in a court case. Without access to special measures, all of the abuse is perpetuated, including through the parental alienation tactics that are currently being used.
The use of parental alienation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. As soon as parents are judged as being alienating, implacable or failing to listen, their action or inaction can be prejudiced. As a result, allegations of domestic violence remain sidelined as a one-off occurrence—they are not taken into account during proceedings. That reduces domestic violence to a minor conflict and stigmatises and pathologises women and children. How can that be best for the child?
I have spoken to countless women—all survivors of domestic abuse—who have been retraumatised by the family courts. All their cases read the same: the mother is criminalised, the children are ignored and the father is excused. One mother told me about her harrowing experiences—she is now being treated for post-traumatic stress disorder. The daughter disclosed that her father sexually abused her and told the guardian assigned to the case that she did not want to see him. The guardian dismissed the claim, and instead a read a book to the daughter that stated, “Mummy made it all up. Daddy hadn’t done anything wrong.” That same guardian said that she would only support the mother’s claim for full custody if the mother positively encouraged her daughter to have a relationship with her father. In the mother’s own words:
“My daughter was not heard, and not listened to. We have been forced through more trauma and we don’t know what the future might hold.”
The same practice was also cited by the UN report. Women are being advised by their legal representatives not to raise allegations of domestic violence as it would work against them.
Sir Oliver Heald
Is the amendment not supposed to be about providing victims with information about their rights? The hon. Lady seems to be criticising the decisions of judges in cases that they have heard. It would be helpful to know why she feels that special measures would help in these situations, and what sort. Is she talking about screens? What exactly is she asking for?
The Chair
Order. I have given the hon. Lady a lot of leeway, but in her concluding remarks she really needs to focus on the amendment.
Anna McMorrin
Thank you, Ms Elliott—I appreciate that. In response to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have one last example to illustrate why these special measures—
Anna McMorrin
A special measure could be anything; it could be a screen. It is about understanding and access to victim support. It is anything that will help a survivor of domestic or coercive abuse to understand the reason why the perpetrator is dragging them back to court, time and time again.
Sir Oliver Heald
I was the Minister when we discussed bringing in special measures. We were looking to make the experience a better one for these witnesses, with screens and elements of that sort. Is the hon. Lady suggesting a particular special measure? What is it that she wants?
Anna McMorrin
The amendment would ensure that those in family courts, and all those agencies, have a duty to signpost victims to support and special measures, so that everybody around family courts should be aware of what is happening and of the abuse that is being perpetuated. The special measures outlined in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 must be accessed: that is a duty on family courts, but it is just not happening. The amendment would mean that, under the victims code, agencies must ensure that those special measures are introduced.
You have been very good, Ms Elliott, in allowing me to set out the context—I have talked about parental alienation and given examples of horrific abuse—but very little has been done in this House to set out the problems in family courts. It is absolutely essential to build that case and show what is happening to the thousands of women and their families who are the victims of such abuse. As we have heard, family courts operate behind closed doors. There is very little resource, and very little is happening to bring together the agencies and court processes and ensure that special measures are in place.
Siobhan Baillie
Does the hon. Lady recognise that Sir Andrew McFarlane, the Head of Family Justice, is already trying to open up family courts and is doing an awful lot on transparency? I think quite a lot of positives will come out of that.
Anna McMorrin
An awful lot of organisations and people working in this area, including the Head of Family Justice, are bringing to light what is happening, so I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady.
Jess Phillips
On the point about exactly how we will ensure victims are protected within the family court system, I am afraid to say that one of the issues we have faced in the past three years is that when McFarlane says something, the Government say, “No, it’s McFarlane’s responsibility,” then McFarlane says, “It’s the Government’s responsibility,” and on we go. Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendment is about ensuring that some action is taken in this building?
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to make sure that something is happening. That is why this amendment and the debate around it are so vital. The amendment will not solve everything in family courts—it is the tip of the iceberg—but we need to make sure that at the very least we have something in this Victims and Prisoners Bill to safeguard the mothers and children who are subjected to continued allegations and abuse through the family court system. That is not for want of trying by the very many organisations that are working hard.
To illustrate why we tabled the amendment, I will quote from a message that was sent to a mother I spoke to. Her son had been placed with an abusive father. He said:
“Mum…Dad bent my fingers back, hit me and pushed me on the floor. He won’t even let me eat lunch today.”
She said to call her, and he said:
“I can’t. I’m in the car and he will hit me if I call you. I have a big purple bruise on my knee.”
Now more than ever, survivors of abuse and their children need our protection and support, and this amendment is the necessary first step in ensuring we do that.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I will withdraw from speaking, because I realise that time is pressing on.
Edward Argar
Amendment 64 would require the victims code to state that victims must be informed of their rights to access special measures in the family court. We agree that all participants in court proceedings, including in the family court, should be able to give evidence to the best of their ability, and I appreciate that the shadow Minister cited a number of harrowing cases and highlighted some broader issues. If I may, I will confine myself rather more narrowly to the scope of the amendment. I will also highlight that I would be very wary of trespassing into territory that would see me commenting on what is rightly subject to judicial discretion and the decisions of individual judges.
We already have a number of measures in place to support participants in the family court whose ability to give evidence is impacted, as the shadow Minister set out, by the trauma and retraumatisation of having experienced domestic abuse and then having to give evidence. Examples of those special measures in family proceedings include giving evidence behind a protective screen or via video link.
In section 63 of our landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, on which there was a large amount of cross-party co-operation—I am looking at the shadow Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley—we have strengthened eligibility for special measures for victims of domestic abuse in the family courts. I gently disagree with the hon. Member for Cardiff North when she says that it has made no difference. As a result, the existing Family Procedure Rules automatically deem victims of domestic abuse as vulnerable for the purposes of considering whether a participation direction for special measures should be made. That provision came into effect on 1 October 2021. However, the decision is quite rightly a matter for the presiding judge in the case.
As the hon. Member for Cardiff North highlighted, what the amendment addresses is raising awareness of rights—not the decision made by the judge, but awareness that the rights exist and that an application is possible. I agree that it is important not only that this provision exists, but that participants in the family court are made aware of it. However, I stress that the victims code and the provisions in part 1 of the Bill are intended to set out the minimum expectations for victims navigating criminal justice processes, rather than other proceedings or settings such as the family court. It is important to highlight that distinction.
We are, however, committed to ensuring that participants in family proceedings are aware of the role of special measures and of their entitlement to be considered for them. Following the implementation of the provision in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service have been monitoring the data on special measures requests using the online application service. We have been assessing what more could be done to make parties aware of their rights with regard to the provision of special measures.
As a result of the changes that have been made, guidance has been developed in collaboration with the Family Justice Council, which provides information on the support and special measures available at local courts. This information is now set out with notices of hearing in all family cases.
I hope that what I have said goes some way towards reassuring the Committee that we are taking steps to make sure that victims of domestic abuse are aware of the special measures that they can access in the family courts. We are consulting on the victims code; I say to the Committee that that, rather than the Bill, would be the right place for consideration of such measures. Placing such measures in primary legislation would add rigidity to what should be a flexible process to update the code and ensure that the rights enshrined within it keep pace. On that basis, I encourage the shadow Minister not to press amendment 64 to a Division.
Anna McMorrin
I understand what the Minister says, and I appreciate his reflections, but I have to point out the number and the intensity of issues that I have raised and the amount of concerning evidence from the women I have spoken to. The amendment would have an impact on real cases. It would go some way towards helping victims to understand that they can get access to special measures in court. I have given illustrations from cases in which rape victims were not able to have a screen and were forced to speak to the perpetrator. They need to feel that they are empowered, that they are survivors and that they have the ability to ask for those special measures.
Amendment 64 would go a long way towards ensuring that things start to change—that the culture starts to change—in the family courts. That is why I would like to press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Victims and Prisoners Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 29th June 2023
(2 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 June 2023 - (29 Jun 2023)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 2, page 3, line 15, leave out
“function of a relevant prosecutor”
and insert “prosecution function”.
This amendment and Amendment 28 substitute a reference to persons exercising a prosecution function for the defined term “relevant prosecutor”. The victims’ code may not make provision requiring anything to be done by such persons.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 28.
Clause stand part.
Edward Argar
Amendments 27 and 28 are minor technical amendments that have been tabled to better meet our intention to prevent the victims code from interfering with independent prosecutorial decision making. Clause 2 sets out that the victims code cannot place requirements on relevant prosecutors in relation to their prosecutorial discretion. This is an important safeguard, which reflects our constitutional arrangements, and allows the code to set expectations in relation to service provider procedures and how they should treat victims, but not to interfere with prosecutorial discretion to make decisions in particular cases.
The Bill currently refers to a relevant prosecutor, which is defined under section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and includes service providers such as the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. However, some other service providers under the current code also have a prosecutorial function and are not covered by the existing list, including bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive and the Competition and Markets Authority. These service providers have functions in relation to the investigation or prosecution of specific types of offences or offences committed in certain circumstances. To ensure all service providers are covered now and in the future, the amendment sets out that the code cannot interfere with prosecutorial discretion, regardless of which prosecutor is involved.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that there have been controversies surrounding private prosecutions—the Horizon scandal springs to mind—but that there are also other private prosecutors who in individual cases might decide to take prosecutions. Will these amendments do enough to cover all of them?
Edward Argar
My understanding is that they will, but will the right hon. Lady allow me to confirm that? If at any point I have inadvertently misled the Committee, I will make a correction in the usual way.
Clause 2 provides the legal framework for the victims code and places an obligation on the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice setting out the services to be provided to victims by different parts of the criminal justice system. It also sets out the overarching principles that the victims code must reflect. These are the principles that victims should: be provided with information to help them understand the criminal justice process; be able to access services which support them, including specialist services; have the opportunity to make their views heard; and be able to challenge decisions that directly affect them. We know that those principles are important for victims, and our consultation showed us that most respondents believe them to be the right ones to focus on.
Placing those overarching principles in legislation will send a clear signal about what victims can and should expect from agencies within the criminal justice system. This will help to future-proof the code and ensure that it continues to capture the key services that victims can expect, while still allowing a degree of flexibility in the code itself. We have retained the more detailed victims’ entitlements in the code, as this offers a more flexible way to ensure that they can be kept up to date, rather than by placing them in primary legislation on the face of the Bill. Agencies are already expected to deliver the entitlements in the code and they will be required to justify any departure from it if challenged by victims or by the courts.
To safeguard the topics that the code should cover, the clause allows for regulations to be made about the code. We will use the 12 key entitlements contained in the current code to create a framework for the new code and regulations. This will enhance parliamentary oversight of the code by setting the structure out in secondary legislation, and will allow more flexibility than primary legislation to make any necessary changes in the future if the needs of victims require changes in policies or operational practices. The power to make regulations has appropriate safeguards set out in the clause, in that regulations can only be made using this power if the Secretary of State is satisfied that they will not result in significant weakening of the code in terms of the quality, extent or reach of services provided.
Rather than specifying the details of particular entitlements for particular victims, the clause allows the code flexibility to make different provision for different groups of victims or for different service providers. That means they can be tailored appropriately, such as to provide for the police to give certain information more quickly to vulnerable or intimidated victims. We have published a draft of the updated victims code as a starting point for engagement, and will consult on an updated victims code after the passage of the Bill, so that it can reflect issues raised during parliamentary consideration.
Finally, the clause makes it clear that the code relates to services for victims and cannot be used to interfere with judicial or prosecutorial decision making. That will protect the independence of the judiciary, Crown Prosecution Service and other prosecutors in relation to the decisions they make in individual cases. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Amendment 27 agreed to.
Amendment made: 28, in clause 2, page 3, leave out lines 18 and 19.—(Edward Argar.)
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 27.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Preparing and issuing the victims’ code
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 3, page 3, line 29, at end insert
“and the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses.”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses when preparing a draft of the victims’ code.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 3 stand part.
Amendment 12, in clause 4, page 4, line 24, after “Attorney General” insert
“and the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses when revising the victims’ code.
Clause 4 stand part.
Anna McMorrin
Amendments 11 and 12 address the same issue. Amendment 11 falls under clause 3 concerning the drafting of the victims code, and amendment 12 falls under clause 4, which concerns its revision. Clause 3 outlines that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to prepare the draft code and, in doing so, must consult the Attorney General. Amendment 11 would place a duty on the Justice Secretary also to consult the Victims’ Commissioner. Amendment 12 would place a duty on the Justice Secretary to consult the Victims’ Commissioner on any future revision of the code. These are the first of several amendments I have tabled to strengthen the powers and authority of the Victims’ Commissioner.
The Victims’ Commissioner is a public office established by Parliament in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 to encourage good practice in the treatment of victims and witnesses in England and Wales. It is independent of Government and works to raise awareness of issues faced by victims, conduct research, promote good practice and hold agencies to account on the treatment of victims. I pay tribute to Dame Vera Baird, the former Victims’ Commissioner, who resigned in September last year after three years in post. Dame Vera was integral to shining a spotlight on the harmfully low number of prosecutions, and she secured safeguards against excessive requests for victims’ mobile phone data in rape investigations. If the Government accept both my amendments, they would go a long way towards demonstrating that they understand the value and authority of the Victims’ Commissioner’s office by ensuring it is integral when looking at the revised victims code.
During the evidence session last week, when asked if the Victims’ Commissioner should be consulted in the drafting and revision of the victims code, Dame Vera said,
“Yes, it is imperative... To be fair, the Government did consult us. It took about two years to get the victims code together. In fact, I am not sure if Mr Argar was not the Victims Minister when it started the first time around. It took a very long time... although I have to say we brought no change. There must be meaningful consultation, but the Victims’ Commissioner has to be in there.”
She went on to say,
“in all the provisions about drafting codes and making changes, where it says you should consult the Attorney General, you have to consult the Victims’ Commissioner as well. This is about victims.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 28, Q63.]
The Victims’ Commissioner has a statutory duty to keep the code under review, but the Secretary of State for Justice is not obliged to consult the Victims’ Commissioner on revisions of the code. I am not sure how they are not mutually exclusive. The Victims’ Commissioner is established to be
“a promoter, an encourager, and a reviewer of operational practice, and is the only statutory public body with these overarching duties in relation to victims”.
The Victims’ Commissioner has the singular responsibility to introduce a degree of accountability to how agencies, including central Government, treat victims and witnesses. If victims are given their rightful recognition as participants in the system, their rights must be fully respected and delivered at each stage of the process. Currently, the Victims’ Commissioner has the widest remit of any commissioner but the most limited powers. The powers relating to the victims code should be strengthened, so that the Victims’ Commissioner is consulted alongside the Attorney General.
Amendments 11 and 12 would make it obligatory for the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner on the preparation and revision of the victims code, rather than having the commissioner make proposals. This would also form part of the functions of the Victims’ Commissioner under section 49 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004—promoting the interests of victims and witnesses and keeping the code under review. It would also ensure that there is accountability and compliance with the victims code, and that standards are maintained at all levels. I hope the Minister will consider agreeing to the amendments.
Edward Argar
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling amendments 11 and 12, which would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner when preparing and revising the new victims code. The Victims’ Commissioner and their office are a vital and powerful voice for victims, and part of the commissioner’s statutory duty is to keep the operation of the code under review. In highlighting that, I will go a little further than the hon. Lady by paying tribute not only to Dame Vera Baird, but to Helen Newlove and Louise Casey. I think Louis Casey was the original Victims’ Commissioner, and Helen followed her in that role. In their different ways, all three have brought a huge focus and passion to the role, and I want to put on the record my gratitude to them all.
We have routinely engaged with the Victims’ Commissioner’s office on matters concerning the code since last September, and we will continue to do so when a new Victims’ Commissioner is appointed. As I highlighted in the previous sitting—I think it was after being prompted by a question from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff North—a recruitment process is under way, with the new Lord Chancellor taking a very close interest so that we get the right person into this vital post. I am keen to see it filled as swiftly as possible with someone of the calibre of the three individuals who have already held the post.
We recognise that it is essential that we consult experts, including the Victims’ Commissioner, when preparing or revising the code to ensure that it continues to reflect the needs of victims. The Bill already requires public consultation on the draft code under clause 3(4) and, naturally, the Department engages thoroughly with the Victims’ Commissioner and their office as part of that process, as we always have done in the past. Public consultation provides an opportunity for a wide range of relevant stakeholders, practitioners and victims to make representations to the Government. For that reason, we do not consider it necessary to formally list each relevant stakeholder in legislation, including the Victims’ Commissioner, as the amendments would do.
I do recognise—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff North, may have alluded to it—that one role is listed for consultation: the Attorney General. That consultation is required ahead of the public consultation on the code and is explicitly included to reflect the Attorney General’s shared responsibility for the delivery of the criminal justice system and for the impact of the code. As hon. Members will know, ministerial responsibilities across the criminal justice system involve the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the Home Secretary and the Attorney General. By practice, the Secretary of State for Justice will consult the Home Secretary as part of the process of preparing, issuing and revising the code. The Home Secretary, as the other Minister with direct operational delivery responsibilities, is not explicitly referred to because the technical drafting convention is that different Secretaries of State are not named in legislation.
I hope that I have provided assurance that the Victims’ Commissioner and their office will continue to be engaged on matters concerning the code, and that the hon. Member for Cardiff North will find those assurances satisfactory.
Anna McMorrin
I thank the Minister for his response to these provisions. The Victims’ Commissioner has a statutory duty to keep the code under review. Because the Secretary of State, however, is not obliged to consult them, it is an area of the Bill that needs strengthening. The powers of the commissioner related to the victims code must be strengthened so that the Victims’ Commissioner is consulted alongside the Attorney General when the code is drafted and revised. That seems to me to be an essential part of the process to ensure that victims’ experiences are listened to and then represented in the drafting and revising of the code. That would also form part of the functions of the Victims’ Commissioner under section 49 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004—promoting the interests of victims and witnesses and keeping the code under review.
Importantly, the measures would also ensure accountability. The Minister alluded to that in terms of Parliament, but it is vital that the Commissioner is included formally within the process in the Bill. Although I will not press the amendment to a Division, I hope that as we move forward through the Bill we can look at how the role of the Victims’ Commissioner can be strengthened. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Effect of non-compliance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 47, in clause 6, page 4, line 37, leave out “take reasonable steps to”.
This amendment would place a duty on criminal justice bodies to promote awareness of the Victims Code, rather than only requiring them to ‘take reasonable steps’ to promote awareness.
Amendment 13, in clause 6, page 5, line 6, after “services” insert
“in accordance with the victims’ code”.
This amendment would clarify that criminal justice bodies must collect information about their provision of services for victims in accordance with the victims’ code.
Clause 6 stand part.
Clauses 7 to 9 stand part.
New clause 2—Duty to co-operate with Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses—
“(1) The Commissioner may request a specified public authority to co-operate with the Commissioner in any way that the Commissioner considers necessary for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the victims’ code.
(2) A specified public authority must, so far as reasonably practicable, comply with a request made to it under this section.
(3) In this section “specified public authority” means any of the following—
(a) a criminal justice body, as defined by subsection 6(6),
(b) the Parole Board,
(c) an elected local policing body,
(d) the British Transport Police Force,
(e) the Ministry of Defence Police.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to—
(a) add a public authority as a specified public authority for the purposes of this section;
(b) remove a public authority added by virtue of paragraph (a);
(c) vary any description of a public authority.
(5) Before making regulations under subsection (4) the Secretary of State must consult the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would place a duty on specified public authorities to co-operate with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses.
Edward Argar
Clause 5 makes it clear that failure to comply with the victims code does not in itself give rise to liability in criminal or civil proceedings, but it also makes it clear that the code is admissible in evidence in proceedings and that a court may take a failure to act in accordance with the code into account when determining a question in the proceedings. We think individual liability for non-compliance would be disproportionate, but the clause does not prevent non-compliance from being addressed, nor does it prevent victims from being able to make or escalate a complaint. Their being able to do so is vital to ensure that victims are being given the right standard of service.
The measures in the Bill are designed to enable new oversight of compliance with the victims code and to drive improvements in victims’ experiences when engaging with the criminal justice system. We will discuss those measures when we reach the relevant clauses, but we believe the framework is the right starting point to drive real change locally and at system level, so that victims are treated in the right way. It is essential that there are consequences for non-compliance, clear oversight structures and complaints processes for victims, and this is the first time that such a comprehensive legislative framework has been put in place. It is right that it is done at local and national level and that the Bill does not allow for litigation against individuals. The clause is necessary to set that out.
I will speak to the amendments when I sum up, when I will have heard what those who tabled them have had to say. I will now speak to the other clauses in the grouping.
Clause 6 puts two duties on criminal justice bodies, namely the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, and youth offending teams. First, it requires them to take reasonable steps to promote awareness of the victims code among service users, including victims or those supporting victims, and the public. That is essential because—Opposition Members remarked on this, I think—just 23% of victims and 22% of the public were aware of the code in 2019-20. That is clearly not good enough. We want victims to be clear about what they can and should expect from the criminal justice system and to feel empowered to ask for that when criminal justice bodies fall short.
Secondly, clause 6 requires criminal justice bodies to keep their compliance with the code under review. That will include collecting and sharing information, which will be set out in regulations. They will also be required to jointly review that information with police and crime commissioners and other criminal justice bodies in their local police area. Where issues are identified by police and crime commissioners or bodies, operational agencies can and should take action by using local forums to drive improvements.
Those measures are the heart of the Bill. As we have discussed in Committee, it is essential that we monitor code compliance. Victims do not always receive the level of service to which they are entitled. In 2019-20, 45% of victims felt that the police and other criminal justice agencies kept them informed, and only 18% of victims recall being offered the opportunity to make a victim personal statement. The duty will improve local information collection, allow for effective local solutions and help us track the performance of criminal justice bodies to pinpoint areas that need improvement.
To deliver consistency across England and Wales, we will use regulations to specify the necessary code compliance information to be collected, and issue guidance on how criminal justice bodies should carry out their duties. We are using regulations and guidance to enable more detail and flexibility to update the provisions than primary legislation would allow. It will be crucial the get the data requirements in the regulations right, and we are working with bodies subject to the duties and those who represent victims to develop them. By implementing standardised data collection and reporting practices, we can build a national picture of the delivery of victims code entitlements throughout the criminal justice system. Such a data-based approach has been used effectively by the criminal justice system delivery data dashboards to enable data-informed discussions and to feed into action plans at local level to drive change. Together, the duties will promote compliance with the victims code and therefore better outcomes for victims.
Clause 7 is a crucial part of the new framework for better local oversight of victims code compliance. It strengthens the role of police and crime commissioners and enables issues to be identified and escalated where necessary by requiring police and crime commissioners to review compliance information jointly with criminal justice bodies in their local area, and to share information and insights into local performance with the Secretary of State. Together with the new requirements in clause 6 for criminal justice bodies to share compliance information with police and crime commissioners, that measure addresses concerns we heard that police and crime commissioners did not have the mechanisms in place to deliver on their role to monitor local code compliance.
The Government recognise the vital role police and crime commissioners already play in bringing agencies together to oversee the code locally. Further empowering police and crime commissioners and harnessing their convening powers will lead to a more collaborative and effective approach to solving local issues. Where issues are identified by police and crime commissioners or bodies, operational agencies can and should take action, using local forums to drive improvements.
Edward Argar
I will give way first to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley.
Jess Phillips
I hear the good words in the Minister’s explanation, but I am still not entirely sure exactly what will happen. Are we going to get local forums to make it better if it is bad? That does not seem enough to me to ensure compliance or any change from the situation we have at the moment.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister. I will come on to how this will work in practice, but I suspect hon. Members may wish to return to it in their contributions to their amendments. I give way to the hon. Member for Rotherham.
Edward Argar
I suspected that might be the case.
The requirement to share compliance information and to report to the Secretary of State on the joint review of this information will enable a clear national picture to be formed of how the criminal justice system is delivering for victims. It is important to remember that police and crime commissioners are directly elected and directly accountable to their local communities.
The requirement provides a means to escalate issues that cannot be solved locally and will enable Government to establish a new national governance system to pinpoint and intervene to address any systemic problems. The Victims’ Commissioner and inspectorates will be asked to participate in the new national governance system to ensure that victims’ needs and their perspectives are reflected. This will, of course, be covered in the relevant statutory guidance that will set out the operational detail across these clauses and the wider oversight framework.
Clauses 8 and 9 put two duties on the British Transport police and Ministry of Defence police respectively that mirror those placed on criminal justice bodies in clause 6. The duties are to promote awareness of the victims’ code and keep their compliance with the code under review. This ensures parity between local, national and non-territorial police forces. British Transport police meet victims of crime every day, including those mentioned by the hon. Member for Rotherham who are involved in child criminal exploitation, such as through county lines.
Instead of jointly reviewing information with police and crime commissioners, the British Transport police will be required to jointly review information with the British Transport police authority, which is the appropriate oversight body for them. Similarly, the Ministry of Defence police will do so with the Secretary of State, which in practice will mean that the Secretary of State for Defence is the appropriate oversight body for them. It is important that all police forces that have contact with victims, and therefore have responsibilities under the code, are responsible for promoting awareness of and complying with the code to help support victims. If I may, Ms Elliott, I will address amendments 47 and 13 and new clause 2 in my wind-up remarks. I commend clauses 6 to 9 to the Committee.
Sarah Champion
I have tabled what I hope is a straightforward amendment that would place a stronger duty on criminal justice bodies to promote awareness of the victims code, rather than just asking them to take reasonable steps. Clause 6(1) states that,
“Each criminal justice body which provides services in a police area must…take reasonable steps to promote awareness of the victims’ code among users of those services and other members of the public”.
The amendment would remove the words “take reasonable steps” and make the clause stronger. For example, a reasonable step could be a poster in a police office reception, so that when asked about this during the compliance process, they could say, “Yes, we have taken a reasonable step. Everyone that comes into the police office can see that. It is a reasonable step.”
As other Members and I have already pointed out, compliance and awareness of the existing victims code is worryingly low. I look to the Minister to do something more robust to get that awareness into the public domain. Victim Support’s “Victim of the system” report found that as many as six in 10 victims do not receive their rights under the victims code; 20% of victims are not referred to support services, 46% do not receive a written acknowledgement of the crime, and 60% do not receive a needs assessment. The status quo is not working. For victims to access their rights, they must first be aware of them.
Anna McMorrin
I will speak to amendment 13 and new clause 2 together. Amendment 13 would insert
“in accordance with the victims’ code”
after “services” in clause 6. It is a relatively small correction that would, I hope, improve the Bill by making it clear that criminal justice bodies must collect information about their provision of services for victims in accordance with the victims code. I am concerned about the current provision in clause 6. The amendment would clarify that the information collected by each criminal justice body in a police area, and shared with other criminal justice bodies, would have to be in accordance with the victims code.
I thank Dr Ruth Lamont, senior lecturer in law at the University of Manchester and co-investigator for the victims’ access to justice project funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, for working with me on this issue. I am also pleased that the amendment is supported by Victim Support. During evidence last week, Rachel Almeida, assistant director for knowledge and insight at Victim Support, stated:
“The Bill refers to regulations being introduced to collect prescribed information. It needs to be more explicit that that applies to every single right. We want compliance with every single right to be monitored. From evidence we have seen, that will not necessarily happen, so it needs to be really clear that the regulations cover every single right.”— [Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 72, Q151.]
As amended, clause 6(2) with reference to the code would add elected accountability for provision of victims’ services. The elected local policing body—most commonly police and crime commissioners, but also metro mayors—are responsible for the commissioning of victim support services in their policing area. The amendment would specify the nature of the information to be provided. Police and crime commissioners do an awful lot of work on different aspects of policing and are responsible for its totality, so it is eminently sensible to focus the collection of prescribed information about the provision of services in accordance with the victims’ code. That would also support awareness of the code among agencies, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham brought up under another amendment. Does the Minister agree with that? That way, police and crime commissioners would have a specific path to follow, with a clear outline of what they need to collect and what they do not, thus streamlining resources and saving time. It also enables a very clear feed of data up to the Victims’ Commissioner for the purposes of reporting as the scope is defined.
It is imperative that code compliance is reviewed and monitored by criminal justice bodies and I support the introduction of that measure in the Bill. However, failing to identify the scope will have an undesired impact, as it could either prevent the desired data from being collected altogether or could have an adverse effect on PCCs by overstretching their resources. Overall, consistent data collection in accordance with the victims’ code guarantees that criminal justice agencies are complying, and if they are not, it will expose areas where improvement is needed. It would also make available information on whether victims are aware of their rights in the victims’ code and which rights are being accessed and required the most. The only way in which criminal justice bodies can respond to the needs of victims in their respective areas and deliver is through the proposed data collection and by sharing different methods for delivering the guarantees of the code. The process could also inform the reform of services and the commissioning choices made by the elected policing bodies.
As previously outlined, the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales would also be able to use data collected by criminal justice bodies in each police area to produce a national survey that could be fed into both the commissioner’s annual report and general advocacy engagements with Government. It is beneficial for victims that the system is better informed and evidence-based policy can then be drafted because of that specified data collection.
New clause 2 would place a duty on specified public authorities to co-operate with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses. The clause would allow the commissioner to request a specified public authority to co-operate with them in any way they consider necessary for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the victims’ code. It also places a duty on the specified public authority to comply with that request. I am grateful to Victim Support, which supports that too, for outlining in last week’s evidence session that the clause would increase the powers and authority of the Victims’ Commissioner in line with those of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who is the most recent commissioner to be granted that power.
The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 gives the Domestic Abuse Commissioner specific powers that enable her to fulfil that role and places legal duties on public sector bodies to co-operate with her and respond to any recommendation she makes to them. The powers are essential for the commissioner to drive forward change and hold agencies and national Government to account for their role in responding to domestic abuse. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to grant the Victims’ Commissioner the same authority. I hope the Minister agrees. Especially when considering just how many victims of crime there are out there, I am sure he will agree that that simply strengthens the Bill.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions. I will respond on amendments 47 and 13 in turn, and will then touch on new clause 2.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for amendment 47. I understand that she seeks to require relevant bodies to raise awareness of the code, rather than taking “reasonable steps” to do so. I reassure her that our intention is, of course, that victims will be made aware of the victims code. The “reasonable steps” term is commonly used and well understood in legislation. The use of it here seeks to replicate section 24 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which states that a senior police officer must “take reasonable steps” to discover the victim’s opinion before giving a domestic abuse protection notice. It appears similarly in the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017.
Sarah Champion
I am feeling the way the Minister is going with this. Might I make an on-the-hoof addition of the phrase “all reasonable steps”?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady knows me well; she may have had a sense of the direction I was heading in and be seeking to gently see me off from it midway. I will return to her point in a second.
The reason why we have introduced a reasonableness requirement is to retain operational flexibility, to allow for circumstances in which it would not be reasonable or operationally possible to expect the code to be actively promoted to certain victims. For example, when a criminal justice agency is communicating with a victim, sometimes that victim may be too distressed to process information about or want to engage with the code, or they may be in a public environment. In such instances, we would expect the reasonable step to be to share the information, but at a more appropriate time for the individual.
That in-built flexibility recognises that those working in the system, day in, day out, have considerable expertise and can deploy that to determine the most appropriate moment and method for sharing the code with vulnerable victims. It is absolutely our intention that all victims are made aware of the code, but there is a sensitivity about how and when.
I know that, separately, more can be done to improve criminal justice agencies’ communications with victims. We will use statutory guidance to set out further detail on our clear expectations as to when and how relevant agencies should make victims aware of the code. That will also point to appropriate training so that staff working with victims are confident and comfortable to share it at the right time. We are working closely with stakeholders to ensure that that guidance is robust, ambitious and practical. My fear is that being prescriptive in asking agencies when they communicate with victims, through removing “reasonable steps” from the clause, may lead to less sensitive and effective sharing in order to meet the duty, but I am happy to reflect on the points that the hon. Lady has made.
Amendment 13 seeks to amend the clause 6 requirement on criminal justice bodies to collect prescribed information. It would add that the requirement to collect prescribed data must be in relation to services provided in accordance with the victims code.
I agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff North, that our intention is absolutely for this information to be relevant to how they deliver services in accordance with the code, rather than how they provide services more generally. However, I fear that the clarificatory amendment she has tabled is not necessary, because we believe the duties contained in subsection (2) are already sufficiently limited to be clear about the code under the preceding subsections.
To demonstrate the point, I am happy to clarify that the duty to collect prescribed information is supplementary to the overarching duty in subsection (1)(b), which requires the criminal justice bodies to keep under review how their services are provided in accordance with the victims code. It follows from the reference in subsection (1)(b) that the services referred to are only those that are relevant to how services are provided in accordance with the victims code.
Our view is that amendment 13 would overly limit the duty to collect prescribed information, and requiring the collection of only information about the provision of services in accordance with the code would not allow for the collection of related relevant information. That information could include, for example, contextual information on the systems in place to ensure an accessible complaints process, which would give a greater understanding of compliance with code right 12 to make a complaint about rights not being met. Therefore, on what I accept is a technical point, I encourage the hon. Member for Cardiff North not to press the amendment to a Division.
Finally, I will touch on new clause 2. I agree that it is vital that relevant bodies co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner so that they can fulfil their statutory role to keep the operation of the victims code under review. We carefully considered whether updates were needed to the important functions and duties of the Victims’ Commissioner, to align them, where necessary, with those of more recently established commissioners—for example, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. That is why this Bill already introduces key updates, such as a requirement that the Victims’ Commissioner’s annual report must be laid in Parliament and that relevant authorities must respond to recommendations that the commissioner makes in any report.
Jess Phillips
I just wonder what would happen if we were discussing a school in my constituency—let us say my own children’s school—and Ofsted just got to say, “Yeah, you’ve just got to hope for the best, really. Let’s just hope for the best, with a little bit of improvement.” There are no powers; this process does not go anywhere. I am not sure that I can see how there is any gumption behind any of these particular improvements, other than just, “They’ll respond”.
Edward Argar
As I say, our experience is that the Victims’ Commissioner—I suspect that this is by virtue both of the office itself and the strength of personality of all three Victims’ Commissioners—has tended to be successful in obtaining the information they need to do their job and shine a light on particular issues or individual system challenges. Therefore, we do not believe that it is necessary or proportionate to alter their powers further in the way that has been discussed.
We intend for the Victims’ Commissioner to have access to relevant compliance information collected and shared under clauses 6 to 9, both via national governance forums and through the duty on the Secretary of State to publish compliance information. That may not go the full way, but I hope it goes some way to reassuring the hon. Lady that the Victims’ Commissioner will have access to information on the code. We do not believe that additional powers to collect such information are required.
Sarah Champion
The Minister is a reasonable man and I am a reasonable woman, so I will not press amendment 47.
The Chair
We now come to amendment 13, which has just been debated. Does Anna McMorrin wish to move the amendment formally?
Anna McMorrin
I am not going to press the amendment, but I would like to work with the Minister on how we see this issue going forward. He has given some assurances, but it would be good to clarify those.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 6 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Publication of code compliance information
Anna McMorrin
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 10, page 8, line 37, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must share compliance information with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses (‘the Commissioner’) within 2 days of receipt.
(1B) The Commissioner must use compliance information received under subsection (1A) to prepare an assessment of compliance with the victims’ code, including—
(a) an assessment of compliance in each police area,
(b) identifying any instances of systemic non-compliance with the victims’ code,
(c) identifying opportunities for improvement in compliance with the victims’ code, and
(d) identifying best practice in respect of compliance with the victims’ code.
(1C) The Commissioner must include a summary of the assessment made under subsection (1B) in their annual report prepared under section 49 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to share information about compliance with the victims’ code with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses and require the Commissioner to prepare an assessment using that information.
Anna McMorrin
Amendment 14 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to share all information collected regarding compliance with the victims code with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses. Clause 10(1) states:
“The Secretary of State must publish such compliance information as…will enable members of the public to assess…code compliance”.
Although I welcome clause 10 and agree that the public should be aware of agencies’ compliance with the victims code, the clause fails to provide information on how members of the public should be expected to interpret this data. I would welcome it if the Minister’s response addressed how that will be interpreted.
Amendment 14 would use the oversight by the Victims’ Commissioner to enable national analysis and oversight of compliance with the victims code, closing the feedback loop. Currently, although there is reporting, there is no independent reporting back of analysis to elected local police bodies or criminal justice bodies, or sharing of best practice.
The amendment would allow the Victims’ Commissioner to make an assessment on compliance across all police areas under the following categories: failures of reporting, areas of systemic non-compliance with the victims code, areas for improvement in compliance with the victims code, and evidence of best practice. The key focus has to be on ensuring the effectiveness of the oversight by the Victims’ Commissioner of compliance with the victims code throughout the whole of England and Wales. The reporting process would be both to the public and to criminal justice agencies, and it should encourage and support the development of higher standards for the protection of victims’ needs and interests.
Each of the four categories to be reported on by the Victims’ Commissioner is directed at a different aspect of identifying whether there is meaningful compliance with the requirements of the victims code. Such reporting should provide an overarching assessment of how effectively the victims code is working for victims. If a criminal justice agency fails to provide requested evidence regarding compliance with the code without just cause, this must be highlighted and publicly reported to provide accountability and encourage consistent reporting.
Through the Victims’ Commissioner’s oversight of criminal justice agencies reporting on the code, problem areas where there is evidence of non-compliance could be identified. For example, if there were consistent problems in providing for a category of victim, that could be highlighted and addressed as an issue across criminal justice agencies, rather than focusing on just one body. The process would naturally inform areas for improvement to ensure compliance with the code and enable support for criminal justice agencies in developing their practice in relation to victims. At the moment, however, there is no formal sharing of best practice in supporting victims in the justice system and meeting the expectations of the code. There is a lack of information for criminal justice agencies about the most effective services and processes to provide for victims under the victims code.
Reflecting on the evidence of compliance provides the commissioner with an important opportunity to share examples of best practice, including valuable services, procedures or approaches. This process would provide an environment in which positive developments could be identified, promoted and fed back to agencies that are doing well. We know that the agencies should seek to provide, and often do provide, the best service they can to victims, and that the process of reporting on compliance should encourage the development of effective services. The amendment would both promote the role of the code and provide resources for criminal justice agencies to draw on in developing their services for victims.
In evidence to the Committee last week, Caroline Henry, the police and crime commissioner for Nottinghamshire, stated:
“We need to increase transparency around whether the victims code is being complied with. We all need to be talking about victims more, and keeping victims at the heart of this”.––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 43, Q83.]
I am sure the Minister agrees that this relatively minor amendment would absolutely do that.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for enunciating the rationale for amendment 14. I shall first address her amendment and then move on to clause 10.
I agree that access to information on victims code compliance will help the Victims’ Commissioner to assess the operation of the code. I also agree that that information should inform their annual report. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to share the code compliance information that they receive from relevant bodies with the VC. I reassure the Committee that we not only intend to share information with the Victims’ Commissioner, but we will make sure that we use their expert insight to interpret what the data shows and what it means in practice. That will be covered in the new national governance structure that is intended to oversee the new code compliance framework put in place by the Bill.
We will set out more details about the structures in supporting guidance as we continue to test and develop proposals with stakeholders—the shadow Minister is welcome to contribute to that process. However, as relevant data will be shared in that forum, and the Victims’ Commissioner will also be able to access the published information, we do not see that additional data sharing arrangements are necessary in the Bill.
On the proposal that there should be a requirement on the Victims’ Commissioner to assess compliance and consider specific issues, that is exactly what we are seeking to achieve through the slightly different mechanism of the national governance forum on which the Victims’ Commissioner, among other important voices in the criminal justice system, will sit.
The Victims’ Commissioner has existing legislative responsibility to keep the operation of the victims code under review and existing powers to make reports and recommendations. The broad approach to the existing requirements for the Victims’ Commissioner means that all annual reports have already included a section on the victims code, and the increased overview and data will support further reporting on compliance.
We want to keep the potential topics that the Victims’ Commissioner can choose to cover as broad as possible. Being overly prescriptive could reduce the flexibility and independence in the role. We want to give the Victims’ Commissioner the flexibility to determine themselves which topics they wish to look at and cover. I hope that gives the shadow Minister some reassurance that the Bill as drafted will allow the Victims’ Commissioner access to code compliance information, and to use it to inform their annual report. We expect the Victims’ Commissioner to be a key lever in driving improvement in the system within the new national oversight structure.
Clause 10 ensures that we have appropriate transparency of code compliance data—first, by requiring the Secretary of State to publish victims code compliance information, which will allow the public to assess whether bodies are complying with the code; and secondly, by requiring police and crime commissioners to publicise that information in their local areas. We know that data transparency across a range of public functions can drive performance, and we heard at pre-legislative scrutiny that it was important to provide greater certainty that the compliance information would be published.
Publishing compliance information will allow victims, stakeholders and the public to understand how well bodies are complying with the code, as well as allowing for benchmarking and comparison across areas to identify disparities, share best practice and help drive improvements. I appreciate that right hon. and hon. Members might have concerns about the publication of sensitive information. Some information collected, such as feedback from victims that might be identifiable, may not be suitable for publication because it would infringe on privacy rights and potentially compromise victims’ confidentiality.
The clause therefore allows the Secretary of State a degree of flexibility in determining what information should be made public to allow effective assessment of code compliance while also protecting the identities of victims.
Anna McMorrin
I thank the Minister for his response to amendment 14. The issue is to ensure that the Victims’ Commissioner’s oversight role is strengthened, which is what the amendment would do. I am not sure whether the Minister gave me the assurance that there would be a strengthening. The previous Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera, was explicit about the fact that she lacked the data to ensure compliance throughout her tenure. I would like a bit more assurance that the Bill will do that. I will not seek to push the amendment to a vote today, but I would like to work to see how we can strengthen the Bill on that specific issue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Guidance on code awareness and reviewing compliance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
New clause 5—Improving accessibility and awareness of the Victims’ Code—
“(1) In preparing the draft of the victims’ code under section 2, the Secretary of State must take all practicable steps to ensure that the code is fully accessible to all victims and to promote awareness of the code among those victims and associated services.
(2) For the purposes of this section the Secretary of State must by regulations prescribe—
(a) that criminal justice bodies must signpost victims to appropriate support services, and
(b) that appropriate training is delivered to staff in criminal justice bodies, including by specialist domestic abuse services.
(3) The steps taken under subsection (1) must include steps aimed at ensuring that victims who—
(a) are deaf,
(b) are disabled,
(c) are visually impaired, or
(d) do not speak English as their first language,
are able to understand their entitlements under the code.”
This new clause seeks to ensure the victims’ code is accessible to all victims and associated services.
New clause 11—Monitoring compliance—
“(1) All agencies with responsibilities under the victims’ code have a duty to monitor and report how relevant services are provided in accordance with the victims’ code.
(2) In accordance with the duty in subsection (1), the agencies must provide an annual report to the Secretary of State on their assessment of their compliance with the code.
(3) The Secretary of State must make an annual statement to the House of Commons on the delivery of services provided in accordance with the victims’ code.”
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make an annual statement on compliance with the victims’ code.
New clause 12—Compliance with the code: threshold levels—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, issue minimum threshold levels of compliance with each right of the victims’ code.
(2) If a minimum threshold is breached by an organisation in a particular area, the Secretary of State must commission an inspection of that body with regard to that breach.
(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, lay before Parliament the report of any such inspection.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set minimum threshold levels of compliance with each right of the victims’ code.
Edward Argar
I will speak to clause 11 stand part, and in my concluding remarks address the speech that the hon. Member for Rotherham will make when she speaks to her new clauses.
Our approach through the Bill is to provide a framework to drive improvement and to use statutory guidance to set out how to operationalise that framework. That is why clause 11 requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance that will support the bodies subject to the code awareness and code compliance duties in clauses 6 to 10 to discharge those duties. It also requires those bodies to have regard to the guidance, which I hope provides reassurance to the hon. Member for Rotherham that there are sufficient provisions in place to ensure agencies take the statutory guidance on board.
We intend for the guidance to cover topics raised by hon. Members: how relevant bodies can promote awareness of the code, including how to make the code accessible and how to provide training to staff so they can confidently engage with victims; how police and crime commissioners will be required to report to the Secretary of State on their local reviews of code compliance information; and what good or poor performance looks like. It will also cover information on how local and national oversight structures will work, including routes for escalating on issues between them and on how data sharing and publication will work. The frequency of information collection will be set out in regulations and reflected in the guidance as appropriate.
Getting the guidance right is crucial to ensure that the policy works on the ground, so that it is clear what those subject to the duties are expected to do, and to encourage good practice and consistency across England and Wales. We intend to publish details of the guidance during the passage of the Bill to enable parliamentarians to have it to hand as they debate the Bill in its subsequent stages, and we are currently working with bodies subject to those duties and those who represent victims to develop it so that we can be sure it will work operationally. Underlining the importance of considering the views of those affected by the guidance, the clause also requires the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders before issuing the guidance, which will ensure that it is useful and reflects the operational context.
Our approach to setting out the framework for code awareness and code compliance in the Bill, and the detail in statutory guidance and regulations, is the right way to drive improvement in the victim experience. I hope that clause 11 will stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Champion
Clause 11 is a welcome part of the Bill that requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance regarding the code awareness and reviewing code compliance. We know that the guidance may include provision about ways of promoting awareness of the code; how information is collected, shared and reviewed; and the steps that an elected local police body must take to make the public aware of how to access compliance information. That is all vital for ensuring accountability and awareness of these issues, but alone it does not go far enough. It must be on the face of the Bill that the code is accessible to all victims, particularly those who have disabilities or whose first language is not English. The Secretary of State must ensure that code awareness is raised among those groups too.
It is also not enough to publish code compliance and draw public attention to how to access that information. If we want to ensure that victims’ rights are met, we need to actively monitor their enforcement. New clause 5 seeks to ensure that the victims code is accessible to all victims and associated services. The new clause is supported by Women’s Aid and addresses issues raised by charities such as Victim Support, which I thank for helping to draft it.
As we know, the victims code sets out the minimum standards that organisations must provide to victims of crime. However, specialist violence against women and girls organisations have an abundance of evidence that indicates the needs of deaf, disabled and blind victims, as well as victims whose first language is not English, are being overlooked, neglected or at best addressed inadequately. It is truly concerning to hear from Women’s Aid that public bodies, including the police, often fail to comply with their obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation when interacting with victims facing communication barriers. Their right under the victims code—
“To be able to understand and to be understood”—
is also not being upheld. We know from specialist “by and for” led organisations that this is having a direct impact on marginalised victims not coming forward. This failure to respond to their communication needs is preventing victims from coming forward. As a result, victims are left with no choice but to stay longer with an abusive perpetrator and are at risk of increased harm while being denied justice.
Rising Sun, a specialist service, highlighted a case whereby a victim’s disability was not factored into the support plan and she was not provided information in Braille. Not only did this impact on her ability to make an application for a non-molestation order; she could not even read the resources provided on domestic abuse. She was left feeling humiliated and embarrassed, and stayed with her abusive partner for a further four weeks before fleeing to emergency accommodation with her children.
As discussed on earlier amendments, by failing to address and respond to communication barriers, there is a risk of the police having incomplete information and evidence from victims due to the lack of support to ensure they were understood. A survivor working with Women’s Aid urged for there to be more training to support those with accessibility needs, such as deaf people. She highlighted that we have a BSL Act but this it is not having any impact on survivors of domestic abuse.
The Government state that one of the first objectives of the Victims and Prisoners Bill is to introduce measures
“to help victims have confidence that the right support is available and that, if they report crime, the criminal justice system will treat them in the way they should rightly expect.”
It is clear, therefore, that new clause 5 is vital to ensure that all practical steps are taken to ensure that the code is fully accessible to all victims, particularly deaf, disabled and blind victims, as well as victims whose first language is not English.
Victim Support has also raised concerns about the need to implement the right to be understood. One woman, Angela—both her name and the languages have been changed—was wrongly arrested when she attempted to seek help from the police after experiencing domestic abuse. Despite taking regular English classes, Angela struggles with language skills in pressured or stressful situations. When she contacted the police to report the abuse, her partner at the time, who was fluent in English, managed to convince the police officers that he was the victim. Angela said:
“They cuffed me, put me in a police car, so I said, why? I was being treated like a criminal, so I was in great shock.”
At no point did the police ask Angela if she understood what was happening or if she needed a translator, even when she started speaking in Romanian. She said:
“They were just saying, ‘speak English, speak English!’”
Angela was arrested and held in police custody. She only got an interpreter at 8 pm, despite asking for one at 2 pm. After explaining what had happened through the interpreter, Angela was, thankfully, released and her partner was later charged. Eventually, the case went to court and the perpetrator was found guilty and issued with a restraining order. However, a copy of the court ruling was only sent in English, and Angela had to pay to have it translated.
It must be on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State must take all practical steps to ensure that victims who are deaf, disabled or visually impaired, or who do not speak English as their first language are able to understand their entitlements under the code. We cannot allow anyone, in particular vulnerable women such as Angela, to be wrongfully treated and unaware of their rights do to these language barriers.
New clause 5 would also require the Justice Secretary to ensure that criminal justice bodies signpost victims to appropriate support services, and to ensure that appropriate training is delivered to staff in criminal justice bodies, including by specialist domestic abuse services. This is desperately needed, as we know from the examples we have heard over the past few days. I urge the Minister to consider adopting the new clause, or to please give assurances that he will include guidance on not only accessibility and awareness of the code, but on providing training to criminal justice agencies.
I now turn to new clauses 11 and 12. New clause 11 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make an annual statement on compliance with the victims code, and new clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to set minimum threshold levels of compliance with each right of the victims code. The new clauses aim to strengthen the accountability of the victims code of practice by placing a duty on the Secretary of State to oversee them. They also aim to remove the core responsibility of overseeing enforcement of the code from the police and crime commissioners, who currently do not have sufficient powers and, in many cases, resources to either ensure compliance or hold contributors to the local criminal justice board to account.
New clause 12 would also ensure that the information on regulations covers every right in the victims code so that genuine improvements for victims will be achieved. In 2019, the independent Victims’ Commissioner carried out a review of delivery of the victims code. Sadly, the review found that the code is failing to deliver the improvements and sense of change required, because of fundamental problems that require systemic changes to be fixed. The needs of victims are not being met, and agencies are still struggling to deliver the code. The review called for an urgent reform—and that was in 2019. Wider victims code compliance data is not readily available, but aspects of it, such as being informed of the option to write a victim’s statement, are tested by the Office for National Statistics. That is reflected in the Ministry of Justice’s “Delivering justice for victims” consultation document, which sadly offers no detailed look at code compliance from other data sources.
The new clauses seek to tackle the lack of compliance by addressing the accountability issues denying victims and witnesses their rights and entitlements. The current set-up relies on the local criminal justice boards, the majority of which are chaired by the PCCs. LCJBs were introduced to bring together criminal justice partners to identify priorities, improve the experiences of victims and witnesses and deliver agreed objectives to improve the effectiveness of the local criminal justice system. They are aligned to the police force areas and operate as voluntary partnerships. However, when looking at right 4, for example, regarding support services for victims, the third sector, integrated care boards and sometimes local authorities are missing from this core conversation on the victims code.
In 2016, the Local Government Association undertook a high-level review of the council’s role in providing community safety services. Part of that review scrutinised PCCs and their role in chairing LCJBs. The review found that relationships between local councils and the PCCs were, not surprisingly, varied. It was clear that in some areas relationships are well established, with close work taking place; in others, relationships have proved more difficult to establish and there is very little contact, particularly where local priorities differ between the leading PCCs and the community safety partnerships. The review also found that similar variations were reported regarding the strength of local authority relationships with other statutory partners. In some areas excellent relationships are in place; however, it is clear that that is not universal. In other places, there continue to be concerns about siloed working and core issues such as data sharing. Stronger mechanisms must be in place to ensure that code compliance is on a national scale. We cannot have another postcode lottery being exacerbated due to the lack of accountability.
By placing a duty on the Secretary of State to both gather the data and publicly analyse it, there will be an emphasis for the relevant bodies to both return the data and work to improve it. Additionally, requiring criminal justice agencies to report annually on compliance provides the Secretary of State with a level of necessary oversight to ensure compliance and that victims’ rights and entitlements are upheld. The Secretary of State can then make an annual statement on the current state of code compliance and provide additional support and scrutiny wherever necessary to ensure that the code is working effectively for victims and witnesses. That also allows for more parliamentary scrutiny where necessary.
New clause 12 requires the Secretary of State to set a minimum threshold level of compliance for each right under the victims code. If the threshold for compliance is not met, the Secretary of State must commission an inspection and lay it before Parliament. Core accountabilities of the measures in the Bill must go back to the Secretary of State to ensure that we as parliamentarians can hold him or her to account, reporting the steps taken to correct any issues. That is a vital safeguard for Parliament. It should lead to urgent and tangible change where failures have taken place, and ultimately to a better experience for all victims.
Anna McMorrin
I support my hon. Friend’s new clauses. Victims who are deaf, disabled or blind or whose first language is not English are constantly being failed by the criminal justice system, so new clause 5 is essential. New clauses 11 and 12 raise key issues regarding accountability. It goes back to what I was talking about with my amendments. We need accountability. Treatment for victims is a postcode lottery, dependent on which policing areas see fit to hold services to account and ensure that victims’ needs are put first. I know that the Minister wants to address compliance, so I hope he will respond to my hon. Friend, who has made some important points.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for tabling the new clauses, and I hope that she will allow me to address them all together. Although they each address different aspects of victims code awareness and compliance, they are interrelated. I wholeheartedly agree with the aims of each new clause, but we believe that the issues are already addressed in the Bill and associated measures. What differs is how the new clauses would achieve what is essentially a shared aim.
Broadly, the new clauses would either place duties in legislation where we instead propose including provision in statutory guidance, or introduce duties that we feel are already provided for in the Bill; I will go through the specifics in a second. As I said, the approach that we have taken to drive up code awareness and compliance is to set up the key structures of the framework in the Bill but to allow for the regulations and statutory guidance that operationalise it to be where the detail is found. Where we have introduced new duties, we have carefully considered how to do so in the way that we believe will be most effective in delivering the improvements in victim experience that I think is a shared objective for everyone in the room.
New clause 5 is intended to improve accessibility and awareness of the victims code and associated services. I share the hon. Lady’s aim of ensuring that all victims have access to the information that they need to support them in engaging with the criminal justice process. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to
“take all practicable steps to ensure that the code is fully accessible…and to promote awareness of the code”.
As right hon. and hon. Members will have seen in clauses 6, 8 and 9, we are placing explicit duties on criminal justice agencies to promote awareness of the code among victims and the public. We have placed that duty on agencies rather than the Secretary of State. Because those agencies are the ones in contact with victims day in, day out, they are best placed to raise awareness directly with victims themselves and to shoulder that responsibility.
Outside the Bill, I agree that there is a role for the Government in promoting code awareness. This is why we have committed to raising awareness of the code among practitioners, victims and the general public. For example, we are looking at a Government communications campaign and similar measures to boost that broader reach.
Sarah Champion
What language is that campaign in? I am holding up my phone to make a point about access to smartphones and smart technology. Translating all the core documents, which could easily be downloaded on a phone or printed out by an officer or support service, does not seem a particularly complex thing to do, if there is the Government will to make it happen.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. As I say, I am looking at how we might do this, so I am not in a position to make firm commitments to her, other than that I will bear what she says in mind when we get to the point of being able to do something like this. She made a sensible point and, typically, in doing so she also suggested a possible solution.
Accessibility is hugely important. The code, however brilliant it may end up being, is of limited value if people cannot access it to understand it and know how it relates to them. We know that victims not only need to know about the code, but need to understand it. We recognise the importance of that. We are considering carefully how we can ensure that everyone who needs to understand it can do so. I am happy to work with the hon. Member for Rotherham. My meeting agenda over the summer and in September is getting longer and longer, but I am always happy to spend time with her to discuss such matters.
The hon. Lady’s new clause 5 would also give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations prescribing that criminal justice bodies must signpost victims to appropriate support services and must receive appropriate training, including from specialist domestic abuse services. It is absolutely right that victims should be signposted to appropriate support services. Right 4 under the code contains an entitlement for victims to be referred to support services and to have such services tailored to their needs. Through the new duty on criminal justice agencies to take reasonable steps to make victims aware of the code, more victims should be aware of their entitlements.
I turn to training. Agencies already deliver training on the code to their staff to ensure that they are confident and comfortable sharing it. For example, the national policing curriculum uses interactive and group training methods to deliver training in as impactful a way as possible. That is regularly reviewed and updated as necessary.
Jess Phillips
I do not have the data, and I do not expect the Minister to have it at his fingertips, but does he know how many police officers have actually had that training? Less than 50% have been trained on what coercive control is, for example.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady slightly pre-empts my answer. If that information is centrally held, I will endeavour to get it and write to her with it.
I am also pleased that the College of Policing has developed the Domestic Abuse Matters programme, which has already been delivered to the majority of forces. It was developed in conjunction with SafeLives and with input from Women’s Aid.
In addition, the CPS will work with specialist support organisations to develop bespoke trauma-informed training on domestic abuse to help prosecutors to understand the complexities that victims experience in those crimes. Information on domestic abuse and how to recognise the signs and provide support is also available to HMCTS staff. To increase the impact that the training agencies already deliver, we are using statutory guidance to set out advice regarding appropriate training so that staff working with victims are confident in how to share the code sensitively and effectively at the right time for the victim.
We are confident that for both training and accessibility, statutory guidance under the existing code awareness duty is the most flexible and effective approach. It can set standards while allowing agencies to tailor it for the different needs of agencies, staff and victims, and it can be kept up to date more easily, which enables us to take a continuous improvement approach. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley is right to make the point that we can have fantastic guidance and training, but the key thing is to ensure that it is engaged with and that practitioners take the training on board and—I have used this dreadful word a few times—“operationalise” it in their day-to-day work. It is right that independent agencies have the expertise to decide how best to design and deliver training, rather than the requirement sitting with the Secretary of State. We already have provisions in the Bill and additional measures to address the aims of new clause 5, so I encourage the hon. Member for Rotherham not to press it to a Division.
New clause 11 would place a duty on all agencies with victims code responsibilities to monitor and report on compliance, and a duty on the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament. I am grateful for the debate we have had, and I absolutely agree that we must monitor and report code compliance information. That is vital to understanding whether victims are getting the service they should. As I mentioned in our debate on a previous group of amendments, in 2019-20 only 23% of victims and 22% of the public were aware of the code, and only 45% of victims felt that the police and other criminal justice agencies kept them informed. That is why the Bill already legislates for new duties on code awareness and compliance in clauses 6 to 11. We therefore consider that new clause 11 is already covered by the existing provisions.
Sarah Champion
I wonder whether the Minister plans to speak about what enforcement there is if things do not go as he anticipates in the Bill.
Edward Argar
Without testing the patience of the Committee, I have a few more points I intend to make before concluding. I hope that some of what I say may well reassure the hon. Lady. If it does not, I am sure she will return to it at some point.
Together, these clauses set out the new code compliance monitoring framework by requiring key criminal justice agencies to keep their compliance with the code under review through collecting, sharing and reviewing compliance information and by reporting to the Secretary of State—either through police and crime commissioners, for local area reporting across agencies, or via separate routes for the national police forces. As has been outlined, those reports will be fed into a national forum where the data is reviewed, and the Secretary of State will publish relevant information to create as much transparency as possible. We are actively considering how often compliance information and data will be shared, and we will include that in the statutory guidance.
Where the amendment differs is in covering all agencies that deliver services under the code. This is a long list and includes bodies for which direct working with victims of crime is not central to their work. We carefully considered which agencies should come under these important but potentially not un-onerous monitoring and reporting responsibilities. We sought to choose key agencies that work day in, day out with victims of crime and have most responsibilities under the code, for example the police, the CPS, the courts, prisons and probation, and youth offending teams. That is where we want to prioritise resourcing to deliver robust local and national oversight. I agree that the Secretary of State reporting annually to the House is a vital part of accountability. We will continue to test and develop proposals for the new national governance forum, and I am open to considering how the findings and outcomes of that forum can best be reported to Parliament to allow parliamentary scrutiny and debate of such measures.
New clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to set victims’ code compliance thresholds by regulations, trigger inspections if thresholds were breached and require inspection reports to be laid before Parliament. I agree that there should be clear standards for the service that victims should receive, and consequences if service falls below that threshold. Our approach to achieving that is related to, but slightly different from, the proposal of the hon. Member for Rotherham. Although we will use regulations to set out what information must be collected to monitor code compliance, we think statutory guidance should cover the important issues that the hon. Lady has raised, such as thresholds that may trigger escalation to address poor performance. That is particularly appropriate for considering performance thresholds, given how the victims’ code sets out entitlements: they are a mix of what victims should receive, or have the opportunity to receive, and how they should be treated. In this context, the quality of communication and delivery really matters.
We will better understand code compliance, including the quality of delivery, by gathering consistent information from a range of different sources, including victim feedback, quantitative data and process narratives to understand how agencies deliver less measurable entitlements. That basket of evidence will hopefully give us a broader picture of how well local areas are delivering the code. The information on code compliance will allow police and crime commissioners to assess where improvements are needed, what agencies’ plans are to drive these improvements and whether those plans are working. Measuring whether standards are improving in this way will be more effective than setting a potentially arbitrary threshold, against each code right, as to what triggers escalation.
Where local solutions fail or greater oversight is required, police and crime commissioners will be able to escalate systemic issues to the national governance forum. I agree that inspections will help to drive change, which is why the inspectorates will be invited to attend the national governance forum. When systemic issues and poor performance are identified at a national level, that will be an opportunity to use the powers that we have introduced in the Bill for Ministers to direct a joint victim-focused inspection in areas that are consistently not delivering or to examine a range of issues that are clearly challenging in a number of areas, rather than requiring an inspection for each individual breach. In cases where there are individual breaches, there are, of course, complaints processes, and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman can take appropriate actions to identify the most appropriate route for redress.
Finally, with regard to laying a report in Parliament, inspection reports are already published. As I have said, I am open to considering how the national governance forum reports and work can be fed into Parliament, and I will work with the hon. Member for Rotherham and others across the House to ensure that we get this right. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady some reassurance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Fay Jones.)
Victims and Prisoners Bill (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 4th July 2023
(2 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 4 July 2023 - (4 Jul 2023)
The Chair
Before we start, I have a few preliminary reminders: switch off electronic devices or turn them to silent; no food or drink, except for the water provided, is permitted in this sitting; and send your speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk, or pass them to Hansard colleagues in the room.
Clause 16
Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie.
Clause 16 raises the profile of the Victims’ Commissioner, a vital and powerful voice for victims. Previous office holders—we have spoken of them in previous sittings: Louise Casey, Helen Newlove and Vera Baird—have all been dedicated in speaking up for the needs of all victims and witnesses, especially the most vulnerable.
The Victims’ Commissioner plays a crucial role in advising national policymaking, raising awareness of the common issues faced by victims and witnesses, conducting research, and assessing how the criminal justice and victim support agencies comply with the code. However, in the 2021 victims consultation, we heard that the commissioner requires further powers to effectively carry out their duties.
The clause introduces a requirement for the Victims’ Commissioner to lay their annual report in Parliament, which will give greater prominence to the report and amplify victims’ voices. It also bolsters the status of all Victims’ Commissioner reports by requiring Departments and agencies under the remit of the Victims’ Commissioner to respond to recommendations directed at them in all published reports within 56 days. They must say what action they plan to take in response to the report or explain why no action will be taken.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way on that point?
Maria Eagle
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early in his remarks. Does he agree that for a Victims’ Commissioner to be effective, they have to be in post? Can he give us an update on how the recruitment of Dame Vera Baird’s successor is going? There has now been a gap between Dame Vera leaving and whoever the new postholder is to be taking up their post.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention; I said that I thought that I could predict her question, and I did—in my head—with a fair degree of accuracy. I gently refer her to the response that I gave to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff North, in our deliberations last week. This is a hugely important post, as the right hon. Lady highlighted in her intervention, and it is right that we take it seriously and get it right.
I suspect that Opposition Members may raise wry smiles at this, but we have had a number of Lord Chancellors in the past year. The Victims’ Commissioner is an important post to which a Lord Chancellor can recommend an appointment to the Prime Minister. The current Lord Chancellor has been in post for a few months now, and he wants to ensure that he reviews the situation and gets it right so that he is happy with the postholder, but he shares my view—and indeed that of the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood—that it is important that we get this done properly and as swiftly as possible.
The proposals in clause 16 will better hold agencies to account and ensure that they are actively considering victims’ experiences and how they can be improved. The clause also adds to the list of agencies that the Victims’ Commissioner may make recommendations about, crucially adding police and crime commissioners and the criminal justice inspectorates.
As set out previously, the Bill also puts in place mechanisms to improve the processes for monitoring compliance with the victims code, both locally and nationally. The Victims’ Commissioner is expected to have an important voice in those discussions, where systemic issues have been escalated, so that action can be taken to drive improvements. Together, the measures add to the existing broad Victims’ Commissioner powers, allowing the Victims’ Commissioner to tailor their role as they see fit to achieve their functions and outcomes for victims. We expect that that will result in better treatment of victims at both local and national levels, fulfilling the most important function of the Victims’ Commissioner.
As set out in previous Committee sittings, and as I said to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, a recruitment process is under way, and we take it extremely seriously. With that in mind, I commend clause 16 to the Committee.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for addressing the clause. As I have already outlined, regarding my previous amendments that would have strengthened the powers and authority of the Victims’ Commissioner, we fully support the function of a robust and independent Victims’ Commissioner. We first asked for a provision to grant the commissioner a statutory duty to prepare and issue a report to lay before Parliament in early 2021, so I am glad that the Government have finally caught up and heeded our calls.
We believe that victims’ rights should be a parliamentary responsibility, and I am pleased that the report will not just go to the Secretary of State. During the evidence sessions, Dame Vera raised her concerns about the efficacy of the data that will be available to the commissioner for the purposes of their report—something that I have also raised in debates on earlier amendments. Will the Minister outline how a future Victims’ Commissioner, when appointed, will receive the appropriate data and information to allow for independent scrutiny? The Bill at present fails to do that.
The Victims’ Commissioner’s powers under clause 16 do not go far enough in ensuring that victims have a steady, reliable voice that criminal justice agencies and the Government must listen to. Granting agencies the duty to respond to the commissioner’s recommendations is a welcome first step, but how will the Government ensure that agencies respond and comply? I understand that the Domestic Abuse Commissioner is still waiting for a response to their “Safety Before Status” report five months after the deadline. Can the Minister explain why the Government do not believe it is necessary to respect the powers of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and respond to such a pivotal report? Can he reassure all of us here that exactly the same practice will not just happen again to the Victims’ Commissioner?
Edward Argar
There were a number of points there, to which I will respond swiftly for the benefit of the Committee. I note the point made by the shadow Minister about having asked for such provision in 2021. In a gentle way, I must say that she was beaten to it—by Dame Vera, in fact; she and I had discussions about how that might happen in 2018-2019, just before I was reshuffled to the Department of Health and Social Care, so I am pleased to see the measure before us today.
The Bill already contains data transparency provisions and a duty on the Secretary of State and others to publish the data at both a local and national level. That will give a huge additional layer of data granularity for not just the Victims’ Commissioner, but others, including Members of this House, to scrutinise.
I turn to the duty to respond. I suggested to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood that I had predicted her question. I thought this could have been the other question she might have gently sent in my direction—about the “Safety Before Status” report and the response time to it. I note that the other report by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner was responded to. We always seek to respond within the timelines set out. As the hon. Member for Cardiff North will be aware, that particular report is a matter for the Home Office, but I will ensure that my colleagues in the Home Office are made aware of her remarks.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 16 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17
His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to debate clauses 18 to 20 stand part. [Interruption.] I will speak more slowly between clauses next time so that the Minister can find his notes.
Edward Argar
As the day goes on, Mr Hosie, I get more dextrous when it comes to finding the right piece of paper to respond to interventions or, indeed, to your swift running of the Committee.
These clauses have been grouped together, because while each separate clause relates to each of the separate criminal justice inspectorates in turn, they all introduce the same measures. Each of the inspectorates named in the legislation has a role in the oversight of victim treatment in the criminal justice agencies they inspect. His Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons oversees the responsibilities prisons have to victims, and His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation oversees the delivery of probation’s responsibilities towards victims. That includes the victim contact scheme and the role of probation in protecting the public and keeping victims safe.
His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services oversees the delivery of the police’s responsibilities towards victims, including how forces protect vulnerable people and the service provided to victims throughout their engagement with police. His Majesty’s chief inspectorate of the Crown Prosecution Service oversees the delivery of the CPS’s responsibilities towards victims, including the victims communication and liaison scheme and the service provided to certain groups, such as victims of domestic abuse. Increasing transparency around the performance of criminal justice agencies and ensuring clear oversight when victims are treated poorly are both integral parts of driving improvements for victims. In delivering these aims, the inspectorates’ diligent reporting on the efficiency and effectiveness of criminal justice agencies is vital, and we fully recognise the importance of their work in ensuring victims are treated as they should be.
The inspectorates play a key role in scrutinising the performance of the agencies that they inspect and monitoring the delivery of recommendations, utilising tools such as re-inspections where required. Their work promotes effective practice, challenges poor performance and encourages improvement. We want to build on that foundation to deliver further progress for victims, with clauses 17 to 20 bolstering the inspectorates to enhance victim focus in their work.
The clauses will achieve that by empowering Ministers to jointly direct that a joint inspection programme must include provision for the inspection of victims’ issues, creating a sharper focus on how victims are treated and where to focus improvements. That new power will be an addition to existing ministerial powers to drive improvements with regard to code compliance. They will also be able to use the newly collected and shared code compliance information that we touched on in the debate on the previous clause to inform the use of the power. Joint inspections will involve the inspectorates working together to address cross-cutting systemic issues that impact victims and their experience of the criminal justice system.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in particularly welcoming the inclusion of His Majesty’s chief inspector of the Crown Prosecution Service, given that many victims’ experiences—sometimes adverse experiences—of the criminal justice system occur in the courts? Of course, it is not for us to tell the judiciary what it should do, as we have been reminded during the passage of the Bill. There is not an inspectorate of the court service in the same way, so does my hon. Friend agree that the inspectorate of the CPS can, to some extent, fulfil the role of improving the experience of victims through the court process?
Edward Argar
When I see my hon. Friend rise to ask a question, I always look at him with a degree of trepidation, because he knows of which he speaks, having for many years served in the youth justice system. He is right that, as well as the judiciary being independent, and that independence being, quite rightly, jealously protected, so too are individual prosecution decisions by the CPS. His Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate, exactly as he says, has the potential to make a huge impact here, because we often hear from many victims that the court stage of the process of seeking justice can be very challenging for them. The clauses will ensure that victims’ issues are comprehensively assessed, with associated action plans driving improvements so that victims receive the service they deserve.
Maria Eagle
I am having a look again at the report of the Justice Committee—the pre-legislative scrutiny of what has ended up being the first part of the Bill. The Select Committee raised the issue that the general difficulty that inspectorates have relates to having levers available to them to ensure that their recommendations, if they are even accepted, are implemented. The inspectorates all use different methodologies. I wonder whether the Government have developed any plans to ensure that the inspections that he is legislating for give levers to the inspectorates, so that we do not merely get what often happens now, which is repeated reports making the same points, with the inspectorates having no way, even if their recommendations are accepted, of ensuring that anything is done about them.
Edward Argar
The right hon. Lady makes a couple of important points. First, on the different methodologies, while I expect that we will want to see consistency in the application of principles to them, I suspect that, by the nature of what they are inspecting and the independence of each of the inspectorates, there will be some tailoring and divergence in how they operate in terms of their inspections.
On the right hon. Lady’s broader point, which I think was the thrust of her intervention, and the PLS point about how inspectorates get traction with their recommendations, we have set out in debates that we would expect the recommendations to be responded to and acted upon, but ultimately it will be for those who are accountable for running the individual services, be they Ministers, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or ultimately the Attorney General in the case of the CPS, to heed those recommendations and act on them.
I think that it is right that Ministers respond to, for example, the recommendations of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, which answers directly to the Prisons Minister, and ultimately to the Secretary of State, but it would not necessarily be appropriate if Ministers were compelled to enact every recommendation without consideration. It is right that there is a degree of agency for the Secretary of State, for which of course they are accountable to this House and to hon. Members.
I suspect that if there were sensible recommendations to be made and a Secretary of State ignored them, the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood would be one of the first to challenge them on the matter in this House. I think the provision strikes an appropriate balance. Any Secretary of State or agency head who did not give careful consideration to the recommendations of an inspectorate would be—“reckless” is the wrong word, so let’s say “courageous”, in the language of Sir Humphrey.
To conclude, the clauses require the inspectorates to consult the Victims’ Commissioner when developing their inspection programmes and frameworks. That will ensure that the commissioner can advocate for what matters most to victims, with their invaluable insight considered throughout the consultation process. Centring the victim experience in this way will promote positive change across the criminal justice agencies that are inspected. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Anna McMorrin
It is clear from my previous amendments to the Bill on expanding the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner that the commissioner should be widely consulted for the majority of matters in the victims code. I am pleased that the Government have accepted the recommendation following pre-legislative scrutiny by the Justice Committee to place a duty on criminal justice inspectorates to consult the commissioner when developing their work programmes and frameworks to drive improvements, because it is the victims’ experiences and what they go through that matter.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood was absolutely right when she emphasised, as the Select Committee set out, that the inspectorates need the levers to act when these issues are pointed out. It is imperative that a formal consultative role is established as only some inspectorates routinely consult the Victims’ Commissioner. I welcome this provision, but would like to see that point emphasised.
Edward Argar
When responding to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, I should have thanked and paid tribute to the work of the Justice Committee for its pre-legislative scrutiny, which played a huge role in improving the original clauses and drafting of this part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 18 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clause 21 simplifies the process for victims of crime to escalate complaints about their experiences as a victim. The policies and approach introduced in the legislation will lead to improved experiences for victims, but if things do go wrong, the clause will help them raise their concerns more easily and seek redress. It does that by giving victims the ability to complain directly to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, rather than referring their complaint through an MP, where their complaint relates to their experience as a victim of crime. Victims may either make a complaint themselves or do so through a nominated representative, such as a friend or relative.
The change addresses a concern that some would call the “MP filter”, which may be a barrier for victims and deter them from escalating complaints against public bodies due to a complicated and intimidating process. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House respond swiftly and sensitively to ombudsman forms that they are sent by their constituents in cases that come before them, and that all Members seek to assist their constituents in that respect. However, we are seeking to simplify this process further. Given the nature of complaints that may arise in this context, it is possible that some victims may not feel comfortable approaching their MP to share a potentially traumatic experience. I hope they would, but I appreciate some may not.
The PHSO is an independent complaint-handling service with extensive expertise in driving improvements in public services and identifying the most appropriate route for redress. When it decides that an organisation has not acted properly, it can recommend that the organisation prevents the issue from occurring in the future, acknowledges its mistakes, issues an apology or makes a payment to the complainant, or all of the above. It may also follow up to check that action has been taken and report to Parliament where an organisation has failed to follow recommendations, and that, of course, is central to improving activity and delivery. It is therefore important that complainants feel confident and comfortable when making a complaint, to encourage them to do so when needed and, as a consequence, to prevent similar issues in the future.
Anna McMorrin
There have been calls for some years to remove the MP filter so that victims who want to complain do not have to go through their MP. I met the ombudsman in July last year, and they made it clear how essential it was for the MP filter to be removed, so I am glad the Minister has outlined this proposal and finally conceded the point.
This move has widespread approval both inside and outside Parliament, but it is long overdue. The Government introduced a draft Bill back in December 2016 to remove the MP filter. How many victims could have sought support directly from the ombudsman in the last six years had the Government followed through with that Bill? That is not to mention the fact that the MP filter was intended as a temporary measure to be phased out after five years when first introduced in 1967. Yet here we are in 2023.
I also echo the ombudsman’s further request to allow victims to make a complaint in formats other than in writing. The Government’s response to the Justice Committee was that complainants can nominate someone else, such as a family member, to submit the complaint for them. However, there is a consensus that that does not go far enough in ensuring that everyone has adequate access to this vital public body.
The ombudsman’s consultation response on the Bill outlined the issue using a case in which the complainant stated they found the system difficult to navigate because they could not read or write. There is no guarantee that this individual would be able to nominate someone close to them to handle this incredibly sensitive and very personal issue for them, so I wonder whether the Minister might consider conceding on this point. Finally, it is worth noting that the ombudsman service is not well known among victims of crime, so how will the Government increase its visibility?
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance for, I think, the first time, Mr Hosie. It is not so much that I want to make a speech; it is just that I feel compelled to say thank you to the Minister for moving on this issue.
In the 10 years I have been an MP, I have always felt quite compromised by being another level of the bureaucracy slowing down my constituents in getting through to an ombudsman-type person. That has always felt odd and inappropriate, and it gives false hope and a false understanding that MPs have some involvement in this process. It also took away another tool, but now we can act as lobbyists, as well as having the commissioner in place.
It is good to hear that the individual will have responsibility in terms of the victims code, because we keep asking about accountability and how to make sure the code is applied in an even-handed way geographically. I warmly welcome this change, which is well overdue, and I am glad the Bill is bringing it forwards.
Maria Eagle
I also approve of the fact that the MP filter is going, but it has had some advantages. They have, perhaps, paled in comparison with the disadvantages, but I have always found when assisting constituents that the filter makes it possible to ensure that the application is in a fit state. It is not always easy these days to get separate advice—a lot of the advice agencies are not operating in the way they were—and I have frequently seen constituents’ applications that could be better set out and, perhaps, that could make the points that I know about, because I know the case, more persuasively. I think there is an issue about quality in that sense.
I know that the ombudsman is set up to find out what has really gone on and treat the person making the application fairly, but it is constrained by what is written in the application and the documents that have been sent. Many people who want to complain are very involved in their case and do not necessarily put it in the strongest possible manner.
In the past, I have not referred cases to the ombudsman when it has been absolutely clear to me that they will not succeed. In part, that is because, in a way, I am in a better position to explain to my constituent why they will not succeed and to make sure that they do not have false hope. I am clear with them that I am not going to send a case forward to the ombudsman if I absolutely know that it will not succeed, because that will not do them any favours. One can imagine that more cases may come to the ombudsman that are not going to succeed.
Sarah Champion
I hear my right hon. Friend’s point about being that first filter, but does she think it is fair that we are put in that position? I understand what she says about cases going forward that might not be appropriate, but I have never felt easy about that being my role.
Maria Eagle
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. Indeed, when I first came into Parliament many moons ago, that was how it worked; it was just one of those roles that one had, and so one tried to make the best of it. If there is a chance of deterring a case that has absolutely no chance of success and is not going to help the constituent concerned because it is inevitable that they will not get what they want, then perhaps having the MP there to explain it helps. There is no doubt that one can become a lightning rod for annoyance in those circumstances, and that is not a happy place to be.
I prefaced my remarks by saying that I approve of the MP filter going, but I think that there is an issue here that a greater number of cases that are less well prepared and have no chance of succeeding may go forward to the ombudsman. I wonder what the Minister is going to do, both on providing resources for the parliamentary commissioner and on providing the public with information and, perhaps, other ways of getting advice in completing applications, to ensure that the intent of this positive legislative change will not be overshadowed by some of its potential consequences.
Edward Argar
I also met Rob Behrens, the ombudsman, and I pay tribute to him and his team for their work. I am pleased by the broad consensus in the Committee. I note what the shadow Minister said; all I will say is that I am bringing this measure forward and that I am grateful for her support.
I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for her kind words. It is always a pleasure to do political business with her, if I may put it that way. I sometimes wish that some of what happens in Committee Rooms was rather better publicised. People watch Prime Minister’s questions and think that is everything that happens, whereas in fact there is quite a lot of constructive to and fro in rooms such as this when we are seeking to improve legislation.
As ever, the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood makes a very important point. When we seek to change or influence something in this place, there is rarely a simple, binary choice between an unadulterated good, without any downsides, and an unadulterated bad, without any upsides. On balance, I believe that we are taking the right approach and that the positives significantly outweigh the negatives, but she is right to highlight the challenges. Not only can a Member of Parliament sometimes help to strengthen an application before it is made, but it can be useful to an MP to see applications so that they know if there is an issue. If there are suddenly two or three about the same organisation and the same issue, that aids Member of Parliament in standing up in the House to challenge a Minister, or to hold an agency to account about what may be a more systemic problem.
That said, I do not think that the approach that we are adopting would preclude someone from seeking advice from a Member of Parliament if they so wished as they prepared their form. Some of my constituents have found the ombudsman service quite helpful, not in prejudging a case but in giving some pretty good advice when they ask, “What do I need to submit with it?” There is also some pretty good advice on the service’s website.
Ultimately, the clause should make it easier for people to complain, but I agree with the right hon. Lady that we need to provide support to ensure that they can make their best complaint, if that makes sense, to the ombudsman, in order to give them the best chance of having it looked at in the best possible light. I will take away the point that she makes, and reflect on whether we can do more as Government, and as parliamentarians, to promote awareness of the PHSO route, and how we might better support people in going through it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Duty to collaborate in exercise of victim support functions
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 89, in clause 12, page 10, line 5, at end insert——
“(1A) For the purposes of this section, the relevant authorities for a police area in England must together conduct a joint strategic needs assessment.
(1B) The Secretary of State must, drawing on assessments prepared under subsection (1A), provide a statement every three years on current support for victims of domestic abuse, including—
(a) volume of current provision,
(b) levels of need, and
(c) investment.”
Amendment 89 requires the relevant authority for a police area in England to conduct a join strategic needs assessment. The amendment is supported by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner Nicole Jacobs, and I thank her and her team for both the evidence that she submitted and her help with the amendment. Part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 made great strides by placing a duty to plan and provide accommodation-based support for survivors of domestic abuse, including their children. However, there is no such duty for other essential community-based services, such as counselling, therapeutic support and advocacy, which are vital for survivors to find safety and recover from abuse.
In November last year, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner released the findings from her mapping of domestic abuse services across England and Wales, titled “A Patchwork of Provision”. She found that most victims and survivors wanted some form of community-based support. For example, 83% wanted counselling and therapeutic support, 74% wanted one-to-one support, such as a caseworker, and 65% wanted mental health care. There is a clear need for a range of community-based services, and a duty to collaborate would be a step forward in helping to co-ordinate the response.
However, victims and survivors are diverse, and so are their needs, which all too often are not being met. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s report found a huge discrepancy in the provision of services across England and Wales, and an acute lack of funding, particularly among “by and for” services. Fewer than half of survivors were able to access the community-based support that they wanted. Only 35% said that accessing help was easy or straightforward. Over 70% of survivors who wanted support for their children were unable to access it, and only 7% of survivors who wanted their perpetrator to receive support to change their behaviour was able to get it.
Only 23% of survivors who wanted help to stay in work were able to get it, and just 27% who wanted help with money problems or debt received it. The mapping highlighted how effective and critical such services are in supporting victims and survivors of domestic abuse, but over a quarter of domestic abuse services were forced to cease some services altogether due to a lack of funding. Among “by and for” organisations, that rose to 45%. For children, who are recognised as victims in their own right for the first time in the Domestic Abuse Act, the Bill becomes empty legislation unless there is funding to provide services for them, or structures in place to understand their needs and provision.
The duty to collaborate will make some progress in responding to that need. However, I am unsure how a local strategy can have any material and substantial impact without a joint strategic needs assessment, which I will refer to as a JSNA from this point forwards. JSNAs draw from data to create a description of the place and population, taking into account the social, demographic and economic characteristics of the population in that area. They identify risk and protective factors to ensure effective commissioning. They provide the multi-agency partnership with important information to inform local initiatives, including data and typologies of domestic abuse, trends, volume, extent and distribution.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her amendment, which, as she set out, would require relevant authorities for a police area to conduct a joint strategic needs assessment—I may adopt the same shorthand as she did in order to save words—as part of their obligations under the duty to collaborate to inform the strategy for commissioning victim support services. The amendment would also require the Secretary of State to use the assessments to publish a statement every three years on the current support for victims of domestic abuse, using the needs assessments to assess whether provision is in line with need.
The hon. Lady is quite right to highlight the importance of service provision for such victims and survivors. It is something that she has championed, and that with passion and experience the shadow Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, has raised on every occasion in this House when she has had the opportunity since we were both elected together in 2015; I pay tribute to her for her work in this space.
It is vital that we have the relevant support services to fit the local needs of victims and that a bespoke approach is taken, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach set at a national level. That is why the funding system for victim support services operates as it does. I sometimes fear that some of the debate around duties to fund specific individual services slightly risks over-constraining individual local commissioners in their ability to meet the needs of their particular communities and to ensure that there is an appropriate blend of services, be they general services, “by and for” services or very specific services, so I sound a slight note of caution there. Of course, when it comes to overall funding—I suspect we may touch on this in subsequent debates—in the Government’s view the spending review, rather than individual legislation, is the right place to set such funding limits.
Grants and funding are supplied to PCCs to allow them to use their knowledge of local need and provision to choose what they fund. As part of the process, relevant local needs assessments that indicate the needs of victims already take place regularly as part of good commissioning practice. The grant funding is provided to commission practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of all types of crime in their local areas. PCCs are expected to carry out needs assessments, which will allow them to target the funding and ascertain the level of need and demand in their area.
Sarah Champion
I am listening intently to what the Minister is saying. For clarification, I am not asking for a prescription like, “Five per cent. of support goes to people with dogs.” What I am saying is that authorities need a robust understanding of their demographics so that they are able to justify that they are supporting the needs in their areas. As the Minister has moved on to PCCs, will he comment on whether he believes that system is working? PCCs are individuals—political appointments—and I wonder whether that is leading to some of the subjective delivery we are seeing nationally, which I know he seeks to address.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady makes a couple of points. First, my remarks a moment ago were made in the context of the broader debate that can often happen around the funding of services. To her specific point, I fear I may detain the Committee a little while, but I suspect I will address her points within that context.
Police and crime commissioners are directly elected and therefore accountable to their communities, but there is always—I suspect that, under any Government of any political complexion, there will always be—the perennial debate of how to strike the appropriate balance: local flexibility and tailoring to meet local needs, versus the challenge of how to achieve a degree of consistency and avoid the so-called—this is a dreadful phrase— postcode lottery. That is always going to be a tension within the system. The challenge for us all, whichever side of the House we sit on, is how to strike the appropriate balance between those two approaches: the national and consistent approach, versus a degree of local tailoring, which reflects not only local need but political decision making by police and crime commissioners.
Sarah Champion
As the Minister knows, I am trying to help. Would it not help the Secretary of State and the Government if an agreed baseline of data was collected? A region may push back on it, but it gives the Government a guide to see whether an area is succeeding or failing, and whether they need to be asking questions. For example, we do the same thing with ambulance times—we have that baseline. There will be local variations that can be discussed with the Secretary of State, but the baseline gives the Minister the opportunity to make investigations.
Edward Argar
I reassure the hon. Lady that if she allows me to develop my point a little, I will address her specific JSNA point before I conclude.
As the hon. Lady will be aware, we published our victims funding strategy last May. I am pleased that that was published, not least because I set it in train back in 2018 when I was last a Minister in the Department. I am pleased that it has seen sunlight. The strategy provides a framework for how agencies should work together to best resource the victim support sector. Within it, there is a clear expectation that commissioners carry out regular needs assessments, using all the data required to commission appropriate services for victims in their areas, including victims with tailored needs. The duty to collaborate in the Bill, which the hon. Lady touched on, is clear that relevant agencies must work together to ensure that services that meet local needs are commissioned and provided for.
Clause 13(3) requires relevant authorities to have regard to any assessment of the needs of victims that they have already carried out when preparing their joint strategy. We will be issuing statutory guidance to accompany that duty. That will set out clear expectations for how the duty should be carried out, as well as good practice, including around data and consistency of data. The guidance will set out that relevant authorities are expected to explain in their joint commissioning strategy how they have had regard to the relevant needs assessments, and how commissioning decisions meet those needs.
I understand the points made by the hon. Lady, both in her opening remarks and in her interventions. I share her view that support services have to be commissioned in line with, and reflect, genuine need. That is why we have created the duty. To a degree, it reflects the duty created under the Health and Care Act 2022 for integrated care boards and integrated care systems in that context. We should allow local flexibility in the services that are offered but seek to avoid duplication and gaps where multiple agencies commission the same service in some spaces and nothing is commissioned in others. It is a cornerstone of the duty that local needs must be assessed and considered. For those reasons, we do not believe that the amendment is required to clearly state that a joint needs assessment must be considered, but I have a few more remarks to reassure the hon. Lady.
Subsection (1B) of amendment 89 would require the Secretary of State to provide a statement every three years on the current support available for victims of domestic abuse, including the volume of provision, levels of need and investment. The Department receives regular monitoring returns from PCCs and the support services that we commission. The returns include data that indicates how many victims are seeking support, and provide insight into demand and levels of need across England and Wales, which informs national commissioning decisions.
We are committed to improving our understanding of need and the impact of funding at a national level. To do that, we have introduced core metrics and outcomes to be collected from all victim support services that are commissioned through Government funding streams as part of the victims funding strategy. We will also establish an oversight board to monitor them.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
The trouble with the data that the Minister is describing is that it will not be all the data in a local area if it just comes from a PCC, because the vast majority of community-based services for victims of domestic and sexual violence come from a local authority. Unless that data is all pulled together with a joint needs assessment, the Minister, up here in this ivory tower, will get only a tiny fraction of the reality.
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister highlights one of the issues that we grappled with in the course of drafting the victims funding strategy. I pay tribute to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for her work in trying to grapple with this issue as well. I am talking about trying to get an understanding of what is provided in a given locality, not just from the money provided by central Government—we can track that and see what is commissioned—but through local authorities and, in some cases, although I suspect it is not a huge amount, elements of NHS service provision.
Edward Argar
I take the hon. Lady’s point. I am no longer a Health Minister, but I suspect that were I ever to be so lucky as to be reshuffled back into that role, she would gently, or perhaps less gently, lobby me on that point. Of course, there is also the provision of services that are not funded by a statutory body but are voluntarily supported and funded. That is not to say that that is a reason not to fund services statutorily; equally, in regard to understanding the provision locally, it is important to understand all aspects of that provision.
I will turn to the JSNA—
Sarah Champion
You probably will in an hour or so. [Laughter.] I do not want to push the amendment to a vote, but I would like the clarity that will prevent me from doing so. Is the Minister saying that in the statutory guidance he will require or ask for data not only from the PCCs but from the local authority, the NHS and—one hopes—community services?
Edward Argar
I suspect that I have but two or three minutes more, and I hope that in that time I will be able to address adequately the hon. Lady’s concerns. The funding strategy’s oversight board will review collected data returns to establish where there are obvious gaps in current funding, where we may be duplicating funding across Government and where we could improve collaboration at national level to improve services for victims. The duty to collaborate will further improve our—
Sarah Champion
Minister, I think you have an hour, not two minutes, so please take your time.
Edward Argar
I will not test your patience in that way on a Tuesday morning, Mr Hosie.
The duty to collaborate will further improve our understanding of both local need and the services commissioned for victims of not only domestic abuse but sexual abuse and other serious violence offences. The publication of the joint commissioning strategies will give valuable insight into the levels of service that victims are receiving in each police area across England and an assessment of how areas are making improvements against local objectives or key performance indicators. An oversight forum will then scrutinise those strategies, assess how well the duty is executed nationally, share best practice and help to devise plans for improvement.
A national statement every three years focused solely on domestic abuse would not in itself hugely build on the understanding that the Secretary of State already has through existing mechanisms or necessarily better help local areas to understand need. The strategies published under the duty to collaborate will instead provide information of the type, or a large amount of it, that the hon. Member for Rotherham is asking for—that is, on the volume of provision, levels of need, and investment—for not only domestic abuse but sexual abuse and other serious violent offences more broadly, and with the important local context that is useful for commissioners. I therefore encourage the hon. Lady not to press the amendment to a Division, as the Secretary of State will in effect have access to all the information that she asks for. However, although I am—
Edward Argar
I give way to the shadow Minister, but let us hope she does not dissuade me from what I am about to say.
Jess Phillips
I do not wish to dissuade the Minister. In my local area, there is a “by and for” service that is run specifically for Afghan women, that is completely funded, usually, by the will of volunteers, and that is dealing every year with hundreds of cases of Afghan women who are victims of domestic abuse, and it does not get its funding from any of these sources. How will the Secretary of State know that that is an issue?
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady did not quite succeed in dissuading me from what I was about to say, which is that although I am unable to accept the hon. Member for Rotherham’s JSNA amendment at this time, I will reflect very carefully on its import and what she said, and particularly on the words of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner in the oral evidence we heard, and in the context of the points made by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Yardley and for Rotherham about the challenges in understanding service provision when that is not funded through a national or a public funding stream.
I cannot commit further than that, but I will commit to reflecting very carefully, between Committee stage—as this is a carry-over Bill, we will have a few months—and before it returns to the House on Report, on the points that the hon. Members and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner have made very eloquently.
Sarah Champion
I apologise for testing your kind patience, Mr Hosie. While the Minister is in a reflective mood, I hope he will also reflect on the financial and time commitments that might be placed on organisations, and try to ensure that we get the data we need with the lightest of touches. I am grateful for his movement on the issue, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Jess Phillips
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 12, page 10, line 16, at end insert—
“(3A) In discharging their duty under this section, relevant authorities must collaborate with specialist women’s community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence support services within the police area, as commissioned under section [Commissioning of specialist women’s community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence support services].”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19—Commissioning of specialist women’s community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence support services—
“(1) It is the duty of relevant local authorities to commission specialist women’s community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence support services for victims in accordance with need.
(2) The services provided under subsection (1) must include, but are not limited to—
(a) counselling and other psychological support,
(b) advice and advocacy support in relation to welfare benefits, debt and access to financial support,
(c) support for children affected by domestic abuse,
(d) legal advice,
(e) victims helplines,
(f) support for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence, trafficking or modern slavery who offend as a result of that abuse,
(g) perpetrator programmes with a priority outcome of increased safety and freedom for victims,
(h) support for victims of elder abuse,
(i) support for victims of stalking,
(j) support for families where a relative has died by suicide following domestic abuse,
(k) support for victims of modern slavery and trafficking,
(l) support for so-called ‘honour-based’ abuse victims,
(m) outreach and education initiatives aimed at raising awareness of domestic abuse and sexual violence, and
(n) ‘By and For’ services that support individuals with protected characteristics.
(3) In discharging the duty under this section, the relevant local authorities must have particular regard to the need for such services provided by, and for the benefit of those with protected characteristics.
(4) The Secretary of State must by regulations—
(a) define ‘specialist community based services’ in collaboration with the violence against women and girls sector, and
(b) set out how providers are to be regulated.”
Jess Phillips
I apologise for my lateness, Mr Hosie. I am suffering from a weird bout of dizziness, which I have never had before in my life.
Jess Phillips
I will attempt to stand, but should I need to sit down I will. I am fine if I just stand still.
Unsurprisingly, I will follow on from the theme of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham regarding exactly how the very welcome duties around domestic abuse and sexual violence will work in practice. I am afraid that the Bill runs the risk of having a good title—obviously I preferred it when it just had the word “victims” in it—but not much else in this space. No one is not on the side of victims. Everyone wants them to be looked after and cared for. The problem, as is so often the case, is that the devil is in the detail. The support, care and provision of services that victims need are specialist, tailored guidance and support in the face of tragedy, abuse, exploitation, fear, anger and loss. I tabled the amendment and new clause in recognition of the specialist services that are needed if we are to truly deliver on the promised principles of the Bill.
My commitment to specialist services and my desire to get specialisms written into the law is, and will be, lifelong, because I have watched as generic services have taken over from specialist support-based services. In my constituency, I have seen a case where the perpetrator is being supported by the same service as the victim, which is both unethical and dangerous. That happens because there are all-encompassing, non-specialist victims-based services rather than specialist women’s services. I gently point out to all Government Committee members that there is a huge desire from the Government to talk about women-only spaces. I notice that it is politically expedient to talk about women’s specialisms in some aspects of our politics; if only putting women’s specialisms into the law were such a hot topic. I notice that much less debate goes on about that.
The amendment and new clause would clarify that police and crime commissioners, local authorities and health bodies must commission specialist women’s community services that will provide the support, care, prevention and guidance that victims need. Without specifying the types of services that should be commissioned to best serve victims, the duty will undoubtedly incentivise large generic contracts and not local specialist services—a real risk to which I will return.
First, though, I will make the argument for specialist provision and pay homage to the providers that deliver it. It is easy to make such an argument when we hear of the need, experiences and injuries of victims, and the sheer scale of crimes suffered. We know that such services are currently available to victims. For example, community-based domestic abuse services are life-saving and, crucially, life-building for victims of some of the worst crimes, but an estimated 70% of domestic abuse victims and survivors who seek support rely on community-based services.
In previous Bills such as the Domestic Abuse Bill, the Government have sought to have protections from on high, not from local commissioners. They decided it was more important to make sure that refuge-based accommodation services were provided in all areas. However, they did not put the specialisms in, as I will come to in a minute. Currently, 70% of people are seen by community-based services, so we are touching only a fraction. Refuge, the UK’s largest domestic abuse charity, states that 80% of its thousands of service users access some kind of community-based specialist service, but inconsistent provision across the country means that many survivors are not able to access such support. In 2022, less than 50% of those who wanted to access community-based services were able to.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
We all have female constituents who have been victims and who need community-based services. I have had constituents contacting me who are on a very, very long waiting list. Those specialist services are not there at present. Not only do we need them, but we need the funding to be in place for them.
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree. In my local area, we have had to shut down waiting lists, and not just because of their length: there have been cases of domestic homicide, where women have been murdered while on a waiting list for services. Those agencies that were not able to provide specialist services then feel the hand of blame coming from the state: because people were dwindling on waiting lists, the agencies get a level of blame for the murder of those women. In the worst possible circumstances, we cannot even operate waiting lists any more. They just shut them.
The care and support that victims and survivors need are specialised and wide-ranging. In new clause 19, we have laid out some of the key services that need to be provided. The mental health impacts of domestic abuse and sexual violence cannot be overestimated, so counselling and other psychological support is central. In Women’s Aid research, almost half of women in refuge reported feeling depressed or having suicidal thoughts as a direct result of the domestic abuse that they experienced. Throughout the journey of the Bill, we have heard the heartbreaking case of Katie, who took her own life following sexual abuse. Katie was a childhood friend of the journalist Charlie Webster, who wrote:
“The thing about the trauma of sexual abuse, it doesn’t just go away. What happened to Katie made her feel worthless like she wasn’t enough, and it impacted her mental health, as is common for all survivors, me including.”
We must ensure that victims can get the help they need.
The organisation Surviving Economic Abuse has done extraordinary work on raising the profile of economic abuse and the devastating, complex impact on domestic abuse victims’ lives. Some 95% of domestic abuse victim-survivors experience economic abuse, and the lack of access to economic resources post separation is the primary reason why women return to an abusive partner. It is crucial that survivors have access to specialist experts who understand economic abuse, as well as advocacy support in relation to welfare benefits and debt and access to financial support to rebuild their lives.
The impact of domestic abuse on children is a shamefully underdeveloped area of policy. Colleagues and I were successful in securing the recognition of children as victims in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, but what does that actually mean in practice? One in seven children and young people under the age of 18 will have lived with domestic violence at some point in their childhood, but the provision of children’s support services nationally is patchy, piecemeal and precarious. I am one of the nation’s leading experts in this, but if a child in my constituency came to me today and said, “I’m not a direct victim of domestic abuse, but my mum is being beaten up by my dad every day,” I would not know where to send them. I would not know where to refer that child.
Sarah Champion
Will the Minister give way? Sorry, I mean the shadow Minister.
Sarah Champion
I wonder whether my hon. Friend heard the “Woman’s Hour” piece last week. Olivia Colman is a trustee of a theatre group that goes into primary schools specifically to raise issues that are uncomfortable, but also to try to give some support to those hidden children who will be seeing domestic abuse and to try to prevent perpetrators in future.
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. That organisation is called Tender; I am also a patron, along with Olivia Colman. Again, that support is only provided through having good headteachers or good local commissioners. There is nothing from this building or nationally that says there must be specialists going into every school, because if in every single school there is a class of 30 kids, and one in seven—my gosh, I am so dizzy that my maths will not work it out, but we will have a huge number of children in every class who suffer this in silence. They need specialist support available to them. We are failing to reach and save children in dire domestic abuse circumstances.
Edward Argar
It is good to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, in her seat. I hope she is feeling a bit better, although I am pleased that neither her eloquence nor her passion for the subject has been impaired. I am grateful for her amendments to place a duty on relevant local authorities to create specialist women’s community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence support services for victims, in accordance with need. Her new clause 19 would also require the Secretary of State to define in regulations “specialist community based services”, after agreeing that definition in collaboration with the violence against women and girls sector, and to set out in regulations how providers are to be regulated.
Supporting victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence is an absolute priority for the Government. As I said in responding to an earlier group of amendments, I recognise the hon. Lady’s expertise and commitment to the issue. I hope that one thing we can both agree on is the importance of getting the right support for victims of these crimes. She is absolutely right: there is a place for broadly based general support services for victims of crime, but equally I have seen at first hand, both in my current incarnation in this role and previously, the importance of specialist services, particularly “by and for” services and trauma-informed services, if we are to succeed in reaching out to and being able to help victims and survivors of those horrendous crimes and give them the confidence to engage and be supported.
Amendment 80 calls for collaboration with the providers of community-based specialist services for female victims of domestic abuse and sexual abuse. The duty to collaborate set out in clauses 12 and 13 is specifically and purposely placed on the commissioners of services only—that is, police and crime commissioners, local authorities and integrated care boards in England—as it is a duty to collaborate when commissioning services. To expand collaboration beyond commissioners would risk changing the objectives of that duty, which are to encourage more strategic and joined-up commissioning of services, rather than to dictate or fix which types of services the commissioners, who understand the needs of their area best, should focus on and should aim to commission.
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s ambition to ensure that specialist women’s support services are properly considered as part of that commissioning process. As needs will vary locally, the Department provides police and crime commissioners with grant funding to commission practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types in their local areas. PCCs are expected to carry out needs assessments to inform their local commissioning decisions, as I mentioned in discussing a previous amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Rotherham.
Sarah Champion
This point builds on my previous amendment. Budgets are tight and PCCs are trying to get the most support from their limited budgets. Can the Minister point to anything in the Bill that will make sure that the specialist services get a look-in? My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley touched on generic services, which we were seeing a lot. Brexit was meant to eliminate having to go to the lowest bidder, the European regulations and that sort of stuff. My fear is that unless there is something the Minister can point to in the Bill that embeds that need for both demographic and specialist support services, the PCCs will go for the cheapest, most common provider.
Edward Argar
I slightly differ from the hon. Lady’s perspective; I do not believe that it is necessary to have that provision in the Bill. There are other mechanisms, be they through statutory guidance or through commissioning guidance and the work that is done together. We have touched on this point before, but the challenge is the extent to which we think mandating—and thereby, to a degree, being prescriptive—is appropriate, versus being permissive, for example by setting out guidance and expectations, but saying that it is for a directly elected and accountable police and crime commissioner to make decisions and be accountable to their electorate and their public for what they are doing and whether they are making the right decisions.
Jess Phillips
I understand entirely—I am a firm democrat and I will fight for democracy—but I am afraid the idea that very marginalised groups of people with very little resource could launch a campaign to spark public interest in, say, Lincolnshire to get the 19% of people who voted in the PCC election to change the balance is for the birds. I say that as someone who has tried to do it. I am not entirely sure that PCCs can truly be accountable to their electorates on the issue. If we are seeing gaps, surely it is Parliament’s responsibility to deal with them.
Edward Argar
I was going to make the point that, sitting alongside local accountability and local tailoring, we also have—as the hon. Lady will know, and for want of a better term—a national approach. The context is slightly different, but we have the rape and sexual abuse support fund, for example, which is nationally commissioned. With RASAF, we seek to fill gaps in provision and ensure there is a geographical spread.
I will turn to individual services in a moment, but in any locality a PCC might say, in relation to the point made by the hon. Member for Rotherham, “I have limited resources, so I will put them where the greatest number of victims are in my area.” However, a small number of victims might not be covered by that, because they are a small number in that locality. That is why we have the national approach sitting alongside to ensure that there is national provision in a number of areas.
Jess Phillips
On the idea that there is anywhere in our country where victims of domestic abuse are small in number, let me say that the national average is 19% of all victims of crime, and domestic abuse represents the highest volume of any crime in our country where calls go to the police. I do not expect the Minister to have the data to hand, but I would like to see a PCC’s office that is spending 19% of its budget on this.
Edward Argar
I will see whether I can get that data. On the hon. Lady’s point about the figure of 19%, she is right to highlight the horrifying prevalence of that crime, which often goes unnoticed because of the nature of reporting and the nature of the crime. Moreover, there are particular groups within the figure and within the cohort of victims, for example minorities. A PCC might take the view that in a locality a particular group might need specific trauma-informed services, which, given their choice of resource allocation, might not have been catered for. That is why we seek at national level to try to address such issues with direct funding grants and with agreements that we reach, for example through the RASAF.
Our role as Government is to set the expected standards for the approach to commissioning of victim support services. At a macro level, we have done that through the victims funding strategy, which clearly sets out the expectation for commissioners to put victims at the centre of commissioning. We wholeheartedly agree that commissioners should consider a range of different services, including specialist women’s community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence support, and that they should choose to commission services that best fit the needs of their population.
Let me turn to the specifics of the amendment. I am in agreement on the importance of commissioners drawing on the expertise of providers of victim support services when preparing and revising their joint strategies. That is why clause 13(2) specifically requires relevant authorities to consult with persons who represent the interests of victims, providers and other expert organisations. We would expect them to consult with providers of specialist services for female victims of domestic abuse and sexual abuse, as well as “by and for” services in the children’s sector, to name but a few more. However, we do not consider it proportionate to list in legislation organisations with which commissioners must consult, which would risk resulting in a hierarchy of services or unintentionally omitting organisations providing valuable and important services.
In addition, we intend the accompanying statutory guidance to set out that local commissioners should consider engaging with a range of providers that reflect the types of service required in their area, such as women-only services, when considering their statutory duty to consult persons appearing to them to provide relevant victim support services and other appropriate persons. Guidance will also support commissioners by recommending standards and processes for that consultation. We are engaging with both providers and local commissioners as we develop that guidance so that we can reflect best practice, and I would be very happy to work with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley to explore how guidance may further support commissioners in fulfilling their obligations to reflect the views of providers, and those who support victims, in their joint-commissioning strategies.
I reassure the hon. Lady that the Government are fully aware that domestic abuse and sexual violence disproportionately impact women and girls. Beyond the Bill, in February 2023 we published a revised strategic policing requirement, which includes violence against women and girls as a national threat for policing to respond to. In 2021, the Government published a new and ambitious cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy to help to ensure that women and girls are safe everywhere. That includes a new full-time national policing lead on violence against women and girls, DCC Maggie Blyth, who I have had the privilege of meeting; I know that the shadow Minister meets her regularly as well. She is now in post and is doing an excellent job in the role.
We have awarded £125 million through the safer streets fund and the safety of women at night fund to make our streets safer for women and girls. We have contributed up to £3.3 million to fund the roll-out of Domestic Abuse Matters training to police forces. That includes funding the development of a new module to improve charge rates. The Government are also taking targeted action against sexual violence, including through the 24/7 rape and sexual abuse support line, which offers free, confidential emotional support for victims and survivors.
I therefore encourage the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley—I do not know whether she is persuadable—not to press her amendment to a Division. The duty to collaborate focuses only on commissioning bodies, as they are best placed to meet the objectives of our duty. In the Government’s view, the Bill already includes provision for engagement with providers, such as providers of specialist women’s services for domestic abuse and sexual violence, underpinned by the statutory guidance that will be produced.
New clause 19 would place a duty on relevant local authorities to commission specialist women’s community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence support services for victims in accordance with need. It would also require the Secretary of State to define in regulations “specialist community based services”, after agreeing that definition in collaboration with the violence against women and girls sector, and to set out in regulations how providers will be regulated.
We do not fully share the hon. Lady’s view about the extent to which local authorities should be required to fund particular types of community-based services; again, that goes to the point underpinning my earlier remarks about it being a local decision for which local authorities would be accountable. In our view, it is for local commissioners to determine what services to fund, noting the additional national strand of direct funding alongside that. That determination will be based on their assessments of the needs of their local populations, knowledge of available services and their understanding of those services and their provision. Our concern is that the approach set out in the new clause risks excluding or minimising the importance of some of the other service types that commissioners could consider for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence. As drafted, the new clause could risk creating a hierarchy.
On overall funding, we believe that the right approach to setting funding levels continues to be through the spending review process, rather than individual pieces of legislation. That allows Government and individual Departments to outline priorities and respond to changing circumstances; allows the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider a range of funding requests and pressures, recognising the finite amount of taxpayer money available to any Government; and allows those priorities to be considered in the round.
I hasten to add that I am not in any way questioning the importance of these vital services. I have had the privilege of visiting a number of them, both as Under-Secretary of State and in my present role. I have seen at first hand the amazing work that they do. They often go above and beyond the resources that they have available, in their own time and with their own resources, so passionate are those who work in this part of the sector to assist to the best of their ability those who need their help. That is one of the reasons that we have included ringfenced funding in our grants to PCCs for community-based services for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence.
In allocating money to PCCs, there is always a balance to be struck. Many PCCs, I know, would prefer a greater proportion of their funding to be unringfenced and to be used entirely at their discretion within those broad parameters. We think that we have struck the appropriate balance, with them having a degree of discretion, but with some ringfenced funding to address particular needs.
Sarah Champion
I am listening intently to what the Minister is saying. He says that he is concerned that the list of services put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley has the potential to create a hierarchy of services, but he has only detailed IDVAs and ISVAs further on in the Bill. How does the Minister hold both those thoughts?
Edward Argar
I suspect that when we reach that clause, we will debate that exact point. However, to pre-empt what I will say about that clause—I shall say this briefly before you call me to order, Mr Hosie—the reason is that ISVAs and IDVAs have a particular, evolving and developed professionalism that gives them a particular locus within the criminal justice system. It is quite right that we cannot issue guidance to judges, because they are the independent judiciary, but through this approach to ISVAs and IDVAs we can seek to give the judiciary greater confidence in the professionalism of those roles. We thereby hope to see the judiciary being more willing to utilise them in the court process. That is my rationale, but we may debate that point when we come to the relevant clause.
New clause 19 also highlights the importance of legal advice for victims. The Government asked the Law Commission, as part of its work on the use of evidence in sexual offence prosecutions, carefully to review the law, guidance and practice relating to the trial process in prosecutions of sexual offences, an issue in which I know the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley takes a close interest. That will include consideration of whether independent legal advice and representation would be beneficial where personal records are sought, or more widely for the trial process.
On setting out how providers are to be regulated, we do not want to take a prescriptive approach in legislation. Local commissioners regularly review the services they commission to ensure high standards of victim services and will set relevant and tailored quality standards in their agreements with local providers. I suspect that a degree of the debate here is around where the line lies between prescription and a permissive approach.
As I have said in response to similar amendments, we have allocated a substantial amount of funding for domestic abuse and sexual violence victims and survivors, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to victims of these crimes. We are making it clear to commissioners and funders that they should consider the value and role of specialist-based support services when assessing local need to inform the distribution of funding, but ultimately local commissioners are best placed to determine how those services should be provided locally. On that basis, I gently encourage the shadow Minister not to press her amendment to a Division.
Jess Phillips
I will respond to some of what the Minister has said. His charming hope that all commissioners are absolute experts in this is not one that I share. I have been a commissioner on a local authority, and I think Birmingham remains probably the only part of the country to commission sexual violence services as part of its sexual health commissioning, and sexual and domestic abuse services as part of its substance misuse commissioning. The reason is that I was the commissioner and I am an expert in this.
In our evidence session, the woman from Rape Crisis said that she could not think of any specialist Rape Crisis services being commissioned by mental health services in our country. There is this idea that commissioners all have a total understanding of specialist domestic and sexual violence services. I have a plan for someone who works in the service to become a commissioner in every service, to ensure that that happens, but given the failure of my ability to influence Bury St Edmunds Council to have someone from women’s aid services elected to it, I will struggle. I do not think we can argue that commissioners know best. I have watched them know very little about anything to do with this topic. They are not specialists. They need to be told what specialisms they have to provide.
On hierarchy, I totally agree about the paradox that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham pointed out. I want there to be a hierarchy. That is what I am saying: I am asking for a hierarchy, where specialist services are placed at the top and generic support services are just that.
I will not press the amendment to a vote, because I genuinely believe that we can get to an agreement on this issue prior to Report. I totally believe in the Minister’s will to do that. I say gently, though, that evidence from the Domestic Abuse Act shows that if we do not write these provisions into legislation, local authorities will just take refuge accommodation in-house and it will become completely non-specialist—it has been staffed by men, for example. We did not get this written into the Domestic Abuse Act, but I would really like the words “women” and “women’s specialist services” to exist somewhere in the Bill. Although I will not press the amendment to a vote today, I stand ready to make this argument again later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Anna McMorrin
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 12, page 10, line 22, at end insert—
“(d) offences against children.”
This amendment would extend the duty to collaborate to include victim support services for child victims.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 19, in clause 12, page 10, line 22, at end insert—
“(d) fraud.”
This amendment would extend the duty to collaborate to include victim support services for victims of fraud.
Amendment 82, in clause 12, page 10, line 22, at end insert—
“(d) modern slavery.”
This amendment would extend the duty to collaborate to include victim support services for victims of modern slavery.
Anna McMorrin
I will start with amendment 9. As it stands, the duty to collaborate in the Bill is limited to victim support services for domestic abuse, conduct of a sexual nature and serious violence. All of that is welcome, but it is such a restrictive remit that it excludes vulnerable victims who would benefit from joined-up services. Extending the duty to collaborate to include victim support services for child victims would ensure that children’s needs are guaranteed to be front and centre of any collaboration that takes place.
In her evidence session, when asked whether children should be included in the duty to collaborate, the response of the Children’s Commissioner for England and Wales was, “Absolutely.” I am happy to see that the duty to collaborate is in the Bill, but there needs to be more accountability around it. If we are going to put children as victims into the Bill, we have to recognise that they experience crime and victimhood very differently. What we need to put around them, to make sure that they are supported and can process things to see justice delivered, is different. Including children in the duty to collaborate would allow a national network, operating through regional and local levels, to enable every child to have the same experience and the best support. At present, as the Children’s Commissioner outlined,
“it is just not there.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 24, Q51.]
According to Victim Support, children and young people are disproportionately more likely to be victims of crime, particularly the most serious crime. They often experience those crimes in their homes, schools and communities, and the crimes are sometimes carried out by people who should keep them safe. The Howard League for Penal Reform surveyed over 3,000 children in schools over a period of seven years; of those, 95% of children aged 10 to 15 reported being a victim of crime. Including them in the duty to collaborate is imperative to ensuring that the relevant agencies are prioritising children’s unique needs. That is what amendment 9 seeks to do.
Amendment 19 would include victims of fraud in the duty to collaborate. I put on the record my thanks to Catch22 and the shadow Attorney General’s team for working with me on the amendment. Concerns have been raised around there being a need to collaborate only with a subsection of crime types. That dilutes and undermines the importance of other crime types. Fraud is the UK’s most prevalent crime type.
Janet Daby
According to UK Finance, over £1.2 billion was stolen through fraud in 2022. Does my hon. Friend agree that victims of fraud must be mentioned in the Bill?
Anna McMorrin
Absolutely, and that just goes to emphasise the importance of the amendment. The cost to the mental health and wellbeing of victims of fraud is significant. In the year ending December 2022, 3.7 million offences were reported to the crime survey for England and Wales—a huge number, equating to 41% of the total offences experienced in that period. I am sure that the Minister has not had a chance to look yet, but our amendment has received coverage in The Times today, which reports that fewer than one in 3,000 fraud offences committed last year resulted in a prison sentence.
Far too often, The Government have treated fraud as a second-tier type of crime, and if Government Committee members reject that characterisation, I need only quote their own Ministers’ words back to them. In February last year, when he was the Business Secretary, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) told the BBC that fraud was not the sort of crime that people experience in their daily life. Shortly afterwards, the Government’s counter-fraud Minister, Lord Agnew, resigned that post in protest at the
“combination of arrogance, indolence and ignorance”
that he had observed in the Government’s response to fraud. The Treasury, he said,
“appears to have no knowledge of, or little interest in, the consequences of fraud to our economy or society.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2022; Vol. 818, c. 20-21.]
Bear in mind that that was when the current Prime Minister was in charge at the Treasury.
Is it any surprise, then, that a year after a previous Prime Minister and Home Secretary were chastised by the Office for National Statistics for leaving out fraud when they talked about the overall rates of crime in our country, the current Prime Minister and Home Secretary repeatedly did exactly the same in the House? Minister after Minister has tried to play down or simply ignore the most frequently experienced crime in our country, and I fear that by not having it in the Bill the Government are seeking to do the same. All of us whose constituents have fallen prey to scammers know that it is anything but a victimless crime. I am sure that every Committee member is dealing with constituents who have become victims to fraud. We are talking about thousands upon thousands of lives being ruined in our communities—retired people losing all their savings, and mums and dads losing the money that they had set aside for when their children went to university, or to help them to put a deposit on a house.
According to the Government’s fraud strategy, published in May, 300 people who contacted Action Fraud last year to report their losses were considered by the call handlers to be at risk of suicide. Just last week, we heard that two elderly pensioners lost £27,000 because criminals posing as police officers had persuaded them to withdraw large sums of cash. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham pointed out, last year alone over £1.2 billion was stolen through fraud. It is the most commonly experienced crime in the country, ruining the lives of millions, yet the Government did not see fit to include victims of it in the duty to collaborate. I am sure that the Minister will agree that they would benefit from a multi-agency approach. I am keen to hear his response before deciding whether to push the amendment to a vote.
Sarah Champion
The amendment is supported by the Centre for Social Justice, which identified that the duty to collaborate must cover support services for victims of modern slavery. Local authorities, the police and the NHS are all key agencies that come into contact with victims of modern slavery, and have a role to play in supporting them, alongside specialist programmes such as the national referral mechanism. That can range from immediate emergency support and protection to providing longer-term social care support or housing. There is a particular gap for victims before and after their contact with the NRM, and the lack of support often means that they have to choose between being destitute and going back to their exploiter.
Local authorities are the primary agency providing care and support for children, and only some children receive the additional support of independent child trafficking guardians. However, there is often confusion among local authorities about their responsibilities for supporting modern slavery victims. There is also often a lack of co-ordination with specialist support providers under the Home Office modern slavery victim care contract. Victims are passed from pillar to post, unable to access the support they need.
Police often find modern slavery victims out of hours, when access to other services is limited. Clear, joined-up strategies for supporting victims of modern slavery would help prevent those victims being placed in unsuitable and unsafe accommodation after being identified by the police—that is, of course, if the police identify them as a victim of modern slavery. A lack of clear and joined-up referral pathways can mean that victims of criminal exploitation, especially young people exploited in county lines drug dealing, find themselves arrested, rather than safeguarded and therefore given support.
The gaps in support provision particularly impact British victims of modern slavery. In 2022, the highest number of British “possible victims” were identified since the NRM began. One in five NRM referrals in 2022 was for a British child. It is essential that we get the support for that group of victims right. Research suggests that many British victims in particular are not accessing specialist support available under the NRM, either because they are not identified as victims of modern slavery as they or the professionals have misunderstood their entitlement to support, or because they choose not to be referred. That leaves them without access to specialist support, and their particular needs may not be recognised by mainstream providers.
The definition of victims in clause 12 lacks clarity in respect of modern slavery victims. Some modern slavery victims are victims of other offences listed in clause 12(4), such as sexual offences or serious violence. However, modern slavery can also result from threats, deception, and financial control and coercion, which may not meet the threshold of serious violence. The particular needs and experiences of modern slavery victims need to be considered in strategies, assessments and the exercise of support functions. That is best accomplished by listing those victims in the duty to collaborate.
Explicitly including modern slavery victims in the duty to collaborate would address local authorities’ confusion and lack of awareness of their responsibilities to support victims of modern slavery. It would strengthen the implementation of the modern slavery statutory guidance. It would lead to stronger local co-ordination by the police, the NHS and councils when it comes to identifying support needs, providing support and monitoring the recovery of modern slavery victims. It would also help ensure that British victims who do not enter the NRM receive appropriate support that recognises and responds to their needs and experience of exploitation.
We cannot let more vulnerable people slip through the gaps in local service provision. A joined-up approach to tackling modern slavery is needed, and I truly believe that amendment 82 will facilitate that.
Maria Eagle
I rise to support all the amendments, but I will briefly say something about amendment 19. We have all come across extremely distressing cases of fraud in our constituency. In 2012—10 years ago—2,629 people were jailed for fraud, but last year the figure was 1,177. However, the number of offences rose from 441,000 in 2012 to 3.7 million last year.
There has been an absolute explosion in that type of offence, and there are consequently many more victims, who often lose their life savings and their future security. Almost nothing is done for them. They are simply left to feel as though they have been duped and are stupid, and nobody seeks to help them. Normally, they do not even get any kind of response from Action Fraud, which is like a black hole; once a report is made to Action Fraud, the person who made it never hears from Action Fraud again. It is hard enough for a Member of Parliament to get a letter out of Action Fraud about a particular case.
Given the explosion in the number of fraud cases, it is surely important for the Government to take this issue seriously, and to recognise that the people involved are victims, who need support, just as any other victims do. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will give an assurance that much more will be done to recognise that victims of fraud need the support that this Bill seeks to give to victims.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Cardiff North, and for Rotherham, for their amendments, which seek to expand the duty to collaborate so that under that duty, support services must be provided to victims of fraud, victims of modern slavery and child victims.
The duty to collaborate will require local commissioning bodies such as police and crime commissioners, local authorities and integrated care boards in England to work together when commissioning support services for the victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent crimes. We have focused on the victims of those crimes because they are particularly traumatic crimes with a high number of victims each year. They are also crimes where there will be a particular benefit from collaboration, as victims of them typically access a range of services across health, local authorities and policing. However, we are committed to providing support for all victims. Beyond the Bill, the Government are committed to supporting victims of all crime types; support is available through PCC-funded services, and there is other specific support for victims of terrorism.
If I may, I will take the amendments slightly out of order. I turn first to amendment 19, which seeks to include victims of fraud under the duty to collaborate on victim support services. Clearly, this Government take extremely seriously the challenge posed by fraud and its impact on victims. As I have said, the Government have been very clear about our determination to support all victims of crime, and we are taking steps to improve local collaboration on support for victims of fraud. This includes supporting the multi-agency approach to fraud—or MAAF, if I may abbreviate—which brings together relevant local agencies to improve the quality of support available to fraud victims. MAAF hubs should be rolled out across all England and Wales by September.
The duty to collaborate focuses on crime types for which support services are commissioned by a combination of police and crime commissioners, local authorities and health bodies. The measure seeks to bring together those who commission those services, so that commissioning is co-ordinated and strategic, with better join-up and smoother referrals for victims. It is important that the duty be focused on crime types for which services are commissioned by a specific combination of PCCs, local authorities and integrated care boards, so that collaboration can have the maximum and intended impact.
Support for fraud victims is typically delivered through PCC-commissioned local services and the National Economic Crime Victim Care Unit. Because of this, many victims of fraud would be less likely to benefit from collaboration between PCCs, local authorities and ICBs. However, the duty does not prevent local commissioners from collaborating on other crime types, including fraud.
More broadly, the Government have allocated £400 million over three years to tackle economic crime, including fraud, and to help fund the National Economic Crime Victim Care Unit, which supports fraud victims. We are also providing over £30 million to City of London police to support the upgrade in the Action Fraud service; the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood touched on that service. A number of improvements have already been made to the system to improve the victim reporting experience and the quality and timeliness with which cases are sent to police forces for action.
Opposition Members have highlighted the scale and impact of fraud. That is why the Government take fraud so seriously and have done so much in this space. The Government published “Fraud Strategy: stopping scams and protecting the public” in May, as the hon. Member for Cardiff North said. This strategy sets out how Government, law enforcement, regulators, industry and charities will work together to cut fraud incidents by 10% by the end of this Parliament, and includes measures to improve the support available to victims of fraud. As we roll out those initiatives, we will continue to consider how victims of fraud can be better supported.
Amendment 9 seeks to ensure that specific support services for child victims are provided. I agree that it is vital that child victims be able to access the specialist support that they need in order to cope and recover from the impacts of crime. The Bill aims to improve the support offered to children and young people. Child victims are covered by the definition of victim in part 1 of the Bill, and by the current code. The duty to collaborate requires local authorities, police and crime commissioners and integrated care boards in England to collaborate when commissioning victim support services for both adults and children who are victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent offences.
To emphasise the inclusion of children in the duty, following pre-legislative scrutiny, we amended the definition of victim to clarify that child victims who witness and/or experience the effects of domestic abuse are victims, and amended clause 1 to emphasise that commissioners must have regard to any assessment of the needs of child victims when preparing their joint commissioning strategy.
The duty focuses on crimes that are particularly traumatic, have a high number of victims each year, and for which services are commissioned by a combination of police and crime commissioners, local authorities and health bodies. Those services will benefit from collaboration to reduce duplicative commissioning and improve strategic co-ordination of support. Including all offences against children brings a vast range of services into scope, not all of which require a collaborative approach; that would risk diluting the focus of the duty.
Finally, I turn to amendment 82, which would seek to include support services for victims of modern slavery in the duty to collaborate. The Government are committed to supporting all victims of crime, including those who are subjected to modern slavery. Clause 12, which the hon. Member for Rotherham is seeking to amend, already requires local commissioning bodies such as police and crime commissioners, local authorities and integrated care boards in England to work together when commissioning support services for domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent crimes.
Local commissioners can already consider victims of modern slavery under the duty to collaborate, where those crimes apply, and we envisage that it is likely that for the most part, modern slavery victims will have suffered conduct that constitutes domestic abuse, sexual abuse or other serious violent crimes—particularly because “serious violence” includes threats of violence—and therefore will already be captured by the duty to collaborate.
We intend to clarify in accompanying guidance that modern slavery victims can, and are likely to be, captured by the duty. The duty does not list crime types that commissioners must consider in relation to serious violence, and instead allows local areas to make that decision based on the impact on the victim and the maximum sentence that a crime could receive. Commissioners can therefore already consider modern slavery, where that comes under the definition in the clause, under the duty to collaborate.
Sarah Champion
I hear what the Minister is saying. I also heard the word “should” rather than “must”. Will the Minister clarify that in the guidance, there will be an explanation of how modern slavery presents? A lot of modern slavery—I am thinking particularly about prostituted women—involves coercion and intimidation. Those people will probably not present themselves as victims in the usual sense; they will probably argue about that. There needs to be a bit more understanding, rather than us just saying “modern slavery”.
Edward Argar
I will try to answer quickly, before we get cut off by the end of the sitting. I take the hon. Lady’s point. Recently I attended a Select Committee sitting in which we looked at so-called honour-based violence and abuse. One of the key points that came out of that was that a multiplicity of offences constituted so-called honour-based abuse, and the same is true of modern slavery. It is important that we reflect those multiple indicators in the guidance.
The definition of serious violence in the duty mirrors the approach taken to the serious violence duty derived from the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022; that provision does not list specific offences, but instead defines serious violence based on the impact on the victim, and the maximum penalty for the crime committed. A more prescriptive approach of specifying types of serious violent crime would risk excluding offences that commissioners may want to consider, and would not allow for the necessary flexibility.
More widely, the Government are committed to supporting victims of modern slavery and ensuring that they get the support that they need. For example, children’s services work in close co-operation with the police and other statutory agencies to offer potentially trafficked children the protection and support that they require as part of the local needs assessment. “Working together to safeguard children 2018” sets out the system of multi-agency safeguarding arrangements established by the Children and Social Work Act 2017.
The Government have rolled out independent child trafficking guardians to two thirds of local authorities in England and Wales. Those roles are delivered by Barnardo’s until March 2024. They provide additional advocacy and support to child victims of modern slavery. Adult victims of modern slavery in England and Wales can access support through the national referral mechanism, under the Government-funded modern slavery victim care contract.
Every year, we support thousands of adult victims, so that they can begin rebuilding their life, engage with the criminal justice system and transition back into the community following their traumatic experiences. The current contract is delivered by the Salvation Army. I would be more than happy to work with hon. Members going forward, as we monitor the success of these initiatives in helping victims of modern slavery.
Victims and Prisoners Bill (Tenth sitting)
Tuesday 4th July 2023
(2 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 4 July 2023 - (4 Jul 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 19, in clause 12, page 10, line 22, at end insert—
“(d) fraud.”
This amendment would extend the duty to collaborate to include victim support services for victims of fraud.
Amendment 82, in clause 12, page 10, line 22, at end insert—
“(d) modern slavery.”
This amendment would extend the duty to collaborate to include victim support services for victims of modern slavery.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I will quickly respond to the Minister’s comments on amendment 9. I take what he said about ensuring that collaboration includes support for different sorts of victim, but the point that I am outlining in the amendment—that child victims often need a very different type of support—is backed up by a lot of evidence and the many organisations we worked with to table the amendment. I would like the Minister, when taking the Bill forward, to reflect on that and to see what he can do to encourage and include collaboration specifically with child victims and support services. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 19, in clause 12, page 10, line 22, at end insert—
“(d) fraud.”—(Anna McMorrin.)
This amendment would extend the duty to collaborate to include victim support services for victims of fraud.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 12, page 10, line 36, leave out “disclosure or”.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 30.
Edward Argar
I will be brief. These amendments are part of a collection of minor and technical amendments that have been tabled across the Bill to ensure that consistent terminology is used in relation to data protection. These changes are primarily for the purposes of clarifying the provisions and ensuring that they work as intended; they do not constitute a policy change and are not intended to have substantive effects. The amendments in this group make changes to clause 12 to remove the term “disclosure” and insert
“within the meaning given by section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018”,
to ensure consistency with existing legislation.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
That is absolutely fine. The amendment seems fairly minor, so knock yourselves out!
Amendment 29 agreed to.
Amendment made: 30, in clause 12, page 10, line 37, at end insert
“within the meaning given by section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018”.—(Edward Argar.)
This amendment and Amendment 29 give “processing” of information the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018. Processing includes disclosure and other uses of information, so there is no need to refer separately to disclosure.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 12, page 10, line 37, at end insert—
“(8A) Collaboration under this section may include the co-location of services in accordance with the Child House model, as defined by the Home Office guidance entitled “Child House: local partnerships guidance”, published 6 September 2021.”
This amendment would include within the duty to collaborate the use of the Child House model, described by the Home Office guidance as “a multi-agency service model supporting children, young people and non-abusing parents, carers and family members following child sexual abuse”.
The purpose of the amendment is to promote the establishment of child houses as part of the relevant authority’s duty to collaborate in the exercise of its victim support function. Although the Bill seeks to collaborate between commissioners, it does not provide the firm direction needed to enable the joint multi-disciplinary service provision that makes such a difference to child victims. By rolling out the child house model, we can ensure that children are provided with both therapeutic support and support to navigate the criminal justice process all under one roof.
Too many children face a lack of support after experiencing sexual abuse. Young victims seeking justice are faced with extremely distressing delays in the justice system, as waiting times for child sexual abuse cases have surged in the past few years. Ministry of Justice data shows that the average number of days between a defendant in child sexual abuse cases in England and Wales being charged and the criminal trial starting rose by 43% in four years. That is from 276 days in 2017 to 395 days in 2021—a lot of time in a young life. For children already suffering with depression or post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of the abuse, the drawn-out process of waiting for a trial to start and end can be extremely distressing and compound the significant mental health impacts of the abuse.
In 2020, the Office for National Statistics found that around half of child sexual abuse cases did not proceed further through the criminal justice system, citing one of the reasons as being that victims worried that the process would be too distressing. Going through a police investigation and prosecution as a victim is often described as inherently traumatic—think of that for a young child. That is because during the process of a police investigation and trial, a child or young person often has to retell the experience of abuse multiple times, usually in an environment that is unfamiliar, intimidating and confusing.
NSPCC research found that support for child witnesses varied depending on location and that only a small minority were ever offered communication support through a registered intermediary. NSPCC analysis of freedom of information data revealed that in 2020-21, only 23% of the 119 local authorities that responded across England and Wales said they provided dedicated support for young victims in the form of independent and specially trained advisers. Research shows that children face an inconsistent network of agencies and services after experiencing sexual abuse. Instead, we could use the approach of a child house.
A child house provides a child-centred model in which the agencies involved in supporting young victims, including healthcare, social care, children’s independent sexual violence advisers—CHISVAs—the third sector and police, all provide co-ordinated services in an integrated, child-friendly environment. It is literally under one roof, and that supports children to give their best evidence. Currently, there is only one child house in England and Wales: the Lighthouse in London. They would love Members to go and visit them. It is a fantastic place and just a tube ride away—do go and see it.
In 2021, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime was commissioned to evaluate the Lighthouse. As part of its research, children were consulted on their experiences. MOPAC found that the model addresses concerns that children who reported sexual abuse often face—that is, multiple interviews with social workers, the police and other professionals. Children who had used the Lighthouse complimented the care and respect they received from the staff. Being able to go at their own pace with choice and control was described as valuable. Children emphasised the positive impact that the homely atmosphere had and said that the environment was created by the little things, such as being offered a hot drink and police officers not wearing uniforms.
One child spoke about their experience to the NSPCC, saying—I slightly paraphrase: “Looking back on the Lighthouse, even though obviously I wish I hadn’t had to go there, I think they just made the experience of having to go there a lot less harder than it had to be…And yeah, I did feel like almost loved there. I guess looking back I didn’t realise at the time how easier things were made for me with the Lighthouse being there.”
The child house model has been recommended by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, the Home Office, NHS England, the Children’s Commissioner for England and the Government’s own tackling child sexual abuse strategy, as well as the British Medical Association. Despite those endorsements and a wealth of evidence that supports the effectiveness of the model, the Bill does not address the fragmented support landscape currently faced by children. I ask the Minister to listen to all the evidence, use the opportunity in the Bill and commit to rolling out the brilliant model of child houses across the country. We really can demonstrate what a difference that would make to all child victims.
Jess Phillips
I rise to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and remind the Committee that the Children’s Commissioner mentioned the Lighthouse what might be a record number of times; I am sure that Hansard would tell me one way or the other. The experts are telling us that the approach works and I have some experience of the alternative—when cases fall apart and children are completely unsupported. That still happens in the vast majority of cases, I am afraid, so I support the amendment.
Edward Argar
I am grateful, as ever, to the hon. Member for Rotherham for the amendment, which would include within the duty to collaborate the use of the child house model. Co-located, child-centred support services, including those delivered in accordance with the child house model, do excellent work in supporting child victims of crime. Like other Committee members, I recognise the work done by the Lighthouse. I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work done by Dame Rachel de Souza, the Children’s Commissioner, and her deputy Ellie Lyons, in campaigning for and highlighting the rights and needs of children.
The Government recognise the importance of the co-located child-centred support service, which is why we provided £7.5 million towards a pilot of the UK’s first child house, in Camden. Following that, we have published guidance for local partnerships that wish to introduce similar models for child victims in their area. The duty to collaborate aims to facilitate a more strategic and co-ordinated approach to commissioning and to improve the strategic co-ordination of services, so that all victims get the timely and quality support that they need.
The legislation requires commissioners to collaborate when commissioning services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent offences. As we discussed this morning, it allows for flexibility for local commissioners to decide what services will best meet the needs of their population; that could include commissioning co-located services, exactly as the amendment suggests.
Listing in legislation the sorts of services that commissioners may or must consider is, I fear, slightly over-prescriptive—this goes back to the debates we have had about a number of amendments. I repeat what I said in those debates: it would risk excluding some of the other excellent service models that local areas may also want to commission, although I do not in any way diminish the huge impact that the child house model clearly has.
The duty also requires commissioners to consider any assessment of the needs of children when preparing their joint commissioning strategy. Statutory guidance will support commissioners in doing this, encouraging the co-production of services where appropriate and linking to the “Child House: local partnerships guidance” document. As the original draft Bill already allows local commissioners to adopt the approach where appropriate, we believe that it strikes an appropriate balance. I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham might be persuaded to agree.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for his warm words in support of the child house model. This was always a probing amendment. I hope that the commissioners listen to the Minister’s support for the model and act accordingly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 12, page 10, line 40, at end insert—
“(10) The Secretary of State for Justice must ensure the relevant authorities have sufficient funding to exercise their functions in relation to relevant victim support services.”
This is not a probing amendment. For me, this is the nub of the gap in the Bill. Amendment 83 would make the Secretary of State for Justice ensure that the relevant authorities have sufficient funding to exercise their functions in relation to victim support services. I put on the record that the amendment is supported by Refuge. Its recent report, entitled “Local Lifelines”, highlights that
“Due to inconsistent funding of support services across the country, survivors face a postcode lottery”.
Collaboration between relevant public authorities is part of the solution. However, without funding, the duty to collaborate will not result in a meaningful change for survivors.
The Minister has talked about the duty to collaborate helping to identify duplications and gaps, but there are no duplications in this threadbare sector—only gaps, which cannot be filled without additional funding. Community-based domestic abuse services provide holistic, specialist support to women and children experiencing domestic abuse in local settings. Some 95% of survivors supported by Refuge, the UK’s largest provider of gender-based violence services, rely on some form of community-based service, yet far too often, through no fault of their own, survivors are unable to access community-based services due to the postcode lottery in service provision across the country.
In 2022, the report published by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, “A Patchwork of Provision”, estimated that fewer than half of survivors who wanted to access community-based services were able to. Minoritised women seeking support from specialist “by and for” organisations face even greater barriers to accessing support. It is therefore vital that the Victims and Prisoners Bill introduces strong measures to safeguard these services.
Although the Ministry of Justice has committed to increasing funding for victims and witness support services to £147 million per year until 2024-25, that funding is not ringfenced to domestic abuse services. Existing commitments are simply insufficient to meet the demand for specialist domestic abuse community-based services across the UK. In the witness sessions, the Minister asked how much was needed for that; I can confirm that Women’s Aid put the cost at £238 million per year. I know that seems like a lot of money, but when we look at other schemes and how casually we now talk about billions and trillions, £238 million to provide the services we need to make this Bill as effective as the Minister wants it to be seems somewhat slender.
Amendment 83 would strengthen the duty to collaborate to require the Secretary of State to provide sufficient funding for relevant authorities to exercise their functions in relation to relevant victim support services. Refuge’s report demonstrates the extent of funding challenges facing frontline domestic abuse community-based services. More than four in five, or 85%, of frontline workers surveyed by Refuge said that their service is impacted by insufficient funding. Funding gaps are particularly acute for mental health support, early intervention and support for children and young people.
In many cases, funding contracts are simply insufficient to cover the costs of running a safe and effective service. That leaves organisations reliant on insecure and fundraised income, which is fundamentally unsustainable. For the financial year 2021-22, more than half of Refuge’s income was generated from fundraising sources. In this cost of living crisis, many charities are seeing their fundraising income falling dramatically.
In addition to insufficient fundraising, short-term contracts and recruitment challenges are exacerbating the insecurity facing many community-based services and contributing to rising caseloads. More than three quarters, or 76%, of frontline workers surveyed by Refuge said that their caseload had increased over the past 12 months. That comes at a time when victims and survivors need our support more than ever. The cost of living crisis is exacerbating the financial hardship victims and survivors face when fleeing abuse. Survivors typically flee with few possessions and often have to give up their jobs for their own safety. According to Refuge, as a result of this crisis more women are going to community-based services with financial support needs, such as food bank referrals and debt advice. Community-based services are not only transformational for victims and survivors; they are critical to managing the cost of domestic abuse to society.
According to Government estimates, domestic abuse costs society a staggering £78 billion a year. Economic analysis published by Women’s Aid early this year shows that every £1 invested in domestic abuse services will result in at least £9 of savings to the public purse. The case for investing in community-based services is therefore clear. Sustainably funding specialist support services, which reduce the need for victims and survivors to use statutory services, will save money in the long term while transforming the lives of victims, survivors and their children.
Jess Phillips
I just want to draw a comparison between services—for example, in the health service—that we fund and do not expect to get to crisis point. The best example I can ever think of is diabetes services. Imagine if the scheme in our country was that 10% of all people who have diabetes could access insulin and the other 90% could access insulin only at the point that they were about to die. That is the current situation with community-based services in domestic abuse services. If you fund crisis, you get crisis. If you fund prevention, you get prevention. That is simply the case at the moment.
We ration provision. We literally have a form for it, called the DASH—domestic abuse, stalking, harassment and honour based violence—risk assessment. A DASH risk assessment will be undertaken and you will be given a score—almost like, “How good is your domestic abuse?” We will come to some of these issues when we debate independent domestic violence advisers. From that score, a decision will be made about what sort of service you can access—not you, Mr Hosie; rather what sort of service “one” can access. I have seen DASH risk assessments where a woman has been hit repeatedly with a brick in the face and was not given a high risk of harm on her risk assessment. To be given a high risk of harm on a risk assessment, someone basically has to be at imminent risk of death. It is a bit like high risk in children’s social care; in the vast majority of the country, a parent basically has to have a knife to the child’s throat for the case to reach the threshold for any sort of children’s social services care.
Imagine if people got that kind of level with diabetes and we said, “You can have the insulin. There may be a service for you, but not necessarily,” and to everybody else who we could avoid elevating to the risk level of having been hit around the face with a brick, we said, “Go on this waiting list. Come back later. We’ll manage you in the community,” which basically means, “Go away until he knocks on your door 17 times with a machete and even then we won’t consider you high risk of harm.” Those are literal cases that I have handled.
I speak in absolute support of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. I also want to make a broader point about funding. The Justice Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny report said that around £40 million, if not more—I think that figure is correct, but I am more than happy to correct the record if I have got it wrong—is being allocated to legal aid access for people who do not like their parole decision. The Minister has stood up a number of times today and said that the way to get money is by going to the Chancellor and doing it through the financial systems, which of course was not the case in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, because the money was allocated for the refuge assessment. The only money that is being allocated in this Bill is something that can be accessed by, for example, murderers but not by the people they would go on to murder.
Edward Argar
I fear that this is one area where I may not be able to bring the hon. Member for Rotherham with me. I will try but I suspect I may be out of luck on this one. I am grateful to her for the amendment and for the opportunity to debate this important matter.
To the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley about the Parole Board, my recollection of what the Committee and the assessment looked at was not additional new money being made available in the way she suggests for part 3 but not for part 1, but a recognition of the cost implications of those changes based on the current entitlements to legal aid and the way the process works.
Edward Argar
I take her point, but I add the nuance that it is not a case of new money being allocated. It is an assessment of the consequences of a legal entitlement that would exist in those circumstances.
To speak to the broader point, I agree with the hon. Member for Rotherham on the importance of sufficient funding for victims’ services and ensuring that, where we can, we also provide funding to commission services on a multi-year basis. That was one of the key pillars of the victims funding strategy. That reflected what I, when I was last doing this job, was told by the sector, and what the hon. Lady will have been told as well, about the challenge of small, short-term pots of money—a situation that results in a number of key staff spending most of their time not delivering the service but writing bids to try to collate enough to meet the financial needs of that service. The funding strategy recognises and reflects that, so the Government do recognise that, where possible, that should be the approach adopted.
Outside of legislation we are more than quadrupling funding for victims’ services—as a basket, as it were—by 2024-25. That funding is up from £41 million in 2009-10, and includes an additional £6 million per annum through this spending review period, which is provided directly to police and crime commissioners and ringfenced for domestic abuse and sexual violence services in response to increased demand. Through the Bill, we are creating a statutory duty on PCCs, integrated care boards and local authorities in England to collaborate when exercising their victim support functions for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent crimes. That will mean that support is better co-ordinated and more effective. Collaboration should also improve use of existing funds.
Monitoring of local need and provision provides Government with valuable intelligence and insights. To improve our understanding of demand and the impact of the services we fund, we have introduced through the victims funding strategy a core set of metrics and outcomes that are being collected across Government. The reality is, however, that this information is used to inform decisions made through the spending review process, which continues to be the right approach to setting Government budgets, as it recognises that there is a finite amount of taxpayers’ money and there are finite funds.
I would gently argue that individual Bills setting funding requirements in an unco-ordinated way is not the most appropriate or effective way to consider Government spending and prioritisation of funding in the round. I was going to say, “as a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury,” but I only did that job for 11 days—maybe that still counts. I would nevertheless argue that considering funding in the round during the spending review process is the right approach. Continued flexibility is required when considering funding levels, and I do not believe that fixing funding in primary legislation is the right approach in that context. I fear I may not carry the hon. Member for Rotherham with me on this one occasion, but it was worth a try.
Sarah Champion
I always have respect for the Minister and he is right: I understand the analysis he puts forward but I do not agree with it, because there are other examples where money is attached to a Bill. Although I think the Minister will have a fight on his hands with this, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clause 12 introduces a joint statutory duty on police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities to collaborate on relevant victim support services. As a result of the clause, we have for the first time a framework for collaboration when commissioning support services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violence that amounts to criminal conduct.
The duty focuses on child and adult victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent crime, as they are particularly traumatic crimes for the worryingly high number of victims each year. It does not include accommodation-based services, which are covered by separate legislation under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, as was alluded to by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley. Victim support services are crucial for victims to be able to cope with and recover from the impact of crime. Across the three crime types, victims typically access a range of services from health, local authority services and policing bodies. At present, services are not always co-ordinated and victims can find them to be disjointed when moving between them. As a result of the clause, we expect the relevant authorities to consider the entirety of the victim support service pathway and strategically co-ordinate and target services where victims need them most.
Clause 12 should be considered alongside clause 13, which we are shortly to debate and which requires the authorities to prepare, implement and publish a local commissioning strategy. We expect this activity to lead to increased join-up between services, a common understanding of local need and systematic sharing of information, leading to more informed decision making in commissioning. The clause also enables the sharing of relevant information to support that duty. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Jess Phillips
I do not have much more to say, as I made most of my comments around clause 12 in its entirety when moving amendment 80. We recognise the good intention of the provision, but feel it has some way to go to not just be words on goatskin, which is what I am always concerned about. Words on goatskin are all well and good, but when it comes to how this legislation acts in people’s lives on the ground, I think it still has some way to go—but the intention is obviously one that we would support.
Edward Argar
I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Strategy for collaboration in exercise of victim support functions
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 87 in clause 13, page 11, line 3, at end insert—
‘(aa) prepare an assessment of the needs of victims (including victims who are children or have other protected characteristics) in the area,’.
This amendment would require the relevant authorities in a police area in England to assess the needs of victims in their area.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 88 in clause 13, page 11, leave out lines 16 to 18 and insert—
‘(a) the assessment of the needs of victims (including victims who are children or have other protected characteristics) carried out under subsection (1),’.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87 and would require the relevant authorities to have regard to their assessment of the needs of victims when preparing the strategy.
Sarah Champion
Both amendments seek to ensure that the strategy for collaboration takes into account victims’ needs. Amendment 87 would require the relevant authorities to begin the strategy of preparing an assessment of victims’ needs. That must include a specific requirement to assess the need of child victims and those with other protected characteristics, who are particularly vulnerable and must be subject to additional considerations by the relevant authorities. It is a logical place to begin and, as I stated when arguing for the joint strategic needs assessment, it would fail to be an effective collaboration if needs were not evaluated to begin with.
Amendment 88 would require the relevant authorities to consider the needs assessment when putting together the strategy to collaborate. Some partnerships may do that once the Bill is passed, but we must ensure that every region has the same standards and processes so that the needs of all victims, and particularly child victims, are met across the country. The amendment would enable the strategy to collaborate and be more cost-effective and ambitious when fulfilling the duty the Minister wants it to achieve.
Jess Phillips
I do not have much to say other than that I entirely support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham.
Edward Argar
I am grateful, as ever, to the hon. Member for Rotherham for her amendment, which would require the relevant authorities in a police area in England to assess the needs of victims in their area and then take that assessment into account when devising strategies under the duty to collaborate. I already touched on that when debating an earlier amendment, so I will seek not to repeat myself—at least not too much—although, I am afraid that some of the arguments will be the same.
The Government agree that needs assessments are vital in informing local commissioning decisions, and relevant local needs assessments that indicate the needs of victims already happen regularly as part of good practice. The Ministry of Justice provides police and crime commissioners with grant funding to commission practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of all types of crime in their local areas. In order to achieve that and to know which services are required, PCCs are expected to carry out needs assessments that will allow them to target the funding and ascertain the level of need and demand in their area.
There are also several other needs assessments that local commissioners carry out, which give an assessment of the needs of victims. They include, but are not limited to: the serious violence joint strategic needs assessment, which indicates levels of serious violence and the volume of victims in an area; the public health joint strategic needs assessment, carried out by local authorities and health and wellbeing boards, which sets out social care and public health needs; and safe accommodation needs assessments, which give an indication of the number of domestic abuse victims requiring safe accommodation in an area.
We have been clear with commissioners in the victims funding strategy that needs assessments are a central pillar of commissioning victim support services. To do that, the victims funding strategy sets out a clear expectation that commissioners carry out regular needs assessments using all the data required to commission appropriate services for victims in their areas, including victims with tailored needs.
Sarah Champion
The amendment is very specific about children, so would the Minister touch on that, please?
Edward Argar
I reassure the hon. Lady that I will turn to that. I have a little more to say, though not too much. To ensure that the victims funding strategy is improving commissioning practices and outcomes for victims—all victims, including adults and children—we will set up a cross-Government oversight board, which I have mentioned, to monitor delivery against the strategy. I am encouraged by the engagement with commissioners and providers to date, which indicates that the standards set within the victims funding strategy are being upheld, but we will of course continue to monitor adherence to those standards.
The duty to collaborate aims to ensure that the relevant authorities come together to utilise all the relevant needs assessments that I have set out when commissioning services for adults or children, as well as any other relevant data or information. Clause 13(3) requires the relevant authorities to have regard to any needs assessments that they have already carried out in respect of the needs of particular groups of victims when preparing their joint strategy. Statutory guidance for the duty will clarify that, when commissioning, the relevant authorities are expected to set out in their joint commissioning strategy how they have had regard to the relevant needs assessments, and how commissioning decisions aim to meet the identified needs of different groups.
We fear that placing that in legislation would be duplicative of existing practices that currently work effectively, and which our duty to collaborate will only enhance. Indeed, by virtue of the relevant commissioners under the duty working together, assessing existing needs and publishing their commissioning strategies, they will build up a clear picture of the local landscape of victims services and the local populations. The strategies will then clearly set out how they will, over the coming period, deliver a more joined-up and effective service for victims, including child victims.
I am happy to work with the hon. Member for Rotherham to identify the benefits and drawbacks of the current system. As I set out earlier, I continue to reflect on the points that she and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner made about joint strategic needs assessments, which shades into what I believe the hon. Lady is seeking to get at with the amendment.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for his offer to collaborate on this. I have been working with the NSPCC, which has much more experience than I do, so we would gratefully accept the offer, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 13, page 11, line 8, at end insert—
“(d) ensure that services commissioned as part of the strategy are given contracts or grants for a minimum of three years, unless it would not be justifiable and proportionate to do so.”.
I present this as a probing amendment because I sadly know the Minister’s position. He was right to highlight earlier the eternal misery of short-term contracts as a result of short-term funding, and just how much the community invests in funding bids, some of which are successful and some of which are not. I am sure that we both agree that that money would be better spent on the services themselves.
Longer-term contracts are essential to help ease the insecure funding landscape facing the specialist domestic abuse sector. Amendment 84 would introduce a requirement that services commissioned under the duty to collaborate be delivered through sustainable contract terms of three years or more. That would enable community-based services to take root in a local area, recruit to permanent contracts, and provide women and children with the security and stability that they desperately need when fleeing domestic abuse. Some 64% of frontline workers surveyed for Refuge’s report, “Local Lifelines”, said that their services were impacted by short-term contracts. Frontline workers highlighted the challenges of delivering a service under short-term contracts due to the time and resources that it takes to implement a new service and embed the idea.
If a contract is for two years or less, it often takes the length of the contract for the service to become established within a local area. Then it stops, or the whole process starts all over again, at which point survivors must find new sources of ongoing help, which can be incredibly unsettling and traumatic for those victims. Short-term contracts force charities to spend resources rebidding for contracts rather than supporting their clients. It also presents significant recruitment challenges, as services can only offer short fixed-term, rather than permanent, posts. Given the transformative impact of community-based services on a survivor’s journey towards safety and independence, ensuring services are properly staffed and well established in their local area is vital. I know that the Minister understands that. Through an adequate, sustainable funding offer for community-based services delivered via long-term contracts, these services can take root in the community and provide the stability that women and children need.
Jess Phillips
I entirely endorse and support the amendment. As someone who was in charge of fundraising for a small community-based organisation, I know that the amount of money wasted getting in human resources experts is significant. It happened to me on a number of occasions: it would roll around to December and people would be put on notice just before Christmas—because of the financial year, staff can be given three months’ notice at Christmas, which is always a really cheerful thing to have to do as a boss of one of these organisations.
I also point out that the problem has been exacerbated by the current delays in both the policing and the court-based systems. That adds a new flavour for domestic abuse community-based services or sexual violence community-based services. Yesterday, I was interviewed by police in a case. Hilariously, the police officer said to me, “Are there any dates you might be on holiday?”, and I said, “Well, I’m going away in August,” and I thought, “Hope springs eternal—it will be August 2025 before I see the inside of that courtroom.”
The situation is that a victim could come forward, go through the process with the police and the charge could take a year, let alone the court time taking another two years. The lack of continuity of even the same service, let alone the same person, still being in place because of the way short-term contracts in this space work is exacerbated by delays in the system. We have to skin the cat we have, and that cat is one of delay in this process. Three years from complaint to end on anything that would be seeing the inside of a Crown court is standard at the moment, so the very least we should seek to do is ensure that at least three-year contracts are provided in this space.
Edward Argar
We touched on a number of the elements that I am going to talk about when we debated amendment 83, which the hon. Member for Rotherham moved earlier, so I will be relatively brief. I agree with her on the importance of sufficient funding for victims’ services and ensuring that, where we can, we provide the funding to commission services on a multi-year basis.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, is right to highlight the challenges: not only the demand pressures on a charity or a service provider but the fact that those most experienced at meeting that demand and providing the service are often the people who have to sit writing the responses to the invitations to tender or bids. I say that as someone who, before coming to this place, was a trustee of an environmental-regeneration employment charity. The challenge is having certainty of income and also a diversity of income streams, so that the charity can insure itself against any one of them suddenly saying it will no longer provide funding.
It is absolutely right to highlight the fact that individuals invest not just money but time, and that the work is often done outside office hours because they are at work during working hours and spend their evenings doing it. I visited a project in north-west London a little while ago and had exactly that conversation with some of the trustees and the senior staff there. Without a degree of certainty on funding, where that is possible, the challenge is not only the effort of constantly bidding for it but the risk of losing good people who, however passionate and however much of a vocation it is for them, often want at least a degree of predictability in their lives so that they know they can pay their bills.
Amendment 84 seeks to ensure that commissioned services are given contracts or grants for a minimum of three years. As I just alluded to, I recognise the importance of sustainable funding for victim support services and how it can affect the reliability and consistency of services. We listened to service providers, who told us that single-year funding presented the biggest challenge to them in delivering support for victims, and we have already committed to multi-year funding, where possible, outside legislation. We have committed £154 million per annum of our victims budget on a multi-year basis across this spending review period, totalling a minimum of £460 million over three years.
Multi-year funding will allow for greater staff retention, opportunity for services to innovate and invest for the long term in the services they are able to provide, and— to the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley—allow victims to receive a greater degree of consistency and continuity in the support they need, particularly when they have begun to build up a rapport and trust with those with whom they are working. That is why we have put multi-year funding at the centre of our victims funding strategy, in which we reaffirmed that commitment and set out an expectation for all commissioners to pass multi-year commitments on to their providers.
Sarah Champion
The amendment was probing and provided a good opportunity for me to remember how hard you fought the last time you were in this role to get multi-year funding agreements in place. It helps enormously to have you in post and to get you on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
May I gently remind all colleagues, who are all very experienced, that I did not promise anything or deliver anything? The Minister did.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 13, page 11, line 13, at end insert—
“(ba) persons appearing to the relevant authorities to represent persons providing relevant victim support services for children,
(bb) victims,”.
This amendment would require the relevant authorities to consult victims and organisations providing support to child victims in preparing their strategy.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 81, in clause 13, page 11, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) victims to whom relevant victim support services are being, or may be, provided.”.
This amendment would require the relevant authorities to consult victims who are, or may be, receiving support services when preparing their strategy.
Sarah Champion
Apologies for getting overexcited, Mr Hosie.
Amendment 81 is supported by London’s Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman, and it is worth reminding the Committee that Claire started campaigning for a victims Bill in 2014 or 2015. I pay huge tribute to her for never giving up. The fact that we are here debating it is in no small part due to her campaigning. Amendment 85 is supported by the NSPCC, to which I am grateful.
Amendment 81 would simply require that the relevant victims are engaged and consulted when authorities prepare the strategy for collaboration. We must ensure that victims themselves are engaged in the strategic planning for victim support services, because they know best. Amendment 85 seeks to make it clear that we must ensure that organisations that provide support to child victims are similarly consulted. As I have already made clear, children have very specific needs as victims. There must be a link between recognising children as victims and the duty to deliver a strategy for collaboration in the exercise of victim support functions, to ensure that commissioners include support services for children when preparing their joint commissioning strategies.
Considering children’s support needs as distinct from those of adults is vital. It is crucial for commissioners to reflect children’s needs effectively when they prepare their joint commissioning strategies. It is especially key at a time when child abuse continues to rise. At least 500,000 children a year are estimated to suffer abuse in the UK, one in 20 children in the UK have been sexually abused, and an estimated one in five children have experienced severe maltreatment. Last year, for the first time more than 100,000 cases of child sexual abuse were reported. NSPCC freedom of information data found that police in England and Wales made nearly 700 referrals a day to children’s social services about domestic abuse in 2021, totalling 245,000 cases that year.
Recognition of children in the relevant authorities’ victims’ needs analysis is welcome, and I welcome what the Minister has previously said, but the relevant authorities must have a duty to consult the providers of children’s services to ensure that those services are included in commissioning strategies. Simply including children in the victims’ needs analysis is not enough to ensure that support is in place. NSPCC freedom of information figures demonstrate that many local authorities are not accessing readily available information about child victims of domestic and sexual abuse. When asked, 50% of local authorities did not have any records of the number of child victims who had experienced either sexual or domestic abuse in their area, despite their statutory obligations to undertake a joint strategic needs assessment to improve the health and wellbeing of their communities.
It concerns me that the Bill risks undermining the important recognition that child victims must come within scope of the Bill if the duty to deliver a strategy for collaboration in exercise of victim support functions—I would love it if it could be called something snappier —does not include a duty to consult the providers of children’s services. I hope the Minister recognises that risk and therefore accepts the amendment.
Jess Phillips
I completely support the amendment and just wish to say that although I and others will talk about the lack of available support services for victims of domestic and sexual violence more broadly, there is no group more populous and more poorly served than children. The idea that children’s services would not be included seems bizarre, and the argument has been eloquently put.
Edward Argar
I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham for her amendments, which would require the relevant authorities to consult victims who are or may be receiving support services when they prepare their strategies. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Claire Waxman, whom the hon. Lady rightly mentioned. I have a huge respect for Claire Waxman. We do not always agree on everything, but she is a formidable and passionate campaigner in this space and she manages to do that and achieve results while being an incredibly nice person as well. She is incredibly successful in what she does and I wish her continued success—albeit perhaps not in every aspect, because sometimes she will push me a little too hard. We should all be grateful to her for her work.
Amendment 85 would require the relevant authorities to consult providers of support services for child victims, as well as victims directly, when they prepare their joint strategy. I will address the two parts of the amendment in turn. I agree that engagement with the providers of services for child victims can provide valuable insight into local decisions, including on how commissioning is likely to impact victims, communities and the capacity of organisations to provide support. Our view is that the Bill already meets that objective. Clause 13(2)(b) requires the authorities to consult
“persons appearing to the relevant authorities to represent persons providing relevant victim support services”.
I am happy to make it clear to the Committee that that includes the providers of services for child victims.
Furthermore, we intend for statutory guidance to set out in more detail how relevant authorities can ensure that child victims’ needs are met. That is intended to include how they can engage directly with victims if they consider it appropriate to do so, and take into account the views of providers and experts in the sector. I am happy for the hon. Member for Rotherham to give her thoughts on what that statutory guidance should contain, based on her work with the NSPCC and other organisations; as on other aspects of the Bill, I will work with her to see whether we can create something that works. Although I agree with the objective behind the first part of the amendment, we do not consider it necessary.
The second part of the amendment would require the authorities to engage directly with victims. I agree that they should take into account the views of victims when they prepare their joint strategy. That is why clause 13(2)(a) requires them to consult those representing the interests of victims and clause 13(2)(c) gives scope for them to engage directly with victims if they consider it appropriate to do so. Again, we intend for the statutory guidance issued under clause 14, which we will turn to shortly, to make that clear and set out in more detail the considerations that should be taken into account by the authorities when deciding who they should engage with, as well as our expected standards and process for consultation.
In addition, clause 13(3) requires authorities to have regard to any assessments of the needs of victims, including child victims, and the relevant victim support services that are available in the police area. The measures in the clause, taken together, ensure that the voices of victims and the expertise of victim representatives will be considered when the joint strategy is prepared. I do not believe that the second part of the amendment is necessary, given the extant clauses and subsections.
Amendment 81 would require the relevant authorities to consult victims who are, or may be, receiving support services when they prepare their strategies. I agree that is an important issue. Clause 13 already sets out that the relevant authorities—police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities in England—must consult persons who represent the interests of victims, those who provide relevant victim support services and other persons the relevant authorities consider appropriate. That not only requires consultation with those who represent victims’ voices but gives ample scope for the relevant authorities to engage victims directly when they consider it appropriate to do so. We intend for the statutory guidance issued under clause 14 to set out in more detail what commissioners may want to take into account when they consider their duty to consult, including how to engage with victims effectively and, importantly, in a trauma-informed manner.
Engaging with victims to better understand their experiences in accessing services is undoubtably beneficial to the improvement of commissioning and outcomes for victims. Alongside allowing for direct engagement with victims themselves, clause 13 requires the relevant authorities to consult persons who represent victims. That is because some victims may prefer to be represented by another body—an advocate, a campaigner, a charity or a service provider—and we believe the legislation should be flexible enough to allow for that. We do not want to disadvantage victims who do not have the resources, autonomy or confidence to speak up for themselves. We should also recognise that there are organisations that are experienced in taking views from a representative spread of victims, feeding back to commissioners, and ensuring those views are heard and are useful in the commissioning process.
I hope I have given the hon. Lady some reassurance that we believe the clause already covers what she seeks to achieve.
Sarah Champion
I wonder whether the Minister will give a bit of clarity. A lot of the solutions he is setting out are based on the statutory guidance; will we get draft statutory guidance before the Bill receives Royal Assent, or will it only come afterwards?
Edward Argar
As with other elements, such as the draft victims code, or the draft draft victims code, and the guidance, my intention—I suspect we will come to that when we discuss independent domestic violence advisers and independent sexual violence advisers—is that where possible we will publish as much statutory guidance in draft while the Bill is going through the House. That is facilitated by the fact that this is a carry-over Bill, so there is more time for right hon. and hon. Members to engage with the guidance. It will also inform the latter stages of the Bill’s passage through this House and the other place.
Sarah Champion
The Minister referred to the draft draft victims code consultation, but we have been unable to find that, so will he share it with the Committee?
Edward Argar
Through the Chair and if appropriate, I will ask my officials to communicate via the Clerk where that can be found, so that it can be circulated to Committee members for their information as we continue our deliberations. On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Sarah Champion
I take the Minister’s comments at face value and am glad that we have them on the record. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Anna McMorrin
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 13, page 11, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses.”.
This amendment would require the relevant authorities to consult the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses when preparing their strategy for collaboration.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 16, in clause 13, page 11, line 20, at end insert—
“(c) any guidance prepared by the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses on collaboration between victim support services.”.
This amendment would require the relevant authorities to consider any guidance prepared by the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses when preparing their strategy for collaboration.
Anna McMorrin
I will refer to amendments 15 and 16 together. The clause outlines that relevant authorities in each police area must prepare a strategy for victim support services. Such collaboration is welcome, but there is one glaring omission: the Victims’ Commissioner.
In previous amendments, we have debated proposed increased powers for the Victims’ Commissioner, who is the one who voices the concerns of the voiceless—the victims. It is therefore imperative that, in the strategy preparation, the agencies must include guidance from the Victims’ Commissioner and consult that office. Only then will victims really have an independent voice advocating for them right down to the local level, where victims will see that most genuine change and impact.
The commissioner’s office can consult on best practice from the very beginning, guiding the authorities to make the meaningful change that the Minister wants the Bill to introduce. It is essential that the Victims’ Commissioner is consulted when the relevant authorities are preparing their strategy for collaboration on victim services; that is why I moved this amendment and tabled amendment 16. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is needed in the Bill and that this oversight is simply an error that can be easily fixed.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her amendments and for her exposition of them. I agree with her on the importance of local areas reflecting the views and expertise of those representing the interests of victims when preparing and revising their strategies.
The amendment would require consultation with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses when preparing local strategies, but I stress the existing requirement for the relevant authorities to engage with those who represent victims and providers, as well as other expert organisations. The clause deliberately does not specify any persons or organisations, to avoid being overly prescriptive.
As a—if not the—leading figure representing victims, we expect local areas to consult the commissioner when preparing their strategies, unless there is a justifiable reason not to do so. We intend the statutory guidance issued under clause 14 to set out who local commissioners might want to consider engaging with, as well as the standards and process for consultation. We believe that that will reflect whom we think should be consulted, but leaves sufficient flexibility, rather than placing a limiting or prescriptive list in primary legislation.
Amendment 16 seeks to require the relevant authorities to have regard to any guidance prepared by the commissioner. We intend the statutory guidance to set out clearly how we expect the relevant authorities to consider commissioning best practice and how to meet the needs of those with protected characteristics. That includes paying due regard to relevant research and reports published by key stakeholders, including the commissioner.
In developing the guidance thus far, the Ministry of Justice has engaged extensively with other Departments, local commissioners, experts and the victim support sector. I am grateful to all who have provided valuable input, including the Office of the Victims’ Commissioner. In light of that and given that we believe in being permissive rather than prescriptive in primary legislation, we think statutory guidance represents the appropriate balance in this space. I encourage the shadow Minister to consider not pressing her amendments.
Anna McMorrin
I am grateful to the Minister for setting that out: what will be said in statutory guidance and his explanation for deliberately avoiding a prescriptive list in the Bill. However, a reference to the Victims’ Commissioner is the core essence of what the Bill is about. Certainly part 1 is about giving a voice to victims, which is within the remit of the Victims’ Commissioner. I beg him to look at this again, and to be more prescriptive within the statutory guidance to ensure that there is a deliberate reference to the Victims’ Commissioner for those relevant authorities. Would he consider that?
Edward Argar
I am always happy to consider the suggestions put forward by the hon. Lady.
Anna McMorrin
I thank the Minister for that. I will not push the amendment to a vote, but hopefully we will work together on the statutory guidance. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 13, page 11, line 19, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) any assessment of the victim support services consulted in carrying out their duty under section (12).”
This amendment would ensure that when preparing the strategy for collaboration, relevant authorities must have regard to any assessment of the victim support services consulted under section 12.
This is a probing amendment, which seeks to strengthen the strategy for collaboration by requiring relevant authorities to consider any assessments made under the duty to collaborate. Currently, clause 13 (3)(b) says that when preparing the strategy, relevant authorities must have regard to
“the relevant victim support services which are available in the police area (whether or not provided by the relevant authorities).”
As we have discussed, it is vital for victims’ needs to be considered, and that will take place under subsection (3)(a). However, the strategy must also take into account any review of support services that the relevant authorities may undertake under the duty to collaborate. That is key in preparing the strategy as it will help them to identify gaps in services and where local need for services is stronger.
We cannot simply suggest that authorities consider the support services available; we must ask them to be more ambitious than that. By requiring them to consider any evaluations of services, we can enable them to strengthen the options available for victims and ultimately improve the outcomes of the Bill. Wherever possible, we must ensure that the services available to victims are as strong as they can be. The best way to make that happen is by local partners taking into account local need. However, for that to take place consistently across the country, we must improve the wording of the clause so that all assessments of services are always taken into account.
Jess Phillips
I do not have anything to add to what has already been said. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for her amendment, which, somewhat like amendments 87, 88 and 89, would require relevant authorities for a police area to conduct a joint strategic needs assessment to inform the strategy for commissioning victim support services as part of the duty to collaborate. I am also grateful to her for highlighting that she has approached this as a probing amendment. I will respond to it in that vein, noting again the context of my previous comments about her broader calls for a JSNA.
The Government agree it is vital that relevant support services fit the local needs of victims, and that victims’ needs form the centre of any commissioning decision. Current systems are created so that commissioners place the victim at the heart of commissioning, enabling a bespoke approach rather than a one-size-fits-all approach set nationally.
PCCs are able to allocate the grants and funding supplied by my Department based on relevant needs assessments, which already happen as part of good commissioning processes. Those assessments enable PCCs to target funding into practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of crime, where it is most needed in their area. PCCs, local authorities and integrated care boards are also required to carry out a joint strategic needs assessment under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which should indicate the level of serious violence and the number of victims affected.
Both domestic abuse and sexual abuse are now considered forms of serious violence—and in my view, rightly so. Local authorities and integrated care boards also already carry out separate assessments that indicate the needs of victims, including the needs assessment under part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which sets out the needs of victims in accommodation-based services, and the JSNA that informs the public health and wellbeing strategy.
Clause 13(3) requires PCCs, local authorities and integrated care boards to have regard, when preparing their joint strategy, to any needs assessments that they have already carried out and that reflect the needs of victims. Statutory guidance will state that relevant authorities should then set out in their joint commissioning strategy how they have had regard to the relevant needs assessments and how commissioning decisions aim to reflect and to meet the identified need.
Sarah Champion
I pause the Minister at the point of the black hole that he may well be about to backfill. If, in doing the assessment, the authorities found a big gap in provision in, say, Muslim women’s support services, would they then have to fill that gap and provide those services or would they just say, “Oh, that’s awful; we have a big gap in those services”?
Edward Argar
As I have said in previous responses, the funding is finite. There is a degree of flexibility—not total flexibility, because there are, as she will be aware, some ringfenced pots for police and crime commissioners to address specific needs. They also have their core funding. It is down to them to determine how they spend that funding and that finite pot of money, but having regard to the work that they have done in terms of needs assessments. To be blunt, they cannot spend what they do not have. They have a finite pot, so they will have to determine how that is most effectively used to meet the needs that they have identified.
The victims funding strategy, which we published in May last year, also sets a clear expectation that commissioners should carry out regular needs assessments using all the data required to commission appropriate services for victims in their area, including victims with tailored or specific needs. Due to the recent publication of the victims funding strategy—notwithstanding its genesis back when the hon. Lady and I talked about it in 2018, pre pandemic—we are still in the relatively early stages of assessing its impact and the pull-through into what happens on the ground.
For those reasons, I am not convinced that the amendment is required to clearly state that joint needs assessments must be considered at this stage. However, I understand the points that the hon. Lady made and, as always and as I have said more broadly in the context of needs assessments, I am happy to converse with her and look to work with her as we go forward.
Sarah Champion
For me, this amendment comes back to the idea that “you only know what you know”. My concern is that if the Minister, the Secretary of State, is clear that this assessment needs to be done and if gaps are found, there is the need to fill those gaps; I still do not have the assurances.
I am thinking of situations where, for example, English is not someone’s first language or they need British Sign Language, or where there are cultural issues and someone wants a culturally sensitive service. I would welcome the opportunity to work with the Minister. The amendment layers on to others that have come previously, which may well be put to a vote at a later point, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 13, page 11, line 27, at end insert—
“(5A) The relevant authorities must publish an annual report containing—
(a) information about the action they have taken to implement the strategy prepared under this section, and
(b) information about their compliance with the duty to collaborate under section 12 of this Act.”
This amendment would require the relevant authorities to publish an annual report about the implementation of the strategy and their compliance with the duty to collaborate in the exercise of victim support functions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—Reviewing compliance: duty to collaborate—
“(1) A police and crime panel which oversees services in a police area must keep under review how the relevant authorities which provide services in the police area provide those services in accordance with their duties under section (12) and (13) of this Act.
(2) In this section, the reference to a “police and crime panel” is to be read in accordance with Schedule 6 to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.
(3) In this section, “relevant authorities” has the meaning given by section 12(2).
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1), police and crime panels must prepare and publish an annual report setting out how the relevant authorities are fulfilling their duties under section (12) and (13).
(5) A report under subsection (4) must set out, in particular—
(a) how the relevant authorities are assessing the needs of victims;
(b) how the relevant authorities are meeting the needs of victims; and
(c) how the relevant authorities are collaborating to represent the interests of victims.
(6) The police and crime panel must send a copy of any report published under subsection (4) to the Secretary of State.
(7) The Secretary of State must then publish an annual statement on the state of victim support.”
This new clause aims to establish a review of compliance with the duty to collaborate and add in a layer of accountability to oversee this new duty.
Sarah Champion
I apologise for taking up so much of the Committee’s time; I am very grateful for everyone’s indulgence. I do it just to try to get the best Bill, one that we can all be proud of.
Amendment 86 would require the relevant authorities to publish an annual report about the implementation of the strategy and their compliance with the duty to collaborate in the exercise of victim support functions, and new clause 9 aims to establish a review of compliance with the duty to collaborate and add in a layer of accountability to oversee the new duty. This is very much building on the debate that we have been having.
The duty placed on local authorities, integrated care boards and the police and crime commissioners to collaborate in their exercise of victim support functions is an important step towards ensuring that victims receive necessary support. However, although the duty to collaborate is important at the moment, there is no way of measuring the effectiveness of this model.
Jess Phillips
I was the chair of the west midlands police and crime panel, so I suppose I will say that in that role I would have been more than happy to undertake this particular piece of work. The truth is that we count what we care about and we try to ignore everything else. If I were to think about all the different strategies and timeframes for schemes that were meant to be better for victims that I have come across in my 20 years in this area, I would say that they are just sitting on a shelf gathering dust and have meant absolutely nothing on the ground. It would be a very high number—more than the number of amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, but only just. The truth is that unless we have a proper scrutiny function, albeit from the Victims’ Commissioner nationally or through a local situation—as my hon. Friend said, she has basically designed a system that could work perfectly well—my worry is that we will get a lot of nice words saying, “Of course we are going to ensure that all our mental health services are trauma-informed.” It is just words; it does not mean anything on the ground. We need some level of scrutiny on specific outputs, key performance indicators, timeframes, what is improving and what needs to be improved.
This is not about criticism. Domestic homicide reviews, serious case reviews and all the systems we put in to scrutinise post-something terrible happening to somebody or some terrible crime have become a bit of a blame game that, at times, can freeze people into inaction. It should be a process of scrutiny for the good and the bad, for a genuine conversation and for Government to be able to say, “This doesn’t seem to be working. What needs to happen across the country for it to work?”, so I absolutely support the amendment.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham, as ever, for her amendments. Amendment 86 would require the relevant authorities to publish an annual report about the implementation of the strategy and their compliance with the duty to collaborate in the exercise of victim support functions. New clause 9 would establish a review of compliance with the collaboration duties in clauses 12 and 13 and add a layer of accountability to oversee the new duty by requiring police and crime panels to keep under review how the relevant authorities that provide services in their area are doing so in accordance with their collaboration duties under clauses 12 and 13.
I seek to reassure the hon. Lady that the existing requirements of the duty to collaborate will achieve a high level of transparency and the Government have a plan for an effective system of oversight for this duty, which I will set out. The relevant authorities—police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities in England—will already be under an obligation to publish, review and revise their commissioning strategies, including publishing any revised versions or revisions. This is to ensure transparency, as the strategies must contain information on how they consider they are fulfilling or intend to fulfil their duty under clause 12. We intend these strategies to be assessed by the national oversight forum, about which we have spoken previously in Committee and which was announced in our consultation response in 2022. This ministerial-led group will scrutinise the local strategies, assess the effectiveness of collaboration and how well the duty is executed. It will have an ongoing role in monitoring the performance and outputs of local strategies against the objectives that local areas have set.
Under clause 13, local areas must review and revise strategies from time to time so that they reflect the changing commissioning landscape and emerging local need. We expect strategies to be reviewed annually and revised fully approximately every four years. That is an expectation we will test in practice when we consult formally on the statutory guidance in due course. At the point of review and revision, the oversight group will have oversight responsibility to consider whether the next set of objectives set by local areas are ambitious and deliverable. I therefore contend that requiring an additional annual report as intended by amendment 86 is to a degree duplicative of the extant intentions under the clauses.
Sarah Champion
At this point, does the Minister have details of who will be on the oversight board?
Edward Argar
It is something that we continue to work through. I have alluded in previous comments to some of those whom we hope will be engaged—the Victims’ Commissioner and others—but if it is helpful, in the spirit of sharing what we have, even as a working document as we work our way through the Bill, I am open to considering sharing that as well with members of the Committee.
Edward Argar
In that context, I will gently say—and this may be a little less consensual than what I would normally say—that one of the people on the group will be the relevant Minister, but I fear that Opposition Members may have a long wait before that will necessarily apply to them. They may take a different view. On new clause 9, I agree with the hon. Lady—
Edward Argar
Not on that! I agree with the hon. Member for Rotherham on the importance of ensuring appropriate and robust oversight and monitoring of the duty to collaborate. I hope to reassure her that many of her proposals are satisfied by our existing clauses and the Government’s existing plans. Where we have taken a different approach from her recommendations, I will explain our reasoning.
The purpose of the duty is to create a framework that facilitates local collaboration and leads to more targeted and joined-up local commissioning that meets local needs. The measures we are introducing to achieve that are as framed in clauses 12 and 13. As I have said, we will be setting out plans for that clear system of oversight, which we think is essential to ensuring that it meets its aims. The details of that will be set out in statutory guidance. That oversight group will have an ongoing role in monitoring the performance and outputs of local strategies against the objectives that local areas have set. As I have alluded to, under clause 13 local areas must review and revise strategies from time to time.
I turn briefly to potential membership of that group, to put a little gloss on it that might help to inform any feedback the hon. Lady subsequently wishes to give. It needs to have a representative membership that represents and scrutinises the relevant authorities—police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities. Those people will need to have the right seniority to discuss and take decisions on issues relating to the three crime types included in the duty: domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent offences.
As well as Ministers and senior representatives from the relevant delivery authorities that have the ability to scrutinise local plans, it is important that we are able to bring different perspectives to the discussions. In the case of police and crime commissioners, that could include representatives from police and crime panels or, for example, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. We continue carefully to consider what representation may be required and I am open, as ever, to working with the hon. Lady on that.
The statutory guidance will set out clear advice on what form the national oversight structure will take and how the relevant authorities can participate and engage with it. I believe that this national oversight system will be effective, proportionate and less complex than alternative models. I am afraid I do not share the perspective that police and crime panels should take on oversight responsibilities to keep the relevant authorities under review in relation to the duty, and prepare and publish the annual report. I will set out my reasons and rationale for that.
First, the bodies that the hon. Lady would like police and crime panels to scrutinise are subject to different individual accountability arrangements. Under this duty, the Secretary of State will issue guidance to integrated care boards, PCCs and local authorities in relation to their collaboration duties under the Bill. While PCCs are scrutinised by those panels, and can be in respect of any of their functions, they, together with local authorities, are ultimately held to account at the ballot box—I suspect we would all hope to see higher turnouts in elections for those important offices, given the functions they perform, but it is of course the choice of our constituents as to whether they vote.
Secondly, it is important to stress that this is a joint statutory duty placed equally on police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities. Victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent crimes typically access a range of services across health, local authority services and policing provision. That is the primary reason why our duty to collaborate is a joint one.
Police and crime panels are rightly focused on scrutinising the relevant PCC on any decisions and actions taken in connection with the commissioner’s role—again, including this new addition to their obligations—but they do not have scrutiny powers over local authorities or integrated care boards. The proposed clause would therefore require going beyond the role, function and powers of the panels. It would also potentially infringe the independence and respective scrutiny arrangements of the other bodies under the duty. The Government currently have no plans to review the role and powers of police and crime panels or to change their remit.
I turn to the hon. Lady’s recommendation for police and crime panels to publish and prepare an annual report setting out
“how the relevant authorities are fulfilling their duties under section (12) and (13)”,
in particular how they are assessing the needs of victims, meeting the needs of victims and collaborating to represent the interests of victims. The new clause asks police and crime panels to publish that annual report setting out how relevant authorities are fulfilling their duties, in particular addressing those key points that I have highlighted. I would argue this additional layer of oversight is, again, not strictly necessary, given the extant obligation on these authorities to publish their commissioning strategies, and given the statutory duty for those strategies to contain information on how they consider they are fulfilling, or intend to fulfil, the collaboration duty under clause 12.
Sarah Champion
The Minister has put forward a persuasive argument. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The purpose of clause 13 is to improve how support services for victims are planned locally. Clause 13 requires the relevant authorities to undertake certain activities as part of their duty to collaborate, as set out in clause 12.
Police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities within a police area are required, first, to prepare, implement and publish a joint local strategy, setting out how they consider that they are fulfilling, or intend to fulfil, their duty to collaborate in relation to victim support services. Crucially, by ensuring transparency and a better understanding of the aims and approaches of each commissioning area, the strategy will be expected to demonstrate how commissioning areas work together, what their approaches are to commissioning and how their decisions will meet the needs of their community.
Secondly, the strategy must be informed by certain activities, including existing assessments of victims’ needs—including children and those with protected characteristics —and the views of those representing the interests of victims and service providers, ensuring that strategies are developed with the necessary information and the right expertise. Importantly, more effective use of existing joint needs assessments should help to build an improved understanding of local need, and therefore more targeted commissioning activity and better decision making.
Thirdly, the strategy will be reviewed and revised from time to time so that it reflects the changing commissioning landscapes and emerging local need. By increasing collaboration, we expect that local strategies will lead to changes in commissioning processes, including reduced duplication through increased joint working; a common understanding of local need and effective provision; and transparency, including on how decisions are informed by consideration of needs assessments. As a result, victims should experience a more joined-up pathway, resulting in quality support enabled by better co-ordinated and targeted local use of resources and interventions, and timely support facilitated by better joining up so that victims can more seamlessly move between services.
Clause 14 requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance that will support PCCs, integrated care boards and local authorities in carrying out the duty to collaborate. It requires them to have regard to this guidance when discharging their duties under clauses 12 and 13. The guidance will cover topics such as how collaboration is expected to work in practice, information on strategy development and content, and how we expect areas to monitor the impact of the duty.
The clause also requires the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders, such as local commissioners and providers, when drafting the guidance, so that it is useful and reflects the operational reality. The clause is important because it ensures that commissioners are clear about what is expected of them and can carry out activity in a consistent way across England. We anticipate that persons who interact with the bodies subject to the duty will also look at the guidance to understand the expectations for the bodies. Following parliamentary passage of the Bill, we expect to formally consult on the guidance and plan for implementation as soon as practically possible. I commend that clauses 13 and 14 stand part of the Bill.
Jess Phillips
Clause 13 says that relevant authorities will collaborate on a strategy on aims and approach to commissioning, and that they must engage victims and those who represent victims; again, this must mean specialist service providers for victims—and by that, I mean that those service providers must be specialist. The clause also states that authorities must base their strategy on the needs of victims. We would clarify that this must be according to need. In order for areas to understand their local need, they must consider the volume of victims, the cohort and characteristics of victims, and the impact on victims. The authorities must have all that information, as a needs assessment can only truly be made if we know the facts first; otherwise, it is based not on any understanding, but on perception.
When it comes to gendered violence, the lack of data is a massive issue. It is an issue that is beyond the parameters of this debate, but as we make new law, as we are doing today, we should try to address it. Data is really important to how we do a needs assessment because, I am afraid to say, so much is missing. Take, for example, the outrageous lack of data accessible to fully investigate and comprehend the relationship between protected characteristics and gendered violence. The Femicide Census tells us that in 79% of cases where a woman was murdered by a man during the period of 2008 to 2018, the ethnicity of the victim was not recorded. Although the Office for National Statistics provides an analysis of homicide offences by “ethnic appearance”, the data is not broken down by gender. This must change. We need to make sure that when we are putting together strategies and needs assessments, they are based not on assumptions but on facts. I fear that the current data collection situation, both nationally and locally, does not allow for that process to be as good as it could be.
We are fine for clauses 13 and 14 to stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, particularly for her comments on data. I may not quite be Mystic Meg, but I sense some possible future amendments or at least a debate on this matter when we reach Report stage. I am happy to engage with her on this in the interim, and I am grateful for her support for the clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Guidance about independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisors
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 57, in clause 15, page 12, line 5, at end insert—
“(c) independent stalking advocacy caseworkers”.
This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State must also provide guidance around stalking advocates, rather than limiting to ISVAs and IDVAs.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 56, in clause 15, page 12, line 12, at end insert—
“(c) ‘independent stalking advocacy caseworker’ means a person who provides a relevant service to individuals who are victims of criminal conduct which constitutes stalking”.
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State must also provide guidance around any relevant specialist community-based services, rather than limiting to ISVAs and IDVAs.
Sarah Champion, before you speak to your amendments, let me say this: you never need to apologise to this Committee or anyone else for trying to make legislation better.
Sarah Champion
That is very decent of you, Mr Hosie. Thank you very much.
Amendments 57 and 56 attempt to ensure that the Secretary of State must also provide guidance around stalking advocates, rather than just limiting it to ISVAs and IDVAs. I hope that I will be able to make my argument to the Minister using his own words from earlier.
The Bill as it currently stands, in my opinion and that of many others, does not go far enough to ensure that victims of stalking will be supported, as it makes no specific reference to this very specific crime. Stalking is a highly complex offence, requiring criminal justice agencies to understand the patterns of obsessive controlling behaviour, which, when seen as individual occurrences, may not appear to constitute criminal practice. Victims of stalking often experience prolonged periods of victimisation, often not reporting stalking behaviour until after they have experienced more than 100 instances. Sadly, criminal justice agencies and inspectorates lack training and expert understanding of the complexities of this crime, and the specific trauma that victims of stalking experience. Furthermore, justice on stalking is not currently being delivered. In 2019-20 there were more than 1.5 million estimated victims of stalking, but just 3,506 stalkers were charged. Only 304 of those charged received custodial sentences.
The Government must prioritise raising awareness and understanding of stalking in criminal justice agencies, because victims are currently falling through the gaps. The Bill represents an opportunity for the understanding of stalking to be improved. By explicitly acknowledging the specific characteristics of stalking, services will ensure victims are not excluded from the right to safety and support.
The Suzy Lamplugh Trust says it welcomes the decision to elevate the importance and understanding of ISVA and IDVA roles under clause 15. I echo that, and it is very welcome. But while IDVAs and ISVAs do vitally important work for their specific victim groups, they are not necessarily stalking specialists, nor are they expected to be. Stalking is a complex crime, and victims must be supported by specialist advocates who have expertise in the area.
At present, the Bill neglects to include a definition for independent stalking advocates. Given that stalking is often misunderstood by criminal justice agencies, victims of stalking will once again fall through gaps in support if explicit reference to their needs is not made. It is well documented that stalking advocates have a huge impact on improving the experience of victims. Some 90% of respondents to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust’s research “Bridging the Gap” stated that their stalking advocate helped them to navigate the criminal justice system. I thank the Suzy Lamplugh Trust for its help with this amendment.
Stalking advocates support victims in a holistic way to help them to manage and cope with their situation and to recover from abuse. They carry out risk assessments and ensure that safety plans are put in place to protect victims and those around them, including any dependants, from further harm. Unfortunately, stalking advocates are underused. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust research demonstrates that 77% of stalking victims did not access a stalking advocate; 69% accessed no advocacy at all; only 4% accessed support from a non-specialist service such as an IDVA or ISVA; and just 15% of victims were referred to a stalking advocate by the police, further demonstrating low levels of understanding of stalking in criminal justice agencies.
If clause 15 made specific reference to independent stalking advocates, the guidance that the Secretary of State has committed to issue should include a definition of stalking advocates and clarity on the services they provide. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust has shown that victims not supported by an advocate had a one-in-1,000 chance of their perpetrator being convicted, compared with one in four if they had a stalking advocate. The amendment would not only provide much needed support for victims, but help enable justice to be secured.
This morning, in response to new clause 19, the Minister said:
“Our concern is that the approach set out in the new clause risks excluding or minimising the importance of some of the other service types that commissioners could consider for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence. As drafted, the new clause could risk creating a hierarchy.”
That exact argument applies here. I completely understand his response to me that ISVAs and IDVAs need specific training for judges to recognise their judgments and advice in courts. Independent stalking advocates receive training and qualifications such as the level 4 ISAS—independent stalking advocacy specialist—course, which is accredited by the University of Hertfordshire.
These are vital professionals who must be included in the Bill. We cannot limit clause 15 solely to ISVAs and IDVAs when so much abuse begins with stalking. We must enable victims of this preventable crime to access support at an early stage that has statutory guidance, just as those who have experienced sexual or domestic violence will be able to.
Jess Phillips
In support of amendments 56 and 57, I say gently to the Minister that a one-time Back Bencher who is now Secretary of State for Justice introduced legislation that put stalking protection orders in place. That was undoubtedly based on a harrowing case he came across as the Member for Cheltenham. In my experience of working with him on stalking, he has always been a true and brilliant ally in this space, so I could imagine him moving the amendment. We could go back to him gently for his agreement to it.
One important thing to mention is that stalking is distinct from the crimes of sexual violence and domestic abuse. Normally, I am on my feet complaining that people do not understand that stalking happens as part of domestic abuse and that someone can be a victim of domestic abuse and coercive control but then, following separation, go on to be a victim of post-separation stalking. That is largely misunderstood by criminal justice agencies.
It is important to put stalking specialists into clause 15 because there are lots of cases where people are stalked by strangers, work colleagues and housemates. When we debated the Domestic Abuse Bill, an amendment tabled by Liberal Democrat members of the Committee was about whether abuse in a student house share could be considered domestic abuse. Stalking sits distinctly in many cases involving strangers, colleagues and house shares.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I want to highlight the brilliant point made by my hon. Friend, as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. Does she agree that children—girls especially, but boys as well—are often stalked, which is extremely frightening and scary for them, and that that also needs to be highlighted and addressed in the Bill?
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. For any hon. Member who has experienced stalking themselves—unfortunately, we are a prime category for some of this stalking behaviour—it will not come as a surprise that, from my experience, the first threat place that people go to is to antagonise me about my sons, where they go to school and that sort of information. Children are undoubtedly used, often completely unawares, as part of a pattern of stalking, creating further stress and multiple victims in that instance. Children are often targeted and used in circumstances to attack an adult. As somebody who has run IDVA and ISVA services—in fact, the organisation I used to work for now has specific stalking advocates—I know that stalking is distinct, specific and different. The element of post-separation domestic abuse, as well as the important fact that it is a stranger-based issue, makes the argument for the need for that specialism.
Sarah Champion
The Minister argued that IDVAs and ISVAs both engage with the criminal justice sector and therefore need to be recognised as such in the Bill. In my hon. Friend’s experience, is it the same for stalking advocates?
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. A case that I handled very recently was a post-separation issue, but was not at the relevant risk level. As I said earlier today, a person has to be at incredibly high risk of harm to be allocated an IDVA who will take them through the criminal justice system, or they have to be going through the criminal justice system.
In the case that I handled, a person broke up with somebody who, six months later, started turning up at her place of work. The victim then went to the police station and said, “This is my ex-partner,” but she could not point to any particular history of abuse or anything that had been criminal at the time. She said, “He’s now turning up at my place of work and sending me messages on Facebook,” but that is not at the level that will get anyone access to an independent domestic violence adviser. I immediately said, “Do you have a stalking protection order in place?” She said, “What’s a stalking protection order?” She had been to the police, but she did not have a specialist advocate with her, or even just somebody telling her what question to ask. She now has a stalking protection order in place, because she knows what one is.
There is a need for specialist advocacy in cases that will never breach the criminal space of domestic abuse or the risk level that would allow for an IDVA. That is very important, because those cases can still be criminal without ever touching the desk of one of those agencies. I therefore totally support my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, and I imagine that the Secretary of State for Justice may agree with us.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for amendments 56 and 57 and grateful to her and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, for this debate. The amendments would expand the Bill’s requirement for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on ISVAs and IDVAs so that it also included independent stalking advocacy caseworkers. Specialist stalking services, including independent stalking advocacy caseworkers, do vital work to identify risk and provide practical guidance and safety advice for victims. They can help victims to navigate the criminal justice system. The hon. Member for Lewisham East was right to highlight that this crime can affect children as well as adults, and we should not forget that.
The Government are committed to protecting and supporting victims of stalking. The hon. Member for Rotherham was right to highlight the huge impact that stalking can have and the trauma that can result, and the shadow Minister was adroit at gently reminding me of my boss’s views and work on this subject in the past. For example, the Government introduced stalking protection orders in 2020, and almost 1,000 were issued in the first 23 months. The Home Office also continues to part-fund the national stalking helpline, which is run by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, to which I pay tribute, and provided £160,430 between April 2022 and March 2023. We have also provided funding for police-led projects to tackle the behaviour of stalkers and thereby provide greater protection to victims. In May, we announced awards to 10 police and crime commissioners to fund perpetrator interventions, wholly or partly, between April 2023 and March 2025.
In the Bill, we have chosen to focus on guidance for ISVAs and IDVAs because the consultation highlighted that greater consistency and awareness of ISVAs and IDVAs was particularly needed, especially given the number now working across the sector. We believe that that can best be addressed through statutory guidance. I agree that independent stalking advocacy caseworkers, or ISACs—I may just stick to the full wording—are important and can be just as effective, but we are not yet convinced that Government intervention by way of statutory guidance is necessary on the basis of the evidence that we have seen thus far. We do not feel that there is the same pressing need to drive further awareness and consistency of the roles, given the degree of consistency that exists.
I am, however, open to working with the hon. Member for Rotherham—and with the shadow Minister if she wishes to join, as I suspect she might—to continue to reflect on and consider how and whether Government support to independent stalking advocacy caseworkers can be improved. But I also believe that it will be important to assess the impact and effectiveness of the guidance on ISVAs and IDVAs, subject to the passage of the Bill, before considering whether to extend it to other groups in the same format. As I say, I am happy to engage with the hon. Member for Rotherham in that respect.
On the point about hierarchy or the lack thereof, I reassure the hon. Lady that guidance for ISVAs and IDVAs should not be taken to indicate any sort of funding or other hierarchy of them over independent stalking advocacy caseworkers or any other type of specialist support. Funding decisions for different types of support are made by local commissioners based on their assessment of the local need, and the guidance on ISVAs and IDVAs will be explicit that there should be no presumption of a hierarchy when it comes to those funding decisions.
Sarah Champion
I just want to re-read the statistic that victims not supported by an advocate had a one-in-1,000 chance of their perpetrator getting convicted, compared with a one-in-four chance for those who had a stalking advocate. The Minister knows that pretty much all my time in Parliament has been spent trying to prevent abuse. This seems a very worthy investment and a very worthy amendment to the Bill. I will grab with both hands the opportunity to meet him and understand why he does not, at this point, agree.
Sarah Champion
I am happy to go to a beach somewhere. At this point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move amendment 62, in clause 15, page 12, line 5, at end insert—
“(c) any other specialist community-based services relevant to the criminal conduct.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 61, in clause 15, page 12, line 12, at end insert—
“(c) ‘specialist community-based service’ means a person who provides a relevant service to individuals based on a protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 or the specific nature of the crime faced by the victim.”
Amendment 58, in clause 15, page 12, line 13, leave out “or (b)” and insert “, (b) or (c)”.
Amendment 59, in clause 15, page 12, line 16, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) Guidance under this section about service providers under subsection (1) must include provision about—
(a) the role of such providers;
(b) the services they provide to—
(i) victims, including (where relevant) victims who are children or have other protected characteristics, or
(ii) persons who are not victims, where that service is provided in connection with a service provided to a victim;
(c) how such providers and other persons who have functions relating to victims, or any aspect of the criminal justice system, should work together;
(d) appropriate training and qualifications for such providers.”
Amendment 60, in clause 15, page 12, line 28, leave out from beginning to “must” and insert
“The service providers listed in subsection (1)”.
New clause 18—Guidance about community-based specialist domestic abuse services—
“(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about community-based specialist domestic abuse services.
(2) Guidance under this section must include provision about—
(a) the definition and role of community-based specialist domestic abuse services;
(b) the support that such services provide to—
(i) victims, including (where relevant) victims who are children or have other protected characteristics, or
(ii) persons who are not victims, where that service is provided in connection with a service provided to a victim;
(c) how such services and other persons who have functions relating to victims, or any aspect of the criminal justice system, should work together;
(d) appropriate training and qualifications for providers of such services.
(3) Providers of community-based specialist domestic abuse services must have regard to guidance under this section when exercising their functions.
(4) Any other person who has functions relating to victims, or any aspect of the criminal justice system, must have regard to guidance under this section where—
(a) the person is exercising such a function, and
(b) the guidance is relevant to the exercise of that function.
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to anything done by any person acting in a judicial capacity, or on the instructions of or on behalf of such a person.
(6) In this section, ‘domestic abuse’ has the same meaning as in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 (see section 1 of that Act).”
Sarah Champion
The amendments are all on specialist community-based support, which I have a great deal of time and respect for. I know that the Minister is very aware of its value, so I hope that I am pushing at an open door in support of it, even if he might have different opinions about where that support should land.
Going back to amendment 57, I repeat that the inclusion of guidance and IDVAs and ISVAs in the Bill is genuinely very welcome. I commend the Minister for that, and I mean no disrespect to him in what I will say next: there are concerns that defining only those roles will direct victims to support based in the criminal justice system rather than whichever form suits them best. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has stressed that most victims and survivors do not go into the criminal justice system, so we must ensure that support and investment beyond IDVAs and ISVAs is easily accessible.
I appreciate that the Minister has made it clear that a victim does not need to report a crime to access support. I am therefore concerned that it is a serious oversight by him not to make it clearer that specialist support that does not go through a criminal footing is equally regarded in the Bill. My amendment 62 complements and reflects the intention behind new clause 19 in ensuring that all forms of specialist support are seen as just as crucial as that provided by ISVAs and IDVAs. It also aligns with amendment 26, tabled by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, which I very much support. I am glad that he has brought referring victims to restorative justice services into the debate.
It must be the victim’s choice which route they pursue to cope with and recover from the crimes that have been committed against them. Since the duty on local authorities to provide accommodation-based support was enacted in the Domestic Abuse Act, providing that form of support is now an overwhelming focus within the majority of local authority commissioning strategies, at the expense of other forms. However, the vast majority of victims also want to access support in the community, with 83% wanting counselling or therapeutic support. For victims of domestic abuse accessing support, 70% would do so via community-based services. According to SafeLives, the vast majority of victims never spend time in refuge accommodation. Women’s Aid’s annual survey reported that, in a single year, 187,000 children and 156,000 women were supported by community-based services. Thank goodness they were there. I commend them. Refuge’s recent report “Local Lifelines” found that 95% of survivors supported by Refuge use community-based services.
Jess Phillips
I rise to speak to new clause 18—is that where we are at? Yes, because Sarah spoke to all the provisions together. I will make some remarks too, although I imagine they are relatively similar. I should not have called her Sarah; I meant my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham—I apologise for using her name. I did not say “you”, but I did break that particular protocol. It has been a long day.
Jess Phillips
In his remarks, the Minister said that consultation highlighted the need to define IDVAs and ISVAs, and that may well be true in the purest sense of what they were initially intended to be—certainly much more with IDVAs than ISVAs—which was about specific guidance. We had court-based IDVAs when we used to have specialist domestic abuse courts everywhere, and it is absolutely right that it becomes about the criminal justice system.
I have to say that ISVAs were not about the criminal justice system originally, and their services took a much more holistic approach. The term became what we called anyone who supports someone who comes forward about sexual violence and abuse. In domestic abuse services, of course, there were both; we had floating support, housing support and refuge support workers, as well as people who may be going through the courts, so it made sense to have a different name. That is just a potted history of IDVAs and ISVAs.
The consultation may have said that it was important to identify and define IDVAs and ISVAs and to ensure that criminal justice agencies—specifically judges and the courts—take them seriously. Who could disagree with that? However, if we were to consult any agency that runs IDVA or ISVA services, or domestic abuse and sexual violence services, not one of them would think that it should be exclusively about IDVAs and ISVAs. If we are going to lean on consultation in one regard, then the evidence here is that the sector is not against the definitions, but rather the narrowness of the definitions. Throughout the day, the Minister has talked about the danger of narrow definitions—I just point out that irony.
New clause 18 follows on from the previous debate about community-based, specialist domestic abuse services, which come in a variety of forms. Women and children seek support and help in different ways, including outreach support, floating support, formal counselling and support groups—the list goes on. By only formalising the IDVA models, we risk creating a tiered hierarchy and adversely affecting other models of community-based specialist provision. Once again, that then poses the risk of more generic services, or services that are run in-house.
What is to stop Birmingham City Council saying, “We have a load of ISVAs that work in our service. We are going to train a load of ISVAs and we will take any funding in-house”? I have great respect to Birmingham City Council—I was a member of the council for some years—but it is not a specialist domestic abuse service, and nor should it ever be trusted to be one. It is not independent; they are the people who run the housing; they are the people an ISVA will sometimes have to help a victim take to court—that happens quite regularly. Regarding Victim Support, with the greatest respect to it as an organisation, it is not a specialist sexual violence service, and yet, across the country, it does have ISVA services.
I find the creep towards the generic a worry. Actually, it is not a worry; it is a fact. I have seen it; it is happening, and it has been happening in a new commissioning environment for some time. I have outlined the evidence of the trend already, and the same warnings apply here. Crucially, victims with protected characteristics value and need access to holistic support and intersectional advocacy from organisations led by and for black and minoritised women and those providing specialist advocacy for LGBT+ and for deaf and disabled victims, and I also mentioned specialist services for victims of forces-based violence. Those organisations commonly sit outside the IDVA model but are crucial to the provision of support for such groups.
Another thing that worries me concerns allowing somebody to go into court, be that a family court or another civil court environment for non-molestation orders or other domestic abuse protection orders—there are various different orders, which are currently not worth the paper they are written on, but they exist, so let us pretend they are a solution. If someone does not have an IDVA qualification and is a floating community-based support worker from the local LGBT specialist support service, a judge will not allow that person into the court, because of the idea of that qualification. Also, how do we know that people do not call themselves IDVAs and ISVAs without the qualification? It is not like having a degree; it is a different thing. So there are some real dangers in this. I have seen these things happen. Even though I am qualified in this space, I was not allowed to sit with a rape victim in court recently, because I was not an ISVA. That seems like a—
Jess Phillips
It does seem like a hierarchy. Obviously, I won the argument on that, but that was what I was initially told. There are many examples of why this is a problem.
Studies have shown that disabled women are twice as likely to experience domestic abuse. They are also twice as likely to suffer rape and sexual assault. Yet, the charity SafeLives’s multi-agency risk assessment conference data shows that, nationally, only 3.9% of referrals are disabled victims. Disabled women are four times more likely to report abuse by multiple perpetrators and to experience abuse for longer. Disabled women are more likely to experience abuse by a family member than non-disabled women. Stay Safe East is a user-led specialist organisation supporting disabled victims, and its experience with clients mirrors those harrowing statistics.
Disabled victims may also face specific forms of domestic abuse or their circumstances or impairment being weaponised against them—for example, control of food or drink or medication, withdrawal of care, restricting access to disability equipment, restricting access to other professional advice or help, theft of benefits, and the threat that they will be put into care or have their children taken away from them. Those specific experiences and intersecting discriminations mean that organisations that can provide tailored and holistic care are crucial and wanted by victims. Likewise, in research by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, it was found that people wanted specialist services. Those services, such as Stay Safe East, are small—I do not want to speak out of turn, but I think four people work there, so it is not a big organisation. However, it is one of the only specialist domestic abuse organisations; those people are not all IDVAs, yet this is absolutely the specialist agency.
The new clause and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham are to try to ensure that judges and police forces—judges more so, but police forces too—will understand. They are quite rigid about who is allowed in, who is not and who they can take advice from. I really worry that we are about to undermine vast swathes of very professional and learned specialists just on the basis of a qualification they do or do not have.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to hon. Members for their amendments, and I will seek to respond to them all in turn.
Amendments 62 and 61 would expand clause 15 so that the Secretary of State would be required to issue guidance about specialist community-based services for victims, in addition to ISVAs and IDVAs. I understand the concerns that the clause’s focus on ISVAs and IDVAs alone could result in the Government being seen to place their focus on them above other forms of community-based support. I recognise that there are mixed views in the sector about that, and concerns have been expressed. Let me reassure the Committee that that is not the case and that the intention behind the amendments can be addressed through other means.
Edward Argar
I will refrain from biting—I almost did.
To help ensure that women and girls are safe everywhere, in July 2021, we published our cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy. That was followed by a cross-Government tackling domestic abuse plan in March 2022, investing more than £230 million of cross-Government funding into tackling this hideous crime, including more than £140 million for supporting victims and more than £81 million for tackling perpetrators.
Through the commitments set out in those strategies, the Government aim to transform how systems and society respond to violence against women and girls. That is in addition to the increased funding for support services and the increased numbers of ISVAs and IDVAs that I have already referenced. I hope that that demonstrates, to some extent, how we are taking action to further support the sector.
We have chosen a narrower focus for the Bill’s measures to issue guidance than new clause 18 would. IDVAs are a particular type of community-based specialist support service for victims of domestic abuse; our focus on them is in response to the victims Bill consultation. I know that, as the hon. Members for Rotherham and for Birmingham, Yardley set out, IDVAs are only one part of the domestic abuse support landscape, as they predominantly support high-risk victims. However, as I have said in relation to similar amendments, we do not believe that Government intervention through guidance issued about all community-based specialist domestic abuse services is the right approach.
The hon. Member for Rotherham said in our debate on new clause 19 that these services offer a vast range of support, including counselling, advice, advocacy and helplines. We want to get the balance right: we want Government intervention only when it is needed and will yield a positive benefit to support services. Our general approach is to set national commissioning standards and then allow local decision making by local commissioners. National guidance, such as the victims funding strategy and the national statement of expectations, sets standards but empowers commissioners to fund services of a quality and type that meet their local needs.
Our view is that additional guidance for ISVAs and IDVAs is necessary, given the growing number of roles and the lack of consistency. However, given the wide variety of roles within all community-based services, it is less clear what guidance about their roles, training and qualifications would bring, except possibly additional complexity and work for them. The key point is that ISVAs and IDVAs are particularly involved with the criminal justice process.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley highlighted the judicial discretion in this space and the approaches adopted by judges in their courts. I will not stray into that. Although we cannot direct or guide judges because they are quite rightly independent, we can improve their confidence in the professionalism and the work of ISVAs and IDVAs through this guidance, because of that particular intersection with the criminal justice process.
I always welcome further discussion with the hon. Member for Rotherham, as I hope I have made clear in the past few days, but I encourage her not to press the amendment to a Division.
Sarah Champion
I thank the Minister for his comments. I understand but disagree with his argument, but I will not press the amendment to a vote. 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 consider new clause 8—Assessment of numbers of independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisors, stalking advocates and specialist support services—
“Within six months of the passing of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must—
(a) make an assessment of the adequacy of the number of independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisors, stalking advocates, and specialist support services in each region of England and Wales, having regard to the population in each region, and
(b) publish that assessment.”
This new clause would require the SoS to make an assessment of the adequacy of the number of ISVAs, IDVAs, stalking advocates and specialist support services in each region of England and Wales.
Edward Argar
With your permission, Mr Hosie, I will address clause 15 and then, once I have heard Opposition Members’ arguments, speak to new clause 8 at the end.
Clause 15 introduces a measure that seeks to improve consistency and awareness of the roles of independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers, who play a crucial role in supporting the needs of victims. We heard during the victims Bill consultation about the need for improved information, awareness and consistency in relation to the ISVA and IDVA roles. In particular, we were told that their remit is not sufficiently clear, which could hamper effective collaboration; that their service provision is not always consistent; and that the existing guidance is outdated and unclear in some places. However, we know that there is a crucial need to allow flexibility and innovation in how ISVAs and IDVAs support victims as an independent sector.
Clause 15 seeks to address that issue by placing a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance about ISVAs and IDVAs and placing a duty on ISVAs, IDVAs and other relevant persons to have regard to the guidance. We believe that statutory guidance can strike the right balance by raising awareness and improving consistency without stifling independence and flexibility. It will cover minimum expectations and best practice for ISVAs and IDVAs working with victims and other agencies and services, and will seek to support practical improvements in how agencies work with ISVAs and IDVAs.
We have focused on ISVAs and IDVAs, as they are some of the most common and well-known support roles for victims of sexual and domestic abuse. We recognise the value they add in reducing the attrition of victims who have engaged with the criminal justice process, and preventing them from feeling that they have to drop out at any point. That reflects their crucial role in the criminal justice system in particular. We know that those who received their support are nearly 50% less likely to withdraw from the process. It is also important, as we increase the number of ISVAs and IDVAs to over 1,000 by 2024-25, that the roles achieve greater awareness and consistency to provide the quality service victims deserve.
However, we absolutely do not intend this measure to detract from the important diversity of the wider support sector, or inadvertently to create a hierarchy of support services in which only ISVAs and IDVAs are commissioned or favoured. We are carefully working with the sector to develop the guidance to make sure we get this right. We will ensure that the guidance clearly recognises the wider support sector and makes clear to commissioners their responsibility to consider all victims. That guidance, which will be required by the clause, will therefore meet an evidenced need for a growing part of the support sector. It will be one part of the ongoing and wider work that the Government are focused on to improve support for victims.
Sarah Champion
I rise to speak to new clause 8, which is a slender amendment and my last, so I hope the Minister will look favourably on it.
For years, as we know from our debates in Committee, victims and survivors have faced a postcode lottery in support services, but access to sexual violence advocates, domestic violence advocates and stalking advocates varies hugely around the country. For the Bill to be successful, we need an accurate picture of what such services look like now. If we do not know where the gaps are, how will we fill them sufficiently?
The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has done excellent mapping work across the country and shown where the gaps are in provision for domestic abuse victims, but victims of all crime face patchy services. Support services differ greatly, depending on where in the country victims access them. As my hon. Friends and I have outlined, stalking advocates are crucial for women all over the country but are rarely accessible for most victims, even though they dramatically increase the chance of prosecution.
ISVAs and IDVAs provide crucial services, but if not all victims can access them, not all victims can have their rights met. The criminal justice system is incredibly difficult to navigate. An advocate is crucial for justice to be achieved and support to be received. I urge the Minister to accept that there are huge gaps in the provision available and, by accepting new clause 8, to require the Secretary of State to carry out a review.
Jess Phillips
It would be lovely to know how many ISVAs and IDVAs there are across the country, and what that means, because we also have hospital IDVAs who do not necessarily interact with the criminal justice system at all, but are responsive in accident and emergency. It would be lovely to know that, so I agree with new clause 8—I had ticked it off eagerly and could not see the number for a moment.
I have some real concerns about the clause standing part of the Bill, in particular about the hierarchy. I will not push the clause to a vote today, as I imagine that this is an area that will evolve. I want to see the professionalism of the sector that I worked for, but perhaps the professionalism of the job that I once had should include something about the levels of pay. I guarantee that writing the level of professionalism into a particular job title will not mean that anyone who does it breaches being paid more than £30,000 a year, if they are lucky. On one side, we want professionalism, but on the other side we are happy to allow a group of, frankly, quite low-paid women to do this very difficult work that we respect enough to write into our law. I have concerns about the clause as a whole, but I will agree that it can stand part for now.
Edward Argar
I will respond briefly to new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham, which seeks to require an assessment of the Secretary of State and that that assessment is published annually.
As the hon. Lady pointed out, understanding the needs of victims and the provision available to them is crucial to ensuring that future services are commissioned and designed to support victims adequately. However, that needs to be appropriately balanced to ensure that processes are not burdensome on the services themselves, which is routinely of concern to them.
Our approach recognises that the needs of victims, and the provision currently available, will differ locally. We therefore devolve responsibility for commissioning and funding to local bodies that can appropriately assess and consider local needs. That ensures a tailored approach to commissioning services for communities. I am pleased to reassure the hon. Member for Rotherham that there are already a range of mechanisms in place for monitoring victims’ needs and the provision of services.
Edward Argar
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 22, page 18, line 3, leave out “a disclosure or” and insert “the”.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 34.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 32 to 34.
Clause stand part.
Edward Argar
I shall be relatively brisk. As with the Government amendments moved earlier, these are minor, technical amendments. They relate to the provisions on data protection. We are making these amendments across the Bill to ensure that the terminology on data protection is consistent. For example, the amendments will remove superfluous words that could be confusing, as “processing” information can cover a range of activity, including “disclosure”, which is mentioned separately. These changes primarily clarify the provisions and ensure that they work as intended; they do not constitute a policy change and are not intended to have substantive effects.
Clause 22 makes it clear that where data handling is required, the appropriate data protection legislation must still be followed. Where data processing is required under part 1 of the Bill, it is predominately for performance improvement and strategic monitoring—for example, in relation to compliance with the victims code. We do not anticipate that this will require the sharing of personal data. Nevertheless, it is vital that we ensure that the necessary protections are in place so that the collecting and handling of data is done fairly, lawfully and for specified purposes, and that nothing compromises victims’ confidentiality or jeopardises their ability to consent to access services and support. We have already engaged with the UK’s Data Protection Authority during the development of these requirements and will carry out further consultation during the development of the regulations in so far as any requirements relate to the processing of personal data.
Anna McMorrin
I rise only to agree with the Minister. I have no comments to make on the clause, because it is an important part of ensuring that the Bill works in terms of data protection.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: 32, in clause 22, page 18, line 4, leave out “disclosure or”.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 34.
Amendment 33, in clause 22, page 18, line 5, leave out “a disclosure or processing” and insert “it”.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 34.
Amendment 34, in clause 22, page 18, line 11, leave out “has” and insert “and ‘processing’ have”.—(Edward Argar.)
This amendment and Amendments 31, 32 and 33 give “processing” of information the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018. Processing includes disclosure and other uses of information, so there is no need to refer separately to disclosure.
Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Consequential provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
I will now be even brisker: the Bill provides a new statutory framework for the victims code, so this clause will repeal the existing provisions, so that the updated statutory basis of the code is clear. That requires repealing the relevant provisions relating to the victims code in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. Once in force, these provisions will allow a new victims code made under this Bill to come into effect, and the current victims code will cease to operate.
The clause also makes sure that other relevant legislation reflects that change. This includes the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman—the Parliamentary Commissioner—to accept complaints about the victims code, and the Victims’ Commissioner, given their responsibility for overseeing the operation of the code.
Anna McMorrin
This part of the Bill refers to the code of practice for victims. We need to ensure that if this Bill progresses, much of what has been discussed is reflected in it as we move forward, so that it is improved for victims—because that is what this is about. It is about victims’ experiences and real lives. The vast majority of victims do not get their entitlements. We currently have a Bill that falls short of that, but I hope that together we can robustly improve it and ensure that victims’ lives and experiences are changed for the better.
Edward Argar
I note what the shadow Minister said. While there may be areas where we disagreed as we went through part 1 of the Bill, I am grateful thus far for the positive and constructive tone adopted by Members on both sides of the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.— (Fay Jones.)
Victims and Prisoners Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Thursday 6th July 2023
(2 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 6 July 2023 - (6 Jul 2023)
The Chair
I inform Members about the normal preliminaries: phones and electronic devices should be on silent; no food or drinks are permitted in Committee apart from the water provided; and please give speaking notes to Hansard colleagues or email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 24
Appointment of independent public advocate
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 24, page 18, line 33, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to appoint an individual to act as an independent public advocate for victims of a major incident.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 21, in clause 24, page 19, line 2, leave out—
“appears to the Secretary of State to have”.
This amendment would alter the definition of a major incident so that an incident that has caused the death of, or serious harm to, a significant number of individuals is automatically defined as a major incident.
Anna McMorrin
I thank the organisations Inquest, Hillsborough Law Now and Justice for working with me on these amendments. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood, who has shown such steadfast commitment in the fight for justice for the families of Hillsborough through so many years. I am sure that it brings a lot comfort to those families to know that they have a fierce advocate in this place.
My right hon. Friend first introduced her Public Advocate Bill to Parliament in 2016. It has subsequently been blocked 15 times in the past two Sessions—
Anna McMorrin
Twenty-two times—I thank my right hon. Friend for the correction. Furthermore, I put on the record my tribute to Lord Wills, who has twice attempted to legislate for an independent advocate, in 2014 and 2015. I hope that the Minister today has come with a different approach, will heed the words of my colleagues and will co-operate with regard to the issues raised by my right hon. Friend.
I also put on the record that Labour stands unequivocally with the Hillsborough families. We have called repeatedly for the Hillsborough law; making it a reality will be a priority of a Labour Government.
I state my bitter disappointment that we have reached the debate on part 2 of the Bill, yet the Government have still not responded to the report of the Right Rev. James Jones, “The patronising disposition of unaccountable power”, published six years ago in 2017. That is truly intolerable.
Part 2 of the Bill must ensure that lessons are learned and that never again will families bereaved by public disaster have to endure smear campaigns against their loved ones. Families must never again have to spend three decades campaigning to get truth and justice. Unamended, however—this is where my amendments come in—part 2 falls woefully short of that. There will be more public disasters—since Hillsborough, to name but a few, there has been the Westminster terror attack, the Manchester Arena terror attack and the Grenfell Tower fire.
Lord Wills, Minister of State for Justice from 2007 to 2010, stated in evidence that the Bill was fundamentally flawed. The proposals for the independent public advocate fail in the Justice Secretary’s aim. The Justice Secretary said that
“to deliver justice, victims must be treated not as mere spectators of the criminal justice system, but as core participants in it.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 583.]
However, the proposals do not give the bereaved families effective agency. Instead, as Lord Wills said:
“the Bill gives the Secretary of State unfettered powers to appoint an independent public advocate or not to do so, and unfettered powers to dismiss an independent public advocate.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 91, Q176.]
Lord Wills went even further, stating that the Secretary of State will have “too much unfettered discretion”.
Amendments 20 and 21 are aimed at correcting that issue, ultimately limiting the Secretary of State’s discretion over the appointment of an independent public advocate. It is deeply concerning that the clause does not require the Secretary of State to appoint an advocate; rather, the Secretary of State “may” do so. Without a duty on the Secretary of State always to appoint an advocate, some bereaved families may receive additional support to which other families are not entitled, worsening the inconsistencies that already exist in the post-death investigation system. That was rightly identified in 2021 by the Select Committee on Justice. For the advocate post to be effective, it should be a mandatory appointment with the duties and functions of the advocate arising in the event of a major disaster, rather than at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
It is equally concerning that the responsibility for declaring a major incident again lies with the Secretary of State. That cannot remain in the Bill. Amendment 21 would change the definition of “major incident” to ensure that a major incident is one where it causes the death of, or serious harm to, a significant number of individuals, rather than where it simply “appears to the Secretary of State” to have caused the death of, or serious harm to, a significant number of individuals. The discretion of the Secretary of State in both those matters is something that Opposition Members and stakeholders are deeply troubled by.
Maria Eagle
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hosie. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend for her kind words about my long-standing efforts in respect of a public advocate, which arose out of my experience as a constituency MP seeking to represent some of the bereaved families of those who were killed at Hillsborough, and also survivors of Hillsborough—we often forget survivors. Many thousands of people in the ground on that day saw what happened and were subsequently pretty traumatised. Some have been in a terrible state for many years. I still meet people who tell me what happened to them on that day and say that they have never told anybody in the intervening 34 years.
One can imagine the state that some of the people are in in terms of their mental health, particularly when there has been a cover-up that has lasted for so many years seeking to blame fans for what happened, rather than an acceptance of responsibility. We must remember that within four months of the disaster, the first interim report of the first public inquiry placed responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the police, which they never accepted and then chose to campaign to overturn.
When I first met my constituents as an MP in 1997—I had known some of them before as a lawyer—the first thing they said to me was that the police had used the inquest to overturn the Taylor inquiry. Of course, I had the lawyer’s response and said, “No, inquests have a different purpose”, but I quickly understood what they meant when I saw what had happened.
In reality, the cover-up at Hillsborough began on the day and was then pursued at great cost and expense using taxpayers’ money over decades. In fact, at the second inquest, the same points were put by the police lawyers. Even now one hears similar arguments being put: “It was the Liverpool fans; they were ticketless; they were drunk. They pushed their way into the ground and killed their own.” One even hears it in the chants, which, mercifully, the Football Association is now trying to deal with. “Tragedy chanting”, as it is known, is done to Liverpool fans at grounds all over the country. That kind of issue resonates for decades for many thousands of people. That is why I am convinced we as a society must seek to get the aftermath of disasters right.
If we can stop things going wrong—as wrong as they have with Hillsborough—we can save a lot of money and a lot of heartache. We can certainly make sure that the families of those killed in disasters, who suddenly face the worst moments of their lives in the full glare of publicity, do not also have to deal with public authorities’ intent on not getting at the truth and finding out what happened to the families’ loved ones, or not supporting them in every way possible, and in some cases trying to blame them for what happened. In all the cases that I have come across, the authorities try to make sure that they do not get the blame. That defensiveness often drives the behaviour of public authorities in the aftermath of disasters.
That is why I rise to support amendments 20 and 21, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North. Clause 24 gives total discretion to the Secretary of State, and there is no requirement about what he should consider in making the appointment and no requirement that he should consult those affected.
My experience of having to deal with disasters as a constituency MP does not just include the Hillsborough disaster. There have been others: the MV Derbyshire disaster happened long before I became an MP, the Alder Hey organ scandal was another that I had to deal with, and I have constituents affected by the Manchester Arena bombing. A number of other disasters have happened during my time in this House. One issue is always the same: the Secretary of State gaining the trust of those affected is an incredibly important part of ensuring that things do not go wrong.
The Secretary of State should be required to appoint an advocate, thus removing his discretion. We will have an argument—a discussion—later about whether the advocate should be a standing appointment. On balance, I think it should be, but if it is to be an ad hoc appointment, the Secretary of State should not have discretion about whether to appoint when there has been a major incident. There should always be an appointment. I therefore support amendment 20.
There is also an issue about how we define “major incident”. I always think of these things as public disasters in which a number of people have died—that is my definition—but the Government have chosen to define it slightly differently. No doubt the Minister can enlighten us about precisely how the Government see the interpretation of that phrase.
Anything that can give families some comfort that the Secretary of State is acting in their interests, not with unfettered powers and not without having to discuss things with them, would be an advance on the current drafting. For those reasons, I support the amendments.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
At the outset, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood for her campaigning on this issue over many years on behalf of not only her constituents, but others whom she has probably never met but who look to her for the leadership that she has shown. They will be grateful for everything that she has done. I also pay tribute to her for the tone that she consistently adopts, which is measured and reasonable.
The right hon. Lady and I had the opportunity to meet, and she introduced me to one of her constituents, whom we subsequently saw before the Committee. The right hon. Lady highlighted the issues of agency and transparency and why the families, having been through all that they have been through, approach these matters in a particular way and have the perspective that they do. We have talked about Hillsborough. Of course, this applies, in recent times, to Grenfell and Manchester Arena, and the survivors and the families of the victims of those horrific events. I also pay tribute to Lord Wills and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) for her work on this issue.
I hope that there is agreement across this Committee Room today on a determination to get it right. There may be discussion about what getting it right looks like, and there may be differences of opinion on that. However, this is a genuine opportunity for this House, for this Parliament, to do something of huge import, notwithstanding the fact that there may be areas where we disagree or approach the issue from slightly different perspectives. There should be a fair degree of consensus and a determination to get the right outcome.
I preface my remarks on all these amendments and clauses with this: I look forward to our discussions today, but I also look forward to the opportunity, where there are areas where we do not coalesce around a single approach, to use the summer recess and beyond, before the Bill comes back on Report, to work with the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, and others to see whether we can move closer together during those months. I hope that the right hon. Lady will take me up on that offer to engage throughout the coming months.
Anna McMorrin
I thank the Minister for his tone in setting out how he is prepared to work with us through the summer to improve the Bill, and specifically on the amendments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood made heartfelt points about her conversations with constituents and the families impacted. We know that so many families have not had answers for so long, and it has touched many deeply. It goes far and wide across the country.
We tabled the two amendments because, as I set out in my argument, the Secretary of State has far too much discretion at the moment, which is deeply troubling. I therefore want to ensure that we work together to improve the clause and make it more robust, and to ensure that the Secretary of State does not have unfettered discretion. I will not push amendment 20 to a vote, but I appreciate that the Minister will work with us to make improvements. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Maria Eagle
I beg to move amendment 65, in clause 24, page 18, line 35, at end insert—
“(1A) In doing so, the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the views of bereaved families,
(b) the relative benefits of an Independent Public Advocate, a public inquiry, or an Independent Panel in relation to cost, timeliness, and transparency of the major incident in question,
(c) any wider public interest”
This amendment would ensure that in exercising the Secretary of State’s discretion as to whether an Independent Public Advocate should be appointed, the Secretary of State must consider the views of the bereaved families and the relatives of how best to get the truth of what happened in the major incident concerned in a timely fashion.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 66, in clause 24, page 19, line 8, at end insert—
“(4A) An individual may be appointed as an advocate in respect of a major incident only if the Secretary of State has consulted the victims of that incident.”
This amendment ensures that the families are consulted by the Secretary of State about who is an advocate.
Maria Eagle
I very much welcome the fact that clause 24 enables the Secretary of State to appoint an independent public advocate, no matter how much we might disagree about how we should do it—whether it should be a standing appointment or done on an ad hoc basis, precisely what functions the independent public advocate will have, how he ought to go about his role and, indeed, what that role ought to be. I think there are some differences in all those areas, but there are no differences between us about the fact that there ought to be an independent public advocate.
Across the Committee and the House, we have recognised that something about the aftermath of public disasters—the Minister calls them major incidents; I call them public disasters—is remiss. The way in which we as a society respond to them does not work at present. Although we can hope to minimise the number of disasters, we can never stop them entirely. There have been more since Hillsborough, and there have been more since I introduced my Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill to the Commons and Lord Wills introduced the Public Advocate Bill to the Lords. It would be best if we could get a better arrangement. We all agree on that; the issue is just about how.
The amendment has arisen from my 26 years’ experience of campaigning with the Hillsborough families and survivors to get to the truth of what happened on the day. Usually, families want to know what happened to their loved ones, especially if they have lost them. They want to know that it will not happen to anybody ever again, because they feel the deep distress and pain of having to deal with these issues in the public glare and on all the newspaper front pages. Going suddenly from nowhere to that is pretty hard for people, so they want to know that it will not happen again.
Families want to know that their loved ones have not been lost in vain and that lessons will be learned, and they want to be able to have faith that the investigations over the subsequent period will get to the truth and will not be some way of covering up what happened in order to excuse the feelings—and usually the pockets—of the public authorities that might have some responsibility for it.
The role and functions of the public advocate, as set out in the clause, do not quite accord with what I think is necessary, but I hope that we can agree in due course to improve the Bill so that it becomes a turning point, which it can be, in how we as a society deal with the aftermath of public disasters and the terrible burdens they place on those who become victims, rather than it being a missed opportunity. Clause 24(1) gives the Secretary of State discretion to
“appoint an individual to act as an independent public advocate for victims of a major incident”.
A “major incident” is defined in subsection (2). As we have already mentioned, the clause as currently drafted gives the Secretary of State total discretion about whether to appoint an advocate. Under subsection (4), the person may be appointed only if the Secretary of State considers the person “qualified” and “appropriate”. Subsection (5) details that the person may be qualified by virtue of qualifications, their relationship with a “geographical or other community” or “any other matter” the Secretary of State considers relevant. He has total discretion to consider whether and who to appoint.
Nothing in clause 24 gives any kind of say or agency to the victims of the disaster, whether they be families of the deceased or survivors. That is an omission, and a missed opportunity. At this early stage, the Secretary of State could give the families immediate reassurance—that what they think matters, that their feelings matter and that they have some kind of role in how the state is going to deal with what has happened. Families and survivors of major incidents and disasters often feel powerless in the aftermath as the processes of the state begin to grind forward. Inquiries, inquests—they grind into gear and it makes families feel done to, rather than a part of: they feel that they have no power or role in these matters.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for making such a meaningful speech about putting victims first, at the heart of the process. For the independent advocate to really play their role, the victims need to have a say on whether an independent advocate needs to be appointed. The role is there primarily for the victims, not for the Secretary of State.
Maria Eagle
I agree with that. It is easy to lose trust, and it is hard to gain it; it is very hard to regain it once it is lost—that is my experience of these things.
I will give one example. When Jack Straw became Home Secretary in 1997, he was convinced that something needed to be done, in the aftermath of the drama-documentary “Hillsborough”, which raised some of the issues about what had gone wrong. We should remember that that was some eight years after the disaster—a long time ago, but only eight years after the disaster. A lot of things had already gone wrong in that time. He did not want to set up another public inquiry. What he came to was the Stuart-Smith scrutiny, which looked again at some evidence and reported back a year later.
When Lord Justice Stuart-Smith went to Liverpool to meet the families, the families had been misinformed about precisely which floor of the building he was on, so they were a few minutes late. He immediately made a joke about how they were late like the Liverpool fans on the day. That was not funny; it was crass in the extreme. It showed that he had taken on board utterly the police account of events. People may not know—some will—that a key part of the police smears about Hillsborough, to try to deflect the blame, was that Liverpool fans had turned up late. It immediately destroyed any credibility for that inquiry. The families thought very carefully about walking out and not co-operating with it. I am absolutely certain that there were ructions in the Home Office at the time about what should be done.
I use the example to illustrate the point that the families must have trust in the person and in how the state is to proceed if such an inquiry is to work. The failure of that inquiry wasted a year, upset the families very deeply and destroyed some of the credibility that the new Government of the time had with the families about what could be done to put matters in respect of Hillsborough right. The inquiry revealed one thing that was of use in the end, which was that statements had been altered by the police. That was the first inquiry that reported on that point, but Lord Justice Stuart-Smith did not think it important because it had not fooled Lord Justice Taylor. He was right in that respect; he was wrong in others. With one comment, the trust of the families were gone. They were obviously not consulted about who should head the inquiry. A judge was asked for, a judge was put forward, and that was the unfortunate consequence.
Anna McMorrin
I rise to support my right hon. Friend on these two amendments. The pain of these bereaved families runs deep and the resonance of what happened, particularly at Hillsborough, runs incredibly wide, as we have heard described so brilliantly by my right hon. Friend. But of course the point is widely known and acknowledged across many of the debates and discussions that go on.
These are two core issues, right at the heart of the matter: inclusion of the bereaved families, who are going through that pain, in these decisions, and inclusion of those families when consulting. We need to ensure that they are consulted. They have felt disenfranchised. They have felt left behind. This change would make up for it.
Edward Argar
First, I should have said in response to the previous set of amendments that I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her tone on this part of the Bill and the way Opposition Front Benchers are approaching it. We may find that there remain, after Committee stage, some areas where we have differences, but I think it is incumbent on both sides of the House to work together, to the best of our ability, to try to find a way forward that delivers on our shared objectives.
The right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood mentioned Jack Straw in 1997. I can remember the Labour party coming to power in 1997—I had just finished my A-levels and left school at the time. I believe that that was when the right hon. Lady entered this House.
Edward Argar
Therefore I am always sensitive to the depth of experience and knowledge that the right hon. Lady brings as a parliamentarian to these proceedings. I am very grateful to her for these amendments, which seek to give agency to the families bereaved by a major incident—or public disaster, to use her terminology—provide them with influence over who is appointed as an advocate, and specifically define criteria to which the Secretary of State must have due regard when appointing an advocate.
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the importance of trust and agency. First, on trust, we all know as politicians that it is very easy to very swiftly lose trust. It takes an awfully long time to rebuild it afterwards. That is why—this is my second point—she is absolutely right to highlight the importance of tone and language. In the aftermath of a major public disaster like the one that we have been discussing, particularly when it is many years down the line of—for want of a better way of putting it—having to fight the system to get the truth, people are, understandably, very sensitive to the language and tone, so I am sympathetic to the aims of these amendments. I want to say again that the Government do recognise the need to give families a voice and some sort of agency in decisions about the support that is provided.
My concern is that the practicalities of consulting families in the immediate aftermath of a disaster could be difficult, especially at a time when they are dealing with their immediate grief. At that point, they may not necessarily have coalesced into a support group—a single group or a number of groups—and may still be disparate individuals, with different views, who may not be in a position to compute what they might like to see in the future, because of the immediate consequences.
Maria Eagle
Perhaps a standing appointment is the answer, because such a person, who was there anyway, would be able immediately to spring into action and consult the families.
Edward Argar
This goes to my slight concern about the amendments. I am concerned that identifying and consulting bereaved families and victims, and trying to avoid missing anyone or people feeling that they did not have agency because they were not identified or engaged at the time, could risk delaying the IPA being appointed and support reaching victims. I take the right hon. Lady’s point, and I suspect that we will return to this when we talk about the nature of the appointment, but there are questions of timing and speed versus engagement, and how we would practically go about this. I know it is not the intention of the right hon. Lady, who wishes to ensure agency for families, and I am happy to continue our conversation to see if there is a way we can strike that balance between agency and engagement, but also avoid delay in practical terms. At present, victims would be able to make their representations to the Secretary of State, use their MPs and, ultimately, challenge a decision in court.
The Government intend to ensure that advocates are on the ground to provide support as swiftly as possible after a major incident. To ensure that support is tailored to a particular incident, our approach, which I suspect we will also debate later today, is to set up a register of advocates from a range of different professions, backgrounds and geographical areas. That will help to ensure that, as far as possible, those appointed have the necessary skills and expertise directly relevant to the incident in question or to the community or geography where it occurred. The views of the victims may well become apparent in the weeks following the appointment of an advocate and may have an important bearing on the appointment of a second or third advocate, or a team. One such advocate could, under the provisions as drafted, be put forward for appointment from the community affected by the major incident.
I recognise and understand the intent behind the amendments. In our conversations, the right hon. Lady has impressed on me just how important the sense of having agency and influence is for victims, survivors and families of victims in the aftermath of an incident. My concern is that there is a risk that the amendments could cause unnecessary delays in support reaching victims, which would run counter to the purpose of the IPA. None the less, given the right hon. Lady’s points about agency and the sense of powerlessness, I am happy to engage with her to see if there is a way that we can square the circle of timeliness, agency and engagement.
Maria Eagle
I do not intend to press the amendments to a vote. The Minister is being his usual constructive self, and I am sure that over the summer between all of us we will be able to rewrite the Bill so it looks a lot more like mine. [Laughter.] Sorry, I let that slip. We will be able to improve the Bill significantly so that it will do an appropriate and, hopefully, good job for those caught up in public disasters. On the basis of the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Anna McMorrin
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 24, page 19, line 8, at end insert—
“(4A) If the circumstances in subsection (2) are not met, the Secretary of State may still declare a major incident where there is a significant public interest in doing so.
(4B) Where the Secretary of State declares a major incident under subsection (4A), they must appoint an individual to act as an independent public advocate for victims of that incident.”
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State to designate incidents other than those that meet the definition of major incidents as such where there is a significant public interest in doing so.
Amendment 22 aims to alleviate the restrictive nature of granting a major incident only in the circumstances outlined in clause 24. It recognises that there may be incidents that do not have a direct impact on a significant number of people in the way that the definition of a major incident in the Bill requires, but that should none the less be considered major incidents for the purpose of appointing a public advocate. Such incidents include those where a relatively small number of people have died or suffered serious harm in circumstances that suggest serious systemic failings on the part of a public body, and those where there appears to be a serious risk that such circumstances may recur or that a significant number of people may be harmed in the future. In such instances, effective investigations into the deaths, so that lessons can be learned and further harm avoided, would be in the public interest. The appointment of an independent advocate in such cases would ensure that by promoting transparency, enabling victims to get to the truth and ensuring accountability, just as the former Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), outlined in the Chamber during the debate on independent public advocates on 1 March.
As I have said, I disagree with the amount of discretion that the Bill outlines for the Secretary of State, but if clause 24 is not amended the Secretary of State should at least have the discretion to declare instances, such as those described in the Bill, that would not fall under the definition of major incidents currently provided, and therefore appoint an advocate in respect of them.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff North for tabling the amendment, which would expand the scope of the IPA by giving the Secretary of State the power to appoint an IPA to support victims of an incident that does not meet the definition of a major incident in the Bill, but where the Secretary of State believes there is a significant public interest in doing so.
I understand the intention behind the amendment, particularly when taken alongside amendments 20 and 21, which we just debated. Amendment 22 would give back the Secretary of State some discretion to appoint an IPA following an event if they wanted to. However, it is important to remember that the IPA is intended to respond to exceptional events that present unique challenges. We use the term “major incidents”, but I acknowledge the term “public disaster” and I can understand why the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood uses it. I fear that the amendment may set a potentially unhelpful expectation and precedent that the IPA might be appointed to support victims who have not been caught up in a major incident, thereby increasing the scope and diluting the focus of the IPA. It would, for example, allow the appointment of an IPA where there are no injuries or fatalities. That is not the policy intention in part 2 of the Bill.
We are seeking to keep the focus narrowly on the intention to have the IPA in place for major incidents. We will debate some of the nuances and sub-elements of that, I suspect, but we want to keep that focus. In fact, not all events that involve fatalities or injuries will require the support of the IPA. Any event that results in harm and/or loss of life is a serious, but the intention and focus of the IPA is that it will become involved in only those circumstances where ensuring the effective engagement of the bereaved families and victims is likely to be a particular challenge and the IPA can add value in helping to give them agency.
Clause 24 already provides the Secretary of State with the necessary discretion when declaring a major incident to take account of a broad range of factors, which will probably include the public interest. As I have stated, we will publish a policy statement that sets out the factors to be considered. I note the intention behind the amendment, but I hope the hon. Member for Cardiff North will not press it to a Division.
Anna McMorrin
I thank the Minister for his reply. I accept his assurance that where it is in the public interest, declaring major incidents will be within the scope of the Secretary of State’s discretion. If I am wrong in that, perhaps he will intervene. I am grateful to him for putting that on record.
I would us to find a way to keep the focus on where there is a significant public interest—for example, when a relatively small number of people have died or suffered harm but the circumstances suggest serious systemic failings on the part of a public body. In those circumstances it would be in the public interest and lessons can be learned for the future. I hope we can move forward, as the Minister has given the assurance that an incident would be included, if that was in the public interest. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Maria Eagle
I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 24, page 19, line 23, leave out “or close friends”.
This amendment would narrow the definition of “victim” to close family members of those who have died or suffered serious harm as a result of the incident and make more certain who falls within the definition.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 68, in clause 24, page 19, line 24, at end insert—
“(8) For the purposes of clause 24 (7), close family members means—
(a) a husband, wife or civil partner from a marriage or partnership that was in existence at the time of the event;
(b) a child;
(c) a grandchild;
(d) a parent;
(e) a sibling;
(f) a half-sibling;
(g) a grandparent;
(h) a niece or nephew;
(i) a half-aunt or half-uncle;
(j) a cohabitant with the deceased;
(k) the executor of the deceased’s last will and testament;”.
This amendment defines the meaning of close family member in clause 24.
Maria Eagle
Amendment 67 and 68 are probing amendments, which are intended to explore who the Government intend to be the recipient of help from the public advocate that they are establishing under the Bill.
Clause 24(7)(a) defines the victims who are to benefit from the service of the public advocate, once appointed, as
“individuals who have been harmed by the incident (whether or not that harm is serious harm)”.
That seems to mean survivors, who are certainly one group that the public advocate should aim to help, but subsection (7)(b) says that victims also include
“close family members or close friends of individuals who have died or suffered serious harm as a result of the incident.”
The paragraph does not define “close family members”; nor does it define “close friends”, which is a much more uncertain and ambiguous term than “close family members”, although there is uncertainty in both.
Suppose that I am a second cousin. Is that “close family”? What about an aunt who is particularly close to a niece who has unfortunately died. Is that close enough? Or does it depend on the specific relationship in each case? If so, is the close family member supposed to prove that a family relationship that looks, on the face of it, to be a little distant is in fact close? What about a close friend? That could be anyone.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I well remember being in Manchester on the day of the Arena bombing. I was not at the Arena, but the sense of shock in the city was palpable. One of the news items that day was about the sad loss of Nell Jones, a 14-year-old girl from Cheshire. Her teacher said of the class:
“They’ve lost a sister not a classmate”,
and explained that they had been together since reception class. I think there is a bit of scope for a close friend to be included.
Maria Eagle
I do not disagree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about trying to cope with all situations, but it is quite hard—as a lawyer, he knows this—to get the definitions right. Through the probing amendments I am seeking to get the Government to be clear. Like most lawyers, I work on the assumption that uncertainty is undesirable—although it can be lucrative. In this context, wrangles over who might be allowed to get support are certainly not desirable.
The amendments are about trying to get the Government to set out a little more clearly than they do in the Bill precisely what they mean by these unusual phrases. I cannot think of another piece of legislation that refers to “close friends”. Perhaps the Minister will have an example that will show that I have not looked far enough—no doubt he will. That is the point of the probing amendments: simply to get to the bottom of precisely what the Minister is seeking to achieve.
Anna McMorrin
I completely support the probing amendments, and I am intrigued to hear what the Minister has to say in response.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood for her amendments. I appreciate that she is, both as a parliamentarian and with her legal background, exploring what greater clarity can be provided. I sympathise with her. I take her point about ambiguity occasionally being beneficial to the legal profession but not necessarily to others, and about the desire to be as clear as possible about whom the IPA will support.
Our concern is about placing a definition of “close family members” in the Bill. We are all conscious, from our constituency work and more broadly, that there is no set family structure. A person’s second cousin, aunt or whoever may be much closer to that person than a very close relative is. We have sought create a degree of flexibility, so that the Bill can capture those who need support. Our approach is to use guidance to more clearly define how that would work, while still allowing the IPA a degree of discretion and flexibility. I am happy to work with the right hon. Lady on that guidance. With her legal mind as well as her parliamentary one, we might square that circle.
I would not support removing the ability of the IPA to support a close friend of a victim, because I fear that doing so could have the unintended consequence of excluding some victims from support. There may be some circumstances where someone injured in a major incident cannot receive the support of the IPA directly and does not have any close family ties, but has a close friend, a companion or another person who is deeply affected by what has happened, and who may be the only person they have left. We would wish such people to have the agency to engage with the IPA and receive their support directly. We therefore think that it is appropriate to allow the IPA to provide support to a close friend. I do not imagine that necessarily being the norm, but the provision is a safeguard to avoid being unduly restrictive and inadvertently excluding people.
I am reminded of the bombing of the Admiral Duncan pub, when a number of people who were actually partners of victims, but who were not confident enough to be out, therefore described themselves as close friends. I would hope, as I think would all Members, that the world has moved on since then, but there is a risk that if we tighten the definition too much, people like that might not get the support they need. I hope that the world and society have moved on, but I just want to ensure that we have that safeguard in place.
I do understand the right hon. Lady’s intention in tabling the amendments, but I believe that they would narrow the definition of a victim in a such a way as inadvertently to exclude people who needed support. However, I am open to working with her—with her legal brain, as well as her parliamentary one—on the guidance to see whether we could, without being unduly prescriptive and while still being permissive, tighten it up a little more from a legal perspective. I am happy to work with her on that.
Maria Eagle
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, these ae probing amendments. The Minister is right that they narrowed the definition, but only to probe. On the basis of the assurances that he has given, I am quite content to withdraw the amendments. 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 new clause 15—Appointment of a standing independent public advocate—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an individual to act as an independent public advocate for victims of major incidents.
(2) The Secretary of State must pay to or in respect of an advocate—
(a) such remuneration as the Secretary of State considers appropriate;
(b) reasonable costs incurred by the advocate in connection with the exercise of their functions, including those incurred in connection with proceedings relating to the exercise (or purported exercise) of those functions;
(c) such other sums by way of allowances or gratuities as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State must make provision for the advocate to have an efficient and effective system of support, including secretarial support, in connection with the exercise of their functions.
(4) The independent public advocate may undertake the functions set out in section [functions and powers of the independent public advocate] for a particular event when—
(a) invited to do so by the Secretary of State, or
(b) for that event both requirements one and two have been met.
(5) Requirement one is that, in the advocate’s opinion, a major incident has occurred.
(6) A major incident is an incident that has caused the death of, or serious harm to, a significant number of individuals and involved—
(a) serious health and safety issues,
(b) a failure in regulation, or
(c) other events of serious concern.
(7) For these purposes, ‘harm’ includes physical, mental or emotional harm.
(8) In reaching an opinion under subsection (5), the advocate must have regard to previous decisions of the advocate.
(9) Requirement two is that the advocate has been asked to undertake their functions by fifty per cent plus one or more of the total of—
(a) representatives of those deceased due to the event, and
(b) any injured survivors of the event.”
Edward Argar
I will speak to clause 24 now, and to new clause 15 in my concluding remarks, once I have heard what the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood wishes to say about it.
Clause 24 enables the Secretary of State to appoint independent public advocates for victims of a major incident. Thankfully, major incidents—or public disasters—involving significant loss of life and serious injury are relatively rare in this country. However, they do happen, and when they do the processes that follow can be complex and daunting for victims and the bereaved. Despite the progress made in recent years, it is clear, as the right hon. Lady eloquently set out, that significant concerns remain about the extent to which the voices of the victims are heard, the agency that they have, and how fully they are supported in participating in the processes that aim to establish what happened and why. Clause 24 marks an important step forward.
As well as giving the Secretary of State the power to appoint an advocate, the clause defines “major incident” and “harm” for part 2 of the Bill. It is not possible to predict the exact nature of future incidents or disasters where an IPA may be required. The definition of a major incident is therefore intentionally broad to ensure that the Secretary of State has maximum flexibility to appoint an IPA to respond to a wide range of incidents.
The Government’s intention is to appoint an advocate as soon as possible after a major incident. Clause 24 sets out the sorts of things that the Secretary of State may consider when deciding whether an individual is appropriate to be appointed as an advocate. Those include previous qualifications, the individual’s geographical location and the impacted community and its needs. That ensures that decisions are made with a victim-centric approach. In taking a decision to appoint an advocate, the Secretary of State may have regard to the geographical area of the incident and, as previously set out, any particular community directly affected.
The Secretary of State will be able to appoint more than one advocate in respect of the same major incident where that is deemed necessary. Each major incident will be different and likely to require a specific set of skills and experience from the advocate. The clause seeks to ensure that there is enough flexibility to appoint the right people, and we believe that having the ability to appoint multiple advocates will help to provide the necessary resilience and diversity.
The Government believes it is right that the decision to stand up the IPA rests with the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament for their decisions and for public expenditure. We do not think that a permanent body is necessary, given the rarity of the events in question. Nor do we believe that it is right to require victims to make such a decision when they are dealing with the immediate impact of their injuries and grief. However, we do recognise the importance of giving victims agency, which is why we are continuing to think about the role that victims can play in the appointment of more than one advocate following the immediate aftermath. I offer to work with the right. hon Lady to see if there is a way we can square that circle.
The clause also enables the Secretary of State to appoint a community leader if representations are made by the community. If an incident occurs and the IPA is not stood up, victims will be able to make representations to the IPA secretariat or their local elected MP to ask for one to be appointed. Those representations will be carefully considered, and a decision on whether to appoint an advocate can always be revisited.
Anna McMorrin
Most of my comments about my amendments still stand. It is incredibly important that we bear in mind the words of Lord Wills, who said that a different approach is needed. He quoted the Justice Secretary’s comment that
“victims must be treated not as mere spectators of the criminal justice system, but as core participants in it.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 583.]
At present, as Lord Wills says,
“the Bill gives the Secretary of State unfettered powers”.––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 91, Q176.]
I hope that we can work together to improve the clause as the Minister suggests.
Maria Eagle
Before I say a few things about clause 24 stand part, I would like to speak to my new clause 15.
At the beginning of our consideration of part 2 of the Bill, I said that my own Public Advocate Bill and the Government’s Bill envisage the role of a public advocate somewhat differently, although there are points of similarity. New clause 15 sets out roles and functions that are closer to what I would like to see in the Bill. It would require the Secretary to State to appoint an individual to act as a public advocate for victims of major incidents, and to ensure an efficient and effective means of support, with appropriate remuneration and reasonable costs, to carry out the functions assigned to the post. It would be a standing appointment, rather than an ad-hoc appointment on a case-by-case basis.
Sir Oliver Heald
I have been closely following the right hon. Lady’s points about consulting victims, but a standing appointment may not be suitable for each set of circumstances or each set of victims. How does she square that circle?
Maria Eagle
My own view is that these kinds of public disaster occur infrequently. My main worry is whether a single standing appointment would be able to cope if more than one disaster occurred at the same time. As I envisage it, the independence of the role and the fact that it is a standing appointment would enable that person to act swiftly. It would have to be somebody who is a people person and is able to relate to individuals in trauma. The appointment itself would have to take into account the kind of qualities that the person would need, but I believe a proper person could be found who would be suitable in most circumstances.
Sir Oliver Heald
Under the Bill’s approach, the Minister appointing a public advocate would be looking at the geography, the communities and the skills necessary for a particular major incident. With a standing appointment, we might end up with somebody who would be good for one incident but not another.
Maria Eagle
I acknowledge that there are pros and cons to both approaches. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is pointing out what he sees as the downside of a standing appointment. One could envisage circumstances in which a standing appointment may have downsides, but there are also upsides. In the end, to get their legislation through, the Government must judge which approach they prefer. I simply seek to persuade the Minister and the Government that a standing appointment may have more pros than cons—and more pros than an ad hoc appointment, which has downsides too. My approach has always been that there should be a standing appointment rather than an ad hoc one.
There was extensive support for that approach in this Committee’s evidence sessions. Bishop James Jones said:
“I do not think that that independence is sufficiently guaranteed by the Bill as it stands; I think it can be guaranteed only if it is a standing appointment.”—[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023, col. 87, Q168.]
He made the point that independence is tremendously important, and that that requires a standing appointment. He also said:
“Contrary to the Government’s proposal, I believe that there should be a standing independent public advocate. Why? Because in the immediate aftermath of a public tragedy, people are grief-stricken and traumatised. They are unprepared and disorientated, and they no longer feel in control of their life. It is in that immediate moment that they need an advocate—somebody who will represent them to Government and signpost them to the agencies that are available to support them in that moment of trauma.”—[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023, col. 86, Q166.]
Lord Wills, too, believes that there should be a standing appointment. That is perhaps not surprising, because the Bill he introduced in the Lords, which has just had its Second Reading, includes a standing appointment. He said:
“I believe it should be a standing appointment, for the reasons that the bishop set out extremely well. In the turmoil of the aftermath of a big public disaster, it is important that someone is on the ground immediately to support the families. I do believe that, and I think it is a perfectly achievable position to have. A secretariat could be drawn together at short notice—a standing secretariat, as it were. It would be doing work within the civil service, but when a public disaster happened it could be brought to bear to act as a secretariat for the independent public advocate.
I hate to think of what might happen. If you imagine a big terrorist incident, for example, the Government would be in turmoil anyway, and then they would have to find the time and space to go through all the selection processes, find out people’s availability and negotiate terms of reference. In the meantime, the poor families are left without anyone to support them, as they always have been up until now. It rather defeats the object of this whole exercise. So I am in favour of having a standing appointment.”—[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023, col. 93, Q179.]
We can see that there are pros and cons, whichever way one decides to do that. I just happen to have come down on the side of a standing appointment being preferable on balance. That is the approach that Michael Wills and I took when drafting our own version, which has the advantage of the postholder being able to go into action immediately with no delay required.
My new clause envisages two scenarios in which the advocate is called into action. The first is where the Secretary of State invites him to get involved; I hope the Minister will be pleased to see that I am not entirely excluding action by the Secretary of State. The second is if the advocate thinks a major incident has occurred that meets the requirement under new clause 15(6) and the advocate has been asked to undertake the function by a majority of representatives of the deceased and injured survivors of the incident.
That part of the clause puts into legislation my idea, and Lord Wills’s idea, that there should be agency for the families, that they must have a role in deciding whether the advocate gets involved and that the advocate himself should decide whether the definition of major incident or public disaster is met. Subsection (6) defines a major incident as one
“that has caused the death of, or serious harm to, a significant number of individuals and involved—
(a) serious health and safety issues,
(b) a failure in regulation, or
(c) other events of serious concern.”
The key difference from the Bill as drafted by the Government is that the affected families and survivors can get the advocate—who will already be in post—involved, should a majority of them wish to do so, even if the Secretary of State has not asked the advocate to get involved. The advocate can make it clear that he thinks that an incident meets the threshold for his involvement—if, indeed, he thinks that—on the basis of precedent. Obviously there will have to be a few involvements before precedent can come into it.
That would deliver one of the key requirements for a public advocate to succeed, in my view, which is to ensure that the affected families have some agency about whether his services should be called upon in respect of a particular incident. Those families must feel that they can call the advocate in to help them navigate the aftermath and get to the truth.
The trust and confidence of the families of the deceased and survivors is a crucial requirement for the post of public advocate to be introduced successfully. Enabling them to have a meaningful say in whether the advocate should be involved is an important way to establish that trust from an early stage. It also emphasises the independence of the advocate at a very early stage of his involvement: if the families ask him to get involved, and if he can decide that a particular incident falls within the definition of “serious incident” and triggers his possible involvement, it is quite clear that he is independent and is not being told what to do by the Government of the day, about whom there may be some suspicion among those who have been caught up in the incident.
The independence of the advocate from the Government is another vital way in which families and survivors can have trust and confidence, which can be gained at an early stage and reinforced thereafter during the processes that follow a public disaster. That was emphasised in our evidence session, particularly by Jenni Hicks, who is one of the Hillsborough mums. She said that
“as it stands at the moment, the Government’s suggestions for an independent public advocate just would not work. It would just not be independent, because it is too dependent on the Minister. It seems that the supposedly independent public advocate will be answerable to the Secretary of State, which does not sound like independence to me.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 112, Q212.]
Jenni said that she thought it was
“vitally important that we have this facility, but that we have it correctly”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 114, Q220.]
She said that independence is a key part. She also said:
“When you are caught up in disasters, particularly if there is propaganda surrounding it, you need to be able to trust—you would need trust in a public advocate in a team. By having to report to a Minister, you are thinking, ‘Well, who is in charge of this? Is it the public advocate or is it the Minister?’ I do not think that would go down very well.”—[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 115, Q220.]
Jenni speaks with decades of cynicism about what has happened to her in her quest to get to the truth, so one might take the view that she is jaded, but there is nobody more experienced than a Hillsborough mum in understanding what the state does to people after a public disaster. We would do well to listen to her experience and what she has to say.
Lord Wills said:
“In some way, families have to be given effective agency, and that must mean some fettering of the powers on the Secretary of State. I am agnostic about the way to do that, and I have always accepted that my private Member’s Bill was not perfect.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 95, Q183.]
He, too, is willing to change arrangements, and ensuring that the Secretary of State has regard to the wishes of the bereaved and surviving victims would be a good start at making a way forward.
When we come to later amendments, especially those related to the functions of the public advocate, I will talk a bit more about how the Bill is different from what I envisaged. However, I turn now to clause 24. I share one very large perspective with the Minister—that having a public advocate available to help victims in the aftermath of a disaster is entirely desirable—so I welcome the Government’s intention for this part of the Bill, even if I keep saying that I would do things differently. I hope he will not be too offended. My support for the clause arises from my long-standing experience.
For the families of the 97 who died at Hillsborough and the thousands of traumatised survivors who had to fight for a lifetime to be properly acknowledged by our society and to get the correct inquest verdicts of unlawful killing, it was 23 years until they got the truth fully acknowledged and had an apology from the Prime Minister of the day, David Cameron, for what they had to go through. That is despite the fact that the original public inquiry by Lord Justice Taylor laid the blame for the disaster squarely at the door of the South Yorkshire police and admonished them for their lies, within four months of the disaster occurring. They just carried on seeking to deflect the blame elsewhere. This part of the Bill should seek to remedy the problem of public authorities such as the South Yorkshire police using their entire budget, resources and effort over decades to try to avoid being blamed for what they have done wrong.
Decades of litigation resulted in deep trauma for the Hillsborough families and survivors. The lies, slurs and abuse that have been directed at families, victims and survivors over 34 years mean that no one has been held accountable for the unlawful killing—that is what it was—of 97 innocent children, women and men. It was only the Hillsborough Independent Panel, a non-legal process of getting to the truth through transparency and publishing documentation, that led to the full truth being reiterated to a shocked public 23 years after the event. That led to David Cameron’s apology to the families as Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box, not only for what had happened to them, but for the lies and slurs that had followed, all perpetrated by public authorities using taxpayers’ money to pay for it. That is how they did it—they did not raise the money themselves, as the families defending the reputations of their loved ones had to.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I am the Member of Parliament who represents the majority of the families affected by the Birmingham pub bombings. When things do not go right, untold damage is done to families’ mental and physical health, and—as she has said—to their trust in any institution. That has to be stopped. We have an opportunity to stop our constituents, many of whom have still not got their truth, from having to go through years of ill health again, at a cost to the taxpayer.
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend is completely correct. She will know from her own constituency experience of representing those caught up in the Birmingham pub bombings how dangerous and awful it is, not only for the families involved. We are talking intergenerational, here. Many of those still active in trying to get more accountability in respect of Hillsborough were barely born—sometimes not even born—at the time it happened. They are daughters, sons and other relatives who were not even alive. And the effect is not just on families intergenerationally; it is felt across communities.
The damage that Hillsborough has done to faith in the police in Liverpool since that time has been enormous, and it is intergenerational. It was not the Merseyside police—it was South Yorkshire police and the West Midlands police. That does not just go away. Some 30,000 people turned up at Anfield on the 20th anniversary of the disaster. That is why the Hillsborough Independent Panel was set up; that is why we were able to get it set up. The rest of the country was amazed that, 20 years on, 30,000 people would turn up to the service. It would have been more, if they had let more in. I was there on that day. I was not surprised to see what we saw on that day.
In two years, the Hillsborough Independent Panel unravelled the lies of ages. By publishing the documents and its account of what had really happened, it was able, incontrovertibly, to lay to rest all those lies and slurs and to elicit a heartfelt apology from the then Prime Minister David Cameron—who I think was a bit shocked when he read the report and saw what had happened.
We must not let this happen again. The issue is about torpedoing cover-ups as well as helping families. It is about stopping things from going wrong. As a lawyer, I know that the only way Hillsborough could have been stopped from getting as bad as it has got would be to have stopped it from going wrong in the first place. I believe that creating a mechanism through which transparency and truth can be focused on at an earlier stage and be told at the beginning is the way to stop things from going wrong. The legal system does not always appear to be able to do it, and I believe that the Hillsborough Independent Panel-type process is the way in which we can do it.
I unequivocally welcome the Government’s commitment, but I urge the Minister and the Government to have more ambition for what can be achieved through the process. It should not just be signposting to get immediate help in the aftermath of a disaster for those caught up in it; it should be about nothing less than us preventing things from going wrong in the aftermath, as a society looking after and supporting those caught up through no fault of their own in such disasters. It should be about ensuring that the organs of the state do not use taxpayers’ money and their capacity to be defensive—that appears to be infinite—to prevent themselves from facing up to the truth of what has happened.
Edward Argar
I am grateful, as ever, to the right hon. Lady not only for her campaigning on behalf of her constituents and others, but for her ministerial career—the roles she held as Minister for Children, Minister for Northern Ireland and at the Ministry of Justice. What runs through that is her commitment to ensuring that those who are vulnerable, or who do not always have agency or a voice, are heard, and that their interests are respected and reflected in the actions of Government. I pay tribute to her. I also pay tribute to Lord Wills for not only his work but his evidence, as well as the meeting that the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood and I had with him previously.
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her new clause 15. It would fundamentally alter the structure and operation of the IPA by establishing a permanent independent public advocate. She and I probably fall on opposite sides of the debate about a standing or an ad hoc IPA. She rightly highlighted the pros and cons on both sides of that debate. She falls on one side, and I fall slightly more on the other. I suspect that we may yet return to that debate.
There are many possible models for an IPA. The clauses in part 2 of the Bill introduce an IPA that reflects the model we consulted on in 2018, with the responses we received to it. We have heard from victims that a swift deployment of the IPA to provide support in the immediate aftermath is vital. Our view is that the IPA as proposed in the Bill achieves that, while balancing the need to be mindful of public funds and the right process to be followed after a major incident.
New clause 15 would establish a permanent IPA that could determine independently of Government that an event is a major incident. As has been previously set out, we do not think that a permanent body is necessary, given the rarity of the events in question for which the IPA would be deployed. Furthermore, we believe it is right and proportionate that the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament, decides what a major incident is and when to appoint an IPA.
Should individuals disagree with the Secretary of State’s decision in respect of a particular incident, I would expect my fellow right hon. and hon. Members to make full use of their positions to hold the Government to account through urgent questions and similar means of bringing Ministers to the Dispatch Box.
Jess Phillips
I appreciate what the Minister is saying. I cannot foresee any incident involving even one death, certainly not one involving multiple deaths, after which pressure would not be brought to bear on the Secretary of State to do that. In essence, we are asking victims to do the work in the aftermath—they have to get in touch with their Members of Parliament and immediately start pushing. Their family has just been blown up or their kid has been shot, and we are saying that, first and foremost, they have to become political activists to get their Member of Parliament to represent them to the Secretary of State, rather than providing a place for them to go in that circumstance—which feels kinder.
Edward Argar
I do not think that is in any way what is being suggested; the hon. Lady misunderstands. Our view is that the accountability for making that decision should rightly sit with the Secretary of State, not with another party.
The right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood takes a different view. I respect her perspective and understand where she is coming from. She rightly acknowledged that there were pros and cons to both approaches. She believes that the pros of a standing advocate outweigh the cons. I find myself on the other side of that argument and I suspect we might return to it. A decision by the Secretary of State could in extremis be challenged through the court system, but we do not envisage that being necessary.
The IPA will be supported by a permanent secretariat; the Ministry of Justice has already allocated funding for that. Clause 25, which we will turn to, provides for an effective system of support for the IPA by making provisions for a secretariat and remuneration. We therefore consider that that aspect is duplicative in the amendment tabled by the right hon. Lady.
I turn to the definition of a major incident and the specific points that the right hon. Lady has included. Again, we do not believe it is necessary to include additional considerations in the Bill. Given the unpredictable nature of the incidents in question, the definition of a major incident is purposefully broad—one might say “permissive” in this context—and further detail can be set out in a policy statement, as I mentioned earlier, while providing a degree of flexibility given what might be a subjective decision and the nature of the circumstances. That will ensure that the Secretary of State has maximum flexibility to appoint an IPA to respond to a wide range of incidents.
Defining a major incident as proposed in the new clause could arguably require a finding of fact or a pre-judgment of cause before the IPA could be deployed, especially regarding proving a failure in health and safety or regulation. Again, there is a risk that that could cause delays in the support of the IPA reaching the victims as well as presenting wider legal issues for the IPA. We believe that the definition in clause 24 as it stands is the right one for primary legislation, but, as I have said, I will provide additional detail through a policy statement and will work with the right hon. Lady on that if she so desires.
I turn finally to requirement two, which the IPA, as the right hon. Lady envisions, would need to meet before supporting victims. That would necessitate the IPA gaining the support of 50% plus one of the bereaved and injured. I sympathise with the intention to involve victims in the process—I take the point about agency and trust. However, I cannot see how that might work in practice without potentially, in the immediate aftermath of an incident, delaying the deployment of the IPA. That would cause concern.
In the immediate aftermath, it is unlikely that all eligible victims could be easily identified and surveyed to ascertain whether they would want an IPA to be deployed. They might not even be in the right place mentally or emotionally to be able to engage with such a question. Furthermore, the number of victims might change over time, and people might withdraw their consent, so the quorum approach is not the best way to address the issue.
Victim engagement, agency and a sense of empowerment are, as the right hon. Lady says, vital. Those are good things, but they will not achieve what we seek: in the aftermath of a major incident, to carry the trust of people that the IPA is on their side. Although I understand its intent, our concern is that the new clause is not the best way to achieve that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Fay Jones.)
Victims and Prisoners Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Thursday 6th July 2023
(2 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 6 July 2023 - (6 Jul 2023)
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 69, in clause 25, page 19, line 31 at end insert
“,but only after consultation with bereaved families and victims”.
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult with victims before terminating the appointment on such grounds as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
This should not take long because it deals with an issue that we spent quite a lot of time talking about this morning: ensuring that families have some kind of say. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with victims before terminating any appointment of an independent public advocate on such grounds as he might consider appropriate. As we discussed this morning, it is really about him not acting with unfettered discretion, but trying to gain the trust and confidence of families, and taking them with him in the decisions that he makes. It is a probing amendment, but I hope to hear from the Minister that he is not unsympathetic to it.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I endorse what my right hon. Friend has said.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to be back before you this afternoon, Mr Hosie. I thank the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood for her amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to consult victims before terminating an advocate’s appointment on such grounds as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. That stands apart from a termination of appointment in accordance with the terms of appointment, which will cover issues such as incapacity, misconduct and a failure to exercise functions.
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for highlighting that this is a probing amendment, and I hope that I can give her some reassurances. It would be helpful if I explained the rationale behind including the provision in the Bill, and I hope to reassure her that the power will be used carefully, and that we will consider the needs of victims when doing so. The Secretary of State will not take such a decision lightly, and any decision will be open to challenge through a judicial review in the courts. There are a few scenarios in which we imagine that the Secretary of State may use his or her discretion to terminate the appointment of an advocate using the power.
First, as the Committee may be aware, clause 26 allows the Secretary of State to appoint multiple advocates to support victims after a particular major incident. We will consider the clause in detail later, but briefly we believe that it is necessary to provide the IPA with resilience should major incidents happen concurrently, or should there be a very large number of victims to support. It is in that context that it may be necessary for the IPA to change its composition during its lifetime. We imagine being able to flex the resource required to support victims to allow the IPA to be as agile as possible, and following peaks of activity it may be prudent to reduce the number of advocates actively supporting victims. The power allows the Secretary of State the flexibility to do that.
Secondly, we have always stressed the importance of being able to deploy the IPA as quickly as possible following a major incident. It may be appropriate, following a greater understanding of the developing needs of the victims, to supplement one advocate for another who, on reflection, may turn out to be better suited by virtue of their skills or expertise. I believe that having that flexibility is important, and the amendment would remove that flexibility in the circumstances that I have outlined.
Thirdly, throughout the various debates on this part of the Bill it has been highlighted that victims must have confidence in the advocates in order for them to be effective. I entirely agree. I therefore imagine another use for the power to be removing advocates who may not command the confidence of victims, or standing down the IPA because victims decide that they no longer want the support offered. In all the circumstances that I have described above, let me be clear that the victims will be considered by the Secretary of State, and their needs will be paramount. I believe that victim agency is crucial, as the right hon. Lady set out. That has come through strongly during the debates on this part of the Bill.
Although the amendment serves as an important reminder of that principle, it is not necessary given the sets of circumstances that I outlined previously that require a degree of flexibility. If, in each of the examples that I have described, the Secretary of State were required to hold a formal and legal consultation with the victims, that could severely cut across the ability of the IPA to be flexible and to adapt quickly to changing demands. In the absence of any detail on how such a consultation would be held, it is difficult to see how that could be achieved in reality—especially in the initial aftermath, when the number and identity of the victims will be unknown. I note the intent behind the right hon. Lady’s probing amendment, but urge her not to press it.
Maria Eagle
In view of the Minister’s assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Anna McMorrin
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 25, page 20, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) During their appointment the independent public advocate shall sit within the Ministry of Justice for administrative purposes, but shall be independent with respect to its functioning and decision-making processes, and discharge of its statutory duties.”
This amendment would clarify the functional and operational independence of the advocate.
I thank Inquest, Hillsborough Law Now and Justice for working with me on the amendment. I also pay tribute to Ken Sutton, secretary to the Hillsborough Independent Panel. He has worked with me through the whole of part 2 of the Bill, on this amendment and others. I pay tribute to his work and support.
As I said earlier, clauses 24 to 26 provide unfettered discretion to the Secretary of State—not only on whether to appoint an advocate following a major disaster, but on who the advocate is and how they will be resourced. That removes any semblance of independence from the advocate, who is instructed by and answers to the Secretary of State and not those most affected.
The issue of independence is a central concern for the many bereaved families and survivors. It is critical that support provided to families is operationally and functionally independent of Government, to allay families’ concerns about cover-ups, collusions and evasive practices, much of which we have heard detailed this morning. If that is not assured, the position is valueless, as it will be perceived as the Government merely extending their control over the investigatory landscape.
In the evidence sessions, we heard the Right Rev. James Jones state how crucial the independence of the advocate is. When asked if he believed whether the Bill provided enough independence, he answered:
“I am afraid I do not.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 87, Q168.]
I welcome the Government’s initiative and determination to continue to listen to various parties as they shape this appointment. However, I do not think that the independence is sufficiently guaranteed by the Bill as it stands. I echo the concerns expressed by the Right Rev. James Jones, and I hope that the Minister will heed them accordingly in his response.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for the amendment and her remarks. As she set out, her amendment seeks to clarify the functional and operational independence of the IPA. I support the intention behind it, and she highlighted the oral evidence we heard in Committee. We do, however, have some drafting concerns that need to be reflected on further, which means that at this point I cannot support the amendment. I will set out my reservations, which equally the hon. Lady might herself wish to reflect on.
It may be helpful not to refer specifically to the “Ministry of Justice”, to guard against any potential machinery of government changes. It is also important to ensure that the amendment would not prevent the Secretary of State from agreeing terms of reference with advocates, to provide them with guidance and clear parameters. I do, however, agree that the IPA must be independent and be seen to be so—and it will be. The Government are absolutely committed to an operationally independent IPA and I am happy to work with the hon. Lady to ensure that that is as clear as we can make it, or to find where we can reach consensus on some elements.
Our provisions ensure that the advocates will have autonomy to take decisions and utilise their experience in a manner that they deem appropriate. That is why the functions of the IPA as set out in the Bill are broad and non-exhaustive, and further allow the IPA to support victims as it sees fit. We are, therefore, already delivering on the functional independence in the Bill. The advocates will be supported by a permanent secretariat provided by the Ministry of Justice. Work is already under way to ensure appropriate separation between the Department and those working in the secretariat.
Finally, the advocates have the autonomy under the reporting function to include any relevant matters in their reports to the Secretary of State. Later, we will come to amendments to clause 29 on how that may interact with the independence of the IPA. As I will set out in more detail then, I am willing to work with the shadow Minister on that, to see if there is a landing zone that satisfies the Government’s position and the intentions behind the amendment.
I do not believe amendment 24 is necessary as it is already covered by the Government’s intent, and in our view it is already being delivered in the Bill. I am none the less grateful to the hon. Lady for tabling the amendment and allowing us the opportunity to have this brief debate.
Anna McMorrin
I am grateful to the Minister for his words of initial support for the wording in the amendment, and for his willingness to work with us as we move forward on ensuring the independence of the advocate. As the Bill is currently drafted, that independence is by no means assured. I am grateful to hear that the Minister is willing to work with me, and look forward to that. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Maria Eagle
I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 25, page 20, line 7 at end insert—
“(6) An advocate appointed in respect of a major incident is to be regarded as a data controller under General Data Protection Regulations for the purposes of their role”.
This amendment ensures that the Independent Public Advocate is a data controller for the purposes of General Data Protection Regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 72, in clause 27, page 20, line 36, leave out “assisting victims to access” and insert “accessing documents”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 70.
Amendment 73, in clause 27, page 20, line 37, leave out from “(1)” to end of line 39.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 70.
Maria Eagle
Amendment 70 would insert a subsection into clause 25, making it clear that an advocate appointed in respect of a major incident is to be regarded as a data controller for the purposes of the general data protection regulation in carrying out their role.
Amendments 72 and 73 to clause 27 are consequential upon the public advocate being a data controller, and would make it clear that they themselves can handle documents and do so lawfully, while removing some of the usual reasons why documents are withheld. The point of the amendments is to try to implement the lessons of the Hillsborough Independent Panel, which is why Lord Michael Wills and I have been bringing forward our own public advocate Bills over the years.
The Hillsborough Independent Panel was a stunning success. In just over two years, it did the job of establishing unequivocally and incontrovertibly the truth of what happened to each of the then 96 people who died at Hillsborough. It made it completely clear that many could have been saved and that the appalling behaviour of senior police commanders had been the cause of the disaster. It torpedoed the cover-up by South Yorkshire police of their culpability. It made abundantly clear that there had been no contribution from those killed or from other Liverpool fans to the disaster. That is what the legal system had failed to establish clearly over more than two decades, through myriad and repeated proceedings in every conceivable kind of court.
If a process like that could work for a disaster that was so contested at the time and that was more than two decades old, about which there were literally hundreds and thousands of documents, could not a similar process be used to prevent things going so wrong in the aftermath of other disasters? Things going wrong in the aftermath of disasters is surely what this legislation is seeking to try to prevent.
As Lord Wills said in his evidence to us:
“We have to accept that a cover-up is part of the pathology of a big public disaster. It is human nature. When something happens like Hillsborough, the Manchester Arena bombing or Grenfell Tower, it is a huge story for the nation, and obviously those in power at the time, who feel they might be blamed for it, will feel that they have to cover up in some way. We saw what the police did with Hillsborough: they created a false narrative as part of that cloud of unknowing that they wanted to create, to cover up. What they feared, rightly in the end, was that they would be blamed for it.
That is true of pretty much every public disaster: obviously the details are different, but there is that essential pathology. There is always a risk of cover-up. I hope this Bill, suitably amended, will raise the barriers against that, but it does not mean that we can drop our vigilance against the potential.”.––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 94, Q181.]
I think Lord Wills sets out there pretty clearly what he and I were seeking to do with our own proposals in our public advocate Bills. That is what I press the Government to aspire to. If we could manage to do this, it would make an enormous difference in the aftermath of future disasters and would hopefully prevent things from ever again going as wrong as they did with Hillsborough.
Part of what the Hillsborough Independent Panel was able to do was to lawfully collect and process documents. That turned out to be crucial. It worked on the basis of obtaining and publishing all documentation to ensure total transparency in what had been an atmosphere of deep suspicion. It was that approach that broke the logjam of suspicion among bereaved families and survivors, while getting at the truth in a way that was revelatory about the causes and aftermath of the incident. That was no small feat, but it was key to the success of the process. After more than two decades of failure to get to the truth and have it accepted, justice for those who were unlawfully killed was advanced. If we can learn the lessons of the Hillsborough Independent Panel and apply them by having a public advocate who has functions and powers to do what the Hillsborough Independent Panel did, we may be able to stop future disasters from going so appalling wrong over such an extended period as Hillsborough. That is what we should seek to do.
If the legislation aims a little lower than that—I fear it may do—and aims just to signpost victims to support services and help in the immediate aftermath, it will be valuable but we will have missed a major opportunity to prevent things from going as wrong as they did for those caught up, through no fault of their own, in the Hillsborough disaster. I believe that functions enabling the public advocate to handle documents and the power to set up an independent panel like the Hillsborough Independent Panel, which we will come to later, are vital to the success of the legislation and of the post that we all seek to create.
Anna McMorrin
I endorse the words of my right hon. Friend, who has spelled out in great detail the importance of having access to the correct data, and not just in the immediate aftermath. We must learn the lessons from what happened at Hillsborough, and ensure that in future there is access to important data and information.
Edward Argar
I am again grateful to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood for her amendments. Amendments 70 and 72 would make the IPA a data controller, enabling them to obtain and review all documentation relating to a major incident. Amendment 73 sets out that advocates may support victims by establishing an independent panel to establish the truth of what happened. It is important that, in all our deliberations on this part of the Bill, we strive to continually remember just what a devastating tragedy Hillsborough was, and that its impact was compounded by the indefensible wait for the truth—indeed, the concealment of the truth. So I am entirely sympathetic to the intention behind her amendments.
When we have spoken about this matter in the past, the key themes of empowerment and agency have come through. Another key theme that the right hon. Lady has highlighted is the power of transparency as a way to address, as I think Lord Wills highlighted—she mentioned him in her remarks—the instinctive approach of public bodies and organisations to conceal, or seek to evade responsibility, when something has gone horrifically and tragically wrong. Given the terrible experience of those affected by the Hillsborough disaster, I appreciate the concern surrounding the danger of documents and information being destroyed, changed or suppressed by public bodies or others.
However, since the Hillsborough tragedy and the injustices that followed, there have been significant developments in the justice system that give us greater opportunities to get to the truth of what has happened. Statutory protection against cover-ups now exists. Under the last Labour Government—a Government in which the right hon. Lady served, I believe—section 35(3) of the Inquiries Act 2005 came into force, making it a criminal offence to intentionally suppress, conceal, alter or destroy information during an inquiry, punishable by up to six months in prison or a fine. Secondly, the Public Records Act 1958, as amended, sets out the legal requirements for the care and preservation of public records.
The College of Policing will also introduce a new code of practice, titled “Police Information and Records Management”, which will be laid before Parliament, and which details key principles for the management of all police information and records. It will ensure that a broader range of police records are retained by forces in the future, meaning that there is less risk of losing or altering important records for future scrutiny, as occurred with Hillsborough. Furthermore, a statutory duty of co-operation was introduced in February 2020, placing a responsibility on police officers to give appropriate co-operation during investigations, inquiries and formal proceedings, and to participate openly and professionally in line with what is expected of a police officer when identified as a witness. A failure to co-operate is a breach of the statutory standards of professional behaviour and could result in disciplinary sanctions.
I also understand the right hon. Lady’s intention behind amendment 73: to allow advocates to set up an independent panel akin to the Hillsborough Independent Panel. I pay tribute to those who worked with and on that panel, which had a pivotal role in uncovering the truth. I point out that it did not have any data-compelling powers, but it none the less did phenomenal work in questing after the truth, and revealing information that had for so long eluded others.
Returning to amendments 70 and 72, the Government believe that the IPA’s key focus should be on supporting victims and the families of those affected by a major incident, rather than an investigatory approach. I appreciate that this is another area where the right hon. Lady and I may take a slightly different perspective, but I hope that we can continue to work through that in the coming months.
We consulted on the IPA in 2018, and the feedback from that consultation reinforced the need to provide clarity and support to victims following a major incident. The amendments would significantly change the purpose and role of the IPA and would introduce new responsibilities to collate, check and store information, diverting the focus away from the primary purpose that we envisaged. I appreciate that the right hon. Lady has been entirely consistent and transparent in putting her arguments with clarity. Our view is that introducing such data-controlling powers could conflict with the work of pre-existing investigative authorities, such as the work of inquiries, which already have the power under the 2005 Act to compel information and witnesses.
I appreciate that there are concerns about transparency, and as I have with previous groups of amendments, I can commit to considering with the right hon. Lady what more can be done in that respect. The IPA needs to be as effective as possible in supporting victims, and it is important that we get this right to the best of our ability in this House. Our concern is that giving the IPA the power to obtain and review all documentation could in practice introduce a further layer of complexity to the system, and I do not want to do that. I appreciate that there may be differences between the Government’s conception and that of the right hon. Lady of how the IPA will work in terms of its primary focus and function, but as before I am happy to work through that with her. I do not know whether we will be able to close the gap between us, but as with everything, I am happy to try.
Maria Eagle
I appreciate the Minister’s willingness to discuss the matter further. Obviously there is a difference between the Government’s view and my view and that of Lord Michael Wills, who introduced a Bill in the Lords, about what the focus ought to be, but I appreciate that the Minister is willing to discuss the matter further. Perhaps we might be able to come a bit closer in so doing. If we cannot, at least we will still have Report and the remaining stages to make further points. 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.
Edward Argar
Clause 25 requires the Secretary of State to agree terms with an individual who is to be appointed as an advocate. The clause makes it clear that an individual officially becomes an advocate once they agree to their terms of appointment. The clause further provides for a framework by which advocates may be remunerated, removed and equipped with the necessary secretarial support to support victims. It is vital that at the outset terms are set out and agreed between the Secretary of State, who is accountable for his or her decision, and the individual who will act as an advocate. That will provide clarity and set out the expectations around the functions and scope of the advocate, and is in keeping with other independent appointments such as inquiry panel members.
As public money will be used to pay for the advocates, it is right to provide for that ability to agree terms mutually. The terms will include, as normal, conditions that could lead to the termination of an appointment, such as misconduct or incapacity. The advocate may resign after giving notice.
As previously discussed, the Secretary of State has a power under the clause to terminate the appointment of an advocate. I hope that the right hon. Lady and the Committee more broadly are reassured about the circumstances in which that power is likely to be used in practice. As I have set out, it may be necessary to replace an advocate if they do not command the confidence of victims; to reduce the number of advocates actively supporting victims where that is appropriate and the needs of victims decrease; or to substitute advocates in response to the changing needs of victims and a greater understanding of the expertise required. To highlight that, I point to the parallel power for Ministers in the Inquiries Act 2005. As I have said, and I think we all agree, the IPA must be operationally independent. That does not mean they can be unaccountable, and I believe our provision strikes an appropriate balance.
The clause enables the Secretary of State to pay advocates for their vital work and cover reasonable expenses such as travel and accommodation. We imagine that the IPA will spend time, especially in the immediate aftermath, in the affected community, and it is right that we provide them with the means and resources to be able to do that effectively. We will do right by victims by ensuring that the IPA is adequately resourced. We have already made progress on that front by providing funding for a full-time secretariat from the Ministry of Justice to support the advocates. The day rate or salary of the advocates is still under consideration, but it will be made public when certain. It will be proportionate and reflect the crucial role that they will play.
Finally, the clause makes it clear that advocates will not be servants or agents of the Crown. They will be independent, working on behalf of the victims of major incidents, and focused on ensuring that victims get the independent support they need.
Anna McMorrin
It is so important that the function and operational scope of the independent advocate is strong and clear, so that they can carry out their role to get to the bottom and the truth of an incident. We must ensure that we learn lessons from Hillsborough and the review panel that followed. At present, there is simply nothing independent about the advocate, but I appreciate the fact that the Minister is willing to work with us to ensure that we tighten up the wording, so that they are more independent and the Bill is as robust as possible.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Appointment of multiple independent public advocates
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to appoint a lead advocate where multiple advocates have been appointed for the same major incident. The Government believe that the ability to appoint multiple advocates for the same major incident will ensure that the IPA has the necessary capacity and resilience to support victims.
Let us cast our minds back to 2017, when the awful and tragic events in Manchester and at Grenfell Tower happened only a few weeks apart. The number of victims in need of support was in the hundreds, if not higher, and it would not have been possible for a single advocate to provide the right amount of support to all the victims in two very different geographical locations. The clause is intended to deal with such situations by granting the Secretary of State the ability to appoint multiple advocates for the same and different major incidents. We hope that it gives the IPA the greatest ability to serve victims. It was endorsed by the respondents to the 2018 consultation.
Maria Eagle
Subsection (3) says:
“An advocate must have regard to any directions given by the lead advocate as to how they are to exercise their functions in respect of the incident.”
Having “regard to” is not necessarily “following the instructions of”. Is it not a recipe for chaos if there is a disagreement between advocates about the best way to act?
Edward Argar
The right hon. Lady will know the legal connotations of the phrase “have regard to”. What we are seeking to do is recognise that while there may be a lead advocate, there will potentially be other advocates in the team who have particular strengths and expertise. In appointing more than one advocate, I am sure that the Secretary of State will have due regard to ensuring that the team is coherent and able to work together.
It is important that if we are bringing different advocates with different areas of expertise into a team, their voices are able to be heard. There is an expectation that they will behave reasonably and have regard to that principle. Equally, I would not want the lead advocate to be able to silence the expertise of others in the team. It is a difficult balance to strike; like so many things do in public life and in our work, it requires people to behave in a reasonable and responsible manner. I am confident that that that will be the case, but the right hon. Lady is right to highlight the challenges were it not.
We will set up a register of individuals from a range of different professions, backgrounds and geographical areas to enable the IPA to respond to the broadest range of circumstances and the unpredictable nature of major incidents. It will also enable the Secretary of State to appoint an advocate as soon as possible and then appoint further advocates over a slightly longer period, including community advocates, to ensure that voices are reflected and the confidence of victims is maintained. That approach will allow for engagement with the families about the type of support they need from an IPA.
Anna McMorrin
We have no objection in principle to the appointment of multiple independent advocates for the same major incident, therefore creating a panel. However, will the Minister clarify the context in which that panel would operate? Importantly, would it be the same as the Hillsborough Independent Panel—granted the same powers—or would it still be open to Government interference? Will he set that out in his response?
Edward Argar
The IPAs are not envisaged as akin to the Hillsborough Independent Panel; they are to be set up as independent public advocates, but the office can have multiple holders simultaneously, if that makes sense, to draw on different expertise. The key element lies in the word “independent”. We are confident that the measures that we are putting in place will create and sustain that independence. I appreciate that the hon. Lady might press back on that on Report or in subsequent debate, but on that basis we consider the clause to strike the right balance.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Functions of an independent public advocate
Maria Eagle
I beg to move amendment 74, in clause 27, page 20, line 27, at end insert—
“(e) an independent panel to establish the truth of what happened”
This amendment enables the Independent Public Advocate to establish a Hillsborough Independent Panel type process to get at the truth of what happened at an early stage following an incident.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 75, in clause 27, page 20, line 39, at end insert—
“(e) establishing an independent panel in consultation with victims to establish the truth of what happened”.
This amendment enables the Independent Public Advocate to establish a Hillsborough Independent Panel type process to get at the truth of what happened at an early stage following an incident.
Maria Eagle
Amendment 75 would insert into the clause, which sets out the functions of the advocate, a power to establish an independent panel such as the Hillsborough Independent Panel in consultation with the families affected. Amendment 74 would enable the public advocate to provide support to victims in respect of an independent panel-type process, if such a process is ongoing in respect of a major incident.
It follows from what I said about amendments 70, 72 and 73 that I think the public advocate should that I think the public advocate should have a broader range of functions and powers than the Bill currently sets out. Indeed, it allows only for liaison between families and organs of the state and signposting to support services. That is all helpful, but it is not sufficient to fully learn the lessons from the success of the Hillsborough Independent Panel and apply them when disasters strike. The only other real function for the public advocate in clause 27 is a report-writing one. We will come to that when we debate clause 29, so I will not dwell on it now.
A key lesson from the 23 years it took the Hillsborough families to get to the truth of what happened to their loved ones is that most of the usual processes following disasters failed them. The original inquests did not establish the cause of death for each of the deceased, although their basic function was to uncover the who, what, where and why. The families were prevented from finding the truth by the police cover-up and a coroner who, overwhelmed by the extent of the task—I am being kind—imposed a 3.15 pm cut-off, which led to material facts being ignored. The inquests left more questions than answers, and most of them were taken up by perpetuating the Hillsborough slurs that the police were on a campaign to spread, dealing with things such as blood alcohol levels, even though a third of the victims were children, and the slurs about fans being ticketless.
The families did not find out when and how their loved ones died until the Hillsborough Independent Panel answered those questions for them 23 years after the event. Some mums, such as Anne Williams, simply went and found out herself. She knew precisely what had happened to her son, Kevin—when, where and how he died—long before that truth was acknowledged by the findings of the second inquests. She spent the rest of her life campaigning to get a new inquest for her son. It was repeatedly denied her, despite the fact that it was clear he was alive after 3.15 pm and may well have benefited from medical intervention.
Anne Williams was unwilling to acknowledge that her son’s death had been an accident, and she never collected the death certificate that said so. She was right: he was unlawfully killed, but it took her the rest of her life to be vindicated and have the accidental death verdict overturned. She lived to see the original verdict quashed, but she did not live to see the unlawful killing verdict at the second inquests. That relates to a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley made this morning about the health consequences of these kinds of disasters on those affected by them. Anne Williams always knew that her son had been unlawfully killed.
When I first met my constituent Jenni Hicks as her MP in 1997, I was struck that she and her ex-husband, Trevor, were discussing a new bit of information that one of them had been passed about the movements of one of their daughters during her last moments. That was what the original inquests should have told them, but they did not even try to do so. As Jenni Hicks told us:
“We basically knew the truth but we could not get hold of the evidence; nobody could. It was not until the Hillsborough Independent Panel that we had that evidence, finally, and we finally—as I say, four years after HIP—had the correct inquest verdicts.”—[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 144, Q219.]
What a failure of our legal system.
For that reason, it would be an omission to legislate for a public advocate without enabling them to establish an independent panel in consultation with the families, to assist them in respect of an independent panel process, and to help if there are inquests or inquiries. As the Minister rightly said, the Bill puts transparency at the heart of proceedings occurring after disasters. Transparency for the families, freedom of information and the capacity for the public advocate to establish an independent panel are essential parts of what should be a successful reform if we get everything right.
Anna McMorrin
I rise to support absolutely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood says about the amendments. They are about getting to the truth of what happened, and ensuring there is true transparency and freedom of information. Bereaved families should see justice straightaway; they should not have to go through what many other families have tragically gone through.
Edward Argar
Again, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood for tabling amendments 74 and 75, which I will address together. As she set out, the amendments would enable the IPA to establish an independent panel, akin to the Hillsborough Independent Panel, in consultation with victims. As we have said, those affected by the Hillsborough disaster had to wait far, far too long for truth. I again pay tribute to the Hillsborough Independent Panel, which played a crucial role in uncovering the truth and correcting the public narrative after so many years.
I turn to the substance of the amendments. As I mentioned previously, it is worth remembering that the Hillsborough Independent Panel was a non-statutory inquiry set up by the Home Secretary. Non-statutory inquiries are funded by public funds, so it is right that the decision to set one up remains with the Government. As I emphasised earlier, the Hillsborough Independent Panel did not have any data compelling powers. As Ken Sutton, who has been referenced previously and who led the secretariat for the Hillsborough Independent Panel, noted in our oral evidence sessions, the panel was able to access information and documentation without the need for data compelling powers. What is more, it is important to avoid any conflict between different investigatory functions. In my reading of them, the right hon. Lady’s amendments do not clarify what the role of an advocate would be in relation to the panel, how it would work in practice and, crucially, what impact it would have on the support available to victims.
I appreciate that the matter of debate between the right hon. Lady and I is whether the focus should be on support or the investigatory role, and how to draw that line, but if the IPA is primarily focused on supporting victims, signposting and building a relationship of trust with them, could they be considered to be truly impartial in an investigatory role? If they stepped away from their role as an advocate to focus on the work of the panel, would that affect the ability to support victims? I do not posit any direct answers to that, but I pose those questions, to which I suspect we will return subsequently, possibly on the Floor of the House or in discussions outwith this Committee.
I remind Members that the Hillsborough Independent Panel was established many years after the Hillsborough tragedy, which meant that it did not run the risk of undermining or prejudicing any ongoing formal legal proceedings. I note that in the helpful explanatory statement from the right hon. Lady, she states that she believes the panel should be established at an early stage following an incident. I am slightly wary of that and the possible interrelationship with other legal processes. Establishing an independent panel at an early stage—a panel that has the power to require disclosure of all relevant documents and information—could pose a threat to other investigatory processes, particularly criminal trials or other legal proceedings.
No one should suffer the same injustices as those affected by Hillsborough. Their tireless fight for the truth—and the right hon. Lady’s tireless fight for the truth on their behalf—is to be commended, but it should never need to be repeated. Victims and the wider public deserve to know the truth and to get answers to their questions. However, our concern is that the way to achieve this cannot be one that potentially puts a victim’s right to formal legal justice in jeopardy by duplicating or cutting across the work of other investigatory bodies. I recognise that there are questions about independence and the IPA’s power to get to the truth. I am happy to reflect on that further, and to reflect with the right hon. Lady on whether there are other ways that we can seek to achieve what she seeks without the potential legal jeopardy that might exist if it were done in this way.
Maria Eagle
I thank the Minister for his constructive approach to the amendments. I acknowledge that one of the big issues is that if an independent panel were established at an earlier stage, there might be questions about how it would interact with any inquiry, inquest or other ongoing legal proceedings. He is completely correct that by the time the Hillsborough Independent Panel was set up, it had 21 years of every possible legal proceeding imaginable—usually more than once—having taken place. I remember that in the newspaper article Andy Burnham and I put in the Liverpool Daily Post on the morning of the 20th anniversary, one of the reasons I said we should publish all the documentation was that no more legal proceedings were possible. That seemed to be correct at the time that I said it, although it did not turn out to be correct in the event. I acknowledge, though, that there is then an issue that has to be resolved—that is, how it would work if an independent panel were to be set up at an earlier stage and legal proceedings were still possible or ongoing. I acknowledge that my amendments do not deal with that; they were not intended to, but I acknowledge that it is a real public policy issue. I welcome the Minister’s offer to look at that more closely.
The advantage of having transparency at an early point is that one can torpedo cover-ups. There is significant public interest—and, over time, significant amounts of public money are saved—in managing to do so. That is desirable, and I hope we can work together in such a way that finds the best of both worlds. That is what we all want: the best of all possible worlds. If we can do that, we will be doing well. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 28 stand part.
New clause 1—Victims of major incidents: registration of death—
“(1) Notwithstanding anything in the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 or the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, a qualified informant (within the meaning in those Acts) may register the death of a person who was a victim of a major incident.
(2) Subsection (1) applies even if an investigation is conducted under Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.”
This new clause would enable a qualified informant such as a relative of the deceased to provide information to register the death after a major incident.
New clause 16—Functions and powers of the independent public advocate—
“(1) The advocate may provide such support to victims of a major incident as the advocate considers appropriate in relation to—
(a) the aftermath of the incident;
(b) an investigation by a public authority into the incident;
(c) an inquest under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 into a death the incident may have caused or contributed to;
(d) an inquiry into the incident under the Inquiries Act 2005;
(e) an independent panel to establish the truth of what happened.
(2) The support provided under subsection (1) may include, for example—
(a) helping victims understand the actions of public authorities in relation to the incident, and how the views of victims may be taken into account;
(b) informing victims about other sources of support and advice, and services, ‘ that may be available in connection with the incident;
(c) communicating with public authorities on behalf of victims in relation to the incident;
(d) assisting victims to access documents or other information in relation to an investigation, inquest or inquiry referred to in subsection (1);
(e) establishing an independent panel in consultation with victims to establish the truth of what happened.
(3) The independent public advocate must report to victims or to such persons as the advocate considers represent one or more victims during any police or other authority’s investigation into the incident regarding—
(a) the progress of the investigation, and
(b) if there are no lawyers representing the families, the implications of engaging lawyers at that stage.
(4) The independent public advocate must report to Parliament—
(a) on an annual basis, summarising their work;
(b) at the conclusion of support relating to a particular event; and
(c) at any other time they identify a need so to do;
and the first such report must be laid before Parliament before the end of 2024.
(5) Following a further request to the independent public advocate by fifty percent plus one or more of the representatives of those deceased due to the event, the independent public advocate must set up a panel which must register as a data controller under the Data Protection Act 2018 and review all documentation relating to the event, the deceased and the representatives and report thereon.
(6) In establishing the panel under subsection (5), the independent public advocate must consult the representatives of those deceased due to the event about the composition of the panel.
(7) Subject to section [disclosure of information to the independent advocate’s panel], all relevant public authorities and other relevant organisations must provide documentation under subsection (5) to an independent advocate’s panel on request from the panel.
(8) An independent advocate’s panel must publish a report into its review of the documentation.”
New clause 17—Disclosure of information to the independent public advocate’s panel—
“(1) Nothing in this section detracts from the duty upon relevant public authorities to provide relevant information to an independent public advocate’s panel on request from the panel.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
“relevant information” includes all information which may reasonably be considered to be related to the cause of the event, the event, and actions taken after the event due to it;
“public authority” has the same meaning as in the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
(3) A public authority may only decline to provide information to the panel if disclosure of that information to the panel—
(a) is not possible for reasons of safeguarding national security;
(b) would, or would be likely to, prejudice the defence of the United Kingdom or of any Crown dependency or overseas territory, or the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces of the Crown;
(c) is prohibited by or under any enactment, or would constitute or be punishable as a contempt of court;
(4) A public authority may request that the panel provides an assurance that information provided to the panel will be secured to the same data security standard as used by that authority, and the panel may provide such assurance and use its best endeavours to maintain that standard.
(5) If information is withheld from the panel under subsection (3), the panel must be informed of the subject of the matter being withheld and the reason for that exemption.
(6) Upon receiving a notification that information is being withheld, the panel may apply to the Information Commissioner for a decision whether the public authority has assessed correctly that disclosure is not possible under subsection (3).
(7) Upon receiving an application from a panel under subsection (6), the Information Commissioner must consider the application and issue a decision notice to the panel and to the relevant public authority stating either—
(a) that the public authority has correctly assessed that the information should be withheld; or
(b) that all or some of the information should not be withheld, the steps that the public authority must take to provide the information and the period within which they must be taken.
(8) A decision notice issued by the Information Commissioner under subsection (7) may be appealed by the panel or the relevant public authority to the Tribunal.
(9) If on an appeal under subsection (8) the Tribunal considers—
(a) that the notice against which the appeal is brought is not in accordance with the law, or
(b) to the extent that the notice involved an exercise of discretion by the Commissioner, that he or she ought to have exercised his or her discretion differently,
the Tribunal shall allow the appeal or substitute such other notice as could have been served by the Commissioner; and in any other case the Tribunal shall dismiss the appeal.
(10) On such an appeal, the Tribunal—
(a) may review any finding of fact on which the notice in question was based; and
(b) shall notify the Lord Chancellor of its decision.
(11) An independent public advocate and any office or officials supporting the work of the independent public advocate are not a public authority for the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
(12) In this section, “Tribunal” has the meaning given by section 84 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.”
Edward Argar
I will speak to clauses 27 and 28, and will return to the new clauses in this grouping once they have been spoken to by the Members who tabled them. Clause 27 sets out that the support an advocate may provide spans from the immediate aftermath of the major incident through to any subsequent investigations, inquests and inquiries, including non-statutory inquiries.
Clause 27 provides an indicative and non-exhaustive list of functions that an advocate may undertake in supporting victims. Those functions include helping victims to understand the processes that follow a major incident and how they can engage with them. They also include: signposting victims to available sources of support and advice; communicating with public authorities on behalf of victims; and ensuring that victims can access the documents and information to which they are entitled. Advocates will act as a conduit between victims and public authorities so that we may know what victims actually need, rather than what we may assume they need.
In setting out the functions of the IPA, it is right not to be overly prescriptive. All incidents will be different, and the needs of victims will be diverse. That is why we have ensured that the clause provides the flexibility necessary to allow an advocate to provide any other support that they consider appropriate. There are only a few exceptions, which are set out in the clause.
Clause 27 prohibits advocates from giving any legal advice or assistance, providing financial support or providing healthcare. The purpose of the IPA is to be a supportive function; it is not intended to duplicate the work of existing bodies, nor to replace support or professional expertise that is already available elsewhere. Advocates will not be expected to be qualified lawyers or healthcare professionals, but they will be able to inform victims about accessing such support.
The IPA will work with investigative bodies to ensure that the views and needs of the victims are known and taken into account, but it will not be an investigative body. I have touched on that before, and I suspect we will return to where that balance should lie. To make it so would risk undermining or duplicating the work of existing bodies. The functions of the IPA as set out in clause 27 are consistent with the approach the Government consulted on in 2018. They provide for the IPA to effectively deliver its aims of advocating for victims with public authorities and allow it to fulfil its intent of supporting victims through the processes that follow a major incident.
Turning to who the IPA will support, clause 27 makes provision for advocates to support victims through a representative—for example, where a victim or a group of victims cannot speak English, or an injured victim is not able to engage directly. The clause prohibits the IPA from directly supporting people under the age of 18. We believe it is appropriate for advocates to work with a child’s parent or guardian, who ordinarily will be best placed to provide information and support in a manner that best suits the child. Clause 27 enables the IPA to support people under the age of 18 through a representative. That ensures that those under the age of 18 are not excluded. Once the individual in question reaches the age of 18, they can then receive the support directly.
Clause 28 amends section 47(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to allow an advocate to be an interested person in relation to an inquest into a death caused by a major incident. That will help the advocate to effectively carry out their support functions for the bereaved and to access information relating to the inquest to which they are entitled. Many people will have never had any interaction with the inquest process, and it will be unfamiliar and possibly daunting at a particularly vulnerable time. In order to help the IPA to signpost victims, to amplify their voices, and to ensure that they have access to information to which they are entitled, we believe it is important to amend the 2009 Act to allow an advocate to be an interested person. In practical terms, that will aid the IPA in helping the bereaved to get answers to their questions and to fully participate at inquests on their behalf. I commend clauses 27 and 28 to the Committee.
Anna McMorrin
I will speak to clauses 27 and 28 before moving on to new clause 1. Although the list of functions in clause 27 is welcome, I would like the Minister to assure me that the functions listed are non-exhaustive, and to ensure that the list is not designed to be applied in a rigid way.
I appreciate that clause 28 is designed to make the independent public advocate party to relevant information in relation to inquests. However, I would like the Minister to clarify that the independent public advocate will be allowed to participate properly in an inquest where the family involved want that to happen.
It is a privilege to speak to new clause 1, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). She and her staff have campaigned tirelessly on this issue, and her strong advocacy in this place for bereaved families has brought them a lot of comfort. Some of the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood also tragically died in the same attack, and she has been heavily involved in the campaign, so I look forward to hearing her comments shortly.
On 22 May 2017, 22 people were murdered in the Manchester Arena terror attack. Two constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields were among them: Chloe Ann Rutherford, aged 17, and Liam Thomas Allen Curry, aged 19. Both were just teenagers. It is every parent’s worst nightmare, but after sitting through agonising hours of the public inquiry, the families were told that the registration of their precious children’s deaths would not be done by them, but by a stranger. That is what began the campaign. Chloe’s and Liam’s parents understandably feel that they have been denied this final act for their children, stripping them of a vital step in the grieving process.
Under the Births and Deaths Registration Acts 1926 and 1953, which lie with the Home Office, and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which lies with the Ministry of Justice, it is standard practice for a coroner to register deaths involving an inquest or inquiry. For the past year, the families have been campaigning to amend the legislation to allow grieving relatives the choice to register the death of a loved one. This issue was first raised in the main Chamber on 1 March 2022—a year and four months ago. The Government had ample time to make the relevant changes to the legislation before the death registrations for those killed in the Manchester Arena attack needed to take place, but as usual they have been too slow to react, despite the previous Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), making promises to look
“at this issue with the utmost priority”.—[Official Report, 25 May 2022; Vol. 715, c. 396.]
Since March last year, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields has had several meetings with many different Ministers due to the constant chaos and churn of the Government. First, it was the hon. Member for Corby, and then the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes). Then it was back to the hon. Member for Corby, and now the Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), is dealing with this issue. There was also a month in which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields was faced with complete radio silence from all Ministers involved because of the constant conveyor belt of new Ministers coming in and out, with no listed responsibilities. To top it off, the main responsibility for this matter was moved from the Home Office to the Ministry of Justice and no one informed any of those involved. I am sure that the Minister agrees that this oversight is not acceptable, especially when dealing with such a tragic and sensitive case. I hope he will take a co-operative approach to new clause 1 and finally resolve the issue for the sake of the families involved.
On Wednesday 22 February 2023, both my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields and my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood met the Home Office Minister, Lord Murray of Blidworth, and the Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green, alongside the bereaved families. During that meeting, however, both the Members and the victims’ families were told that no legislative change would be explored, despite the Government expressing their commitment to
“look at options to change the law in the longer term”
in a letter just one month earlier. The families had waited almost a year for answers. They had travelled to Westminster at their own expense to meet Ministers, only to find the Government had changed their mind. They felt misled, patronised and let down, and they still do to this day. Ministers stated that the changes would be against public policy and would make the framework less effective. However, the changes could be narrow and targeted towards only a small set of circumstances, such as after a mass casualty event, as outlined in new clause 1.
As the inquiry has now drawn to a close with the final report complete, it is with great sadness that I can confirm those two children’s deaths were registered just last week. Their parents travelled to Manchester to be present at the death registration, but current legislation prevented them from doing it themselves. The heartbreaking reality for those families is that time simply ran out for them as they fought the Government on this minor legislative change.
A cruel and unfair two-tier system for death registration is in place. If a child dies in a common circumstance, such as due to a health condition, their parent can personally register their death. However, if they die in a major incident, their parents are denied that last official act. We understand that not all relatives would want to register the death of a loved one, as in most cases an interim death certificate is given soon after the incident for funeral arrangements, but we advocate giving families the choice.
The Government stated in letters to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields that it may be too distressing for relatives to register the deaths, but in normal circumstances a relative has no choice but to personally register the death. Now that the deaths of Chloe and Liam are officially registered, the families must request a copy of the death certificates from the registry office in Manchester. If the Government were genuinely concerned about causing distress to families, that step would not be in place either.
In the latest correspondence from the Government to the hon. Member on this matter in March, which I have a copy of here, Lord Murray set out what happens when the coroner records the death after an inquest has taken place. He said,
“This ensures that the inquest and registration details fully align, while also removing exposure to any risk of outside interference or alteration.”
That is heartless and an insult to those families who have lost loved ones. Bereaved families have no intention or wish to alter the findings of the inquest and the coroner. They simply wish to state their personal details on their child’s death certificate as a final step in their grief and to officially register them as dead. I am sure the Minister will understand that and what it means for parents to record the deaths of their loved ones, and I hope he will agree to the new clause. The Government prolonged Chloe’s and Liam’s parents’ grief; all those parents want is for their children’s legacy to be that no other family goes through what they did ever again.
Maria Eagle
I wish to say something about new clauses 16 and 17, but also new clause 1 because I have had an involvement in this matter. I have constituents who lost their 15-year-old daughter, Megan Hurley, in the Manchester Arena bombing. They were similarly upset to discover they would not be allowed to register the death of their daughter. As Megan’s mum said to me, “We were able to register her birth. This is the last thing we can do for her, but we’re not allowed.”
These parents caught up in the disaster have had to go through six years of this process. It has been an improved process because the inquest and the public inquiry went hand in hand and were led by the same judge—instead of being consecutive and thus doubling the length of time these things take and forcing families to listen to it all twice, they have happened in tandem—but although the overall timescale has been shortened, it has still been years. It simply adds to the feeling of powerlessness, and of something being done to them, that the Hurley family have been unable even to register the death of their daughter because they are barred from doing so by statute.
Edward Argar
I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff North and the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood for tabling their new clauses.
New clause 1 seeks to provide families bereaved by a major incident with a role in registering the death of their loved one. I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for South Shields, with whom I have spoken on a number of occasions. She is passionate in her advocacy on behalf of her constituents and for change in this area.
This is an important and sensitive but none the less complex issue. I pay tribute to the commitment of the families bereaved by the Manchester Arena attack in their campaign to secure a role for bereaved families in the registration of their loved one’s death following an inquest. I am very much aware that any action would come too late for them, as their children’s deaths have now been registered, following the conclusion of the inquiry and inquests.
The Government are committed to ensuring that bereaved people remain at the heart of the inquest process and are able to fully participate in it. It is also important that we uphold the integrity of that process. A death that is reported to the coroner cannot be registered until any inquest has been completed. That is where all the facts, including the personal details of the deceased, are established. The legislation requires the coroner to provide that information directly to the registrar. All death registrations, whoever reports them, are formally completed by the registrar.
May I gently correct one point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff North, who asked why it was only the victims of major incidents who are in this position? It is not: it is anyone whose death is considered by a coroner or an inquest. Coroners and inquests do not just look at these issues; they look at unexplained deaths in a number of other circumstances. We have to be a little bit careful about that.
The reason I mention that point is that the hon. Member made a point about a two-tier approach. We have to be conscious that there would potentially still be a different approach, depending on whether someone was the victim of a major incident, if this approach were adopted, or whether it was another unexplained death, where the coroner would still be the person reporting that to the registrar. I make that point for context, not necessarily with prejudice to what I am about to say.
The Government understand the seriousness of this matter. The Home Office has set out that it is committed to seeing what can be done via non-legislative means. The General Register Office has also offered the families bereaved by the Manchester Arena attack the option of being present at the registration of their loved one’s death. I appreciate that that does not go as far as they would wish and does not resolve the fundamental concerns, or go as far as the new clause would.
My concern, however, is that the new clause would not achieve its objective, because although it disapplies part of the complex framework provided for by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, it does not provide for an alternative new legal mechanism to achieve that objective—it removes the challenge but does not provide a new mechanism. It would also assign to a qualified informant the actual duty of registration itself. That goes well beyond the role of a coroner in an inquest death or of a qualified informant in a non-inquest death. Regardless of the context, the statutory responsibility for registration is, and must remain, the registrar’s alone. We are debating who it is that should give the registrar the information to complete the legal process.
The new clause is explicitly limited to those bereaved by a major incident. The trauma of losing a loved one in that way is unimaginable, but thankfully only a tiny proportion of inquest deaths occur in such circumstances. We would need to reflect carefully on the fact that the change that the new clause seeks to introduce would be unavailable to the vast majority of families whose loved one’s death is subject to an inquest. That is not to gainsay what the hon. Member for Cardiff North is trying to do, but it is important to highlight that there would still be a difference in approach.
Anna McMorrin
I understand the points that the Minister is making about the legal wording, but this is such a deeply rooted issue. He refers to a small number of families, but the impact goes far wider. I wonder whether he could seek to find a form of legal language that would allow the change to take place, or whether we could work together on the new clause to ensure that it takes place, so that the families can register the deaths.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady; I was about to come to this point. A number of issues would need to be considered here, including whether a dual approach would be created for those bereaved whose circumstances are considered by an inquest such that a major incident qualifies for one route and others do not. We would need to reflect on that.
For the reasons that I have set out—drafting and the other factors that I have highlighted—the Government cannot support the new clause, but I am sympathetic to its underlying intent and the issues behind it. I recognise that the issue crosses over Ministry of Justice and Home Office ministerial responsibilities, so I commit to reconsidering, with ministerial colleagues across Government, whether there is more that can be done—and if so, how—with a view to seeing whether progress can be made prior to Report.
I do not want to raise expectations beyond saying that I will reconsider the position on this matter. As the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood said, we have time over the summer to do so and to reflect on the issues with the new clause that I have highlighted. I commit to working with her and the hon. Member for South Shields and having another look at this.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood for tabling new clause 16, which relates to the functions and powers of the independent public advocate. In our view, clause 27 already covers the majority of new clause 16(1) and (2). Subsection (1)(e) refers to the power to establish
“an independent panel to establish the truth of what happened.”
Subsection (5) would require the panel to then register as a data controller.
The new clause, along with many of the amendments that we have debated today, whose intent I entirely understand, would move the focus of the IPA away from a support function and towards more of an investigatory function. In seeking to do that, the right hon. Lady has been dextrous in the drafting of her amendments. As I have set out, it is not something that the Government will support, because our focus is more on the support function, but I suspect that we will return to the matter. I also restate that the Hillsborough Independent Panel, which is what the new clause’s independent panel is modelled on, did not have data-compelling powers.
Subsection (6) stipulates that the families must be involved in deciding the composition of the independent panel. Subsection (7) would require all relevant public authorities and other relevant organisations to provide documentation to the independent panel. Subsection (8) would require advocates to publish a report on their review of the documentation.
Those measures do not clarify the role of the advocate in relation to the panel. If they build a close relationship with the families, would they be considered impartial enough to sit on or even lead an independent panel? I am not prejudging the answer to that question, but I pose it because it highlights some of the challenges around clarifying how this would work. For example, are there any parameters on when an advocate can publish a report? What if the material or timing would potentially prejudice an ongoing investigation or trial? Those are all matters that would require careful consideration to avoid unintended consequences.
On subsection (3), the policy intention is already for advocates to keep victims informed about any investigations, but it is only right that this is done in a manner and at a point that will not prejudice any such investigation.
On subsection (4), the Bill already includes provision on the IPA’s reporting function and duties in clause 29. I note that subsection (4) is duplicated in the right hon. Lady’s amendment 78 to clause 29, so it is perhaps more appropriate if I address it, along with the IPA’s reporting functions as a whole, when we discuss that clause.
In summary, many of the measures in new clause 16 are, in our view, already covered by the Bill. The subsections that refer to an independent panel and data controller powers change the purpose of the IPA. That is a matter for debate between both sides of this Committee, although I suspect it will be between the right hon. Lady and me in the first instance.
Maria Eagle
I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 29, page 21, line 38, leave out from beginning to the first “the” on line 39.
This amendment removes the requirement for the Secretary of State to instruct the Independent Public Advocate to issue a report.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 77, in clause 29, page 21, line 39, leave out “the Secretary of State” and insert “Parliament”.
This amendment ensures that the Independent Public Advocate reports to Parliament.
Amendment 78, in clause 29, page 22, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 and insert—
“(2) The Independent Public Advocate must report to Parliament —
(a) on an annual basis, summarising their work;
(b) at the conclusion of support relating to a particular event; and
(c) at any other time they identify a need so to do;
and the first such report must be laid before Parliament before the end of 2024.”
This amendment ensures that the Independent Public Advocate reports to Parliament rather than the Secretary of State at least annually in respect of each major incident.
Amendment 79, in clause 29, page 22, line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 23.
This amendment ensures that the Independent Public Advocate reports to Parliament rather than the Secretary of State at least annually in respect of each major incident.
Maria Eagle
I am sure hon. Members will be glad to note that this is my last group of amendments on today’s selection list. I do not intend to detain the Committee for too much longer.
Amendments 76 to 79 would ensure that the public advocate reports to Parliament, rather than to the Secretary of State, and that he does so on a regular rather than on an ad hoc basis. There is always a great deal of public interest in the aftermath of disasters, and there are usually MPs who have constituents with a particular interest in getting as much information as possible about what is happening in the months and years following any such disaster. They, and those affected, have an overwhelming interest in getting to the truth and having, as soon as possible, a clear exposition of what has gone wrong.
Clause 29, as currently drafted, requires the advocate to report to the Secretary of State only if he is sent a notice to do so by the Secretary of State. What is in the report is specified by the Secretary of State, although there is an arrangement under clause 29(4) for the advocate to include in his report other matters that he considers relevant. However, although the Secretary of State must publish the report, he must do so only
“as the Secretary of State thinks fit”—
and presumably when he thinks fit. There are also to be redactions for data protection and the catch-all public interest exemption, which means that any report that is published may well have worrying and suspicious omissions or black lines through its text.
I can be very clear with the Committee that publications dealt with in that way—with redactions by the Secretary of State, and published only via the Secretary of State when he gets around to it—will do nothing other than fuel controversy about cover-ups. They are the very antithesis of the kind of reporting and transparency envisaged under the Bill that Lord Wills and I have brought forward. It would inspire more confidence if the public advocate reported on a regular basis to Parliament, so that it was clear that there had been no interference. It would be much better, if at all possible, to ensure there were no redactions.
The Government’s current proposals really will not do the job. I can see any such arrangements being viewed by bereaved families and victims not as something they can rely on and have confidence in, but as yet another part of the state machinery conspiring to keep them from the truth of what has happened to their loved ones, and to protect the state agencies in the line of fire. Whether or not that is true, that is what it will look like to those affected by the disaster.
I urge the Minister to let go of the control freak tendencies that appear to have been prevalent when civil servants were given policy decisions and thereafter gave some instructions to parliamentary counsel. I recognise that he may have inherited them from predecessors or even had them passed down from the predecessor of the current Lord Chancellor, who I hope has more sense than to think of the current drafting as a good idea. I hope he will change the way in which this report-writing clause is legislated for. The Minister cannot go wrong if he arranges for the report—unredacted, please—to be made to Parliament, when there will be significant public interest following any disaster. What could be more transparent than that?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood for her amendments 76 to 79. As they would all amend clause 29, which focuses on the reporting function of the independent public advocate, I will address them together.
Collectively, the amendments would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to instruct the IPA to issue a report; would require the IPA to report to Parliament rather than the Secretary of State, and to do so either periodically or at specified time periods; would remove the Secretary of State’s discretion over how to publish the advocates’ report; and would remove the ability for the Secretary of State to omit material if they consider it to be contrary to the public interest or to contravene data protection legislation.
Before I take each of those points in turn, providing clarity on our intention behind the drafting, I want to reiterate that I fully endorse the underlying principle of transparency and the ability of the IPA to highlight the experience of victims, call out issues and make recommendations that hold public authorities to the proper standard. I wholeheartedly believe in the importance and value of reports produced by those in a position to speak with authority on the experiences of victims, because they are a tool not only for getting to the truth, but for learning and for seeking to avoid the repetition of particular events or experiences. That is clearly illustrated in Bishop James Jones’s report.
I turn to amendment 76. The intention behind clause 29(1) is to provide an oversight role for the Secretary of State whereby reports are issued once requested, so the Secretary of State can ensure that the advocates produce reports only during periods when there are no active criminal investigations into the incident or ongoing inquiry proceedings. If the advocates issued a report during those periods, there is a risk that the content of the report would prejudice or undermine the conclusions of any legal investigatory processes.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I think Parliament has pretty well-defined ways to ensure that things are not discussed in Parliament or called for in Parliament when they could create a problem of sub judice. That exists already, so I suggest that that concern is not a founded one.
Edward Argar
I gently say to the shadow Minister that while those processes exist, they are—as we have seen from admonitions from Mr Speaker—not always adhered to by right hon. and hon. Members, who on occasion are called to order for straying into sub judice matters on the Floor of the House. Although a process exists by which the Speaker can rule and can admonish, it is not universally the case that all right hon. and hon. Members will fully adhere to that without having to be called up by the Speaker. We need a degree of caution with respect to legal proceedings, particularly as we are seeking not only transparency but justice for victims and survivors. I would be very wary of anything that could even potentially prejudice that.
The Secretary of State can ensure that IPA reporting occurs only during appropriate periods in the aftermath of an incident. I reassure the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood that if the advocates wish to produce a report when it has not been requested, they can still contact the secretariat and consult with the Secretary of State. Of course, any such requests will be properly and fully considered. Although I understand and appreciate the desire for advocate agency in the reporting function of the IPA, I believe that the current drafting of subsection (1) will ensure that that is balanced against the need to consider the wider context of any report’s content.
Turning to amendment 77, I reassure hon. Members that under the clause, the Secretary of State must publish any report that they receive from the advocates. It is our intention that those reports be published as swiftly as possible, notwithstanding previous comments. When it is most appropriate for the reports to be laid before Parliament or referred to the relevant Committee, I reassure hon. Members that they will be.
However, as was alluded to just now, there may be instances when it is more appropriate for the report to be published through other means, especially if it is an interim progress report. Having the advocates report to the Secretary of State ensures that discretion can applied in deciding on the most appropriate method, whether that is laying a report before Parliament or publishing it on the IPA or gov.uk website. Again, that depends on the report’s content and nature, and other proceedings. If the report is published on a website, it will be publicly available, and can still be discussed in Parliament in a debate secured by the usual means.
I want to clarify that our clauses do not prohibit reporting at any of the points set out in amendment 78, or indeed sooner, if the Secretary of State makes a request. It is likely that while an incident is active, the Secretary of State will request an annual report from the IPA, and a report after the conclusion of an incident.
Maria Eagle
It sounds to me as though the Minister is accepting the amendment.
Edward Argar
I gently ask the right hon. Lady to let me make a bit more progress. She may not be so confident when I have finished; we will see. As I previously stated, if the advocates wish to report when they have not been requested to, they can raise that with the secretariat, which will then consult the Secretary of State, who will consider any requests carefully. The inclusion of provision giving the Secretary of State discretion allows for the required flexibility when it comes to the frequency of reports.
Jess Phillips
As I rise to my feet, news is emerging that the courts have forced the Government to give in to Lady Hallett on the covid report, and to reveal something that they went to court to try to hide. One can understand concerns about what may get hidden. Also, during this Committee, we have debated an amendment on sex offenders changing their names. There is a Government report on that issue that has never been allowed in public or in front of Parliament. Even Committee members who are seeking to debate it have not seen it. I am sure the Minister understands that the discretion of Government Departments is not something that we—certainly not I or the public—feel we can always rely on.
Edward Argar
I will make a couple of points. First, in my view there needs to be a degree of discretion, as there always has been under Governments of both the hon. Lady’s party and ours. That has generally always been the approach. Secondly, I want to gently clarify a point about what the Paymaster General said. That court case was not about hiding anything; it was about clarifying the lines and the boundaries of the inquiry, what is and is not admissible material, and getting a definitive court judgment, which we now have. I gently correct her point.
Edward Argar
She may take a different view, as of course she is entitled to, as a matter of debate.
Edward Argar
Amendment 79 would remove the Secretary of State’s discretion over how to publish the advocates’ reports.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Minister may recall that during an evidence session, I asked Lord Wills whether he thought it was acceptable that the Bill requires the Secretary of State to publish a copy of the report made by the independent public advocate in whatever manner they considered appropriate. He replied that it was an example of the Bill giving the Secretary of State “too much unfettered discretion”, as one of my hon. Friends has said. Could the Minister respond to that?
Edward Argar
Although I have a huge amount of respect for the noble Lord Wills, I disagree with him on that point, hence the approach that the Government are taking in this legislation. If the hon. Lady allows me to make a little more progress, I might give her a little encouragement—maybe more than a little—in that respect.
I have already set out that where it is most appropriate for the reports to be laid before Parliament or referred to the relevant Committee, they will be. Amendment 79 would also remove the Secretary of State’s ability to omit material from the report that would be contrary to the public interest or contravene data protection legislation. Although I am sympathetic to the intention behind these amendments, I believe that the public interest and data protection legislation are important. The purpose of the public interest test is to ensure that appropriate consideration is given to sensitive information, such as matters that relate to national security. That is consistent with the approach taken in the Inquiries Act 2005, and ensures that there are no unintended negative consequences as a result of disclosing information that could impact national security.
Maria Eagle
I am slightly disappointed by the Minister’s response on what seemed to me a straightforward set of amendments that would simply increase transparency. I heard what he said about further work. I am slightly worried that he is saying that there will not be any reports from the IPA until after every possible kind of legal action has ended. That worries me, because we are then talking years. That will not inspire confidence in families affected by disasters. However, given that the Minister has tried to be constructive, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Anna McMorrin
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 29, page 22, line 15, at end insert—
“(5A) An advocate must provide periodic reports, at least annually, to the Secretary of State, regarding relevant events and occurrences.
(5B) In any case where an advocate is of the opinion that the duty under section [major incidents: duty of candour] has not been discharged, and the matter has not been effectively resolved, a report shall be sent to the Secretary of State as soon as possible.
(5C) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament any reports received under (1) and (2) within 14 days of receipt, and where appropriate, refer the content to relevant Parliamentary committees.”
This amendment would require a public advocate to provide reports to the Secretary of State about relevant events and to report if, in their opinion, public authorities or public servants have not complied with the duty of candour in NC3.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 3—Major incidents: duty of candour—
“(1) In discharging their duties in relation to a major incident, public authorities and public servants and officials must at all times act within their powers—
(a) in the public interest, and
(b) with transparency, candour and frankness.
(2) If a major incident results in a court proceeding, official inquiry or investigation, public authorities and public servants and officials have a duty to assist—
(a) relating to their own activities, or
(b) where their acts or omissions may be relevant.
(3) In discharging the duty under subsection (2), public authorities and public servants and officials shall—
(a) act with proper expedition;
(b) act with transparency, candour and frankness,
(c) act without favour to their own position,
(d) make full disclosure of relevant documents, material and facts,
(e) set out their position on the relevant matters at the outset of the proceedings, inquiry or investigation, and
(f) provide further information and clarification as ordered by a court or inquiry.
(4) In discharging their duty under subsection (2), public authorities and public servants and officials shall have regard to the pleadings, allegations, terms of reference and parameters of the relevant proceedings, inquiry or investigation but shall not be limited by them, in particular where they hold information which might change the ambit of the said proceedings, inquiry or investigation.
(5) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) shall—
(a) be read subject to existing laws relating to privacy, data protection and national security,
(b) apply in a qualified way with respect to private law and non-public functions as set out in subsection (6), and
(c) not be limited by any issue of insurance indemnity.
(6) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) shall be enforceable by application to the relevant court or inquiry chairperson by any person affected by the alleged breach, or the court or inquiry may act of its own motion. Where there are no extant court or inquiry proceedings, the duties may be enforced by judicial review proceedings in the High Court.”
This new clause would require public authorities and public servants and officials to act in the public interest and with transparency, candour and frankness when carrying out their duties in relation to major incidents.
Anna McMorrin
Again, I want to mention INQUEST, Hillsborough Law Now and Justice, the organisations working with me on these provisions. There is an urgent need to introduce a duty of candour for those from across the public services, such as policing, health, social care, and housing, when a major incident occurs. A duty of candour would place a legal requirement on organisations to approach public scrutiny, including inquiries and inquests into state-related deaths, in a candid and transparent manner. The duty would enable public servants and others delivering state services to carry out their role diligently, while also empowering them to flag dangerous practices that risk lives.
Institutional defensiveness has been found to be a pervasive issue in inquests and public inquiries; we heard about that today. It causes additional suffering to bereaved persons, creates undue delay to inquests and inquiries, undermines public trust and confidence in the police, and undermines a fundamental purpose of inquests and inquiries, which is to understand what happened and to prevent recurrence. Establishing a statutory duty of candour when major incidents occur would go some way to addressing those issues.
Justice’s report, “When Things Go Wrong: the response of the justice system”, found that in both inquests and inquiries,
“lack of candour and institutional defensiveness on the part of State and corporate interested persons and core participants are invariably cited as a cause of further suffering and a barrier to accountability”.
In his Government-commissioned report on the experiences of the Hillsborough families, the Right Rev. James Jones concluded that South Yorkshire police’s
“repeated failure to fully and unequivocally accept the findings of independent inquiries and reviews has undoubtedly caused pain to the bereaved families”.
During the evidence sessions, when asked if a duty of candour should be extended to include public servants, the Right Rev. James Jones answered:
“Yes, I think that there should be a duty of candour on all public officials. Anybody who accepts public office should bind themselves according to their own conscience to speak with candour and not to dissemble when called upon to give the truth and an account of what has happened.” ––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 90, Q173.]
Janet Daby
Does my hon. Friend agree that duty of candour is a serious issue? It is so serious that I cannot think of anybody who, during the evidence sessions, did not agree that duty of candour should be extended to include public servants.
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A lack of candour frustrates the fundamental purpose of inquests and inquiries, as we heard in the evidence sessions. Candour is essential if we are to reach the truth and learn from mistakes, so that similar tragedies do not occur in the future.
Public bodies such as the police have consistently approached inquests and inquiries as though they were litigation. They have failed to make admissions, and often failed to fully disclose the extent of their knowledge surrounding fatal events. For example, South Yorkshire police have been repeatedly criticised for their institutional defensiveness in respect of the awful Hillsborough tragedy in 1989. A 1989 briefing to the Prime Minister’s office on the interim Taylor report on the Hillsborough disaster noted that
“senior officers involved sought to duck all responsibility when giving evidence to the Inquiry”.
It went on to say:
“The defensive—and at times close to deceitful—behaviour by the senior officers in South Yorkshire sounds depressingly familiar. Too many senior policemen seem to lack the capacity or character to perceive and admit faults in their organisation.”
A statutory duty of candour would compel co-operation, and so enable major incident inquests and inquiries to fulfil their function of reaching the truth, so that they can make pertinent recommendations that address what went wrong and identify learning for the future.
Failure to make full disclosure and act transparently can lead to lengthy delays as the investigation or inquiry grapples with identifying and resolving the issues in dispute, at a cost to public funds and public safety. A recent example is the Daniel Morgan independent panel, which was refused proper access to HOLMES, the Home Office large major enquiry system, by the Metropolitan Police Service over seven years. The panel needed access to HOLMES to review the investigations of Daniel Morgan’s murder, but the lengthy negotiations on the panel’s access led to major delays to its work. The delays added to the panel’s costs and caused unnecessary distress to Daniel Morgan’s family, and the panel concluded that the MPS was
“determined not to permit access to the HOLMES system”.
A statutory duty of candour would significantly enhance participation in inquiries by bereaved people and survivors, as it would ensure that a public body’s position was clear from the outset, and so limit the possibility of evasiveness. The duty would also direct the investigation to the most important matters at an early stage, which would strengthen the ability of the inquiry or investigation to reach the truth without undue delay. By requiring openness and transparency, a statutory duty of candour would assist in bringing about a culture change in how state bodies approach inquests and inquiries. It would give confidence to members of an organisation who wanted to fully assist proceedings, inquiries and investigations, but who experienced pressure from their colleagues not to do so. It would compel co-operation with proceedings, inquiries and investigations, dismantling the culture of colleague protection—for example, in the police service.
I am sure the Minister is aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has committed a Labour Government to introducing a Hillsborough law. That would place a duty of candour on all public bodies, and those delivering state services, going through inquests or investigations. I am sure the Minister will understand the compelling reason for strengthening the Bill, and will voice his support for the amendment and new clause.
Maria Eagle
I rise very briefly to support my hon. Friend’s amendment. A statutory duty of candour is an essential part of giving confidence to families caught up in public disasters. The Hillsborough law, proposed by the Right Rev. James Jones in his 2017 report to the Government, “The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power”, said as much. It is extraordinary that all these years later, we still do not have a Government response to that report, even though the report was delayed while criminal prosecutions were ongoing. They ended two years ago, and we still have not had the final response from the Government. We were promised it in spring this year. It is now summer. I was promised it by December 2021 in a debate on the Floor of the House, and it has not happened.
I really do not see what is holding up the response. I hope it is not that the Government do not want to implement its findings and points of learning, one of which was that the statutory duty of candour ought to be legislated for. I hope that the Minister can tell us when the response to that report will be published, because spring is long gone. The response is long overdue. The Hillsborough Law Now campaign would be pleased to hear from the Minister on whether the statutory duty of candour, the equality of arms at inquest and the other recommendations of Bishop James Jones will be accepted.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff North for amendment 25 and new clause 3. I reassure her that Parliament will be kept up to date and made aware of any findings of the IPA. It would perhaps be helpful if I explained a little further the intention behind the measures. I addressed the effect of proposed new subsections (5A) and (5C) of amendment 25 when responding to amendments 77 and 78 tabled by the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood. As I said then, the Bill does not prohibit annual reporting, and it is likely that while the IPA is active, an annual report will be requested. Additionally, it is our intention that any reports will be published as soon as possible, and when it is most appropriate to do so, they will be laid before Parliament or referred to the relevant Committee.
Proposed new subsection (5B) in amendment 25 and new clause 3 both relate to the duty of candour. I reiterate to the Committee that I fully understand that at no point is candour and transparency more important than in the aftermath of a major incident. The bereaved families and friends of the victims have an absolute right to understand what happened to their loved ones, and to understand what went wrong so that lessons can be learned. The Hillsborough families were denied that right in the months and years following the awful events of April 1989. Specifically, Lord Justice Taylor commented on the defensiveness and evasiveness of South Yorkshire police, but in truth, the families experienced obfuscation from a wide range of public bodies and agencies. It took decades of campaigning before it was established by fresh inquests that the 97 victims were unlawfully killed. I pay tribute to the Hillsborough families’ strength and tenacity in their prolonged campaign to ensure that other bereaved families do not suffer as they have.
The landscape in relation to duties and obligations on public servants has changed significantly since 1989. Most notably, the Inquiries Act 2005 places legal duties on participants, and there are sanctions for failure to comply. More recently, following the publication of Bishop James Jones’s report on the Hillsborough families’ experiences, the Home Office legislated for a duty of co-operation, which means that all police officers now have an individual responsibility to give appropriate co-operation during investigations, inquiries and formal proceedings, and to participate openly and professionally, in line with the expectations that we have for police officers, when identified as a witness. As I have said, a failure to co-operate is a breach of the statutory standards of professional behaviour by which all officers must abide, and could result in disciplinary sanctions, including dismissal.
We recognise that there is more to be done to ensure that public authorities are clear on the requirements on them in the aftermath of a major disaster. My right hon. and learned Friends the Lord Chancellor and Home Secretary recently met with some of the Hillsborough families to talk to them about the work done to address the failures identified by Bishop Jones, and to talk through the forthcoming Government response to the bishop’s report. That response will set out the Government’s position on the bishop’s points of learning on candour, and on the Hillsborough law and next steps. Ahead of that, it would not be right to impose a duty on advocates to report on the discharge of the duty. I will disappoint the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood, but I cannot give her a date. However, I am reassured by ministerial colleagues that the report and response will be published shortly.
I am happy to return to this topic on Report, once that report and response can be read in the round. The right hon. Lady is always constructive, but I appreciate her disappointment. She would, at the least, like a date. I apologise, but I cannot give her that; I can say that it is due to be published shortly. In the light of that, I encourage the hon. Member for Cardiff North not to press the amendment. I have no doubt that we will return to the issue on Report.
Anna McMorrin
I am disappointed by the response on the amendment, new clause 3 and the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood for a response to the report that was published in 2017—more than six years have gone by since then. I hope that the Minister can guarantee that response before the end of the Committee; that gives him an extra week.
Anna McMorrin
Although I am disappointed, I will not press the amendment to a vote. I hope that we will continue discussion of the importance of the duty of candour, and ensure that it is a core element of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Anna McMorrin
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 29, page 22, line 18, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to omit material in the advocate’s report if they believe it is contrary to the public interest.
I think this is my last amendment; I am grateful to the Committee. The amendment, similarly to my previous amendments, seeks to ensure the independence of the independent public advocate. Again, I give my deep thanks to Ken Sutton, secretary to the Hillsborough Independent Panel, for his continued support and work on these issues. The fact that the independence of the independent public advocate is being debated should be a worry for us all. The clause relates to the reporting process for the advocate. This clause states that the Secretary of State can require the advocate to produce a report on the investigation processes, but that the report can be redacted by the Secretary of State on public interest grounds. The amendment seeks to rectify that.
Yet again, a provision of the Bill is undermining the independence and transparency of the IPA’s role. This is another example of the Government suggesting that they believe in an independent body, but then restricting it in a way that completely contradicts that notion. Redacting the work of the supposedly independent IPA is hopeless. We cannot subject someone’s work to redaction while claiming that they have independence.
Why does the Minister think that the public will trust the Government to redact the IPA’s work in a way that does not serve their own interests? We are going back to the whole question of trust. The responsibility to report to Parliament should, at the very least, encourage a feedback loop that ensures that Government conduct can, through the fact-finding process and in its aftermath, be properly scrutinised by the legislature and, more generally, the public. That will not happen if the clause is left unamended. During our evidence sessions, Lord Wills echoed my concerns and stated:
“As I understand the Government’s proposals, the independent public advocate will not have the right enjoyed by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, for example, to be an independent office that has the right to produce reports on its own initiative.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 22 June 2023; c. 91, Q176.]
The failure to address concerns expressed about the independence of the supposedly independent public advocate demonstrates that lessons are not being learned from Hillsborough. When the next major incident occurs—which, unfortunately, it will—we will be discussing not legal terminology, but human tragedy. I hope the Minister heeds our calls and ensures genuine independence for the independent public advocate.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for the amendment, which would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to omit material in the advocate’s report if they believe it is contrary to the public interest. I am conscious that amendment 23 is similar in nature to amendment 79, to which I spoke earlier. It may be helpful, however, if I briefly revisit why the Government thought it necessary to include in the Bill the ability for the Secretary of State to omit material that, if published, would be contrary to the public interest.
Although I sympathise with the intention behind the amendment, this ability for the Secretary of State is vital for national security and is not novel—parallel provisions were included by the previous Labour Government in the Inquiries Act 2005 for, I would assume, that reason. Removing a Secretary of State’s ability to omit material from the reports that the IPA produces would risk being contrary to the public interest and could contravene data protection legislation. This is a necessary measure to ensure that sensitive materials, such as those relating to national security or an ongoing investigation, are protected.
There is no question but that advocates will have valuable insights and I am committed to ensuring that the IPA can speak freely and that the substance of what they have to say is made public. I want to stress once again that the discretionary powers of the Secretary of State will be used only when and where absolutely necessary. We have an obligation to be transparent, but it is also important for us to keep all our citizens safe and ensure that information is shared responsibly. Clause 29 strikes the right balance in that regard. However, I am, as with previous clauses, always happy to reiterate my commitment to speaking further with hon. Members to get it right on the IPA’s reporting functions, as I know that has been the focus of many amendments reflecting broader concerns.
Anna McMorrin
I am disappointed because I think the amendment would really strengthen the Bill, as would amendment 79 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood. The Government may not support this amendment, but why could they not instead subject the IPA to a protocol of disclosure similar to that of the Hillsborough Independent Panel? Can the Minister respond to that now?
Edward Argar
It would be premature for me to say anything like that at this point. I draw the hon. Lady’s attention, as I said, to this being replicative of the provisions put in place by the last Labour Government in the Inquiries Act 2005. I will reflect on what she says, but I cannot commit to going further than that.
Anna McMorrin
I thank the Minister for agreeing to reflect on the issue. 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.
Edward Argar
Clause 29 allows the Secretary of State to request a report from an advocate while they are supporting victims of a major incident and at the conclusion of that support. The Secretary of State will have the discretion to specify the matters that the report must address and the timeframe within which the report is to be completed. The clause also provides advocates with the ability to include any points or topics that they think are relevant to the incident in respect of which they are appointed.
One of the main objectives of the IPA is to ensure that the voices of victims of a major incident are amplified and heard. An advocate will work with victims from the immediate aftermath of a major incident and help them to navigate the different state processes. A report may be on a specific issue to which attention should be drawn during the investigations, or the Secretary of State may request a report at the conclusion of all proceedings to share the victim experience and identify areas for improvement in future. We have seen the impact that such reports can have—perhaps none more powerful than the bishop’s report on the experience of the Hillsborough families. It is the Government’s intention that such reports may include recommendations, which would be valuable to inform wider public policy on support for victims of major incidents.
Clause 29 further places an obligation on the Secretary of State to publish any reports produced. That ensures transparency and accountability. As is standard, the clause makes clear that certain material related to the public interest and personal data may be omitted. I want to make clear, as I have during debates on previous amendments, that that exception is not designed to suppress uncomfortable truths but to protect important matters of national security or an individual’s personal data, for example. It mirrors provisions in the Inquiries Act 2005. We are committed to the IPA’s operational independence and will carefully consider the content of any reports produced, with the aim of being as transparent as possible.
Anna McMorrin
I simply say that I think the arguments that I set out in my amendments and new clauses still stand. The clause states that the Secretary of State can require the advocate to produce a report on the investigation processes, but that the report can be redacted by the Secretary of State on public interest grounds. Amendment 23 seeks to rectify that, while amendment 25 and new clause 3 seek to ensure the transparency and openness that the Minister speaks about. They would add not only that additional strength to the Bill but, most importantly, that trust.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her comments, and, with that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Information sharing and data protection
Edward Argar
I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 30, page 23, line 1, leave out “a disclosure or” and insert “the”.
This amendment and Amendments 36 and 37 omit references to the disclosure of information. Processing, which here has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018, includes disclosure and other uses of information, so there is no need to refer separately to disclosure.
Edward Argar
This may be my briefest exposition yet. This is the final group of minor and technical amendments here, which we are putting forward to ensure that consistent terminology is used in relation to data protection. The changes are primarily for the purposes of clarifying the provisions and ensuring that they work as intended.
Anna McMorrin
Well, I won’t comment on that, Mr Hosie. I would just like to say, very briefly, that I would like the Minister to provide the assurance that the IPA will be granted the authority to be given all the information that they require relevant to their role, and, further to that, that they will be granted the necessary powers to ensure that none of the relevant information is destroyed. That is essential.
Edward Argar
As we have set out in previous debates on this matter, there are already provisions—around legal proceedings, for example—for the retention and preservation of information. However, we have already debated the powers, or otherwise, of the IPA as a data controller and I have set out, on behalf of the Government, our position on that matter. I appreciate that the Opposition Front Benchers take a different perspective, which of course they are entitled to do, but I believe that we have expounded on that already in the debates on this part of the Bill. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: 36, in clause 30, page 23, line 2, leave out ‘disclosure or’
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 35.
Amendment 37, in clause 30, page 23, line 3, leave out ‘a disclosure or processing’ and insert ‘it’”—(Edward Argar.)
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 35.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
In order to amplify the voices of victims and to signpost them to the right support service, advocates must have the ability to share information with public authorities and victims. Clause 30 creates an information-sharing gateway that gives an advocate the ability to share information. The clause permits them to share information with other advocates, the victims themselves, the Secretary of State, the IPA secretariat and other public authorities.
I want to make it absolutely clear that an advocate will not share personal data received in the exercise of their functions without the consent of the victim. I know that people will be wary about that issue, and I want to make our position crystal clear. Nothing in the clause permits the IPA to contravene existing data protection legislation.
I believe that the clause will allow the IPA to more effectively assist victims to solve problems in real time. The IPA may communicate with public authorities on behalf of victims, and the clause will allow them to share data, where appropriate, and do so effectively. The clause also helps to ensure that victims can access the information to which they are entitled from any investigation, inquest or inquiry.
Finally, the clause allows the Secretary of State to share information, where appropriate, with an advocate. It is envisioned that that will be information shared with the secretariat provided by the Ministry of Justice. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Anna McMorrin
I have already made my points about this issue. I wish to ensure that the IPA is granted the authority to receive all the information they need. I hope the Minister will continue to work with us to get that right.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Guidance for independent public advocates
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clause 31 gives the Secretary of State the power to produce guidance to which an advocate must have regard when exercising their functions. The Secretary of State cannot, however, direct that guidance at any specific advocate or major incident. That is an important safeguard to ensure that, once appointed, the IPA is operationally independent and that the Secretary of State cannot use guidance to limit the role of a particular advocate or in a particular incident. Instead, guidance will help ensure consistency of support across different incidents.
The clause also gives the Secretary of State the power to withdraw or revise the guidance from time to time. That will allow the guidance to be kept up to date, to evolve and to reflect lessons identified and learned from major incidents. We cannot predict what major incidents we may face in the future, nor in what form they might come. Any guidance issued needs to be able to be updated regularly to ensure that the IPA is flexible and can adapt.
Anna McMorrin
I thank the Minister for expanding on the guidance for an independent public advocate. My remaining concern with the clause is the potential for the Secretary of State to use the guidance to restrict the powers and remit of the IPA. Will the Minister assure me that that will not be the case?
Edward Argar
As I have set out, the clause is not designed in any way to restrict the powers of individual advocates, but to set guidance on the way a number of different advocates will conduct their roles in different circumstances to provide that consistency. Given that we are about to conclude part 2, I will take the opportunity to pay tribute to all those who have campaigned hard on these matters from both parties, but most importantly to those families of victims and the survivors of these horrific events.
I am pleased that we are making progress on this matter, and I will continue to work with the Opposition and particularly the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood over the coming months to see whether we can close any gaps. We are all determined to do our best to get the issue right, so I put on the record my gratitude to all those people and my officials, who have been working on this for some time. It is not an easy area of law to work in, and it is also a traumatic area to work in given the circumstances, which they and others will have read about. I put on the record my gratitude to them, the right hon. Lady, the families, the survivors and all those who have campaigned.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I echo the Minister’s comments, particularly those referring to his officials and the traumatic incidents that have been involved. As I stated when we were taking evidence, I was at the University of Sheffield at the time of the Hillsborough disaster. A friend of mine died in that disaster, and another was seriously injured. I have chosen today on repeated occasions not to intervene, but I thank the Minister, the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood and the shadow Front Benchers for their tone and co-operation, which will be a comfort to anybody who has been involved in any way.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Given his personal experience and connection, this will not have been easy for him, and I am grateful for not only his words, but his service on the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Public protection decisions: life prisoners
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 96, in clause 32, page 24, line 25, at end insert—
“(fa) the nature and seriousness of any conduct by the prisoner which—
(i) is alleged,
(ii) is as yet unproven,
(iii) has not resulted in a conviction,
which may have implications for the risk posed by the prisoner.”
Ellie Reeves
This victims Bill is long-awaited. Although it is good to finally be on my feet, I should say that part 3 is a distraction to debating the real and serious issue of victims. Many of us share the view that it should never have made its way into the Bill.
Amendment 96 seeks to broaden the list of things that the Parole Board must take into account when making a release decision. I want to set the context by saying a few words about the new release test. No one wants to see dangerous criminals released from prison, and the release of John Worboys, Colin Pitchfork and Tracey Connelly rightly led to public outrage. Setting the test out in legislation and introducing a new threshold may help to give greater transparency and consistency. However, it is not clear whether it will make a difference to how the Parole Board already operates. In evidence to this Committee, the Parole Board chief executive stated that it currently assesses risk
“as to whether the prisoner’s continued detention remains necessary for the protection of the public. That means that public protection is always paramount in our decision making.”
He went on to say that
“what is on the face of the Bill, in reality, gives effect to what the Parole Board already says in its guidance that we should take into account. We think that the legislation should make no significant changes to our practice.”—[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 51, Q100.]
My concern is that setting out in legislation the list of factors that the Parole Board has to take into account could lead to the process becoming a tick-box exercise. Clauses 32 and 33 set out matters—such as the nature and seriousness of the offence and the risk of the prisoner failing to comply with their licence conditions on release or committing further offences—that the Parole Board rightly takes into account when making a public protection decision. Although the list is non-exhaustive, there is a risk that factors that are not on the list but that may be important in a particular case do not get the consideration that they deserve. That could lead to poorer decision making, leaving the public less safe, and that leads me to my amendment.
I am deeply concerned that the draft list of criteria does not include alleged but unproven offences. Let us take Worboys, for example. His release on parole in 2018 rightly caused outrage. He was originally charged with attacking 14 women and faced 23 charges, including rape, sexual assault and administering a substance with intent. He was convicted of 19 offences in 2009. In December 2019, he was handed two additional life sentences for attacks on four more women, as it was revealed that he had confessed to targeting 90 victims. The failings of the police in this case are widely acknowledged, but on his release in 2018, the dossier from the Ministry of Justice did not emphasise the other allegations against him. Therefore the panel did not consider the alleged offences that he had not been charged with but, on the balance of probabilities, he had committed. In 2019, the Parole Board guidance was changed so that alleged but unproven allegations could be taken into account.
Litigation on this point followed, in the case of Pearce. Mr Pearce was sentenced after three offences of sexual assault. After serving his minimum sentence, the Parole Board refused to direct his release and instead directed his transfer to open conditions. In accordance with the new guidance on allegations, the board, when assessing his risk, took into account multiple unproven allegations about other alleged sexual assaults carried out by Mr Pearce against women and girls. Although the Court of Appeal found that the decision in respect of Mr Pearce was lawful, it held that parts of the board’s guidance were unlawful, as in its view only proven allegations could fairly be taken into account in the risk assessment.
The Parole Board appealed to the Supreme Court, which concluded in April this year that the Parole Board’s guidance on the unproven allegations against a prisoner is lawful. Therefore, alleged but unproven offences may be taken into account in release decisions where the Parole Board decides that they are relevant to the question of a prisoner’s risk to the public.
Although that is a step forward for victims and public safety, the Government’s failure to include alleged but unproven allegations on the statutory list is a huge step backwards. That was the key lesson from the Worboys case, so the omission is startling. It risks not only diluting the list’s importance, but the exclusion by panels of such allegations from their decision making. If that happens, decision making will be of a worse quality, and that will put the public at greater risk. That is why these amendments are so important, and I urge the Government to support them.
Edward Argar
I welcome the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge not only to her seat but to her feet, to take on part 3 of the Bill. In answer to her opening comments, the reason that part 3 is included is that when we talk to victims, there are two key points at which they raise concerns and anxieties. The first is the initial stage, from the arrest to the charge, the court process and—hopefully—the conviction and sentencing of the perpetrator. The second, which has been raised with me, the Lord Chancellor and others, is when a perpetrator is coming up for release or parole. That is the thread that links part 1 and part 3 of the Bill.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her amendment, which would explicitly add unproven allegations to the list of matters that the Parole Board must take into account when deciding whether it is safe for a prisoner to be released. I appreciate the point that she made about specific cases; I am a Leicestershire MP, and the impact and trauma of Colin Pitchfork’s deeds are still very much there among communities, not just in the immediate area where it took place but across my constituency, because people remember them with horror. In this context, “unproven allegations” refers to allegations that the prisoner has committed offences in addition to those of which they were convicted. Those could be, for example, complaints recorded by the police or misconduct in prison.
I agree with the hon. Lady that unproven allegations are an important factor in risk assessment. I reassure her that they are already given the consideration they require by parole panels and that the Parole Board has specific guidance for its members on the matter. Members of the Committee may be aware that the Supreme Court recently handed down its judgment in the case of Pearce, to which the hon. Lady referred. The case considered the board’s guidance on unproven allegations, and the Court held that the Parole Board can have regard, where appropriate, to any unproven allegations regarding a prisoner and is free to give them due consideration as part of that release decision even where that material has not been established as a fact. The Parole Board has since updated its guidance in the light of the judgment and continues to consider unproven allegations in its decisions.
Given the potential importance of unproven allegations, we considered adding them to the list of mandatory criteria. However, this is a technical area of law and we fear that the amendment would potentially go further than the Pearce judgment, which would risk including baseless allegations that lack credibility and going beyond the parameters set by the Supreme Court judgment. In our view, the position agreed by the Supreme Court is clear and has been carefully considered. We are content that the developed jurisprudence gives sufficient clarity for the board to fairly consider allegations of this kind as it makes decisions.
Clauses 32 and 33 both contain a list of factors that the Parole Board must take into account when making a public protection decision about a prisoner. The list is explicitly not exhaustive. The list includes the conduct of the prisoner while serving their sentence as well as the risk that the prisoner would commit a further offence if no longer confined. In our view, unproven allegations already fall within the scope of these mandatory considerations. Members of the Parole Board are experts in the field and will consider all relevant and available information in line with the guidance regardless. On the basis that unproven allegations already fall within the wording and scope of both these mandatory considerations, that unproven allegations are therefore already an important part of the decision-making process, and that clear guidelines have been handed down by the Supreme Court, we consider the amendment unnecessary.
Ellie Reeves
I thank the Minister for those comments. I note his point about the drafting of the amendment perhaps going further than the judgment in Pearce. Given the importance of getting this right, might we look at a way that alleged but unproven allegations could be incorporated into the list between now and Report?
Edward Argar
In the nicest way, I would not wish to leave the hon. Lady out of the multiple conversations that I am likely to have over the summer with her right hon. and hon. Friends about different aspects of the Bill. I hope that it has come across in Committee that I am always happy to work constructively with the Opposition on this. We may not always reach the same conclusion or end up in the same place, but I am always happy to have those conversations with the hon. Lady.
Ellie Reeves
I am grateful for those assurances about working together on this. 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:
Clause 33 stand part.
That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clause 32 will amend chapter II of part II of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, which relates to the release of prisoners serving life sentences. Clause 33 will amend chapter 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which relates to the release of prisoners serving determinate sentences. When a life sentence prisoner reaches the end of their minimum term or tariff—that is, the minimum period set by the independent courts that an offender must spend in custody—they will be referred to the Parole Board. The Parole Board will apply the release test set out in legislation: whether it is
“no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined”.
The board’s sole consideration in that decision is public protection.
Jess Phillips
In the accounting of whether there is a risk, is there anything that would ensure that, for example, evidence is taken by the Parole Board from the family courts? There is a problem in that the family courts do not speak to the criminal courts—it happens all the time. A finding that somebody had committed rape could be found in the family court but not in the criminal court. I worry; for example, with children’s services—if there were children involved, would that be taken into account by the Parole Board? I do not think it is in any way a fair to say that an assessment of the risks posed—of any minimal threat to anyone, when we are considering domestic and sexual violence—could only come from the police, because so few women come forward.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the point she makes, and I understand that she is getting at how widely one draws out what is relevant and useful information pertinent to decision making. I appreciate the point she makes about some factors not currently being explicitly taken into consideration under the provision. On that specific point of law, I hope she will allow me either to write to her or revert to her before the Committee concludes.
With subsection (5)(c), the requirement is then to consider the prisoner’s behaviour, even in prison or on licence, while serving the sentence. The decision maker must review the available evidence—for example, from probation officers—as to whether the prisoner has complied with all the demands made of them. There is a link to subsection (5)(f), which considers the impact of any rehabilitative interventions, such as therapeutic treatment or engagement in education, and their effectiveness in reducing the prisoner’s risk to the public.
I have already mentioned subsection (5)(d). Subsection (5)(e) covers the assessment the decision maker must make in respect of what licence conditions might be imposed if the prisoner is suitable for release, and what the likelihood of the prisoner complying with them is. Subsection (5)(g) requires the decision maker to take account of any submission made on behalf of the prisoner as to their suitability for release. An account must also be taken of any submission from the Secretary of State, which may include their view on the risks posed by the prisoner.
As we have discussed at length, it is vital that we put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system. For that crucial reason, subsection (6) says that when assessing the level of risk that the prisoner may pose to the public in general
“the decision-maker must in particular have regard to the protection of any victim of the prisoner.”
In that context, my interpretation of the requirement on the board to take all relevant evidence into account—as I said, I will write to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley if I have misinterpreted this—is that if relevant material is held by another authority, it can still be obtained on behalf of the Secretary of State and considered. I hope that she will allow me to confirm that to her in writing.
The criteria set out in subsections (5) and (6) are comprehensive and undoubtedly assist the decision maker in assessing risk; however, it is not an exhaustive list of criteria. That is confirmed by subsection (9), which clarifies that the decision maker is not limited in the matters to be taken into account when assessing a prisoner’s risk. The Government consider it necessary to be transparent and clear when it comes to making very important public protection decisions that have significant consequences for the public, victims and prisoners. The high threshold for release and the criteria by which risk is assessed must therefore be there for everyone to see and understand. We are satisfied that the clause codifies the release test used by the Parole Board, and the board advises that it could be a welcome clarification for it of the factors that its members already take into consideration.
Ellie Reeves
I thank the Minister for setting out the clauses comprehensively. They are broadly welcome, in that they introduce a new public threshold in legislation. Although putting the release test in legislation and introducing the new threshold may help to give greater transparency and consistency, there remains a question mark about whether it is necessary. The Chair of the Justice Committee observed on Second Reading that
“there is an element in this part of the Bill of trying to solve a problem that does not exist and therefore a risk of over-engineering the system, which we might not need…There is nothing wrong with changing it, and perhaps nothing wrong with expanding it, but are we sure that we are getting this right?”—[Official Report, 15 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 602-603.]
Although it was helpful to hear from the Minister today some of the thinking behind the clauses, I notes that the Justice Committee wrote to the Lord Chancellor stating that the changes could have a positive effect on consistency and transparency of Parole Board decision making, but also outlined that the changes are not strictly necessary. Again, there is a question mark about whether parliamentary time could be better spent focusing on victims rather than some of these changes.
Let me return to the concerns I raised previously about the non-exhaustive list of factors for the Parole Board to take into account. There is a risk that the Parole Board may end up giving more weight to those things that are on the list rather than to other factors that may be relevant. I have already spoken about alleged but unproven allegations. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley gave the example of findings that might be made in the family court, particularly in relation to rape and domestic abuse. My worry is that an unintended consequence of specifying a list of things that have to be taken into account might be a failure to take into account issues that are also extremely relevant to risk. Although we broadly we support the clauses, we think those points need a little further reflection.
Edward Argar
I am always conscious that the hon. Lady is an extremely able lawyer, so I listen carefully to everything she says and will reflect carefully on her points. I am also conscious that both Lewisham East and Lewisham West are represented on this Committee; Lewisham is well represented. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 34
Amendment of power to change test for release on licence of certain prisoners
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause is an amendment to an existing power in section 128 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. The power allows the Secretary of State to be responsive to the risk posed by certain cohorts of offenders by allowing changes to the release test applied by the Parole Board by secondary legislation. For example, if the release test was found to no longer be suitable for assessing the risk posed by a particular cohort, the power would allow the Secretary of State to swiftly rectify that by amending the release test to safeguard protection.
The clause simply amends the pre-existing power to ensure it remains operable with the introduction of the Bill. First, it brings the new release test in clauses 32 and 33, which we have just discussed, into this power, so that the Secretary of State can amend it if necessary. Secondly, it ensures that the power also works with the new ministerial second check introduced in the Bill, which we will debate in due course. In the event that the Secretary of State decides to call in a case to remake a decision, he or she will apply the same release test as the Parole Board. Likewise, if a prisoner decides to appeal a decision made by the Secretary of State to the upper tribunal, they will also apply the same release test.
The power is used to change the release test applied by the Parole Board. The release tests applied subsequently by the Secretary of State and the upper tribunal must also be changed, which this clause facilitates. The clause is not new policy, but simply ensures that the pre-existing legislation continues to operate consistently and effectively. I commend it to the Committee.
Ellie Reeves
We welcome clause 34, which will allow future changes in the release test to be made by affirmative statutory instrument. The Worboys case demonstrated inadequacies with Parole Board processes, and changes were needed that until then had not been anticipated. It strikes me that in future we may find that changes are needed in ways that we cannot foresee today, but there must be scrutiny of any changes, so I am pleased that the Government have recognised this is a matter for which an affirmative as opposed to a negative statutory instrument is required. We welcome this measured approach.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her support and for her words. I hope clause 34 can stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Fay Jones.)
Victims and Prisoners Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Tuesday 11th July 2023
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 July 2023 - (11 Jul 2023)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted during sittings of this Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk or passed their written speaking notes to the Hansard colleague in the room. It is very hot, so people are welcome to remove their jackets if they so wish.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 93, in clause 35, page 32, line 9, at end insert—
“(aa) manslaughter;”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 92, in clause 35, page 32, line 22, at end insert—
“(fa) an offence under section 6 of that Act (assault of a child under 13 by penetration);
(fb) an offence under section 8 of that Act (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity);
(fc) an offence under section 47 of that Act (paying for sexual services of a child) against a person aged under 16;”
Amendment 91, in clause 35, page 32, line 25, at end insert—
“(ha) an offence under section 19 of that Act (sexual assault on a young child by penetration);
(hb) an offence under section 20 of that Act (sexual assault on a young child);
(hc) an offence under section 21 of that Act (causing a young child to participate in a sexual activity);”
Amendment 94, in clause 35, page 32, line 29, at end insert—
“(ja) an offence under Article 13 of that Order (assault of a child under 13 by penetration);
(jb) an offence under Article 15 of that Order (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity);”
Amendment 95, in clause 36, page 34, line 40, at end insert—
“(aa) manslaughter;”
Amendment 97, in clause 36, page 35, line 10, at end insert—
“(ea) an offence under sections 6 to 51 of that Act;”
Amendment 119, in clause 36, page 35, line 12, at end insert—
“(ga) an offence under sections 2 to 11 of that Act against a mentally disordered person, as defined by section 17 of that Act;
(gb) an offence under Part 4 or Part 5 of that Act;”
Amendment 98, in clause 36, page 35, line 17, at end insert—
“(ia) an offence under Part 3 or Part 4 of that Order;”
New clause 22—Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal: life prisoners—
‘After section 32ZA of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 insert—
“Referral of release decisions to Court of Appeal
327ZAA Referral of release decisions to Court of Appeal
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a prisoner is serving a life sentence imposed in respect of an offence specified or described in section 32ZAB (the “relevant sentence”),
(b) the Parole Board is required to make a public protection decision about the prisoner under section 28(6)(b) or 32(5A), and
(c) the public protection decision relates to the relevant sentence.
(2) Where the Parole Board has made a decision in a case to which this section applies—
(a) the Secretary of State may refer the decision to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or
(b) a victim may apply to the Secretary of State to request that the prisoner’s case be referred to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal.
(3) Within [30 days] of an application being made under paragraph (2)(b), the Secretary of State must—
(a) exercise the power under subsection (2)(a) and refer the prisoner’s case to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or
(b) provide to the victim a written statement explaining why they have decided not to exercise that power.
(4) This section applies in relation to a prisoner whose sentence was imposed before, as well as after, this section comes into force.
(5) But nothing in this section affects the duty of the Secretary of State to release a prisoner whose release has been directed by the Parole Board before this section comes into force.
(6) In this section, “public protection decision” has the meaning given by section 28ZA(2).
327ZAB Offences for purposes of Court of Appeal referral
(1) The offences specified or described in this section (for the purposes of section 32ZAA) are—
(a) murder;
(b) manslaughter;
(c) an offence under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime 10 and Victims Act 2004, where a child has died as a result of the prisoner’s unlawful act;
(d) an offence specified in any of paragraphs 41 to 43 of Schedule 18 to the Sentencing Code (specified terrorism offences other than inchoate offences);
(e) an offence that is not an inchoate offence and was determined to have a terrorist connection, within the meaning given by section 247A(7A) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;
(f) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape);
(g) an offence under section 5 of that Act (rape of a child under 13);
(h) an offence under section 6 of that Act (assault of a child under 13 by penetration);
(i) an offence under section 8 of that Act (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity);
(j) an offence under section 47 of that Act (paying for sexual services of a child) against a person aged under 16;
(k) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 (asp 9) (rape);
(l) an offence under section 18 of that Act (rape of a young child);
(m) an offence under section 19 of that Act (sexual assault on a young child by penetration);
(n) an offence under section 20 of that Act (sexual assault on a young child);
(o) an offence under section 21 of that Act (causing a young child to participate in a sexual activity);
(p) an offence under Article 5 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1769 (N.I. 2)) (rape);
(q) an offence under Article 12 of that Order (rape of a child under 13);
(r) an offence under Article 13 of that Order (assault of a child under 13 by penetration);
(s) an offence under Article 15 of that Order (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity);
(t) an offence that—
(i) is abolished, and
(ii) would have constituted an offence referred to in paragraphs (a) to (s) if committed on or after the date on which it was abolished.
(2) A sentence in respect of a service offence is to be treated for the 35 purposes of section 32ZAA as if it were a sentence in respect of the corresponding offence.
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) “service offence” means an offence under—
(i) section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006,
(ii) section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, or
(iii) section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957;
(b) “corresponding offence” means—
(i) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales within the meaning of that section;
(ii) in relation to an offence under section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, the corresponding civil offence within the meaning of that Act;
(iii) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, the civil offence within the meaning of that section.
327ZAC Powers of the Court of Appeal
(1) On a referral of a prisoner’s case under section 32ZAA, the Court of Appeal may—
(a) direct the Secretary of State to release the prisoner on licence as soon as is reasonably practicable in all the circumstances including, in particular, the need to make arrangements in connection with any conditions that are to be included in the licence, or
(b) decide that the prisoner should remain confined and direct the Secretary of State accordingly.
(2) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must have regard to whether there is no more than a minimal risk that, were the prisoner no longer confined, the prisoner would commit a further offence the commission of which would cause serious harm.
(2A) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must consider—
(a) any statement made by the Parole Board as to the reasons for its decision,
(b) the evidence considered by the Parole Board in reaching its decision,
(c) any representations made to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State, by a victim, or on behalf of the prisoner,
(d) any transcript made of a Parole Board hearing in respect of the case.
(3) No judge shall sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of a reference under this section in respect of a sentence they passed.”’
New clause 23—Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal: fixed-term prisoners—
‘(1) After section 256AZB of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 insert—
“Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal
256AZBA Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a prisoner is serving a fixed-term sentence imposed in respect of an offence specified or described in section 256AZBB (the “relevant sentence”),
(b) the Board is required to make a public protection decision about the prisoner under a relevant provision of this Chapter, and
(c) the public protection decision relates to the relevant sentence.
(2) Where the Parole Board has made a decision in a case to which this section applies—
(a) the Secretary of State may refer the decision to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or
(b) a victim may apply to the Secretary of State to request that the prisoner’s case be referred to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal.
(3) Within [30 days] of an application being made under paragraph (2)(b), the Secretary of State must—
(a) exercise the power under subsection (2)(a) and refer the prisoner’s case to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or
(b) provide to the victim a written statement explaining why they have decided not to exercise that power.
(4) This section applies in relation to a prisoner whose sentence was imposed before, as well as after, this section comes into force.
(5) But nothing in this section affects the duty of the Secretary of State to release a prisoner whose release has been directed by the Parole Board before this section comes into force.
(6) In this section—
“corresponding power of direction” , in relation to a relevant provision, is the power of the Board to direct the Secretary of State to release the prisoner, for the purposes of which the public protection decision is made (see section 237B);
“public protection decision” has the meaning given by section 237A(2);
“relevant provision” has the meaning given by section 237B.
256AZBB Offences for the purpose of Court of Appeal referral
(1) The offences specified or described in this section (for the purposes of section 256AZBA) are—
(a) manslaughter;
(b) an offence under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, where a child has died as a result of the prisoner’s unlawful act;
(c) an offence specified in any of paragraphs 41 to 43 of Schedule 18 to the Sentencing Code (specified terrorism offences other than inchoate offences);
(d) an offence that is not an inchoate offence and was determined to have a terrorist connection, within the meaning given by section 247A(7A);
(e) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape);
(f) an offence under section 5 of that Act (rape of a child under 13);
(g) an offence under sections 6 to 51 of that Act;
(h) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 (asp 9) (rape);
(i) an offence under section 18 of that Act (rape of a young child);
(j) an offence under sections 2 to 11 of that Act against a mentally disordered person, as defined by section 17 of that Act;
(k) an offence under Part 4 or Part 5 of that Act;
(l) an offence under Article 5 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1769 (N.I. 2)) (rape);
(m) an offence under Article 12 of that Order (rape of a child under 13);
(n) an offence under Part 3 or Part 4 of that Order;
(p) an offence that—
(i) is abolished, and
(ii) would have constituted an offence referred to in paragraphs (a) to (o) if committed on or after the date on which it was abolished.
(2) A sentence in respect of a service offence is to be treated for the purposes of section 256AZBA as if it were a sentence in respect of the corresponding offence.
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) “service offence” means an offence under—
(i) section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006,
(ii) section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, or
(iii) section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957;
(b) “corresponding offence” means—
(i) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales within the meaning of that section;
(ii) in relation to an offence under section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, the corresponding civil offence within the meaning of that Act;
(iii) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, the civil offence within the meaning of that section.
256AZBC Powers of the Court of Appeal
(1) On a referral of a prisoner’s case under section 256AZBA, the Court of Appeal may—
(a) direct the Secretary of State to release the prisoner on licence as soon as is reasonably practicable in all the circumstances including, in particular, the need to make arrangements in connection with any conditions that are to be included in the licence, or
(b) decide that the prisoner should remain confined and direct the Secretary of State accordingly.
(2) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must have regard to whether there is no more than a minimal risk that, were the prisoner no longer confined, the prisoner would commit a further offence the commission of which would cause serious harm.
(3) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must consider—
(a) any statement made by the Parole Board as to the reasons for its decision,
(b) the evidence considered by the Parole Board in reaching its decision,
(c) any representations made to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State, by a victim, or on behalf of the prisoner,
(d) any transcript made of a Parole Board hearing in respect of the case.
(4) No judge shall sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of a reference under this section in respect of a sentence they passed.”’
Ellie Reeves
I want to say from the outset that part 3 of the Bill had no pre-legislative scrutiny and there was a lack of consultation with the Parole Board. What that really shows, as I understand it, is that this policy was driven by the previous Justice Secretary. The current Justice Secretary is very reasonable; I hope that, along with his colleagues, he will look at these measures again and be open to our proposals.
The decisions to release John Worboys, Colin Pitchfork and Tracey Connelly rightly caused public outrage and undermined confidence in the Parole Board, but the proposals in clauses 35 and 36 are not the right approach. I will set out why new clauses 22 and 23 are so important. They both seek to give victims more of a voice and provide a mechanism for a check on Parole Board decisions, but they do so in a way that would give victims confidence. They would not undermine the separation of powers or the independence of the Parole Board, nor would they lead to the politicisation of Parole Board decisions.
Clauses 35 and 36 effectively give the Secretary of State a veto over a release decision on top tier prisoners. Our new clauses would give the Secretary of State a power to appeal a Parole Board decision to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal; give victims the power to refer their case to the Secretary of State to make an application on their behalf to the Court of Appeal; and expand the top tier cases in scope so that more victims could benefit. Likewise, the amendments would also expand the top tier.
The new clauses are far preferable to the current measures in the Bill, for the following reasons. First, the Parole Board acts as a quasi-judicial, independent and impartial body. Giving the Secretary of State the veto on its decisions would undermine that, and fundamentally change the application of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers between the judiciary and the Executive.
Nobody wants dangerous criminals to be released, but allowing a politician power over a release decision will leave them vulnerable to public or party opinion, which can run counter to the actual risk of reoffending. That could lead to decisions being made because they are politically or publicly expedient, not because they are properly considered or based on a fair assessment of risk. As the former Conservative Prime Minister Sir John Major recently stated in his lecture to the Prison Reform Trust,
“I do not see how (or why) the Justice Secretary would be able to reach a more just decision than the Parole Board. Any single Government Minister—however able or well-meaning—would be far more vulnerable to public campaigns and, under pressure, to make a harsher decision to appease them. This is a very slippery slope. I do not think that any politician should have that power, and I hope the new Justice Secretary will reconsider or—if he does not—that Parliament will deny it.”
He is absolutely right. That is why new clauses 22 and 23 seek to give power not to the Justice Secretary, but to the Court of Appeal, which will not bow to political pressure. That would maintain the separation of powers.
Clauses 35 and 36 are also likely to be incredibly costly. The Ministry of Justice’s impact assessment assumes that 20% of top tier Parole Board decisions to release will be vetoed, suggesting that about 150 people a year will not be released. The central estimate outlines that that will require an additional 640 prison places to be built, at a cost of £238.3 million and an annual running cost of £28.7 million. In total, the central estimate puts that policy at just shy of £0.5 billion. It is disappointing that in a Bill that is supposed to be about victims, the only money that can be found is for prisoners.
Furthermore, as the Justice Committee outlined in its letter to the Justice Secretary after its evidence session, the only way it could see the Justice Secretary being able to make release decisions to the same standard as the Parole Board would be, in effect, to create a shadow Parole Board in the Ministry of Justice. How much resource and focus would that take?
New clauses 22 and 23 are likely to be far more cost-effective. They would not need the creation of a shadow Parole Board to ensure that the Secretary of State could make decisions effectively; the Court of Appeal is already expert in such work. Allowing an appeal mechanism to the criminal division is likely to be much less expensive than creating a complex veto process, which is full of legal risk for the Government.
In addition, clauses 35 and 36 do not give a mechanism for a victim to challenge release decisions; they only give the right to the prisoner and the Secretary of State. New clauses 22 and 23 would give victims, who are supposed to be at the heart of the Bill, more rights by allowing them to ask the Secretary of State to put in an appeal against Parole Board decisions. In effect, that would mirror the unduly lenient sentence scheme and, if a referral were not possible, those victims would be given reasons why. Their rights would also be increased by the new clauses through the expansion of the top tier of cases. The other amendments in this group would do the same.
Under the Government proposals, only murder, rape, causing the death of a child, and serious terror offences are in the top tier for which a referral can be made. New clauses 22 and 23 and our amendments would expand the top tier to include sexual offences against children that fall short of rape. Most people would agree that all sexual offences against children should be treated with the utmost seriousness, and their exclusion from the list of top tier cases risks diminishing that. Under our new clauses and amendments, the top tier would also include manslaughter. That is particularly important, because many men who kill their partners or ex-partners are convicted of manslaughter and not of murder.
I turn to the impact of clauses 35 and 36 on victims. The independent Victims’ Commissioner for London, Claire Waxman, outlined in her written evidence to this Committee that she believed the clauses would compound victims’ trauma and suffering. In oral evidence, she said of victims:
“Putting these measures in gives them a false sense of hope. We are telling them that there is a chance that the Justice Secretary can veto the Parole Board decision and that the prisoners will not be released.
What will actually happen in reality is that, yes, the Justice Secretary might veto, but that prisoner will then have legal aid to appeal the decision. They will appeal every decision, pulling the bereaved families into even more distress and trauma.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 30, Q68.]
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as giving false hope, the measures would extend the length of time it takes to get the decisions made, therefore extending the agony that people feel while not knowing what a decision will end up being?
Ellie Reeves
That is absolutely right. Not only do the measures give a false hope, but they will cause a huge amount of delay in the system before those primary decisions are ever arrived at. That is incredibly detrimental to victims.
The Ministry of Justice’s impact assessment supports the view of the London Victims’ Commissioner. Its estimates suggest that 75 cases a year will, after a lengthy process, result in the Secretary of State’s decision being overturned and the prisoner released. That does not suggest that clauses 35 and 36 will give victims more confidence in the justice system. In fact, the opposite is likely. As the solicitor Andrew Sperling outlined in his evidence to the Justice Committee, that is because the reforms would create a three-tier system of Parole Board, Secretary of State and upper tribunal. He said:
“What you have here is a system being set up that says that there needs to be a three-tier system, and that the Parole Board should not be capable of making decisions in the most serious cases.”
As the Law Society outlined in its written evidence, delays could have the result that
“fewer prisoners serving fixed sentences will be released on licence, instead being released automatically when their sentences end”.
That would create a public safety concern, as prisoners would return to the community without probation supervision, which would be concerning for victims and at odds with what the Bill is supposed to be about, as well as putting the public at risk. New clauses 22 and 23 would prevent those issues from arising, as they would create a more truncated route to a final release decision. Under our proposals, the Court of Appeal would make the final decision, rather than the Secretary of State, with the prisoner then having the right to appeal.
It is worth noting that in 2019 a reconsideration mechanism was introduced that allows parties to a Parole Board case to challenge a release decision. As Martin Jones, the Parole Board chief executive, outlined in an evidence session of the Justice Committee on the Bill, since the mechanism was introduced the Secretary of State has made 50 applications of reconsideration. Mr Jones said that
“in the last four years, the Secretary of State has been concerned about 50 of our decisions, of which, following reconsideration by a judge of the Parole Board, 12 have subsequently been set aside and then reheard.”
He went on to tell the Select Committee that, under the new proposals,
“20% of top-tier decisions may subsequently be set aside by the Secretary of State. That is in stark contrast to the fact that over the last four years, they have sought reconsideration for only 50 decisions. I am not sure how you jump from doing 12 a year to seeking to set aside hundreds of our decisions each year.”
I am aware that the Justice Secretary recently used the mechanism to request a reconsideration of the decision to release Colin Pitchfork, which I welcome, but new clauses 35 and 36 will seemingly make the mechanism irrelevant. New clauses 22 and 23 would complement the mechanism and provide another important check on Parole Board decisions by the Court of Appeal.
Finally, the Prison Reform Trust and a number of other stakeholders outlined in their written evidence that clauses 35 and 36 could lead to poorer, less transparent decision-making. We do not know what criteria the Justice Secretary will follow in exercising the new power. We do not know whether it will be exercised directly by the Secretary of State or under authority delegated to an official. If a prisoner released without the Secretary of State exercising their veto goes on to commit a serious further offence, we do not know whether the Secretary of State or their officials will be subject to the serious further offence review process or held accountable for any errors.
That brings us back to the point made by nearly every stakeholder providing evidence on part 3: why is the Secretary of State better placed to make a release decision than the Parole Board, which has heard the evidence and whose job it is to do this professionally? The reforms will risk poorer decision-making. At the moment the buck stops with the Parole Board, but, if it knew that the final decision rested with the Secretary of State, that could drive down parole decisions, conversely leaving the public less safe. As Caroline Corby, the chair of the Parole Board, stated when she gave evidence to the Justice Committee, the clauses
“could have an unintended consequence of making it more difficult for us to recruit judicial members,”
as the role could be seen as downgraded. That could risk the board losing such valuable expertise. Our new clauses would ameliorate those issues.
For all those reasons, I strongly urge the Government to look at their proposals again. They have attracted widespread concern and will undermine the separation of powers, risk the politicisation of police decisions and cost vast sums to implement. They could cause victims more harm and leave the public less safe. New clauses 22 and 23 would give the Secretary of State the power to appeal against a Parole Board decision in cases where they think that the decision is wrong, ensuring that another check is in place. Victims would also be empowered to ask the Secretary of State to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The amendments and new clauses would expand the top tier of cases, increasing victims’ rights and ensuring that some of the worst crimes are treated with the seriousness that they deserve. I hope that the Government will consider that carefully, and look again at their proposals.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship on a Bill Committee once again, Mrs Murray. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her amendments, which would add sexual offences against a child, sexual offences against those with mental disorders and manslaughter to the list of offences to which the ministerial decision-making power would apply.
To remind the Committee, the ministerial decision power in clauses 35 and 36 imposes a new safeguard—a check and balance—on the release of the most serious offenders in the top tier. It will allow the Secretary of State to intervene on behalf of the public and take a second look at the release decision. I recognise, as I am sure Members on both sides do, that all crimes are serious, especially to their victims, and the top tier in the Bill is not an exhaustive list of serious crimes. Sexual offences committed against children and those with mental disorders cause long-lasting harm to their victims. Those who commit manslaughter have caused immeasurable grief to their victims’ families. The impact of these offences cannot be understated, and the entire parole system needs to be robust in protecting the public from those who commit such grave offences.
The Parole Board does its difficult job well and has a very good track record of assessing risk. Over 99% of offenders directed for release do not go on to commit a serious further offence. It is clear that in the overwhelming majority of cases the Parole Board gets it right. However, the root and branch review of the parole system, published in March 2022, found that a small number of cases have demonstrated the need for an additional safeguard. Some offenders present a heightened risk to the public due to the nature of their crimes, and their release should be approached with even greater caution. They are murderers, rapists, the most serious terrorists and those who have caused or allowed the death of a child.
The top tier cohort has been carefully chosen to capture these offences, and we do not think it is proportionate to widen the cohort of offenders to which the power applies beyond these four offence types. These are the cases that the root and branch review deemed to carry the greatest risk to the public, and they are the cases that most greatly affect public confidence in the justice system.
New clauses 22 and 23 would seek to replace the ministerial decision-making power with a new power to allow the Secretary of State to instead refer a case directly to the Court of Appeal for review, which would determine whether the prisoner was safe to release. The new clause introduces a statutory right for victims in the referral process, expands the offences included in the top tier, and removes the power for the Parole Board to be able to refer cases directly without making a decision. I will come on to these changes in turn, but let me first say that the principle behind the new powers in the Bill is that the most serious offenders should be subject to additional scrutiny before they are released, in order to reinforce our focus on public protection and bolster public confidence. While I recognise our differences in approach, I believe there is a degree of agreement across both sides on that underlying principle.
I turn to the principal difference in the new clause. Let me begin by explaining the different approaches. Clauses 35 and 36 would allow the Secretary of State to call in a top tier case to retake a release decision, with an onward route of appeal to the upper tribunal. We will come on to this route of appeal and its destination in later clauses. The new clause would instead provide a new power for the Secretary of State to refer a top tier case directly to the Court of Appeal, instead of making a decision themselves.
On the principle of whether it is right that Ministers themselves should directly take decisions, I believe that the public rightly expect a role for Ministers when it comes to the release of the most serious offenders. Keeping the public safe is the Government’s first duty, and it is not unreasonable for Ministers to act as an additional safeguard—as a check and balance in the system. That is why the approach in the Bill is for Ministers to apply the additional safeguard themselves, with an onward route of appeal.
The new clause would introduce a new statutory role for victims in the referral process, by creating a power for them to apply to the Secretary of State to request that the prisoner’s case is referred to the Court of Appeal. Within 30 days, the Secretary of State would be required to either refer the case to the Court of Appeal or provide a written statement explaining to the victim why they have decided not to exercise that power. I understand the concern that victims often feel about the potential release of an offender, and as we implement the reforms in the Bill we will ensure that they are able to make their voices heard as part of the process.
Let me give an example of how we already do this in our existing processes. Under the pre-existing reconsideration mechanism, victims are able to submit a request to the Secretary of State asking them to apply to the Parole Board for a decision to be reconsidered. HM Prison and Probation Service will respond on behalf of the Secretary of State to each victim to confirm whether an application for reconsideration has or has not been made, with an explanation of why. This is an operational process, rather than one set out in primary legislation. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for highlighting the need to ensure that we build the right processes and support for victims into whatever new ministerial or other decision-making model is in place, but I do not consider it necessary to set that out in primary legislation.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I wonder whether, potentially before Report, the breakdown of the number of killings of women in their homes deemed to be manslaughter, rather than murder, could be provided to the Committee. Is there an impact assessment that we could see on the disproportionate use of manslaughter charges in cases such as domestic homicide?
I am afraid to say there are lots of problems with the way that we tier crimes. For example, if a person murders someone in their own home, the starting tariff is 15 years; if a person murders somebody with a knife they have taken out of the house, the starting tariff in our country is 25 years. At the moment, 70% of women who are killed are killed in their homes. With this Bill, we should not be creating another two-tier system in which the killing of women simply is not as important.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I do not think anyone is suggesting what she suggested in her final sentence. She is right to highlight the tariff difference, which is reflective of something that Parliament decided it wished to do, recognising that it would create a disparity in the tariffs, in the light of the Kinsella murder. Parliament was cognisant of that. Whether that should be looked at is a perfectly reasonable point. In that context, I pay tribute—as I know the hon. Lady would—to the Goulds and Deveys for the campaign they are undertaking on the issue, and to the Killed Women campaign more broadly. Wherever this lands, they are provoking an important public debate on this very important issue and the disparity between whether a knife is taken to the scene of a crime in a public place or is already there.
I will be cautious on the hon. Lady’s specific question about the statistics, because I do not know whether that level of granularity is available, but I will take that away and look. If the data is recorded in a way that answers her question and is publicly available, I will be happy to share it with her.
Finally, the new clause would remove the discretionary referral power, which would allow the Parole Board to send a case directly to the Secretary of State without taking a first-instance decision or, in this instance, directly to the Court of Appeal. The intention behind this route of referral is to allow the Parole Board to refer a case where, for whatever reason, it is unable adequately to make an assessment of risk and so cannot make a robust decision. I recognise that the Justice Committee, as referred to by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge, has also raised concerns about this route of referral, and we are carefully considering the issues raised and the broader point of the Justice Committee in its very swift—for which we are grateful, and I know the Lord Chancellor is grateful—one-off inquiry into part 3 of the Bill.
In subsequent debates, I will outline what we believe is the most appropriate route of referral and why we do not believe that the Court of Appeal is the right route. We believe that that remains the upper tribunal, but that is addressed specifically in subsequent amendments and clauses. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her amendments and new clauses, but I am afraid that at this stage we must resist them.
Ellie Reeves
I am particularly disappointed that the Minister does not seem amenable to expanding the top tier, particularly to include those serving sentences for manslaughter. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley set out very clearly why that is so important. As I said in my speech, so many men who kill their partners or ex-partners are in prison for manslaughter rather than murder, and it sends completely the wrong signal.
I am disappointed that the Government are not minded to accept our amendments. I will not push them or the new clauses to a vote, but I hope that the Minister and the Justice Secretary will reflect on the points we have made as the Bill progresses. I beg to ask leave the withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clause 35 reflects the views of the root-and-branch review by amending the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 to create a top tier cohort of indeterminate-sentenced offenders who have committed some of the most serious crimes and whose release from prison will be subject to additional safeguards. In the same way, clause 36 amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to create a top tier cohort of fixed-term offenders. As the clause applies to offenders serving determinate sentences, murder is not included in the list of offences for referral, as life sentences are mandatory in all murder cases in any event. The top tier therefore consists of offenders serving sentences for murder, rape, certain terrorism offences, or causing or allowing the death of a child—again, as I have alluded to, this reflects the root-and-branch review’s approach.
The clauses contain a new power for the Secretary of State for Justice to intervene in the release of the most serious offenders, providing for a second check by taking or retaking release decisions. Once a prisoner has been referred to the Parole Board to decide whether they are safe to be released, there are two routes by which such decisions may come before the Secretary of State. First, the clauses contain a provision that will allow the members of the Parole Board to refer a top tier release decision to the Secretary of State, instead of making a decision themselves. They can do so for any reason that they consider appropriate, including if, for whatever reason, they are unable to adequately assess risk in a particular case. The Secretary of State would then make a decision about release for that offender. We expect that this power will be used in very rare cases only.
Jess Phillips
I welcome the fact that the Minister thinks the power will be used only in very rare cases. When assessing the risk, what will the Secretary of State have that the Parole Board does not have? Is the Secretary of State imbibed with some great risk-assessment power that the Parole Board and all the people on it are not?
Edward Argar
The Secretary of State will have information from the Parole Board and the Parole Board’s view but, ultimately, we believe it is right that the Secretary of State is accountable to the public in such cases. We therefore believe that that is the appropriate route by which someone who is accountable, and to whom I suspect the public would look in the most serious cases, can ensure public protection where the Parole Board feels that it is unable to do so.
Jess Phillips
I will not trouble the Committee too much longer. I am not sure that a public mandate allows me, as somebody elected by the people, to be somebody with expertise in risk management. I am, but that is nothing to do with the mandate that I got from the good people of Birmingham, Yardley. What I am trying to get at is that few people in this place have done more than the Secretary of State for Justice to remind people about the separation of powers between the judiciary and Parliament. Few people are greater advocates of that than our current Lord Chancellor, and I wonder why we are now leaning on a public mandate to assess risk, rather than on what we have always done before.
Edward Argar
The shadow Minister says “what we have always done before”, but the powers and the approach—the so-called separation of powers—are relatively new, and I believe came in under the last Labour Government. If I recall correctly, the Home Secretary under previous Conservative Governments in the ’80s and ’90s had a number of the relevant powers. I take her point, but it is not how this has always been done; it is a relatively new innovation—that is not to say it is a bad one, but I would exercise a degree of caution about whether it is from time immemorial. We have the principle of a separation of powers, of course, but in this space, historically, there has always been a lack of clear delineation—for want of a better expression—in such matters.
Clauses 35 and 36 also allow the Secretary of State to call in a top tier case if the Parole Board has directed release. Around 1,900 top tier cases come before the Parole Board each year and, on average, the board directs release for about 650 of those offenders. In any top tier cases in which release has been directed, the Secretary of State may decide to call in the case and, by doing so, quash the decision of the Parole Board. The Secretary of State will then retake the decision as to whether that offender should be released. If a case is not called in, the decision of the Parole Board stands and the Secretary of State is required to give effect to that release decision as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances.
For either of the two routes, the Secretary of State will make a decision about whether the offender is safe to be released by applying the full release test, as set out in clauses 32 and 33, based on all the evidence and advice before them. If the Secretary of State decides that the offender should remain in prison, they must notify the prisoner of the reasoning behind their decision and of the prisoner’s right to appeal. We will turn to that right of appeal in the debates on later clauses.
The new power provides an additional safeguard to the release of the most serious offenders, an issue that particularly affects public confidence in the parole process. Victims are often anxious about whether a prisoner who caused them harm is released, out of concern not only for themselves and their families but for the wider public. Allowing the Secretary of State to apply an additional check and balance to such decisions will help to ensure that those who present the highest risk to the public remain in prison.
The board will continue to risk assess offenders in the same way that it does now, independently of the Government, and will continue to make the final decision about release for most parole-eligible offenders. The board does that difficult job well in the vast majority of cases. However, in the few cases where it is necessary, clauses 35 and 36 will allow the Secretary of State to intervene to provide additional scrutiny to release decisions and to further bolster public confidence in the system.
Ellie Reeves
When discussing new clauses 22 and 23, I spoke at length about why I do not think that clauses 35 and 36 are the right approach. I will not repeat those concerns; they are on the record already. I will simply add to them by quoting from the speech of the former Conservative Prime Minister Sir John Major to the Prison Reform Trust:
“In the thousands of decisions to be made each year, there is no way that Ministers could possibly match the experience and knowledge of the 350 Parole Board members.”
I listened to what the Minister had to say but I am not reassured. He talked about the Secretary of State providing a check. Under our proposals for an appeal to the Court of Appeal, there would be referrals, so there would still be a role for the Secretary of State, but the referral would be to the Court of Appeal, which we think is a far more sensible and proportionate response. I hope that the Minister has listened to the concerns expressed right across the political spectrum and that he will reflect on them as the Bill makes progress.
Edward Argar
I am grateful, as ever, to the shadow Minister for her tone and approach. I do not want her to feel left out as we have already debated parts 1 and 2—I am always happy to work with her, too, over the course of the summer. She is very welcome, along with the hon. Member for Rotherham, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood and other shadow Ministers, to meet me over the summer, along with the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who is the policy Minister for this part of the Bill. I commend clauses 35 and 36 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 35 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Procedure on referral of release decisions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Before I start, I should make a correction: I think I just inadvertently took away membership of the Privy Council from the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood. I restore it swiftly, with an apology.
Clause 37 will insert a new section into the Criminal Justice Act 2003, setting out what the Secretary of State must consider as part of their decision making on referral of a case from the Parole Board to them, and allowing the Secretary of State to take any evidence necessary for decision making.
Section 239 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 sets out the requirements of the board in considering an offender’s case, including that it must consider all documents put before it by the Secretary of State, as well as any other evidence obtained, and that, if it deems it necessary to make the decision, it can interview the prisoner. Clause 37 would ensure that the same procedural requirements are replicated for the Secretary of State, including that he or she must consider all the evidence that was before the Parole Board in reaching a decision. The Secretary of State may also make their own findings of fact as appropriate.
The clause also provides for the Secretary of State to make rules on the procedure to be followed by the Secretary of State when making release decisions, akin to the Parole Board rules, which are made in secondary legislation and govern the proceedings of the Parole Board. That means that, post the commencement of the legislation, there will be a robust and clear legislative procedure in place for the exercise of the Secretary of State’s power to provide an additional check on the release decisions of the most serious offenders.
Ellie Reeves
Clause 37 will allow the Secretary of State to make their own findings of fact, without being bound by previous findings of the Parole Board. The clause also sets out what evidence the Secretary of State must consider in reaching their decision. I have already set out at some length, when speaking on proposed new clauses 22 and 23, why I consider the Secretary of State to be the wrong person to make parole decisions. I will not repeat those concerns, as they are already on the record.
It is clear that under clause 37 the Justice Secretary, unlike the Parole Board, will not have had the benefit of interviewing the prisoner before making a decision about their parole. They could authorise someone to conduct an interview on their behalf, but are not compelled to do so. It is difficult to see how, when the Parole Board has interviewed the prisoner, often for many hours, the Secretary of State, who has not interviewed them, would be in a better position to make an assessment of risk, as the Chair of the Justice Committee made clear on Second Reading:
“I do not think the Secretary of State would normally feel happy acting on hearsay in such circumstances, because at the end of the day it is second-hand evidence and he would have to substitute his judgment for that of those who had heard first-hand evidence.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 603.]
That further brings into question whether the Secretary of State is the right person to make parole decisions. I hope the Minister will reflect on that as the Bill progresses.
Edward Argar
I always reflect very carefully on all points made to me by the shadow Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 38
Appeal to Upper Tribunal of decisions on referral: life prisoners
Ellie Reeves
I beg to move amendment 99, in clause 38, page 37, line 18, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 100, in clause 38, page 37, line 31, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.
Amendment 101, in clause 38, page 37, line 36, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.
Amendment 102, in clause 38, page 37, line 37, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.
Amendment 103, in clause 38, page 38, line 4, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.
Amendment 104, in clause 38, page 38, line 8, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.
Amendment 105, in clause 38, page 38, line 14, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.
Amendment 106, in clause 39, page 38, line 26, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.
Amendment 107, in clause 39, page 38, line 39, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.
Amendment 108, in clause 39, page 39, line 4, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.
Amendment 109, in clause 39, page 39, line 5, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.
Amendment 110, in clause 39, page 39, line 10, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.
Amendment 111, in clause 39, page 39, line 14, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.
Amendment 112, in clause 39, page 39, line 20, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.
Amendment 113, in clause 40, page 39, line 36, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.
Amendment 114, in clause 40, page 39, line 39, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.
Amendment 115, in clause 41, page 40, line 8, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.
Amendment 116, in clause 41, page 40, line 9, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.
Amendment 117, in clause 41, page 40, line 12, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “criminal division of the Court of Appeal”.
Ellie Reeves
I have already explained at length why clauses 35 and 36 do not set out the right approach. The Government may be determined to push forward with them, but I am concerned that the upper tribunal may not be the correct forum to hear an appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to deny parole. The amendments seek to change the approach, so that any appeal would be to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal.
Unlike criminal courts or the Parole Board, the upper tribunal has no experience of assessing the risk of harm to the public. It is not a fact-finding body; rather, it is there to deal with points of law. Therefore it is unclear why the Government believe that the upper tribunal would be best placed to make such assessments. A more appropriate mechanism for dealing with appeals against decisions by the Secretary of State would be via the Court of Appeal. That view is shared by many.
In evidence to the Justice Committee, his honour Peter Rook KC, a former Old Bailey judge and current vice chair of the Parole Board, outlined that, given the likely need for the calling of evidence from witnesses, any appeal should go to the Court of Appeal criminal division. That is because, unlike the upper tribunal, the Court of Appeal criminal division has experience of such matters.
The Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), made a powerful contribution on Second Reading. He made the point that an appeal can be made on judicial review grounds, which requires a permission stage, or on the merits, which does not require permission. As a result, it is likely that any prisoner who appeals the Secretary of State’s decision will do so on the merits. That will then effectively require a rehearing, which the upper tribunal would be ill equipped to deal with.
A letter from the Justice Committee to the Lord Chancellor stated:
“While there is no doubt that it is right that the final decision on release should lie with an independent court or tribunal, the proposed appeal mechanism in the Bill is flawed. We can see that there could be a case for a merits-based appeal mechanism from the Parole Board, but in our view that should be to the Court of Appeal criminal division rather than to the Upper Tribunal.”
The letter goes on:
“It was pointed out to us that the appeal, particularly on merits, will logically have to be by way of a re-hearing and may frequently involve taking oral evidence. The Upper Tribunal has no experience in or procedures for dealing with this, whereas the Court of Appeal criminal division does.”
I hope that the Government will reflect on that, and reconsider whether the upper tribunal is the appropriate forum for any appeal, or whether the criminal division of the Court of Appeal would be better suited.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her amendment, which would change the appellate chamber for appeals of any Secretary of State decision to refuse release to the Court of Appeal, rather than the upper tribunal. I know that the Justice Committee has also heard evidence that suggests that the Court of Appeal might be the appropriate venue for referral appeals. The hon. Lady and I may disagree on the underlying point about the role of the Secretary of State, but in looking specifically at which is the most appropriate appellate route, the Government feel, for specific procedural and legal reasons, that the Court of Appeal is the wrong route. It may help the Committee if I set out the Government’s position on that point.
The appeals in question will be where the Secretary of State has called in a Parole Board decision to release a top tier offender, or the board has referred a case to the Secretary of State for an initial release decision. I appreciate that other amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge propose the direct referral of a decision by the Parole Board, but the principle is the same in either case: a judicial body with the correct powers and expertise, whether that is the upper tribunal or the Court of Appeal, would ultimately be required to assess the decision. Top tier offenders, as we have already debated, are those who have committed the most serious crimes, such as murder and rape, so it is only right that there is a second check on any decision to release them.
The Government’s view is that the public will be further reassured if that check is made by the Secretary of State or another Minister acting on their behalf. Although I say “check”, it will, of course, be much a more thorough review than that term might imply. The procedure set out in part 3 for verifying whether an offender is suitable for release will require the Secretary of State to apply the public protection test in full and to reach a decision as to whether the offender, if released, would pose
“no more than a minimal risk”
of committing an offence that would cause “serious harm.” That test is the very same release test that will be applied by the Parole Board, which is set out in clauses 32 and 33, which we considered on Thursday.
Even though the Secretary of State and the Parole Board will have applied the same test, there may be occasions when the Secretary of State reaches a different conclusion from the Parole Board and judges, such that a top tier offender has not satisfied the threshold for release and should therefore remain in prison. In such cases, part 3 enables the offender to appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision not to release them. It is right that an appeal should be possible. The ability to challenge a decision is a crucial mechanism and safeguard in our justice system, and it provides a route for ensuring that decisions have been taken correctly and fairly.
The grounds on which an appeal may be brought forward are laid out in clauses 38 and 39. They are straightforward and comprehensive. An appeal may be made either on the grounds that the Secretary of State’s decision is flawed in some way—for example, it is irrational or there has been an error of fact—or it may be made on a merits ground, that is, on the grounds that the prisoner believes they meet the minimal risk threshold for release. The
“no more than a minimal risk”
ground will require the appellate court, whether that be the upper tribunal or the Court of Appeal, to apply the public protection test to determine whether the prisoner is safe to release. That may involve a fresh hearing of the case, if the upper tribunal considers it necessary, and may require the taking of oral evidence.
The amendments require us to consider which appellate court is best placed to fulfil these functions and hear appeals. The Court of Appeal is a statutory body that has its powers set out in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. It primarily considers appeals from the Crown court against conviction or sentence. Section 2 of the 1968 Act explains that the court may allow an appeal against conviction if it thinks the conviction is unsafe; otherwise it has to dismiss the appeal. It also has powers under section 3 of the 1968 Act to substitute a conviction for another offence.
In determining these issues, and other matters under the 1968 Act, the Court of Appeal does not need to give any consideration to whether a prisoner is safe to release, nor does it conduct re-hearings on the facts. If the Court of Appeal were to be the venue to hear appeals from a decision of the Secretary of State not to release, substantive amendments would have to be made to the 1968 Act and training would have to be given to the Lords Justices of Appeal. Taking on this additional work could have a detrimental effect on the timescale in which the court can hear appeals from those who consider that they have been wrongly convicted and who are serving prison sentences as a result.
On the other hand, the upper tribunal has wide-ranging powers already extant under section 25 of the Tribunal, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, facilitated by the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, which gives it the same powers as the High Court in terms of attendance, examination of witnesses, production and inspection of documents, and broad scope to conduct and administer hearings. The tribunal has experience in hearing oral evidence and in making decisions in the light of such evidence. For example, it takes oral evidence in appeals against decisions of the Disclosure and Barring Service, and occasionally may also do so to remake a decision after setting aside a decision of the first tier tribunal.
We therefore conclude that, on balance, the upper tribunal is best placed, in terms of the existing legislative powers, to hear appeals against the new ministerial decision-making power, and the Court of Appeal does not appear to be as suitable a venue in this context. I appreciate that the shadow Minister may form a different view, but I think this is a balanced judgment and I would urge her not to press her amendments.
Ellie Reeves
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out why he considers the upper tribunal to be the correct forum. Although I have heard what he has said, we do still have concerns about the appropriateness of the upper tribunal to hear these cases, particularly because most of the appeals are likely to be on substantive grounds. However, we do not propose to press the amendments to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
We have already discussed clauses 35 and 36, which create a new power for the Secretary of State to intervene in release decisions for the most serious offenders. It is only right that if the Secretary of State refuses release, there is recourse to an independent review. Clauses 38 and 39 therefore set out that a prisoner whose release is refused by the Secretary of State under the new provisions can appeal the decision to the upper tribunal. Clause 38 covers life prisoners and clause 39 is for fixed-term prisoners.
There are two routes of appeal available. First, appeals can be made on the grounds that the decision was flawed because it was illegal, irrational, procedurally improper or the Secretary of State made an error of fact that was fundamental to the decision they reached. Subsection (4) clarifies that a decision should not be found to be irrational by the upper tribunal unless it deems that no reasonable Secretary of State could have made that decision. In such cases, permission must be sought from the upper tribunal for the appeal to proceed. If the appeal is upheld, the matter is referred back to the Secretary of State for another decision, in line with other public law decision-making processes; otherwise, the Secretary of State’s decision is upheld and the prisoner remains confined.
Secondly, an appeal is also available on full-merits grounds—that is, whether it is necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner remain confined. That would allow the tribunal to examine the evidence and re-take the release decision from first principles by applying the same release test, without referring the case back to the Secretary of State. There is no permission stage for this route of appeal. Ongoing post-tariff detention requires determination of lawfulness by a court, in accordance with article 5(4) of the European convention on human rights. The appeal process will ensure that the referral process is robust and there is a proper check and balance on the use of the Secretary of State’s power.
I urge that clauses 38 and 39 stand part of the Bill.
Ellie Reeves
I have set out at length why I do not think that the Secretary of State’s veto is the right approach, but if the Government press ahead with this aspect of the Bill, it is of course absolutely right that there is an appeal mechanism. It is also right that it should be possible to appeal on judicial review grounds or on the substantive merits. As I have said, I anticipate that most appeals will be on the merits, as that will not require a permission stage.
Edward Argar
As I have said, I am always happy to take into account and reflect on—as I know the Lord Chancellor will—the points raised by the shadow Minister. I know that, as well as my rereading the transcripts of our many hours spent in this room, the Lord Chancellor will want to read them carefully to see the points raised by the shadow Minister, so that he may reflect on those points as he considers next steps as the Bill continues its progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Licence conditions of life prisoners released following referral
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clause 40 amends section 31 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 to make provision for the decision maker to decide on the required licence conditions for a top tier indeterminate prisoner. Clause 41 amends section 250 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for the same purpose for top tier fixed-term prisoners.
Offenders who are released after a parole decision are managed in the community on licence. That can include conditions such as curfews or exclusion zones, which enable the probation service to continually manage and monitor risk. Licence conditions are set for each offender after a comprehensive assessment of risk. Victims can also request licence conditions, such as an exclusion zone, as part of their victim personal statement.
Setting licence conditions is a key factor in determining whether an offender can safely be managed in the community, and therefore whether the public protection test has been met. The decision maker therefore has the power to set licence conditions. Where the Parole Board makes a release decision, it is responsible for setting licence conditions, on the basis of the recommendations and evidence set before it, including representations from victims. For a top tier case, if a Secretary of State is taking a decision about whether an offender is safe to be released under the provisions in clauses 35 and 36, this clause gives the Secretary of State the necessary power to set the licence conditions in the same way as the Parole Board would, based on the recommendations and evidence before them.
Likewise, if that decision is appealed, these clauses give the upper tribunal this power, so that it can effectively make a public protection decision. Licence conditions may be varied after an offender leaves prison to reflect changing circumstances and risk, and these clauses also facilitate the proper authority having responsibility for this. These clauses ensure that decision makers can protect the public by setting appropriate licence conditions, so that offenders are released only when they can be safely managed in the community. I urge that clauses 40 and 41 stand part of the Bill.
Ellie Reeves
I have already set out why we do not think that the Secretary of State referral is the right approach. These clauses kick in if the Secretary of State orders a release following a referral, or if the upper tribunal orders a release following a refusal by the Secretary of State. I am concerned as to the appropriateness of either the Secretary of State or the upper tribunal setting licence conditions, given the lack of experience that either one has in doing so. Setting licence conditions is a key part of the Parole Board’s responsibilities; licence conditions are crucial to public safety and confidence. It is a matter that, aided by recommendations from the probation service, the board devotes a great deal of time and thought to. It is difficult to see how the Secretary of State will be able to give individual cases the same level of scrutiny as experienced Parole Board panels. Equally, the upper tribunal has no experience of undertaking this kind of work, nor is it clear whether it has the resources to do so effectively.
That also raises the question of how the Secretary of State will be resourced to perform this role, as making informed decisions about what licence conditions are needed is a complex and highly important task. For example, some licence conditions are standard, but others are made at the discretion of the Parole Board. These discretionary conditions will often be closely related to the board’s assessment of the prisoner’s relationship with his probation officer. In practice, they set requirements for the probation officer as well as the prisoner. The risk is that this process will make it impossible for the Secretary of State to give individual cases the same scrutiny as the Parole Board panel. In reality, therefore, they will be heavily dependent on the probation service’s advice on licence conditions. The danger is that an overstretched probation officer may wish to avoid requirements that are too onerous in themselves or, where they have a good relationship with the prisoner, may recommend licence conditions that are insufficiently cautious.
My concern with these clauses is that important licence terms could be missed, which could lead to the public’s being made less safe. I am also concerned by the written evidence from the Prison Reform Trust about the Bill, in which it outlines that, currently,
“victims can make representations to the Parole Board on the content of licence conditions which the board must have regard to.”
There appears to be no mechanism for that to happen under these clauses, which is a regressive step for a Bill that is meant to be about victims.
I hope that as the Bill progresses the Minister will look at these concerns and outline how the Secretary of State will be resourced to do a task that is normally a matter for experienced Parole Board members, how they will ensure that this does not weaken victims’ current rights, and how the public will be kept safe.
Edward Argar
I am happy to reassure the shadow Minister that as the Bill continues its passage we will continue to review how each of those duties would work in practice, and if any of the points that she raises give us further cause for reflection, we will of course consider them carefully.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998: life prisoners
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clauses 42 to 44 will disapply section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 from prisoner release legislation. Specifically, clause 42 disapplies section 3 from chapter 2 of part 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, which governs life sentences; clause 43 disapplies it from chapter 6 of part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which covers fixed-term sentences; and clause 44 disapplies it from section 128 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which contains a power to amend release for certain cohorts of offenders by secondary legislation.
Let me begin by saying that I and the Government acknowledge that these clauses may have caused some concern and a degree of debate. I entirely understand that and will listen carefully to any points raised by right hon. and hon. Members in our debate and will subsequently, with the Lord Chancellor, reflect on them very carefully. It may, however, be helpful if I first explain the purpose of section 3 of the Human Rights Act and its potential impact on prisoner release legislation.
Section 3 requires primary and subordinate legislation to be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the European convention on human rights, in so far as it is possible to do so. When a court considers section 3, it is required to go further than usual when interpreting legislation that is otherwise incompatible with the convention rights. At times, this has required courts to depart from the unambiguous meaning of legislation. It has required courts to adopt interpretations of legislation that depart from the intention of Parliament when it passed that legislation.
The requirement in section 3 is not only for courts; anyone, including public authorities, applying legislation has a duty under section 3 to interpret it in a compatible way. It is therefore possible that, at some future point, a court interprets release legislation in a way that is contrary to that which Parliament intended. To prevent any such unintended consequences, we are removing the duty in respect of prisoner release legislation. That will ensure that, should the courts find the provisions incompatible, they will apply the section as it was intended to be applied, and not through the prism of section 3 to alter the interpretation. That is part of our approach to ensure that public protection is always at the core of the system. In such cases, declarations of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act will be available.
Clause 45 sets out the approach a court should take if a challenge has been raised on human rights grounds regarding the release of a prisoner. That situation could arise, for example, due to a judicial review, and in that situation the court is required to consider the convention rights of a person in relation to a release decision. The relevant release legislation is the same as for clauses 42 and 43, in chapter 2 of part 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 or chapter 6 of part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and subordinate legislation made under both of those chapters.
Clause 45 sets out that, when considering a challenge of that kind, the court must give the greatest possible weight to the importance of reducing risk to the public from the offender. That requirement does not apply to the non-derogable rights set out in article 2, on the right to life; article 3, on the prohibition of torture; article 4(1), on the prohibition of slavery; and article 7, on no punishment without law.
Of course, courts already consider risk to the public. However, the Bill ensures it is given greatest possible weight in the circumstances under consideration, further reinforcing the focus on public protection. I reiterate what I said at the outset, which is that the Secretary of State and I will continue to carefully reflect on points made in Committee and will more broadly review the impact that this section, and others, will have in the context of the legislative framework.
Ellie Reeves
It is worth mentioning that the Government’s Bill of Rights, which sought to rip up our Human Rights Act, has thankfully been dropped. A vast amount of parliamentary time and, I am sure, Government bandwidth was taken wrestling with that Bill, until the decision to scrap it was rightly made. My concern is that the clauses may be another way for the former Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), to dilute our human rights framework through the backdoor.
Section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires courts to interpret legislation compatibly with rights under the European convention on human rights as far as is possible. The clauses would disapply section 3 to prisoners as a group when it comes to legislation about their release. A number of groups have rightly raised concerns about that. The Prison Reform Trust said:
“The introduction of specific carve-outs from human rights for people given custodial sentences contradicts one of the fundamental principles underlying human rights—their universality and application to each and every person on the simple basis of their being human. Moreover, it is precisely in custodial institutions like prisons that human rights protections are most vital, because individuals are under the control of the state.”
In its written evidence to the Committee, the Bar Council stated:
“There is no evidence of any systemic impairment due to the HRA of the Parole Board’s ability to make high-quality, safe, decisions about prisoners—no statistical analysis of recidivism/public safety concerns from prisoners released due to interpretation of legislation in line with Convention principles.”
In his speech on Second Reading, the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said:
“Whatever one’s view of the Human Rights Act, there is no evidence that this is a problem in such cases. In fact, the evidence we heard from practitioners, from both sides, is that it can be helpful to have to have regard to section 3 in these hearings. These clauses seem to be trying to solve a problem that does not exist, and I wonder whether we really need them. It is perfectly possible to have a robust system that still complies with section 3. This is a needless distraction that sends the wrong signal about a certain desire to pick unnecessary fights, which I know is not the current Secretary of State’s approach.”—[Official Report, 15 May 2023; Vol. 732, c. 604.]
I think that sums it up really well.
Clause 45 directs courts to give the greatest possible weight to the importance of reducing risk to the public when a question arises as to whether a person’s rights under the ECHR have been breached in relation to a release decision. The Law Society’s written evidence states:
“It is not clear what the ‘greatest possible weight’ will mean in practice and will require interpretation by judges. We are concerned that this will lead to an increase in litigation challenging this new standard.”
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her words and for the approach she is taking. She knows that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is, quite rightly, fiercely attached to and a strong defender of the rule of law. My right hon. and learned Friend always seeks to adopt a measured tone, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for adopting a measured tone in return.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 43 to 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Parole Board rules
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clause is the first of two covering the Parole Board, and it will enable two changes to be made to the Parole Board rules, which are in secondary legislation. Let me begin with subsection (2), which is concerned with amending the power in section 239(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The power allows the Secretary of State to make rules via secondary legislation about the Parole Board’s proceedings. At the moment, the provision permits rules to be made about how many members deal with particular cases, or that specified cases be dealt with at specified times. The Government want to specify that the rules may also cover which types of Parole Board member must sit on cases.
In “Root and Branch Review of the Parole System”, the Government committed themselves to increasing the number of Parole Board members from a law enforcement background. We will shortly consider clause 47, which will enable that to happen. The review also committed the Government to ensuring that every parole panel considering a case involving a top tier offender would have a law enforcement member.
The Government recognise that each and every type of Parole Board member brings different experience and skills. That range and diversity contribute to generally effective risk assessments and sound decision making. However, members with law enforcement experience, such as former police officers, have particular first-hand knowledge of the impact and seriousness of offending. In addition, they have the ability to interpret and analyse broad ranges of evidence, and many have direct experience of the probation system, including, for example, licence conditions and the likelihood of an offender’s compliance with such conditions.
Law enforcement members are, therefore, uniquely well-placed to inform and enrich the Parole Board’s assessment of risk in top tier cases. To fulfil the commitment made in the root and branch review to have law enforcement members on the parole panels for top tier prisoners, subsection (2) will enable the Secretary of State to make the secondary legislation needed to achieve that goal.
Let me turn to subsection (3), which will enable the Secretary of State to make rules relating to the new power in clauses 35 and 36 that will allow the Parole Board to refer top tier parole cases to the Secretary of State to determine, instead of taking the decision itself.
As I set out when we considered clauses 35 and 36, we anticipate that the Parole Board will refer cases to the Secretary of State only on very rare occasions. However, the power to make referrals is unfettered, so subsection (3) addresses that by giving the Secretary of State the power to make rules in secondary legislation that set out the parameters for the board making a referral. That could include, for example, a requirement that a certain stage in the proceedings must have been reached before a referral could be made. Setting that out in secondary legislation, rather than in primary legislation, allows for greater flexibility should the need arise at some future point to amend, remove or add to the steps needing to be taken before referring a case. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Ellie Reeves
It is important to note from the outset that police officers already serve on the Parole Board, alongside other members with expertise, including judges, psychologists, psychiatrists and others. They are an incredibly important part of the board’s membership. I would be interested to know from the Minister what evidence there is for this change and what he hopes to achieve by mandating that at least one member with law enforcement experience sits on top tier cases.
In the Justice Committee’s evidence session on part 3 of the Bill, solicitor Andrew Sperling said:
“I am not sure what the evidence of need is here. Is it being suggested that there is a deficiency in Parole Board decision making that will be corrected by importing more police officers?”
The mandating seems to be a backward step. The Ministry of Justice’s 2019 review of the Parole Board rules states:
“Restrictions on which panel members can hear particular types of case have gradually been lifted over…to allow greater flexibility and timeliness in listing the right cases for the right panel members and we do not wish to undo the improvements this has achieved.”
That point was echoed by Martin Jones, the Parole Board chief executive, in this Committee’s oral evidence sessions, when he said that
“the Parole Board is a court in law. In reality, it is best for the court to decide who are the appropriate people on cases, depending on the complexity”.––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 54, Q106.]
The risk of undoing current practice was also outlined by Caroline Corby, the chair of the Parole Board, at the Justice Committee’s evidence session. She said that
“we deal with 2,000 top-tier cases a year. If we had to put a person with a law enforcement background on every single case, I think that could build delays into the system.”
The Prison Reform Trust also said it shared that view in its written evidence to this Committee.
In addition to delays, the other issue is experience. I know that the Minister agrees that complex parole cases demand particular care, and require the skills and experience of individual board members. If this clause is used to appoint new members with law enforcement backgrounds, we could have a situation where top tier cases are heard by newer members who, by definition, are inexperienced in making parole decisions. Ms Corby made that point in her evidence:
“It is not the way we currently do things—to put our newest members on our most serious cases. People tend to work their way into the cases”.
With all that in mind, I hope the Minister recognises the risk. I am interested to hear his response and how those unintended consequences will be mitigated.
Edward Argar
The hon. Lady alluded to the fact that people with law enforcement experience already sit as Parole Board members, so, on her last point, there is already a pool, which can be augmented and built up over time. That will allow those who are already experienced in Parole Board decision making to sit on some of the most serious cases. That therefore mitigates her concerns.
We are seeking to ensure that the views of those experienced in law enforcement are considered, and we will strengthen that further. That is not a factor that will determine the outcome, but we want to ensure that those voices are heard more consistently and that the process is more formalised than at present. We believe the clause strikes the appropriate balance in ensuring that the board has that perspective at its disposal in any particular case, as well as other relevant perspectives, to aid it in reaching the decision it chooses to reach.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Parole Board membership
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 120, in clause 47, page 43, line 6, leave out from “office” to end of line 9 and insert
“only on grounds of proven misconduct or incapacity”.
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to remove the Chair of the Parole Board only on the grounds of misconduct or incapacity.
I want to begin by providing some context about the justification for removing the Parole Board chair from office. The Parole Board is rightly independent from the Executive. That independence is well established in several court rulings and is crucial to how the board functions. There are elements of the Bill that would undermine that independence. The Minister will know that I am not alone in voicing those concerns, given that Members of his own party also did so on Second Reading.
The Minister has been open to hearing and taking on board the concerns of Members throughout our time in Committee, and I know that that has been much appreciated. Therefore, I hope that he will reflect on the concerns raised on protecting the independence of the Parole Board. A balance needs to be struck. Although Members on both sides of the Committee will recognise the need for the Secretary of State to have the power to remove the chair, what matters is how that is done. I do not wish to recount too much the circumstances of the removal of Nick Hardwick as chair of the Parole Board—Members will likely already be familiar with those—but it is important to recognise the challenge that placed on the independence of the Parole Board. The powers of the Executive must be appropriate. I consider the termination protocol devised after Nick Hardwick’s time as chair to have the better level of that appropriateness.
The current grounds on which the chair may be removed are set out in a clear way, and the criteria that must be satisfied are reasonable and measurable. There is a procedural fairness in how a recommendation for removal can be made. That is not to say that it is a perfect mechanism. It does not, for example, consider misconduct as a criterion for the chair’s removal, nor does it fully address the concerns raised by the High Court regarding recourse and appeal in the removal of the chair. Furthermore, it does not recognise the potential impact of removing the chair on the independence of the Parole Board. All these merit further consideration in determining how a removal mechanism should operate.
As it stands, I do not believe that the power being given to the Secretary of State to remove the chair addresses those points adequately. Its current wording is narrowly focused and too broadly interpreted. Maintaining the public’s confidence in the parole process is a perfectly reasonable aim, but it should not be the sole consideration in whether the chair is fit to perform the functions of the role.
If the clause ends up on the statute book, how will the Secretary of State measure public confidence? Will it be on the basis of a decision made on an individual case? Clause 47 goes on to say that the chair must not “play any part” or “influence the recommendations” in relation to an individual case. That would clearly make it unfair to dismiss the chair because of a decision taken on a single case.
The Parole Board’s job is to take decisions on complex and occasionally controversial cases. In a small number of examples, that may result in a certain level of unease, but unfettered ministerial power to remove the chair on fairly broadly interpreted grounds is not the proper way to resolve that unease.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I am very supportive of the argument that my hon. Friend is making, because there needs to be absolute confidence that the Parole Board is acting for the right reasons. Any indication of political influence would undermine public confidence in the system. That is why I support her amendment.
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for everything she just said, and I absolutely agree. Those are absolutely the points that I am making as well. I fear that the power is too subjective and, with respect to the Secretary of State, may be misapplied if not handled carefully. In evidence to this Committee, the chief executive officer of the Parole Board himself said that this risked the Parole Board’s independence, and the measure fails to note that the chair may need to be removed on grounds of proven misconduct or incapacity.
Although I do not intend to take amendment 120 to a vote, I hope that it will encourage the Minister to rethink how this clause is drafted, tighten up the removal mechanism, give greater consideration to protecting the Parole Board’s independence and privilege misconduct or incapacity as reasons for removing the chair.
Ellie Reeves
I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East. First, it is right that if someone is not up to the job as chair of the Parole Board, there should be a way of removing them—the public would not expect any less—but clause 47 goes a great deal further than that. Amendment 120 seeks to address that. In his evidence to the Committee, Martin Jones, the Parole Board chief executive, stated:
“There is already a protocol in place that would allow a Secretary of State to follow a process in a fair way to remove the chair of the Parole Board if they believe they are not fulfilling their functions.”––[Official Report, Victims and Prisoners Public Bill Committee, 20 June 2023; c. 55, Q107.]
Caroline Corby, the chair of the Parole Board, stated at the Justice Committee’s evidence session:
“My concern is that if it is used simply because the Parole Board has made a controversial decision, that potentially impacts on the independence of the Parole Board.”
That is because parole decisions, by their very nature, are sensitive and controversial. Removing the chair because a decision in an individual case is unpopular would likely influence the panel’s decision making, thereby undermining the independence of the board in its judicial decisions. Given that, Ms Corby argued that
“the chair of the Parole Board needs more protection than pretty much any other chair of any arm’s length body.”
For those reasons, the Justice Committee concluded in its letter to the Justice Secretary that there should not be a statutory power to enable the Secretary of State to dismiss the chair of the board in the manner and terms proposed. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about these points and what reassurances he can give me and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham East for her kind words, for the approach she has adopted throughout the passage of the Bill and for her amendment, which gives us an opportunity to debate this issue alongside clause 47. The Bill creates a new power for the Secretary of State to dismiss the Parole Board chair on the grounds of public confidence, and the amendment would change the grounds of that dismissal power to misconduct or incapacity.
There is already a process for terminating the appointment to the chair due to misconduct or incapacity. The agreed protocol allows an independent panel to make a recommendation to the Secretary of State on whether the chair should be dismissed on the grounds of absence, if they have been convicted of an offence or are an undischarged bankrupt, or if they are unfit or unsuitable to continue in their role. The protocol extends to all board members, not just the chair, and is an essential recourse, where necessary, for maintaining the high standards required of board members. The amendment would effectively replace an existing process, albeit only for the chair and without requiring the involvement of the panel.
The purpose of clause 47 is not to replace that important process but to create a new route for dismissal on grounds that are not already incorporated in the agreed protocol—namely, public confidence. The Parole Board is a high-profile public body that makes important decisions on public protection every day. I do not underestimate in any way the difficulty of its job, and in general—as we have alluded to in debates on previous groups—the board do it very well. However, it is right that the Secretary of State for Justice should have the levers to change the leadership of the board if a situation arose whereby public confidence in the overall work of the board had been irreversibly damaged, because public confidence goes beyond individual decisions.
The chair is responsible for ensuring that the board takes proper account of guidance provided by the responsible Minister or the Department, for ensuring that the board is well run and is delivering high standards of regularity and propriety, and for promoting public awareness of the work of the board. As there already exists a process for the chair of the Parole Board to be dismissed on the grounds of misconduct or incapacity, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham East for saying that she does not intend to press the amendment to a Division, but I understand the context in which she tabled it. Notwithstanding what I may say in a moment on clause 47, I am happy to have a further conversation with her outwith the Committee, if she thinks that would be helpful.
Janet Daby
Again, I thank the Minister for his very mature approach. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
Clause 47 amends schedule 19 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which governs the membership and operation of the Parole Board. The clause makes important changes to the Parole Board’s membership and leadership. Let me begin by confirming that subsection (10) means that any changes in respect of the chair of the Parole Board do not impact on the appointment or functions of the current chair, Caroline Corby. She has led the board well since her initial appointment in 2018, and the Ministry is grateful to her for her effective leadership in this high-profile and, at many times, challenging role. She will step down as chair in October next year, and it is at that point that the functions of the chair as set out in the clause will come into force.
I now turn to the specific provisions of the clause. Subsection (3) increases the statutory minimum number of Parole Board members from five to seven. In practice, the board, of course, has many more members than that, and its current membership stands at about 300. I take this opportunity to thank the board’s members more broadly for the difficult, but crucial work they do in keeping the public safe from harm.
The Government are increasing the minimum membership of the board for two reasons. First, to make the position of vice chair a statutory role, which is necessary because of the changes the clause makes to the chair’s functions. Secondly, as we touched on when considering clause 46, to require the board to include a law-enforcement member in its core membership. The requirement for a law-enforcement member is in clause 47(4), with a definition of the role in the proposed new section (2A) to be inserted into the Criminal Justice Act 2003 by clause 47(5).
The overall effect will be for the Parole Board to be made up of a minimum of seven members: a chair, a vice chair, a law-enforcement member and four other statutory members, one of whom must have judicial experience, one must have knowledge of probation, one must be an expert in prisoner rehabilitation and one must be a psychiatrist. Requiring the board to have access to that range of expertise as a minimum will ensure that risk is assessed as effectively as possible and that offenders are released only when it is safe to do so. The board will remain free to recruit members from other fields and to appoint independent members, as it deems appropriate.
Jess Phillips
With regard to risk and its assessment, I cannot help but notice, from my many years in the field, that one of the greatest risks on prisoner release is that to women and children, usually those related to the prisoner and/or those they resettle with. I wonder why there is no expertise specifically on understanding that sort of risk—specialist expertise in domestic or sexual violence.
Edward Argar
I set out key—for want of a better phrase—broad categories of skillsets in terms of judicial experience, probation and psychiatry, but I did say that the board remains free to recruit members from other fields and to appoint independent members it deems appropriate. In the context that the hon. Lady sets out, the board might well deem it entirely appropriate to appoint someone with that sort of expertise to sit on particular cases.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I just want to remark—I do not know if the Minister would want to—that the vice-chair of the Parole Board, Peter Rook, wrote a leading text on sentencing in sexual offences. He also did an inquiry into the prosecution of them, so he is very knowledgeable in that area.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention and, as ever, his knowledge. I am grateful that he offers it in his capacity as a Member of this House, rather than being on the clock as a very senior King’s counsel.
The clause also inserts proposed new sub-paragraphs (2B) to (2E) into schedule 19 to the Criminal Justice Act. Those provisions concern the chair and vice chair of the Parole Board. Proposed new sub-paragraph (2B) puts in statute for the first time the period of appointment for the leadership roles, and it aligns the period so that both appointments are for five years, with the possibility of reappointment for a further five years. Currently, the practice is that the chair’s appointment is for three years, and may be extended for the same period, whereas the vice chair’s appointment is for five years, with a five-year extension. The longer period for the vice chair reflects their additional role as an active panel chair and aligns with the usual tenure of appointment for other board members.
We want to align the chair’s period of appointment with that of other members, thereby offering additional protection to the post holder as well as reducing any risk to the smooth running of the board that might arise if its leader were to change relatively frequently. That said, there might be a rare occasion when requiring a change of chair before the end of their appointment period is the best or only option. For that reason, proposed new sub-paragraph (2C) gives the Secretary of State a power to remove the chair from office if it becomes necessary to do so for reasons of public confidence.
A mechanism already exists for the Secretary of State to ask an independent panel to consider dismissing the chair if there are concerns about the post holder’s performance or their ability to do the job effectively. That route remains our preferred approach in the unlikely event that a dismissal is required. This measure in the clause, which enables the Secretary of State to act independently and without referral to a panel, is a last-resort measure to be applied only in the event of a need for Government to act swiftly and decisively. It is not a power that any Secretary of State would ever use lightly, and ideally there will never be cause to use it at all.
Proposed new sub-paragraphs (2D) and (2E) of schedule 19 to the 2003 Act confirm that the chair and vice chair may not return to those posts once their period of appointment has ended except when they are re-appointed immediately after their initial tenure has ended. However, either postholder may be appointed to another role in the Parole Board.
Finally, I turn to clause 47(7), which sets out the functions of the Parole Board’s chair in statute for the first time. The overall intention is both to define the chair’s role as a strategic leadership role and to make it clear that the postholder does not play any part in the board’s decision making when it comes to considering individual parole cases. Proposed new sub-paragraphs (2A)(1)(a) to (g) of schedule 19 provide a non-exhaustive list of functions to be carried out by the chair. Proposed new sub-paragraphs (2A)(2) and (3) prevent the chair from involvement in individual cases. Although it is for the board to decide who will take on any functions currently carried out by the chair that are related to individual cases, we anticipate they will pass to the vice chair or another member of the board.
Ellie Reeves
I associate myself with the Minister’s comments about Caroline Corby and her dedicated leadership of the Parole Board, and I thank her and all the other members of the Parole Board for their important work.
Most of what the Minister has set out is broadly sensible. I have already set out my concerns when speaking to amendment 120, but I want to briefly add that clause 47 also prohibits the chair of the Parole Board from being involved in individual parole cases. That seems to unnecessarily hinder the chair in their role. In evidence to the Justice Committee, Professor Shute said:
“it is…hard to lead the board unless you have experience of sitting on panels…I think it is helpful, if you are going to lead the board, to have first-hand experience of sitting on panels, but this provision is going to prohibit a chair from doing so.”
It its letter to the Justice Secretary, the Justice Committee concluded that
“prohibiting the Chair from sitting on cases would potentially undermine their leadership of the Board, and make the role less attractive to suitable candidates in the future.”Clause 47 seems broadly sensible, but I urge the Minister to consider and reflect on those points.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, to whom I listened carefully. I will always reflect.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48
Whole life prisoners prohibited from forming a marriage
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clauses will prohibit prisoners who are subject to whole life orders from being able to marry or enter a civil partnership while in prison. Whole life orders are the most severe punishment in the criminal law of England and Wales and are reserved for offenders who have committed the most heinous crimes. Those offenders are the most dangerous and cruel criminals in our prisons—often serial or child murderers who have robbed others of their chance at happiness and a family life and can expect to spend the rest of their life behind bars. As the law stands, prison governors cannot reject a prisoner’s application to marry, however horrific the prisoner’s crime, unless it creates a security risk for the prison. Allowing the most dangerous criminals to marry in custody rubs salt into the wounds of victims and their families and damages public confidence in our justice system.
Clause 48 will prohibit prisoners in England and Wales who are subject to a whole life order from marrying while in prison or another place of detention. The Secretary of State may grant an exemption in truly exceptional circumstances. We believe that that is a common-sense move that will help to restore faith in the justice system by ensuring that we can deal appropriately with the most serious offenders in our prisons.
Clause 49 will prohibit prisoners in England and Wales who are subject to a whole life order from forming a civil partnership while in prison or another place of detention. As with Clause 48, which makes provision for an equivalent prohibition for marriage, the Secretary of State may grant an exemption in truly exceptional circumstances.
Clause 50 is a technical clause, which will allow the Secretary of State to make any further minor and consequential legislative changes needed to implement the prisoner marriage and civil partnership clauses. We have made extensive efforts to identify where such changes are needed, but marriage law is complex and historical references in the statute book may only become apparent at a future time. Use of this power will be limited to what is necessary to implement clauses 48 and 49.
Ellie Reeves
I rise to support clauses 48, 49 and 50. At present, 66 prisoners are serving whole-life sentences in England and Wales. Those sentences reflect some of the most despicable crimes imaginable—ones so serious that the prisoner will never be released from prison. For families trying to rebuild their lives after the devastation of a crime caused by that group of offenders, hearing news that they have been able to conduct a relationship in prison is unimaginable.
There is also often a safeguarding issue. Given the history of the prisoner, it is right that their motivation in pursuing a marriage is examined, as we know that such people often have great capacity for coercion and exploitation. I note the recent case of serial killer Levi Bellfield, who is serving a whole-life sentence for the murders of Marsha McDonnell, Amelie Delagrange and Millie Dowler, as well as the attempted murder of Kate Sheedy. He also had a long history of domestic violence and remains a suspect in other crimes. News that he has met someone, and has been able to marry her behind bars, has rightly been met with public outrage.
I can only imagine how the news has impacted Bellfield’s victims and their families, and it is concerning that he was introduced to his now wife by a fellow serial killer and was able to propose marriage in the prison visitors’ centre. Under current legislation there are no sufficient powers to prevent that from happening. I therefore welcome these clauses, which will put appropriate legislation in place to ensure that something like it does not happen again.
Sarah Champion
It is a pleasure to serve under your wise counsel, Mrs Murray. I am standing against clauses 48, 49 and 50, and against my Front-Bench team in doing so. I do not think that they should be in the Bill, and I would like to explain why.
First, fundamentally, everything I have done in this place is to support victims and survivors and their rights. At my very core, human rights and equality is what motivates me and gets me out of bed every day. It is because of that that I am challenged by these three clauses. Sometimes, we see legislation coming through that is, to quote the Minister, “common-sense legislation”, but it is brought forward for an emotional—or indeed a headline—reason. That does not make it good legislation, and I am concerned that that could be happening in this case.
I also seek to understand how the Government maintain that these measures are compliant with their obligations under the European convention on human rights. For me, the Secretary of State is coming over as God-like, to put it simply. I do not think that we have the right to take away someone’s right to get married or to have a civil partnership, and I question what the benefits of that will be.
I want to believe that there is a restorative purpose for people going to prison. I want to know that by maintaining one relationship, they are able to change and improve. The fact that someone may be seeking marriage gives me hope that there is potential within some of the most wicked and deplorable people whom I have ever had the misfortune to come across. There is hope that they might be able to maintain a meaningful relationship.
Jess Phillips
I truly appreciate my hon. Friend’s fundamental point: everybody hopes for rehabilitation. With this, the only case we have to debate is that of Levi Bellfield, as mentioned. Having worked with some of his direct victims and the families of those victims, while I do not disagree that we sometimes chase headlines and make bad legislation in doing so, with his case I am not sure, from previous behaviour, that I would categorise it as rehabilitation. I would categorise it as behaviour to get headlines. The desire in Levi Bellfield’s case, as has been put to me by many of his victims, is that these schemes keep him constantly in the media, and that is incredibly painful for them. There is a bit from both sides of the argument in this debate: trying to stop the headlines and allowing rehabilitation.
Sarah Champion
My hon. Friend makes a strong argument that I agree with on many levels. It also confirms my suspicion that the provisions could be around an individual, and responding to the horror of that individual. Therefore, I want the Minister to explain to me all the consideration of unintended consequences on this. There are two subsections that allow a prisoner to get married if they have written permission from the Secretary of State. There are also conditions as to why the Secretary of State may be unable to give that permission. Can the Minister tell us again what the exceptions for giving permission, or being unable to give permission, are? Those are not clear in the Bill or in what he has said in Committee.
The Prison Reform Trust was deeply concerned in its written evidence, stating:
“The introduction of specific carve-outs from human rights for people given custodial sentences contradicts one of the fundamental principles underlying human rights—their universality and application to each and every person on the simple basis of their being human.”
Despite the actions of certain offenders, we should not prevent people from having their human rights.
The Prisoners’ Advice Service also stated in its written evidence that the practice will have very little impact:
“A whole life tariffed prisoner will die in prison, and the nature of their crimes renders them unlikely to ‘progress’ to open conditions or to access resettlement facilities such as unescorted release on temporary licence from prison into the community. Thus any marriages or civil partnerships contracted by such prisoners, before or after their conviction leading to the whole life tariff, will in practice have little or no impact on the conditions of imprisonment—and would have no significant impact on victims or their families. It is a point of principle only, ostensibly to show the public that the Executive is not ‘soft’ on those who commit the worst crimes. Behind this flashy headline, is another attempt by the Executive to remove a basic human right from a group of people who are unpopular with sections of the population and the press, for political advantage.”
Given the arguments that those organisations have put forward, I do not think the Minister has made a clear enough argument for why the provisions need to be in the Bill. I ask the Minister to explain the logic, the exceptions and whether the provisions apply retrospectively to people already married. Fundamentally, people have a right to practice their religion, and marriage is part of their religion. I am very concerned that the Minister is looking to take that right away.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Rotherham for their comments.
On chasing flashy headlines, I have to confess that in my eight and a half years in this place, five of them as a Minister, I have sought to do everything I possibly can to avoid them—I was not overjoyed, then, that I found myself appointed as a Health Minister three months before a pandemic—but the hon. Member for Rotherham raises important points. I do not think anyone could ever question or call into doubt the decency, sincerity and integrity with which she makes points in this Committee and more broadly throughout the House in championing the causes that she does.
On the question of whether the measures make law based on an individual case, I do not think that is the case. On occasion, an individual case may shine a light on something, which then reflects a broader concern or issue. We in this House should always seek to legislate for the general, rather than for the specific individual, and I think we are doing that in this case. It just so happens that an individual case has thrown a light on the matter.
I do not always disagree with the hon. Lady—I possibly agree with her rather more often than not—but I do disagree with her on this issue. I find it challenging to accept that those whose actions have robbed others of any opportunity of happiness believe that they should be able to pursue it irrespective of what they have done in the past. To address a point that the hon. Lady raised, my understanding is that the change is not retrospective. I take her point that tough cases can make bad law, if we look at them individually, which is why we are looking at the matter more broadly.
The shadow Home Office Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, spoke about individual cases and alluded to something that I want to develop a little more. Although I take at face value what the hon. Member for Rotherham said about redemption and people wishing to reform, I do not underestimate the cynicism of some of these offenders, their manipulative and exploitative behaviour or the potential that, in pursuing marriage, they seek to exploit an opportunity that, in effect, could create another victim further down the line. I believe that the Bill strikes a proportionate balance.
The hon. Member for Rotherham asked about possible exemptions—I think I saw the shadow Minister mouthing it and she was absolutely right—and those would be, for example, deathbed marriages if someone has a long-term partner but they are not married, in the case of a terminal illness or similar, at the end of life. It would, though, be exceptionally rare in those circumstances.
Sarah Champion
Why is it all right for someone who is dying but not for someone who is not? I do not understand that distinction, and I am a woman who used to run a hospice.
Edward Argar
The point is that the only circumstance in which I could envisage the provision being used is where the long-term partner is also a whole-life prisoner and both are in prison at the end of life. Even then, I am not necessarily anticipating that the Secretary of State would give permission, but the hon. Lady asked for a hypothetical example of how it might work, given the concerns expressed by the shadow Home Office Minister, by myself and by others. That is an illustrative example for her. She knows that I have huge respect for her and her integrity and sincerity, but we approach this issue from slightly different perspectives. I am afraid that on this occasion I must resist her entreaties to either withdraw or change the clause, but I am grateful to her for airing her views.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 49 and 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 51
Financial provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Edward Argar
The clauses are in part 4, which contains the Bill’s general provisions, and set out the regulations that may be made under the legislation, the territorial extent of its measures, and its commencement and short title.
Clause 51 creates a money resolution for the Bill to allow for new public expenditure incurred by the measures in it. We have published impact assessments that set out the financial implications of each part of the Bill. For part 1, on victims of crime, the additional costs incurred are attributable to the new and expanded functions placed on public authorities—such as code compliance functions for police and crime commissioners—and on local authorities, integrated care boards and PCCs in England to carry out their responsibilities under the duty to collaborate. Further costs may be incurred for criminal justice inspectorates to allow them to carry out joint thematic needs assessments.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I rise to offer a reflection on the clauses from the Opposition Front-Bench team. Given that victims services and stakeholders throughout the country are crying out for more support, it is a shame that more provision is not distributed in part 1 of the Bill, with the Ministry of Justice absorbing the costs. The only costs associated with the Bill relate to parts 2 and 3. This is supposed to be purely a victims Bill, which we have been waiting years and years for. I thank the Minister for outlining the rest of the detail in the clauses.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 52 to 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Fay Jones.)
Victims and Prisoners Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Tuesday 11th July 2023
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 July 2023 - (11 Jul 2023)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We now move on to the new clauses. The selection grouping list shows the order of debates for the new clauses, which have not yet been debated. For the new clauses that have already been debated, decisions will be taken in the order they appear on the amendment paper. As we come to each new clause, I will invite the lead Member to indicate whether they want to press it to a Division. This is not an opportunity for further debate.
New Clause 4
Information relating to victims
In Part 2 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (prevention, investigation and prosecution of crime), after Chapter 3 insert—
“Chapter 3A
Requests for information relating to victims
44A Requests for information relating to victims
(1) A victim information request must be made in accordance with this Chapter.
(2) In this Chapter, a ‘victim information request’ means a request by an authorised person to another person to provide information which relates to a third person who the authorised person has reason to believe is or may be—
(a) a victim, or
(b) at risk of being a victim.
(3) A victim information request may be made only if the authorised person—
(a) has reason to believe that the person to whom the request is made holds the information sought,
(b) has reason to believe that the information sought is relevant to a reasonable line of enquiry which is being pursued, or is to be pursued, by the authorised person or another authorised person, and
(c) is satisfied that the request is necessary and proportionate to achieve the purpose of preventing, detecting, investigating or prosecuting crime.
(4) The reference in subsection (3)(c) to crime is a reference to―
(a) conduct which constitutes one or more criminal offences in England and Wales, or
(b) conduct which, if it took place in England and Wales, would constitute one or more criminal offences.
(5) Subsection (6) applies if the authorised person thinks that, in making the request, there is a risk of obtaining information other than information necessary to achieve a purpose within subsection (3)(c).
(6) The authorised person must, to be satisfied that the request is proportionate, be satisfied that—
(a) there are no other means of obtaining the information sought, or
(b) there are such other means, but it is not reasonably practicable to use them.
(7) In making a victim information request or deciding whether to make such a request (including giving notice under section 44B or deciding whether to give such notice) an authorised person must have regard to the code of practice for the time being in force under section 44D.
(8) In this section—
‘criminal offence’ includes—
(a) a service offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006, and
(b) an SDA offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Transitional Provisions etc) Order 2009 (S.I. 2009/1059);
‘victim’ has the meaning given by section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2023.
(9) This section is subject to sections 44B (notice requirements for victim information requests) and 44C (content of victim information requests).
44B Notice requirements for victim information requests
(1) The authorised person must (subject to subsection (5)) give notice of a victim information request to the person to whom the information sought relates (‘V’).
(2) Notice under this section must be in writing—
(a) specifying or describing the information sought by the victim information request,
(b) specifying the reason why the information is sought, and
(c) specifying how the information will be dealt with once it has been obtained.
(3) Notice under this section must be given—
(a) on or before the date on which the victim information request is made, or
(b) if that is not reasonably practicable, as soon as is reasonably practicable after that date.
(4) If V is a child or an adult without capacity, notice under this section is given to V by giving it to—
(a) a parent or guardian of V or, if V is in the care of a relevant authority or voluntary organisation, a person representing that authority or organisation, or
(b) if no person described in paragraph (a) is available, any adult who the authorised person considers appropriate.
(5) The authorised person need not give notice under this section, or specify a particular matter when giving notice, if the authorised person considers that doing so―
(a) is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances,
(b) might interfere with the investigation or enquiry for which the information is sought or any other investigation or enquiry which is being pursued, or is to be pursued, by the authorised person or another authorised person, or
(c) might risk causing serious harm to V or another person.
(6) In this section―
‘adult’ means a person aged 18 or over;
‘adult without capacity’ means an adult who, within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, lacks capacity to understand a notice under this section;
‘child’ means a person aged under 18;
‘harm’ includes physical, mental or emotional harm and economic loss;
‘relevant authority’ has the same meaning as in Chapter 3 of this Part (see section 38(11));
‘voluntary organisation’ means a body (other than a public authority) whose activities are not carried on for profit.
44C Content of victim information requests
(1) A victim information request must be in writing―
(a) specifying or describing the information sought,
(b) specifying the reason why the information is sought, and
(c) specifying how the information will be dealt with once it has been obtained.
(2) The authorised person need not specify the matters mentioned in subsection (1)(b) or (c) if the authorised person considers that doing so―
(a) is not reasonably practicable in the circumstances,
(b) might interfere with the investigation or enquiry for which the information is sought or any other investigation or enquiry which is being pursued, or is to be pursued, by the authorised person or another authorised person, or
(c) might risk causing serious harm to the person to whom the information sought relates or another person.
44D Code of practice
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a code of practice for authorised persons about victim information requests and compliance with this Chapter.
(2) The code may make different provision for different purposes or areas.
(3) In preparing the code, the Secretary of State must consult―
(a) the Information Commissioner,
(b) the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses,
(c) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) After preparing the code, the Secretary of State must lay it before Parliament and publish it.
(5) The code is to be brought into force by regulations made by statutory instrument.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5) 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) A failure on the part of an authorised person to act in accordance with the code does not of itself render the person liable to any criminal or civil proceedings.
(9) But the code is admissible in evidence in criminal or civil proceedings and a court may take into account a failure to act in accordance with it in determining a question in the proceedings.
(10) References in subsections (2) to (9) to the code include a revised code, subject to subsection (11).
(11) The duty to consult in subsection (3) does not apply in relation to the preparation of a revised code if the Secretary of State considers that the proposed revisions are insubstantial.
44E Authorised persons
(1) In this Chapter, each of the following is an ‘authorised person’—
(a) a constable of a police force in England and Wales;
(b) a member of staff appointed by the chief officer of police of a police force in England and Wales;
(c) an employee of the Common Council of the City of London who is under the direction and control of a chief officer of police;
(d) a constable of the British Transport Police Force;
(e) an employee of the British Transport Police Authority appointed under section 27 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003;
(f) a constable of the Ministry of Defence police;
(g) a National Crime Agency officer;
(h) a member of the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Military Police or the Royal Air Force Police;
(i) a person designated by the Director General of the Independent Office for Police Conduct under paragraph 19(2) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002;
(j) a person who has been engaged to provide services consisting of or including the obtaining of information for the purposes of the exercise of functions by a person mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (i).
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend subsection (1)—
(a) so as to add a reference to a person;
(b) so as to remove a reference to a person;
(c) so as to modify a description of a person mentioned.
(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may contain transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2)(a) or (b) (whether alone or with other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) Any other statutory instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”.—(Edward Argar.)
This new clause requires police officers and other authorised persons, when requesting information about a victim or potential victim of crime from a third party, to ensure that the request is relevant, necessary and proportionate for law enforcement purposes and to follow new procedural safeguards.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment (a), after new clause 44A(3)(c) insert—
“(d) is satisfied that the victim has been informed of their rights in relation to the request.”
Amendment (b), after new clause 44C(1)(c) insert—
“(d) including a full statement of the victim’s rights in relation to the request.”
Edward Argar
This is our first opportunity to debate Government new clause 4, which will make provisions to ensure that the police and other specified law enforcement organisations request information from third parties in respect of victims of criminal conduct only when it is necessary and proportionate and in pursuit of a reasonable line of inquiry.
It is, in the interests of a fair trial, sometimes necessary for police and other law enforcement bodies to request information about a victim of criminal conduct from a third party to support investigations in a variety of crime types, including in rape and serious sexual offences. The material can include a range of personal records that can provide valuable insight into an offence and support allegations as well as eliminate suspects.
However, we have heard considerable evidence that requests for information about victims of criminal conduct can sometimes be excessive, seeking information that is not relevant to a case, with records being requested that date back long before the allegation was made, or being used to test victim credibility. Those inappropriate requests mean that victims do not always feel confident in coming forward to report crimes due to unnecessary invasions into their privacy, or feel disenfranchised by the criminal justice process. Through the end-to-end rape review, we committed to limiting all requests for victim information to what is necessary and proportionate in pursuing a reasonable line of inquiry in support of a fair trial. The amendment fulfils that commitment.
The new clause will address the issue of unnecessary and disproportionate requests for third party material and it inserts a new chapter 3 into part 2 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The proposed new section 44A of that Act will set out in law the core requirement that third party material requests in respect of victims of criminal conduct are made only where the information requested is necessary and proportionate in line with a reasonable line of inquiry.
The addition of proposed new section 44B means that the police will be required to give notice to victims when their information is requested. Aside from in very limited circumstances, victims must be informed about what information is being requested, and why and how the information will be used. Provision is made for notifying an alternative adult, such as a parent or guardian, where the victim is a child or an adult who lacks capacity.
The increased transparency of the process will ensure that the police provide clear and consistent information to victims. That will ensure that victims are better supported and have the confidence that their records will not be accessed unless it is necessary and proportionate to the investigation. It will also ensure that victims feel confident in the handling of their sensitive personal information through access to clear and comprehensive information about the request being made.
The addition of proposed new section 44C will ensure that the police provide clear and detailed information to accompany victim information requests to third parties, ensuring transparency between law enforcement and third parties. The police must provide specific details about the information being sought, and why and how the material will be used. There are limited exceptions, such as where the provision of information would interfere with an investigation or risk causing serious harm to an individual.
Additionally, third parties might previously have struggled to return material quickly. Ensuring that requests are properly set out and made only when necessary and proportionate is expected to have a positive effect on timeliness, which may help to combat lengthy investigations that can be traumatic to victims, especially in relation to rape and other sexual offence cases. A consistent approach is needed to ensure that victims of crime are supported no matter where they live. The clause will do exactly that.
The addition of proposed new section 44D makes provision for a new power for the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice to which authorised persons must have due regard when requesting third party material. We will publish a draft of the code to coincide with later stages of the passage of the Bill.
The code will also give best practice guidance to law enforcement when obtaining victim information. It will add further clarity and consistency to help law enforcement agencies to fulfil their commitments to both victims and third parties when requesting material. The new clause also sets out the obligation on the Secretary of State to consult the Information Commissioner, the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, about the content of the code of practice. That will ensure that the views and insights of those expert bodies are fed into the code.
Finally, proposed new section 44E sets out the authorised persons who are bound by these new obligations. They include police forces in England and Wales, the British Transport Police, the Ministry of Defence Police, the National Crime Agency and the service police. A power is taken for the Secretary of State to add, remove or modify a reference to a person on this list by statutory instrument, which will ensure that the new clause captures the right law enforcement bodies—for example, if a new investigative body is established or an existing body changes its name.
The new clause is a significant step forward in creating a space where victims feel confident that our criminal justice system will support them in coming forward to report crimes, including those such as rape and other serious sexual offences. This is the first time that law enforcement will have a clear and consistent approach to requesting victims’ information, which will help to ensure that a victim’s right to privacy is balanced with a defendant’s right to a fair trial. I will respond to the amendments to the new clause in my wind-up speech.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for expanding on new clause 4 and I welcome the Government proposals to protect third-party materials. However, new clause 4 does not go far enough, as it just reinforces what is already in law. It does not offer new protections for therapy notes, which is a critical issue for many stakeholders and survivors.
Take my own constituent Sarah, who was sexually assaulted. After a three-year wait, she finally had her day in court. During the trial, the defence barrister used therapy notes from bereavement counselling that Sarah had received when she was a child to illustrate an apparently damaged mental state. The defence barrister then went on to use counselling notes from Sarah’s therapy following a near-fatal car accident. Sarah said of her trial:
“I felt like I was being publicly beaten and humiliated. I wouldn’t advise anyone to go through it. They destroy you.”
In fact, Sarah was cross-examined for two days, with those therapy notes being used to weaken and discredit her case.
Additional safeguards specific to therapeutic records are essential because such records are uniquely private. If such safeguards are not introduced, survivors will continue to be harmed and retraumatised by the system, just as Sarah was. There are some serious concerns about new clause 4 that need to be addressed; I hope that the Minister will listen and acknowledge the severity of what could happen if the new clause passes unamended.
The Centre for Women’s Justice has also expressed concerns about this matter and the Government’s new clause should correctly reflect existing UK law. However, the wording of the new clause is not based on the consent of the survivor; the survivor is only given notice rather than being asked for their consent. If in sexual violence cases the basis is not consent, the data is usually sensitive data. According to the Data Protection Act 2018, there is a higher threshold of “strictly necessary” for sensitive data.
However, the new clause does not accurately reflect the correct Data Protection Act test; it applies a lower threshold of only “necessary and proportionate”. I understand that the new clause applies to all offences, and not just sexual and violent offences against women and girls. However, the failure to include the higher threshold for sensitive personal data will particularly adversely impact sexual offence investigations.
The new clause is not only insufficient but incredibly damaging. I hope that the Minister will agree that it should be amended to add provision for sensitive personal data.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I really welcome the Minister’s attempt to tackle the misuse of information relating to victims as set out in the Government’s new clause 4; I thank him for making this happen.
I have called for action on this issue for years, as have most of my colleagues. It is simply unacceptable that victims and survivors who have been subjected to the trauma of sexual violence or abuse have had some of their most private and personal material requested via their counselling service. That is then trawled through by all manner of unknown people, in order for that material to be used to undermine, discredit and even humiliate victims and survivors through the court process. We know that when survivors refuse to hand over the material, cases have been dropped and discontinued. While I appreciate that rape convictions are at an all-time low, justice for rape and abuse survivors cannot be contingent on the violation of their privacy.
Even when victims willingly give notes, the impact is still traumatic. I will give the example of someone who I will call Alex. Alex is a survivor of sexual violence and emotional abuse by an ex-partner. After a lengthy police investigation, during which blanket requests were made for Alex’s counselling notes, the suspect was eventually charged. When describing the impact that accessing her personal records had on her, Alex said:
“I’d given my phone, my therapy records, my social care records, my everything to this case. I feel like I am the one being investigated whilst he roams the streets. This has been horrific for my mental health…I spent a long time with him being traumatised yet even longer by the police and CPS being re-traumatised.”
Sadly, Alex’s experience is not uncommon. Although pre-trial therapy guidance encourages victims and survivors to access the support that they need, and does that to prioritise wellbeing, if someone fears that their notes from sessions can still be routinely accessed and misused, that will undermine the safe healing space that I know the Minister is trying to create. We hear day in, day out, how many victims feel that they have to choose between accessing therapy or accessing justice.
When justice agencies request counselling notes, that fundamentally compromises the central role of counsellors, which is to create a safe and confidential space to explore issues in. One Rape Crisis counsellor explained the difficulty of having to monitor what the victims share. She said:
“it seems to go against the foundation of therapy—that it is an open and non-judgemental space—when your notes could be taken literally to judge you.”
We must also ensure that the police fully understand guidance and laws. Police professionals receive little-to-no training in the new CPS guidelines, and are continually telling survivors that they cannot or should not access pre-trial therapy sessions. There is also currently no monitoring in place around the advice that police are giving to survivors about pre-trial therapy, or follow-up on actions when therapy is accessed.
The Bluestar Project states that the previous CPS guidance, from 2002, has led to the mistaken belief that accessing therapy before the criminal justice process has finished will cause the criminal case to fall. That belief persists even though new guidelines were published in 2022. The CPS has conducted little dissemination of the new guidelines and limited training, and there is no formal evaluation of the impact on survivors’ access to services or multi-agency awareness of the new changes. We currently have no way of knowing any difference that the guidelines are or are not having.
The Bluestar Project understands that staff in the CPS have received some training about trauma-informed care, but most lack an understanding of how survivors access therapy, the benefits of it and how therapy sessions actually work with clients. That continues to contribute to inappropriate and blanket requests for notes as a form of evidence. Multi-agency training is the fastest way to reduce fear and misconception around pre-trial therapy. Will the Minister say what steps he will take to counter that lack of awareness and understanding, both within the CPS and the police?
On how Government new clause 4 is worded, there is still some concern that the survivor is only given notice rather than being asked for consent. What is more, according to the Data Protection Act 2018, in sexual violence cases the data is usually deemed “sensitive data”. As the Minister will be aware, there is a higher threshold of “strictly necessary” for sensitive data. That language is used in the Information Commissioner’s Office guide to law enforcement processing. However, the Government new clause does not accurately reflect the correct test from the 1998 Act, as it applies a lower threshold of only “necessary and proportionate”. I would like the Minister to consider and speak on that.
Furthermore, Government new clause 4 applies to all offences, not just sexual offences. While the protection of the information of all victims is welcome, it is crucial that the Government recognise the particular problems faced by victims of sexual offences—not least that they are much more likely to face this practice than other victims of crime. Additionally, the failure to include the higher threshold for sensitive personal data will particularly adversely affect sexual offences investigations. I urge the Minister to strengthen this wording if at all possible when the Bill returns.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff North, and the hon. Member for Rotherham. Having set out the rationale behind our new clause, I will confine myself to addressing the amendments subsequently spoken to. I am grateful to Opposition Members for amendments that seek to ensure that before making a victim information request, the authorised person is satisfied that the victim has been informed of their rights in relation to the request for their personal records, and the rights of the victim are outlined in the victim information notes. I will turn briefly to some of the broader points made by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Rotherham at the end.
The purpose of the Victims and Prisoners Bill is to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system. The proposed clauses will ensure that law enforcement requests for victim information do just that. They will be further supported by the code of practice, but as we—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Rotherham—have made clear, we must seek to strike an appropriate balance while not compromising the right to a fair trial. The statutory code of practice will contain guidance on how to carry out the duties outlined by the legislation. That will include best practice around making requests and informing victims. The police must have due regard to the code when making requests.
Alongside the code of practice, we have developed a notice for law enforcement to use to inform victims about any requests for their personal records. This notice has been designed to ensure that law enforcement can meet their legal obligations regarding informing victims, outlined in the new duties. The code of practice will recommend authorised persons to use this notice. To accompany the notice, we have also developed a Q&A that law enforcement should provide to victims alongside the notice to enable them to understand the terminology and what is actually being asked for. That will include answers to common questions that victims and survivors might have, as well as information regarding their rights. It will be clear in the code of practice that it is best practice to use this notice and to provide the associated guidance to victims.
The resources above will ensure that victims are suitably informed of their rights and of the request. Officials will work closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure that the police are fully aware of, and trained in, their responsibilities under the legislation with respect to ensuring that victims are aware of their rights.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I am not sure how many rape cases the Minister has personally handled, but as somebody who has handled thousands, I have to say that if the police just check a box by saying to a victim in front of them, “We’re going to have to ask for your medical records and any other counselling records,” she is likely to say, “Okay, okay,” without having any understanding of or guidance on exactly what that means.
Will the police, following this ABC guide, say, “If you have ever said anything about your sexual behaviour, completely separately from the fact that this person raped you, it will be used against you in court”? The police will not sit down with a rape victim and talk at length through exactly what might be used. The police do not know, for a start. Also, victims do not know what is in their counselling notes: they do not see them or have them. I want to put a burst of reality into a theoretical argument.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, who knows whereof she speaks, having worked extensively in this area. We believe that this is the appropriate approach. Our code of practice will ensure that victims are made aware of their rights and that the police are aware of their responsibilities under the new duty, including the responsibility to inform victims. We will publish the wording of the draft code of practice during the Bill’s passage, prior to its conclusion in this House and the other place, to enable colleagues to comment.
I turn to the specific points made by the hon. Member for Rotherham. I reassure her that new clause 4 will in no way replace the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018, which will continue to apply for lawful processing once the police receive the material from a third party. The code makes it clear that the Act imposes additional legal requirements, over and above those in the code, and that when police make a request they are required to take those requirements into account to ensure that the processing of the data is compliant with the Act.
More broadly, may I gently push back on the argument that this is routinely asked for? The whole purpose of the clause is to ensure that it is asked for not routinely, but in specific circumstances.
Sarah Champion
I can speak only as a constituency MP, but it routinely comes across my desk, so I must challenge the Minister on that point.
Edward Argar
The reason I push back on the hon. Lady is that this is the purpose of the new clause: to highlight the limited circumstances in which it should be happening.
The hon. Lady raised a number of broader points about the appropriate mechanism. She raised the New South Wales model and a range of others. I know that there are lots of campaigns around this. I will make only two points. First, as we have made clear throughout, we must strike the appropriate balance between a fair trial and confidentiality, and its impact. Secondly—this is the key point—it would be wrong to prejudge, in making an important step forward, the broader work being undertaken by the Law Commission and Professor Penney Lewis in this space, the scope of which I know will range more widely.
This is an important step forward in the context of the vehicle that we have before us. I put on the record my gratitude to the Home Office officials who have done so much work to get us to this point.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause accordingly read a Second time.
The Chair
Does the hon. Member for Rotherham wish to move either amendment in the group?
Sarah Champion
On the basis of what the Minister says, I will not move my amendments (a) and (b).
New clause 4 added to the Bill.
New Clause 6
Duty to develop a single core data set of victims of child sexual abuse
“(1) The responsible authority must make arrangements to develop a shared, single core data set concerning victims of child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation in England and Wales.
(2) In accordance with subsection (1) the responsible authority must direct children’s social care and criminal justice agencies to collect consistent and compatible data which includes—
(a) the characteristics of victims and alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse, including—
(i) age,
(ii) sex, and
(iii) ethnicity,
(b) the factors that make victims more vulnerable to child sexual abuse or exploitation, and
(c) the settings and contexts in which victims have experienced child sexual abuse or exploitation.
(3) The responsible authority must ensure that the data is published each month.
(4) For the purposes of this section, the responsible authority is—
(a) in England, the Secretary of State; and
(b) in Wales, the Welsh Ministers”.—(Sarah Champion.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause embodies the first of the key final recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. It is worth remembering that IICSA was paid for by the taxpayer and commissioned by the Government, so for me it carries a lot of weight. The Government have now responded to the inquiry, but despite accepting the recommendation that forms the basis of the new clause, they have not gone far enough in acting on the recommendation. The Government response stated:
“We accept that robust data collection on the scale and nature of child sexual abuse is critical to underpin and drive a more effective response to child sexual abuse. We have made a number of improvements in data collection and will additionally be driving further improvements to police performance data.”
The Government go on to list the data that they are using: the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse report, “Child Sexual Abuse in 2021/22: Trends in Official Data”; data collected by the tackling organised exploitation programme to catch perpetrators; Office for National Statistics data on child sexual abuse, which was last published in 2020; and work by the Department for Education to improve the use of data in safeguarding and children’s social care.
I say to the Minister, with respect, that that is not a single core dataset, as the inquiry suggested; it is a list. Most of that data was already being published when the inquiry made its recommendation. Clearly that list is not what IICSA intended. Its report states:
“Even where abuse is reported and recorded, the data may not reveal the complete scale of abuse. In respect of understanding patterns and trends in child sexual abuse over time, the Inquiry has not been helped by the inadequacies of the existing data collection systems”—
the same data that the Government list as covering that requirement. The report continues:
“Different organisations have developed their own approaches to categorising and recording data. As a result, operational data from different organisations cannot be brought together and consolidated in a way which aids an overall understanding of the problem and the institutional response.”
For example, some forms of data do not distinguish between child sexual abuse within the family setting and that which is committed outside the family setting—very different crimes. They also do not distinguish child sexual abuse committed outside the family in institutional settings, as opposed to child sexual exploitation, so there are no official estimates of the serious criminal activity taking place in those two key areas.
There are many more examples. The inquiry stated:
“Local authority data relating to child protection plans present only a partial picture of the scale of child sexual abuse.”
Research by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England suggests that
“among children who had been sexually abused according to police data, more were recorded by children’s services under the categories of neglect (32%) or emotional abuse (29%) than under sexual abuse”,
showing the real problem that we have trying to understand the scale. IICSA stated that the lack of consistent data requires urgent action from the Government to make
“improvements to the data collected about child sexual abuse and the regular publication of that improved data.”
Instead of providing an adequate response, the Government’s reply simply points out all the data that agencies are already asked to collect.
Hundreds of millions of pounds were spent on the inquiry, yet the Government still do not fully accept even the most basic recommendation to collect data in one place on child abuse in this country. Will the Minister discuss that point with his colleagues in the Home Office and push for one single core dataset on child sexual abuse and exploitation, so that we know exactly who the victims of that crime are and therefore how many people need support under the legislation?
Jess Phillips
I cannot stress enough how disappointing it is that somebody has to stand up in this place every single time and say that there is not the data to tell us about these sorts of abuses. There is almost no proper data. In every inquiry, every domestic homicide review, every serious case review and every child sex abuse inquiry where we have all been through the wringer, the same thing gets said every single time, whether it is about Telford, about Rotherham or about the whole nation: “We don’t know the scale of the problem, because there isn’t a single data source.” That is no longer acceptable.
I don’t know how to say this without swearing—don’t worry, I will find a way. In my experience, the reason these things go wrong is usually a mess-up rather than a conspiracy: the lack of ability to collate data, or the problem being too big, difficult or complicated. But I have to say that on this point, I am starting to believe that there is actually a conspiracy not to collect the data. Knowing the full scale of child abuse would be terrifying for the country; Members of Parliament like my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and I are certainly only too aware that there is child sexual abuse on every single street in this land. That is the reality of situation. I am starting to believe that the lack of a single solid data source is to try to hide that.
I cannot understand why the Government would not address IICSA’s most basic ask. The Government claim to have undertaken 19 of the 20 recommendations, but the advisory board run by survivors who gave evidence has counted three. The Government have agreed to three of the 20 recommendations made by IICSA, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, at a huge cost to the nation. A previous Prime Minister was really kind about the amount of money that was spent on it.
We count what we care about. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have debated the difference between criminal child exploitation and child sexual exploitation. At the moment I am afraid to say that foggy data is kept by the Home Office: all children who are being exploited get talked about as one big anomaly. The result is that when we do Redthread interventions in police stations around knife crime because of criminal exploitation in places such as Birmingham and London, we do not have any specialised policy for the girls involved in gang activity who are sexually exploited, because we not demark the data. There are all sorts of practical reasons why that is harming children who are being sexually abused, because we do not have a proper response in those circumstances.
Sarah Champion
It is about the victims and survivors, but it is also about preventing crime. To do that, we need to know who the perpetrators are.
Jess Phillips
I absolutely agree. So much attention is given in our country to who exactly the perpetrators of sexual abuse are, but it is often not based on data. We need to know where our children are safe. I want to know where my children are safe. I just want to know where the best places are for me to allow them to go— institutions, for example. No one is asking for it to be historical; we are all asking for today to be the point at which we say, “This is the standardised form, like we all have an NI number. If you see child abuse, this is the form you fill in and the information goes into a national data source.” It would not be that onerous.
I commend all my hon. Friend’s work and support her new clause 6.
Edward Argar
It is important at the outset to highlight IICSA’s hugely important work on this issue. When any large inquiry conducts its work, it remains for the Government, whatever their complexion, to be the arbiter and decide which recommendations to accept, rather than automatically accepting all the inquiry’s recommendations.
I know that a lot of thought has gone into the Government response. That is evidenced not least by the nudges from the hon. Member for Rotherham at various points to say, “So when is it coming?” Although I appreciate her frustration, the length of time reflects the amount of thought and consultation across Government because it goes to the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, about the breadth of the organisations and Departments involved.
New clause 6 reflects recommendation 1 in the final report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. In the Government response to the report and its recommendations, as the hon. Member for Rotherham said, we set out an extensive programme of work, including our response to the recommendation of a single dataset on child sexual abuse.
As set out in our formal response, we accept that robust data collection on the scale and nature of child sexual abuse is critical to underpinning and driving a more effective response to child sexual abuse. We have made a number of improvements on data collection. Crucially, we will make further improvements to performance data.
The Department for Education is driving forward an ambitious agenda to improve the use of data in safeguarding and children’s social care and will deliver a report to Parliament in the summer. It will set out ways to improve information sharing between safeguarding partners—as required by the Health and Care Act 2022, which I had the pleasure of taking through this Committee Room, among others, at length—and, crucially, how that data will be better brought together. It may not go all the way to what the hon. Member for Rotherham would want, but I hope that it will give her a degree of reassurance. I know that she will interrogate the report carefully when it is published.
The Department for Education will also publish the first part of its children’s social care data strategy at the end of the year. It is working to develop it with the sector and experts to deliver a statement of strategic intent and, crucially, a road map that sets out the departmental vision for children’s social care datasets and how they can be brought together. The Department is also learning best practice from local authorities and others on how they are using existing child exploitation data to inform future practice through predictive analytics.
The Home Office is another key element of the picture. It funds the independent Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, with which I know the hon. Member for Rotherham is familiar. The centre produces a report on the scale and nature of child sexual abuse and trends in official data. The Home Office is also working with the Office for National Statistics to improve data collection and granularity on child sexual abuse.
At the policing end of the lens, we are working with the police to drive improvements in the collection, analysis and use of data on child sexual abuse and exploitation, including factors such as ethnicity data and how forces record data for the annual data requirement consistently. The Home Office is funding dedicated child sexual abuse analysts in every policing region to help to bring this data together; funding the tackling organised exploitation programme to bring together local, national and regional data so that it can be shared and interrogated to help police uncover exploitation; and a national policing vulnerability knowledge and practice programme to improve policing’s overall response to vulnerability and to identify and promote best practice between forces.
In addition, the Home Office works with police forces to improve the consistency with which, and the way in which, they record data for the annual data requirement. For example, through the national data quality improvement service computer-assisted classification programme—now there’s a mouthful—we are working to improve and refine the identification of child sexual abuse crimes in police-recorded crime data consistently across police forces and datasets.
The Government continually add to and develop a suite of analytical outputs according to guidance from the code of practice for statistics. As part of that effort, we added additional variables into the criminal court outcomes by offences data tools in 2017, to include identifiers such as the ethnicity of defendants, and subsequently updated age variables to provide greater detail. The Government remain committed to bringing child sexual abuse further out of the shadows. We know that, as the shadow Minister said and the hon. Member for Rotherham has campaigned on since she was first elected in 2010, child sexual abuse is under-identified and under-reported, and in the past was under-recorded and under-reacted to by the police, if I can put it that way. That is why one of our core objectives is to see year-on-year increases in the volume of police-recorded crime for such offences and in the volume of successful charges.
The Government are also determined to provide proper support to all victims and survivors and to deliver real and enduring change. That is why we are working to strengthen the collection of data and how it is used, the consistency in that respect and the ability to pool or share data to increase awareness of child sexual abuse. Crucially, we need to understand what is working to respond to and address it and—to the hon. Member for Rotherham’s point—seek to prevent it where possible.
The Government’s position is that we are meeting the spirit of the inquiry’s recommendation through the numerous improvements that I have set out and enunciated for the Committee, and we will continue to drive further improvements to police performance data. We will endeavour to continue to engage with victims and survivors, child protection organisations, the hon. Member for Rotherham, I suspect, and Professor Alexis Jay in her work.
Sarah Champion
I listened to what the Minister said and I give him some grace, because I know that a lot of this work falls under the Home Office, but the spirit of improvement is not enough: I want actual improvement. Given that £186 million of taxpayers’ money was spent and the inquiry came up with one primary recommendation of a single dataset on child abuse, for the Government to really not shift much on that is poor. If the Minister was minded to say that there would be a drop-down for local authorities and police to tick to record where child abuse was occurring, we could change this. They have that facility at the reporting desk. I will not push the new clause to a vote, but I am aware of the support of my Front-Bench colleagues and the support the measure has in the Lords. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 10
Review into provision of support for children
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of this Act being passed, conduct a review into the current state of support for children who are victims.
(2) The review must consider, in particular—
(a) the current volume of provision,
(b) the current volume of unmet need, and
(c) the current level of investment in these services.
(3) Upon completion of the review, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report setting out—
(a) the findings of the review, and
(b) the action that the Secretary of State proposes to take in response to the review.”—(Sarah Champion.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the current volume, need and investment in support services for children who are victims.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—Duty to commission support for children and young people—
“(1) It is the duty of relevant local authorities to commission specialist children and young people’s support services for victims in accordance with need.
(2) The services provided under subsection (1) must include, but are not limited to—
(a) services for victims of child criminal exploitation, and
(b) services for victims of child abuse.”
This new clause would require local authorities to commission sufficient and specific support for children and young people who are victims.
Sarah Champion
New clause 13 aims to ensure that commissioners provide specific and sufficient support for children who have experienced or are experiencing crime, by placing on them a duty to commission support rather than simply having regard for children in their commissioning plans. The duty would be further strengthened by new clause 10, which would require the Secretary of State to commission a review of the current volume of, need for, provision of and investment into support services for children who are victims of crime. That will ensure full transparency in how the appropriate bodies respond to the needs of children.
Although current legislation states that commissioners should have due regard to the needs of children while creating their commissioning plans, there is no actual duty on them to do so. That could leave child victims subject to a postcode lottery, caught between commissioners who choose to provide for children and those who do not or do not understand the need to.
A freedom of information request submitted by the NSPCC to local authorities in England and Wales found that 77% of them offer no specialist support for children who have experienced child sexual abuse. Young victims and witnesses require a specific response that is well resourced to respond to their individual needs; however, research has shown that mental health services available to child victims of crime tend to be generic rather than specific. The same study found that almost three quarters of respondents reported not having accessed any support services, while just over a quarter of participants had received some sort of support, advice or treatment.
Jess Phillips
Has my hon. Friend, like me, found that when councils and sometimes health authorities are dealing with adult victims of domestic abuse, they feel they should commission specific services, yet when children are victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse or other crimes, the authorities feel that responsibility should immediately fall to children’s safeguarding, which provides absolutely no service unless the threshold of imminent risk of death is met?
Sarah Champion
Sadly, I completely agree. I have deep sympathy for the local authorities that are trying to provide these services without the resources and with ever-increasing need placed on them. I really welcome the fact that children are now regarded as victims under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, but support services need to be rolled out on that basis.
Sexual abuse has a far-reaching impact on society. It is estimated to cost more than £3.2 billion per year. In 2021, calls to the NSPCC helpline about child sexual abuse and exploitation reached a record high. The victims code of practice already enshrines
“the Right to be referred to services that support victims…and to have…services and support…tailored to meet your needs”.
Those responsible for upholding the code include police and crime commissioners, the Crown Prosecution Service and police witness care units, so ideally we should already be seeing sufficient and specific support being commissioned across England and Wales. In reality, however, provision is patchy and victims are being left with no support. A legal duty to commission sufficient and specific support for children and young people would push responsible parties to act in the best interests of all children.
It is concerning that the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse found that some statutory agencies responsible for commissioning support services
“have conflated the concepts of actual harm and risk of harm”,
leading to a failure to identify and support children who have been victimised or are at risk of being victimised. In conflating the two, commissioners improperly resource and fund support services, minimising the likelihood that victims will be able to process their trauma and recover from their experience. A duty must be placed on the Secretary of State to commission a review of the current volume, need, provision and investment in special services for children who have been victims of crime.
Currently, data on the provision of services is collected by police and crime commissioners. However, PCCs do not have the authority to mandate that other commissioners share that data with them. As a result, the understanding of the national picture on support for children who are experiencing harm is unclear. The Secretary of State could require all commissioners to share that data and thereby improve the national understanding of the volume of, need for, provision of and investment in special services for children.
New clause 10 would also require the Secretary of State to lay the review’s findings before Parliament and outline the steps he would take in response. That is vital to ensuring that all children receive the support they need, and to ending the postcode lottery that they currently face.
Anna McMorrin
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham for her commitment to ensuring that child victims remain at the forefront of this debate. She has done an enormous amount of work on the issue. I echo her concern that child victims can be subject to a postcode lottery in respect of those commissioners who choose to provide for children and those who do not.
Children experience crime differently, as we have heard so many times in this Committee, so the support that they receive needs to adequately reflect that. If it does not, we will be leaving some of the most vulnerable victims in our society to just fend for themselves. I agree with my hon. Friend’s intention to ensure that all child victims throughout the country receive the support that they not only deserve but are entitled to.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for speaking to new clauses 10 and 13. New clause 10 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the current volume of, need for and investment in support services for child victims, and new clause 13 would require local authorities to commission sufficient and specific support for child victims. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue and reassure her that the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that there is adequate provision of support for children who are victims.
The Bill aims to improve the support offered to children and young people. We have made several key changes to the victims measures in the Bill since it was published in draft, based on feedback received during pre-legislative scrutiny by the Justice Committee and its members. In order to better consider the needs of child victims of crime, we have clarified who is covered by part 1 of the Bill to align with the Domestic Abuse Act’s definition of a child victim of domestic abuse.
The Bill also sets out, under the duty to collaborate, that commissioners must consider any assessment of the needs of children when developing their joint commissioning strategy in respect of victim support services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and serious violent crimes. Statutory guidance will support commissioners in doing that. The publication of the joint commissioning strategies will then give insight into the levels of service that children are receiving in each police area across England and an assessment of how areas are making improvements against local objectives or key performance indicators.
We are committed to understanding the current needs and provision of support for children who are victims. As needs will vary locally, we provide police and crime commissioners with grant funding to commission practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of all types of crime at a local level. PCCs are expected to carry out needs assessments, which will allow them to ascertain the level of need and demand in their area, including in relation to support for children. This process informs local commissioning decisions. I gently remind the Committee of my comments in previous sittings on the joint strategic needs assessment approach put forward by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, which I have said I am happy to reflect on more broadly in considering the picture of support.
We recognise that across the commissioning landscape we need a more co-ordinated and strategic approach to funding services for victims, including child victims, so that they receive the support they need. That is why we published the victims funding strategy in May 2022, setting out our approach. The strategy introduced national commissioning standards, which will encourage an expected level of service for victims. It also introduced core metrics and outcomes to be collected on all Government funding, to ensure that we are building a comprehensive evidence base that will allow us to generate a much clearer picture of the needs and experiences of victims using support services.
Overall, the Ministry of Justice is more than quadrupling funding for victim and witness support services by 2024-25 compared with 2009-10, and that includes support for child victims. We have committed £154 million of that budget per annum on a multi-year basis until 2024-25, to allow victim support services and those commissioning them to provide consistency to victims receiving support. In addition, in June last year the Home Office also launched its support for the victims and survivors of child sexual abuse fund—or SVSCSA fund—for 2022 to 2025, providing grant funding of up to £4.5 million to voluntary sector organisations in England and Wales who work in this specific area.
We accept that child victims of sexual abuse must be able to access effective systems for the provision of therapeutic support. In response to a recommendation of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, we have committed to elicit views on the future of therapeutic support, including possible systemic changes to provision, through extensive engagement and consultation.
We remain of the view that the Bill’s current wording is the appropriate wording, as opposed to compelling a duty, as in the wording of the new clause. Equally, in respect of the broader engagement around the IICSA recommendation, I invite the hon. Lady to engage with me and others—including Home Office colleagues, probably more specifically—on that. With that, I encourage the hon. Lady not to press the new clauses to a Division at this point.
Sarah Champion
I am content at this point with the movement that the Minister has offered. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 14
Independent legal advice for victims of rape
“The Secretary of State must develop proposals for a scheme to give victims of rape access to free, independent legal advice.”—(Ellie Reeves.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
New clause 14 seeks to introduce independent legal advocates for rape victims. Although it is always awful to be a victim of any crime, seeking justice after a rape is particularly traumatic, not just because of the desperately low chance of the offender being charged—it is currently just 1.6%—or because rape cases take the longest of all crimes to get to court, but because rape and other sexual offences are the only criminal offences in which the victim’s credibility can become the focal point of the police investigation and the trial.
In no other crime would the complainant’s lifestyle, online presence or sexual history be considered relevant to a jury. Coupled with the fact that victims have no right to their own legal support, that can mean that they find themselves trying to navigate a complex and opaque system on their own. That is why one of the things that survivors tell me time and again is that they feel the criminal justice system is working against them, compounding the trauma they have already suffered.
Given the pressures, it is no wonder that nearly 70% of survivors who report a rape drop out of the justice system. I recognise that the Minister has outlined the fact that he is looking at independent legal advice for rape victims, specifically in relation to disclosure. Although I welcome that, the remit needs to be much wider. Too often, the interests of rape victims are not properly protected in the criminal justice process. When that happens, rape survivors need somewhere to turn to get expert legal help, and that is where legal advocates come in.
The alleged offender has a defence lawyer acting and advocating in their interests, but the rape victim has no such support, and that causes many survivors to drop their cases. An independent scheme of legal advocates would help to tackle that. This proposal would not give victim survivors party status in legal proceedings, and would not conflict with fair trial rights and the duty of the Crown to act in the public interest.
It is important to note that independent legal advice schemes for victims already exist in many other jurisdictions, including many European countries, Australia, Japan, California and Ireland. The UK is an outlier in that respect. As it stands, the only specialist independent legal advice for rape survivors in the UK comes from the groups Centre for Women’s Justice and Rights of Women. They do brilliant work, but can assist only a very limited number of survivors. They cannot deliver the full service that survivors often require, so there is a significant level of unmet need.
A pilot scheme of legal advocates was trialled in Northumbria between 2018 and 2020. The survivors who took part gave positive feedback, as did most of the police and prosecutors directly involved with the lawyers in the scheme. One survivor, Susan, said that
“100% in all of this the saving grace has been”
the lawyer,
“without a doubt, without a doubt my saving grace”.
Police and prosecutors were also clear that the accused’s right to a fair trial was not affected. Overall, the pilot found that the legal advocates substantially improved best practice in the police and CPS, and led to an improved victim experience.
Academic research by Dr Olivia Smith of Loughborough University shows that expanding the roll-out of the pilot to every police force in England and Wales would cost just over £4 million a year. The Home Office estimates that the emotional and wellbeing consequences alone of sexual offences, and the inadequate responses to those crimes, cost £9.8 billion. Given that, and the bulk of research showing that legal advocacy improves criminal justice satisfaction, health and employment outcomes, the cost of an independent legal advocate scheme is far from prohibitive, and would likely make huge savings elsewhere across the economy.
I turn to the remit of legal advocates. It is important to outline that, given the complexity and range of the legal issues that survivors encounter, legal advocates need to be trained lawyers, as opposed to independent sexual violence advocates. They need to be able to properly advise survivors on the issues they encounter, as well as conduct legal casework, such as reading police and CPS documents and preparing written representations. They have to be in an organisation entirely separate from any criminal justice bodies, to uphold their independence and, if necessary, liaise directly with the police and the CPS on the survivors’ behalf. However, we are not proposing that legal advocates assist victims at trial or represent them before the court. We are also not proposing that they play a role in the day-to-day communications between police and survivors. Rather, they would support the victim on specific issues that arise where legal expertise is required, from the moment they report their case to the police right through to trial. Importantly, they would be available free of charge.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for the new clause, which would require the Secretary of State to develop proposals for a scheme to give victims of rape access to free and independent legal advice. I know that we agree on the importance of ensuring that victims have confidence that they will be treated with sensitivity and dignity they deserve when reporting crimes such as rape. Integral to building that confidence is ensuring that victims are adequately supported, their credibility is not questioned without good reason, they are informed of their rights and that those are protected.
The proposed new clause would mean the development of proposals for a scheme that would enable victims of rape to access free and independent legal advice. We have some drafting concerns, and I am grateful that some of those were clarified in the hon. Lady’s speech. She did not specify what the legal advice would relate to: my understanding is that it could cover a range of matters, including advice for victims to help them understand requests for personal information and, where needed, to question those requests. She elaborated more broadly on that point and approach in her remarks, which was helpful.
The Government continue to take action to improve the criminal justice system response to rape, through the rape review action plan, and through this Bill we are taking broader action to support victims of all crime. It is critical that we allow for those changes to take effect. For that reason, and one I will come to, we do not support the amendment as drafted at this time, but I will elaborate further on that in a moment. [Interruption.] It is an amendment introducing a new clause; I was seeking to be dextrous, but was quite rightly called out by the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood on a point of terminology.
I do agree that victims being aware of their rights is an extremely important issue, particularly when supporting victims who are interacting with personal information requests, and preparing for trial. For rape victims in particular, I recognise that requests for personal information, and the trial itself, can be daunting and retraumatising experiences. That is why improving victim support, the court experience and requests for third-party material make up three of our eight key levers in the rape review action plan.
Yesterday, we published our fourth progress update, outlining the significant progress we have made in improving the criminal justice system response to rape, and better support for victims. It was only yesterday, though it feels longer. The sustained progress we are making to rebuild victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system should not be understated. We have already exceeded our initial ambition to return the volumes of adult rape cases reaching court to 2016 levels, but as everyone here would agree, although that is progress, it is not sufficient in and of itself.
Just before turning specifically to the new clause, she highlighted letter quality in this context, as an illustrative point. That is true of CICA as well. She was right to highlight the two years, but it can be extended in exceptional circumstances or for particular reasons. On quality of communication, I think it was 2018 when the hon. Member for Rotherham and I sat down with copies of the standard letters that CICA used to write to people, and basically rewrote them ourselves, suggesting there might be a better way to communicate. To the best of my knowledge, they still use our letters, but I might check that.
Edward Argar
In the latest progress update, we also recognised that there is more to do. I want to be very clear on the record that I am not unsupportive of what the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge seeks to achieve with her amendment. Indeed, to better understand whether independent legal advice and representation is required, and how it could work in practice alongside our wider reforms and in broader interactions with the system, we have asked the Law Commission to explore the merits of independent legal advice and representation, and how that would work in practice, recognising among other things the specific challenges in cases of rape and serious sexual offences, in terms of third-party material and similar. We also hope that the Law Commission will consider in the round why one particular set of cases should attract it while others would not, and whether that would be an equitable approach. There are very specific reasons in the case of RASSO cases, but we have asked the Law Commission to look at it carefully.
The Law Commission’s consultation on the use of evidence in sexual prosecutions was published on 23 May and will run until the end of September. I suspect that it will cover this matter and a wide range of other matters that we have discussed. I look forward to closely reviewing the Law Commission’s findings and, through gathering that additional evidence, arriving at a well-informed position on this important issue, and how it might be practical to deliver on such a commitment, subject to what the Law Commission says, and to decisions by the Lord Chancellor. To continue our improvements to third-party material requests through the Bill, we are also introducing duties on policing, which we debated when considering new clause 4. In addition, the victims code will introduce an entitlement for adult victims of rape and serious sexual offences to be offered a meeting with the prosecution team once they have been notified that the case is proceeding to trial. That will give victims the opportunity to discuss what happens next and to ask any questions that they have about the process.
On supporting victims to access the right to review process, the CPS notifies victims by letter of decisions not to charge or to stop a case, and offers eligible victims the right to request a review and gives details on how to do that. I will suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General that she and the Director of Public Prosecutions undertake an exercise akin to the one that the hon. Member for Rotherham and I did to look at how—often standard—letters are worded and framed, to ensure that they are sensitive and communicate clearly. That would be a matter for the Attorney General’s office.
In our view, it is slightly premature at this stage to propose a specific approach to free legal advice without taking into account the findings, and the expert advice, of the Law Commission’s important work on these issues. In the light of that work, we will probably return to these questions when it reports.
Ellie Reeves
I thank the Minister for his comments. I take some comfort from him saying that he is unable to support the new clause “at this stage” and that it is premature rather than something that is not being looked at. It is an incredibly important issue. I note that the Law Commission is looking at it. I would not want to see the issue kicked into the long grass.
Edward Argar
May I offer to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this in advance of the Law Commission work, so that the two of us can discuss it further, as Minister and shadow Minister?
Ellie Reeves
I would very much welcome that, and I am grateful for the offer. I will not press the new clause to a vote in the light of what the Minister has said. He acknowledges on the rape review that came out yesterday that there is more to do. I gently suggest that this is one of the key things that could be done so that we start to see some real progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 20
Data-sharing for immigration purposes: exemption for victims
“(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that personal data of a victim, as defined by section 1 of this Act, that is processed for the purpose of that person requesting or receiving support or assistance under the Victims Code is not used for the maintenance of immigration control.
(2) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 shall not apply to the personal data to which subsection (1) applies.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State must issue guidance to—
(a) persons providing relevant victim support services, as defined by section 12 of this Act;
(b) persons exercising any function of the Secretary of State in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality; and
(c) persons exercising any function conferred by or by virtue of the Immigration Acts on an immigration officer.
(4) In this section “immigration control” means United Kingdom immigration control and includes any United Kingdom immigration control operated in a prescribed control zone outside the United Kingdom.”—(Sarah Champion.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I wonder if it will help to start by saying that the Deputy Speaker has said that the debate in the Chamber will go all the way to 5 pm—I will preface my quite long speech with that, but I will keep it moving.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
It is very disturbing to hear the example that my hon. Friend has brought before us. Does she agree that what that lady has experienced is double jeopardy—with a sense of being totally undermined by the police, not being believed and being accused? The revictimisation in that situation sounds absolutely appalling.
Sarah Champion
I completely agree. People talk, and that sends out a chilling message to the whole community, keeping people with their abusers. I urge the Minister to consider this new clause, because unless we get the firewall in place, we allow perpetrators of violence and abuse to continue their unique and specific reign of terror.
Jess Phillips
I do not really need any notes, because I am about to make a briefer than normal speech that I have made what feels like a hundred times. One day, what we are asking for will happen.
I cannot stress enough the importance of the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham about the need for a firewall between immigration services and the police. At the moment, we say, largely to women, “If somebody tries to kill you, tries to rape you or does rape you and you call the police, we are going to call enforcement on you,” so what happens is that they do not call the police and I read out their names in March.
My brilliant constituent was part of the super-complaint. She faced a very real and credible threat to her life by a man who had abused her horrendously to the point that she had to be moved into a safe house because he was such a danger to her. She does not speak very good English. The police came round to her house; I had called them to go there because her husband had sent violent and threatening letters to both me and her, saying what he was going to do to her and to her family in Pakistan. The next thing I knew, I got a phone call from her and she kept telling me she was in Bradford. I did not understand because she did not speak very good English. She was in Bedford, because she had been put in Yarl’s Wood detention centre.
My constituent had not said anything about her immigration status, which, by the way, was completely legal. She had every right to be in our country. She now has indefinite leave to remain and is working towards British citizenship. The man who attempted to kill her was a British citizen. She had not said anything about her status, but the police had seen the papers on the side from the Home Office and thought, “I know, let’s detain this woman.” The next time her husband tries to kill her, she will not bother calling the police, will she? And neither would I—and it was me who called them in that instance.
The way we behave in this country is a disgrace. The idea that someone could come in and say they had been raped, and we would ring immigration enforcement—that the first thought is “We’ve got another one!”—is unbelievable, yet it happens. But there is a perfectly good, well practised and well measured way of stopping it happening. The Government’s response on this particular issue—which, unfortunately, I have also heard a hundred times—is that sometimes we have to speak to immigration for the benefit of the victim. Now, I speak to immigration on behalf of victims all the time. It is par for the course that I might help a victim with their immigration status. In fact, I helped the woman in the constituency case I just described. She now has indefinite leave to remain and is working towards becoming a British citizen.
It is not that I do not speak to immigration; what I do not do is ring immigration enforcement to cart these people away. There is this idea that the police are helpfully getting in touch with immigration. Well, they do not do that in other cases. When I call the police, nobody asks me, “What’s your immigration status.” Nobody asks me whether I am a British citizen when they come to my house when there has been a crime against me. Why on earth are we doing this? I am afraid that it is part of the very hostile environment towards migrants in our country. How low must we have to be to get our low-hanging fruit from a rape victim or a domestic abuse victim who has every right to live in our country?
The Government’s mealy-mouthed response is no longer acceptable. I hate to change the tone of our debates, but I am so cross about the slow progress when every expert—the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, everybody—has said again and again why the policy is dangerous. The Home Office response is weak, woeful and immoral. I support the new clause.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for her amendment, and to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley. I say this in a nice way: the shadow Minister has not nothing that I have not heard from her before, as I think she acknowledged in her remarks.
The amendment would prevent the sharing of victims’ data between organisations and individuals providing services under the victims code and those enforcing immigration laws. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley knows, that is a matter for the Home Office, but of course we are all one united Government, so I am responding as the Bill Minister, but I highlight my gratitude to the Home Office for the input that it has provided today.
The Government are fully committed to protecting all victims of crime, regardless of their immigration status. We are also duty-bound to maintain an effective immigration system, to protect our public services and to safeguard the most vulnerable from exploitation because of their insecure immigration status. Immigration enforcement will always seek to protect and safeguard any victim before any possible enforcement action is taken. Indeed, the Home Office routinely helps migrant victims by signposting them to legal advice to help them regularise their stay.
It is important to remember that every case is different and that an insecure immigration status does not automatically mean that somebody will be detained or removed. The decision on what may be the most appropriate course of action is based on many factors that require a full assessment of the individual circumstances. Evidence of vulnerability is an essential part of that assessment and is necessary to ensure effective safeguarding plans to protect victims from harm.
There can on occasion be benefits to sharing information, such as preventing perpetrators of domestic abuse from using a person’s insecure status against them as a means of coercion and control. But I note the counter point put by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, and the hon. Member for Rotherham. According to Home Office figures, of the 211 migrant victims of domestic abuse referred by the police to immigration enforcement between April 2020 and March 2021, none has been detained or removed as a result of that referral.
With regards to support services, the Government are clear that victims of crime are victims first and foremost, and must be able to access support, regardless of their immigration status. There is no mandatory requirement for victim support services to disclose the personal data of victims to immigration authorities; nor is data routinely requested from such services for the purposes of maintaining immigration control.
Jess Phillips
I just gently point out the reason that I think nobody has been detained or deported in that period. It is because there is nowhere to detain them; there is no space in the detention estate.
Edward Argar
I take the hon. Lady’s point, but I would say “or removed” as a result of that referral. Support is provided to migrant victims of domestic abuse in the UK through our destitution domestic violence concession, which enables victims who have entered the UK on a partner or spousal visa to access public funds for three months, which can be used to fund safe accommodation.
Sarah Champion
May I take the Minister back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley? The freedom of information request shows that between May 2020 and September 2022 the details of 600 victims of VAWG were shared with immigration enforcement. The Minister has said that no one was detained or deported on the basis of that, which makes me think that it was not only wrong but incorrect of the officers to collect and share that data because it came to no material outcome. Has the Minister had conversations about that, or can he reassure us that he will look at the College of Policing’s guidance for officers regarding when, how and for what purpose they share such information? Clearly, something is going very wrong in the system.
Edward Argar
I will make two points. First, the data that the hon. Lady was talking about in the FOI covers a different period than the data I was referring to. She is not comparing apples to apples, but I take her underlying point. Officers will follow the guidance and make referrals, but it is not necessarily for them to make fine judgments about the ultimate immigration status or appropriate action. They may make a referral, but it is ultimately not for police officers to make that decision on whether there are grounds for no further action to be taken; that would be for the immigration service.
Sarah Champion
This is a really serious topic. Something is going wrong with the guidance that police officers are, or are not, following. Will the Minister commit to looking into the guidance that officers are being given to see whether it is appropriate to safeguard victims, and to ensure that all the changes he has been working to put in place in the victims code can be operated?
Edward Argar
I will make two points again. First, the data sharing and what is required of the officers is clear. If an action is not taken subsequently to detain or remove someone, that does not mean that the officer was wrong in sharing the information; it is not necessarily for them to make that judgment. Secondly, on the hon. Lady’s request, I am happy to ensure that the Immigration Minister, who is probably on his feet in the House at the minute, is made aware of her point.
Edward Argar
I suspect that he might be. Migrant victims can also apply for settlement—indefinite leave to remain—under the domestic violence indefinite leave to remain rules. The intention is to safeguard victims of domestic abuse by offering them secure status and financial support, independent of their abusive partner. We know that victims of domestic abuse with insecure immigration status can face additional barriers in seeking support from agencies, professionals and others. That is why in April 2021 the Government launched the support for migrant victims scheme, which is being run by Southall Black Sisters and their delivery partners. The scheme provides wraparound support for migrant victims, including accommodation, subsistence and counselling, and is backed by £1.4 million in funding. More than 950 victims have been supported through the scheme since its introduction.
Supporting victims regardless of immigration status, especially victims of domestic abuse, is a key commitment of the Government, but I am afraid that my colleagues in the Home Office and I do not see the hon. Lady’s new clause as the right way to further that work. The victims code touches on every aspect of our criminal justice system, so the new clause’s inclusion of personal data that is processed for the purpose of requesting or receiving support or assistance under the victims code is extremely broad. It would apply a blanket approach to a complex and vast amount of data, regardless of what the data is, where it has been sourced from and why it was originally collected.
Retaining operational discretion so that each case is considered individually, plus ensuring that support is available to those who need it, is the right approach. Knowing the hon. Lady well, I understand the sentiment and intent behind the new clause. It is important that we look at what more can be done to make clearer to victims what is available to them and the processes that they can expect. That is why the Government are committed to introducing an immigration enforcement migrant victims protocol for migrant victims of crime. The protocol will give greater transparency to migrant victims and their dependants on how their data will be shared, and will set out that no immigration enforcement action should be taken against that victim while investigation and prosecution proceedings are ongoing, and while the victim is receiving support and advice to make an application to regularise their stay. As I say, I understand the sentiment behind the new clause, but I regret that we will have to resist it on this occasion.
Sarah Champion
The situation that we are in pains me, and it pains me that the Minister is unable to move forward on this. It is not enough to inform those vulnerable victims; I need to see the police being informed of what they ought, and ought not, to be doing. I will withdraw the new clause, but I assure the Minister that it will come back. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 21
Prisoners: suspension of parental responsibility
“(1) After section 2 (parental responsibility for children) of the Children Act 1989, insert—
‘2A Prisoners: suspension of parental responsibility
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person (“A”) is convicted of the murder or voluntary manslaughter of another person (“B”); and
(b) A and B had parental responsibility for the same child (“C”) at the time at which the offence was committed.
(2) Subject to the exceptions in subsection (3), A ceases to have parental responsibility for C while A is serving a custodial sentence in a prison or other place of detention in respect of the murder or voluntary manslaughter of B.
(3) The exceptions are where a conviction for manslaughter was made—
(a) as a result of the partial defences provided for in section 54 (partial defence to murder: loss of control) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, or
(b) on the grounds of diminished responsibility
in circumstances in which, on the balance of probability, A was a victim of coercive and controlling behaviour by B at the time of the killing or at a time reasonably proximate to it.’
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that is consequential on this section.
(3) The power to make regulations under subsection (2) may (among other things) be exercised by modifying any provision made by or under an enactment.
(4) Regulations under this section—
(a) may make transitional and saving provision;
(b) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(Ellie Reeves.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ellie Reeves
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Under the law, if a father is found guilty of killing his children’s mother, he retains parental responsibility over the children. That means that after ending their mother’s life and destroying the children’s lives, such killers still have power over their children—power to be involved in decisions affecting their lives and power to continue controlling and abusive behaviour over the family of their victim. The new clause would end that dreadful situation.
The new clause would reverse the situation in which the onus is on the victim’s family to prove, often through protracted legal proceedings, why the perpetrator’s parental responsibility should be revoked. Instead, the killer’s parental responsibility would be automatically removed for the period they were in prison, and the onus placed on them to go through the legal hoops to prove that they deserve that responsibility. That would apply to all those found guilty of the murder or voluntary manslaughter of the other parent.
The loss of a parent to violence creates deep trauma. We have no official figures for how many children lose their mothers in that way, but we know that two women are killed by their partner or former partner each week. One trauma specialist I spoke with, who has worked with hundreds of children whose mothers were killed by their fathers, estimates that about 50 mothers are killed by the father per year. In those cases, the children are dealing not just with grief, but with the loss of their parent—the mother is almost always the victim in such cases—and with the feelings of anger, shame and confusion that accompany having a father who has committed such an abhorrent act.
Retaining parental responsibility, however, allows those men to continue to exercise control over the children and surviving family from their prison cells. That results in an indefensible situation—his permission must be sought for things such as schooling or medical treatment, or before the children can be taken abroad. That forces the children’s carers, who are often the only stability the children have left, to engage with the killer and his wishes. That can be hugely distressing and, in turn, can potentially destabilise the children’s recovery.
Some abusive fathers even try to block maternal family members from gaining custody of the children they love, leaving the children to grow up in the care system instead. That has left some families unable to see their loved nieces, nephews or grandchildren—for months on end, as legal battles go through the courts—at the exact time when they are needed most to support the children.
The fact that a convicted killer’s parental responsibility cannot be suspended without protracted legal battles is a huge injustice. What greater dereliction of duty towards a child can there be than to rob them of their mother and burden them with a lifetime of trauma? Many are raised knowing that the perpetrator retains intimate knowledge of and access to their lives, which undermines their recovery. For some, that results in fear—they might themselves be in danger—and for others, in decisions made not in their best interest but rather to deprive them of opportunities out of sheer spite.
Children Heard and Seen, a charity that supports children impacted by parental imprisonment, reports that the retention of the father’s rights is a significant traumatising factor in those children’s lives. Children need stability, and their guardians having to fight in the family courts runs counter to that. As I have outlined, our new clause would end that.
I now turn to the case that helped shape the new clause: that of Jade Ward. Jade was 27. She had recently left her former partner when she was murdered by him in her home. Her four young sons were all in the house at the time. Jade’s killer was given a life sentence last year, with the judge calling the attack “merciless”. However, Jade’s family were horrified to find that their daughter’s killer retained rights over the children.
Jade’s parents said that her killer started to cause ripples not long after being sentenced, asking to see the boys’ school reports and attendance notes. They were then informed by social workers that, if they wanted to take the children on holiday, he would have to be consulted, and that he still had the power to take decisions on medical treatment. Jade’s mother said:
“He had lost control of Jade so he did what he did, and now he has still got control because he is controlling the boys and controlling us and it is horrific…He is in prison, but his presence is still looming. Any rights should have been taken away from him the moment he took away their mother…You cannot put into words the added worry and the stress because of him. It means we still can’t move on.”
Jess Phillips
Does my hon. Friend agree that if we were to walk up to anybody in the street and ask them whether a murderous father could decide whether his children could go on holiday, they would think we were mad? Yet that is so clearly the case.
Ellie Reeves
I have spoken to countless people about this situation and frankly, when I say that a dad can retain from his prison cell parental responsibility when he has killed the kids’ mum, they look aghast. They cannot make sense of it; it does not make sense. That is why this new clause is so important.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I understand the general point that the hon. Lady is making. Surely there are powers in social services and in the courts to completely remove the parental responsibility in question here. Is that not something that should be exercised? Can the hon. Lady not imagine also that there could be a case where a mother who had been brutalised over a period lost control or perhaps just defended herself so vigorously that it became a manslaughter? In circumstances such as those, we could imagine that the mother’s parents might be looking after the child and she might want to see school reports.
Ellie Reeves
In relation to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s first point, yes, families can go through the family court to get a special guardianship order. I will say a bit more about that later. However, it puts the onus on the victims’ families to go through protracted, costly and often opaque family law processes for that to happen. That can take years.
Ellie Reeves
But parental responsibility remains, so while that goes on, the dad still has a say.
Ellie Reeves
But they are not heard urgently; it takes years, as in the case of Jade Ward and other survivors and families I have spoken to.
In relation to the second point, I will go on to speak about how those people are specifically protected. Under the new clause, those convicted of manslaughter with a defence of loss of control or diminished responsibility and who at the time of the offence were subjected to coercive or controlling behaviour by the person they killed would not be caught, as there is specific carve-out. I will talk a little more about that as I go on, but I want to end what I was saying about Jade Ward by paying tribute to her family in highlighting the situation and trying to stop other families from facing the suffering they have faced.
I now want to talk about Mumtahina Jannat, known as Ruma, as her case also outlines the injustice that is occurring. Ruma was murdered by her violent ex-husband. On hearing the news, Ruma’s niece, the renowned children’s author Onjali Raúf, went straight to the house to find the children, but they had already been taken straight from school into foster care. She was not allowed to know where the children were or to make contact with them, while from his jail cell the killer was given the phone number of the foster parent and allowed to make contact with them, sending them letters. That is despite the fact that Ruma turned to Onjali and her mother for help when she fled with her children to a refuge five years earlier. Onjali said:
“We saw those kids every other day…Our home was a refuge for them. We would watch films with them and take them on holiday. They were part of our family…We didn’t see the children for over a year. After we were finally reunited with them, they asked us questions that gave us hints about the lies they were being told in those letters. Lies that tried to justify his murder of their mother…That youthful confidence was sucked out of them. And of course they had trouble trusting us again—why would they?”
Commenting on the current situation, Onjali said:
“Until it happens to you, you don’t know how broken the system is…You don’t know it’s geared towards this violent person, who has all the protections and all the rights…There’s no justice. ‘Justice’ isn’t the right name for this system.”
For Onjali’s family, new clause 21, which would change the law on parental responsibility, would be a step towards justice.
There is a school of thought that says that children always benefit from contact with their parent, but that is contrary to the available evidence. I met with Diane Clarke, whose mother was killed in 1978 when Diane was just 10 years old. Her father was charged with murder, which he denied, although he admitted manslaughter. He was sentenced at Birmingham Crown court to just three years in prison.
When her father was released, Diane was sent to live with him. She told me that at the time she felt that that was what she wanted, yearning for a normal family set-up, but as a child she did not recognise the domestic abuse she had witnessed for what it was or that she had been groomed by her dad to disrespect her mum. Only now, as an adult, does she realise the further harm inflicted on her by this living arrangement. She says that she realised she lived in fear that she would anger him and he would kill her too. Let us be clear: this was not an irrational fear, given that he had already killed someone he claimed to love.
New clause 21 would deliver protections for cases such as Diane’s, as it contains provisions for those convicted of voluntary manslaughter to have their parental responsibility suspended. That is necessary, as so many cases of domestic homicide result in a manslaughter rather than a murder conviction. This is often despite long histories of domestic abuse featuring in these cases.
Take, for example, the case of Joanna Simpson. She was killed by her estranged husband, Robert Brown, in 2010. The attack began when Brown was returning their two children, aged nine and 10, after a half term visit. Brown used a hammer he had packed in the children’s bag and bludgeoned Joanna repeatedly. He then put her body in the car with the children in it and took her to the site of a pre-dug grave, where he buried her. Joanna’s friends and family all describe the killing as taking place in the context of long-term abuse, but Brown was convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. It is vital that killers such as Robert Brown are prevented from causing more harm to their children, regardless of what the conviction for killing ends up being. New clause 21 would ensure that.
All the cases I have referred to involve men who have killed women. However, it is right to acknowledge that there are some women in prison for manslaughter having killed their partner after suffering years of domestic abuse—a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire. We recognise the very specific nature of those crimes and that, in such circumstances, the risk to the children presented by the killer is not the same. Therefore, in new clause 21 we have included an exemption where a manslaughter conviction is made on the grounds of loss of control or diminished responsibility and the prisoner had, on the balance of probabilities, been a victim of coercive and controlling behaviour by the person killed at or near the time of the killing. In these rare cases, I do not consider that the mother should automatically lose their parental responsibility. That is why new clause 21 contains the exemption.
I turn to the current system. I appreciate that new guardians can already seek a special guardianship order over the children, meaning that their parental responsibility would trump the perpetrator’s, although they would still need to consult him on some things and would not be able to do certain important things without his consent. However, that still places an extra burden on the family in terms of legal proceedings. Given the abysmal court delays, that is another hurdle for a family that has already been through legal proceedings in the criminal court.
I also understand that the family can seek an adoption order, but that can feel uncomfortable for families as it legally alters the relationship between the children if they are with the family. For example, if they are adopted by their grandmother, she legally becomes their mother and their birth mother legally becomes their deceased sister. But that is beside the point. As Onjali says,
“Why do we even think murderers should have parental responsibility? They forfeited that ‘responsibility’ when they killed their children’s mother. It’s beyond logic.”
New clause 21 would remove the burden of lengthy, stressful proceedings in the family court and give children the security they so desperately need: that their new guardians have responsibility for them and that they are safe.
To conclude, the research is clear that adverse childhood experiences have a huge impact on how children grow and develop. New clause 21 is about doing what is best for the children left behind: safeguarding their rights, protecting them from abusers and trying to give them the best possible means to thrive. It is about valuing the rights of children over those of abusers.
One year on from the petition for Jade’s law, it is indefensible that men who kill their partners, often after long periods of abuse, are still able to exercise control over the surviving children and their guardians from their prison cell. I note the Justice Minister’s comments today outlining his support after months of campaigning from Labour. I also note his comment that he is looking to find a quicker way to cut off parental rights for killers. Today is that opportunity with new clause 21. By voting for it, we can end an indefensible situation and truly make this a Bill for victims. Failing to do so is a vote for more delay, leaving vulnerable children unprotected and victims’ families having to fight through the backlogged courts. I hope that Government Members will vote to support Jade’s law today.
Edward Argar
I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge for her new clause, which seeks the automatic suspension of parental responsibility in the tragic circumstances where one parent of a child has been convicted of murdering or committing voluntary manslaughter of the other for the term of their imprisonment for such an offence. I do of course have the deepest sympathy for families dealing with such a tragic event—including the family of Jade Ward, who have campaigned bravely and tenaciously for the change to be made.
The hon. Lady and I debated the issue in November last year in Westminster Hall, following which the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside introduced me to Jade’s parents, who were there to listen to that debate. I suspect that this view will be shared by the shadow Minister: I think everyone in that room was struck by their quiet dignity in the face of everything they have had to put up with and endure while campaigning.
Strengthening measures to ensure the safety of children and vulnerable parents continues to be a top priority for the Government and something we remain deeply committed to. I agree that in such tragic circumstances family members who are stepping in to care for the child or children should be better supported, and that, fundamentally, an abusive parent who has committed such a terrible offence should not be able to use family court proceedings as a further way of exerting control or tormenting a tragically bereaved family. As the Lord Chancellor stated in The Sun today,
“It should be presumed that when one parent murders another, denying their child of a loving parent, they should not have the right to make decisions on that child’s life.”
I agree with the Lord Chancellor. He was clearly setting out the view of His Majesty’s Government. It is now a matter of how that intent is achieved.
As the Lord Chancellor has stated, there will of course be exceptions, as the hon. Lady’s amendment recognises, such as victims of domestic violence and domestic abuse who lash out after years of abuse, for whom automatic restriction would not be appropriate. But restricting the right should be the norm. It is right that time is taken to properly look at the options, however, to ensure that exceptions are captured—I will come on to the legal reasons in the light of a recent case in a minute—and we are looking for the quickest way and most appropriate vehicle. The shadow Minister would say we have one in front of us as we sit in this room today, and that might prove to be the case. However, we do not believe this new clause is the right route to remedy this situation.
Jess Phillips
It is good that the Minister is referencing European human rights law, which parts of the Bill seek to undermine. It is good to see that he does not want to dissociate from this part of that law.
I cannot bear to hear the excuse that this is going to take more time. The first case of a murderer who was given parental responsibility was raised in this House in 2016 by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) in a debate on what was then the Prisons and Courts Bill—if anyone can remember that—before Parliament was prorogued, which was then blocked. It was promised that the issue would be put into that Bill in 2016, which fell at an election; it was then promised that it would be put in the Domestic Abuse Bill, which then again fell because Parliament was prorogued. After the harms review in 2019, we were promised that it would be coming down the line. I am sorry, I cannot sit here and hear “This needs more looking at.” We have been looking for years.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, but I will go on to explain why I believe the drafting is not necessarily appropriate. I assure her that there are no plans to prorogue or dissolve Parliament in the immediate future that I am aware of.
I would also like to make clear that the courts do have the power to seriously restrict the exercise of parental responsibility when it is in the child’s best interests. I heard the points made by the shadow Minister in respect of that process. I draw hon. Members’ attention to the recent Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Re A, regarding parental responsibility. In that judgment, the President of the Family Division confirmed that Parliament has already given the court the power to empty a father’s parental responsibility of all content and prevent them from making any future applications to the court, regardless of the marital status of the parent or how parental responsibility was acquired. Courts can and do make use of that power when it is appropriate to do so, but crucially, they are able to do so considering all the unique circumstances of the individual case, with the child’s best interests at the heart of their decision. The new clause potentially would remove that ability. However, I take the shadow Minister’s underlying point about how retraumatising and traumatic going through the family court in that context can be.
As I said earlier, I have huge sympathy for the aims of the amendment, particularly in respect of the processes and procedures that bereaved families have to go through in order to achieve the result they desire. We are committed to taking action to address this issue, as the Lord Chancellor has unequivocally set out. In response to the Ward family’s calls for reform, we have asked the Family Procedure Rule Committee in the interim to make the court process less time-consuming and more straightforward for families applying for special guardianship orders and other orders to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility in these or similar circumstances. The committee is actively considering what changes can be made to deliver that. Also, as of 1 May, the Government have extended the scope of legal aid for making special guardianship orders. That means that in private family proceedings where an individual wishes to become a special guardian, they can receive legally aided advice and representation to help them do that, subject to a means test.
I agree that there is more that can and should be done. That is why we are actively working on what changes could be made to the law on parental to rectify the position that the Ward family have highlighted through their campaign, while avoiding unintended or perverse consequences from those changes. We need to fully consider the recent Court of Appeal judgment in the Re A case as part of that.
I am very concerned about the risk that an automatic suspension of parental responsibility could be deemed to breach the child’s rights under articles 6 and 8 of the European convention on human rights, potentially leading to legal action or undermining what we are all trying to resolve here with minimal legal challenge. It is better that we take the intervening months to carefully consider what is the right approach in the light of that judgment, and return—hopefully swiftly—with a fully drafted and carefully considered proposal that guarantees the core principle of the Children Act that the family court should always have the best interests of the child at heart, but that also seeks to address the underlying point, the underlying intention, of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge.
This new clause has, as I hope everyone can agree, an entirely noble and uncontroversial aim. We all have huge sympathy for families in these circumstances and want to do as much as possible to support them. I am happy to work with the hon. Lady on this if she so wishes. I will repeat the words of the Lord Chancellor, which set out the Government’s position:
“It should be presumed that when one parent murders another, denying their child…a loving parent, they should not have the right to make decisions on that child’s life.”
I have to say in response to the final point made by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge, with whom I tend to agree—not all the time, but a lot of the time—that on this, I disagree with her. Voting against the new clause is not a vote for doing nothing or a vote to reject a solution that works. It will be a vote for taking the time to get it right.
Ellie Reeves
I have listened to what the Minister has had to say, but the Government have had ample time to bring forward proposals on this matter. A new clause could have been presented by the Government in relation to this Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley said, the issue has been being raised since as far back as 2016. We had the debate last November. Therefore the Government have had more than enough time to bring forward proposals. There is a proposal on the table today to end this situation once and for all. That is why I will press new clause 21 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Janet Daby
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In discussing new clause 25, I will focus on the Government’s own equality statement on the Bill. Hon. Members will recognise the problem of disproportionalities in criminal justice. Too often, minority groups face unfairness in how they are treated in the justice system. More action is required to identify those inequalities, and where they are identified, they must be tackled.
The new clause requires the Government to lay before Parliament an annual report covering how the Secretary of State has exercised his powers regarding release decisions for top-tier offenders. The report would include how a case is referred, the decision from that referral, and information about the appeal mechanism after referral. All the information will be broken down by protected characteristics.
I wish to make three brief points. First, black and Asian prisoners and those aged 18 to 20 fall into the top-tier category at a higher rate than other parole-eligible prisoners; they are over-represented. That is why the new clause is required: to record such concerns. For some protected characteristics, such as marital status or pregnancy, it would be difficult to identify the impact of clauses 35 to 39, and the equality statement recognises that. However, the new clause requires reporting on all protected characteristics to catch disproportionalities that are not currently identified, but may arise in future. It is also a tool to address wider concerns of disproportionality. Between Committee and Report stages, I hope the Minister will include that point in his consideration of whether to revise the clauses.
Secondly, following recommendations made in the Lammy review, the Ministry of Justice committed to publishing
“more and better data on ethnicity where possible”.
Let us please follow that principle. If a new power is given, information on how the power will affect ethnic minority groups should be published. In response to the Secretary of State’s new referral powers, therefore, I hope he will publish that kind of data. Unfortunately, new powers are often introduced before Ministers are required to publish regular information on the impact of the powers. I hope the Minister will not make this another such example. It is in the Minister’s interest to produce an annual report and to allow parliamentarians to scrutinise the issue, so that he and his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice have more information and can be proactive in tackling inequalities.
That brings me to my third and final point, on victims and public protection. The equality statement highlights the Government’s belief that confidence in the system must be balanced against the case for rehabilitation—I refer Members to page 30 of the equality statement. Unfortunately, I am not yet convinced by that analysis. Building confidence in the parole process is inherently linked to the rehabilitation of offenders. If it is not—as the Government’s equality statement seems to indicate—it will fail to reassure victims and it will undermine the Government’s aim of prioritising public protection.
The impact assessment for the Bill shows that, in recent years, about a third of those who would be classified as top-tier offenders have been released. Even after the Bill gains Royal Assent, top-tier offenders are expected to be released at a similar rate. That is why rehabilitation is essential for victims and for public protection. We must make best use of: rehabilitation opportunities; key work; the use of open conditions where appropriate; and release on licence to facilitate reintegration back into the community. I accept that that will not always be possible, but I expect that the Minister in his reply will agree that a range of options should be available when making a release decision. Perhaps he could reflect on how creating a top tier of offences might better interact with rehabilitation opportunities. That will reassure victims and protect the wider public.
I hope that the new clause encourages the Minister to acknowledge the issues highlighted in the equality assessment, and to consider how we can resolve them as the Bill passes through Parliament.
Ellie Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East for moving new clause 25. As I outlined earlier, there is concern across the political spectrum about the impact of clauses 35 and 36. I also share my hon. Friend’s concerns about racial disproportionality in our criminal justice system. The equality impact assessment for the Bill finds that the provision it makes for the creation of a top tier of prisoners will disproportionately impact black and Asian prisoners and young adults. As the Prison Reform Trust’s evidence points out, the Government have made
“no provision to mitigate or prevent that discriminatory impact.”
It therefore seems sensible that the Secretary of State should report annually on the use of the powers on release decisions. I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham East for her new clause 25, which would place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish certain information about the cases on which they or another Minister have adjudicated. I fully appreciate the intent behind the new clause. The exercise of the power of the Secretary of State must be transparent, and every decision must be made objectively and fairly. It is vital that we guard against any discrimination or bias in the system. However, we do not necessarily agree that those aims are best achieved by putting the requirement in primary legislation. For the new approach to parole, we would prefer greater flexibility in how and when information is published.
For the avoidance of doubt, I reassure right hon. and hon. Members that the Ministry of Justice welcomes proper external scrutiny of our work. We routinely publish large amounts of data to assist Parliament and the public in their understanding of how the criminal justice system is performing. Of course, it is open to Parliament, following the implementation of the Bill’s provisions, to provide post-legislative scrutiny in questions or in other forums; I might touch on that point in a minute. We are currently working through the implementation issues for the parole reforms in the Bill. We need to take time to consider the full range of data and other information that will be required to enable us to evaluate the new process and ensure that it runs smoothly. We also need to consider what would be most helpful to Parliament.
I reassure the hon. Member for Lewisham East that we will closely consider the items in her new clause as we develop our performance measures. Her points were typically sensible. I confess that I will look at this particularly carefully out of a degree of self-interest, because as a member of the Justice Committee she has a regular opportunity to summon me before her to answer difficult questions. I hope I have reassured her that I will look carefully at what she is suggesting.
Janet Daby
I reassure the Minister that I will be following through on this point: I am sure he will experience me asking him further questions and pressing him on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 26
Access to services for victims with no recourse to public funds
“(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other enactment, a victim of domestic abuse who—
(a) has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom which is subject to a condition that they do not have recourse to public funds,
(b) requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom but does not have it,
(c) has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom given as a result of a maintenance undertaking,
is entitled to be provided with services in accordance with the victims’ code.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that is consequential on this section.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
‘domestic abuse’ has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020;
‘victim’ has the meaning given by section 1 of this Act.” —(Sarah Champion.)
This new clause would ensure victims of domestic abuse who do not have recourse to public funds are still entitled to be provided with services in accordance with the victims’ code.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Sarah Champion
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In effect, I am trying to help the Minister to reach out to all victims, because some are currently unable to access his excellent new code. Evidence suggests that migrant victims are more vulnerable to experiencing serious crime and, at the same time, less likely to receive redress. Migrant victims encounter multiple barriers to protection and safety. The immigration system and the hostile environment policy create structural obstacles to justice. Migrant victims of domestic abuse often face a stark choice: staying in a violent relationship, or deportation and destitution if they leave. Because of their own or their parents’ insecure immigration status and the no recourse to public funds condition, children may also be trapped in those situations.
Improved legal rights are therefore crucial to enabling migrant victims to access lifesaving services and support to escape abuse and rebuild their lives. Southall Black Sisters have been leading a 30-year campaign, to which I pay tribute, to ensure that migrant victims and their children are able to access safety and support. The campaign is calling for the no recourse to public funds condition to be lifted and for victims of domestic abuse to have the right to stay in the UK. That is critical, so that they can obtain welfare benefits and housing from the local authority to escape abuse on the same basis as those with secure immigration status.
I acknowledge that the new clause does not go that far, but it would ensure that, at the very least, migrant victims can access support services under the Minister’s victims code. The current situation is untenable. Many cannot even enter a women’s refuge if they cannot pay their rent or living costs. Many cannot seek help without the fear of being removed from the UK. Many women risk being sent to countries where women face particular ostracism, harassment and honour-based abuse due to the stigma of being separated, divorced or unmarried.
Over the years, Southall Black Sisters have achieved some major reform to immigration policy and rules for those on spousal or partner visas. The introduction of the domestic violence indefinite leave to remain scheme in 2002 and of the destitution domestic violence concession in 2021 has benefited over 1,000 victims every year. However, the provisions do not cover those on other types of visa or those without documents who may be subjected to domestic abuse by partners or family members: they remain unprotected and vulnerable to domestic abuse within the home or to economic and sexual exploitation outside it, as they become destitute and homeless as a consequence. Undocumented victims are particularly vulnerable to the weaponisation of their status by the perpetrator; they can become overstayers through no fault of their own, because they have few rights in this country.
In April 2021, the Home Office introduced the support for migrant victims pilot scheme to provide support for victims of domestic abuse who have no recourse to public funds. The scheme, which is being delivered in a UK-wide partnership led by Southall Black Sisters, has now been extended for another two years to March 2025, pending a longer-term solution. The extension clearly indicates that the Home Office recognises the vital importance of providing financial support to migrant women with no recourse to public funds. The pilot assisted about 400 victims in the first year and 560 in the second.
The first year of the pilot scheme has been externally evaluated by the Home Office, but the results have not yet been published. However, Southall Black Sisters commissioned the child and woman abuse studies unit at London Metropolitan University to evaluate the pilot for the same period. The unit’s report “Living at the Edge” shows that although providing assistance under the scheme is essential, victims need more money for longer, as the current rates are below those for universal credit, despite a recent rise to deal with the cost of living crisis.
Many victims are still unable to access a refuge in areas where there are high rents. Instead, they are housed with their children in unsuitable accommodation such as bed and breakfasts or hotels. Also, some refuges are reluctant to accept referrals if funding is available for only a short period, particularly in complex spousal/partner visa cases, non-spousal/partner visa cases and undocumented cases.
The evaluation recommends an extension of the destitution domestic violence concession and the domestic violence indefinite leave to remain scheme to protect all migrant victims of domestic abuse. The Domestic Abuse Commissioner also recommends the simple extension of those two schemes, which should be available for six months for all migrant victims, pending longer-term solutions. The commissioner’s report estimates that the social gains of supporting migrant victims in that way would be about £2 billion over 10 years, with about 7,700 victims likely to need refuge or other accommodation. That small amount would not place a significant burden on the public purse. More importantly, it would provide crucial safety and support to vulnerable victims and their children.
Based on all the evidence, an extension to the current provision for those on a spousal or partner visa to all victims, irrespective of their immigration status, would be the most simple and effective way of improving access to vital lifesaving services and support for migrant victims. The new clause would help to end the discrimination and the two-tier system that currently exists between migrant and non-migrant victims. I also ask the Minister to commit to ensuring that all migrant victims can access support services under the victims code and that tailored services for migrant victims are funded and resourced.
Jess Phillips
Again: please see other debates from the past eight years about how important this issue is. At least my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and I do not have to keep redrafting the amendments. I thank the people in the drafting office for all their help over the years with drafting the same amendment over and over again to put into Bills.
The Government’s response to this amendment, based on previous experience, has been to carve out parts of the Istanbul convention, which they claim to have proudly signed up to, because it will not allow them to renege on helping migrant victims. I recognise the Minister’s point about the previous firewall amendments; I also heavily recognise that he is from the Ministry of Justice, not the Home Office. It is a bit like I am having an argument with a cloud, because the person I am actually cross at is not here to represent themselves. I feel they know I am cross.
I am afraid to say that one of the things that is problematic about the scheme run by Southall Black Sisters in partnership with Birmingham and Solihull Women’s Aid, where I live, is that the Government have never released the documents assessing it. They repeatedly said that they would, but we have yet to see them—another piece of paper that we are waiting for from the Home Office.
I absolutely support new clause 26. I know that the Minister has already quoted The Sun today, and I will simply say that this is not some sort of woke, woolly liberal concern: it was The Sun that backed the campaign to ensure that when a victim of domestic abuse comes forward, we ask not what stamp is on their passport, but what we can do to help. That is the standard we should set, and not keep on having a pilot that is now in its fourth year of existence.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for this debate on new clause 26, which would put it on the face of the Bill that victims of domestic abuse who do not have recourse to public funds can still receive services under the victims code. While I fear that some of what I will say may disappoint the hon. Lady, it is none the less important that, like her and the shadow Minister, I put on the record my tribute to the work done by Southall Black Sisters and Birmingham and Solihull Women’s Aid, which I suspect the shadow Minister knows very well.
I emphasise that when a crime is committed, our immediate priority is always the welfare of the victim, irrespective of their immigration status. Victims of crime are victims first and foremost. That is why the victims code states:
“You have the Right to services under this Code regardless of your resident status.”
The code does not contain any eligibility requirements linked to immigration status, and victims who have no recourse to public funds are still able to receive support under the terms of the code. That includes right 4, which is the entitlement to be referred to and/or access services that support victims.
We have, however, heard the important point that in practice the recourse to public funds rules in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 affect the ability of victims of domestic abuse with insecure immigration status to access some accommodation-based support services that fall under the provisions of no recourse to public funds, for example in relation to rent charges that are paid for via housing benefit. As Members will undoubtedly know, that is why we have made specific, targeted support available to ensure that migrant victims of domestic abuse in the UK can access the right support services, including access to safe accommodation funding through the destitute domestic violence concession, which enables victims who have entered the UK on a partner or spousal visa to access public funds for three months.
As I have previously set out, the support for migrant victims scheme provides migrant victims with support including accommodation, subsistence and counselling. It has supported more than 950 victims since its introduction in April 2021. The pilot scheme and independent evaluation —I note the comments made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley—will help to establish the evidence base to inform long-term decisions on policy and funding. That includes establishing a clearer picture of the volume of migrant victims with no recourse to public funds who require accommodation and subsistence. My Home Office colleagues will be listening carefully to the points made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley and will consider the evaluation and other evidence. We have committed to continuing to fund the scheme until March 2025, ensuring that we maintain support for migrant victims of domestic abuse.
I hope that what I have said goes some way towards reassuring the hon. Member for Rotherham of the various ways in which the Government are supporting victims irrespective of their residency status, especially victims of domestic abuse. Crucially, the code is clear on entitlements for victims applying, irrespective of a victim’s residency or immigration status, and on the measures that we are taking to enable access to the right support services. I encourage the hon. Member not to press her new clause to a Division.
Sarah Champion
Of all the amendments that I have tabled, I have to say that new clause 26 was the one that, from the start, I thought the Minister would not support—not because it is a poor provision, but because of the hostile environment towards people from overseas that we now find ourselves in. It pains me that I seem to have been correct about that, even though the Home Office knows that there is a need because it is funding the pilots, for which I am very grateful.
Edward Argar
May I very gently say two things to the hon. Lady? First, my recollection is that the phrase “hostile environment” was first used by a Labour Home Secretary. Secondly, the no recourse to public funds constraint came about in a piece of legislation passed in 1999, when the Labour party was in power.
Sarah Champion
I hear what the Minister is saying. I will say again that Southall Black Sisters have been pushing for this for 30 years, so it has been an issue across multiple Governments. The Minister also has to recognise that in the current climate, my hopes that the right thing will be done towards migrant women are about as low as they have ever been in these past 30 years.
There is an awful lot of support for these measures. We will not give up, but at this point, as I am a realist, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 27
Victim Contact Scheme: annual report
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare an annual report on the operation of the Victim Contact Scheme and an assessment of its effectiveness.
(2) A report under subsection (1) must set out—
(a) an assessment of how many victims eligible for the VCS—
(i) became engaged with the scheme in the last year;
(ii) are engaged with the scheme overall;
(iii) made a victim statement of any kind;
(iv) challenged a Parole Board decision;
(v) applied for a licence condition;
(vi) chose not to join the scheme;
(vii) chose to join the scheme at a later date than initially invited to join;
(viii) chose to leave the scheme;
(ix) reported not being invited to join the scheme; and
(x) reported that their contact stopped during the scheme;
(b) how many staff were working in the VCS in the last financial year; and
(c) the ratio between staff and those engaged with the scheme overall.
(3) The first such report must be laid before Parliament before the end of 2024.
(4) A further such report must be laid before Parliament in each subsequent calendar year.”—(Janet Daby.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Janet Daby
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 27 arose from a conversation with the Parole Board about how information can be accessed regarding the parole process. I was concerned to hear that, on an alarming number of occasions, there are reports of those eligible for the victim contact scheme getting lost in the system, not receiving the contact that they have opted into and to which they are entitled, and subsequently being left unable to exercise their rights under the victims code. That should not be the experience of victims, and this probing measure seeks to address those concerns and to ensure that the victim contact scheme operates as fully and effectively as possible.
The victim contact scheme gives the victims or bereaved families of serious violent or sexual offences, where an offender receives a custodial sentence of 12 months or more, the right to be kept updated at key points during the offender’s sentence and parole process. Victims are assigned a victim liaison officer and can determine themselves the extent of information that they wish to receive and how they receive it. That can facilitate victims providing a statement during the parole process, or request a licence condition be applied where a prisoner is released. It is a valuable tool in providing reassurance to victims and ensuring that they can exercise their rights. It is vital that it operates as it is intended to, so that victims and bereaved families do not fall through the cracks.
New clause 27 would require an assessment be made of how many victims report not being invited to join the VCS as they should be, and how many report their contact from the VCS stopping when it should not have done so. It would also require that an assessment be made of how many victims are choosing to opt into the VCS or not, and how many of those who do opt in then go on to make a victim statement or apply for a licence condition.
Essentially, the new clause assesses how victims of the most serious crimes are choosing to access information that they are entitled to and to exercise their rights under the victims code. It is the Secretary of State’s responsibility to ensure that victims can access the information to which they are entitled and that they can exercise their rights. The VCS clearly plays an important role in doing that. That is why it is crucial that it operates effectively and does not see victims falling out of the system. I hope the Minister and other Members share that goal. Through this probing amendment, I hope that the Minister will hear the concerns that are being raised and will consider how remedies to those concerns can be included in the Bill.
Anna McMorrin
I thank my hon. Friend for tabling this new clause. The criminal justice system places such a high burden on victims, in terms of the processes that they are expected to understand and take part in, that we need to do more to ensure that victims properly understand the sentences that are imposed and that the parole process is about the assessment of future risk and not punishment.
As the victim contact scheme is an opt-in scheme, it is likely that many victims do not even know of its existence. There are also countless victims with specific communication and access needs who may find it difficult to access the victim contact scheme. We are not furnished with information about how easy or difficult victims find it to engage with the processes; it is very difficult even to find that information. We do not know whether those victims who do engage find their experience beneficial or not. I agree with my hon. Friend that the only way to improve the victim contact scheme is to fully understand its performance—strengths and failures—so that we can know what improvements to it are needed.
Edward Argar
I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham East for her new clause, which would require the Secretary of State to report annually on the operation and effectiveness of the victim contact scheme, including, for example, specific assessments of the number of victims who have joined or left the scheme, submitted victim personal statements or requested licence conditions, as well as the number of staff working to deliver the scheme.
The role of the victim contact scheme is a vital part of how we ensure that victims receive the information they need to help them to understand the criminal justice process from start to finish. Once they are in the scheme, victims have a dedicated victim liaison officer, who will keep them informed of key updates in their case.
The hon. Member is raising the important issue of clear assessments of whether the scheme is working, and it goes without saying that victims should receive the best service. That is why delivery of the victim contact scheme is covered by right 11 in the victims code—the right to be given information about the offender following a conviction—and it will come under the new duties on code compliance in clauses 6 to 11.
His Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service already routinely monitors the performance of the victim contact scheme, for example in respect of how many victims elect to receive the service. Although we cannot commit to report on everything mentioned in the new clause, at least in the short term, because not all the data is collected in an appropriate format—or, indeed, in some cases collected at all—I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member by saying that we are considering how best to improve what data is collected in the future, as part of the new code compliance data framework.
The Bill provides for sharing and reviewing code compliance information locally through police and crime commissioners, and nationally via reports to the Secretary of State. Our intention is that a new national governance forum will review the code compliance information to pinpoint areas for improvement, and the Bill requires the Secretary of State to publish relevant information for transparency.
As I have said in relation to other amendments and new clauses on code compliance, reporting to the House is a vital part of accountability. We continue to test and develop proposals for the new national governance forum. As always, I am very open to considering how that forum can best report to Parliament. On the basis of not wanting the hon. Member to feel left out over the summer, I am very happy to talk to her about the underlying intent of her new clause, if she so wishes, and to consider whether there are ways within the code compliance approach that we are adopting whereby we might perhaps be able to adopt some of what she is suggesting in that mechanism, if not necessarily in the Bill itself.
With that, I encourage the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.
Janet Daby
I thank the Minister for allowing himself to be probed and for being considerate about how best to improve the VCS. I gather that he may be very busy over the summer recess, but I will not move the new clause to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Anna McMorrin
As we have reached the end of the Bill Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to thank everybody who has worked so hard on the Bill over the past few weeks and enabled the Committee to have fruitful and mainly co-operative debates about such crucial issues.
My biggest thanks go to the victims and survivors I have worked with over the past two years in the lead-up to the Bill. Their strength and bravery in sharing their truth is the reason that we can advocate and fight for the changes we want to see. They are the real human cost and impact behind the Bill, and they must never be forgotten or sidelined.
I also thank the various stakeholders I have worked with. There are far too many to mention, and I have thanked them as we have gone through the Bill. I particularly want to mention Dame Vera Baird, Claire Waxman, Nicole Jacobs, Ken Sutton and Dr Ruth Lamont, who have worked closely with me on the Bill.
I thank Committee members for their patience, interest and engagement, and the Whips, who have steadfastly done their job throughout the Bill Committee. I thank my Labour colleagues, whose commitment has enabled a wide-ranging, informed and well-researched debate. I particularly thank my Front-Bench colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham West and Penge and for Birmingham, Yardley, for their support.
I also thank the Minister for his tone and his willingness to work together to improve the Bill as it goes to the next stages—no pressure there. I hope we will work together to vastly improve it.
I would like to say a huge thank you to everyone who has kept the Bill moving. I especially thank my parliamentary researcher, Honor Miller, who is watching, for her dedication and commitment day and night. She and I have dedicated our lives to this Bill over the past weeks and months.
I also thank the Clerks, who are amazing, for putting up with all of us and our sometimes ridiculous questions. I thank the Government officials, Hansard and the Doorkeepers, who are amazing. Last but not least, I am grateful to the Chairs—to you, Mrs Murray, and to Ms Elliott, Sir Edward and Mr Hosie—for their patience and commitment.
Edward Argar
You may know what is coming, Mrs Murray.
I echo the words of the shadow Minister, and I am particularly grateful for her kind words. The approach I have taken may have come at the cost of my summer holidays; none the less, it has been an extremely positive experience.
I thank you, Mrs Murray and, through you, your fellow Chairs of this Committee—Ms Elliott, Sir Edward and Mr Hosie. I thank the Clerks, Hansard and the Doorkeepers, who are the people who really keep this place running; we all know our place in that respect.
I am grateful to the Opposition and all three shadow Ministers. I may take it as a compliment that I have three shadow Ministers up against me. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Cardiff North in thanking the shadow Ministers’ team. I have an army of civil servants to help me work on the Bill but, having served in opposition as an adviser to a shadow Cabinet Minister in the past, I know that the burden of opposition falls on a very small number of people—the Front Benchers and those who work with them. It is important that we recognise that.
I am particularly grateful for the tone of hon. and right hon. Opposition Members and for the offers to look at some areas in more detail between Committee and Report, given this is a carry-over Bill. One area that I would particularly like to draw out is on part 2 and the opportunities I hope we have with the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood to continue working on that. In the Bill as a whole, but particularly in part 2, there is a genuine desire across both sides of the House to ensure that we do our very best to do right by those who have been victims and to create something that, in the sad eventuality that it is needed again, will do right by future victims and survivors.
I put on record my gratitude to the fantastic Nikki Jones, Bill manager in the Department, who has done a phenomenal job of not only steering the Bill to this point but managing my vagaries in suddenly requesting random pieces of information and tweaking policy, possibly on the hoof occasionally. I am very grateful for her patience, her insight and her brilliance in handling both the policy and the Minister. I also thank my fantastic private secretary Matti Henderson for her work in a similar vein in—for want of a better way of putting it—managing the Minister. I thank the whole Bill team in the Ministry of Justice and across Government because this Bill does involve other Government Departments, some of which were highlighted by the shadow Minister. I am grateful to their officials for the work they have done.
I thank all Government colleagues on the Committee for their forbearance, time, insight and—I suspect the Whip will agree with this—phenomenal attendance record for a Bill Committee. I particularly thank my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I thank the Whip on duty, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, both for her stewarding of this through the Committee and because—who knows?—with a reshuffle incoming it is never unwise to do so.
Most importantly, the hon. Member for Cardiff North highlighted why we are doing this; the greatest thanks have to go to the victims and survivors, campaigners and organisations; we must always remember, as we debate, reach agreement on some areas and disagree on others, what we are doing this for.
This Bill is an important step forward. It builds on a strong track record—from those on both sides of the House, when in government—of supporting victims of crime and enhancing victims’ rights. I hope that, as we continue to see the Bill progress through both Houses of Parliament in its remaining stages, we will continue to work where we can to strengthen and improve it, and that at the end of this process we will have an impressive and important piece of legislation.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Monday 4th December 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 4 December 2023 - large font accessible version - (4 Dec 2023)
21:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 27 / Noes: 267 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 193 / Noes: 279 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 246 / Noes: 242 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:40 - The House divided: - Ayes: 190 / Noes: 277 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 21—Information relating to victims: service police etc.
Government new clause 22—Meaning of “major incident” etc.
Government new clause 23—Appointment of standing advocate.
Government new clause 24—Publication of reports.
Government new clause 25—Part 2: consequential amendments.
Government new clause 26—Imprisonment or detention for public protection: termination of licences.
Government new clause 37—Restricting parental responsibility where one parent kills the other.
New clause 1—Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection—
‘(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements for, and relating to, the re-sentencing of all prisoners serving IPP sentences within 18 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) Those arrangements must include arrangements relating to the establishment of a committee to provide advice regarding the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s duty under subsection (1).
(3) The committee established by virtue of subsection (2) must include a judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice.
(4) A court that imposed an IPP sentence has the power to re-sentence the prisoner in relation to the original offence.
(5) But the court may not impose a sentence that is a heavier penalty than the sentence that was imposed for the original offence.
(6) In relation to the exercise of the power in subsection (4)—
(a) that power is to be treated as a power to re-sentence under the Sentencing Code (see section 402(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020);
(b) the Code applies for the purposes of this section (and, accordingly, it does not matter that a person serving an IPP sentence was convicted of an offence before 1 December 2020).
(7) In this section—
“IPP sentence” means a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of that Act (including such a sentence of imprisonment or detention passed as a result of section 219 or 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);
“original offence” means the offence in relation to which the IPP sentence was imposed.
(8) This section comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would implement the recommendation of the Justice Committee’s 2022 Report that there should be a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals, and to establish a time-limited expert committee, including a member of the judiciary, to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise.
New clause 2—Appointment of an advocate to represent IPP prisoners’ interests—
“(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, establish a list of advocates to further the interests of prisoners serving imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State may set out minimum qualifications for any person to be appointed as an IPP advocate.
(3) A person may only act as an IPP advocate if the Secretary of State considers that the following conditions are satisfied—
(a) they have had appropriate experience or training or an appropriate combination of experience and training;
(b) they are of integrity and good character; and
(c) they are able to act independently of any other person who is professionally concerned with the qualifying prisoner’s continuing imprisonment.
(4) The Secretary of State may pay to, or in respect of, such a person—
(a) amounts by way of remuneration, pensions, allowances or gratuities, and
(b) sums in respect of the expenses of the IPP advocate.
(5) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument; and an instrument containing regulations made under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’
This new clause, and new clause NC3 would allow the Secretary of State to appoint a number of independent advocates to act on behalf of over-tariff prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for public protection.
New clause 3—Functions of an IPP advocate—
‘(1) Any IPP prisoner who has exceeded their minimum tariff period is entitled to ask for the assistance of an IPP advocate.
(2) An IPP advocate may not provide legal services or advice to an IPP prisoner.
(3) An IPP advocate may—
(a) visit and advise an IPP prisoner at the facility where they are imprisoned;
(b) subject to subsection (2), appear before the Parole Board on behalf of an IPP prisoner;
(c) visit and advise an IPP prisoner who has been released on licence.
(4) For the purposes of this Act, “IPP prisoner” means a person sentenced to imprisonment for public protection under the Criminal Justice Act, or any successor Act.’
This new clause sets out the functions of an IPP advocate. They will not provide legal advice, but will provide practical advice, support them at the Parole Board and on release.
New clause 4—Parole Board: victim personal statement—
‘(1) It is the duty of the Parole Board to ensure that victims are offered the opportunity to give their views in the criminal justice process by making a personal statement.
(2) Where a victim has opted-in to the Victim Contact Scheme, the Parole Board must record whether the victim has been offered the opportunity to provide a personal statement to the Parole Board before it makes a decision relevant to the victim.
(3) The Parole Board must report annually to the Secretary of State on the data recorded under subsection (2) and on its compliance with the duty under subsection (1).
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of any reports received under this section before Parliament within 15 days of receipt.’
This new clause would place a duty on the Parole Board to ensure that victims are offered the opportunity to give their views in the criminal justice process and require it to report to the Secretary of State on its compliance with that duty.
New clause 5—Duty to develop a single core data set of victims of child sexual abuse—
‘(1) The responsible authority must make arrangements to develop a shared, single core data set concerning victims of child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation in England and Wales.
(2) In accordance with subsection (1) the responsible authority must direct children’s social care and criminal justice agencies to collect consistent and compatible data which includes—
(a) the characteristics of victims and alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse, including—
(i) age,
(ii) sex, and
(iii) ethnicity,
(b) the factors that make victims more vulnerable to child sexual abuse or exploitation, and
(c) the settings and contexts in which victims have experienced child sexual abuse or exploitation.
(3) The responsible authority must ensure that the data is published each month.
(4) For the purposes of this section, the responsible authority is—
(a) in England, the Secretary of State; and
(b) in Wales, the Welsh Ministers.’
New clause 6—Assessment of numbers of independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisors, stalking advocates and specialist support services—
‘Within six months of the passing of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must—
(a) make an assessment of the adequacy of the number of independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisors, stalking advocates, and specialist support services in each region of England and Wales, having regard to the population in each region, and
(b) publish that assessment.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the adequacy of the number of ISVAs, IDVAs, stalking advocates and specialist support services in each region of England and Wales.
New clause 7—Improving accessibility and awareness of the Victims’ Code—
‘(1) In preparing the draft of the victims’ code under section 2, the Secretary of State must take all practicable steps to ensure that the code is fully accessible to all victims and to promote awareness of the code among those victims and associated services.
(2) For the purposes of this section the Secretary of State must by regulations prescribe—
(a) that criminal justice bodies must signpost victims to appropriate support services, and
(b) that appropriate training is delivered to staff in criminal justice bodies, including by specialist domestic abuse services.
(3) The steps taken under subsection (1) must include steps aimed at ensuring that victims who—
(a) are deaf,
(b) are disabled,
(c) are visually impaired, or
(d) do not speak English as their first language,
are able to understand their entitlements under the code.’
This new clause seeks to ensure that the victims’ code is accessible to all victims and associated services.
New clause 8—Access to services for victims with no recourse to public funds—
‘(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other enactment, a victim of domestic abuse who—
(a) has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom which is subject to a condition that they do not have recourse to public funds,
(b) requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom but does not have it,
(c) has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom given as a result of a maintenance undertaking,
is entitled to be provided with services in accordance with the victims’ code.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that is consequential on this section.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020;
“victim” has the meaning given by section 1 of this Act.’
This new clause would ensure that victims of domestic abuse who do not have recourse to public funds are still entitled to be provided with services in accordance with the victims’ code.
New clause 9—Meaning of “honour-based abuse” —
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument define the meaning of “honour-based abuse” for the purposes of section 1.
(2) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation about—
(a) what conduct should amount to “honour-based abuse” for the purposes of section 1, and
(b) any definition of the meaning of “honour-based abuse” proposed by the Secretary of State.
(3) In carrying out a consultation under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) organisations that appear to the Secretary of State to represent those who have an interest in the meaning of “honour-based abuse” for the purposes of section 1;
(b) any other persons that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’
New clause 10—Sewage Illness Victim Compensation Scheme—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide for a compensation scheme for victims who have suffered harm as a direct result of criminal conduct in relation to sewage and waste water.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must—
(a) provide for the payment of compensation to people who have become unwell as a result of bathing in water contaminated by sewage,
(b) make provision in relation to the medical evidence required to support a claim for compensation under the regulations.
(3) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’
New clause 13—Duty to co-operate with Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses—
‘(1) The Commissioner may request a specified public authority to co-operate with the Commissioner in any way that the Commissioner considers necessary for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the victims’ code.
(2) A specified public authority must, so far as reasonably practicable, comply with a request made to it under this section.
(3) In this section “specified public authority” means any of the following—
(a) a criminal justice body, as defined by subsection 6(6),
(b) the Parole Board,
(c) an elected local policing body,
(d) the British Transport Police Force,
(e) the Ministry of Defence Police.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to—
(a) add a public authority as a specified public authority for the purposes of this section;
(b) remove a public authority added by virtue of paragraph (a);
(c) vary any description of a public authority.
(5) Before making regulations under subsection (4) the Secretary of State must consult the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses.
(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’
This new clause would place a duty on specified public authorities to co-operate with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses.
New clause 14—Major incidents: duty of candour—
‘(1) In discharging their duties in relation to a major incident, public authorities and public servants and officials must at all times act within their powers—
(a) in the public interest, and
(b) with transparency, candour and frankness.
(2) If a major incident results in a court proceeding, official inquiry or investigation, public authorities and public servants and officials have a duty to assist—
(a) relating to their own activities, or
(b) where their acts or omissions may be relevant.
(3) In discharging the duty under subsection (2), public authorities and public servants and officials shall—
(a) act with proper expedition;
(b) act with transparency, candour and frankness,
(c) act without favour to their own position,
(d) make full disclosure of relevant documents, material and facts,
(e) set out their position on the relevant matters at the outset of the proceedings, inquiry or investigation, and
(f) provide further information and clarification as ordered by a court or inquiry.
(4) In discharging their duty under subsection (2), public authorities and public servants and officials shall have regard to the pleadings, allegations, terms of reference and parameters of the relevant proceedings, inquiry or investigation but shall not be limited by them, in particular where they hold information which might change the ambit of the said proceedings, inquiry or investigation.
(5) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) shall—
(a) be read subject to existing laws relating to privacy, data protection and national security,
(b) apply in a qualified way with respect to private law and non-public functions as set out in subsection (6), and
(c) not be limited by any issue of insurance indemnity.
(6) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) shall be enforceable by application to the relevant court or inquiry chairperson by any person affected by the alleged breach, or the court or inquiry may act of its own motion. Where there are no extant court or inquiry proceedings, the duties may be enforced by judicial review proceedings in the High Court.’
This new clause would require public authorities and public servants and officials to act in the public interest and with transparency, candour and frankness when carrying out their duties in relation to major incidents.
New clause 15—Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal: life prisoners—
‘After section 32ZA of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 insert—
“Referral of release decisions to Court of Appeal
327ZAA Referral of release decisions to Court of Appeal
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a prisoner is serving a life sentence imposed in respect of an offence specified or described in section 32ZAB (the “relevant sentence”),
(b) the Parole Board is required to make a public protection decision about the prisoner under section 28(6)(b) or 32(5A), and
(c) the public protection decision relates to the relevant sentence.
(2) Where the Parole Board has made a decision in a case to which this section applies—
(a) the Secretary of State may refer the decision to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or
(b) a victim may apply to the Secretary of State to request that the prisoner’s case be referred to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal.
(3) Within [30 days] of an application being made under paragraph (2)(b), the Secretary of State must—
(a) exercise the power under subsection (2)(a) and refer the prisoner’s case to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or
(b) provide to the victim a written statement explaining why they have decided not to exercise that power.
(4) This section applies in relation to a prisoner whose sentence was imposed before, as well as after, this section comes into force.
(5) But nothing in this section affects the duty of the Secretary of State to release a prisoner whose release has been directed by the Parole Board before this section comes into force.
(6) In this section, “public protection decision” has the meaning given by section 28ZA(2).
327ZAB Offences for purposes of Court of Appeal referral
(1) The offences specified or described in this section (for the purposes of section 32ZAA) are—
(a) murder;
(b) manslaughter;
(c) an offence under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime 10 and Victims Act 2004, where a child has died as a result of the prisoner’s unlawful act;
(d) an offence specified in any of paragraphs 41 to 43 of Schedule 18 to the Sentencing Code (specified terrorism offences other than inchoate offences);
(e) an offence that is not an inchoate offence and was determined to have a terrorist connection, within the meaning given by section 247A(7A) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;
(f) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape);
(g) an offence under section 5 of that Act (rape of a child under 13);
(h) an offence under section 6 of that Act (assault of a child under 13 by penetration);
(i) an offence under section 8 of that Act (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity);
(j) an offence under section 47 of that Act (paying for sexual services of a child) against a person aged under 16;
(k) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 (asp 9) (rape);
(l) an offence under section 18 of that Act (rape of a young child);
(m) an offence under section 19 of that Act (sexual assault on a young child by penetration);
(n) an offence under section 20 of that Act (sexual assault on a young child);
(o) an offence under section 21 of that Act (causing a young child to participate in a sexual activity);
(p) an offence under Article 5 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1769 (N.I. 2)) (rape);
(q) an offence under Article 12 of that Order (rape of a child under 13);
(r) an offence under Article 13 of that Order (assault of a child under 13 by penetration);
(s) an offence under Article 15 of that Order (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity);
(t) an offence that—
(i) is abolished, and
(ii) would have constituted an offence referred to in paragraphs (a) to (s) if committed on or after the date on which it was abolished.
(2) A sentence in respect of a service offence is to be treated for the 35 purposes of section 32ZAA as if it were a sentence in respect of the corresponding offence.
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) “service offence” means an offence under—
(i) section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006,
(ii) section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, or
(iii) section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957;
(b) “corresponding offence” means—
(i) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales within the meaning of that section;
(ii) in relation to an offence under section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, the corresponding civil offence within the meaning of that Act;
(iii) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, the civil offence within the meaning of that section.
327ZAC Powers of the Court of Appeal
(1) On a referral of a prisoner’s case under section 32ZAA, the Court of Appeal may—
(a) direct the Secretary of State to release the prisoner on licence as soon as is reasonably practicable in all the circumstances including, in particular, the need to make arrangements in connection with any conditions that are to be included in the licence, or
(b) decide that the prisoner should remain confined and direct the Secretary of State accordingly.
(2) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must have regard to whether there is no more than a minimal risk that, were the prisoner no longer confined, the prisoner would commit a further offence the commission of which would cause serious harm.
(2A) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must consider—
(a) any statement made by the Parole Board as to the reasons for its decision,
(b) the evidence considered by the Parole Board in reaching its decision,
(c) any representations made to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State, by a victim, or on behalf of the prisoner,
(d) any transcript made of a Parole Board hearing in respect of the case.
(3) No judge shall sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of a reference under this section in respect of a sentence they passed.”’
New clause 16—Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal: fixed-term prisoners—
‘(1) After section 256AZB of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 insert—
Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal
256AZBA Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a prisoner is serving a fixed-term sentence imposed in respect of an offence specified or described in section 256AZBB (the “relevant sentence”),
(b) the Board is required to make a public protection decision about the prisoner under a relevant provision of this Chapter, and
(c) the public protection decision relates to the relevant sentence.
(2) Where the Parole Board has made a decision in a case to which this section applies—
(a) the Secretary of State may refer the decision to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or
(b) a victim may apply to the Secretary of State to request that the prisoner’s case be referred to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal.
(3) Within [30 days] of an application being made under paragraph (2)(b), the Secretary of State must—
(a) exercise the power under subsection (2)(a) and refer the prisoner’s case to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or
(b) provide to the victim a written statement explaining why they have decided not to exercise that power.
(4) This section applies in relation to a prisoner whose sentence was imposed before, as well as after, this section comes into force.
(5) But nothing in this section affects the duty of the Secretary of State to release a prisoner whose release has been directed by the Parole Board before this section comes into force.
(6) In this section—
“corresponding power of direction” , in relation to a relevant provision, is the power of the Board to direct the Secretary of State to release the prisoner, for the purposes of which the public protection decision is made (see section 237B);
“public protection decision” has the meaning given by section 237A(2);
“relevant provision” has the meaning given by section 237B.
256AZBB Offences for the purpose of Court of Appeal referral
(1) The offences specified or described in this section (for the purposes of section 256AZBA) are—
(a) manslaughter;
(b) an offence under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, where a child has died as a result of the prisoner’s unlawful act;
(c) an offence specified in any of paragraphs 41 to 43 of Schedule 18 to the Sentencing Code (specified terrorism offences other than inchoate offences);
(d) an offence that is not an inchoate offence and was determined to have a terrorist connection, within the meaning given by section 247A(7A);
(e) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape);
(f) an offence under section 5 of that Act (rape of a child under 13);
(g) an offence under sections 6 to 51 of that Act;
(h) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 (asp 9) (rape);
(i) an offence under section 18 of that Act (rape of a young child);
(j) an offence under sections 2 to 11 of that Act against a mentally disordered person, as defined by section 17 of that Act;
(k) an offence under Part 4 or Part 5 of that Act;
(l) an offence under Article 5 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1769 (N.I. 2)) (rape);
(m) an offence under Article 12 of that Order (rape of a child under 13);
(n) an offence under Part 3 or Part 4 of that Order;
(p) an offence that—
(i) is abolished, and
(ii) would have constituted an offence referred to in paragraphs (a) to (o) if committed on or after the date on which it was abolished.
(2) A sentence in respect of a service offence is to be treated for the purposes of section 256AZBA as if it were a sentence in respect of the corresponding offence.
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) “service offence” means an offence under—
(i) section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006,
(ii) section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, or
(iii) section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957;
(b) “corresponding offence” means—
(i) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales within the meaning of that section;
(ii) in relation to an offence under section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, the corresponding civil offence within the meaning of that Act;
(iii) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, the civil offence within the meaning of that section.
256AZBC Powers of the Court of Appeal
(1) On a referral of a prisoner’s case under section 256AZBA, the Court of Appeal may—
(a) direct the Secretary of State to release the prisoner on licence as soon as is reasonably practicable in all the circumstances including, in particular, the need to make arrangements in connection with any conditions that are to be included in the licence, or
(b) decide that the prisoner should remain confined and direct the Secretary of State accordingly.
(2) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must have regard to whether there is no more than a minimal risk that, were the prisoner no longer confined, the prisoner would commit a further offence the commission of which would cause serious harm.
(3) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must consider—
(a) any statement made by the Parole Board as to the reasons for its decision,
(b) the evidence considered by the Parole Board in reaching its decision,
(c) any representations made to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State, by a victim, or on behalf of the prisoner,
(d) any transcript made of a Parole Board hearing in respect of the case.
(4) No judge shall sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of a reference under this section in respect of a sentence they passed.”’
New clause 17—Monitoring compliance—
‘(1) All agencies with responsibilities under the victims’ code have a duty to monitor and report how relevant services are provided in accordance with the victims’ code.
(2) In accordance with the duty in subsection (1), the agencies must provide an annual report to the Secretary of State on their assessment of their compliance with the code.
(3) The Secretary of State must make an annual statement to the House of Commons on the delivery of services provided in accordance with the victims’ code.’
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make an annual statement on compliance with the victims’ code.
New clause 18—Compliance with the code: threshold levels—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, issue minimum threshold levels of compliance with each right of the victims’ code.
(2) If a minimum threshold is breached by an organisation in a particular area, the Secretary of State must commission an inspection of that body with regard to that breach.
(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, lay before Parliament the report of any such inspection.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set minimum threshold levels of compliance with each right of the victims’ code.
New clause 19—Non-disclosure of victims’ counselling records (No. 2)—
‘(1) Subsection (3) of this clause applies where—
(a) in connection with any criminal investigation, access to records of a victim’s protected confidence in a counselling setting is sought (whether pre- or post-charge), or
(b) in any criminal proceedings records containing a protected confidence are to be served as evidence or disclosed by the prosecution to the defendant.
(2) In this section—
“protected confidence” means a communication made by a person in confidence to another person when the confidant was acting in a professional capacity providing counselling, psychological or mental health services;
“victim” has the same meaning as in section 1 of this Act.
(3) Permission for access to, service or disclosure of records containing a protected confidence may only be granted by the court.
(4) The court must direct that access should not be granted, or evidence should not be served or disclosed, if the court finds that doing so would disclose a protected confidence.
(5) Subsection (4) does not apply if the court finds—
(a) that the information is of substantial probative value, and
(b) that the public interest in disclosure substantially outweighs that of non-disclosure.
(6) In making a determination under subsection (5)(b), the court must take into account—
(a) the need to encourage victims of sexual offences to seek counselling,
(b) that the effectiveness of counselling is likely to be dependent on the maintenance of the confidentiality of the counselling relationship,
(c) the public interest in ensuring that victims of sexual offences receive effective counselling,
(d) that the disclosure of the protected confidence is likely to damage or undermine the relationship between the counsellor and the counselled person,
(e) whether disclosure of the protected confidence is sought on the basis of a discriminatory belief or bias, or
(f) that the adducing of the evidence is likely to infringe a reasonable expectation of privacy.’
New clause 27—Compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal (No. 2)—
‘(1) In accordance with section 2(3C), the Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, establish a body to administer the compensation scheme for victims of the infected blood scandal.
(2) The body created under this section must be chaired by a judge of High Court or Court of Session with status as sole decision maker.
(3) In exercising its functions, the body must—
(a) have regard to the need of applicants for speed of provision, simplicity or process, accessibility, involvement, proactive support, fairness and efficiency;
(b) involve potentially eligible persons and their representatives amongst those in a small advisory board, and in the review and improvement of the scheme;
(c) permit the hearing of applicants in person; and
(d) have an independent appeal body which will reconsider decisions of the scheme referred to it.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about the body established under this section.
(5) For the purposes of this Act, a victim of the infected blood scandal means any infected or affected person whom the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry, as laid before Parliament on 19 April 2023, recommends should be admitted to a compensation scheme.
(6) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.’
New clause 28—Report on impact on victims of the UK’s reservation in respect of Article 59 of the Istanbul Convention—
‘(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the impact on victims of the UK’s reservation in respect of Article 59 of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (“the Istanbul Convention”).
(2) The report laid under subsection (1) must contain—
(a) an assessment of the impact on victims of domestic abuse,
(b) an assessment of the impact on the children of such victims, and
(c) an assessment of the merits of implementing the measures necessary for compliance with article 59 of the Istanbul Convention.’
New clause 29—Mandatory training—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations require certain police officers and employees of the Crown Prosecution Service to receive training in respect of violence against women and girls.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must—
(a) make provision about the content of mandatory training, including training on the impact of trauma on victims of violence against women and girls, and
(b) make provision about the persons for whom this training is mandatory.
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’
New clause 30—Victims of specified offences: data-sharing for immigration purposes—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for ensuring that the personal data of a victim of a crime as specified in subsection (3), that is processed for the purpose of that person requesting or receiving support or assistance related to the crime, is not used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.
(2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for ensuring that the personal data of a witness to a crime as specified in subsection (3), that is processed for the purpose of that person giving information or evidence to assist the investigation or prosecution of the crime, is not used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.
(3) The crimes referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are–
(a) domestic abuse as defined by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021,
(b) an offence under any of sections 2, 2A, 4 or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A (1) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001,
(c) an offence under any of sections 1, 2 or 4 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015,
(d) an offence under Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, or
(e) such other offences as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 shall not apply to personal data processed for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2).
(5) For the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State must issue guidance to those persons mentioned in subsection (10) about the effect of subsections (1) and (2).
(6) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise any guidance issued under this section.
(7) Before issuing or revising guidance under this subsection, the Secretary of State must consult–
(a) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner,
(b) the Victims’ Commissioner,
(c) the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(8) Subsection (7) does not apply in relation to any revisions of the guidance issued under this section if the Secretary of State considers the proposed revisions of the guidance are insubstantial.
(9) The Secretary of State must publish–
(a) any guidance issued under this section, and
(b) any revisions of that guidance.
(10) The persons mentioned in subsection (5) are—
(a) persons who are victims of or witnesses to the crimes in subsection (3),
(b) persons from whom support or assistance may be requested or received by a victim of crime in England and Wales,
(c) persons providing support to, or conducting investigations or prosecutions with the support of, witnesses of crime in England and Wales,
(d) persons exercising any function of the Secretary of State in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality and,
(e) persons exercising any function conferred by or by virtue of the Immigration Acts on an immigration officer.
(11) A person exercising public functions to whom guidance issued under this section relates must have regard to it in the exercise of those functions.
(12) For the purposes of this section–
“consent” means a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the individual’s wishes by which the individual, by a statement, signifies agreement to the processing of the personal data;
“immigration control” means the exercise of any functions of the Secretary of State and of immigration officers under the Immigration Acts within the meaning of section 61 of the UK Borders Act 2007;
“support or assistance” includes the provision of accommodation, banking services, education, employment, financial or social assistance, healthcare and policing services and any function of a court or prosecuting authority;
“victim”, in relation to a crime, means the particular person who appears to have been affected by the crime, and their dependent, where that dependent is also affected by the crime.’
New clause 31—Duty to notify school safeguarding lead of domestic abuse incident—
‘(1) The police must notify the designated safeguarding lead or officer of a child’s school of any incident that meets the criteria in subsection (2).
(2) Those criteria are that—
(a) the police have attended an incident of domestic abuse, and
(b) the child is a child of an adult party involved in the incident.
(3) A notification under this section must occur before the start of the next school day following the incident.
(4) In this section, “domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’
New clause 32—Victims’ rights in relation to data—
‘(1) The UK GDPR is amended as follows.
(2) In Article 21 (right to object), after paragraph 1, insert—
“(1A) The data subject shall have the right to object, on grounds relating to his or her particular situation, at any time to processing of personal data concerning him or her, or a third party where that party is a child for whom they have parental responsibility, which is based on points (a) to (f) of Article 6(1), including profiling based on those provisions, if exceptional circumstances apply
(1B) The exceptional circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1B are—
(a) that the processing of the data was connected to, or reliant upon, conduct which could reasonably be suspected to constitute a criminal offence, or
(b) that the processing of the data was connected to, or reliant upon, conduct which could reasonably be considered as being intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress to the data subject or another living individual.
(1C) The Secretary of State may by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure prescribe other exceptional circumstances where the right to object mentioned in paragraph 1A applies.”
(3) In Article 17 (right to erasure (“right to be forgotten”)), after paragraph 1(c), insert—
(ca) the data subject objects to the processing pursuant to Article 21(1A).”’
This new clause would allow victims of third party harassment to request the deletion of any personal data which was gathered or held as part of activity which could be considered criminal conduct – preventing third party reporting from causing ongoing distress to victims.
New clause 33—Commissioner for Victims: enforcement of victims’ code—
‘(1) The Commissioner for Victims (“the Commissioner”) may investigate a complaint that a person to whom the code of practice under subsection 2(1) of this Act applies has failed to carry out their duties under the victims’ code.
(2) Where the Commissioner upholds a complaint under subsection (1), the Commissioner may—
(a) recommend action to rectify the breach of the victims’ code, or
(b) impose a fine on the person who has failed to comply with the victims’ code.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision in connection with this section.’
New clause 34—Funding for domestic abuse services: review—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of this Act being passed, conduct a review into the level of funding and provision for domestic abuse services.
(2) The review must, in particular, consider—
(a) counselling and advocacy services, and
(b) refuges in the UK.
(3) Upon completion of the review, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report setting out—
(a) the findings of the review, and
(b) the action that the Secretary of State proposes to take in response to the review.’
New clause 35—Experiences of victims of domestic abuse in the criminal justice system: review—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of this Act being passed, conduct a review into the experiences of victims of domestic abuse in the criminal justice system.
(2) The review must consult, in particular—
(a) victims of domestic abuse who have been through the criminal justice system, specifically ensuring that views are sought from women with protected characteristics, and
(b) organisations, both inside and outside of the criminal justice system, who represent victims of domestic abuse.
(3) Upon completion of the review, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report setting out—
(a) the findings of the review, and
(b) the action that the Secretary of State proposes to take in response to the review.’
New clause 36—Data collection in relation to children of prisoners—
‘The Secretary of State must collect and publish annual data identifying—
(a) how many prisoners are the primary carers of a child,
(b) how many children have a primary carer who is a prisoner, and
(c) the ages of those children.’
New clause 38—Free independent legal advocates for rape victims—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must develop proposals for a scheme to give victims of rape access to free, independent legal advocates available in every police force area in England and Wales.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
“independent legal advocate for rape victims” means a person who is a qualified solicitor, with experience working with vulnerable people, who provides appropriate legal advice and representation to individuals who are victims of criminal conduct which constitutes rape.’
New clause 39—Duty to inform victims and families of the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme—
‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 36, insert—
“36A Duty to inform victims and families of the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme
(1) The Secretary of State must nominate a Government Department (“relevant body”) to inform victims and their families of their rights under the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme, and such information must include the type of sentence and the time limit for application, and advise that applications must be made to the Attorney General.”’
New clause 40—Unduly lenient sentences: time limit—
‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) In Schedule 3, paragraph 1, at end insert “, subject to paragraph 1A.”
“(1A) The time limit of 28 days shall be extended in exceptional circumstances, where the relevant body has failed to inform the victim and families of their rights under the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme.”’
New clause 41—Independent legal advice and representation for victims of rape and sexual assault—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must establish a Sexual Violence Complainants’ Advocate scheme (“the scheme”).
(2) The scheme must provide free legal advice and representation to victims of rape and sexual offences in England and Wales.
(3) The scheme must—
(a) provide legal advice to victims in relation to requests for access to their personal data;
(b) provide victims with advice on their rights under the Victims’ Right to Review scheme, and assist them with making requests under that scheme;
(c) provide legal advice to victims in relation to sexual history applications under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
(d) provide legal advice to victims in relation to complaints made to justice agencies
(e) provide legal advice to assist victims to negotiate fully informed consent to access to their personal data; or
(f) subject to subsection (4), provide legal representation of victims in relation to the police, prosecutors, or court, where that representation is necessary to prevent irrelevant or excessive material being accessed.
(4) Section 3(f) is limited to those circumstances in which a complainant has rights of audience, including hearings on disclosure of third-party materials where a court chooses to invite participation by a complainant under Criminal Procedure Rules 17.4-17.6
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about the scheme”’
New clause 42—Statement on report of Infected Blood Inquiry—
‘(1) Within 25 sitting days of the publication of the final report of the Infected Blood Inquiry, the Secretary of State must make an oral statement to the House of Commons responding in full to the recommendations of the report, including—
(a) how victims of the infected blood scandal will be able to access compensation, and
(b) what steps will be taken to establish a body to administer the compensation scheme.
(2) In this section, ‘sitting days’ means days on which the House of Commons sits.’
New clause 43—Victims of major incidents: registration of death—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a relative to provide information in the connection with the registration of the death of a person who was a victim of a major incident, even if an investigation is conducted under Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
(2) Regulations under this section must—
(a) amend form 13 in Schedule 2 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Regulations 1987 as follows—
(i) add an additional section, entitled “victims of major incidents”, to include the name, qualification and usual address of the relative,
(ii) provide for the signature of the relative to be given under the statement “I certify that the particulars given by me above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief”, and
(b) provide that the relative may provide these details during the five day period beginning with the day on which a registrar completes the form.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision consequential on this section.
(4) The power to make regulations under subsection (3) may (among other things) be exercised by modifying any provision made by or under an enactment.’
This new clause would enable a relative of a person who has died in a major incident to have their details included in the registration of the person’s death.
Amendment 160, page 1, line 7, at end insert—
“(aa) witnessing criminal conduct,
(ab) having subsequent responsibility for care because of criminal conduct,
(ac) experiencing vicarious harm due to criminal conduct.”
Amendment 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) where a person has entered into a non-disclosure agreement that has the effect of preventing that person from speaking about behaviour that may be criminal misconduct.”
Amendment 2, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) where the person has experienced, or made allegations that they have experienced—
(i) sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, or
(ii) bullying or harassment not falling within paragraph (i).”
Amendment 5, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) where the person has experienced adult sexual exploitation.”
Amendment 7, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) where the person is the child of a person posing sexual risk to children.”
This amendment would include children of a person posing a sexual risk to children (that is, paedophiles (including perpetrators of offences online), suspects or offenders) as victims.
Amendment 27, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) where the person is a victim of honour-based abuse (see section [Meaning of “honour-based abuse”]).”
Amendment 28, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) where the person has suffered harm as a direct result of criminal conduct in relation to sewage and waste water”
Amendment 33, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) where the person has experienced anti-social behaviour, as defined by section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2014, and the conditions necessary for an ASB case review under section 104 of that Act have been met.”
This amendment would include victims of anti-social behaviour in the definition of a victim.
Amendment 144, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) where the person is a victim of the infected blood scandal, as defined in section (Compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal)(5) of this Act.”
Amendment 147, page 1, Line 16, at end insert—
“(e) where the person has suffered significant harm as a result of, and knows or knew of any other victim of, criminal conduct.”
This amendment would include those who suffer from vicarious trauma after a crime in the scope of the Victims Code.
Amendment 157, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) where the person has experienced child criminal exploitation;”.
This amendment would include victims of child criminal exploitation in the definition of a victim.
Amendment 148, page 1, Line 16, at end insert—
“(3A) For the purposes of this section, it does not matter whether the criminal conduct happened within the United Kingdom or elsewhere.”
This amendment would explicitly require that victims do not miss out on support as a result of the crime affecting them being carried out outside the UK.
Government amendment 34.
Amendment 8, page 2, line 5, after “that” insert—
“no report of the conduct has been made to a criminal justice body and that”.
This amendment aims to ensure that a person could meet the definition of a victim without needing to make a report to a criminal justice body.
Amendment 6, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(c) “adult sexual exploitation” means conduct by which a person manipulates, deceives, coerces or controls another person to undertake sexual activity.”
This amendment creates a statutory definition of adult sexual exploitation.
Amendment 158, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(c) “child criminal exploitation” means conduct by which a person manipulates, deceives, coerces or controls a person under 18 to undertake activity which constitutes a criminal offence;”.
This amendment provides a definition for the term “child criminal exploitation”.
Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) should be provided with information from all state agencies with responsibilities under the victims’ code, including the NHS, to help them understand the criminal justice process and beyond, including grant of leave or discharge.”
This amendment would extend the principle that victims should be given information about the criminal justice process to explicitly include the NHS, in order to bring mental health tribunal decisions in line with the rest of the criminal justice system.
Amendment 10, page 2, line 19, at end insert—
“in a language or format that they can understand;”.
Amendment 11, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“and should be provided with appropriate support to communicate these views;”.
Amendment 12, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“and with all state agencies with responsibilities under the victims’ code, including HMCTS and the NHS when considering leave or discharge;”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that the NHS and HM Courts and Tribunals Service are included when victims have a right to be heard in the justice process, bringing mental health tribunals decisions in line with the rest of the criminal justice system.
Amendment 3, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The victims’ code must make provision in relation to people who have experienced, or made allegations that they have experienced—
(a) sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, or
(b) bullying or harassment not falling within paragraph (a).
(3B) Provision under subsection (3A) must include—
(a) provision relating to the enforcement of non-disclosure agreements signed by such victims, and
(b) provision about legal advice and other support for such victims in cases where they are asked to sign, or have signed, a non-disclosure agreement.
(3C) In this section—
“non-disclosure agreement” means an agreement which purports to any extent to preclude a victim from—
(a) publishing information about a relevant complaint, or
(b) disclosing information about the relevant complaint to any one or more other persons;
“misconduct” means—
(a) sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, and
(b) bullying or harassment not falling within paragraph(a);
“relevant complaint” means a complaint relating to misconduct or alleged misconduct by any person.”
This amendment would require the victims’ code to include specific provision for people who have experienced, or made allegations that they have experienced, sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, or other bullying or harassment.
Amendment 13, page 2, line 25 at end insert—
“(3A) In accordance with subsection (3)(e), the victims’ code must include provision requiring that—
(a) all victims of child sexual abuse, including online-based abuse, are entitled to compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme,
(b) victims with unspent convictions, whose offences are linked to the circumstances of their sexual abuse as a child, are entitled to compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, and
(c) victims of child sexual abuse may apply for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme within a 7 year period of whichever of these two dates is the later—
(i) the date the offence was reported to the police, or
(ii) if the offence was reported whilst the victim was a child, the date the victim turned 18.”
This amendment would provide that all victims of child sexual abuse (CSA), including online, are entitled to compensation under the CICS and that those with unspent convictions directly linked to the circumstances of their abuse can access compensation. It would also extend the period by which victims can apply.
Amendment 14, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The victims’ code must—
(a) require criminal justice bodies to take all reasonable steps to identify and record any change of name by a perpetrator, and
(b) require criminal justice bodies to inform a relevant victim when a perpetrator changes their name.
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A)—
“perpetrator” means a person whose conduct or alleged conduct results in another person being a victim as defined by section 1 of this Act;
“relevant victim” means a person who becomes a victim as a result of the perpetrator’s conduct.”
This amendment would require criminal justice bodies to monitor name changes of perpetrators and inform victims of any name changes.
Amendment 15, page 2, line 25 at end insert—
“(3A) The victims’ code must make provision about pre-trial therapy for victims, including—
(a) a requirement that all criminal justice agencies inform victims of their right to pre-trial therapy, and
(b) a requirement that the Crown Prosecution Service annually review their pre-trial therapy guidance and its implementation.”
This amendment would include in the victims’ code a requirement to inform all victims of their right to access pre-trial therapy, and require the CPS to annually review the implementation of pre-trial therapy guidance.
Amendment 29, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The victims’ code must make provision about support for victims of burglaries.
(3B) Provision under subsection (3A) must include a requirement that a victim of a burglary must be visited by a police officer.”
Amendment 142, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The victims’ code must include provision requiring that all victims of the infected blood scandal, as defined in section (Compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal)(5) of this Act, are entitled to compensation.
(3B) Subject to subsection (3C), compensation must be administered by a body established for that purpose by the Secretary of State under section (Compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal).
(3C) The Secretary of State must ensure that an interim compensation payment of £100,000 is made within one month of the passing of this Act in the following circumstances—
(a) where an infected victim died as a child or died as an adult without a partner or child, the compensation payment should be made to their bereaved parents (split equally if separated);
(b) where an infected victim has died and there is no bereaved partner but there is a bereaved child or children (including any adopted child), the compensation payment should be paid to the child or children (split equally); and
(c) where an infected victim has died and there is no bereaved partner, child nor parent but there is a bereaved full sibling or siblings, the compensation payment should be paid to the sibling or siblings (split equally).”
Amendment 143, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) Within one month of the passing of this Act, the victims’ code must make specific provision for a bespoke psychological service in England for victims of the infected blood scandal, as defined in section (Compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal)(5) of this Act.”
Amendment 146, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The victims’ code must include provision about therapy and other support services for victims who are children.
(3B) Provision under subsection (3A) must include—
(a) a requirement that support must be provided to such victims within one month of a request for support being made,
(b) provision relating to the types of support to which such victims are entitled,
(c) minimum standards for the quality of support to which such victims are entitled,
(d) a requirement that support should be available to such victims—
(i) throughout the criminal justice process, and
(ii) after that process has been completed.”
Amendment 159, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) The victims’ code must provide that, where a victim has signed a non-disclosure agreement relating to criminal conduct to which they have been subjected, nothing in that agreement may prevent them from accessing services to which they are entitled under the code.”
Amendment 26, page 2, line 34, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) must make provision for a person to be able to obtain free of charge, on request, a transcript of a trial in which the person was involved as a victim.”
Amendment 156, in clause 6, page 4, line 38, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must publish and implement, in consultation with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, a strategy for providing training on the impact of crime on victims and on victims’ rights for relevant staff of the following organisations—
(a) the Police
(b) the Crown Prosecution Service;
(c) probation services;
(d) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office;
(e) health and social services;
(f) victim support services
(g) maintained and independent schools and colleges of further education; and
(h) such other bodies as the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(1B) The Secretary of State must review and update the strategy published under subsection (1A) every three years.”
Government amendments 35 to 46.
Amendment 4, in clause 12, page 10, line 22, at end insert “(d) stalking.”
Amendment 16, page 10, line 22, at end insert “(d) modern slavery.”
This amendment would extend the duty to collaborate to include victim support services for victims of modern slavery.
Government amendment 47.
Amendment 149, page 10, line 40, at end insert—
“(10) For the purposes of this section, the relevant authorities for a police area, as defined in subsection (2), must together conduct a joint strategic needs assessment.
(11) The Secretary of State must provide a National Statement every three years on support for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, including—
(a) volume of provision at the time at which the National Statement is provided,
(b) levels of need, including a breakdown of demographics, including victims with protected characteristics, and
(c) levels of investment in services.
(12) In preparing a National Statement under subsection (11), the Secretary of State must have regard to the joint strategic needs assessments prepared under subsection 10.
(13) The Secretary of State must ensure that sufficient funding is provided annually to ensure that the relevant authorities, as defined in subsection (2), are able to commission relevant victim support services, as defined in subsection (4).
(14) The Secretary of State must provide sufficient funding to enable ‘by and for’ services to deliver services to, and to increase the capacity for delivering services to, victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence.
(15) In this section, “’by and for’ services” means services which—
(a) are designed for and delivered by those that share the same protected characteristic(s) as the victims they are intended to serve, and
(b) provide services to Black and minority ethnic, LGBT+, deaf or disabled victims and survivors of domestic abuse.
(16) The Secretary of State must issue guidance in relation to this section about—
(a) the production of Joint Strategic Needs Assessments by the relevant authorities,
(b) the identification of victims’ need and of gaps in provision by the National Statement,
(c) the principles which must be followed in the application and allocation of funding,
(d) the conditions under which “by and for” organisations that do not have specialism in domestic abuse service provision may be eligible to apply for funding.
(17) In preparing guidance under subsection (16), the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) “by and for” organisations working with victims of domestic abuse and of violence against women and girls,
(b) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner,
(c) the Commissioner for Victims,
(d) the Children’s Commissioner.”
Government amendments 48 to 52.
Amendment 155, in clause 15, page 12, line 3, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “responsible authority”.
Amendment 17, page 12, line 5, at end insert “(c) independent stalking advocates.”
Amendment 154, page 12, line 5, at end insert—
“(1A) For the purposes of this section, the responsible authority is—
(a) in England, the Secretary of State; and
(b) in Wales, the Welsh Ministers.”
Amendment 19, page 12, line 5, at end insert—
“(c) any other specialist community-based services relevant to the criminal conduct .”
Amendment 18, page 12, line 12, at end insert—
“(c) “independent stalking advocate” means a person who provides a relevant service to individuals who are victims of criminal conduct which constitutes stalking.”
This amendment ensures that the Secretary of State must also provide guidance around stalking advocates, in addition to guidance about ISVAs and IDVAs.
Amendment 20, page 12, line 12, at end insert—
“(c) specialist community-based service” means a person who provides a relevant service to individuals based on a protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 or the specific nature of the crime faced by the victim.”
Amendment 21, page 12, line 13, leave out “or (b)” and insert “, (b) or (c)”.
Amendment 22, page 12, line 16, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) Guidance under this section about service providers under subsection (1) must include provision about—
(a) the role of such providers;
(b) the services they provide to—
(i) victims, including (where relevant) victims who are children or have other protected characteristics, or
(ii) persons who are not victims, where that service is provided in connection with a service provided to a victim;
(c) how such providers and other persons who have functions relating to victims, or any aspect of the criminal justice system, should work together;
(d) appropriate training and qualifications for such providers.”
Government amendment 53.
Amendment 23, page 12, line 28, leave out from beginning to “must” and insert— “The service providers listed in subsection (1)”.
Amendment 24, in clause 22, page 18, line 26, at end insert—
“(d) is satisfied that the victim has been informed of their rights in relation to the request.”
Government amendments 54 to 56.
Amendment 25, page 20, line 23, at end insert—
“(d) including a full statement of the victim’s rights in relation to the request.”
Government amendment 57.
Amendment 145, page 22, line 21, at end insert—
“44F Requirements for training in respect of victim information requests
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations require certain persons to receive training in respect of victim information requests.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must—
(a) require authorised persons to undertake training relating to the making of victim information requests, including on the meaning of “reasonable line of enquiry”,
(b) require certain employees of the Crown Prosecution Service to undertake training in respect of victim information requests, including training in the appropriate use of material obtained through such a request,
(c) require persons who provide services to victims and who may receive victim information requests to undertake training in relation to those requests,
(d) make provision about the content and delivery of the training required.
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Government amendments 58 to 99, 150 and 100.
Amendment 152, page 35, line 28, leave out Clause 36.
Government amendments 101 to 112.
Amendment 153, page 38, line 10, leave out Clause 37.
Government amendments 113 to 135, and 151.
Government motion to transfer Clause 51.
Government amendments 136 to 141.
There is a lot of pressure on speakers for this debate, and I would be grateful if people could be conscious of that, particularly on the Front Benches. I am unlikely to impose a time limit from the start, but it would be helpful if those on the Front Benches also gave some consideration to that.
Edward Argar
It is a privilege to open this debate and bring the Bill to the House for Report. This important Bill has been long called for by Members across the House, and in progressing it we are delivering on our manifesto. Its central mission, and indeed that of this Government, is to ensure that victims are not just spectators in a criminal justice system, but are treated as participants in it. Victims tell us that they want to be treated fairly, properly, and with dignity. They want clear, timely, accurate information, and the opportunity and help to make their voice heard. The Bill aims to do just that. It will amplify victims’ voices, ensure that they get the high-quality support they deserve, and make services more joined up better to support them. By putting the overarching principles of the victims code on a statutory footing, we will send a clear signal about the service that victims can expect. We will place a new duty on criminal justice agencies to promote awareness of the code so that victims are better informed. The Bill will also create an independent public advocate to speak up for those involved in major incidents such as the Grenfell or Hillsborough tragedies. It will deliver further safeguards to the parole system to protect the public.
Those are critical reforms, and in the spirit in which we conducted Committee and Second Reading, I take this opportunity to thank the Opposition and all Members for their constructive engagement. Although there may be areas on which we disagree, in some areas we were able to work constructively together. I particularly wish put on record my gratitude to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for her determination and engagement with a variety of amendments and issues, and for the depth of that engagement. Even where we were not able to agree, I am grateful for the tone and manner in which the debate has been conducted thus far.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Government are fond of saying that they are getting on with the people’s priorities, however much opinion polls may suggest the opposite. I agree entirely that all parties believe that the Bill is needed, and all parties want to get it on to the statute book. Does the Minister share my concern that the sheer weight of amendments proposed, and the widespread group of people who are saying that a number of people are being missed by this glorious once-in-a-Parliament opportunity, mean that the Government should be much more ambitious about ensuring that more victims get the support they need?
Edward Argar
It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I do not share his characterisation of the Bill. We have sought to draw the definition of those entitled to support under the victims code as widely as possible, keeping it to those who are victims of crime, because that is the nature of the Bill, but not being specific in listing a range of different groups or categories of victims. That is precisely because we want the Bill to be inclusive, rather than inadvertently being too prescriptive and leaving people out, thereby excluding them from services. We have tried to be as broad based as possible in our definition and approach.
To return to that core definition, this is about victims of crime and of criminal acts. To conclude my comments about the tone of the debate, I am grateful to everyone, not just right hon. and hon. Members who have engaged with the Bill, but stakeholders across the criminal justice system, including many charities, campaigners and others. Again, although we may not have always reached the same conclusion, the level of their engagement, and its tone, has been phenomenal and much appreciated, and I think it makes for a better Bill. Indeed, some victims have bravely shared their experiences. It is not easy for someone to share their experience of crime with anyone they do not know, particularly in the context of a much debated Bill, so again, I am grateful to each and every one of them.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Minister is aware of the debate we had around child criminal exploitation. Does he believe that that part of the Criminal Justice Bill could cover that definition?
Edward Argar
The point that the hon. Lady raises does not directly relate to antisocial behaviour, because often what she is talking about is criminal in many ways. As I set out in Committee, we believe that where ASB is criminal, it would already be captured under this legislation. I suspect that she may develop that point in her remarks later.
Another area that has been raised, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) will speak to, is non-disclosure agreements and how they may prevent victims from being able to seek the support they need. I particularly thank her for her constructive engagement on this important topic. I also thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), although she is not her place. I recognise that non-disclosure agreements are misused if they prevent someone from speaking about what they have experienced, whether it is criminality or equivalent. While this Government recognise that NDAs, also known as confidentiality clauses, can and do serve a valid purpose to protect commercially sensitive information and deliver finality, they should never be used to stop victims of crime getting the support they need. I also note changes in this respect in higher education, if memory serves. I reassure the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend that we continue to work closely with the Department for Business and Trade, which holds overall policy responsibility for NDAs, to carefully consider how best to address the issues they have raised, including, where appropriate, through legislative options as this legislation progresses.
I will touch on some of the concerns raised by Members that do not require legislation, which we will address by bringing forward non-legislative measures. On code compliance, we will set out a non-legislative notification process that shows clear consequences for non-compliance in guidance. We will publish more detail on that shortly. We will also make updates to the victims code, including adding further information on how victims can access pre-trial therapy and get more timely information about, for example, restorative justice and how victims of crime overseas can access support.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on restorative justice, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I appreciate that he has said that he does not want to use this Bill as a vehicle to take through legislative changes to access to RJ services, but could he set out in a bit more detail the non-legislative measures that he is planning to bring in to help improve access to restorative justice services for victims?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his engagement on this issue. Thanks to his intervention and those of campaigners, and his tireless work to ensure that victims are given the right opportunities to participate in restorative justice, I am pleased today, at the Dispatch Box, to commit to the following changes. I will ensure that our new commissioning guidance for police and crime commissioners due to be published next year will include specific information on restorative justice services so that those responsible for funding services understand these services when considering how best to address local need. I will also consult on a new entitlement in the victims code for victims to be given information about restorative justice services at the point of sentence, rather than the point of reporting, which I appreciate may not be the right time for consideration by either the victims or offenders. I hope that those additional measures will improve awareness and provision of restorative justice, which I recognise can be extremely valuable for victims and offenders in appropriate cases. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work in driving forward this change.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
On the issue of pre-trial therapy, will the Minister be taking on board the recommendations from the Bluestar Project, which has been working to ensure that the victims code is up to date and that pre-trial therapy is readily accessible to all survivors of child sexual abuse?
Edward Argar
In respect of pre-trial therapy, and in addition to what I said, we will be bringing forward a revised victims code and consulting on the detail of it. I am happy to look into the specifics of what she proposes, but I do not want to pre-judge that consultation. I appreciate that on some occasions people may think that the consultations are pre-determined, but I want this to be genuine engagement and consultation. I am happy to read anything that she wants to send me, as always.
I also put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for raising the important issue of court transcripts. I recognise the cost challenge posed by transcription of every aspect of a case, and the full details of the case and all its proceedings. What I am happy to announce today is that, from next spring, we will run a one-year trial pilot that will enable victims of rape and other serious sexual offences to request Crown court sentencing remarks, which contain a summary of the case and the points that have been made, free of charge. We believe that this approach strikes the right balance between supporting victims of these horrific crimes and providing something that is affordable and achievable, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her work on this issue.
I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for his amendments and for raising the issue of criminal conduct relating to sewage and wastewater. Like every Member of the House, I have every sympathy with those who are affected by these offences, and I have made it clear that individuals who have been harmed or impacted by these offences can access support services where the issue for which they are seeking support fits their eligibility. I will say no more than that at the moment, because I want to hear what he says when he speaks to his amendments. I will seek to address them in more detail in my winding-up speech, if that is acceptable to him, because I want to hear what he has to say.
I turn now to part 2 of the Bill, “Victims of Major Incidents,” on which the Government will table a number of amendments relating to the Independent Public Advocate. Before turning to those amendments, I wish to put on the record my thanks for the time and dedication of Bishop James Jones, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the right hon. Lord Wills and, of course, the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who is in her place and who has been phenomenally pragmatic throughout the process. While pushing for what she believes to be the right outcome, she has engaged constructively and pragmatically to try to make improvements, and I am very grateful for the way she has done that. In what I am about to say, she will see some of the fruits of what she has done in that space.
We have engaged with victims directly, we have heard from them about what they most need after a major incident, and we have sought to listen. First, we will establish a permanent Independent Public Advocate for victims of major incidents, who is referred to in the Bill as the standing advocate. This standing advocate will advise the Secretary of State on the interests of victims of major incidents and their treatment by public authorities in response to those major incidents. A major incident will still be declared by the Secretary of State, and I appreciate that some have called for the IPA to be self-deploying. However, we do not believe that would necessarily be the most appropriate or sustainable approach. The Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament, is responsible for spending public money, and can be challenged on their decisions in the courts.
Secondly, our amendments will allow the standing advocate to advise relevant Secretaries of State on the appropriate Government review mechanisms following a major incident. These could include a statutory inquiry or a non-statutory panel model, such as the Hillsborough independent model. Such advice can also cover the scope of any review, and the advocate will make representations for the questions to which victims want answers. Crucially, this advice will be informed by the views and needs of victims themselves, and it will place their voice at the heart of the process.
Continuing with the IPA, Government amendments 76 to 82 will introduce significant changes to the advocate’s reporting function and abilities. They will place a duty on the standing advocate to report annually, and confer a discretion on an advocate to report on their own initiative, once appointed, in respect of a major incident. The amendments also make provision for the publication and laying of reports before Parliament.
The amendments will also clarify the grounds on which the Secretary of State can omit material from reports. I am aware that the ability of the Secretary of State to omit material from a report was a cause of concern for some, and I particularly appreciate this given the context of the IPA’s establishment. For the avoidance of doubt, we have carefully considered the feedback and have brought forward measures to be more explicit about when a Secretary of State may omit material, and to be more specific than something simply being in the “public interest”. We have used the Inquiries Act 2005 as our touchstone. The ability to omit material in certain circumstances is vital to ensure that sensitive materials, such as those relating to national security, are protected.
Amendment 64 will ensure that a lead advocate is appointed if more than one advocate is appointed for the same major incident, and I have reflected on the very helpful and constructive feedback from Lord Wills about the importance of having a clear structure in the Bill. Amendments 84 to 86 allow for the disclosure of information by an advocate, where appropriate, to any person exercising functions of a public nature, or by a person exercising functions of a public nature to an advocate, subject to the Data Protection Act 2018. This two-way flow of information is crucial to ensuring that advocates are able to support victims properly.
I want to make it clear that that does not provide the advocates with any data-compelling powers. We expect strong co-operation between public authorities and the advocates, and an advocate can report to the Secretary of State if they believe there has been a lack of co-operation. I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood may try to nudge me to go a little further, but I note that the Hillsborough independent panel, which was rightly credited with securing disclosure of information that showed that fans were not responsible for the disaster, likewise did not have those data-compelling powers.
The final change that the amendments make is to remove the current restriction in the Bill whereby the advocate could share personal data only with the consent of the data subject. By removing that, the advocate now has greater freedom and can rely on a wider range of legal bases to process personal data, as outlined in data protection legislation.
I want to acknowledge the important issue raised by the Manchester Arena families and the hon. Member for—[Hon. Members: “South Shields.”] I should have known that, because we have met on a number of occasions, although we may have called each other by our first names on those occasions. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) and those families for their tireless campaigning. In respect of having a role for the bereaved in the registration of their loved one’s death following an inquest, I will say a little more on this in my closing remarks, once the hon. Lady has had an opportunity to speak to her amendment in the course of this debate, but I want to reassure the House that I am sympathetic and understand what sits behind what the hon. Lady is campaigning for and seeking to do.
I turn to the final part of the Bill, part 3. The measures in respect of parole reforms are designed to protect the public and maintain confidence in the parole system by enabling the Secretary of State to intervene in the release of the most serious offenders. The first duty of any Government is to protect the public, and although the Parole Board has a very good record of assessing risk, this power will give the public additional confidence that when it comes to the release of those who have committed the gravest of crimes, there is an extra safeguard to ensure that prisoners are released only when it is safe to do so and that dangerous offenders remain behind bars.
During the passage of the Bill, I have heard support for that important principle, but I have also heard concerns from parliamentary colleagues and other stakeholders about how the proposed reform will be implemented, and from victims’ representatives about the potential for unnecessary delay in the process. I have therefore tabled amendments that will streamline the process to ensure that cases are dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible, while still guaranteeing that the Secretary of State retains a power to intervene on behalf of the public whenever necessary to do so.
The amendments mean that instead of Ministers being required to carry out the full assessment as to whether a prisoner meets the release test, which will be an onerous process requiring a full review of hundreds of pages of evidence, only for a prisoner to almost certainly challenge that decision in court, Ministers will now be able to send a case directly to a superior court for a judicial decision. In most cases, it will be the upper tribunal. We are also making it clear that the Secretary of State will refer cases that particularly affect public confidence, and where they believe that the court may reach different decisions from those of the board. The amendments will make the exercising of the power quicker and more cost-effective, removing the need to create a shadow Parole Board within the Ministry of Justice and providing swifter certainty for victims and the public.
We are also proposing two further minor changes to the measures. Clause 36 enables the Parole Board to refer cases to the Secretary of State for a decision where it is unable to reach a decision itself. We have listened carefully to suggestions that this provision may not be required, as it is not easy to envisage the circumstances in which it might apply. We have listened and will remove the clause from the Bill. Secondly, there are a small number of parole cases—usually those where the index offence is terrorism—that involve the consideration of sensitive material relating to national security or closed material. It is usual for legal matters involving closed materials to be heard in the High Court, so we are amending the Bill to enable the Secretary of State to refer any such specific parole cases, which we would expect to be few in number, to that court rather than the upper tribunal. I hope that the changes will be well received and demonstrate our commitment to ensuring swifter outcomes for victims.
Edward Argar
I will take a brief intervention. Then I will try to conclude, because I am conscious that many Members wish to speak.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister. On many occasions, MPs are asked to refer cases for reconsideration. The Minister has indicated that the appeal board may do that. Can MPs also refer prisoners to be reconsidered for longer sentences or, indeed, for not getting out at all?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The power in the clauses rests with the Secretary of State, acting in his capacity as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State. Of course, Members of Parliament can put their representations to the Secretary of State, but the referral procedure to the upper tribunal will sit with the Secretary of State, not with individual Members of this House.
We are also proposing amendments to change the period at which those on imprisonment for public protection sentences qualify for their licence to be considered for termination. The Justice Committee published its report on IPP sentences in September 2022, and I thank it for its valuable insights. One of its recommendations was to reduce the qualifying period at which an IPP prisoner in the community is referred to the Parole Board for consideration of licence termination from 10 years to five years. I am pleased to say that, on reflection, Government new clause 26 will reduce the period from 10 years to three years, which we believe strikes an appropriate balance. It will also introduce a provision whereby, for IPP offenders who have reached the three-year qualifying period and the Parole Board has not already directed that the licence be terminated, the Secretary of State must direct that the IPP licence ceases to have effect after a further two years of continuous good behaviour in the community, which is defined as not being recalled to prison in that time.
Secondly, the new clause will remove clause 33(5) from the Bill in order to decouple the test applied by the Parole Board when considering whether to terminate an IPP licence from other Parole Board decisions in clause 33, such as whether to release a prisoner from prison. The test is replaced by that introduced in clause 47(2)(c), setting out a clear presumption for termination of the licence requiring the Parole Board to direct the Secretary of State to make an order that a licence is to cease to have an effect unless it is satisfied that it is necessary for public protection that that licence remains in force.
We are clear throughout that public protection must remain a priority, but that change in presumption—a rebuttable presumption—will mean that when the Parole Board considers a licence termination for an offender who has already been found safe to be released, it will approach that with the presumption in favour of terminating. I appreciate that does not necessarily go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) might wish—that is evidenced by his tabling new clause 1—but I believe that we have made reasonable and balanced progress. Of course, we will carefully consider any further recommendations.
Before I conclude, it is right that I highlight the amendments tabled by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), in respect of the infected blood inquiry. I have considered carefully what she has tabled. She will appreciate that this is a matter for the Cabinet Office. In my opening remarks, I want to acknowledge the huge impact that that scandal has had on people—families and individuals—up and down the country. I do not propose to say much more at this point, because I want to come to that in some detail once I have heard her remarks in moving new clause 27. I have sought to be as comprehensive as possible in my opening remarks—I am grateful to the House for its indulgence—to leave time in my closing remarks to address specific points on that issue and others, once Members have spoken to their amendments.
I am grateful to all who have engaged with the Bill as it has progressed. I will listen carefully to the debate, and I look forward to responding. I commend the Government’s amendments to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Kevin Brennan, the House can see how many Members are standing. The first few to be called should not be thinking about speaking for longer than six minutes. That limit is very likely to be reduced. I do not want to put the mockers on people intervening on one another—it is a debate—but please be mindful that it will eat into other people’s time.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name and will refer to others. The Opposition acknowledge the significance of the Bill, but even if the new Government amendments that the Minister has just outlined are adopted, we cannot escape the reality that the Bill nevertheless remains a skeletal framework that requires substantial enhancement. For too long—over a period of eight years and an octet of Justice Secretaries, which is an average of one per year—the promise of a comprehensive victims Bill has been dangled before us, yet still we are here trying to fill in its gaps. That provides little comfort for the victims of crime across the country.
Having picked up the Bill since it was considered in Committee, I wish to pay tribute to my colleagues who worked on it through that stage and did all the heavy lifting: in particular, my predecessors on the Front Bench, my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) and for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is in her place on the Back Benches. I also pay tribute to those who have engaged from the Opposition Back Benches, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and my hon. Friends the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). I also thank those who have tabled amendments for consideration today, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). That really shows the amount of interest in the Bill right across the House.
Kevin Brennan
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member who is about to intervene.
Maria Eagle
New clause 14 is much better than the Government’s provision in the Criminal Justice Bill, which relates to producing codes of practice only for the police. Does my hon. Friend agree that his new clause would be a vital part of implementing a full Hillsborough law, which is what our party calls for?
Kevin Brennan
In all candour, I agree. The need for the new clause could not be more urgent. It is rooted in a simple expectation that those in public service, from health to policing, must not only act diligently but expose and challenge dangerous practices. The duty of candour would be not just a guideline but a legal obligation, and it would be particularly vital in tragedies like Hillsborough. I commend my right hon. Friend’s campaigning over many years on that subject and on terrible tragedies such as the Grenfell Tower fire.
New clause 14 aims to shift from a culture of defensiveness to one of openness, and would support those who wish to contribute to inquiries but feel pressured to remain silent. The NHS duty of candour has been a step in the right direction, but we need to go further for all public authorities if we are to end the cycle of institutional defensiveness that not only delays justice but fails to safeguard the lives of our citizens.
The new clause seeks to break down those barriers of evasiveness and foster a culture of accountability, where seeking the truth becomes paramount. A statutory duty of candour would circumvent all such issues and direct investigations towards the most pertinent matters promptly and efficiently. Most important of all, it would bring justice to the victims and their families who, for far too long, have been let down by public bodies that are meant to do the right thing.
I turn to amendment 33, which again stands in my name. The Bill intends to improve protections for victims, but it neglects a significant group, which the Minister made reference to in his remarks: individuals plagued by the menace of persistent antisocial behaviour, who are often living in fear in their own homes. The amendment seeks to rectify that oversight by ensuring that the definition of “victim” includes those tormented by antisocial behaviour such that they meet the threshold for an antisocial behaviour case review. There is no good reason why that group of people should have to deal with all the same agencies as other victims without the benefit of the same rights, so they should be added to the victims code.
Members across the House will know of many people in their constituencies suffering from that kind of antisocial behaviour. It is a daily battle for them. It is not the mark of a just society that they should not be included in the code. Currently, those victims are left without the protections and support that the Bill extends to other victims. That is an unacceptable gap in the legislation. We must extend support to those affected by persistent antisocial behaviour. It is our duty to ensure that no victim is left behind. The Bill must demonstrate that our support for those victims is unwavering and our commitment to all victims is absolute. We must ensure that every member of our society can live in dignity and peace, to which they have a right. I heard what the Minister said on this matter, but it is not good enough.
I turn amendments 154 and 155, though I will not dwell on them. They seek to maintain Welsh Ministers’ responsibility for issuing guidance to independent domestic violence advocates and independent sexual violence advocates in Wales. In the Bill, the Secretary of State is slated to provide guidance to outline their roles, the services to victims, and collaboration with the criminal justice system and other victim support entities. We support enhanced victim support, but our concern pertains to the Secretary of State assuming responsibility for the guidance in Wales. The Welsh Senedd did not grant legislative consent to the Bill due to its reservations about the role of the Secretary of State for Justice. Welfare and safeguarding are devolved matters.
I will not go into great detail because of time, but whether by oversight or design, the UK Government’s assumption of responsibility creates a dual system with varying authorities responsible for victim support providers based on the nature of the assistance rendered. That cannot be the right approach for victims in Wales. Elsewhere, the Government have shown a disregard for devolution. I am not sure that it is deliberate in this case, and I genuinely hope that it is an oversight. The Minister’s raised eyebrows suggest that I might be wrong about that, and that I am being too generous to him and the Government. As he has displayed some willingness to amend the Bill in our direction in other areas, I hope that he will reconsider the drafting to prevent further encroachment on devolved powers and, more importantly, to avoid less clarity for those helping victims in Wales and for victims themselves. If he is not willing to support our amendment on Report, I would welcome at least a commitment from him—I hope he is listening—to give further consideration to this matter when the Bill arrives in the other place.
New clause 38 on independent legal advocates is also significant. It seeks to recognise that the criminal justice system as it stands does not provide an adequate means of upholding the rights of rape victims, who so often feel that they are on trial. The provision of free independent legal advocates for rape victims is not merely beneficial but fundamentally necessary. For far too long, sexual violence victims have navigated the treacherous waters of the criminal justice system alone, often retraumatised by the very process that seeks to deliver justice.
The new clause aims to change that reality, and by tabling it we aim to go further than simply leaving it to the police to ensure that they seek victims’ personal records only when really necessary. The new clause would give victims a real and reliable opportunity to challenge those sorts of requests when they go too far, by having an experienced advocate by their side. The new clause would fundamentally change a centuries-old legal system without endangering the rights of defendants. In doing so, it aims to rebuild the trust of victims—women and girls in particular—because our justice system will cease to function if people do not feel able come forward and report crime.
I turn to new clause 42 in my name and new clause 27 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North. I pay tribute to her incredible campaigning on this matter over many years and that of other Members who have campaigned alongside her. We have all been moved by the appalling infected blood tragedy. The Labour party wants to help ensure that justice and compensation for victims and their families are delivered urgently. I applaud campaigning advocacy organisations, alongside the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, which have worked so tirelessly to secure justice.
This issue has spanned many years and several Parliaments. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), set up the inquiry. Many Members and former Members—including Andy Burnham and the current Chancellor of the Exchequer, when they were Health Secretaries—advocated for such an independent inquiry. The Government have accepted that there is a moral case for compensation. The interim payments to a number of victims is an important recognition of that. I am sure that the Minister has seen the letter that the shadow Chancellor wrote over the weekend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter.
New clause 27 provides a chance to show that the Commons supports the principle of delivering a compensation scheme and understands the urgency of delivering justice. New clause 42 relates to that, and would establish a deadline of 25 sitting days from the publication of the final report on infected blood for an oral statement to this House setting out how victims can access the scheme and what steps will be taken to establish a compensation body.
I hope that the Government will accept both new clauses tonight. The aim is to ensure that the Government move urgently after the final report is published. This evening’s vote is an important opportunity, and we are willing to work with the Government to ensure that a fair scheme can be set up and administered quickly. There is time before the Bill goes to the Lords for us to work further on that. It is a hugely complex matter. We are keen to work on a cross-party basis to shape a final compensation scheme that can deliver justice urgently. We await the final findings of the independent infected blood inquiry chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff. However, there is no reason for the Government not to move forward, especially as the King’s Speech committed to action.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend as surprised as I am that the Government are saying it is not possible to set up the compensation scheme and make payments at this time, because we do not have the final report? For the Post Office Horizon scandal, they are already making payments, ahead of the final report of the public inquiry.
Kevin Brennan
Yes, and the answer to the last line of my right hon. Friend’s intervention is, “What is the difference here?” That is a very pertinent question, which I know the Minister will want to answer when he gets to the Dispatch Box to reply to the debate.
I wish to pay tribute to Sir Brian Langstaff and the inquiry team for their work and their unstinting commitment to deliver justice for those infected. I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on what work the Government have been doing since the publication of the report. I accept that that is part of the Cabinet Office’s responsibility, but it sits with us this evening and, of course, Governments are supposed to be joined up. I know the House would also be grateful for an update on the expected timing of the publication of Sir Brian’s final report, as this issue affects Members across the House. In that spirit, let us try to rise to the occasion and find a way to work constructively on a cross-party basis, but crucially at speed. To be clear, I urge my hon. Friends to support new clause 27, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, should it be pressed to a Division.
New clause 1 was tabled by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and he is absolutely right that it concerns a very serious matter. Unfortunately, given the impact of the Government’s effective destruction of the criminal justice system, we lack the infrastructure and resources to keep the public safe, should his new clause be implemented immediately. Our priority is, and always must be, the safety of the British public. We are concerned that if new clause 1 were enacted without provisioning for significant improvements in probation and parole, we would potentially significantly increase the risk to the public and to the prisoners themselves. The Government’s movement on this issue is a welcome first step. I look forward to seeing what further progress can be made by our colleagues in the other place.
On parole, I express our disappointment, generally, regarding part 3 of the Bill, the addition of which diverts attention away from the Bill being a victims Bill. However, I recognise the Government’s acceptance of the basis of our argument, which is contained in new clauses 15 and 16. Those new clauses, tabled in my name, would prevent a Justice Secretary from overturning Parole Board decisions and redirect appeals for an independent decision. I emphasise the critical need for the Government to fulfil their duty to protect citizens, rather than pursuing political gains or attempting to exert control over independent quasi-judicial entities.
The Government are right in recognising the gravity of the substantial challenges in parole, many of which, I am afraid, stem from 13 years of their own misrule, marked by systematic underfunding and undermining of our criminal justice system. We are devoted to upholding law and order, pledging to enhance the Parole Board’s effectiveness and to reinvest in our criminal justice system. We extend an invitation to the Government to align with our endeavours and aspire to foster improvements for victims and prisoners alike.
On the Government’s amendments, there are a lot of them. It is not always the case that the Government are willing to table substantive amendments in the House of Commons. I think it is the right thing to do, rather than keeping them until the Bill arrives in another place. Quite a few of the amendments represent the Government’s alignment with our previous amendments, so it would be churlish of me not to welcome them. After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit!
Kevin Brennan
I know the hon. Gentleman is an expert on that subject.
New clauses 22 and 23 represent movement by the Government towards our long-standing campaign for a Hillsborough law. They introduce a statutory definition of “major incident” and “victims”, and legislate for a permanent advocate on the side of victims to speak to their best interests and the treatment they receive from public bodies. Ministers will be all too familiar with our commitment to bring in a Hillsborough law. We tabled new clause 14 to push the duty of candour, which we have already discussed.
I understand there is a possibility the House might divide on new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). The Conservatives’ failure to prevent illegal sewage leaks has led to a drastic increase in illegal discharges, trashing nature, damaging tourism and putting people’s health at risk. They promised us the affluent society; they gave us the effluent society. Labour believes that when Ofwat concludes that the water companies are inflicting the damage, the cost must be paid by the offending companies and not the taxpayer. The polluter should pay.
Finally, I want to refer to Jade’s law and the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside. His campaigning, along with Jade Ward’s family and the community, has been incredible; they have fought to ensure that no family endures what that family did ever again. My right hon. Friend stood by his constituents, who fought their campaign in an incredible and exemplary manner. It is welcome news that the Government will protect children where one parent murdered the other. I must state some disappointment that elements of the amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge tabled in Committee were not carried over, too. None the less, it is a celebratory event for Jade Ward’s family and the community, and for my right hon. Friend. We should offer them our thanks and congratulations.
The Government have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make a real change for victims. I urge them not to waste it. I hope they will support our amendments on that basis, and I hope they continue their trend in following in our footsteps.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am introducing a six-minute limit from the very beginning.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Given the time available, I will concentrate on some specific aspects of this very important Bill.
I welcome the approach taken by the Minister and by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State, whom I am delighted to see on the Front Bench. Their constructive approach has improved the Bill considerably. I am particularly grateful to them for having taken on board, in a large number of aspects, the Justice Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Victims Bill, as it then was, and our September 2022 report on imprisonment for public protection sentences. They have moved and I very much welcome that. I particularly appreciate the efforts the Lord Chancellor has made personally to engage with me and members of my Committee.
It is worth saying that IPP sentences remain a blot on the justice system—not my words, but those, dare I say it, of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. We want to try to remove that blot as much as possible. We need not rehearse the history. Whatever the intentions, the scheme did not have the desired effect. Indeed, it had the effect of creating real injustice to such an extent that this House, with cross-party support, abolished IPP sentences as long ago as 2012. What we did not do was remove the sentences retrospectively, so we now have a situation where there are still some 2,600 people in prison with indeterminate sentences that we as a House think are not appropriate and do not work. The noble Lord Blunkett, the author of the scheme, said in another place, “I got it wrong” and that we need to put it right. Against that honesty from the author of the scheme, I hope the House will reflect that we ought to grasp the nettle.
There have been major changes, and we should recognise the Government’s good intent, in relation to the licence situation. As the Minister observed, these go beyond our recommendations. I appreciate that, and it will make a major change for very many prisoners. Our Committee took evidence from more witnesses than for any other inquiry and published a report of some 62 pages about how the licence provisions were setting people up to fail. Because they had a lifelong sword of Damocles over their head, their rehabilitation was inhibited. Indeed, we heard compelling evidence about the negative impact on their mental health and ability to reintegrate into society.
Reducing the wait for a lifelong licence to be removed from 10 years to three, with the extra possibility after two further years, is a major reform, and I am grateful for it, particularly as there are more people who have been recalled to prison on their licences than there are those serving their original sentences. That is important but, with all due respect to the Government, I do not think it goes far enough, which is why I want to persist, if possible, with my new clause 1—and, in setting out the reasons for doing so, to address the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) from the Opposition Front Bench.
This is not about an immediate opening of the prison gates. I can understand people’s perfectly proper concerns about public protection, not least because many of those incarcerated on these sentences will have suffered real mental deterioration while in prison, as the indefinite nature of the sentence gives them no hope, and so will potentially be in a worse state, in terms of public protection, than when they went in. It would be unfair and unrealistic to pretend that new clause 1 would lead to the immediate release of every person in this situation. It is much more considered and modest than that, and would set up a process whereby an independent panel would advise on how best to embark on a resentencing exercise. That is an unusual thing, but the existence of the IPP sentences, without any retrospective change, is an unusual thing, too.
This was recommended to us as the logical option by the noble Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, a former Lord Chief Justice. Against the background of his eminence, I think the new clause warrants better consideration than we have yet had. If new clause 1 is not supported in this House tonight, I very much hope that the other House will look at it again and that the Government will continue to engage on it, because it would not lead to an immediate release of anybody. It would, though, set in train a process to enable everyone to be given a determinate sentence. That seems to me only fair and just, and I hope that we can look at that going forward. It cannot be just or accord with our sense of fairness that we should have people serving sentences in some cases 10 years in excess of their tariff, which is out of all proportion to the sentence that the judge at the time thought was appropriate for the index offence, as we call it.
There are other important parts of this Bill—which I am afraid I do not have time to touch on—that I also welcome and hope will be taken forward. In particular, I welcome the changes to parole, which are a much more balanced set of measures now than they were when the Bill was originally brought forward. I know that the Lord Chancellor and the Minister have acted personally to improve the Bill in that regard. I thank them for that, but I ask them still to reflect upon the position on IPP sentences.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Justice Committee, of which I recently became a member. I look forward to working with him.
As this Bill covers most of the devolved competences, I will confine my observations—you will be pleased to hear, Mr Deputy Speaker—to new clause 27, tabled by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), and explain why the Scottish National party will be supporting it. It should be noted that over 140 Members, of every political affiliation represented in the House, have signed it, which shows the strength of feeling. Since Sir Brian Langstaff considered the issue of compensation, many of us have had concerns about the Government’s sneaking out written statements at recesses or even before Prorogation, which does not give Members the opportunity to ask questions of the Government and the Cabinet Office on the Floor of this House. We have heard the phrase, “working at pace”. I referred a couple of weeks ago to moving at a snail’s pace, but I am starting to think that the tortoise, from the old story about the race with the hare, would already have lapped the Cabinet Office in dealing with this issue. That is a real frustration.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Dame Maria Miller, who has six minutes.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Let me start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister for the constructive way in which he has engaged with the Bill since its Second Reading. In the interests of time, I will confine my comments to the two amendments that I have tabled, which have cross-party support and to which I think the Government are listening intently.
Amendment 1 would recognise as victims people who have been silenced by non-disclosure agreements. Those people are victims by virtue of the very fact they have been silenced, not knowing if they can talk to anyone without incurring legal consequences. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 already deems the use of NDAs to be unlawful when there are allegations of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct in publicly funded universities, and my amendment is intended to do the same in other spheres. Some individuals making such allegations are already treated by the Government as needing protection in law; my amendment would merely apply what is seen as essential legal protection in universities to everyone.
Unfortunately, despite two warning notices issued by the Solicitors Regulation Authority alerting solicitors to NDA misuse, one in three solicitors’ firms are still apparently unaware of the issues. I therefore think it is time to act through legislation to change a culture which, seven years on from #MeToo, continues to see it as acceptable for those in the legal and human resources professions to use devices that are so destructive to the individuals concerned. The United States, Canada and Ireland have already legislated in this regard. I listened carefully to the Minister’s opening remarks, and I definitely heard a door being left wide open to a change in the Bill. I hope we will see measures to outlaw this bad practice sooner rather than later, because the time to leave it to the regulators is past; that has not worked.
I thank Rape Crisis for helping me to draft new clause 19, which concerns access to counselling records. Rape and sexual abuse are traumatic crimes and survivors need to gain access to therapy, but frontline services are reporting that survivors are being deterred from accessing support because records are routinely requested by the police and trawled through, often unnecessarily. A recent review showed that nearly a third of 342 requests for survivors’ records contained requests for counselling records, and nearly a third of those requests related to victims’ reliability or credibility rather than aiming to establish the facts of the incident involved.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I signed new clause 19 because, having spent many years as defence and prosecution counsel in such cases, I know the importance of getting to the truth and looking at previous inconsistent statements. Does my right hon. Friend agree that giving a judge discretion to ensure that the disclosed material is truly relevant to the issues in the case would be an excellent safeguard which would protect the wellbeing of victims of crime who are having to relive the circumstances every time those issues are brought up?
Dame Maria Miller
I think it goes to the heart of the case when someone with such extensive experience endorses a change of approach, and my right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. The new clause calls for a change that would transfer the decision to release records to a judge, but would also ensure that counselling records are disclosed only when they are “of substantial probative value”. I would say to my right hon. and learned Friend that I believe, and Rape Crisis believes, that it is not just the involvement of a judge but a heightening of the threshold that will help to improve the system. I believe that judicial oversight at this pre-charge stage will immensely improve the attitude of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to survivors of rape, and their practice in that regard.
I hope that the Government are able to hear the calls behind amendment 1 and new clause 19. I have already thanked my right hon. Friend the Minister for his positive approach to non-disclosure agreements, and I look forward to hearing more about the action that I hope the Government will take in the future. I also hope that the Minister who winds up the debate will give some indication of the approach that will be taken to counselling records.
Dame Diana Johnson
I rise to speak to new clause 27 and amendments 142 to 144.
There will be women and men, children and families, in every constituency whose lives have been forever touched by the infected blood scandal of the 1970s and 1980s. As we have already heard, one person dies every four days on average as a result of the scandal, and many of those who have spent decades campaigning for justice are no longer alive. It is nearly eight months since, in April this year, Sir Brian Langstaff published the infected blood inquiry’s final recommendations on compensation. At the time, he said:
“My conclusion is that wrongs were done at individual, collective and systemic levels.”
Most important—I hope the Minister might just listen to this—Sir Brian said in his report:
“I cannot in conscience contribute to that further harm by delaying what I have to say about compensation. This is why I am taking the unusual step of issuing one set of recommendations in advance of all others at this stage.”
Sir Brian has said all that he will say about compensation. There is nothing new to learn from the final report, despite the Government’s protestations. However, in his summing up of the Government’s work since April 2023 on responding to his recommendation, Sir Brian told the Prime Minister in July:
“there aren’t any details. There is no timeline, there is no structure yet in place…if it troubles my conscience I would think it would trouble the conscience of a caring government, and you have said that’s what you would wish to be.”
That is why I tabled the new clause and amendments, into which I have copied Sir Brian's recommendations.
Amendment 142 would extend interim compensation payments to bereaved parents, children and siblings who have lost loved ones as a result of infected blood but have never received a penny. Amendment 143 would establish a bespoke psychological service in England for those infected and affected, which already exists in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Amendment 144 would ensure that the Bill applied to people infected and affected, as set out in Sir Brian’s second interim report.
Finally, let me say something about new clause 27, on which I hope to seek to test the opinion of the House. It has been signed by a further 146 right hon. and hon. Members, for which I am very grateful, and 10 political parties are represented in that group. Many other Members have indicated their support. The new clause requires the Government to set up a body to deliver compensation payments to people infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal. Let us not forget that the five-year infected blood inquiry was due to publish its final report in November, last month. The Government told me, and the House, numerous times that they had been working “at pace” to that timeline. This should not have been a problem for the Government, because they have done all the work in preparing for the November deadline, but those who have been infected and affected have been told by Ministers that they must accept a further delay, until next March, when Sir Brian will publish his final comments. Sir Brian has made it very clear that there is nothing else to say about compensation, because it was all set out in his second interim report of April 2023.
Let me again reiterate the point about the Government’s approach to the victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal. Victims of that appalling injustice are to be compensated before the conclusion of the public inquiry, and I would argue that those infected and affected by the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS are equally entitled to compensation before the name plaques come down and the lights go out on the inquiry headquarters, as Sir Brian envisaged in his compensation recommendations in April.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I fully support the right hon. Lady’s new clause. In this regard, I had a constituent that I had to deal with when I was first elected as a Member of Parliament in 2010. Today’s Bill is from the Justice Department, but justice delayed is justice denied. It is crucial that all victims are treated with parity and we should not delay any further in ensuring that they get justice. I thank the right hon. Lady for her work and support her new clause.
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments.
It is important this evening that we show the Government that the will of this Parliament, across the parties, is that that body should be set up to administer compensation payments and to start to deliver justice to those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal. I have a great deal of respect for the Minister, but I want to say to him how disappointing it is that his Government are mounting a hard three-line Whip operation to defeat these amendments and new clauses. That is shocking, when Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box and said clearly that they accept the moral case for compensation. If they accept the moral case for compensation, now is the time for them to do the right thing and support new clause 27. Let us get on with this. Let us get justice to these people who have been waiting decades for justice to be delivered.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful for the chance to speak in this debate and I want to commend the Minister for the diligent work he has done on the Bill and also the Bill Committee for its scrutiny of the legislation. Some of us have been waiting for over a decade for this Bill to come forward, and a great deal of positive work has taken place.
I welcome the amendments, many of them tabled by the Government, and in particular new clause 37 on Jade’s law, which as the Minister has said is incredibly important. As the Bill goes to the other place, I ask the Government to reflect on whether the measure could go further to cover other serious offences. The Minster will be aware of recent reports of a family that spent £30,000 in legal costs to remove the parental rights of a father from his daughter following a conviction of child sexual abuse. These are complex issues, but we should make sure that we are protecting all victims.
I welcome the amendments on the introduction of a standing advocate and the clarification provided by the Government around major incidents. We know from the Manchester Arena terror attacks and other serious incidents how important it is that victims and the families who are affected are given support. I pay tribute to all hon. and right hon. Members who have campaigned hard on this issue. I am afraid that too many of us have spent a lot of time with victims and their families and we know that their voices must be heard. Legislation to ensure that a standing advocate is in place will provide the Government as well as the victims with an extra layer of focus and the protection that we would all welcome.
A number of amendments and new clauses relate to domestic abuse, and I shall comment on them briefly. A great deal of work has taken place on the Bill, and new clause 20 on domestic abuse-related death reviews is particularly welcome as it focuses on ensuring that lessons are learned from these horrific incidents. I know from my previous work as Home Secretary and the work that took place on the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 that so many deaths take place, and it is right that the public services should review these incidents to see whether lessons can be learned and whether any changes can be made to prevent or reduce risk to other victims.
I commend the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for her new clause 6, which rightly highlights the importance of the role of independent domestic and sexual violence advocates and stalking advocates, and the specialist service that she is asking for. There are some really strong lessons that could be learned here with these annual reviews, and I hope that the Government will look at these areas and give some assurances on the ongoing work that could take place as this legislation comes forward. There is much more that we could do not only to prevent these horrific crimes but to ensure that the victims and their families are given the support that is needed.
I am pleased to support amendment 14, also tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham, which has cross-party support and would require criminal justice bodies to ensure not only that records are kept of name changes of perpetrators but that victims are notified of this. This is all about making sure that victims are given representation. I want to pay tribute to Della Wright, who has campaigned for this change with a great deal of personal courage and conviction. I look forward to hearing the Government’s approach to this amendment.
I also want to comment on new clause 7, again tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham, which deals with one of those areas where victims feel that they get a poor service and have many frustrations around a lack of information about their rights and the support that they are entitled to. There is concern that the current victims code is not being promoted enough, and much more work needs to be done in this area.
Sir Robert Buckland
My right hon. Friend and I have campaigned hard to make this a reality and we welcome this day. Does she agree that, alongside awareness of the code, we need to embed training within the police and the other agencies? In that spirit, will she look at my amendment 156, which makes that very point? Does she share with me a keenness to hear a response from the Government that embodies training and awareness to ensure that the code is a reality for victims?
Priti Patel
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for his intervention. I was going to come to his particular amendment and say how much I agreed with him. It speaks to the work that we have both undertaken in Government on the victims code and on making sure that the structures can provide practical delivery and support for victims. These amendments speak to that, and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister about how this approach will be taken further and how it can be strengthened.
I welcome new clause 43, tabled by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), with whom I have had the privilege of discussing her concerns. She has been a strong champion of this cause and I pay tribute to her and in particular to the families she has worked with and chosen to represent on this issue. Our hearts break for parents who want to register the death of a loved one but have been prevented from doing so because coroners’ inquiries and other processes have been taking place. We need to find ways to address this, and I would press the Government to look at this with a degree of conviction and also of pure compassion for those family members so that we can find a way to work through this.
I shall conclude in the interests of time. We could say much more about the numerous new clauses and amendments, but I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will listen to our concerns and comments so that we can work collectively to provide support for victims through the new clauses and Government amendments. Victims of crime have waited a long time for this legislation and it is important that we do everything to stand by them.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I wish to speak in respect of Government new clause 37. I welcome the fact that the Government have finally changed their mind, despite telling us for so long that Jade’s law could not be done. I would like to pay tribute to Jade’s parents, Karen Robinson and Paul Ward, to their friend Edwin Duggan and to Jade’s siblings for their tireless campaigning and the bravery and tenacity they have shown in what is an incredibly tough situation. On 26 August 2021, Jade, aged just 27, was brutally killed by her estranged husband Russell Marsh. On 12 April last year, Marsh was given a life sentence with a minimum of 25 years in prison. Despite these distressing circumstances, Jade’s family was horrified to learn that they face the prospect of continued contact with the man who murdered their daughter. Despite his appalling actions, Russell Marsh, who shared four children with Jade, still retains parental responsibility under law.
The law as it stands allows a parent convicted of the murder of the other parent the power on issues such as where the children go to school and whether they have passports, holidays abroad and medical treatment. These matters often end up in the family court. We can only imagine how traumatic this must be for the families going through this. After having already suffered the unimaginable pain of losing their daughter in the way Jade’s family have, the current process compels them to face their daughter’s killer and acts as a constant reminder of their darkest moments. In cases where the convicted parent showed long-running obsessive and controlling behaviour prior to their imprisonment, the current process effectively grants them the means to continue the control and coercion of the victim’s family in the same way that they did with the victim. It can be extremely traumatic for children to know that the person who killed their mother knows so much about their lives, particularly in cases where the children witnessed the murder. With the introduction of Jade’s law, no longer will perpetrators with a history of abusive behaviour be able to force controlling and psychological abuse upon the victim’s family from inside their prison cell.
That is why Jade’s family and friends have been campaigning to automatically suspend the parental responsibility of a parent found guilty of murdering their child’s other parent. The onus is currently on the family to prove why Marsh’s parental responsibility should be revoked or restricted, whereas Jade’s law will mean that parental responsibility will be automatically suspended in such circumstances, thereby shifting the onus, with the substantial review process that the Government outline in their amendment, to ensure that the suspension of parental responsibility is in the child’s best interests.
Last year, Edwin Duggan started a petition to put Jade’s law on the agenda, collecting more than 130,000 signatures. Since then, parliamentary colleagues and I have pushed the Government to make Jade’s law a reality. We secured a Westminster Hall debate when the petition surpassed 100,000 signatures, and I thank the Minister, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), for engaging with us. I thank Labour colleagues who helped with the campaign, including my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips).
Unfortunately, as I understand it, the Government amendment does not include provision to apply Jade’s law retrospectively, as there will be a duty on the Crown court to make a prohibited steps order only when sentencing an offender. Will the Government look at further steps to ensure that people, like Marsh, who have already been convicted of murder within the specifications of Jade’s law are made subject to it? This campaign sprang out of the injuries and injustices faced by Jade’s family, and it is only right that Jade’s law puts it right for them and for other families.
I conclude by reading a statement issued by Jade’s parents after their daughter’s killer was sentenced:
“Jade was the sunshine in our lives, she was the glue that held us all together. She was also a devoted mum who would do anything for her children, a much-loved friend, daughter, sister, aunty, niece and granddaughter. Jade’s whole life was ahead of her, and her death has left a void in all our lives.”
Sadly, it is too late for Jade. But her children, and others in the same situation, still have their whole lives ahead of them. We owe it to them to ensure that the system is on the side of victims. I am pleased that the Government have finally come to terms with the injustice of the current process.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I am delighted to speak in support of the Bill, and I thank the Public Bill Committee and the Minister for their hard work in getting it to this point.
My constituents in Redditch, and the public across the country, expect the law of the land to protect the law-abiding majority, and there is nothing as infuriating or frustrating to them than when perpetrators of crime receive more attention and support than their victims, which is why I welcome the Bill.
Before I begin, I put on record my thanks for the exceptional work of the criminal justice agencies in my Redditch constituency—particularly Inspector Rich Field and his team of officers; the police and crime commissioner, John Campion; and support services such as the Sandycroft centre and its head of wellbeing—who work tirelessly to support victims of crime.
In the interests of time, I will speak about a couple of measures that are of particular interest. I had the privilege of serving as a Minister in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, and some of this legislation had its genesis in the end-to-end rape review. I will never lose my strong commitment to serving and speaking up for victims of the most hideous crimes—rape, domestic abuse, sexual assault and child sexual abuse. These crimes have no place in our society, which is why, in relation to the treatment of victims of rape and serious sexual offences, I particularly welcome the measures on disclosure of third-party materials that were added to the Bill in Committee. I am pleased that these measures go further than existing protections, and that they will enable victims to trust that those working to bring perpetrators to justice will do so without violating their important therapy-room conversations. When does the Minister expect these measures to be rolled out and adopted by all police forces and Crown Prosecution Service areas across the country?
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I will restrict my remarks to speaking in favour of new clause 10, which stands in my name, which would create a new sewage illness compensation scheme to allow anyone who has been made ill as a direct result of criminal conduct by water companies to claim compensation.
I am indebted to Surfers Against Sewage, whose recent report found that, between October 2022 and September 2023, 1,924 water users reported illness after being in the water. This is just a glimpse of the true number of unreported illnesses. The amendment calls for these victims to receive some justice for the recklessness of water companies and other polluters. It would ensure that the profits of water companies pay for compensation for people who are made ill after bathing in water illegally contaminated by sewage. It would also make provision to pay for the medical evidence required to support a claim for compensation.
Of course, much of my motivation comes from the fact that it is my privilege to speak for the communities around the English Lake district. Indeed, at first glance, the latest Windermere bathing water results are positive, as all sites are classed as excellent. We are also encouraged by the progress made on Coniston becoming designated bathing water. Yet, as the report shows, 60% of all sickness reports were submitted from bathing waters judged to be excellent. This undermines people’s confidence in the ratings. Communities like mine, particularly those around Windermere, rely on visitors coming to enjoy the beautiful landscapes, as well as for swimming and other water sports. Even with the best ratings possible, there will be a detrimental effect on people’s livelihoods in our communities if a reputation is tarnished.
The report cites Steve Crawford from Scarborough, who was forced to close his surf shop for the whole summer because the water at South Bay beach was deemed to be too poor in quality to surf in. Steve could not give any surfing lessons because no one would go into the sea. His livelihood was ruined by that sewage spill.
In the past, the great north swim at Windermere has been cancelled because of algal blooms, and there are countless other stories of businesses struggling to stay afloat as visitor numbers drop. The report shows that when quality improves on beaches, visitor numbers can rise by up to 52%. In August this year, swimmers in the world triathlon championship series fell ill with E. coli after competing in the sea event off Roker beach in Sunderland. A chance for the world to see the UK as a sporting host was ruined by our inability to keep our waters clean.
The threat of sewage spills does lasting damage to the viability of many businesses but, more importantly, there is enormous personal damage to people’s health and wellbeing. Peter, a visitor to Windermere earlier this year, contracted a campylobacter infection after swimming in the lake. In the report, I refer to Robbie Bowman, who went into the sea in south Wales with a cut on his leg, which became infected by sewage in the water and he was hospitalised for a week. I also refer to Reuben, who had to give up his job as a teacher because he caught the incurable labyrinthitis after surfing in sewage-infested waters off Saunton beach in Devon.
In my own community, swimmers have come forward with parasitic infections and Weil’s disease in the past year. All of these shocking examples of sewage in waterways causing illness point to the reality of what chief medical officer Chris Whitty calls
“a serious public health issue”.
He is clear that the water companies are not doing enough, and that
“where people swim or children play, they should not expect significant doses of human coliforms if they ingest water”.
He says it will inevitably require investment, but it is not just a question of money; it needs
“preventive engineering, better sewer management, innovation, and commitment.”
The amendment should be the first in a series of measures to force the water companies to take responsibility for the decades of neglect they have overseen. Some 7.5 million hours of sewage have been dumped into our waterways over the last three years, and 450,000 hours of sewage have been dumped into designated bathing waters in England. What were the consequences? The top water executives in England were paid £73 million, including £41 million in bonuses, benefits and incentives. It is clear to anyone that these grotesque bonuses and payouts must be stopped until there is sufficient investment in our sewage system, and results are consistently seen in the improvement of the health of our seas, lakes and rivers. In most industries, bonuses are given out for doing a good job. For the water bosses, the opposite is clearly true and that must end.
Speaking on behalf of communities around Windermere, Coniston and Ullswater, the rivers Eden, Kent and Aire, and all the other wonderful waterways it is my privilege to represent, this issue is deeply personal. We should deliver justice for victims and ensure that there is an incentive for the water companies to clean up their act. I commend this amendment to the House.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I commend the Minister for the excellent Bill and join Opposition Front Benchers in thanking him for bringing forward substantive amendments at this stage, rather than waiting to bring them forward in the other place. This is a good Bill. I will focus on victims of violent sexual crime and talk to my new clause 41, but first I will speak briefly in support of other amendments that I have signed.
New clause 19, proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), provides for a presumption of non-disclosure of counselling records for victims of rape and sexual assault, and it makes it clear, for the first time, that counselling is there to explore feelings, not as a source for revealing or investigating facts.
Four amendments are proposed by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion): amendment 15 would include in the victims code a requirement to inform all victims of their right to access pre-trial therapy; new clause 4 would place a statutory duty on the Parole Board to enable victims to make a personal statement; new clause 5 would require the compilation of single core data sets on victims of child sexual abuse, a crucial first step in promoting consistency and enabling a greater degree of insight into that terrible crime; and new clause 6 would require the Secretary of State to assess the adequacy of the number of independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisers. I do not normally support amendments that look for a report in six months, but in this case that is warranted to help give us, here in Parliament, confidence that the right priority is being afforded to such victims.
Taken together, the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Rotherham would provide a significant strengthening of the rights of victims of sexual violence. I hope that the Minister will reflect positively on her intentions and ours, because they have cross-party support, even if he is not minded to accept them today. Given his earlier comments, I think he has some positive views about them.
I hope that extends to my new clause 41, which would, for the first time across the UK, provide for independent legal advice and representation for victims of rape and sexual assault. My new clause builds on the findings from the scheme trialled in Northumbria, under the leadership of the police and crime commissioners Dame Vera Baird and Kim McGuinness. The findings demonstrate that a significant proportion of requests for information for rape complainants’ private data were excessive; that those excessive requests had a significant impact on the wellbeing of victims; and that the legal guidance on the matter was not clearly understood, which led to wide variations in approach.
I believe a national version of the scheme, which could be created at reasonable cost to the taxpayer, would provide for greater confidence for victims as they go through what can be a highly intrusive and painful evidence-gathering process. There are international examples—this path has been trodden by others. There is guidance for it in Australia—in New South Wales—Ireland and, in total, in eight of 14 of the adversarial legal systems. I strongly urge the Minister to look at ways in which that could be put into the Bill.
Under my proposal, this access to independent legal advice would be provided to victims in six specified situations, so we are not creating an open door or a difference that would occur in other cases. That is important because decisions about how credible the victim is deemed to be are often what drive the decision to continue with a criminal case. That is not the case in many other sources of crimes. A national scheme providing victims of rape and sexual assault with independent legal advice and representation will ensure that victims’ rights are respected where their interests diverge from those of the police, the CPS and other criminal agencies.
My new clause 41 would ensure that victims, where appropriate, have access to legal advice that will give them the confidence that all that is being sought is all that is needed to enable a fair prosecution, and no more. The clause would provide a mechanism for accessibility and improve the quality, efficiency and consistency of investigations. I hope the Minister will look positively on this initiative.
Maria Eagle
I rise to speak in respect of some of the amendments and new clauses in part two: specifically, Government new clauses 22 and 23; Government amendment 60; Government new clause 24; Government amendments 76 to 82; and new clause 14, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) on behalf of the Opposition, on the Hillsborough law duty of candour.
If these new clauses and amendments are agreed to tonight, the Bill will be better than it was when it began its life at Second Reading, and it will be better than it was even after it had been through a monumental Committee stage. However, the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that it will not be perfect, and it will not be all that I hoped for in my Public Advocate Bill or my Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill—I have been introducing such legislation since 2016, and my hon. Friend the noble Lord Wills has been introducing similar measures in the other place since 2014—but it will be better than originally drafted.
I welcome the fact that the Minister has conceded that the Independent Public Advocate will be established as a standing appointment on a full-time basis. It is a shame that he has not seen fit to go a little further to enable the families affected to be the people who call upon the public advocate to act, rather than the Secretary of State. One of the points of my legislation, and that introduced by my noble friend in the other place, was to give the families some agency—some power to act in the earlier stages of the aftermath of a public disaster and affect the way the aftermath is dealt with.
The whole purpose of the legislation that Lord Wills and I proposed was to ensure that things do not go wrong in the aftermath of public disasters, as they have done after Hillsborough and other disasters. One ends up with years and years—sometimes decades and decades—of subsequent campaigns, fights and proceedings, legal and otherwise, that end up costing society millions and costing the families their health and often their lives. Stopping things going wrong in the immediate aftermath of disasters is a good aim for public policy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. After the next speaker, I am afraid I will have to reduce the time limit to four minutes. At least Members have been forewarned.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I will speak to new clause 43, but first I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who has fought tirelessly for that change and for so many more on behalf of victims.
My constituents Chloe Ann Rutherford and Liam Thomas Allen Curry were murdered in the Manchester Arena attack. In 2022, after sitting through the public inquiry and listening to every agonising detail of what their children went through, Chloe and Liam’s parents were told that they would be denied the right to register their children’s deaths due to outdated legislation that states that, where deaths require an inquest or inquiry, death registration is to be done solely by the registrar. All those devoted parents wanted to do was to be part of that final official act for their precious children.
After meeting with the then Minister, we had assurances that he would look urgently at whether and how those changes could be made. With each change of Minister, the promises continued, yet nothing has changed. In February this year, the bereaved families attended another meeting with Ministers. In that meeting they were treated with contempt, patronised and insulted. It became clear that they had been misled by the Government for nearly a year, because despite it being entirely possible to change that law, the Government just did not want to do so.
The current Minister suggested in Committee that I strengthen my amendment, so I did, but just last week he said that it was no longer possible due to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which will digitalise death registration. It feels like yet another excuse, because new clause 43 would give the Secretary of State the power to modify any provisions, which would enable the clause to be shifted to a digital state in future.
Lisa, Chloe’s mam, has spoken to me about how they were told at the outset that their beloved children did not belong to them but belonged to the state. She said that, despite the rhetoric that we always hear about families coming first, they simply do not. Caroline, Liam’s mam, explained that registering Liam’s death would have allowed her to begin grieving, and that if she could not do that for him, she would feel like she had failed him. She did not fail him; it was the state that failed him.
In June this year, Chloe and Liam’s parents, after six agonising years, watched as their children’s deaths were registered by a stranger. Chloe’s dad, Mark, said that
“it wasn’t the way we wanted this to be, because of our ridiculous government who only change laws to benefit themselves. We had to watch a random person sign it and not her Mam & Dad”.
They do not want anyone else to have to go through what they have gone through. Just last week, Caroline reminded me that because she was removed from the process, Liam’s name and date of birth were originally recorded wrongly.
The Minister knows that I think he is a fairly decent bloke, and he knows that Chloe and Liam’s families deserved better than that, and that families in the future will deserve better too. There is no moral or legal reason to keep on blocking the new clause, or this change. I am hopeful that he will continue to work with me on this, but I am sure that he understands how deeply disappointed I am, and how let down my constituents feel.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I have a bit of a poorly chest, so if my voice goes, that is the reason. I thank the Minister for the tone in which he introduced the debate and the changes that he has tabled around domestic homicide reviews regardless of the reason why somebody died, whether that be suicide, sudden accidental falling or substance misuse and overdose. Those are things that we see all the time that could be put down to domestic abuse. I pay tribute to Jhiselle from the Killed Women network, who has fought tirelessly for some justice for her sister Bianca, who fell from a tower block in Birmingham. Nobody has ever paid the price for what happened to her. Certainly she has not been, to date, allowed a domestic homicide review; we hope that that will change.
Obviously I am pleased to see the changes on Jade’s law. My right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) has worked so hard, as has my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who tabled the amendment on the need to carve out parental responsibility from those who are convicted of child abuse. All children in this country are protected from being near a child abuser—a paedophile—apart from the abuser’s own children. The other parent has to go through the family court process in order to keep their children safe.
While I agree with both amendments, and fought very hard for Jade’s law, the reality is that we cannot keep carving out little bits where parental responsibility is gifted. It is not just gifted, actually; currently the family courts in our country collude with perpetrators of violence and abuse to a degree that is frightening to anyone who has sat in on those proceedings, as I do regularly.
The Government have had the outcome of the harms review for three years, and have been working towards another review. The presumption of contact for violent parents should not be on our statute book any more. We should not call for victims to fight again and again to keep their children and themselves safe, yet we do.
I am afraid that I will point to another delay that the Minister has referred to: the delay on non-disclosure agreements. I know that he has to sit there and say that the Department for Business and Trade is working on it. Well, I am sorry to say, “Read it and weep,” because that is the answer we have been given for five years. For five years, since the recommendation to end the use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of sexual harassment, the Government have repeatedly said, “We’re looking at it.” Have they lost it? Where are they looking? Look harder!
I want to make it clear that, while I welcome the Bill, there are gaps in it around adult sexual exploitation. If you are a child who is sexually exploited—you might have been repeatedly raped from the age of 10—from the day you turn 18, suddenly the Government have no definition of you and no policy to do anything about you. That is problematic.
This week, the Home Office has announced that it will bring forward emergency legislation on the Rwanda situation. Where is our emergency legislation for the things that we have waited years for, the things that people have died waiting for—including those in the infected blood inquiry? If only we were the emergency.
Sarah Champion
I start by thanking the Minister. He has worked cross party, particularly with me, to turn what was a good, well-intended Bill into something much better, although there is still a lot further to go. I am delighted that the Government have accepted my argument that a victim does not have to report a crime to access support through the victims code, and therefore I will not press amendment 8.
There are victims who are not explicitly listed, but who need recognition. That would be provided through my amendments 5, 6, 157 and 158. When the definition of child sexual exploitation was introduced in 2009, it genuinely transformed services and people’s understanding. We now need the same for both adult sexual exploitation and child criminal exploitation. It is bizarre to me that, as soon as someone turns 18, sexual exploitation is seen as their making poor lifestyle choices, rather than as grooming, coercion and abuse. Likewise, child criminal exploitation is often unrecognised and the child is seen as a perpetrator. At the very least, I hope the Minister will ensure that there are statutory definitions of those crimes in guidance.
Amendment 7 relates to children whose parents are paedophiles. We need to ensure that those children are treated as secondary victims, in the same way that children born of rape will be once the Bill passes. I urge the Minister to consider rolling out a specialist type of IDVA, as Lincolnshire police are doing so brilliantly. Amendments 19 to 23 would ensure that there is also guidance for all specialist community-based services.
Elder abuse is often under-reported. Hourglass states that the elderly require specialist support due to the nature of the abuse, which often targets their finances, and because they are often digitally excluded. My new clause 6 would require the Government to carry out an assessment of specialist support services across the country to end the postcode lottery.
Amendments 4, 17 and 18 would include stalking in the Bill. Given that there were 1.5 million stalking victims in 2021, it is imperative that they have advocates. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust has shown that victims not supported by advocates have a one in 1,000 chance of their perpetrator being convicted, compared with one in four if they have a stalking advocate.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for stalking advocates. Does she also agree that now is the time for a stalking register, to stop this crime in its tracks?
Sarah Champion
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who I know has tabled amendments on that point. We need to do much more about stalking.
One in five referrals through the national referral mechanism in 2022 were for a British child. It is essential that we get the support for that group of victims right and that we improve support for all victims of modern slavery, which is why I have tabled amendment 16, supported by the Centre for Social Justice. Clause 12 is positive, but as drafted it will fail to fully meet the needs of victims and survivors. Amendment 149 seeks to address that.
Another concern is that the Bill will not fully support all migrant victims, especially those facing domestic abuse. Many victims and survivors with insecure immigration status do not report to the police for fear that their information will be passed to immigration enforcement. And that fear is not unfounded: the Domestic Abuse Commissioner recently published Home Office data showing that every single police force in England and Wales had shared data of a victim of domestic abuse with immigration enforcement over a three-year period. To protect migrant victims and survivors, as well as the general public, we need to implement a data-sharing firewall that bans statutory services from sharing the data of a victim with the Home Office. My new clause 36 seeks to do that.
I have worked with Southall Black Sisters to develop new clause 8 so that all those with no recourse to public funds can be guaranteed access to support. The Government must extend the domestic violence indefinite leave to remain and the destitution domestic violence concession model for those on partner and spousal visas to all migrant victims of domestic abuse, regardless of their immigration status.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 27, and I hope that Conservative Members will support it tonight. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who tabled the new clause, for her immense and tireless campaigning with groups that support the victims of the contaminated blood scandal, who have been so badly let down for so many years and have had to fight so hard every step of the way. Today is another one of those days.
Sir Brian Langstaff has already made his recommendations on compensation and said that a scheme should be set up as soon as possible before the infected blood inquiry reports. He has been crystal clear that there is nothing to wait for. New clause 27 would establish a body to make compensation payments to those who are infected and affected. As other hon. Members have said, the Government are rightly making payments to the victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal before the final report of that public inquiry, so we should do the same here.
With one victim of the contaminated blood scandal dying on average every four days, it is expected that a further 22 victims will not live long enough to see the inquiry’s full report published. These people cannot wait any longer for the justice that too many have already been denied. We should vote for them tonight, and for those excluded from interim payments, including parents and families such as the Smiths from my constituency, who lost Colin, aged just seven, to AIDS and hepatitis C.
I have told Colin’s story often during my time in this place, and his father spoke about him very movingly on the “Today” programme just this morning. I pay tribute to Colin’s parents; I just do not understand how they continue to do it. As a baby, Colin was infected with factor VIII blood product from sources in an Arkansas prison, something his family had to fight to disclose. The family faced loss of employment, bullying, abuse and discrimination every step of the way, at a time when they had lost their beloved son, infected by the NHS. They had to fight every step of the way while watching the friends they met during the campaign die along the way.
The families keep telling these stories, and they have to do so. We need to hear from them, because the Government must remember why they have to act. I say that also for Linda Ashcroft, who lost her husband Bill. After 33 years, she needs closure. The Government have accepted the moral case for compensation, but time is of the essence and the continued wait for redress just adds to the layers of pain, frustration and injustice that the infected and affected feel.
The Government must stop dragging their feet. This group of people have had more than enough experience of waiting; it has been 40 years since information about the dangers of contaminated blood was published. The best tribute we can pay them is to make sure that there are no more delays. I hope we can do what is right today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I am afraid that after the next speaker there will still be 10 people waiting to speak. We have to finish this section of proceedings at 8.50 pm in order to allow for the wind-up, so, after the next speech, the limit will be three minutes.
Stella Creasy
I associate myself with the amendments in the names of the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller), my right hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) and, of course, my incomparable hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). In the time available to me, I will focus on the three amendments that I have tabled to flag issues with the Government.
Amendment 147 is about vicarious trauma. We are in a perverse situation right now—the Minister knows this—where we have to hope that a victim dies if we are to access support for our communities when traumatic things such as stabbings happen. I hope that the Minister will change that so that every child can be supported.
Amendment 148 is about overseas victims. It would simply restore the right that our constituents had when we were members of the European Union to have their rights as a victim upheld if they or a family member were a victim of crime overseas. I hope that the Minister will look at the victims’ rights directive, because so many people experience that.
New clause 32 is about a victim’s rights in relation to data. I was not sure that I would be able to table the new clause, because the court case that it refers was heard last Thursday. A year ago, a man started emailing my office with his concerns about my politics and the issues that I was working on. Like all Members when we get correspondence from non-constituents, I read the emails and filed them but did not respond. I was then called by my local social services because that man had decided that, because he disagreed with my views, I was not a fit mother for my children. He had reported me, an investigation had taken place, and while it cleared me, my children and I now have a social services record. When I went to the police about the matter, they said that he had a right to express his opinions in that way. I challenged it because, due to my work on stalking, I understood that somebody who could use a malicious report to harm someone was clearly dangerous. When I came forward, further reports came out revealing that this man had continued his campaign of harassment.
I am deeply grateful for the cross-party support for new clause 32, because although that man has now been convicted of harassment, his ability to target my family continues because the record continues. At present, there is no way of removing from someone’s record a clearly malicious and false accusation made to a third-party organisation. In tabling the new clause, I recognised that it is not just those of us in the public eye who may be targeted in this way; in many cases of stalking, we see people who fixate and use reporting mechanisms to damage their victims.
I have had no support or help from Parliament or anybody within the parliamentary process for my welfare or that of my children, but now I want to stand up for everybody who has been through this process. I ask the Minister to look at this, because victims of clearly malicious reports must have the opportunity to have the record corrected. Too often, people will say, “There is no smoke without fire.” I want to stand up for safeguarding —it is clearly a very important process—but if a court recognises that a report is malicious and a victim is being targeted but we cannot act to remove that report, the harassment will continue.
Sarah Champion
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for using a personal case to speak so powerfully. I know that she does so from a position of wanting to change things for people who do not have the platform that she has. I commend her for that.
Stella Creasy
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and yes, the new clause would go much further than tackling the abuse of people in the public eye. I hope that, in other legislation, we will look seriously at what we can do about those who target our families and staff members as a way of intimidating us, because that is not free speech; it is a way of silencing people.
In tabling the new clause, I hoped also to speak up for those who have been targeted through third-party organisations. I know that there are colleagues in the other place who wish to take up that matter up. I hope that cross-party support continues and that the Minister will consider the proposals, which have already secured the support of London’s Victims’ Commissioner. I apologise to the House for not being able to bring them forward before, but I hope that Members can understand why.
I hope that we send a message today. Many of us do not block people, and many of us engage in robust parliamentary debate, but surely there is a line not to be crossed. That line is our children, our family and our staff, who do not ask to be put in harm’s way but will be if we do not act to protect our democracy and protect ourselves from those who would seek to use third-party mechanisms to abuse.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), to whom I pay tribute for her bravery in speaking to us about the horror that was visited on her. It defies belief.
I will focus later in my remarks on my new clauses 28 and 29, but first I will express support for new clause 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and new clause 27 in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). New clause 27 in particular has and deserves a great deal of support. Over the past few years, many of us have sat through seemingly endless debates that seem never to make the progress that the people affected by the infected blood scandal deserve. All I ask is that the Government implement the recommendations of the interim report. For an awful lot of people who have suffered far too much already, that does not seem an awful lot to ask.
I will not seek a Division on my new clauses 28 and 29, but I hope that the Government will take into account the issues that they address. They follow on from the landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and concern the epidemic of violence against women and girls that we still face in this country. Our first Domestic Abuse Commissioner is doing a fantastic job, and I tabled my new clauses following a number of discussions with her. New clause 28 would make it easier for migrant women to make a complaint about domestic abuse without fear that their safety or future in this country is at risk.
We had a damning report earlier this year about the culture of sexism and misogyny in our largest and most high-profile police force, the Met. It is difficult for women to come forward. New clause 29 would create an obligation on those in specific roles in the police and criminal justice system to undergo mandatory training in respect of violence against women, to ensure that they understand it.
Those new clauses would not fix everything in the Bill—a Bill that I think everyone in the House largely welcomes—but they would be a big step towards filling some of the gaps and allowing women once again to trust the authorities on which they depend for their safety.
Mr Perkins
May I start by saying how disappointing it is that a Bill with so much potential to be a force for good should ultimately end in three-minute speeches by Members who have huge contributions to make? The timetabling really wants looking at. It lets victims down, because, as I said earlier, there is so much in the Bill that people who understand this sector have sought to add. The breadth of the amendments demonstrates powerfully how much more there is to be done.
I support many of the amendments, but given the time that we have, I will confine my remarks predominantly to amendments 4, 17 and 18, and to new clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and others, pertaining to the role that stalking advocates can play and the need for them to have recognised status in the Bill, as independent sexual violence and domestic violence advocates do.
On 18 June 2021, people in Chesterfield and right across the country were shocked and appalled by the murder of 23-year-old Gracie Spinks. That grief quickly turned to anger and despair when it became clear that she had been murdered by a man with whom she had previously worked, who had been stalking her and whom she had reported to the police. Following the internal investigations into how Derbyshire Constabulary had handled that case, it has subsequently taken on a stalking advocate to try to ensure that stalking victims are heard. Gracie’s family have launched the Gracie’s law campaign to call for all police forces to fund a stalking co-ordinator and stalking advocates. They also say that all officers should regularly have their training signed off and renewed, so that services become more consistent across the country.
The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, which are supported by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, are important in this regard. They add the words “independent stalking advocates” to the list of specialist advocates that the Secretary of State must issue guidance about, alongside ISVAs and ISDAs, and define what a stalking advocate is. Those amendments are so important because, for many victims of stalking, it is often the case that the stalking falls some way short of the threshold for police intervention. Only by ensuring that a case has been looked at by a specialist officer can we make sure that intervention happens sooner, preventing it from reaching the tragic and appalling conclusion that it did in Gracie’s case. I cannot see any argument for including ISDAs and ISVAs on the face of the Bill, but not stalking advocates. Stalkers are often not known to the victim, and the threat they pose is different from that posed in a case of domestic violence.
Finally, new clause 6 is a very important clause, because we know there is an inconsistency of approach between different police forces, and stalking advocates cannot always get the funding they need.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, I will concentrate my remarks on amendments and new clauses relating to domestic abuse.
I recognise that there has been some progress on domestic abuse, but survivors are being failed by the criminal justice system. Repeatedly saying that tackling domestic abuse is a priority does not mean that it is a priority. Survivors deserve much more than posturing and rhetoric; in fact, virtue signalling at the same time as failing us becomes a form of gaslighting in and of itself. Urgent and immediate action is overdue. All too often, survivors do not have faith in the systems that are meant to protect and support them. The situation for black, Asian and minoritised women is even more dire, as they are disproportionately victims of violence against women and girls, yet also experience poorer outcomes in access to justice and support. As such, my new clause 35 would compel the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the experience of victims of domestic abuse in the criminal justice system.
Survivors of domestic abuse currently face overwhelming barriers to justice: we are routinely subject to double standards and outright misogyny in policing, sentencing and imprisonment. I have first-hand experience of the fact that courts are even used by abusers to perpetuate abuse. Police forces share migrant victims’ data with immigration enforcement, which stops migrants from reporting to the police and others out of fear that they will be treated as offenders themselves, facing potential criminalisation, detention and even deportation. I therefore support new clause 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), which would ensure that the personal data of a victim of a crime is not used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person. In fact, I believe we need a firewall between all public services and the Home Office, so that every survivor can report abuse and access justice and safety, and perpetrators cannot evade justice.
Recovery is an essential part of justice; the funding of services can mean the difference between life and death, hope and despair, and imprisonment and empowerment. My new clause 34 would compel the Secretary of State to conduct a review into the level of funding and provision for domestic abuse services, considering both counselling and advocacy services and refuges. In light of the impact of the cost of living crisis on domestic abuse survivors, urgent changes to housing, health and social security systems are also needed, and I urge the Government to support new clause 8, which would ensure that victims of domestic abuse who do not have recourse to public funds are still entitled to be supported. I urge them to choose to properly reform the criminal justice system, fund specialist services, and ensure that the social security system is there for people when needed.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Deputy Speaker; it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I rise to speak to my new clause 33, a probing amendment based on concerns I expressed on Second Reading about the Victims’ Commissioner lacking enforcement power, undermining their ability to protect victims. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), made similar comments during his contribution. I welcome the fact that Baroness Newlove has been appointed as Victims Commissioner—that is a step forward from where we were on Second Reading. I hope she has had the opportunity to influence the Bill before today’s debate.
On Second Reading, I talked about my constituents, the family of the murdered Mike O’Leary. Since Mike’s death, the family have become avid campaigners for victims’ rights, and the main thing they consider is missing from this much-awaited Bill is the enforcement powers that would give the Victims’ Commissioner some teeth. The murder of Mr O’Leary was a particularly heinous crime—his body was desecrated—and I look forward to the Sentencing Bill on Wednesday, when we will have an opportunity to discuss whether a new crime should be introduced and whether sentencing guidelines should be amended to reflect the extra suffering of the bereaved families.
Baroness Newlove, in her response to the King’s Speech in the other place, mentioned a sobering survey that her office did on victims’ experience of the criminal justice system. Of the 500 people surveyed, 71% were dissatisfied with the approach of the police to the crime they experienced, 34% said they would not report another crime, less than 29% were aware of the victims code, only 29% were offered the opportunity to make a victim’s personal statement and only 8% were confident that they received justice by reporting a crime. If the aim of the Bill is to bring victims’ experience into the heart of the criminal justice system, it has its work cut out.
The commissioner should be the key role for driving the change that is needed. On Second Reading, I pointed out the powers of the Welsh Language Commissioner under the terms of the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011, introduced by the Welsh Government. The Welsh Language Commissioner’s enforcement powers range from offering advice and training to requiring an organisation to prepare a plan to prevent further continuation or repetition of the failure, requiring an organisation to take concrete steps to prevent further failure, publicising the failure of an organisation to comply with the measure and imposing a civil penalty of up to £5,000. Empowering the Victims’ Commissioner along the lines of the enforcement powers of other commissioners would considerably strengthen the hand of victims and help transform the criminal justice system so that victims are at its centre. I hope the other place may take up my new clause in its deliberations.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 1, and new clauses 2 and 3 in my name. When we talk about victims, it is important that we also discuss taking responsibility for the victims of Parliament’s activities, and some of the victims of Parliament’s activities are the IPP—imprisonment for public protection—prisoners. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) has campaigned on this matter for years, and the Justice Committee has undertaken detailed investigations and reports, which I think we need to take more seriously in this House because of the urgency of the matter.
There are nearly 3,000 IPP prisoners still in prison. They are in prison under legislation passed in this House by David Blunkett, who now recognises that there is an injustice—there has been a miscarriage of justice—and is appealing to us to correct that injustice by legislating now. There is example after example of people who have gone to prison on small tariffs. Martin Myers was sentenced on an 18-month tariff, and he has served 17 years. Wayne Bell has served 16 years on a two-year tariff, and Aaron Graham has served 18 years on a three-year tariff. This is Kafkaesque. These people have committed relatively minor offences, but are trapped within the prison system and cannot get out.
It therefore behoves us to address this issue, which is why the Justice Committee undertook the review and brought forward not a policy of releasing these prisoners without protection and security, or whatever, but of re-sentencing, with special expertise brought in to assess each prisoner and see whether it is safe at least to give them a determinate sentence so as to give them some hope. That is the problem here: we have lost 88 of these prisoners through suicide because they had no hope. If we listen to the Prison Officers Association, the Prison Reform Trust, Amnesty, Liberty and the families, we can understand why, because it is not just the prisoners who are serving these sentences, but their families.
What have we found in the last year? We have lost another eight prisoners who have committed suicide, with 1,600 self-harm incidents among this group of prisoners over the last 12 months. What we need to do now is to take forward the hon. Member’s proposals, and if the Government are not satisfied with them at the moment, let us work on them until the Bill goes to the House of Lords and see what we can do in the other place. In addition to that, I have put forward minor amendments saying that we should at least offer such prisoners—those inside, but also those on licence—advocacy and mentoring so that they can prepare themselves properly for resettlement and release from prison, but also so that when they are outside they are not recalled, as they are at scale at the moment.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I rise to speak to amendment 26, which I tabled. It is supported by hon. Members across the House and would enable victims to request a transcript of court proceedings free of charge, as that would be a huge step towards improving the transparency and accessibility of our justice system.
In 2020, my constituent Juliana Terlizzi was drugged and raped in her sleep by her then partner. Two years later, Juliana’s attacker was finally convicted, but she can barely remember what was said in the courtroom due to trauma and emotional distress. Following the trial, she was advised by a therapist to apply for a transcript of proceedings to allow her to revisit and process what was said in court. Her application for a free copy of the transcript was rejected, and she was then quoted an astonishing £7,500 by one of the private companies outsourced by the Government to produce transcripts. I soon discovered that Juliana’s extortionate quote is not an isolated case. Other victims have faced fees of up to £22,000. How can anyone be expected to pay such a fee? Court transcripts should not be a luxury that only a few victims can afford; they are a vital tool in aiding victims’ recovery. As victims and bereaved families do not routinely attend trial, transcripts are often the only means available to them to establish exactly what happened in the courtroom.
I secured an Adjournment debate on the cost of court transcripts last month. During the debate, I was pleased to hear the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) affirm the Government’s commitment to the principle that justice must be open and transparent, and I welcomed his comments regarding the work that officials within the Ministry of Justice are doing to improve access to court transcripts. I welcome the Minister’s opening remarks committing to a trial of making sentencing remarks available free of charge. However, it is important to establish that we still need full transcripts to be available, so that victims can have the context within which those sentencing remarks are made. The importance of access to transcripts has been emphasised by the Victims’ Commissioner, the Justice Committee, charities such as Rape Crisis, Refuge, and Support after Murder and Manslaughter, and dozens of hon. Members from six different parties across the House.
There are steps the Government could and should be taking to reduce costs, such as utilising new technologies and assessing the value for money of contracts held with transcription services. I have repeatedly raised the idea to Government of enabling victims to request an audio file of court proceedings. That would be a low-cost solution to improving transparency and ensuring that victims can access a record of court proceedings. I welcome the commitment of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice in that Adjournment debate, and in written correspondence to me, that he will look in greater detail at that issue. Above all, victims and bereaved families need access to full, accurate transcripts of court proceedings at no cost to themselves. Anything less will be an injustice. I urge Ministers in the Ministry of Justice to listen to the concerns of victims, and to look more closely at what further can be done to tackle the injustices faced by victims.
Rachael Maskell
I thank the Minister for what he said about consultation on the victims code. It is important that we get this right, and I trust that he will be attentive to amendments 145 and 146, tabled by me and other hon. Members.
Declan Curran was just 14 years old when he took his life for not being able to access pre-trial therapy. His abuser was eventually sentenced to two years and served just one. Since then his brother, Kev Curran, has taken up the campaign to ensure that all children can access pre-trial therapy, and that is why I stand in this House today.
The challenges around access to pre-trial therapy continue, despite new CPS guidance from 2023 that removed previous restrictions to accessing therapy, as identified by the Home Office-funded Bluestar Project. The wait for court access is extensive. It is often 18 months on average, but it can go beyond three years for a child. Pre-trial therapy services are a specialism that is currently massively overstretched and inconsistent. My amendments would involve training to ensure that services could be expedited judiciously by the CPS, the police, and other people. Currently, there is no trust that information will not be passed on to a trial, so therapists are concerned that the notes they make, and the therapy they provide, could cause a case to collapse. We need absolute clarity within training to ensure that more than just a video is provided, that in-person training is robust so that there can be a reasonable line of inquiry, and that all those involved are properly trained with regard to limitations on the information that is provided to court on content and delivery.
Secondly, there is not enough availability of pre-trial therapy and support. Amendment 146 would ensure that child survivors access therapeutic services. I ask that that is within a month of requesting these services, that they are made aware of the support they are entitled to, that there are minimum standards on the quality of support and that this support should continue throughout the criminal justice process, but also after that process has been completed. I again urge the Minister to look carefully at the amendments I have tabled to ensure that all child survivors can access justice and the vital therapeutic interventions to help them through the criminal justice process and beyond.
Jim Shannon
First, I commend the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) on his amendment. If he decides to push it to a vote, I will certainly support him, because it is important that we have a justice system to be proud of.
In Northern Ireland, we have an indeterminate custodial sentence, although it is slightly different. I am a strong believer in just punishment, and that is no secret. I have an issue with people being let back into society when, to some extent, they still pose some risk. The Minister has given us some assurance, which I am glad to get, but there is a clear difference between a petty crime and a sexual predator who may have served time, but is still potentially a risk to the general public.
I am aware that there were nine self-inflicted deaths of people with sentences of imprisonment for public protection in 2022, and a freedom of information request this year has indicated that this year there have been a further seven. We look to the MOJ for a new action plan that works. Our main objective and focus is that victims are not let down, and that criminals are not let out into the public domain should they pose any type of harm or risk to people. I look forward to hearing further from the Minister, and I sincerely hope that this conversation can be extended to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, too.
I also want to speak to new clause 27. I commend the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) on her dedicated and committed plan, which we are supporting. I hope tonight that we can agree that measure. What bugs me, and probably the right hon. Lady, too, is that the Government are rightly making payments to the victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal before the final report of that public inquiry is published. An independent inquiry into the infected blood scandal was due to publish its final report this autumn, but that document will now be published in March 2024. I am incredulous that we are letting this go any further. If the Government are committed to helping those affected by the Post Office Horizon scandal, they should do the same for those affected by the contaminated blood scandal. That is what the right hon. Lady is asking for, and it is what I want, too. To leave such decisions until March 2024 is disgraceful.
One fact that always seems to be prominent is the number of people who have sadly passed away. I asked a question about that last week. One person affected by this scandal dies every four days, and I am greatly concerned that we will not have answers on that. Has the Minister had an opportunity to speak to the Department of Health back home on ensuring that victims from Northern Ireland can access compensation in the absence of an Assembly? In my estimation, 100 victims in Northern Ireland have had no word whatsoever. They are waiting in this never-never land where they cannot get any help at all. The main priority is urgency. How much longer can we expect victims and their families to wait? The second stage of the inquiry states that the scheme should be set up now and begin work this year. Who are we in this House to delay it any longer? I commend the right hon. Lady, and I hope we push this amendment tonight and win it.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I am sad to say that I have had several constituents approach me about the conduct of individual police officers on cases of violence against women and girls. That includes grossly inappropriate language, such as saying that one perpetrator of rape had a “reasonable expectation of consent” after drugging and assaulting my constituent to a point of significant bloodshed. I will not be more specific on individual cases, but I do not believe my constituents’ experiences are unique to Somerset.
Operation Soteria Bluestone was pioneered in Avon and Somerset police, and features groundbreaking collaboration between criminologists and police officers, and I was pleased to meet members of the team on Friday to discuss their work. I spoke in this place after the King’s Speech calling for Operation Soteria Bluestone to be properly funded and extended to all police forces, with a particular focus on educating officers.
Simple numbers in uniforms is not enough without thorough vetting and training, ensuring that all officers responding to victims and handling investigations do not perpetuate rape myths, accentuate victim trauma and mishandle evidence. My constituents must have the confidence that police and judicial officers have received thorough and appropriate training, and that they will be treated with due respect and regard by our justice apparatus in the most traumatic moments of their life. I therefore urge the Government to back new clause 29, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), and to support Liberal Democrat policies to improve community trust in police, to create the pipeline of trust by educating police officers, and to fund more community police officers by cutting police and crime commissioners.
Before I close, I would like to talk briefly about new clause 10, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I was concerned, but not shocked, to see in the Environment Agency report a large rise in the number of bathing water sites rated as poor quality. It shows the real impact that the Government’s neglect of poor behaviour by water firms has had on our health and wellbeing. Our precious rivers and waters bring a multitude of health benefits, as I see in my own constituency, where the wild swimming site in Farleigh Hungerford attracts many swimmers, and Vobster Quay, an inland diving and swimming centre, also brings the same benefits. I know that my constituents will be devastated to lose such an important cultural asset. I therefore support this vital new clause, which will help hold negligent water firms to account and provide compensation to those who have suffered illness as a direct result of criminal conduct in relation to sewage, and I urge the Government to do the same.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
With the leave of the House, I call the Minister to wind up the debate.
Edward Argar
It is a pleasure to bring this debate on the Victims and Prisoners Bill Report stage to a close. I am particularly grateful for the co-operative and constructive spirit in which the debate has taken place, and for the broad support received for the Bill so far. Given the number of contributions that have been made, I will endeavour to cover them thematically. I am afraid I will be brief, and I apologise to any right hon. and hon. Members whose contributions I do not address directly.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) spoke with considerable and typical courage, and in her typically forthright way. I say to her that I and the appropriate Minister will be happy to have further discussions with her on the issues she raised.
The hon. Members for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) talked about stalking in the context of Gracie Spinks. As a fellow east midlands Member of Parliament, I am very familiar with that case; we see updates on it regularly on “East Midlands Today”. The hon. Member for Chesterfield highlighted the recent work and publication by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which we will look at very carefully. I know that the Minister for victims, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), will look carefully at what is contained in the report.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) raised the issue of non-disclosure agreements. We are sympathetic to the concerns raised and will be carefully considering with the Department for Business and Trade how best to take this forward, including considering legislation. We will provide an update in the new year.
The duty of candour was raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and I am grateful for his typically reasonable tone throughout his contribution. The full position on the duty of candour will be set out shortly in an oral statement setting out the Government’s response to Bishop James Jones’s report. To respect the process, we cannot pre-empt that statement prior to it taking place on Wednesday. However, the Criminal Justice Bill, which is before the House already, includes an organisational duty of candour aimed at chief officers of police, making them responsible for ensuring that individuals within their remit act appropriately and with candour. We believe that that legislative vehicle, and that legislation, is the right place for that important debate to take place.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) and the shadow Minister talked about free legal advice for victims of rape. The Law Commission is currently considering the merits of independent legal advice as part of its wider review on the use of evidence in sexual offences prosecutions. This is an important issue, but we believe that we should receive and consider the findings of that extensive piece of work before committing to further action.
I turn now to amendments 142 to 144 and new clauses 27 and 42. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and the shadow Minister for raising this extremely important topic. The infected blood scandal should never have happened. My thoughts, and I believe those of the whole House, remain with those impacted by this appalling tragedy. I confirm on behalf of the Cabinet Office, which is the lead Department, that the Minister for the Cabinet Office will make a statement ahead of the House rising for Christmas on Government progress on the infected blood inquiry, and that we will commit to update Parliament with an oral statement on next steps within 25 sitting days of the final report being published.
We have studied carefully the proposals made by the right hon. Lady, which are supported widely across the House. The Government, as she said, have already accepted the moral case for compensation, and we are grateful for the work of Sir Brian Langstaff. We have great sympathy with new clause 27 and the intention to ensure that the legal groundwork is in place to enable a delivery body to be established. I therefore confirm that, when the Bill reaches the Lords, we will bring forward our own amendment, which will put in place the necessary legislative framework and timescales for a delivery body for compensation for the victims of infected blood to be established, in line with the overall objectives set out in her new clause. That will ensure that the Government can move quickly, as soon as the inquiry reports.
I turn to IPP prisoners. While I appreciate that the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), would wish us to go further with resentencing, I believe that we have made considerable progress in what we have set out to the House.
Sir Robert Neill
I have listened to what has been said by Front-Bench Members on both sides, but they will have heard what was said by Back-Bench Members and the strength of feeling that more needs to be done. Before the Bill goes to the Lords, where this matter will certainly be raised, will the Minister meet me and other concerned Members to discuss further ways in which we may find a formula that will take this measure further forward?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We will listen carefully to what their noble lordships say when the matter comes before them, but I am always happy to meet him to discuss this matter and others.
Amendment 28 and new clause 10 would include people who have suffered harm as a direct result of criminal conduct related to sewage and waste water in the definition of a victim, and introduce a sewage illness compensation scheme. Let me be clear that the Government and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as the lead Minister, take the issue of water quality extremely seriously, and sewage being discharged into our waterways is completely unacceptable. That is why we are the first Government to take such significant action on this issue, with record fines, new powers to hold water companies to account and the largest investment programme in water company history to tackle overflows once and for all, totalling £60 billion.
We understand that criminal conduct relating to sewage and waste water can have a significant impact on individuals. Where individuals have been impacted by water quality or suffered harm, they will be able to access support services where the issue fits the eligibility criteria. I reassure the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron)—we may not always agree, but he knows that I have a lot of respect for him as a Member of this House—that there are existing routes for individuals who suffer harm as a result of criminal conduct to seek compensation where there is evidence of personal injury, loss or damage. Those can be pursued through criminal proceedings, where a compensation order can be sought, or through separate civil proceedings through our legal system. Water companies must not profit from environmental damage. That is why the Government support Ofwat’s new rules on water company dividends and bonuses so that consumer bills never reward pollution.
I turn briefly to antisocial behaviour. I, like everyone else, recognise the significant impact that persistent antisocial behaviour can have on individuals and whole communities. We are committed to supporting the victims. That is why we are bringing forward a number of important measures through the Criminal Justice Bill, introduced to the House on 14 November, to tackle the core concerns raised in this Bill’s Committee. We consider that the best and most appropriate vehicle in which they can be considered.
Finally, new clause 43 tabled by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) would give relatives the ability to register the deaths of their loved ones following a major incident. As she set out, the proposed changes to digitise death registration would mean that the approach adopted of a signature, which we have discussed, would not necessarily work. We cannot support the new clause as drafted, but we are incredibly sympathetic to its purpose. I can confirm that the Government intend to launch a full public consultation on the role of the bereaved in death registration following an inquest, including those impacted by a major disaster. I look forward to working with her and the families who have been so dreadfully impacted in the past. I am grateful to all Members for their positive contributions.
Edward Argar
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As is appropriate on these occasions, I want to put on record, if I may, my gratitude and my thanks to the officials who have worked on this Bill in the Ministry of Justice and my private office; the fantastic Nikki Jones, who has managed this Bill through the Commons as an official; the Whips, the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee and the Lord President of the Council for her assistance; and my Parliamentary Private Secretary until he was made a Whip a few short weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). Most importantly, I would like to thank the victims who have contributed to this, as well as the stakeholders, the organisations and the campaigners. I should also express once again my gratitude to Opposition Front Benchers for their constructive approach and tone throughout, particularly on those long days in Committee, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson).
This Bill has as a central objective to ensure that victims are treated like participants in the justice process rather than bystanders. It is no less than they deserve, and it represents a major step forward, building on the progress made for victims in the last decade. The Bill has been a long time in the making, but getting it into law will strengthen the voice of victims of crime and major incidents in our criminal justice system so that they can be supported to recover and see justice done. It is not only the right thing to do; our hope and belief is that it will also enable us to bring more criminals to justice, keeping the British people safe and providing them with the support they need.
This Bill in many ways represents the very best of this House and its ability to make meaningful change for the people who send us here and the people we serve, and I pay tribute to Members on both sides for their contributions in getting us to this point. Mindful of the tone and spirit in which these debates have been conducted, I will conclude to allow the shadow Secretary of State to put her thanks to her team on record as well.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this somewhat short Third Reading debate on this Bill. I start by paying tribute to my colleagues who did the lion’s share of the work before my team and I came into post, particularly my predecessor my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed), as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) and for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) and the entire shadow Justice team.
I thank the Clerks, the House staff and Library specialists for facilitating all the debates on this Bill, and all the external organisations and individuals—including Dame Vera Baird, Nicole Jacobs, Claire Waxman, Ken Sutton, Women’s Aid, SafeLives, Rape Crisis and Hillsborough Law Now—that have engaged extensively with the shadow Front-Bench team on this Bill. I acknowledge the constructive tone with which the Minister has approached the legislation, as well as that of hon. Members who have contributed to our proceedings, particularly those who took the Bill through Committee. May I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) on her relentless and persistent campaign on behalf of the victims of the infected blood scandal? She has won a tremendous victory for them this evening.
We will support the passage of the Bill. We have been calling on the Government to bring forward a victims Bill for over eight years. We do believe it is some progress, but it does not go far enough, and the Government could and should have gone further. I am sure we will return to those debates in the other place.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Wednesday 6th December 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 4 December 2023 - large font accessible version - (4 Dec 2023)
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Monday 18th December 2023
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 4 December 2023 - large font accessible version - (4 Dec 2023)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, in opening this important debate, I first express the Government’s warm thanks to all those who have contributed to this Bill’s engender, notably the many organisations and individuals who have responded to consultations or made representations, successive Lord Chancellors—not least the right honourable Sir Robert Buckland KC MP and the right honourable Dominic Raab MP—and many honourable Members on both sides in the other place who have worked to improve this Bill in its passage through Parliament.
I venture to suggest that most of the issues before us are not in essence party political. I trust and hope that the general direction of this Bill, which aims to enhance and protect the position of victims in the justice system in its widest sense, will command broad support across the House. We will, I anticipate, be mainly considering the means rather than the ends. I would like to say at the outset that my door is always open to any noble Lord who would like to discuss these issues in more detail as our debates proceed. In anticipating a full and constructive debate, I particularly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, on her re-appointment as the Victims’ Commissioner, and much look forward to her contribution to our work.
I turn then to substance and will take the main highlights of the Bill in sequence. Part 1 further enhances the positions of victims of criminal conduct—widely defined under Clause 1—in two main respects. One is the victims’ code and the other is victim support services. First, there are important improvements to the effectiveness of the existing victims’ code, which sets out what victims are entitled to expect from the criminal justice system, as last updated and improved by this Government in 2021. The principles underlying the victims’ code are now set in statute for the first time—that is in Clause 2. Clause 6 requires the police, the CPS and other criminal justice bodies to promote awareness of the code and to keep under review how victims’ services are provided. Clause 7 requires police and crime commissioners to oversee those victims’ services and to report their findings to the Secretary of State, who in turn must publish compliance information, so that all may see how their local area is performing. This combination of enhanced statutory duties on the one hand and significantly increased transparency on the other hand will secure that victims are aware of their rights and that the victims’ code is even more effective.
Secondly, on the important question of victims’ support services, Clauses 12 and 13 require the local police, local integrated care boards—namely, the National Health Service—and local authorities to collaborate to prepare and publish a strategy for delivering victims’ support services in their area as regards criminal conduct consisting of domestic abuse, sexual conduct or serious violence. They must assess the needs of their area and indicate whether they are met. Again, those strategies must be published.
In essence, this is an anti-silo provision. Experience shows that a number of agencies operating locally do not always join up sufficiently, and they certainly do not, on the whole, develop joint strategies. The provisions are designed to break down silos and to foster join-up and transparency. They should lead to better planning, better provision of vital services and the identifying and filling of any gaps.
On a related point, victims are sometimes discouraged from coming forward for fear of intrusive investigation of their personal lives. Clauses 24 and 25 now limit requests by the police to obtain information about victims from other authorities—for example, information relating to the victim’s health, notes of therapies, et cetera—which might be used to discredit the victim in court. Those requests must now be limited to what is necessary and proportionate. This aims to curtail what has sometimes been an intrusive investigative overreach in the past.
The measures on victims in general in Part 1 are underpinned by the enhanced role of the Victims’ Commissioner, whose reports must be laid before Parliament and whose recommendations relevant authorities must publicly respond to. Further powers of joint inspection by His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Chief Inspector of the CPS and Chief Inspector of Probation will further ensure that these measures take effect. In addition, there is the right of victims to go directly to the parliamentary ombudsman, rather than through their MP, as is the case at present.
All that reinforces what I hope your Lordships will see as a comprehensive effort to improve the position of victims, which is entirely in line with, and takes forward, this Government’s related work in recent years. That includes the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; the creation of the office of the domestic abuse commissioner, who, in the respected person of Nicole Jacobs, is already making a substantial mark; measures such as allowing pre-recorded cross-examinations so that the victim does not have to face the offender in court; the introduction of independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisers, about which the Bill provides further guidance in Clause 15; an increase in the money for victims’ support, which is now £140 million by 2024-25; and several other measures. No one who watched the dignified statements made by the family of Sarah Everard can be in any doubt of the importance of placing victims at the heart of our justice system.
That in essence covers Part 1 on victims. Taking the Bill in sequence, I move to a very specific victim situation: where one parent has killed the other. In response to calls for what has been called Jade’s law, Clauses 16 and 17 broadly provide that, where one parent is convicted of the murder of the other, the criminal court must, in most circumstances, make a prohibited steps order removing parental responsibility from the surviving, offending parent. The local authority, in whose area the child resides, must apply within 14 days to the family court to review that order. In other words, the last word will lie with the family court, which is bound to consider the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.
I have spoken so far of provisions that typically affect a single victim or a small number of victims. Part 2 of the Bill moves to the situation where we have multiple victims, where there has been a major incident, and noble Lords will of course have well in mind Manchester Arena, Grenfell, Hillsborough and similar cases. Part 2 creates what has become known as an independent public advocate, or IPA, appointed where groups, very often large groups, of victims are affected by a major incident. It has become only too apparent that in the aftermath of such incidents, victims have nowhere to turn, no one to give them information and no one to deal with their needs or answer their questions. These provisions fill that gap.
Following government amendments during the passage of the Bill, the Government will appoint a standing advocate to advise the Secretary of State on the interests of victims of major incidents and their treatment by public authorities and submit and publish annual reports. These functions include advising the Secretary of State on what sort of inquiry should be held. Where there is a major incident, the Secretary of State may further appoint the standing advocate or another appointed advocate to carry out the functions indicated in Clause 33, which are: to support victims in the aftermath of that incident, in particular in relation to any subsequent inquest or inquiry; to help them understand the actions of the public authorities; to ensure victims’ views may be taken into account; and to provide support or advice to them, communicate with public authorities on their behalf, and assist them to obtain access to documents.
The broad idea is that the advocate will not themselves carry on a legal activity but can help and guide victims as to their immediate needs, how to get advice and/or legal aid and what sort of processes to expect. They can answer their questions and help them get answers to their questions from the relevant public authority, as well as advise as to what questions need to be addressed or raised before any inquest or inquiry.
An important aspect of this is that in advising the Secretary of State on the treatment of victims by public authorities, the standing advocate will be able to hold public authorities to account in relation to the Hillsborough charter, which, as your Lordships know, was signed by the Government on 6 December as part of the Government’s response to Bishop Jones’ Hillsborough report. On that day, the Lord Chancellor made a Statement in the other place setting out the Government’s response, which I repeated in this House that evening. The charter sets out in detail how public authorities are to behave, in particular putting the public interest ahead of the interests of their own organisation. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, and many others in pressing for this reform—in particular, of course, the Hillsborough families, who have endured so much and whom I trust we all salute.
I come to Part 3 and Clause 40, inserted in the other place on Report, which provides for the setting up of a public body to administer compensation to yet another group of victims: those affected by the infected blood scandal. I understand that a Statement is being made in the other place at this very moment by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster-General, and I further understand that that Statement will be repeated in this House tomorrow by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I think that in those circumstances, I should leave that matter there for the moment. I am sure we will return to it in Committee. I am also glad to tell the House that my noble friend Lord Howe will be assisting us on this aspect of the Bill.
I turn finally to the “prisoners” part of the Bill, Part 4, although I suggest respectfully that this part of the Bill is as much about victims as it is about prisoners. We should approach this part of the Bill from a victim’s perspective. This part has the following aspects. First, there is the public protection test, to be applied where the Parole Board is considering the release of a prisoner eligible to be released on licence. Under the existing law, which is in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, the Parole Board must be satisfied that
“it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined”.
Clauses 41 and 42 of this Bill strengthen that principle by providing that the public protection test is met only if there is
“no more than a minimal risk”
that, if released,
“the prisoner would commit a further offence … which would cause serious harm”.
Serious harm is defined as the commission of one of the serious offences listed in Schedule 18B to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This approach effectively tightens up the public protection test to be applied both to recognise public concern and, as importantly, to protect future victims.
Secondly, Clause 44 introduces a new procedure for the release by the Parole Board of prisoners convicted of murder, unlawful child death, terrorism, rape or rape of a child. If the Parole Board directs the release of such a prisoner, and the Secretary of State considers that such a release
“would be likely to undermine public confidence”
and that the Upper Tribunal might consider that the release test was not satisfied, the Secretary of State may refer the case to the Upper Tribunal for a further judicial consideration of whether the release test is, in fact, met. We saw only three days ago that a double murderer, Lawrence Bierton, was released again and then killed for a third time, having been released on licence. This new mechanism is aimed at that kind of case to protect victims—notably future victims—and ensure public confidence in the system.
Other provisions affecting the Parole Board include the inclusion of persons with law enforcement experience on Parole Board panels and provisions that the chair of the Parole Board should not sit on individual decisions and that the latter is removable by the Secretary of State in the event of a loss of public confidence.
I turn now to IPP prisoners, dealt with in Clause 48. Noble Lords will know of the difficulties arising from those imprisoned under IPP sentences, which were abolished in December 2012. They were described by the present Lord Chancellor as
“a stain on the justice system”.
At the same time, this issue poses an acute conflict between, on the one hand, the situation of the individual prisoner and, on the other hand, the protection of the public.
Any Government have to focus on the risk to public safety and the risk to future victims. In broad terms, the total number of IPP sentences ever imposed was just over 8,000. The present situation is that approximately 1,270 prisoners have never been released, and almost all have now served their original tariff. The only reason they have not been released is that the Parole Board has determined, often on several occasions, that they are not safe to be released. However, if an IPP prisoner is released on licence, under the existing law 10 years must elapse before they can apply to the Parole Board to determine that licence. There are about 3,100 prisoners on licence in the community and a further 2,920 have been recalled to prison. Sadly, there are 23 prisoners in secure hospitals.
The effect of Clause 48 is fourfold. First, the period before which an offender may be considered for licence termination is reduced from 10 years to three years from first release. Secondly, that three-year period does not reset in the event of a recall, so even if recalled a prisoner may, as it were, bank those three years from the date of first release. Thirdly, after those three years there is a presumption that the licence should be terminated. Fourthly, even if the Parole Board rebuts that presumption and maintains the licence, it automatically terminates after a further two-year period if the offender can do a further two years in the community without being recalled.
I know that this sounds rather complex but, in broad terms, the result is expected to be that over the next couple of years or so, the licences of the majority of those who are currently in the community will terminate. Many will terminate as soon as this Bill becomes law. For many if not most of the recalled population, when they are next released by the Parole Board, their licence will terminate after two years if there is no intervening recall. For those still in prison who have never been released—admittedly, a most difficult group but one that includes many violent and sexual offenders—there is now a detailed action plan by HMPPS that is much more specific to each prisoner, overseen by a specific IPP progression board and involving an external challenge group. The latter consists of representatives of the families, some of whom I have met together with the right honourable Damian Hinds, the Prisons Minister at the time. The relevant prison authorities will work on a bespoke sentence plan for each remaining prisoner as well as supporting those on licence in the community. I hope that your Lordships will see this twin-track approach—additional support for the unreleased and a substantial relaxation of the licence arrangements for those in the community—as marked progress in this difficult area.
Finally on prisoners, Clauses 55 and 56 prevent whole-life prisoners marrying or entering into a civil partnership unless exceptional circumstances exist. This is in response to a recent case in which surviving families of the victim of a most serious murder were openly mocked by the convicted offender, who trumpeted his right to marry, causing distress to many.
In conclusion, I hope your Lordships will accept that this is a balanced Bill that substantially enhances the position of victims in our system. After all, any one of us may have been, or may one day be, a victim. I commend this Bill to your Lordships, and I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and I have not mixed up the order in which we are speaking, even if the speakers’ list has. I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill today with such clarity. That greatly helps the House. I also thank the many organisations that have sent briefings, particularly the Library. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
The level of interest in this Bill suggests that there is no doubt that many people recognise the importance of the Bill and the opportunity it presents. I will focus on victims. Notwithstanding the words of the Minister, as with many matters associated with this Government, we are worried that the lack of grasping the opportunity that the Bill presents is the challenge we face and why so many organisations are so interested and want to make recommendations about how it might be improved. I think we would all agree that the challenge for this Bill is to redress a terrible and historic imbalance. In an adversarial system in which the state investigates and prosecutes the defendant, the judge ensures that he or she has a fair trial and the jury decides their guilt, it is easy for all the agencies to look in the defendant’s direction while the victim, even if a witness, comes and goes as what the academic Professor Paul Rock has called fodder for the system.
It may not be what anyone intends, but it is what happens—and worse, victims’ experience may be callous, careless and deeply scarring. We are currently failing victims, as I think we all agree, and they in turn may increasingly be abandoning the criminal justice system. So this is our long-awaited chance to bring about change.
The recent Victims’ Commissioner, the right honourable Dame Vera Baird KC, summed it up very well in her submission to the victims Bill’s consultation process in June last year, when she said:
“We emphasise that a profound cultural change will be needed from the criminal justice agencies to achieve the expectations and the Government’s aims”.
We can put this right if we focus on what victims have told us they want as a minimum, and ensure that it is delivered and can be done without impacting in the slightest on the fair trial rights of the defendant. So, despite the positive words of the Minister and after all the years waiting for this moment, we think the final product needs to be better than this, and it is our job to make it so. This was in the Conservative manifesto in 2015, so we know that we have been a long time waiting.
We need to improve support for victims who are leaving the justice system through its lack of regard for them and endless delay. People cannot move on with their lives while locked into the 65,000-long case backlog in the Crown Court—a backlog higher than at the end of the pandemic. The latest survey from the Office of the Victims’ Commissioner is a disheartening read—71% of victims were dissatisfied with the police response to their crime and only 28% believed it had been taken seriously. A tiny 6% agreed that victims were fully supported by the Crown Prosecution Service and only 8% that they were fully supported by the courts. Even more worrying, a full third—34%—of victims said they would not even report a crime to the police after their previous experience
The thing is that victims are not asking for much. Like all of us, they want a competent, speedy justice system. Vital to them are the delivery of simple procedural justice; being given a voice about what happened to them; and sensitivity to their interests and needs. Victims’ needs and interests are well-identified in the victims’ code of practice, which sets out the minimum standards of service required from criminal justice agencies and was introduced by the Labour Government in the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act of 2004. The code has been updated since then; the problem is that it is simply not implemented.
There are plenty of instances we will all hear about in this debate of where things have gone wrong and victims have found themselves put into terrible positions, both before and in our courts. The Office of the Victims’ Commissioner’s most recent survey shows that only 29% of victims had ever heard of the victims’ code, despite their journey through the very agencies required to deliver on it—that is an identical figure to the one in 2021.
We agree with the Justice Select Committee that, while putting the code on a statutory basis, which the Bill does, is important, it will not, of itself, make it effective. That PCCs will have to collect data on compliance is welcome, although accurate compatible data has proved difficult to find and PCCs have no means to enforce collaboration. If we give somebody a right, in this case the victims, we must give them a means of enforcing it and a remedy for its breach. Local victims’ champions in PCC offices might play a key role in prioritising the right in the currency of the case and dealing with complaints in default. The Government frequently say that they are increasing sentences of one kind or another to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, but these simple rights will not actually help the victims if the victims’ code is not enacted.
This is what the Justice Select Committee said:
“The Government has committed to enshrining the rights of victims in law. We find that the draft Bill does not appear to do any more to achieve this than is already provided for in existing legislation. The draft Bill includes overarching principles that are weaker than those consulted on and which, as currently drafted, will do little to improve agencies’ compliance with the victims’ code”.
So one of our main jobs is to ensure enactment and implementation of the victims’ code.
There are other issues that we will look for and raise during the course of the Bill’s passage which we hope will strengthen it. We want to look at free legal advocates for rape victims—a statutory right to free legal representation for the protection of the rights of rape victims. Protection for third-party material of rape complainants is proposed. That would mirror the PCSC Act for the contents of phones.
We need to test excluding pre-trial therapy notes being used in a sex case at all unless a judge, after a fully contested application, agrees to their relevance. It is a major deterrent to women taking a case forward when they are told that what they have said to their therapist may have to be revealed. The Minister is aware of this matter. I think we will have some useful discussions in Committee about that.
We wish to include victims of anti-social behaviour in the definition of “victims”. We want to consider the commissioning of specialist women’s community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence support services. We agree with Barnardo’s and the NSPCC about putting children at the heart of our considerations, particularly on the inclusion of child criminal exploitation and supporting children throughout any of these proceedings.
We think it is important to enshrine a duty to co-operate with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses. We want that to be included in the Bill.
Finally, there is the issue of migrant domestic abuse victims with no recourse to public funds and without a firewall against immigration controls. They are entitled to criminal justice support if they are victims and should not be treated as suspects; that seems an important matter of injustice that we have to address.
I very much look forward to working with my noble friend Lord Ponsonby on this important Bill, with the Minister and other noble Lords, and I very much look forward to the rest of today’s debate.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and his officials for the helpful meetings and discussions that we have had so far. I look forward to further discussions as the Bill progresses. I also thank the very many organisations that have sent us briefings. I also look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
My victims of crime Private Member’s Bill was introduced in July 2017 because, despite promises in the 2015 general election, the Conservative Government had done nothing up to that point to deliver it. So it is something of a relief that the Government have finally produced this Bill, which has come from another place—although, as I will outline later, it falls short of what is needed for victims. A year ago, the proposed Bill was only about victims, and it is helpful that there was pre-legislative scrutiny in May 2022, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, outlined. But the Bill published in March this year had two new substantive parts, one on victims of major incidents and one on prisoners and the parole system. Neither of those was subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, which is to be regretted.
It is also to be regretted that, despite arguing that this Bill is a priority repeatedly in public, it has taken months for it to be given time to be debated in both Houses. We on these Benches have repeatedly asked the Government to take action, but I am afraid that there has been dither and delay, with many more victims of crime lacking the statutory support that they need after their lives have been affected by some of the worst attacks, whether physical or psychological, and with no changes to a criminal justice system that is patchy in its support at best and downright dangerous and damaging for victims at worst. As we heard in a recent survey, 71% of victims are deeply unsatisfied.
There is one key and fundamental failing in Part 1, which echoes the failing in the current victims’ code. There is no statutory duty on those agencies that come into contact with victims to deliver the principles outlined in the Bill. It is absolutely no good saying to victims that they are entitled to a series of rights but then not placing a duty on service providers and agencies to deliver those rights to them. There are a number of uses of “should” in this Bill that we wish to see changed into “must”. Without that, there is no liability for failing to deliver the support and the code.
The reason for that is evident from the many briefing we have received, with horror story after horror story of how victims are traumatised twice: first by the crime and, secondly, by the system that fails to support them properly. The problem is that the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 has not proved enforceable, as I discovered in 2008 when my stalker and harasser was finally caught. I wish that I could say that things have improved in the intervening 15 years, but they have not.
At the heart of the problems is inconsistency in application, whether in police forces, courts—criminal, civil and family—judgments, or all ancillary support mechanisms, often including local government. There are pockets of excellent practice, yes, but far too often for victims it is a complete lottery. This Bill is the perfect opportunity to remedy that. Training is needed throughout the criminal justice system, not just for specialist teams. I have been laying that training amendment for nearly 10 years now. Let us hope that we get some progress in the Bill on that.
When victims of rape have a first encounter with the police, it should be supportive, knowledgeable and understanding, rather than accusing them of “asking for it”, or—in the case of victims of spiked drinks—telling them it was their fault because they were drunk. This still happens. Independent legal advice and access to free transcripts of Crown Court hearings are also very necessary for victims of crime.
I echo the compliments about the role of the Victims’ Commissioner nationally and in London. Vera Baird, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and Claire Waxman have done an amazing job, which none of us could have foreseen they would do with the few resources they have been given. It is working well. I wonder whether we now need to consider local victims’ commissioners, perhaps covering the same areas as police and crime commissioners; but it cannot be done by PCCs—it is a very different role.
Not all victims of stalking and harassment are domestic. The progress of legislation relating to victims of domestic abuse, welcome though it is, has left a legal hole for victims of serious crimes that are not considered domestic. Stalking is the key issue there.
While the definition of a “victim” in the Bill is helpful, there remain gaps for family members or third-party victims of crimes such as sexual abuse, sexual violence and other serious crimes, including domestic abuse, which is omitted. Only where a murder or death has happened are family members included. Family lives are often shattered by these crimes.
We also need an immigration firewall to ensure that the details of those who are victims and also migrants do not end up being used against them in any action in the migration system. The exploitation of children and vulnerable adults, whether in modern slavery or other forms, also needs to be dealt with in this Bill.
The approach to violence against and abuse of children specifically needs to be strengthened. We have long argued from these Benches for mandatory reporting of child sex abuse, as has happened successfully in Australia, Canada and many other countries. This was a recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, but the Government have done nothing to implement it yet. The Children’s Commissioner makes a strong argument for separate identification of the needs of child victims, seeking an advocate for every child victim of the most serious crimes. This will give children agency when involved in the criminal justice system, and a victims’ code that is designed with and for children, because their needs are very different from those of adults.
Part 2, on supporting “victims of major incidents”, needs to include the Bishop of Liverpool’s recommendations on public authority accountability—the “Hillsborough law”. There also needs to be careful scrutiny of the role of the standing advocate for victims of major incidents. The charter proposed by the Government, and amendments in the Commons, are all helpful, but there needs to be further strengthening and, above all, a commitment to fund the office of the independent public advocate. We on these Benches remain concerned that the powers of the Secretary of State over the independent public advocate might jeopardise their independence.
It is good to see a new Part 3 providing some legal status for the victims of the infected blood scheme. However, the new Clause 40 is only the first step. There are concerns that the Government are already slowing down on the issue of interim payments. Like other noble Lords, I look forward with interest to the statement that is happening today.
I agree that most of the issues in the Bill are not partisan, and there is cross-party support for the truly transformative processing and treatment of victims, evident in the debates in the Commons and in your Lordships’ House. However, in Part 4, on prisoners and parole, we remain particularly concerned about the Henry VIII powers, the independence of the Parole Board and the Human Rights Act.
Lastly, there is real concern that the first three parts of the Bill all demand more of our public services, creating new and important roles, but do not provide support for them—unlike Part 4, which I understand is receiving around £500 million. The Autumn Statement Green Book notes on page 83 that there will be £10 million extra for domestic abuse for the financial year 2024-25 but the figure is zero in future years, and there is no mention of extra support for victims. Can the Minister explain why the victim elements of the Bill are funded only to a derisory level for one year and why victims once again appear abandoned after that?
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I too welcome the Bill, and I thank the Minister for the concise way in which he outlined its provisions. However, there are some changes that need to be made. I shall look at three topics. The first is victims, including the position of victims in Wales; secondly, I shall say something about the Parole Board; and, thirdly, I will deal with sentences of imprisonment for public protection.
I support the aim of the Bill to improve the position of victims. Over 20 years ago it was said that the victim should be put at the heart of the criminal justice system; that was a well-known phrase used by the Blair Government. Why is that not the case? When the Minister referred to the means being the subject of debate, I am not sure that he meant “means” in the broadest sense. There are two means that I think are critical: one is culture and the other is money, because we do not improve the position of victims simply by enacting legislation and codes.
I looked at this matter when I had the privilege of chairing the Commission on Justice in Wales, which reported some four years ago. There were four particular complaints about victims. First, they did not have sufficient advice and support, particularly the old and the disabled. The figures given by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for people who said they would never touch the criminal justice system again, we found, were reflected.
Secondly, there was not enough information on the right to challenge the decisions of the police and the CPS, but there the law has been changed, largely due to the actions of Sir Keir Starmer when he was DPP. Again, I suspect that if that is a complaint, there is not enough change in culture.
Thirdly, regular updates should be provided. This is something I have come across when looking at the position of victims across Europe. The best system was then the Dutch one, but the Dutch expended huge sums of money on ensuring that sufficient information was constantly made available.
The fourth area about which there was concern was sentencing. We have a sentencing code that is about an inch thick. Our position is immensely complicated, and it is important that we first explain to victims the range of options before the sentence. If they want to attend the hearing, give them support, but explain it afterwards. That is a big job, and it all costs money and involves cultural change. In Wales we recommended that that issue be addressed collaboratively, taking advantage of the small size of Wales and the fact that people know each other well and—by and large—get on. I think I can safely say that, despite some observations.
Much has been done since our report was published four years ago. I very much welcome the Government’s approach in Clauses 12 to 14, which is confined to England and therefore allows the Government of Wales to carry on the good work they are doing under the various provisions of Welsh legislation providing for duties and strategies. That is all I wanted to say about victims at this stage, but there may be more to say in detail later.
I turn to the Parole Board. First, on Clause 44, if serious cases are to be referred by the Secretary of State, then they must be referred to a body with great experience. Presently, the Upper Tribunal deals essentially with civil cases. I could understand the logic of this if the Parole Board was to be given its proper status as a tribunal, which would solve all these problems. Why is it going to the Upper Tribunal? I look forward to the Minister explaining this. Is a new chamber going to be created? Would it not be better to look at an existing body that could give guidance in cases that go wrong, such as the Court of Appeal Criminal Division?
Turning to Clause 54, the Parole Board is a judicial body. It seems to me that enabling the Secretary of State to remove the chairman is a fundamental contradiction to judicial independence. I simply do not understand the provision. It appears that the Bill seeks to deal with this issue by providing that the chair is not to be involved in judicial work; there is an express provision to that effect. However, I think the drafters of the Bill have overlooked one critical fact. As I understand the rules of the Parole Board, the selection of panel members is still within the compass and duties of the chairman of the Parole Board. Selecting members of a tribunal is a wholly judicial function. In some countries they go so far as to provide for random selection. You cannot have a chairman who is capable of being removed by the Secretary of State responsible for selection.
I cannot understand why this provision is there, because the chairman is not responsible for individual decisions which might cause a loss of confidence. I could have possibly understood why persons other than the present Lord Chancellor might have suggested this; I simply do not understand why it is there. I would suggest that the ability to remove is deleted from the Bill and that the board should be led by someone who is engaged in judicial decision-making so that they bring their experience to bear. It would be wholly intolerable if a senior judicial post was held by, for example, someone who did not sit in criminal work. You have to know what is going on. This bit of the Bill is a relic of something or other—I cannot speculate on what—but it is flawed and should be removed.
Finally on this part, on Clauses 49 to 52, I cannot understand how the clauses disapplying the Human Rights Act are compatible with the certificate given by the Minister. More importantly, it seems to me that if anyone needs protection of their human rights, it is prisoners.
Finally, I will say a word about IPPs. I leave all the detail to a speech I agree with in advance: that to be given by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. However, I want to make one very short point; when we come to look at this, we must look at the responsibility of the state. To my mind, it is not right or just to transfer the risk of the commission of further offences to the offender and not accept that there is a strong view, supported I think by some evidence, that the reason so many of these people are dangerous is because the state has failed them—first, by the imposition of this sentence, which is accepted to be wrong in principle and, secondly, by for years doing nothing about it. We as a state ought to bear some of the responsibility. That is why re-sentencing is the only just cause.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak today, to follow the noble and learned Lord, and to be in the company of those to follow. This is an important piece of legislation. We all know that the work of delivering justice for victims does not end with this legislation. Ultimately, we all want safer communities, so it is vital that we consider what really helps to rehabilitate people in prison so that they do not offend again on release. The work of reconciliation and restoration, challenging as it is, invites us to consider deeper issues. Root and branch reform of the criminal justice system is long overdue.
There are unresolved issues with the Bill, some of which I hope will be considered in this House. I will mention four very briefly, which my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester will be interested in as the Bill progresses.
We know that many people in the criminal justice system are both victims and offenders. In the case of women, almost 60% of those supervised in the community or in custody have experienced domestic abuse, although many believe the true figure to be higher. Research has shown that women’s offending is often directly linked to their own experience of domestic abuse, so we are unfairly criminalising victims. This Bill brings an opportunity to consider making the defence of self-defence more accessible for victims of domestic abuse who use force against their abuser and to provide a defence where victims of domestic abuse are coerced into offending. This is welcomed.
We must also guard against unintended consequences of some welcome aspects of this Bill in regard to parental access to children when a domestic homicide is committed. The welfare of traumatised children is critical, and the family courts are better placed than criminal courts to consider the individual needs of such vulnerable children. We also need to better understand just how many children in the country have a primary carer who is in prison for whatever kind of offence. We know those children are likely to suffer lifelong consequences, and we must do more to think about criminal justice reform in generational terms.
Like others, I am concerned that the issue of imprisonment for public protection has not fully been resolved, although the proposed changes are commendable and I thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister for his comments in his opening speech. I add my voice to those of others that this Bill might still afford an opportunity to finally put right that injustice. Might the Minister look again at the principal recommendation of the Justice Committee on re-sentencing?
This Bill should seek to help all victims. Migrant women who face abuse and violence in the United Kingdom need access to a permanent, long-term welfare safety net, including refuge spaces and support services. We know that migrant victims of crime fear data sharing between the police and the Home Office; a firewall would enable victims of domestic abuse to come forward to seek help in confidence without fear of immigration enforcement. This was mentioned just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Firewall amendments were tabled during the course of the Domestic Abuse and Illegal Migration Bills, and my right reverend friend the Bishop of London hopes to support this measure during this Bill as well. No one should feel unsafe in reporting a crime committed against them or one that they have witnessed.
I conclude by commending the Government for this Bill and many of its proposals to improve the experience of victims of crime, and I look forward to working with colleagues as it progresses through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, with your Lordships’ permission, I will use the minutes available to me to speak principally about the clauses that relate to prisoners detained indefinitely for public protection. Before I do so, I congratulate in advance the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, on his impending maiden speech.
We have had a great discussion of human rights in various contexts over the last few weeks and months, and noble Lords no doubt do not need reminding of the scandal of a sentence that was actually abolished because of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights but is still being served 10 years on by those caught up in it. My noble and learned friend the Minister provided some figures to the House about the current situation, and I will just highlight a few of them, with none of which I am disagreeing. There are nearly 3,000 people in jail serving this sentence and, of those, 57% are on recall and 43% have never been released. Nearly all those people who have not been released have served their minimum tariff; only 20 have not and all the rest are over tariff and more than half of those have been held for 10 years or more over their original tariff. I will finish with a figure that my noble and learned friend did not mention, but I shall: there were 78 people serving an IPP sentence who have taken their own lives while in prison.
The truth is that this sentence is a form of mental torture: to have no notion of when you might be released and to have only vague ideas of the hoops that you have to go through and steps that you have to take—hoops that are very often withdrawn because of administrative failings or because of a move in prison, and steps that you cannot take and so you are knocked back again, and “knocked back” is the term that is used. If you eventually get to a Parole Board, you find that, unlike any other prisoner, you have to demonstrate that you are safe before you can be taken out—and, at the same time, to do this in a context where your mental health is very likely deteriorating.
More and more people are aware of this situation. The fact that the existing Lord Chancellor has actually described it as a stain is an extremely welcome acknowledgement on his part of the scandal. A video is going round, circulated by the Campaign for Social Justice, which claims recently to have achieved 7 million views. The public are aware of this issue, and they are sympathetic to the plight of these prisoners, as I suggest we should be. The Justice Committee in the other place did a very thorough, serious and sympathetic report earlier this year. Its principal recommendation was a re-sentencing exercise. The Government have rejected that; no doubt, it is something that we will return to in your Lordships’ House. But there are also many other ways in which we could help those in prison.
The Government are to be commended on certain things—and I know the personal efforts of my noble and learned friend the Minister. Since earlier this year, we have an action plan that contains discernible actions and appears to be getting attention from the civil servants at the Ministry of Justice, which is very welcome. I also welcome the amendments made to the Bill by the Government in the other place, which addressed issues to do with IPP prisoners. However, all the amendments inserted in the other place relate to prisoners who are out on licence. As I say, I think they are the best you could hope for—they are very good amendments—but they do nothing for those serving a sentence of imprisonment in jail. There is a range of ways in which we could help those people. Some of them are perhaps at the more radical end, but there are others that are very gentle, which I hope my noble and learned friend would find it possible to accept easily in Committee, when we shall table amendments relating to them.
Finally, I echo what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said about the responsibility of the state and the necessity of recognising our moral responsibility in relation to prisoners suffering mental health issues, very often because of the way we have treated them—a way which we acknowledge is not compatible with their human rights. My noble and learned friend the Minister made a great deal of the principle of public protection, but those are not the words over the door when he goes into his office; the words over the door say, “Ministry of Justice”. When it comes to Committee, I very much hope that noble Lords will be supportive of those amendments put forward that would perhaps put that balance right and re-emphasise the responsibility of the state to administer justice to people who have been neglected too long.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is an absolute privilege to follow that outstanding speech from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. I hope he will forgive me for associating myself with every single word of it. I declare my non-pecuniary interest as a council member of both Justice and the Howard League for Penal Reform.
I am also grateful for the opportunity to speak in advance of the forthcoming maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, who I had the pleasure of working for as a government lawyer in the late 1990s. He may not forgive me for saying it—and please, do not hold it against him—but I learned so much from him in those days, as a young lawyer, about law, good government and policy-making. I found him to be almost the personification of qualities in the subsequently much maligned Civil Service: independence, integrity, intellect and humanity. In a year when we have lost the noble and learned Lords, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Judge, I think the arrival of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on the Cross Benches must be particularly welcomed.
I now come to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, and I welcome the way that this debate has been opened by all the major groups in your Lordships’ House. In a December that will feel not quite like Christmas for too many struggling families, including those blighted by crime in this country, the Government bring us a not quite Christmas tree Bill. While I welcome its much delayed arrival, and the much delayed arrival of any Bill supposedly aimed at enhancing victims’ rights, I query, like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whether it would not have benefited from a tighter focus in some places, or at least some pre-legislative scrutiny.
However, my greatest concern, perhaps, lies in the way the contradictions at the heart of the Bill represent those at the heart of the Government. I have no doubt that the Bill has been much improved by the arrival of the new Lord Chancellor—rightly, one of the more liberal and more pro rule of law members of the Cabinet. We see that reflected in the removal of what would have been a Secretary of State’s direct veto over Parole Board release decisions. I am very glad to see that that has been removed. Similarly, there has been some movement, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in relation to some IPP prisoners, but not all. On the IPP point, I look forward to listening to the noble Lord’s partner in crime, if I may call him that, my noble friend Lord Blunkett.
However, one need not be the greatest Kremlinologist to divine that, just days before the publication of the Rwanda Bill, the Lord Chancellor appears to have lost a battle with No. 10 over the disapplication of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act—which of course requires legislation to be read compatibly with rights and freedoms, so far as is possible—from the parole provisions of the Bill. I am very sad about that. I am also sad about the proposals mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that would allow the Secretary of State to interfere with the independence and the composition of the Parole Board. I think that will be another provision that will require noble Lords’ attention in due course.
In the always affable and open spirit in which the noble and learned Lord the Minister opens these debates, I ask him to explain why this disapplication of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act was thought necessary in the case of this Bill. I ask him how it squares with his Section 19 statement—it is not quite a certificate; it is a statement of compatibility. Is it not just political signalling that if the Human Rights Act is not immediately to be repealed wholesale, it will instead suffer death by a thousand cuts, as a sop to those so-called “five families” who want their party to leave the European convention and, accordingly, the Council of Europe at next year’s general election? A little explanation of the thinking for the disapplication of human rights would be incredibly welcome.
In my experience, the convention on human rights has done more for victims’ rights in this country than, with respect, the common law ever did, and indeed more than party politics probably every did. One only needs to look at the case law to see that borne out, particularly in relation to the rights for the most vulnerable victims, including children and women, and victims of sexual crime. By contrast, the victims’ rights in this Bill, while well intended, are, to a large extent, toothless. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about that. They are too much a dead letter in a sealed book, without the means to make them real or enforce them. I look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, about whether she thinks the Bill goes far enough, because I would like to see the victims’ code in the Bill and very clear methods of accessible enforcement. Otherwise, we are in danger of letting down victims yet again, by suggesting a promised land that just is not coming. That would be a terrible mistake after the lengthy wait for this kind of legislation.
Similarly, victims of major incidents are too narrowly defined and their protections are too weak. They should have more ready access to independent advice and representation. I have seen that in other inquiries and compensation schemes, not least Windrush and Leveson—on which I served—and so on.
There seems to be a lot of common ground between different groups in this House and a very receptive Minister, so I hope that we can all work together to improve the Bill in Committee and beyond.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill’s provision to bring the victims’ code into primary legislation and want to flag up a few points relating to the first principle listed in the code, which is the victim’s right to understand and be understood, with access where necessary to interpretation and translation services. I declare my interests as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Modern Languages and vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, may remember that he was kind enough to meet me during the Brexit process, when I wanted to make sure that the Government retained the right to interpreting and translation for people suspected or accused of an offence, which was established by an EU directive in 2010 and subsequently transposed into domestic law. Happily, I was reassured. Since then, the MoJ has launched an independent review of the qualifications and experience required by court interpreters, which I hope will soon be published. The Bill provides another much-needed piece of the criminal justice jigsaw as far as language services go.
A victims’ code already exists, but as we know only too well from other areas of public services, non-statutory codes or guidance do not always guarantee the type or quality of service needed or intended—or even if they do, we do not necessarily know whether they do. For example, I asked a Written Question recently to try to find out who was responsible for monitoring compliance with the NHS England guidance on interpreting and translation services in primary healthcare. The answer was “No one—we do not monitor compliance”. It is a very welcome step forward that, in this Bill, not only will the code be statutory but there will be a duty on relevant bodies to promote awareness of it and a compliance monitoring framework.
However, it is not enough just to declare a right of access to language services if needed. As specified in the original EU directive, they must be of an appropriate professional quality. In other words, public service interpreters, or PSIs, must be qualified and experienced. They are specialist professionals and not a casual nice-to-have. There is little point engaging someone with a tip-top level 6 diploma in public service interpreting for a complex court case if they have never set foot in a court before and are unfamiliar with procedure or terminology. There is a well-known case from many years ago, which I am sure the Minister will recognise, that provides a good example of such danger. A woman was wrongly convicted of murder because it emerged on appeal that the so-called interpreter, who was inexperienced, had not known the difference between murder and manslaughter. It is also self-evident that an interpreter with the right languages should be engaged—and not someone turning up with fluent Latvian when Lithuanian is needed, or Punjabi instead of Gujarati. I am not making these examples up—they have all happened.
There will also be situations where the victim needs an interpreter whose professionalism and qualifications are combined with empathy and sensitivity. This might be provided only by someone of the same sex, given the intimacy of what that victim needs to describe in cases of sexual violence or exploitation. A requirement that interpreters should be on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters is also worth considering as a guarantee of standards. There must be no more situations in which a neighbour, friend, teenage child or court usher is asked to play the interpreter in lieu of a properly qualified and suitable professional.
I hope the Minister will say a little more about the compliance monitoring framework. Flexibility for bodies to choose how they meet the duty to promote awareness could easily result in unacceptable discrepancies from one area to another. I would prefer to see minimum standards and expectations clearly spelled out and specific reference to interpreting and translation services in the Bill.
An excellent precedent for setting standards and consistency is the police approved interpreters and translators scheme, or PAIT, launched in 2020. Instead of a hotchpotch of different police forces operating different systems, now most police regions in the UK mandate the same terms and conditions, and external provider agencies are monitored and regulated. I was therefore concerned to find out that the national manager for the PAIT scheme has not been involved in or consulted on the development of this Bill. I strongly urge the Minister to ensure that this happens. We must avoid a situation where different parts of the criminal justice system deal with language services in different ways and with different standards, criteria and guidance.
We will need better data collection, and swift updating and strengthening of the code and all the accompanying detailed regulations. All promotional materials, as well as the code, must be produced in a variety of languages. This would be an excellent topic for the joint thematic inspections envisaged under the Bill; I ask the Minister to consider that as soon as possible. If the Bill and the current review of courts and tribunals are to have the desired effect and lead to more consistent and effective language services, the MoJ will need urgently to put energy and resources into a serious campaign to improve the supply chain of public service interpreters, or this victims’ right will be nothing more than an empty shell.
Thousands of PSIs have left the profession because of poor levels of pay and conditions. Added to this, the post-Brexit Immigration Rules, especially with the new salary threshold, act as a major barrier to the PSI pipeline, most of whose practitioners are freelance. Will the Minister speak to his colleagues in the Home Office about this specific group of professionals? I look forward to his comments on all the issues I have raised.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I share the view that victims deserve a Bill to themselves. Extending the Bill to prisoners reflects how our system treats victims, whom I prefer to think of as survivors: necessary for a trial but, in many ways, peripheral. It is largely due to those working in the sector that I clocked this. I thank all the stakeholders and organisations for their briefings; they are so valuable, and not referring to them in a debate such as this does not mean that they have not been read.
I will spend several of my few minutes on Part 4 of the Bill, but that is not because I am not concerned to make the rest of the Bill as good as it can be. I welcome that the Government have brought forward Part 1, and I hope the Minister can see calls to make the victims’ code enforceable and make the duty to collaborate effective, for instance, as supportive.
I found it shocking to discover that a victim has to pay for a transcript of a trial—something that my honourable friend Sarah Olney has been pursuing—and at such cost. Is that open justice? Surely technology should make transcripts much cheaper to produce. Even if you are relaxed, it is not easy to take in everything when you are listening, and I am often quite surprised when I read Hansard after a debate. Stress makes that harder. I understand that the Government are to undertake a one-year pilot on the production of a transcript, but only for limited categories of offences. Will this be for those offences in all courts? On what criteria will the pilot be evaluated? Will victims be consulted throughout the process?
I will be surprised if I am the first to ask what news there may be on getting offenders to hear—one cannot make people listen—the sentences and sentencing remarks. I accept that this is not a straightforward matter at all.
It is also shocking that victims are deterred from counselling because of defendants’ access to counselling records and how they may be used. Confidentiality is essential for counselling to be effective. If an assault left a victim with a broken leg, you would regard immediate treatment as essential.
Another issue of confidentiality—which has been mentioned several times—is the need for a firewall regarding immigration information. On these Benches we did all we could to remove the immigration exemption from what became the Data Protection Act 2018. The practical implications of the issue can be immense when the police automatically and, it seems to me, quite casually pass information to the immigration authorities. That enables the perpetrator to threaten the victim with disclosure—if that is not misusing the term. We should protect victims by protecting their data. I do not imagine the Minister is in a position to comment on last week’s judgment from the Court of Appeal on the application by the organisation the3million and the Open Rights Group, but I hope he will be able to do so when we get to an amendment—and an amendment there will be—on a firewall.
We have plenty to consider when we come to the provisions about major incidents and the role and powers of advocates—which in some cases read to me as assisting the Secretary of State rather than the victims. I do not pretend to have a full understanding of the requirements of those caught up in an incident—which is such a small word—but dealing with the media, which can play an important part, is not always easy. That is an issue for discussion, along with legal representation at any inquest.
For people trapped in the nightmare of IPPs, we cannot restore what they have lost—as we have been reminded, what they have lost is hope—but let us put things right to the extent that we can.
I find it difficult to read Part 4 as being as much about victims as it is about prisoners, but I am willing to learn. I do not think it is being soft, woke or whatever term is current to say that prisoners have rights. The penalty for their offence is the loss of liberty, not the loss of rights. It must have taken some brass neck on the part of the original signatory of the statement that the Bill is compatible with the convention rights when it actually disapplies some of them in terms. The affable and thoughtful noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, was put in a rather difficult position on this, I suspect.
As somebody has already said, there is more messaging and more nibbling away at human rights to appease those who say they are not British. The numbers of people affected may be low, but that does not mean the rights are not significant. The court is to
“give the greatest possible weight to the importance of reducing the risk to the public from persons who have committed offences”.
That seems to me to pitch incarceration against rehabilitation. I wish I thought that the latter was intended.
There is no right for whole-life prisoners to marry or form civil partnerships. What is the evidence that their having the right undermines public confidence? We are told that there is evidence, and one instance has been cited. Should we go on the basis of one example? What about the partners and children of those prisoners? The numbers may be vanishingly small, in the jargon, but for each individual the issue can be far from the vanishing point.
As for parole, how can I put this? The current Lord Chancellor is clearly treading a line between loyalty to his Government, and therefore his predecessor, and his own instincts—but the Bill still too much follows the design of his predecessor. The figures in the Explanatory Notes give the context of about 26,000 cases reviewed by the Parole Board each year, with fewer than one in four prisoners reviewed judged to meet the statutory test for release, and less than 0.5% of those released convicted of a serious offence within three years. The implication that is being read into the need to have people with a law enforcement background sitting on the Parole Board is that the board is too soft.
On the power of the Secretary of State to remove the chair to maintain public confidence, my own confidence comes from confidence in the chair’s independence and confidence in colleagues—if I can call them that—such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and their views on this subject. When the Justice and Home Affairs Committee met the Lord Chancellor in October, he was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, to confirm that the statutory power to remove the chair is under consideration. He said that it is something that he continues
“to have an interest in”.
I hope I have not stolen a line from her speech. Indeed, he said:
“There are all sorts of aspects of this legislation that are under consideration”.
I look forward to hearing more over the course of the debates on the Bill, and very much look forward to hearing the next speaker.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords—no pressure for me now. Nearly 13 years ago I stood, with some trepidation, as I made my maiden speech to your Lordships in this House. In that speech, I called for victims to be treated with respect and to be helped to participate in the criminal justice system. I informed the House that if victims do not have confidence in the justice system, and if witnesses walk away, we all suffer.
In 2007, I learned that courage was not the absence of fear; I hid it behind a mask of boldness. Today, sadly, I am a little older but, I hope, a little wiser—and, yes, maybe there are a few grey hairs. After losing Garry 16 years ago, I have, with every year that has gone by, faced barriers, the waiting and the silence. There have been many appeals and many paroles; I have sat through every application. Nevertheless, my determination and passion to see all victims of crime being treated with respect and, furthermore, given all the support they need in their criminal justice journey is just as strong today.
This Bill has been a very long time coming, but, with the upmost respect to all noble Lords across the Chamber, I have heard too many things about prisoners. That is why I was disappointed, when the Bill was announced in the other place, that we now have the Victims and Prisoners Bill. For many prisoners, there is lots of legislation; for victims, it was paramount that they were foremost at the top of the tree. I should know, because I have been calling, along with many others in this sector, for a Bill on victims’ law for close to a decade—yet we are sharing the platform with prisoners once again. Therefore, this Bill must be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform victims’ experiences of our criminal justice system.
Justice should always treat victims with decency and respect. It should listen to victims, instead of talking at them. It should share information willingly and with sensitivity. It should give victims a voice and make them feel like a participant and not an onlooker. A justice system that does all of the above only then will help heal some of the victims’ wounds. It can bring catharsis, regardless of the outcome. It can also give other victims the confidence to come forward and report crimes committed against them. On the other hand, a justice system that does none of these things will only add to the trauma of the crime and create disillusionment, with victims and witnesses simply walking away and saying, “Never again”.
I applaud the Government for making the time for this important Bill. However, in the middle of the Christmas period, it feels very fast-forward, so I look forward to working hard in Committee. I say that with no disrespect to my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, who I am very glad is still here after the reshuffle. I also thank the officials for their hard work in putting the Bill together. None the less, I have to say that I do believe the Bill needs strengthening if it is to deliver the change that has been promised for so long—and we are look forward to getting that. When I say “all”, I mean all. I believe that the ambition cuts across all party lines; it is shared by noble Lords on all sides of the House. I know from the work on the then Domestic Abuse Bill and the then Online Safety Bill that this House is at its finest when it comes together, cross-party, to scrutinise a Bill.
Since my reappointment as the Victims’ Commissioner in October, I have made it a priority to reach out and engage with as many victims’ groups as possible. I have written many letters to Ministers—so they have lots of homework, just like me. The consensus is clear: they welcome the Bill, but they tell me that it does not go far enough. Let me explain why. The victims’ code sets out the rights that victims should expect to receive, from the moment they report a crime to the end of their trial. As I have been told previously in my journeys as the Victims’ Commissioner and as a victim, surely that is just persuasive guidance. Rights under the code therefore include help to understand the process, updates on their case, respectful treatment, procedural justice and support as and when it is needed. However, time and again, victims tell me that their treatment falls below this standard. According to my Victim Survey—I thank other noble Lords for mentioning it in the House—less than a third have even heard of the victims’ code. I repeat: they have not heard of the victims’ code.
I am sure that, for some, criminal justice agencies are well intentioned when dealing with victims, but all too often the culture is more “Let’s do what we can”, rather than “Supporting victims goes to the heart of what we’re all about”. My response to these good intentions is, “Thank you very much, but victims want more than just favours”. They need proper statutory rights. They want their rights to be made fully known to them and to be enforceable, properly monitored and delivered with respect and sensitivity. On this point, I am just not convinced that the Bill as it stands can deliver that. The Government promised they would be putting the victims’ code on a statutory footing, giving victims enhanced rights. Yet the Bill as drafted falls short of doing this. This needs to be addressed.
Then there is the issue of compliance. Rights are meaningless unless they are upheld, and there needs to be a robust system in place to make sure they are being upheld. The Bill makes a good attempt at achieving this and has much that I applaud, but compliance monitoring needs to be more transparent. Importantly, it also requires independent scrutiny to avoid the impression of the Government marking their own homework. The Bill needs to go further on this issue. In fact, I believe effective oversight and scrutiny of compliance is fundamental to the Bill’s success.
As well as better compliance, I am also keen to see the Bill reaching out to those groups of victims who are currently left in the cold. Persistent and targeted anti-social behaviour is a crime that is not low-level. It causes high levels of harm, as I know only too well. Yet there is no mention in the Bill of how these victims can be guaranteed to receive the support they often so desperately need. We must remedy this. Victims of some of the worst crimes have fewer rights in cases where the perpetrator is detained under the Mental Health Act, yet the impact of the crime is no less than on any other victim. I want this Bill to deliver parity of treatment for those victims.
Finally, we all know that victims of sexual violence face huge hurdles in getting justice. Too often, they face unwarranted invasions of their privacy. If we are to help them receive true justice, the Bill needs to do so much more to give them the protections they deserve. Again, I see this Bill as a vehicle to deliver these protections.
In conclusion, I welcome the Government’s commitment to deliver for victims, but I truly believe we must be more ambitious if we are to achieve the transformation that victims rightly deserve, because a law without justice for victims is a wound without a cure.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, it is a genuine privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. I was privileged to work with her as the Home Secretary who brought in what was then the original Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. I am painfully aware of how little progress we have been able to make and how important this legislation is today. I would also like to commend the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on his forthcoming maiden speech and to reconnect with him—I am sure he will make an enormous contribution—and share with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti the sadness that we are not joined this afternoon by the late and much-lamented Igor Judge and Simon Brown, whom I personally miss greatly.
I will say just a word in following up what the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said. If there is a sense of commitment and duty, it is embodied in her decision to come back to take on this role. I share what she just said about the issues relating to mental health and what amounts to considerable and persistent anti-social behaviour and abuse by people who, of course, need treatment and support, but we also need to support those who are the victims of it. I have received many letters over the years—and still do—from people who have found their lives as neighbours simply made a misery. So I hope we can find a way of including persistent anti-social behaviour in this legislation.
I also hope—and perhaps the Minister might reflect on this—that we might help those who do not get support from the police; the victims of offences who contest the police’s failure to act and get caught up in internal reviews for which there is no appeal. The reviews by some forces in this country are excellent, and people are informed clearly as to why action has not been taken. But I will give just one example this afternoon: that of the Warwickshire Police force, which, frankly, in my view is an absolute disgrace, and the chief constable cannot even be bothered to write personally to a former Home Secretary. I will take that up another day.
I move now to Clause 48. I welcome very strongly the decision taken by the current Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, and commend the Minister in this House. It is really nice to have people who are prepared to listen and, even close to an election, take decisive decisions. The reduction in the licence period for IPPs is very welcome indeed. I commend everything that the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said on this, and I am very glad that he has taken up the cudgel and is leading on these matters.
It surely must be possible to be able to distinguish IPPs from DPPs, and the young people who were sentenced under that particular clause when they were juveniles, as opposed to those who were sentenced as adults, even if the Government are not prepared to take up the challenge of the sentencing. It surely must be possible to provide mentoring and advocates on behalf of those who are caught up in this, as has been described this afternoon. It surely must be possible to pick up the excellent thematic inspection report of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation. I spent the weekend reading it—Christmas is coming late in the Blunkett household this year. The 11 recommendations and its conclusions are excellent, but they need implementation. It is incumbent on all of us to press the Government to make the action plan statutory; to include the recommendations in any iterations of the probation action plan; to take up the challenge, which has already been mentioned this afternoon, of what happens when prisoners are preparing for their appeal to the Parole Board and for release, where the inspection report indicates that there is a woeful lack of support and help for those who are preparing. There is a complete disconnect with offender managers, both inside the service and when people are on licence, partly because of the massive turnover and strange management practices within the service. I commend those to the Minister, and hope that he will be able to respond positively later this evening on those matters.
Finally, it is crucial we understand that, if we are to prevent victims of the future, we need to ensure that the rehabilitation of those who have committed offences is taken as seriously as it is in the debate this afternoon. In seven minutes, I have not really been able to cover the field. There is so much to be done and so much to come together, but in the spirit of what the current Lord Chancellor and the Minister in this House are doing, we might just be able, in the months ahead, to get this right. I sincerely hope so.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Unfortunately, the House will hear two Sheffield accents within a short time, so I apologise that we always end our sentences on a down note. I will do my best.
I support this Bill. It is time that victims receive statutory support for their rights in a way that suspects have for quite a long time. To get a balancing Bill is a good thing. Despite that, I still have some questions, mainly because I wonder whether all that the Bill intends to achieve will be achieved by some of the remedies that are suggested. I am not sure that they are all entirely effective, and they may, at times, have a counterproductive effect.
First, it seems to me that providing some rights for the victim within the criminal justice system is a good idea, because it is often run for the benefit of the suspect. This is done for good reason: obviously anyone who is charged with an offence might reasonably expect that their defence is provided as a priority. However, at times it seems to result in the victim and the witnesses having to wait two to three years for a case to come to trial so that the defence can prepare their case. That is not a fair balance. There seems to be some balancing weight within the criminal justice system that says that the victim and the witnesses can expect to get to court reasonably quickly, and two to three years—which is not entirely down to the pandemic but is down to a backlog—is surely a condemnation of what the system should be doing.
The second benefit described in the Bill is that there will be cross-inspectorate inspections. This is a good thing. They already happen, to some extent, but this time they will be done from the perspective of the victim, not that of all the people who populate the system. My concern is that inspections take a long time. Reports are published a long time after the event and the victim is still waiting for their issue to be resolved—which I am afraid that the inspectorate reports do not do. The inspectorate publishes recommendations which, if you are lucky, might make a difference in two to three years. They are essential in a way, but I am afraid they do not always achieve what this Bill intends to achieve.
The criminal justice departments in our police services are well populated. There are probably around 10,000 people whose role is to make sure that, from charge through to court, the system goes smoothly. However, what the system actually does is ensure an exchange of documents between the prosecution and the defence. The victims and the witnesses are kept informed, but often not well enough, and often their needs are not considered. It is not about resources but about what priority is given. Again, where is the remedy? As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, how do you get something to change within the police service, the CPS and the courts when you have a complaint? I am not sure that the remedies are in place.
In its conclusion, the Bill talks about the costs that might be included in implementing this as an Act. I think it is a gross undercount of what might be needed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned earlier that we will need to invest in this area. However, the numbers involved are very small—£2.5 million for the tribunal process beyond probation, and less than £1 million for each element of the policing, CPS and court settlements. That is quite a big underestimate. If you put this Bill into each of those services, it will be deprioritised. Asking people to do more with the same resources is always a difficult task.
I had hoped that the Bill would say more about what some people have referred to as simplifying sentencing. I still think it is a great dishonesty in sentencing that, when the court announces that someone will spend five years in prison, what they mean is that they will spend three years in prison unless they misbehave or the Parole Board finds that they will misbehave when they leave. Why can we not just say that they will spend three years in prison unless they misbehave? That way, we are not being dishonest with the victim. They do not understand the criminal justice system, and why should they? Some of them will be professionals who understand it well, but it is far better to be open and transparent that this is the process, and then people will not be disappointed. We set their expectations. I am surprised that this Bill has not done something about that. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, even the judges struggle to understand the complexity of the sentences that are passed down and the rules that surround them. Surely the public deserve a better or simpler system.
I support the higher test for top-tier offenders being considered by the Minister of State and then a referral to the Upper Tribunal. There have been cases where we have been surprised by the release of people who appeared to be dangerous. It is probably best that at least those cases are reviewed. I take this to be the case; it is applying the same test but by a different set of people. That seems a wise thing.
There is one part of the Bill I wonder about, in its breadth. The description of a victim includes those who are harmed or who have
“seen, heard, or otherwise directly experienced the crime”
in live time. Harm is defined quite extensively in the Bill—so I will not read it out—and does not have to be verified by a third party. I wonder about cases such as bombings and those involving roving terrorist gunmen. Should the Bill leave such a wide scope? The Government may want to consider some kind of conditionality being placed upon that, when you have mass events where there are large numbers of victims. My point is not that victims should not be helped but that, to ensure that you can help them, it is critical that you have defined them in a proper way. I think this is drawn rather widely.
I fully support the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, about interpreters. The police have made some progress in this area but, again, it is an area of cost. Particularly in cities such as London, where over 40% of the population often speak a second language and sometimes a first language that is not English, either victims or suspects—usually about 38% are foreign national offenders—will, on arrest, require some kind of translation. This is either by phone or in person, but it is expensive. Those costs have grown over time—for good reason, because the quality of interpreting has improved, but it imposes more costs on the system and I am not sure that has been considered, either in the Act or in general.
I said that I thought the Bill, well intended as it is—and I think it will make some good progress—might have to answer some acid tests from the public at the end. One or two people have mentioned things they think the system does not currently help with. These are my four or five things that I do not think the system does. Will the Bill make a difference?
Will the victim have a right for the police to attend the scene of a crime when the police say, “We’re not coming”? A shoplifter, for example, or a car theft, or all the other things we keep hearing about where the police do not seem to want to go to the scene of the crime. I find that confusing, and the victim certainly does. Whether you are a vulnerable victim or not, you ought to be able to expect the police to at least come, talk to you about it, have a look at the scene and see whether there is a chance of investigating it. On the telephone is convenient for the police, but I would argue it is not convenient for the victim.
The second area is about economic crime, for which most people seem to have no chance of having any investigation at all. Is this going to make a change in that area? I disagree with the present CPS rule which means there must be a 51% chance of success before it will take a case to court. The victim gets confused by that as well. Why can it not just be a prima facie case? That is one of the biggest disappointments they have. Another area is the time it takes to get to court.
Finally, we still have a very low success rate in terms of sexual offenders. When 70% of victims are vulnerable either through age, infirmity, alcohol, drugs or some other reason, they make not ideal witnesses for a system that demands perfection—they are not always consistent. How do we allow the law to support those victims, when the system itself does not seem very fair to them or their families?
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, my interest in the Bill lies in how families and children affected by crime are supported. I will also highlight that victims and prisoners are often overlapping categories.
The duty to collaborate, in Clause 12, reinforces recommendations I made in my 2019 Ministry of Justice review on female offenders. Early intervention in the community requires addressing women’s vulnerabilities that can lead to offending. These include them being victims of crime—for example, as we heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, 57% of women in prison have themselves endured domestic abuse.
Joining up services, peer support and voluntary sector activity is vital for addressing the multiple drivers of women’s offending. I recommended establishing local accountabilities to make sure this join-up happens, so I welcome this duty. I also emphasised the need to include family and relationship work in diversion and out of court disposal programmes for women, and outlined the importance of family hubs. These are now official government policy and being rolled out in 87 local authority areas. I declare my unremunerated interest as a director and guarantor of the not-for-profit consultancy The Family Hubs Network Ltd.
Many family hubs provide domestic abuse services but want to do far more and are very well placed to help children who have experienced or witnessed domestic abuse. Can the Minister confirm that the duty to collaborate will require the police and others to work with family hubs? They need to be cemented into local support infrastructure wherever possible.
Further, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner highlighted at Commons Committee stage that many bereaved families have a poor experience of the Parole Board in terms of being kept informed, and their feelings considered, ahead of the release of offenders. Ideally, the Bill would drive improvements in family liaison.
I am interested in how the Government would have treated Harriet Harman’s new Clause 36, which was selected for consideration on Report but not debated. It called for annual data collection to establish
“how many prisoners are the primary carers of a child … how many children have a primary carer who is a prisoner, and … the ages of those children”.
This was recommended in her Joint Committee on Human Rights report The Right to Family Life: Children Whose Mothers are in Prison. The Government responded positively to this recommendation, provided an accurate method can be found that protects the rights of vulnerable individuals.
Cambridge criminologists Murray and Farrington referred to children of prisoners as “forgotten victims” of crime and “the Cinderella of penology”. This new clause could fit well into a Bill to make provision about victims of, and others affected by, criminal conduct. Accurate numbers and knowing exactly who is affected are both important to mitigate the deleterious effects of parental imprisonment on children, including the greater likelihood that they will themselves become offenders. Studies by Farrington et al and Dallaire found that over 60% of children of incarcerated parents offend themselves.
Mothers are more likely to be primary carers. However, today’s family complexities make this “primary carer” tag less clearcut. Men increasingly fill this role and many have “shared care” of children after parental separation. So, while I support this data collection, it should not further downplay the importance of fathers in children’s lives. That the Joint Committee felt justified in looking at the right to family life only for children whose mothers are in prison exposes an assumption that needs to be challenged. Can the Minister impart any early insights about the Government’s appetite to make such data collection a statutory requirement?
Where prisoners are concerned, public perceptions of men are very different from those of women. Important male/female differences affect the way each sex experiences incarceration, but there is far less societal acceptance that many convicted men are also victims. Yet for both sexes there is a deep connection between being a victim and ending up in prison—a quarter of prisoners were in local authority care. In The Honest Politician’s Guide to Prisons and Probation, the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, describes how
“‘a vast range of people in our prisons are inadequate in one way or another’, including many young people who suffered ‘horrific social deprivation’ … ‘Youths who stab people; they don’t control their emotions and so they do something horrific. But there is no point locking them up for … 20 years for a two-minute loss of temper’”.
By young people he means young men: less than 1.5% of the child and youth estate is female—the rest are male—and only 4.5% of the adult prison estate is female.
Without in any way excusing their crimes, I say that many young men have been through a range of adverse childhood experiences but often lack the developed emotional intelligence to articulate how they have been affected by them. It is a skill shaped through early nurturing relationships—precisely what many have not had when fathers have been absent. The ensuing vulnerability often comes out in anger, gang involvement and, ultimately, self-destructive acts, which can also devastate others’ lives. Victims of such crimes matter enormously, but courts exist to prevent vigilantism, vengeance and private justice.
Some are concerned—I mention here my noble friend Lady Newlove—that this is no longer just a victims’ Bill. But we must learn from those who speak for female offenders and extend to men and boys the recognition that we cannot neatly divide the world into victims and perpetrators. This is not to excuse—I disagree that women should not be in prison, even if they are parents, let alone men—but to build public understanding that funding for effective rehabilitation is money well spent. So, in ending, I ask the Minister to consider that victim/offender is an overlapping category that could be usefully established in law through this Bill, given its somewhat unique title.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular that I am the CEO of Muslim Women Network UK, which is one of the charities that responded to the Government’s consultations on the Bill. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for outlining the key points in the Bill. Many gaps remain, but I welcome the Bill and I hope that the gaps can be addressed. I will try to point out a few examples.
The Bill does not adequately protect children. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, has to say about this later. The definition of “victim” in Clause 1 needs to be expanded further to include children who have been forced or coerced into criminal activity. A statutory definition of “child criminal exploitation” must also be introduced, as recommended by several children’s charities such as the NSPCC, Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society. It would prevent statutory agencies from regarding these children as perpetrators only.
Many child victims of abuse and exploitation go unsupported because they are not able to access specific services to meet their needs in their locality. The Bill must place a duty on commissioners to commission sufficient specialist child-specific support and advocacy services to ensure that all child victims are supported, no matter where they are in the country.
Clause 15, which focuses on creating guidance for independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers for adults must go further and create guidance for child ISVAs and child IDVAs. The guidance does mention service provision for children, but having child ISVAs and child IDVAs would strengthen protection for them. Clause 15 does not mention when the guidance will be reviewed, and it would be helpful to add a timeframe to ensure that the guidance is kept up to date.
I welcome Clause16, which restricts parental responsibility when one parent kills another. However, to further safeguard children, parents who have been convicted of committing serious sexual offences against their children or other children in their households should also automatically lose parental responsibility. The automatic parental right of men who have fathered a child through rape should also be removed. This is especially important, given that anyone born as a result of rape is now being recognised as a victim in their own right in Clause 1 of the Bill. Parents should not have to spend thousands of pounds to protect their children by going through court—and how about those parents who do not have the resources to do that?
How will the needs of children will be incorporated into the victims’ code? Does the Minister agree that the Secretary of State should also be required to provide a victims’ code specifically designed for children, as recommended by the Children’s Commissioner? The code will only be effective if all professionals receive the same level of training, and there is accountability. These issues have already been mentioned in depth by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Clause 6 mentions awareness-raising only for service users and public; it is silent on training for professionals who will be tasked with delivering the code of practice. There is also no punishment for failing to act in accordance with the code. The power to punish non-compliance, even if discretionary, would give victims more trust and confidence in the criminal justice system. I think we would all agree that such trust and confidence is at an all-time low.
The Bill states that the code can be revised from time to time. However, to ensure that this review is not delayed, I recommend that we put in a time frame such as every three to five years. The Bill does not adequately protect adults either. Stalking is poorly understood. Police forces are failing to address stalking even though we have stalking legislation. Independent stalking advocates should therefore also be included in Clause 15; it would help to save lives.
All victims of violence, no matter their background, should have equal access to services. We must therefore have a firewall to stop statutory agencies reporting migrant victims of domestic abuse to Immigration Enforcement when they try to seek support and help. We must expand the destitution domestic violence concession model to ensure that migrant victims of domestic abuse get the financial support they need, regardless of their immigration status. We must have ring-fenced funding for specialist services at both local and national level, and that funding must be accessible. The current funding model means that smaller specialist “by and for” organisations often do not meet the income thresholds that the Government tend to set, which prevents them applying for funding.
The right to contest decisions is a fundamental pillar of justice. Clause 2(3)(d) mentions that victims
“should be able to challenge decisions which have a direct impact on them”.
However, the Bill does not mention anywhere the victims’ right to review. For noble Lords who are not familiar with the victims’ right to review, I will explain its status and the gaps. A victim of crime has the right to seek a review of a CPS decision not to prosecute. That right was established by article 11 of EU directive 2012/29. At present that directive is still law for us because of some of the EU legislation that we have retained.
However, the legislation contains a significant gap for victims who are subjected to crime by multiple perpetrators, such as victims of gang rape or child sexual exploitation. At present the victims’ right to review works only if there is a single perpetrator. In cases in which there are multiple perpetrators but only one or some are charged—say, for rape—and others are not, the victims do not have the right to ask for a review on why other perpetrators have not been prosecuted. That has resulted in many victims dropping cases and perpetrators not being brought to justice. The Bill provides an opportunity to address that gap. Does the Minister agree about the unfairness of the current victims’ right to review? Will he consider strengthening it in the Bill or in the victims’ code of practice?
The Bill presents a significant chance to enhance the safeguarding of victims and guarantee a response that meets their needs. I urge the Government to do all they can to make this a reality and address all the gaps.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, in the main I welcome the measures introduced in Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill, with provisos. While I welcome the enforcement of the victims’ code in law, it needs to have sharper teeth by requiring the measuring and monitoring of service levels—otherwise, how can we know whether agencies are complying?
I heard the Minister’s arguments about transparency in his opening remarks, but the charity Victim Support found that as many as six in 10 victims do not currently receive their rights under the victims’ code. Improving enforcement rates will need adequate funding. What additional resources will be allocated to ensure that the code is enforced?
There is a narrative running through the Bill to empower and protect victims and give them more of a say—but not all victims. The Government are leaving out two or arguably three classes of victim. According to the Centre for Women’s Justice, more than half the women in prison or under community sentences are themselves victims who have been coerced in some way into crime, as so ably described by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle. I expect the Committee stage to involve amendments to ensure a new statutory defence for victims: that the victim was made to or pressured to commit certain offences.
The second group of victims are victims of human trafficking and other migrants who fear to report abuse to the police because, according to research by the Victims’ Commissioner, every single police force in England and Wales had passed on data to Immigration Enforcement. If the Government truly mean it when they say that no victim of domestic violence should be fearful of coming forward, they must erect a firewall, as several Peers have said today—otherwise, the most vulnerable victims will continue to suffer.
There is much more to say about victims, but time does not permit because I want to move on to Part 4 of the Bill, which I do not agree with. The victim protection theme continues, in that public safety is made paramount. Indeed, the thrust of the Bill concerns not prisoners but protecting the public against them and, apparently out of sheer vindictiveness, punishing some of them to the extent of contravening the convention on human rights, which should be for everyone. For example, why rob the whole life tariff prisoner of the right to marry or form a civil partnership? It boils down to the medieval concept of “civic death”, like the fact that we continue to flout the convention by not allowing prisoners to vote. If you have committed a severe crime, been found out and punished with imprisonment, you become a non-person—your stake in society is lost. Taking away the right to marry from whole life tariff prisoners is vindictive, especially, as I learned only today, because it appears to be based on just one case. If the Minister believes it is not vindictive, let him explain why in his concluding remarks or write to me.
The new right for the Secretary of State to refer release decisions for so-called top-tier prisoners to an Upper Tribunal or High Court is better than the Secretary of State, a politician, making that decision, but best of all would be to allow the Parole Board to make all release decisions, as recommended by the Law Society. After all, that is what it is there for. According to the Howard League, referral to another level will bring further delay and uncertainty. Why not just let the Parole Board do its job?
Finally, I want to talk about indeterminate-sentence prisoners, who are arguably victims in their own right since almost all have now been forced to overstay their original tariff and 85% have served more than 10 years over tariff, according to the charity UNGRIPP. While I welcome the measure to introduce a new right for IPPs to be eligible for release from licence after three years, the Bill still fails to deal with the 1,312 IPP prisoners who have never been released, and possibly never will, because they are deemed to be unsafe to the public. Last week the Justice Secretary said at an all-party group meeting that these prisoners are likely never to be released, so that is why the Justice Committee’s recommended re-sentencing programme could not be adopted, but what sentences were given for similar cases before and after the advent of IPP prisoners? Surely that is exactly why they should be re-sentenced. The Crown is holding out the false hope of release for these poor people, year after miserable year. The UN special rapporteur on torture, Dr Alice Jill Edwards, argued that we
“must reject the misleading public safety arguments against reviewing these unfair sentences and review all such sentences. Locking people up—and in effect throwing away the keys—is not a solution legally or morally”.
I do not accept the Government’s argument against re-sentencing, and I never will.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has said, it is one we have waited quite a long time for. We will therefore want to strengthen it because I suspect there will not be another one coming down the road very quickly.
I will confine my remarks to a very specific area, although I support what others have said about children and other aspects of the Bill. I have spent far too many years working with women who have been abused and who have experienced violence. I really did think that, by this stage in my life, I would not have to be making as many interventions of this nature about this issue. You would have thought that we would be on top of this issue and made sure we had the legislation right. However, the reality is that the perpetrators are quite crafty. They have a persistence and determination to look for new vulnerabilities and new ways of exploiting the most vulnerable.
The 2018 Spicer review was a review of cases in Yorkshire and the north-east involving the grooming of young girls by large numbers of men for sexual purposes and other horrendous crimes. I have been working with an organisation which has renamed itself the STAGE project. It is a group of several organisations working in that region on the issues those young women faced then, and working with those same women and others as they have become adults and continue to be exploited. These young girls were targeted, groomed, raped and sexually exploited across the part of the world that I absolutely love, but the support for them has been very challenging.
The Spicer report acknowledged for the first time that not only children but women over the age of 18 are being groomed and sexually exploited. The problem is that too often this is seen not as a crime but as consensual: they are going with men in cars for sex, and being given drugs—what do they expect us to do about it? They are getting on with it; that is how they are making their money. But we also now hear about young women who cannot get accommodation—we even hear this about students—and are expected to give sexual favours in return for accommodation.
As STAGE says, we need to “change the narrative”. We need to understand what is really happening and make sure that those women are treated as victims and get the appropriate support to make sure they understand that they have had criminal activity perpetrated against them, and that there are routes for them to get support and for the perpetrators to be arrested, charged and punished. I have several copies of Changing the Narrative, and I will make sure the Minister and anyone else who wants one can have one.
I have been working with the organisations working with women who have experienced this level of exploitation. The stories are harrowing, and I am not going to repeat them in the Chamber today. The point I want to establish is that too often, the crime is not recognised. They are therefore not recognised as victims and the ability to change their lives and experiences simply disappears. A lot has been gained by the national definition of child sexual exploitation which came out of this work a few years ago, but we now need one for adult sexual exploitation.
I want the Secretary of State to consult on and develop a statutory definition of adult sexual exploitation and to publish accompanying guidance, and I will push the Government to accept that. Many organisations come up with their own definitions, which means that they vary enormously. Again, many women simply do not have trust in that. I know that Ministers have thought about this, but I want to make sure that this Minister understands where I am coming from and what I think we would gain by having that definition. It would enable everybody who works with victims—the police, probation, anybody in the criminal justice system—to understand what is happening to these women and help us build the right sort of support to tackle it.
There are ways forward. Too many times I have talked to young women whose support fell off a cliff edge when they were 18 because nobody saw it as exploitation any more—they were simply making decisions for themselves. They were far from making decisions for themselves: they were being exploited and are being exploited, and we should do something about it.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, and I, too, look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. I first began working with the noble Lord at the Home Office. As we all know, the department is a place of many minefields, but when the noble Lord entered the room, there was always a sigh of relief. You knew that with Harry, you were in safe hands. He is a wise man with a profound intellect and great humanity, and I know this House will benefit greatly from his future contributions. He is also a modest man, so he would probably prefer it if I now turned my attention away from him and to the matter in hand.
Like others, I welcome the Bill and the changes made in the other place. There are some areas on which I agree with the domestic abuse commissioner—in particular, the request for a national assessment of the need for and provision of domestic abuse services across the country. The Government have done so much in the Bill to address this at a local level. It makes sense to provide that cohesion and insight at a national level, not least because we still need to understand whether the duty on accommodation-based services in the Domestic Abuse Act, while done with the best of intentions, has inadvertently created a two-tier system within essential community-based services. I also share the Children’s Commissioner’s concerns about the need better to protect those subjected to child criminal exploitation, which has been mentioned already, and the need for specialist advocates for child victims of the most serious crimes.
I will focus my remarks on the role of the independent public advocate, which, I am afraid, does not go far enough if the position is to achieve what the Government say they want it to achieve. Fundamentally, as the Government have made clear, the IPA is there to ensure that the victims of major disasters do not encounter the difficulties and injustices that others have encountered, such as the Hillsborough families and the bereaved and survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire.
In terms of offering support and signposting through an overwhelming, inevitably complex system, the IPA will do just that. It will help with the difficulties, particularly now that we will have a standing advocate—a change to the original proposal which is to be applauded. However, what it will not be able to help with are the “injustices” mentioned by the Government. The victims of such incidents do not want just hand holding, important as that may be; they want to know the how and the why of what happened to them, and are acutely aware that these answers are not always easy to come by. That is why the IPA must have the powers of a data controller and the ability to compel public authorities to provide information.
The Government have said that if the IPA conducts its own investigations, this could complicate the landscape of other formal proceedings such as potential investigations, statutory inquiries and inquests. I take the point, but the Government have also said that the standing advocate will advise the Government on victims’ treatment by public authorities in response to major incidents and that it could also advise on the most appropriate form of government review following an incident. Is it not therefore sensible for the IPA to have the ability to request the information and evidence necessary to inform that advice, as well as to assuage the concerns of the people the advocate is there to represent?
Having worked with many groups affected by various disasters—I declare my interests as set out in the register—I know that they share a distinct trait: a complete lack of trust in government and those in authority. It is hardly surprising, given the history: the doctored witness statements of Hillsborough, the unanswered safety concerns of Grenfell residents, the sub-postmasters who were told that they were the only ones encountering problems with the Horizon IT system; I could go on. At the heart of every tragedy lies an institution intent on protecting itself, and while the Government are making great strides in the efforts to change this culture, it would be naive to think it does not still exist. Certainly, to those caught up in such scandals, it is their working assumption.
If we are to give people true equality of arms in the form of a standing advocate to represent them and be their voice, that advocate must have the power to truly act on their behalf by having the ability to break down the barriers that people will quite reasonably suspect are being put in their way. You may say that that is the job of a public inquiry or panel—certainly, that is the case in all the instances I have just mentioned—but what about other disasters, perhaps smaller in scale but no less devastating for those involved? What about disasters which merit the involvement of the advocate but do not meet the bar of a statutory inquiry? What happens to those families? How do they get the answers they need?
Moreover—and this is key—the independent public advocate has the potential to play a powerful role not just by providing practical help but by initiating the delicate process of building trust between victims and the state where no such trust exists. It can do this only by having the power to hold public authorities to account. I am afraid that I am going to disagree with my noble and learned friend the Minister: I do not think the Hillsborough charter will be enough in this instance.
I defer to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, who has done so much in this area, but in the light of the conversations I have had, without this power there is a feeling that the lessons have not been learned from the tragedies that have gone before. Instead, there is only the frustration that other people will face the same battles and endure similar injustices, and the independent public advocate will not have the support of the groups the Government say have done so much in helping to inform the parameters of this position. To that end, I hope that my noble and learned friend the Minister will look at this again, or at least provide the flexibility in the Bill for such a power to be added at a later stage, should it become clear that it is necessary—as I think it will—once the IPA has begun its work.
I have one more question—forgive me if this is covered in this afternoon’s statement—regarding the infected blood scandal. The new government amendment is most welcome but, rather proving my point about the lack of trust, campaigners are still concerned about the timing of the new judge-led body to administer the compensation scheme. There is a commitment for it to be established within three months of the passing of the Act, and the amendment includes the need for a small advisory board made up of potentially eligible persons and their representatives. Make no mistake, this is undoubtedly a good thing, but such boards are not always straightforward to set up. Can my noble and learned friend the Minister confirm that the need to begin conversations about this now has been relayed to the Lady Chief Justice, so that no further delays are inadvertently added into the mix?
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak today on a couple of issues to which the Bill gives rise. Noble Lords have said that, on the face of it, this seems an eminently sensible Bill in many respects, and I think there will much support for elements of it across the House. However, it has caused significant concern among organisations and NGOs that operate in fields such as criminal justice and the protection of victims of domestic violence. I am thinking of organisations such as Amnesty, Justice and Inquest and, most recently, some of the families affected by the Hillsborough disaster, the Manchester bombing, the Grenfell Tower fire and the Daniel Morgan case.
In all these cases, those charged with inquiring into what happened experienced delays and even obstruction in getting access to material necessary to establish what had happened. The measures in this Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill do not go far enough in addressing the problems identified by victims during repeated criminal cases and inquiries over the years, not least the disproportionality of resources available to statutory agencies, which may be able to brief several leading counsel, and to victims, who find themselves struggling to afford the costs of one. All these matters increase the stress experienced by victims, and a code and a charter do to not equate to a statutory obligation on agencies. I attended the Minister’s briefing on his Government’s response to the Jones report on the Hillsborough case and the experience of victims, and there was universal sadness and concern about the Government’s response.
The Human Rights Act has been very significant in strengthening the rights of those who, for various reasons such as poverty, homelessness and marginalisation, are unable to engage as fully as they might with the criminal justice system, whether as victims, perpetrators, alleged perpetrators, or even ultimately as prisoners. These tend to be the people for whom life is hardest, very often for reasons outside their control. It has been observed on many occasions that people can end up in prison for less serious offences, while the perpetrators of serious crimes may not even be investigated because of the lack of the resources needed for serious criminal investigations.
It is important that, having reappointed the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, as Victims’ Commissioner—a recognition of her significant contribution in this area—the Government should listen carefully to the observations about the Bill which she expressed in a fine contribution this afternoon. She brings such experience and courage to this role. I particularly ask the noble and learned Lord the Minister to consider enhancing the provisions in the Bill on the care and support of victims of domestic violence.
Clauses 49 to 51 provide for the setting aside of the Human Rights Act, which requires public authorities and judges to interpret and apply legislation in accordance with human rights law in so far as is possible. Clause 52 weights judicial decisions on qualified human rights decisions against prisoners. Matters relating to release issues such as the right to family life, the right to liberty, and the right of access to the courts and a fair hearing, will be impacted by these clauses. Allowing judges to continue to take into account issues which are relevant in the light of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act is not a matter of going soft on prisoners. Reducing that judicial capacity is not justified by the evidence we have to date.
I had the privilege to serve under Lord Justice Sir Peter Gross in the review of the Human Rights Act a year or so ago. Despite taking extensive and varied evidence, we did not identify any grounds for the changes to the application of the Human Rights Act proposed in this Bill. It should be a matter of concern to all of us that we are progressively and incrementally dismantling the provisions of the Human Rights Act that have applied in this country under the ECHR, and now under the Human Rights Act, for the past 70 or so years. We were rightly proud of our contribution as a country to the creation of the convention, which followed the Second World War, with its appalling death toll, its genocide, and the attacks on homosexuals, Christians, the disabled and many others who were regarded as unnecessary or unwanted by the Nazis, and its devastation and destruction of the world.
The convention articulated very basic human rights, and Section 3 is a statement of the need for the judiciary to act in accordance with it, as part of the rule of law now. Over recent times, we have seen legislation which seems simply to ignore these obligations under domestic and European human rights law. I think of the Illegal Migration Act, so roundly condemned in your Lordships’ House. Then there is the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, currently the subject of multiple judicial review applications challenging its legality—judicial reviews that were anticipated from the very beginning, at the First Reading of that Bill. The world anticipated those judicial reviews, and it is important that we do not get a reputation for setting aside our human rights obligations when they seem to become less than convenient.
Paragraph 100 of the Explanatory Memorandum explains:
“The purpose of this is to avoid courts adopting a strained section 3 interpretation, which ultimately disregards the policy intentions of the release regime. The measures also provide that, where a court is considering a challenge relating to a relevant Convention right, in relation to application of any of the release legislation, the court must give the greatest possible weight to the importance of reducing the risk to the public from the offender”.
There is very little evidence to support the existence of this hypothetical risk. These provisions have the effect of discriminating against one small sector of society by disapplying rights that others have. The parole and release systems have generally worked well. This intervention is not necessary or proportionate, and I urge government to think very carefully about the effects on the UK’s reputation and its global capacity of the way in which this legislation is formulated.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important Bill. The Government deserve credit for seeking to address many of the ways that victims of crimes and public disasters have been let down by the state over the years. I pay tribute to the Victims’ Commissioner, as many others have tonight. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, deserves credit for the way in which she has campaigned tirelessly on behalf of victims for over a decade.
However, it is disappointing that, in many areas, the Government have not gone as far as they could have done, and should have done, to provide better protection for victims. In his opening remarks, the Minister said that his door was always open, and he has certainly proved that to me personally. I hope that he has taken careful note of the number of speakers who tonight have said that this Bill just does not go far enough.
Why, for example, have the Government not introduced a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation, to ensure that children who have been forced into committing crimes are recognised as victims, not as perpetrators? Why, for example, are victims and survivors of rape who have had the courage to report appalling acts of sexual violence still being denied adequate legislation and guidance to prevent intrusive and inappropriate requests for survivors’ personal records? That forces them often to choose between vitally needed therapy and the pursuit of justice. Furthermore, there is no adequate means of enforcement of the victims’ code.
I want to focus my remarks on Part 2 of the Bill, relating to victims of major incidents. This derives from my two Private Member’s Bills, which endeavoured to set up an independent public advocate to act on behalf of the victims of large-scale public disasters and those bereaved by them. It has been a long journey to get to this stage. I introduced my first Private Member’s Bill nearly a decade ago. Since then, I have campaigned to get it adopted by the Government, as has my colleague and friend in the other place, the right honourable Maria Eagle MP, who has campaigned to get a similar Bill adopted there. The proposal went into the Conservative manifesto in 2017, and into the subsequent Queen’s Speech. And so finally here we are.
Throughout this process, successive Ministers and their officials have been generous with their time in consulting me. I place on record my thanks to all of them, including most recently the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. I am particularly grateful to the former Prime Minister, the right honourable Theresa May MP, who immediately saw the merits of this proposal when she was Prime Minister and has campaigned for it ever since. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, for her kind remarks about this; she was a very important member of that team that first brought the independent public advocate into seeing a serious possibility of legislation. She also deserves tribute for her part in this long journey to where we are tonight.
The Government have shown themselves willing to listen, and the version of Part 2 that is now before your Lordships’ House is a significant improvement on the original, profoundly flawed draft. However, it still will not deliver what victims of public disasters and those bereaved by such disasters want and need. The extraordinary persistence, dignity and solidarity of the Hillsborough families’ campaign that generated the momentum that led to the development of the concept of the independent public advocate really deserve better.
The challenge—and it is a challenge—is to strike a balance between the impartial discharge of justice and good government on the one hand and protecting the interests and feelings of the bereaved and injured survivors on the other. My Bill sought to establish two fundamental pillars of a new system, based around the institution of an independent public advocate, both of which this Bill fails to deliver.
The first pillar was transparency. Without it, the bereaved will never achieve anything approaching closure, and, without it, it is difficult and often impossible for the public policy lessons to be learned and necessary reforms made. The second pillar—and this is important in everything that we have heard tonight about what the state should be doing better for victims—was ensuring that victims and the bereaved have some agency in the process. No longer must they be left on the sidelines, dealing with unimaginable grief and loss while the state proceeds, apparently on their behalf, but without giving them any agency in the process. The Government’s proposals do not provide any guaranteed mechanism for securing full transparency, such as the Hillsborough independent panel achieved, and they deny victims and the bereaved any effective agency.
The Government’s view appears to be that, as His Majesty’s Government are democratically accountable, they must be able to wield the executive power for which they will be held to account by Parliament and the electorate. This is not an unreasonable approach, but it does not mean that they should deny bereaved families any effective agency at all in these matters, which is the current position, and nor can it justify any failure to maximise transparency. Again, that appears to be the current position of the Government.
As I have suggested before in your Lordship’s House, one way forward might be to specify that the Secretary of State, in proceeding with an independent public advocate, must act with regard to the dues of bereaved families, the benefits of an independent public advocate and/or an inquiry and/or a Hillsborough-type panel, including in relation to cost, timeliness and transparency, and any wider public interest. Crucially, I have suggested that the Secretary of State must—not may—produce a debatable report to Parliament justifying why they have proceeded as they have done and why, if they have not exercised this power, they have not done so, and that this debatable report should be produced as soon as possible after the public disaster. James Jones, the Bishop of Liverpool, in his masterful report, to which the Government have only just responded, points out that any delay allows these public organisations to protect themselves, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, has just said, and produce a false narrative. We saw that demonstrated graphically in the case of the Hillsborough disaster.
As the Bill progresses though your Lordships’ House, I will bring forward amendments to try to achieve greater transparency and greater agency for the families. I hope the Government are really listening and will find it in themselves to adopt them—I cannot see any reason why they should not.
Finally, I take this opportunity to urge the Government to reconsider their long-delayed and half-hearted response to Bishop James Jones’s report on the Hillsborough disaster, aptly titled The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power, and to use the legislative opportunity of the Criminal Justice Bill, or indeed this Bill, to introduce a statutory duty of candour for those operating across public services, such as policing, health, social care and housing. By requiring openness and transparency, a statutory duty of candour would assist in creating much-needed cultural change in how state bodies approach inquests and inquiries. It would give confidence to individual members of those organisations who want to assist such inquiries and investigations but may be experiencing quite intolerable pressure, in many circumstances, not to do so. We must see an end to these sorts of evasive and obstructive practices by state bodies following deaths in these circumstances. We have seen, all too often, the damage that this causes, not least following the Hillsborough disaster. A statutory duty of candour would help end this.
The families bereaved at Hillsborough fought a dignified, indomitable campaign for decades to secure truth and justice for those they lost. By ensuring that those similarly bereaved in future never have to endure what they endured, the institution of the independent public advocate will be a legacy for their struggle and for their loved ones. I ask the Government to make it a meaningful legacy and give all the Hillsborough families hope that the Government will be prepared to amend the Bill in the ways I have described.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful to His Majesty’s Government for introducing this Bill. I am also grateful that shortly we will hear a maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. His long experience of the law and the Civil Service will serve your Lordships’ House well. I look forward to his remarks today and on many future occasions.
I also welcome the focus on victims that lies at the heart of the Bill. As we have just heard, it builds on the report of my right reverend friend Bishop James Jones, a former Member of your Lordships’ House, into the Hillsborough tragedy. I was a young member of the clergy called into the stadium to support bereaved families. I will never forget the sight of iron barriers twisted out of shape by the pressure of human bodies being crushed against them. Hence I warmly commend the proposal for independent public advocates in cases such as that and the Manchester Arena attack, to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks—I thank him for doing so. As Bishop of Manchester, it fell to me to help lead my city’s response to the brutal murder of 22 people and the injuring and traumatising of hundreds of others.
How inquiries are set up and resourced is vital to whether they gain the confidence of the public in general and of survivors and bereaved relatives in particular. I hope that as the Bill progresses we can reflect on whether the current draft does enough to ensure that. Specifically, it would be well to widen the cases in which an advocate would be appointed to include all incidents where there is a deep public interest in ensuring a thorough investigation. If the advocate is to be truly independent, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Sanderson of Welton, have reminded us, they need their own data controller powers and for the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to their appointment and functioning to be the minimum. All that is achievable through amendments to the Bill, which I hope to support later.
I also welcome placing IDVAs and ISVAs on a statutory footing, but the word “independent” matters and I hope that we can clarify, in the Bill or in statutory guidance, that they are fully independent from both the police and the criminal justice system. Many victims find community-based services, especially those led by people with lived experience of the issues they themselves face, to be the most accessible and most useful means of support. However, the vast majority of such services struggle financially—around 90%, according to a recent report—with inadequate, short-term, unreliable funding; that threatens their continuance. Hence, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and others, I agree with the suggestion from the domestic abuse commissioner of a clause placing a duty to collaborate on PCCs, local authorities and ICBs in the commissioning of appropriate local services. Alongside this, we need to think more widely, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, indicated, about how we fund the community-based services that are the bedrock of so much support across Britain.
With one or two notable exceptions, it is some time since most of us were children. Hence we need to scrutinise legislation with particular care to ensure that children’s needs are properly included. I am glad that so many speeches this afternoon and evening have referred to that. I support the call from many of our major children’s charities that every child in England and Wales affected by abuse and exploitation must have access to specialist advocacy support. The Bill should establish the role of independent child sexual violence advisers, independent child domestic violence advisers and independent child trafficking guardians as a support offering for children and young victims. It must also provide central funding for their employment.
Beyond this, I hope we can also explore, as others have said, the establishment of a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation, perhaps along the lines proposed by Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society, which define it as when
“another person or persons manipulate, deceive, coerce or control the person to undertake activity which constitutes a criminal offence where the person is under the age of 18”.
If we can get to a better definition over the next few weeks, well and good, but let us not miss this opportunity to have some definition in the Bill.
As the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Hamwee, have reminded us, at present the Bill contains measures to disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act. While I understand that reducing risk to the public must be a high priority, I hope we will scrutinise this very carefully. Human rights are not something we earn through good behaviour, and nor should they lightly be taken from us. We rightly accept that such rights may be qualified when they conflict with other human rights but, like the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, a few minutes ago, I urge that we be very restrained in enacting wider restrictions.
Finally, I am aware that my native northern bluntness can on occasion lead me to what some may perceive as an over-acerbity of comment, but today I wish to be entirely kind to the Bill and to the Government for bringing it before us. I believe that with some non-partisan working and a little careful amendment in your Lordships’ House, it can become a stronger and better Bill. To that end, I and my colleagues on these Benches look forward to engaging with it in detail in the new year. Our society will then be better for it being added to our statute book.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, the Bill covers a lot of ground, and I agree that in some respects it has benefited from the extra time allowed, having been carried over from the previous parliamentary Session. I also agree that there is more to be done.
The valuable definition of victims at the start of the Bill is clearly the product of careful thought and is welcome. That definition helps to dispel the notion of victimless crime. It focuses on the impact of harm, including the effects of domestic abuse on children. When dealing with such cases in the family court, it is still surprising to realise how people do not recognise or grasp the misery and insecurity caused to children in environments where abuse occurs and where children have to accept it as the norm. That is not just distressing in the short term but damaging in the long term. Domestic violence begets violence and, it is now well understood, creates intergenerational problems when witnessed by children. I support the suggestion that has been made in this debate that there is scope for including reference in Clause 1 to exploited children. I also ask whether there is scope for referring to developmental harm caused to unborn children by domestic violence inflicted during pregnancy.
The intention of Clause 15 is welcome, providing for guidance to independent domestic and sexual violence advisers. In the family court, there is already specific provision for such people to accompany parents into court, and the judiciary and practitioners have become aware of, and value, the practical and emotional support provided, particularly by IDVAs, in cases in which abuse is a feature. If nothing else, such advisers can manage expectations. However, I suspect that the availability of such advisers is patchy and I assume that the hope is that guidance will provide some consistency. It would be helpful if the Government could clarify the expected nature and benefits of such guidance. It is also, as other noble Lords have suggested, a real opportunity to consider whether there should be a role for such specialist independent advisers specifically focusing on children affected by abuse.
I also wish to welcome the introduction of Clause 16, otherwise known as Jade’s law, which will require the Crown Court to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility by a parent who has been convicted of the murder or manslaughter of the other parent. There are few more difficult and sensitive cases for the family court to deal with than when one parent has killed the other. A range of immediate practical, legal and emotional problems arises for the surviving family, and for the children most affected. In such circumstances, it is inconceivable that a perpetrator without parental responsibility would then be granted it. Accordingly, if that perpetrator does already hold parental responsibility, typically by being named on the birth certificate, it is surely right that his status should be curtailed. In effect, the bereaved child has suddenly lost both parents, and will be traumatised, confused and in need of immediate expert support.
If the child is fortunate, there are capable grandparents or step-parents who come in, or the local authority will have taken responsibility under established guidance in case law. However, if the child is less fortunate, the surviving relatives may lack insight into how best to meet the needs of that child, and they may compete for control. Such disputes are utterly wretched. Clause 16 should at least ensure that arrangements and decisions that have to be made for the child, or children, cannot be impeded or complicated by the perpetrator. In principle, the surviving relatives should not have to deal with the perpetrator when making such arrangements and decisions, whether important or less so. Clause 16 should relieve them of that possibility.
My initial thoughts about the scope of this new power, and how it would work in practice, related to whether it could be extended, perhaps in discretionary form, to other situations which I and others have come across—for example, when one parent has caused the death of the other by dangerous driving in a car in which both were travelling, or where there was a conviction for a very serious assault which did not result in death. However, on reflection, I do not think that the Crown Court should be expected, as part of a sentencing exercise, to make automatic prohibited steps orders in these less extreme cases. The Crown Court will not have, and cannot be expected to have, a full appreciation of the family’s structure and dynamics, and of the circumstances of the children concerned, and will not have input from Cafcass.
That said, there was a worrying report on the Radio 4 “Today” programme on 20 November about the very costly struggle a mother had in respect of the so-called parental rights of her former partner, who was in prison as a convicted paedophile. I would ask if the Government have taken note of that case and have considered whether in future any steps can be taken, by way of legal aid or otherwise, to assist a mother who might find herself in that position.
Having heard earlier contributions, I can see there is a potential argument for extending this to the removal of parental responsibility from fathers whose child is a product of a rape. However, of course, he is unlikely to have parental responsibility because he is unlikely to be named on the birth certificate—but it may arise in cases of marital rape after a conviction. Subject to that, the balance is well struck and the new Clause 16 is limited to extreme cases.
Finally, the impetus for the provision to prohibit serving whole-life prisoners from forming a marriage is well understood and may be justified in some cases. It is subject to the possibility of permission from the Secretary of State in exceptional circumstances. That is no doubt to reduce human rights problems and may manage to do so. Following what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, can the Minister indicate the type of situations in which permission might be granted? There may be a case for allowing marriage in cases of terminal illness, but I am afraid I cannot think of many others and I look forward to hearing a response on that point.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, whom I am sure will bring much to this House. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Moylan on his powerful speech on IPP prisoners, a subject which I shall not be addressing. My focus today is simply on Part 1, on victims. I am particularly grateful for the briefing which I received from Claire Waxman OBE, who is London’s Victims’ Commissioner.
I welcome this Bill, but I believe it could, and should, be strengthened in significant ways to assist the victims of crime. Bills like this do not come along every year. We have waited a long time for it and we really must take the opportunity we have; it may be another 20 years before we get another one. As other noble Lords have said, it can and should be strengthened to make it clear that agencies are under a statutory obligation to deliver certain core rights for victims. A bland entitlement that victims should receive certain rights, with no adequate machinery for enforcement, is not enough. The Bill must make it clear that victims’ rights must be identified. These must be unequivocal and must be enforceable in the event that agencies default—so the drafting of the code will be very important.
It must be premised on the basis that victims are entitled to, and must have, the benefit of certain treatment, and that there must be an enforceable obligation on the agencies so to provide. That will require measures to ensure positive compliance. Such measures will require minimum threshold levels and sanctions or, at the very least, inspections of agencies that do not meet those requirements. There must, of course, in addition be obligations on the agencies to collect and publish data on compliance, and those must be enforced. I say that because, as Claire Waxman has helpfully explained in her briefing, Clause 5 of the Bill replicates the non-compliance provisions of the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act 2004. Her coalface experience is that these have proved insufficient in practice, and we should learn from that.
My next point is to turn to Jade’s law, which of course we all applaud and are pleased that it is introduced. I heard with interest what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, had to say, and he has great experience, having sat as a family judge for many years. We appeared against each other in the family courts many years ago, so I bow to his experience, but I think we can and should do something, at the very least on an optional basis, to protect children who have been abused by their parents.
So, while I welcome the provisions that will ensure that parents who kill a partner, or former partner, by whom they have had children, will upon sentencing have their parental responsibility automatically suspended, I favour also giving the Crown Court an optional power: in other words, to expand Clause 16 to go further, to include among those whose parental rights may be suspended by the Crown Court parents convicted of committing serious sexual offences, such as rape, against their children or other children in the household, and other serious offences such as grievous bodily harm with intent, contrary to Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act.
This should be only for really serious cases. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about the issues that can arise in complicated family situations, but there will be clear cases where to make a decision on sentencing at the end of the trial will be of enormous benefit to the family, so the court should have discretion. I am persuaded of this by the story of Sammy Woodhouse, a victim of the Rotherham child sexual abuse scandal. According to a report in the Times, the man, Hussain, was sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment for offences including rape, abduction and indecent assault—but not murder. He was then allowed to participate in family court proceedings when the child, the progeny of the rape, became the subject of voluntary care proceedings. By definition, he was the rapist of the mother. That should have been the end of that. It must be possible to extend the scope of Clause 16 to protect children and mothers who are the actual victims of such sexual offences, but I agree that it must be discretionary and not on a mandatory basis.
Finally, continuing with victims, I draw attention to the witness preparation programme developed over the last 35 years in the province of Quebec in Canada. It uses crime victims assistance centres and carefully trained workers to prepare adult victims who will give evidence at a trial in ways that ensure that the specifics of the case are not discussed and that there is no adverse impact on the evidence presented by a victim at trial—no coaching, in other words. This is important because, very often, in practice a vulnerable witness does not meet Crown counsel until the morning of the trial and knows little of the reality of what lies ahead in the Crown Court.
As John Riley of the Criminal Bar Association told the Commons Justice Committee inquiry into sexual offences evidence, defence counsel may have had one or more conferences with the defendant and discussed the evidence in detail with them. The defendant knows what is coming, as is right and proper, but too many victims have no practical grasp of either the process or what they may be confronted with. Time does not permit me to go into the detail of the Quebec process, but Ms Waxman has produced a short report of her visit this May and I will provide a copy to the Minister.
In short, I commend this Bill but it could do even more.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, a recurrent theme so far today, in the Commons and in briefings, including from the children’s and domestic abuse commissioners, has been that the long-overdue victims part of this Bill represents a real and welcome opportunity but that it will be a missed opportunity if it does not strengthen the rights of children and domestic abuse victims and survivors. The Children’s Commissioner and the children’s coalition have spelled out a number of measures that are needed, in the commissioner’s words,
“to truly transform the response to child victims”.
These would, among other things, give due recognition to children’s agency, needs and rights and ensure specific appropriate support for children affected by violence, abuse and exploitation, including specialist advocacy.
Children are all too often the forgotten victims of domestic abuse. A number of reforms are needed for domestic abuse victims more generally if, in the words of the domestic abuse commissioner, DAC, the Bill is fully
“to realise the change needed to meet the needs of victims and survivors”.
There has been widespread welcome for the Bill’s introduction of a duty to collaborate and related duties, but the DAC, the Justice Committee in its pre-legislative scrutiny and domestic abuse organisations, including Women’s Aid and Refuge, have all raised concerns about the provision of heavily used specialist community-based services and, in particular, the precarious situation of “by and for” services, which are crucial to the adequate support of members of minoritised communities.
They have also emphasised the need for adequate and sustainable funding for these services. The Justice Committee observed:
“Additional funding is required to enable services to meet demand and allow the Victims Bill to live up to its ambitions”.
The DAC has recommended a duty on national government to
“meet the needs of minoritised victims and survivors through funding special ‘by and for’ services directly”,
which her mapping exercise has showed are
“by any measure, the most effective services for victims”.—[Official Report, Commons, Victims and Prisoners Bill Committee, 20/6/23; col. 7.]
Surviving Economic Abuse, SEA, with which I worked closely on the Domestic Abuse Bill, argues that this Bill
“can do more to recognise economic abuse, support economic abuse victim-survivors to ensure those who seek a criminal justice response are supported through the system and ensure all economic abuse survivors, whether they seek a criminal justice response or not, are supported to establish their economic safety and rebuild lives”.
Its research underlines the devastating impact that economic abuse can have. I hope that we can take forward some of its specific proposals in Committee, including the need for mandatory training of members of criminal justice agencies, as emphasised by Women’s Aid, London’s Victims’ Commissioner and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
SEA observes that migrant victim survivors can be particularly vulnerable to economic abuse and supports proposals from others, including the DAC, designed to protect migrant domestic abuse victims. This was a gaping hole in the Domestic Abuse Act that the Government refused to fill despite the best efforts of your Lordships’ House. As we have heard, there are two main issues here: the impact of the no recourse to public funds rule and the need for a firewall between Immigration Enforcement and statutory services for domestic abuse victims. The Government’s negative response to attempts to address these issues in the Commons by my honourable friend Sarah Champion, to whom I pay tribute, was disappointing.
I also pay tribute to Southall Black Sisters, the Latin American Women’s Rights Service and other organisations with which they collaborate for their tireless efforts on behalf of migrant victims and survivors. SBS is delivering the official support for the migrant victims pilot scheme to support women with no recourse to public funds facing domestic abuse. This pilot was supposed to provide the information the Government said they needed before deciding on a longer-term solution, even though all involved were adamant that sufficient evidence already existed. Yet here we are, nearly three years on and with the benefit of two independent evaluation reports—one of which was funded by the Home Office—which made clear what was needed in the longer term, but instead of a long-term solution to the problems highlighted by the pilot, we have a further extension to 2025. Can the Minister explain why?
The pre-legislative scrutiny report called for an immediate end to data sharing between the police and the Home Office for immigration enforcement purposes and the introduction of a complete firewall. I have been struck by the range of organisations supporting the strong and persistent call for a firewall from the DAC. For example, Victim Support argues that, without it, victims with insecure immigration status
“will be denied access to safety, support and justice”.
I also seek clarification on the intention behind Clause 2(6), which allows for the exclusion of certain groups from the protection of the victims’ code. Researchers into forced migrant survivors of sexual and gender-based violence at Birmingham University have raised fears that this might be used to exclude such victims, deemed “illegal” migrants under the Illegal Migration Act. I hope that is not the case.
When introducing the Bill’s Report stage in the Commons, the Minister said that the Government wanted
“to draw the definition of those entitled to support under the victims code as widely as possible” —[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/23; col. 91.]
in the interests of the Bill being “inclusive”. Yet so long as it excludes migrant women from the protections it provides, it cannot claim to be inclusive. No doubt the Minister will repeat the Government mantra that they see migrant domestic abuse survivors first and foremost as victims. However, unless they accept amendments that would explicitly include migrant women under the Bill’s protections, they cannot claim to be putting “safety before status”, as called for by the domestic abuse commissioner.
Finally, like other noble Lords, I was dismayed to see the clauses in Part 4 which will, like the Rwanda Bill, undermine the universality of human rights by excluding from the full protection of the Human Rights Act a politically unpopular group—in this case prisoners. What possible justification can there be for including this regressive step—of grave concern to many bodies from Amnesty, Liberty and the Howard League for Penal Reform to the Law Society, the EHRC and the Joint Committee on Human Rights—in what was originally a Bill purely about progressing the rights of victims? The Minister asked us to look at this section through the lens of victims. In what way will this help victims?
Nevertheless, thank goodness we have a Minister who engages with noble Lords. I look forward to answers to our questions.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, for me, there were echoes of the arrival of the Online Safety Bill in your Lordships’ House earlier this year when this Bill arrived. The similarities they have are years in gestation, promises repeatedly made, and undertakings and apparent commitments made, particularly to victims, but the feeling upon arrival is slightly underwhelming. Rather like the school reports which my despairing parents had to read year after year when I was put in various penal establishments which purported to be educational establishments, which would say, “Could do better if he tried”, in this case, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said, it is, “Could do better if His Majesty’s Government tried”.
As the Minister said at the beginning of his speech, we need to avoid the needless politicisation of the Bill. When the Minister was kindly giving us a briefing last week, I said that the duty of most of us in this House is to try to drain the politics from the Bill. That is certainly what I intend to do. Yes, we are apparently going to be in an election year quite soon, but in no way, shape or form should victims become political footballs.
The huge imbalance in the resources that are going to be applied to different parts of the Bill mirrors rather accurately the differing focus on priorities. Are victims really at the centre of the Bill? The estimated costs of Part 1 are £30.4 million. The estimated costs of Part 3 are £530 million. Part 1 is 18% of that total; that does not feel like a particularly strong focus on victims. To add insult to injury, Part 3 is part of a continuing effort by His Majesty’s Government to repair a parole system which was comprehensively blown up by an earlier iteration of this Government, almost exactly nine years ago. However, we are where we are.
I will be focusing primarily on Part 1 of the Bill as it goes through Committee and Report. The victims’ code must be made flesh. It must not just be an aspiration, or a nudge to authorities to do the right thing. We tried that approach over many years and it does not work. If at first you do not succeed, you emphatically should not try repeatedly to do what has been proven to fail.
I would never be so rash as to deem to speak on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, but I always listen to what she says with great attention. I suspect her patience and hopes of delivering a marked improvement to the unacceptably varied experiences which victims are undergoing is being sorely tested by what is currently going on. If she, the domestic abuse commissioner, the victims’ commissioner for London—to whom the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, referred—and the Children’s Commissioner are collectively or individually unhappy with parts of the Bill, I think the Government can expect significant pushback from a great many of us.
As I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said very forcibly earlier on, unless you have two things in tandem, this is not going to work. You need a serious fundamental culture change and you also need resources. It is a painful word for the current Government: money.
There are many examples of where we could do better but I will mention only a couple. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned, stalking is one of the most common and prevalent crimes which creates victims. However, looking at the Bill it is very hard to see an acknowledgment that this is the most prevalent type of crime and that it has the most impact on the largest number of victims, particularly women. We can and we should do better there. The lack of funding to support community-based services, where 70% of domestic abuse victims receive their support, should certainly be looked at.
Other noble Lords have mentioned having a proper statutory definition of child criminal exploitation to ensure children who have been forced into committing crimes are recognised as victims and not as perpetrators. The Children’s Commissioner has come up with five very clear asks, which I am sure have been forwarded to the Minister, and I support all of those.
Lastly, on needs, I will mention a friend of mine. She is a lady called Stella Creasy, and one of the bravest Members of Parliament I know. Some of you may have read what she went through in the press. As your Lordships probably know, she is somebody who is not afraid to call out misogyny in its many forms. Some men do not like this. A particular man put in a complaint to Leicestershire Police, basically saying that, given her views on men, she should no longer be in charge of her children. Leicestershire Police, in its wisdom, made a formal complaint to Waltham Forest Council. This eventually went to court and was completely and comprehensively thrown out. The response of Leicestershire Police was that this had been referred to its professional standards department and some “advice and reflective learning” was provided to officers. What she has gone through is pretty shocking. She is a brave and a tough lady. I saw her the other day and it had really shaken her. Out of sheer spite, somebody had tried to take her away from her children. That is totally and utterly unacceptable.
Working with other noble Lords, I am trying to elicit from the police and other victim services what they want from the Bill. We are talking about an awful lot of push today—what we would like and what is not working properly. Those that are charged with doing something to help victims know they are not doing a good job and they want to do better. I am trying to encourage them to come forward to say what would be most helpful and useful for them in the Bill. But in such a devolved and disjointed landscape, with 43 police forces and the same number of police and crime commissioners, how do you get best practice? Each change in leadership results in a change of focus and prioritisation. The victim ends up being a powerless bystander in this transient postcode lottery. That is not good enough.
We have to avoid in this Bill the temptation to say, “My victim is more important than your victim”. They are all equally important. We have much to do. Let us try to do it in a co-operative spirit, focusing on the victims. If it is not working for the victims, let us not insult their feelings by trying to justify the unjustifiable.
Lastly, let me I say how sympathetic I am to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who is about to give his maiden speech. Normally in your Lordships’ House, a maiden speech happens about a quarter of the way through. He has been made to suffer a cruel and unusual punishment by waiting so long, and I wish him all the best.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome the Second Reading of the Victims and Prisoners Bill, as it offers a vital opportunity to ensure that victims and witnesses are given better protection and support. However, it does not go far enough in protecting child victims, including those who have suffered the most serious crimes. This is also the view of the children’s coalition that is working on this Bill, which includes the NSPCC, Barnardo’s, the Children’s Society and other like-minded organisations. I declare an interest as the vice-president of Barnardo’s.
Would it not be great if we had a Cabinet-level Minister for children to ensure that we do not have this type of omission? Children constitute a high proportion of victims of the most serious crimes, and, unfortunately, children experiencing abuse and exploitation is so frequent in our society that we no longer see these instances as rare. It can happen to any child, in any family, in any place. Shockingly, 500,000 children in England and Wales are sexually abused every year, according to the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse. One child is being abused right now, as we speak. Women’s Aid estimates that 16,000 children in England are currently living in households where domestic abuse is taking place. Research shows that the impact of growing up with domestic abuse is the same as living in a war zone for child victims. Barnardo’s has found that up to 50,000 children and young people could be at risk of criminal exploitation. This number is likely to grow, according to Barnardo’s’ Invisible Children report, which found that the cost of living crisis is putting even more children at risk of criminal and sexual exploitation.
Child criminal exploitation is not defined in legislation, despite affecting the lives of thousands of children, young people and their families and communities each year. Without this statutory definition, children are going unidentified, unsupported and even blamed and criminalised for the abuse they receive. Organised criminal gangs prey on the vulnerabilities of these children, knowing that they will take the fall if the police catch them. I urge the Government to include a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation in the Bill. Without one, these children, who have faced physical, sexual and emotional abuse, will continue to be overlooked and invisible. There is little cost to doing this, but the signal it would send to the statutory agencies could make a huge difference by igniting new insight into this horrendous crime, the impacts of which are complex and far-ranging, affecting children’s physical and mental health behaviours, relationships, education and future work prospects. For many, these impacts can stay with them for the rest of their lives, and the lives of those closest to them, as well as society as a whole.
Despite the unimaginable damage and trauma that being a victim of these most serious crimes causes, children are not able to access the child-specific specialist support that is so crucially needed, and this Bill does nothing to address these gaps. Child-specific support and services provide a safe place for children to start to come to terms with their abuse and exploitation, and to be understood as victims. These services support children’s recovery through empathetic listening, emotional regulation, positive psychology and personal goal-setting. Specialist practitioners also work alongside parents and carers to support the child to recovery. This can reduce future harms and risk too, including by reducing alcohol and drug abuse, the risk of going missing from home, and interaction with the criminal justice system in the future.
But these services are few and far between, and children are facing a postcode lottery in accessing them. A freedom of information request made by Barnardo’s earlier this year showed that more than two thirds of local authorities had not commissioned any child sexual abuse/exploitation or child criminal exploitation services in the previous 12 months. Research by the domestic abuse commissioner found that only 29% of adult victims and survivors who wanted support for their children were able to access it, because these vital services are not available to all child victims. Child-specific support services, including child independent domestic violence advisers, child independent sexual violence advisers and independent child trafficking guardians, play a vital role in supporting child victims. They support children through the practical challenges and emotional trauma following abuse and exploitation, signposting support services, providing help, navigating the criminal justice system and giving emotional and well-being support. The Victims and Prisoners Bill must address this.
How can we leave children who have experienced the most hideous crimes unsupported and unprotected? It is imperative that the Victims and Prisoners Bill place a duty on commissioners to commission enough child-specific specialist support and services for child victims. This should be centrally funded, so that commissioners, including local authorities and police and crime commissioners, are able properly to support child victims.
I welcome the Bill placing independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers on a statutory footing with the creation of statutory guidance for these roles. However, these roles mainly support adults; there is no equivalent for children. Will the Government please create similar statutory guidance for children and ensure that the Bill places a duty on the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance for them? This will play a vital role in supporting child victims of sexual abuse and exploitation, and domestic violence, which is not recognised or invested in by the state.
We cannot afford to lose the opportunity to provide support for child victims. I urge the Government to get this right and to ensure that children are prioritised in this Bill, because as I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime. I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great honour and privilege to have taken my seat and to be giving my maiden speech today—not without a certain amount of trepidation, I should add.
I must say at the outset how touched I was by the very kind, but without doubt overly generous, comments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Sanderson. It is typical of them to be so kind.
I thank everyone here, especially the doorkeepers and attendants, who have been so helpful in explaining the inner mysteries of the House. Everyone here has made me so welcome, and that has been very evident this evening. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for supporting me at my introduction. I apologise for the delay which occurred between my Writ of Summons being issued and taking my seat. This was because of the conflict of interest which would have arisen if I had participated in your Lordships’ House while finishing my career as a Crown Servant.
My path to your Lordships’ door has been slightly unusual, as I have been a government lawyer for the last 34 or so years. I joined the legal advisers’ branch of the Home Office in the 1980s, which was then led by the late Sir Anthony Hammond. I will always be grateful to him for taking me on—that cannot have been a straightforward decision. Since then, as a government lawyer, I have been able to advise across the full range of public law issues affecting successive Governments and to work with talented politicians and civil servants in formulating policies, steering Bills through Parliament and defending litigation. It is creative, intellectually challenging and endlessly varied work, and I would heartily recommend it to any young lawyers wondering what career path to choose. It has enabled me to work in areas as diverse as: prisons and sentencing; the prevention of terrorism, especially in the aftermath of 9/11; Northern Ireland affairs, where I had the privilege of working with the incomparable Mo Mowlam on the Belfast agreement; immigration law, a rite of passage for any Home Office lawyer, of course; extradition; modern slavery; and many more.
For the last seven years, I have been general counsel in No. 10 to four successive Prime Ministers, which has enabled me to see close up the inner machinery of government, with all its ups and downs. Very often, I have sat in the—it has to be said—slightly cramped officials’ Box over there, advising Ministers on what to say, or what not to say, in response to your Lordships’ probing questions. In fact, it feels slightly odd to be standing here rather than being over there; I dare say I will get used to that.
I have always hugely admired the depth of insight, expertise, experience and sheer wisdom of your Lordships’ House. I just hope that my experience will be able to contribute, even in a small way, to your Lordships’ debates on improving the quality of legislation and in addressing some of the injustices we see across the nation. The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, said, in a speech last year on crime, reoffending and the rehabilitation of prisoners, that service in this House is
“a service for the common good”—[Official Report, 30/6/22; col. 803.]
and not for personal ambition. I intend to approach it in very much that spirit.
Turning to the subject of today’s debate, I should declare my interests as having recently become a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust and as having given some advice as a government lawyer on the infected blood inquiry and on some early thinking and drafts of Part 4 of the Bill relating to prisoners. Looking at the Bill as a whole, I welcome it. I strongly support the strength and rights for victims in Part 1 and the appointment of an independent standing public advocate provided for in Part 2. These are long-overdue reforms and I look forward to seeing them strengthened as the Bill progresses. I also obviously welcome the requirement that Part 3 will impose on the Government to set up a scheme for compensating victims of the infected blood scandal.
I have two slightly more substantive comments on Part 4 on prisoners, the first of which concerns IPP prisoners. I met one of these prisoners just a couple of weeks or so ago in a London prison. Coming face to face with him brought home to me the injustice which he and many others in his position have faced, serving a sentence for so many years that was described as indefensible and unfair by government Ministers at the time it was abolished in 2012. It is disappointing and surprising that no transitional provision was made at that time to deal with existing IPP prisoners. We are where we are and, while I support the earlier expiry of IPP licences, I personally would have preferred to see a re-sentencing exercise as proposed by the Justice Committee. While that would not necessarily have resulted in the earlier release of prisoners who were obviously dangerous to the public, it would have put right a historic wrong; it would have given these prisoners a sense that justice had finally been served, albeit 11 years too late. It might also have provided a little more hope, which is a much-needed commodity in our prisons.
My second point concerns the power of the Secretary of State to refer to the Upper Tribunal, on public confidence grounds, serious offenders who have previously been directed for release. The Bill is silent on how public confidence will be assessed. The Lord Chancellor at Second Reading in the other place referred to the cases of Worboys and Pitchfork—two truly awful cases, but not typical of the vast majority of Parole Board decisions, which correctly assess risk. We all know that hard cases make bad law, so can the Minister say how public confidence will be assessed in each case and whether it can be done in a principled and quasi-judicial way?
Looking at the Clock, I am reminded that I had the great privilege last year of meeting the much-missed Igor Judge. He advised me to keep my maiden speech short. If he were here now, he would have started to look at the Clock and would be giving me a gentle but knowing look—so I will stop there. I thank noble Lords so much for bearing with me and for all their kindness this evening.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I will begin with the routine: reminding the House of my entry in the register of interests, including my practice at the Bar, which covers cases that have to do with the general subject matter of the Bill.
I now move to a unique, but none the less welcome, aspect of today’s proceedings. We have just heard the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere—and it was, if I may say so, worth waiting for. As the noble Lord explained, his peerage was gazetted in 2019, but he was introduced into your Lordships’ House only a couple of weeks ago. He also explained why there had to be a hiatus: for the last seven years he has been general counsel to No. 10 Downing Street, giving legal advice to four successive Prime Ministers. I am sure that he provided a much-needed element of stability at that address. Listening to the dangerously quiet advocacy that he was able to deploy just now makes me grateful that there is such a thing as the Government Legal Service and that such intellects as the noble Lord’s are deployed in its service.
It would have been difficult for a government lawyer working at the very heart of the Administration, who was not a law officer, to speak without giving the impression that he was speaking for the Government and, more particularly, the Prime Minister. But now the noble Lord is one of us: free to speak his mind from the Cross Benches and to give us the benefit of his experience and undoubted wisdom acquired over his many years in the Government Legal Service. He has worked on dozens of Bills, taking them through their entire legislative cycle, from policy formation to implementation into law, so we will rely on him to ensure that legislation leaving this House is in better shape than it was when it arrived.
Like the noble Lord, I am a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust and I particularly look forward to his reforming the law on IPPs and other aspects of the criminal justice system, as well as his analysis of Home Office and Ministry of Justice Bills—I am sure that we will not be short of them—and his contributions to our debates on international and treaty law. Today we heard the overture, and it is with eager anticipation that we await the many, I hope, successive acts of the opera. The noble Lord is more than welcome, and we all wish him well as a Member of your Lordships’ House.
I turn to what I believe to be an important omission from the Bill, which otherwise I generally support. For want of time, I will not discuss the vital question of IPPs, but other noble Lords from right across the Chamber have already done so, and I dare say that others may yet do so. My noble friend Lord Moylan and other noble Lords will table amendments in Committee, and I will join them when they do.
The omission I would like to deal with is the absence of support for overseas victims of corruption and fraud. Thanks to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and the Online Safety Act 2023, economic crime, bribery, money laundering and fraud are back in the news and on political agendas—although they have not really been out of the spotlight over the last 20 years.
Multinational companies have been fined more than £1.5 billion over the past decade after investigations by the Serious Fraud Office into corruption abroad, but only 1.4% of those fines, amounting to about £20 million, has been used to compensate victim countries. That is according to research carried out by Mr Sam Tate, a partner of the City of London law firm RPC. This needs to change.
Much of this corruption occurs in African countries that are already suffering terrible economic hardship from food, climate and energy crises, as well as from inflation. They are in dire need of economic support to repair the damage caused by corruption. The British Government have been vocal in their support for compensating foreign state victims of corruption, but the action actually taken to compensate foreign states tells a different story and leaves us, I fear, open to charges of hypocrisy. Most corruption cases brought before the English courts involve foreign jurisdictions. This country steps in as the world’s prosecutor and prosecutes crimes that take place in other countries, but then keeps all the fines for itself.
This is important, because corruption causes insidious damage to the poor and to the not-so-poor, particularly in emerging markets and economies. The United Nations says that it impedes international trade and investment, undermines sustainable development, threatens democracy and deprives citizens of vital public resources. The African Union estimated in 2015 that 25% of the continent’s gross domestic product was lost to corruption. Every company convicted of overseas corruption in this jurisdiction should be ordered to compensate the communities they have harmed. That would be both just and effective. Compensation should come through investment in programmes targeted at decreasing corruption and benefiting local communities by, for example, building and resourcing more schools and hospitals.
At first glance, our law encourages compensation: it is required to take precedence over all other financial sanctions. So far, so good—but, as with many noble ambitions, the problems lurk in the detail. Compensation is ordered in criminal cases only where the loss is straightforward to assess, even though the trial judge is usually a High Court or senior Crown Court judge who will deal routinely with complex issues every day.
Let me refer to two completed cases that are matters of public record. In 2022 Glencore pleaded guilty to widespread corruption in the oil markets of several African states. Although it was ordered to pay £281 million, not a single penny has been ordered to go back to the communities where the corruption happened, largely because it was held that compensation would be too complicated to quantify. The Airbus deferred prosecution agreement tells a similar story: the company was required to pay £991 million to the United Kingdom in fines, but compensation to the numerous Asian companies where the corruption took place formed no part of the deferred prosecution agreement.
The process for compensating overseas state victims needs urgent simplification so that real money can be returned to them. An answer lies in incentivising the corporations that commit these crimes to pay compensation voluntarily on the understanding that it would not increase the total amount, including penalties and costs, that they would have to pay. The company could be further incentivised by receiving a discount on the fine it would still be required to pay to the UK Treasury, or an increase to the fine if it refused or failed to make redress.
The required changes are straightforward and would cost the taxpayer nothing. We could create a standard measure of compensation that would ensure consistency and transparency, as well as avoiding the difficulty of calculating a specific amount of loss or damage in each case. The compensation figure could equal whichever is the higher of the profit made by the company from its corrupt conduct or the amount of bribes it paid to obtain the profits. This already happens when companies are sentenced, save that all the money goes to the British Treasury. The defendant company would pay nothing more, but at least some of the money would benefit the victim state and its citizens.
This could be achieved by requiring the defendant companies to enter into an agreement with the relevant state that would include obligations to comply with UN guidance on the treatment of compensation funds and to identify projects for which the funds could be used. To encourage states to enter into these types of arrangements, corporations could be permitted to donate the compensation funds to the World Bank or the IMF for projects in the region instead—or to pay down the country’s debt if an agreement cannot otherwise be reached.
The benefit of this approach is that unlike at present, where there is no disadvantage in doing nothing, it puts the onus on the corporates to take restorative action. It also addresses the difficulties in quantifying loss by creating a simple approach that gives companies early sight of the amount they will have to pay.
I am not so naive as to think that compensation paid to some foreign Governments by, for example, British corporate defendants found guilty of overseas bribery in our courts, will necessarily be spent on good causes in that state. I accept that such a scheme might encourage corruption by permitting foreign government officials to benefit from the corruption and then to benefit from the compensation, but the time has come for us to design a scheme to increase dramatically the percentage of recovered money that repairs the damage caused by corporate corruption abroad.
If the Government are serious about placing victims at the heart of the criminal justice system—and I believe they are—that should include an effective, watertight compensation regime that makes a reality of the mantra that corruption is not a victimless crime. Overseas victims of complex financial crime such as corruption are currently finding it far too difficult to be recognised and to receive support and compensation in our courts. Compensation should be returned to those affected by corruption, in line with the principles that the United Kingdom committed to at the Global Forum on Asset Recovery, a continuing by-product of the Anti-Corruption Summit initiated by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in 2016.
This Bill would be enhanced if victims of complex financial crime and corruption from other jurisdictions were recognised as victims and compensated appropriately. These reforms would comfortably fit into this Bill, I suggest, but they need the political will to amend the sentencing guidelines on corporate corruption. They will need a carefully designed set of rules to implement the practical aspects of the policy. If we do this, we can hold our heads high and enhance our national reputation in the fight against international corruption.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, on a very wise maiden speech. He will clearly bring to this House a great wealth of experience, and I am very glad to add my welcome to others.
This is clearly a much-needed Bill, and today’s many contributions show how important it is that the Bill achieves its aim of increasing support for victims of crime and strengthening their voice. I think the interest in this Bill also reflects how far it still needs to go to achieve that aim. As has been said, the victims of crime have been waiting a long time for this legislation. We owe it to them to ensure the Bill is able to deliver.
It is also now a very wide-ranging Bill, but I want to focus my remarks on Part 1 and the duty to collaborate, particularly in regard to victim support services. Like other noble Lords, I have received emails and briefings from advocacy groups raising concerns about the Bill, and I am particularly grateful for the briefing from Refuge. As Refuge highlights, the Bill presents a vital opportunity to improve survivors’ access to life-saving community-based domestic abuse services. These specialist services provide practical and emotional support to survivors in a safe and local setting, yet many of these services are desperately underfunded, leading to what the domestic abuse commissioner earlier this year highlighted as a patchwork of provision and a postcode lottery when accessing support.
The Bill before us seeks to improve collaboration between commissioners of victim support services via the “duty to collaborate” and has benefited from amendments requiring duty holders to conduct joint strategic needs assessments. But this duty to collaborate must be supported by adequate, sustainable funding. Without new funding to stop the gaps identified by the JSNAs, the Bill—as Refuge highlights—will
“fail to deliver meaningful change for survivors of domestic abuse”.
Increased funding for victim and witness support services to the tune of £147 million a year to 2024-25 from the Ministry of Justice is not ring-fenced to domestic services, and Refuge tells us that existing commitments are insufficient to meet the demand for specialist domestic abuse services. Can the Minister provide any assurance on a commitment to amending the duty to collaborate Clauses 12 to 14 to introduce adequate, sustainable funding for specialist domestic abuse community-based services? The Women’s Aid Federation England has put this figure as at least £238 million a year.
In 2022, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner found that fewer than half of survivors who want to access community-based services are able to do so. Underfunding of community-based services and inadequate contracts often mean that service providers have to rely on insecure, fundraised income. So can the Minister equally offer any assurances on requiring services commissioned via the duty to be delivered on sustainable contract terms of at least three years?
This Bill is also a vital opportunity to strengthen children’s rights to safety and justice. We must not waste this opportunity. Children are disproportionately victims and survivors of the most serious crimes, yet the criminal justice system is not set up to meet children’s needs. National data tends to report on crime trends for those aged 16 and over, so those younger than this are not reflected in the way services are designed and commissioned. As the Children’s Commissioner highlights in her powerful briefing for this debate, a child in care, a child living in a mental health setting, and a child in custody all have the right to request an advocate; yet this is not extended to child victims of the most serious crimes.
In 2022, only 1% of clients accessing IDVA—independent domestic violence advocate—services were under the age of 18, despite the high prevalence of domestic abuse in this age group. The Children’s Commissioner highlights the lack of investment in, and patchy provision of, child independent domestic violence advisers, or child independent sexual violence advisers. These advisers not only work with children to help them understand the criminal justice process and provide much-needed emotional and well-being support, but serve as a vital point of contact with criminal justice agencies. I am glad that in Part 1, under the duty to collaborate, there will now be an explicit requirement to have regard to the particular needs of certain victims such as children. But the Bill needs to go further. Can the Minister offer any assurance that the Bill will ensure that every child victim of the most serious crimes will be offered a specialist advocate, thereby bringing child victims’ rights into line with their entitlements in other systems?
The Children’s Commissioner estimates that one in 15 children under the age of 17 lives in an abusive household, while nearly half of potential victims of modern slavery referred to the national referral mechanism are under 18. Child criminal exploitation is the most common referral reason.
I believe that all child victims should be represented in this Bill, and children who have been criminally exploited, such as those who have been coerced into county-lines drug dealing—an issue that has previously been raised in this House—are victims of abuse. Yet children victimised through criminal exploitation do not always get the support they need. There is currently no statutory definition of child criminal exploitation, so there is a risk that children who are forced to commit crimes are punished rather than safeguarded as victims. A definition of CCE, with guidance following, would help improve the identification of children at risk and allow for better assessment of need. Does the Minister agree that introducing a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation through this Bill would ensure that we see such children as victims first and foremost?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, as I so often find myself saying in your Lordships’ House, in the Green Party, when we are talking about justice policy, we would not start from here. Green political philosophy puts at its heart restorative justice. That means putting the victim at the centre in aiming to restore—or ideally, improve—their condition comparative to what it was before the crime, and ensuring that the offender’s rehabilitation is built on making amends both to the individual victim and to the community.
Paragraph CJ201 of our Policies for a Sustainable Society sets out, as one of its key objectives:
“To assist the victims of criminal acts as much as possible”.
I note that, when I look at the CPS website, there is a restorative justice page that was updated in February this year. It notes that restorative justice can play a part at any stage of the criminal justice process. It does, however, go on to note that it is most often associated with conditional cautioning. A phrase that particularly caught my attention was,
“where trained personnel are available, it should always be considered”.
My question for the Minister now—or perhaps he could elaborate later in writing—is: where do the Government see restorative justice? I have looked carefully at the Bill and there does not seem to be an obvious way in which that is considered part of it. I would be interested to see whether there is any part of the Bill that is seen to be associated with that and to learn how the Government see restorative justice as part of the overall system.
Of course, if we were approaching the Bill from that perspective, any Bill by definition would involve both victims and offenders—but that, of course, is not where we start with this Bill. So I begin by sharing the disappointment expressed by many that this is now a victims and prisoners Bill. Surely, we would be in a better place if there were now two separate Bills, with a chance for both Houses to fully focus on victims in particular, their care and support, rather than finding ourselves at the same time dealing with some extremely knotty and long-running problems, notably the clear injustice of the IPP—imprisonment for public protection —sentences.
Looking at that focus on victims, we come back to the issue of resources, but also of commitments of resources. I note the excellent briefing from Victim Support, which calls for the Government to commit in the Bill to ensuring that all the rights of the victims’ code are monitored and reported on by criminal justice agencies, not just some of the rights. It says—and I suspect this will find a great deal of support in your Lordships’ House—that this has to be written on the face of the Bill. Victim Support also says—and I have to concur—that the Government should be sharing and publicly consulting on the data proposed for the monitoring of victims’ rights while the Bill is progressing through your Lordships’ House. So often we find ourselves saying very similar things.
In discussing the word “must”, I have to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the need to replace many of the “shoulds” in this Bill with “musts”; although we might have to bring in the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, at that point, because she has her own inimitable perspective on those particular debates.
Talking again about resources, the lack of support for community-based services, particularly for victims of domestic abuse, is something that I have been talking about for at least a decade. So many of our community-based services have to rely on a year-by-year, bid-by-bid state of total uncertainty about funding. We have seen some changes and improvements on that in the most recent years, but still we need to ensure that, if we are going to identify needs through the joint strategic needs assessment introduced by the Bill, there is actually the ability to deal with those needs. It is really important, when we look at the independent domestic violence adviser role, that that has to be an absolutely independent role. We have seen from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for example, how strong and important such advocates can be right across the functioning of our society.
According to the Local Government Association’s briefing—I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA—the Bill states that PCCs, health bodies and local authorities must work together in commissioning support services for the victims of domestic abuse, serious violence and sexual violence. That is a great objective, but we all know just how incredibly stretched local government and all such services are. The recent report by the domestic abuse commissioner noted that insecure and insufficient funding was a key driver of services struggling to meet demand. I have pointed out in a number of different contexts that it is important to acknowledge the needs of victims of crime and bereaved families from abroad, ensuring their right to access support in England and Wales. I have raised in Written Questions the issue of ensuring that people who are British residents but not British citizens, and who were victims of crime abroad, get consular support and support when they return home.
Observant noble Lords may have noticed that I am speaking on issues that more regularly fall within the purview of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I am sure that she will be picking up on some of these during the progress of the Bill, but there are a couple of issues on which your Lordships’ House may well hear from me again. One is protecting and supporting victims of major incidents and government wrongdoing. The Minister is already aware of my interest, which I raised with him during the Hillsborough Statement repeat, in the “Truth About Zane” campaign, which concerns the tragic death of young Zane Gbangbola. I am pleased to tell the Minister that Zane’s parents are keen to take up the offer to share with the department their experience of having an extreme inequality of arms in Zane’s inquest, with fully lawyered-up public bodies against a grieving family forced to resort to crowdfunding and pro bono support.
I note that the proposed independent public advocate, added after pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and without consultations with organisations such as Inquest, Justice or any related to Hillsborough, is being instructed at the discretion of the Secretary of State, rather than the circumstances in which it is to be appointed being set out in statute. That surely cannot be right. I also note that there is no equality of treatment between the victims of major incidents and the victims of state wrongdoing and other crimes, nor any government justification for this disparity. In another revisiting of issues—I see a very familiar cast in this area—I particularly associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the importance of services for victims of crime with no recourse to public funds, an issue which many of us addressed during consideration of the Domestic Abuse Bill, and the firewalling of immigration matters from victims of domestic abuse and other crimes.
I see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, is not in his place, but hopefully he will see in Hansard later that although he and I are perhaps not very often aligned on economic matters, I very much associate myself with his remarks about the victims of economic crime. He focused on corruption and overseas victims of economic crime—I would add victims of economic crime in the UK. To quote UK Finance, we are
“the fraud capital of the world”.
We are not doing enough for fraud and corruption victims around the world. I hope that I can work with the noble and learned Lord on those issues.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, this Bill covers a great deal of ground, and I will restrict my comments to a limited number of issues.
I welcome the intention of the Bill to improve the experience of victims in the criminal justice system, but I agree with other noble Lords that it will need strengthening if it is to achieve that objective. Further, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, the biggest problem for survivors of crime and domestic abuse who need support is the appalling underfunding of support services. I hope that at later stages, we can consider addressing in the Bill the need for adequate funding for such services.
On a very different issue, as president of the Haemophilia Society I turn to Part 3 of the Bill. Our Minister, understandably and rightly, deferred any comments on this part of the Bill until Committee. However, as a Back-Bencher I welcome the requirement for the Secretary of State to create a body to administer the compensation scheme for victims of the infected blood scandal of the 1970s and 1980s. Of course, this should have been done decades ago. Of about 1,400 people infected with HIV and other problems as a result of being injected with infected imported blood products, only about 350 are alive today. Most of those infected with HIV have died from the infections directly caused by the contaminated blood products.
Nevertheless, even at this late stage, I welcome this important initiative. However, in Committee we will need to consider filling the gaps in the compensation plan. An interim compensation payment was made to direct victims and some partners in October 2022. However, no payment was made to parents who lost children as a result of the scandal, or to children who lost parents. We need to clarify in the Bill the total numbers eligible for compensation, to ensure that all those directly or indirectly affected by the contaminated blood products imported for NHS patients in the 1970s and 1980s receive compensation, even at this very late stage.
I welcome Clause 48, which deals with the treatment of those on indeterminate sentences that have been imposed for public protection. Other noble Lords have mentioned this incredibly important issue, and I agree with those who have applauded the more proportionate and effective means in this Bill to review and terminate an IPP licence. The existing 10-year post-release wait before the sentence can even be reviewed is inhumane. The clause introduces a three-year qualifying period, which creates the realistic prospect of an end to the sentence. Also, very importantly, the clause provides that if the licence is not terminated by the Parole Board at the three-year point, it will be automatically terminated two years later. I hope we will consider in Committee the vital role of the state in this area in rehabilitating and providing mental health treatment for people serving an IPP on licence in the community, in order to make a success of their resettlement and to ensure that they cease to be a risk to their community. These people inevitably will be suffering as a result of the state’s imposition of such a cruel sentence.
A deeply concerning proposal in the Bill is that in Clauses 49 to 52, which disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act to prisoners as a group. This provision contradicts one of the fundamental principles of the Human Rights Act: universality. Clause 52(4) goes some way to mitigating the consequences of these curbs, but only in relation to prisoner release cases; and it fails to retain the right under Article 3 of prisoners not to be treated in an inhuman or degrading way. The House will surely want to look at those clauses in Committee.
Even after the Commons amendments, the Bill includes limitations on the Parole Board’s independence, which, again, this House may want to consider. For example, the Parole Board is given powers to release very serious offenders. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned, the Secretary of State can refer a Parole Board decision on such cases to the Upper Tribunal—or, in particularly sensitive cases, to the High Court—if the relevant court may reach a different decision if it believes that the release test has not been met. Also, Clause 54 prohibits the chair from being involved in individual Parole Board cases or from trying to influence the outcome of the board’s decision in such cases. These seem to be extraordinary curbs on the powers and responsibilities of the chair. If we want the Parole Board to attract the best possible people, we should not undermine the independence of the members or the chair.
In conclusion, this Bill includes some valuable reforms but needs strengthening in some areas and very careful consideration by this House in others.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
Any legislation that might improve the position of victims is to be welcomed. As someone who has practised at the English Bar for five decades now, I can say that I have seen huge changes taking place—I see jaws are dropping at the idea of my having practised for so long, but it is true; I was very young when I qualified. When I started, the idea of us considering the position of victims did not exist at all. We have seen incrementally changes being made, but unfortunately the Bill will need some amendment to make it do what we all hope for, which is a serious updating on the rights of victims.
I sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is a wonderful committee, combining Members of both Houses of this Parliament. We have made notes on a number of issues that still concern us after this matter has gone through the Commons. We are delighted at the introduction of the role of the independent public advocate—something that we really endorse. Bishop Jones of Liverpool and others gave evidence in front of us in relation to the Hillsborough disaster, and they convinced us all of the need for an independent advocate to support victims of major incidents. However, we want that person to be fully independent of government. I emphasise the need for independence and for immediate action in the aftermath of major incidents.
We were concerned also about the Parole Board process and giving the Secretary of State the power to direct the referral of decisions to the Parole Board to himself, and to be retaken. This is again an issue of independence—how will you secure the services of independent-minded people if they feel that their carefully considered opinions are going to be abandoned at the whims of a populist Home Secretary?
The fact that there are 3,000 prisoners still serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection is a matter that has concerned the Joint Committee for quite a long time. Despite our having raised serious concerns about all that, we feel that Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right not to be subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment, and Article 5, the right in respect of arbitrary detention, and even the right to life, are all interfered with by imprisonment for public protection. We are urging that the amendment that Sir Robert Neill put forward to the Commons might be considered by this House.
We are also concerned about the disapplication of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act in respect of the full legislative framework in England and Wales relating to the release, licences, supervision and recall of indeterminate and determinate sentenced offenders. It is a shocking business that a section of vulnerable people—because they are out of sight and therefore often out of mind—will not have the protections of the Human Rights Act. Again, I urge this House not to listen to the siren voices of those who have never liked the Human Rights Act and to recognise it as a wonderful addition to our legislative framework. I am a big believer in the common-law tradition, but it has been enriched by the Human Rights Act.
In keeping with previous recommendations, we would also like better data collection. A particular matter of concern to all of us, and something I have written about over the years, is the publication of the number of people in prison who have responsibility for the care of a child. Do we take enough care about that? I am not sure that we do, and I would like to have better data collection of the information.
I want to mention Sarah Everard, because my friend the Minister mentioned that that was a pivotal moment. It gave us a sense of something I have written about extensively: the lack of confidence that women and girls have in the justice system around sexual matters, meaning that so many would never turn to the law and feel that they are not listened to and cannot be confident of positive outcomes. To recover—though I do not know whether we ever had it—or secure the confidence of women and girls in our society, we must have reform. I urge that we take positive steps around the whole issue of rape and sexual assault, and perhaps look at the New South Wales model, or the Canadian model that was mentioned by one of the noble Lords on the Government Benches. We should be looking at better ways of supporting those who are victims.
There should also be the protection of survivors’ counselling and therapy records. I have seen it myself: there was a time when women were encouraged not to take counselling or see a therapist after they had been sexually violated because it would in some way call into question the credibility of what they were telling a court because they had talked about it too much and might have had ideas introduced into their heads. Now they are allowed to see counsellors, but misuse is often made of the records. Where women have said that they feel a sense of shame, that is used to question why they would feel shame if they were the victim. This has got to stop. I urge that we provide proper protections of women around the misuse of their records and that they have legal advice, funded by the state, around what is going to be involved in a trial.
When the then Domestic Abuse Bill came before this House, I made the argument for there being changes to the law in relation to the current defences that exist in certain areas of crime. Many of the women who are in prison—and they are a tiny part of the prison population—almost invariably are themselves people who have been victimised. Something like 78% of women in prison have themselves been abused, either as children or as adults, at the hands of partners and husbands. Many of the offences that women are in prison for have been committed at the behest of men—they have been coerced by men to commit them. What I am calling for—I will again raise the issues that I raised and had support for during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill in this House—is that there should be statutory defences for women who commit crimes, such as handling stolen goods or carrying drugs, for their coercive partner because they know that not to do it will bring down serious punishment and they have become so coerced and controlled that the ability to say no or go to the authorities is out of their reach. There has to be something better in the way of defences for women who are forced into crime and end up imprisoned for those reasons. For women who end up killing their abusers after years of abuse, there has to be a proper way of considering defences that might be available. Many of those currently available are failing women because of the way they are constructed.
I have always argued, and have written books on the subject, that law was historically created by men, and it has been only in the process of women being involved in our parliamentary processes and on our senior judiciary that law has been changed. We have to change the law so that it delivers for women too. I will be putting amendments to this Bill that I hope this House will accept and return to the Commons to improve it for women and girls who continue to be abused.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Carter of Haslemere on his excellent maiden speech. I shall treat it as a template for how to make a speech from now on. It was also an honour to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and I congratulate her on her reappointment as Victims’ Commissioner.
This is a welcome Bill and I agree that it is overdue, but, as I was reading it, something was nagging at me. It was not until I went to the Children’s Commissioner’s very useful briefing that I realised what it was: children are hardly mentioned at all, and nor as the victims of crime, as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Gohir and Lady Benjamin, so aptly described. At this point, as ever, I declare my interest as a state secondary school teacher in Hackney. It is true that Clause 16 is entirely about the relationship between a parent and a child, but even that relationship is seen from an adult standpoint. As far as I can see, the issues of children then cease to be considered in the rest of the Bill, as several noble Lords have noted.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said most powerfully, the children’s coalition suggests introducing a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation in Clause 1 so that a victim can be described as a victim of child criminal exploitation and the crime itself is defined. This seems an opportunity to protect children and ensure that children who have been forced into committing crimes are recognised as victims, not perpetrators. I, among others, would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that.
As my noble friend Lord Meston said, when a child is the victim of a crime they should be treated very differently from an adult. Clause 15 talks about independent domestic violence advisers and independent sexual violence advisers, but again, there is no mention of a child victim adviser. We all know that it can be extraordinarily bewildering and challenging for a child to go through the justice system, whether as a victim or witness. According to data from Safelives, already cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, only 1% of clients accessing independent domestic violence adviser services were under the age of 18, despite the high prevalence of domestic abuse in this age group.
The solution is that we need a specialist for every child victim. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, quoted the Children’s Commissioner as saying:
“The Victims and Prisoners Bill should mandate that every child victim of the most serious crimes be offered a specialist advocate … This advocate must have the training and qualifications needed to work with vulnerable children. As well as specialism in the specific harm children have experienced, these advocates should also have the skillset of a Registered Intermediary, to ensure language and communication is appropriate to the child’s development level”,
as my noble friend Lady Coussins admirably described. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Gohir, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, have all quoted, Claire Waxman, the London Victims’ Commissioner, agrees:
“Clause 15 provides guidance about ISVAs and IDVAs, but does not recognise other victim advocates—including Stalking Advocates and Child Domestic Violence Advocates—who operate in the justice system and are crucial to victims. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust, for example, has shown that victims NOT supported by an Independent Stalking Advocate had a one-in-1,000 chance of their perpetrator being convicted, compared with one in four if they HAD this advocate”.
Surely this alone would make the idea worth while and repay any further investment tenfold. It would also fulfil the Government’s wish to avoid silos. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on this.
Another issue that has been flagged is that the Bill treats all under-18s as children. There is obviously a risk of adultifying them, but as the Children’s Commissioner also states, we need to deal with young people on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the criminal justice process is not disempowering for them.
We have to increase the profile of children and young people in this Bill. I will leave your Lordships with a quote from a 15 year-old rape victim: “I think if I could do it again, I wouldn’t report it, because I’d get over it much faster”.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a former executive chairman of the Parole Board of England and Wales. Although that was some 25 years ago, I have continued to take a keen interest in this work.
I too have received several excellent briefings from organisations concerned about victims of crime and abuse. I share their concerns with regard to victims and agree with the points that a number of noble Lords have made about the weaknesses and gaps in this Bill. I agree that it falls short of its original aim of strengthening and securing the rights of victims. Contrary to the Minister’s comment in his introduction, the changes proposed with regard to parole and prisoners, as Claire Waxman, the London Victims’ Commissioner has said, will have a negative impact on victims by causing delays. This will be a lost opportunity if we do not take the time to improve the Bill in this House.
However, I will confine my comments to the provisions in Part 4 concerning prisoners and parole. Despite the amendments in the other place giving powers to the Secretary of State to refer certain prisoners’ release decisions where sensitive material may be relevant for reconsideration to a higher court, these provisions undermine the independence of the Parole Board. They are also unworkable, unclear and unnecessary. They will add unnecessary complexity and delay to an already burdened system, not least the Upper Tribunal’s capacity and expertise.
It is not clear what problems these provisions attempt to solve. The Parole Board’s record speaks for itself. There is very little evidence that its decision-making falls short when it comes to public safety. The Bill’s Explanatory Notes state:
“Less than 0.5% of prisoners released by the Parole Board are convicted of a serious further offence within three years of the release decision having been made”.
Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what is broken which this Bill is trying to mend.
It is also inappropriate to introduce a public confidence test as a filter for deciding which cases should be referred to a higher court. As we know, a similar criterion was introduced by the previous Secretary of State in seeking to reduce the number of indeterminate prisoners being moved from closed to open conditions. This was reversed by the current Secretary of State as it was deemed highly subjective and difficult to apply. It was also criticised by the High Court, which stated that this policy criterion adds nothing.
It is dangerous if we use public opinion as the basis for ministerial interference in an independent process. Clauses 53 and 54, which give the Secretary of State the authority to remove the chair of the Parole Board in the interest of public confidence and enable executive interference in the composition of particular board members, are quite alarming. Given the sensitive nature of the role of the chairman of the Parole Board, he or she requires more protection, not less. Such interference will, in effect, undermine the Parole Board’s independence. In a recent judgment, the High Court said that it is
“well established that, when exercising powers in relation to the Board, the Secretary of State must not do anything that undermines or would be perceived as undermining the independence of the Board or that encroaches upon or interferes with the exercise by the Board of its judicial responsibilities”.
As we know, this also risks being incompatible with Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House why this is necessary when there is already an established process for removing the Parole Board chair from office.
This new power to specifically remove the chairman on the grounds of public confidence can be interpreted only as responding to media outcry or political pressure following an unpopular parole decision. This will damage the Parole Board and undermine its ability to undertake effective risk assessments.
Clause 54 also prohibits the chairman from being involved in individual parole cases and from trying to influence the outcome of the Parole Board’s decision in such cases. The question of whether the chairman is involved in individual cases should be a matter for the board and not a statutory prescription. It is another unnecessary interference. Furthermore, mandating the Secretary of State to make rules to require a certain type of person to sit on panels is wholly inappropriate in terms of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and basic principles of fairness.
It would breach principles of justice and common-law standards for one party to proceedings to have power over the composition of the judicial panel to which they are presenting their case. These measures do not make any logical sense and should be dropped.
Then, as others have said, there are the proposals to disapply fundamental human rights to prisoners. This would set a very dangerous precedent. These specific disapplications of human rights for people given custodial sentences would undermine one of the fundamental principles underlying human rights: universality and application to each and every person on the simple basis of their being human.
Because those in prison are under state control, their human rights are all the more important. They need protection, not erosion, of their fundamental rights. These gradual encroachments into dismantling our human rights framework—as we also saw during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill—are worrying, dangerous and totally unacceptable. It is a slippery slope. On the one hand, the Bill includes a statement of compatibility with the Human Rights Act; on the other hand, it contains provisions to disapply a critical aspect of the Act. Can the Minister please explain?
Apart from arguments on grounds of principle against these provisions, there is no practical need for these clauses to disapply the Human Rights Act either. The Government’s argument that these measures protect against judges misusing the powers given to them by the HRA rings hollow when the Government’s own Independent Human Rights Act Review, chaired by Lord Justice Sir Peter Gross, found no evidence of this being a problem. This is a very flimsy justification for these measures.
We all care about public safety and public protection, but we also care about the values and principles that should underlie public policy. These measures will weaken, not strengthen, the work of the Parole Board and, of course, erode the well-founded principles that underpin our public policy.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, it is a particular pleasure for me to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, whom I admire hugely and with whose speech I agree 100%. She has seen everything in her very distinguished career, and the Government should take considerable notice of what she had to say about Part 4 of the Bill.
We can see from reading the debates in the other place that this is not particularly a politically controversial Bill, unlike many we have seen recently and, alas, may see again before very long. However, there are important arguments, very well put by the many experts in this House, that, as far as victims are concerned, while improving the position—the Bill does that—this may yet turn out to be a wasted opportunity.
I speak as the only Member of either House—so far, and perhaps not for long—who has served as an elected police and crime commissioner. I have therefore consulted opinion, to some extent at least, regarding the role of the police and crime commissioners, their offices and their responsibilities under the Bill. They are clearly being asked to do more than before. If the House will indulge me, I will briefly explain how they feel about the Bill at this stage. I tend to share their view.
Their general view is to welcome the proposals as they affect police and crime commissioners, but of course there is concern about effective implementation—the real question being: are there the facilities of leverage and resourcing that are needed for them to fulfil their roles? In particular, there is a view that the local criminal justice boards should be on a statutory footing. These are local fora where police and crime commissioners will seek assurances from criminal justice partners around code compliance—one of the responsibilities they are given—and shared accountability. The Home Office review on police and crime commissioners recommended that these local criminal justice boards should be statutory. That is not in the Bill. Have the Government changed their mind about that, or might we see this in the other criminal justice legislation that we will hear of in the months ahead?
Secondly, police and crime commissioners would generally welcome further levers to encourage code compliance, which is a duty imposed on them and others. Will they be given the power to demand and set expectations locally for other agencies? There is a welcome focus on good data and robust metrics, including feedback from victims, of course, and there are two new senior data analysts for each office of a police and crime commissioner. They are welcome too, but why the silence about long-term funding for those rather important posts?
Equally, as to the resourcing of the vital and welcome duty to collaborate, there are many similar duties in recent legislation that have gone through this House. In practice—that is the important point—these place a significant resourcing challenge to the parties involved, which, it is felt, are not always appreciated by the Government. Will the Minister please look at that issue again?
Finally, and more generally, where gaps in local services are found, there is no provision in the Bill for funding services. Will the Government step up to meet unmet victims’ needs?
Those, in short, are the views of police and crime commissioners. I cannot speak for them all, but I hope the Minister will take note of those views.
As for the code itself, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on what she had to say about the need to strengthen the code and tighten it up in regard to victims who have English as a second language. It is an important point, and I hope we do that at a later stage of the Bill.
The Minister will not be surprised to hear me ask about legal aid for Part 2 of the Bill. I would like more clarity as to where legal aid will come in and whether it will be means tested. If victims of an appalling incident want—as they may well—to instruct their own lawyers in the circumstances, what will the legal aid position be? Is that yet clear?
Finally, I want to express the widely shared view concerning the Bill’s proposals for the future of the Parole Board. Of course, the change of heart in giving the Lord Chancellor the option to direct the Parole Board and then to refer the case to the Upper Tribunal is to be welcomed, but some questions arise and I would like to put them quickly.
First, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, asked, why was the Upper Tribunal chosen? Secondly, on the point that the Lord Chancellor will send some cases where he thinks the Parole Board has got it wrong up to the Upper Tribunal, but not others, why must he not send them all up to whatever the judicial body is? How will he pick and choose? A less generous Lord Chancellor than we have at the moment may well take a completely different view and not send anything up to the Upper Tribunal, which will of course make the effect of this alteration negligible.
Thirdly—I have some experience of how busy Cabinet Ministers are, from having been a junior Minister in the Ministry of Justice, albeit a very long time ago—will the Lord Chancellor himself decide these issues by reading the papers? Will it be a junior Minister or a senior civil servant, on behalf of the Executive, who will make the decision that will affect the lives of individual prisoners?
In principle, the Executive should have no—or a minimal—part in the area of sentencing and the disposal of individual criminals. That actually breaches the rule of law in a fundamental way. The strength of the Parole Board, as the noble Baroness said, has been its independence, but that independence is being compromised by the proposals in the Bill. Allowing the Executive any greater role needs to be scrutinised with great care and permitted only when the necessity is proven. In my view, that case is not proven here.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my non-remunerated role as chair of the Commission on Alcohol Harm. That is relevant, as up to 70% of prisoners indicate that they had been drinking at the time of committing their offence. Overall, alcohol-related crime costs England alone £11.4 billion each year, consuming 53% of police time. Where a child is killed or maimed, over one-third of cases have antecedents in parental alcohol use. Following my noble friends Lord Meston and Lord Hampton, I shall focus on children overall as victims. I will come later to the cross-border issues relating to the devolved Governments.
Despite the Government’s 119 amendments in the other place, they still have not adequately ensured that the concept of victim recognises that a person of any age and any degree of mental capacity can become a victim. A child can be a victim of many types of events, including domestic abuse, that do not reach the criminal conduct threshold. Child victims need independent support that does not intimidate them and which is appropriate for their level of emotional and intellectual development. It is important to understand that these do not necessarily coincide and may be quite different from the child’s chronological age, particularly where the child has been a victim for some time and their emotional development may have been impacted as a result. The Bill stipulates broad criteria that the victims’ code should meet, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, pointed out, it does not state that it must meet them, giving rise to concern that the flexibility in the Bill is so great about the provision to victims that it may remain as inadequate as it is today.
To state that the Bill requires provision for victims of different descriptions, which by implication covers all ages, is inadequate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointed out, the Bill needs amending to ensure independent children’s advocacy. Such provision must apply up to the age of 18. When a person over 18 has learning difficulties, they will need to be able to access the age-appropriate support that should be built into the Bill for those under 18. Currently in the Bill, a child under 18 appears to forfeit their right to engage directly with their case in certain circumstances, such as when receiving direct support from the independent public advocate.
Wherever a child is interviewed, the process needs monitoring and quality assurance, particularly the communication skills and management of distress, with interviews recorded and independently reviewed. Communication must be child-centric, not speaking over them, to provide the child with a sense of control in a situation that is difficult and traumatic. It is important to remember that a great deal of violence, sexual abuse, emotional abuse and negligence occurs within families, as well as in relationships outside the home. These children may already feel failed by social services’ involvement, and they need completely independent and consistent support. Let us not forget that four in 10 victims of modern slavery are under the age of 18.
In major incidents, children are often secondary victims. When their parent or sibling is killed or injured, even if they were not present at the time, they will be a secondary victim. If a parent is a paedophile or they witness financial abuse in their family, they will feel tainted as secondary victims. The terrible ongoing trauma to children and young people following the major incidents in this country that we have heard about, such as the Manchester bombing and the Grenfell Tower fire, and indeed the infected blood scandal, cannot be underestimated. That was starkly illustrated abroad following the terrorist bomb at Brussels airport in which 32 victims died. Although Shanti De Corte, age 17 at the time, miraculously was not physically injured, she was so psychologically traumatised by witnessing the event that she eventually sought and received euthanasia six years later.
The Bill’s requirement for a victim assessment is not enough. As well as calling for a mandatory multiagency needs assessment for a child victim specified in the code of practice, there must also be a requirement to act on that assessment. If little or no action is taken then the child or young person can feel further exploited by the system itself and further alienated. I hope the Minister will listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, in her new role, which she has taken up again, as Victims’ Commissioner. Sadly, she has a great deal of experience.
I turn to cross-border working. Many aspects of the Bill will involve services that fall within the devolved competencies of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I want to concentrate on Wales because the territorial extent and application of the Bill is far more extensive in relation to Wales than to Scotland or Northern Ireland. However, the Explanatory Notes to the Bill suggest that legislative consent has been sought only on Clause 15, concerning independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisers, and Clauses 28 to 39, concerning major incidents.
So I ask the Minister why no legislative consent has been sought on the other clauses—excepting 12 to 14, as we heard—since the Bill in many cases involves the health services, relevant authorities and so on in the devolved Governments. What discussion has been held with Welsh Ministers in all the relevant departments, particularly health and social care, justice, education and local government? Can the Minister explain how a crime or major incident that occurs in Scotland, with the victims living in Wales, will be dealt with under this Bill? On cross-border issues, who will be responsible for appointing the standard advocate? Turning to the funding for the victims of contaminated blood payments, will all the funding come from the Treasury, because the events all occurred prior to devolution settlements?
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, more than 30 years ago, when I was Bishop of Oxford, I was very much heartened by the initiative of the Thames Valley Police force in pioneering restorative justice. Restorative justice enables victim and offender to be brought together, either directly or indirectly, through the mediation of a third party. Since then, it has become an established part of the criminal justice system as a whole. However, much more use could be made of it. I believe that this Bill provides an opportunity to enable it to be more widely taken up. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, pointed out, it does not yet appear in the Bill and, although it is part of the criminal justice system, references to it are often rather tentative and half-hearted.
This Bill is primarily about victims. It should be stressed that the prime concern of restorative justice is with the victim and what might be helpful to them. Hopefully, it also has a significant impact on the offender but, first and foremost, it is the victim whom restorative justice has in mind.
When restorative justice was first introduced, questions were properly asked about its effectiveness. Since then, a fair amount of research has been undertaken to find out. In 2022, the College of Policing published an evidence review on JR. It concluded that restorative justice can be used at all stages of the criminal justice process and that it has been shown to be effective in both reducing reoffending and enhancing victims’ satisfaction with the criminal justice system.
The review quoted the Campbell systematic review of RJ interventions, which showed that
“post-traumatic stress symptoms in victims were reduced, compared to those victims whose cases were only dealt with in court”.
It showed that
“apologies were more important to victims than material restoration … repeat offending was generally reduced in seriousness and frequency … costs from the criminal justice system are reduced through diversion and reduced reoffending”,
and that
“lower recidivism rates were found compared to imprisonment alone, for both youth and adult offenders”.
In addition to this:
“Twelve randomised trials of mainly police-led face-to-face RJ conferencing … found that RJ benefits most victims in terms of a reduction of stress, and benefits most offenders in terms of a reduction in recidivism over the following two years. This research programme found that RJ appears to be more effective for violent crime compared with property crimes—and perhaps for more serious than less serious crime generally—and for high-frequency offenders compared with offenders with medium rates of offending”.
So restorative justice is effective for both victims and offenders, but is it as accessible and available as it ought to be? In its inquiry into access to restorative justice in 2021-22, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Restorative Justice found that, all too often, inadequate funding for commissioned restorative justice services has led to a postcode lottery for those wishing to participate in restorative justice. Furthermore, disparities in the type of offence considered appropriate for restorative justice presented further barriers to equal access.
The inquiry repeatedly heard that access is also hindered by gatekeepers, where professionals, such as probation staff, victims’ services, police and prison officers made a decision on behalf of either the victim or offender about the suitability of restorative justice. The evidence presented to the inquiry suggested that these decisions are often made by individuals who do not really have the skills, experience and knowledge of restorative justice to make an informed decision about its suitability.
I pay tribute to the APPG on restorative justice, which has commissioned work in this area and, in particular, to its chair, Elliot Colburn, the Member in the other place for Carshalton and Wallington. The APPG argues, as do others involved, that more use could be made of RJ than is presently the case and that a suitable amendment to this Bill would encourage this. I agree, and I hope that, perhaps in co-operation with other noble Lords, we can present an amendment along the lines of the one presented in the other place and which the Government might, in the end, come to support.
What matters is that restorative justice is available and known to be available right across the criminal justice system. I believe that this Bill offers us an opportunity to ensure that this is much more seriously and realistically the case than it is now.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am grateful to have two minutes in the gap to register my interest, and that of Plaid Cymru, in this Bill. I identify with most of the concerns expressed over the past five hours.
The Bill raises issues which I hope to address in Committee. I certainly concur with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on IPP sentences. That is an issue on which I campaigned for several years back in Wales. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter, on his comments in a splendid maiden speech.
I highlight the uncertainty across party lines in Senedd Cymru in relation to the impact of this Bill on devolved responsibilities. The Welsh Government have complained about a lack of consultation before the Bill was published and suggest that it trespasses on areas of devolved competence. Can the Minister clarify what the latest position is on this?
As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, a moment ago, there is also a question about who funds the compensation to the victims of the infected blood scandal, which occurred long before the existence of devolved government. Will the UK Government pay those in Wales who have an entitlement or is it expected that the Welsh Government will do?
Welsh Women’s Aid has highlighted the danger of specialist support services such as advocacy, recovery groups and counselling falling outside the scope of the proposed ISVA and IDVA in Clause 15. There needs to be some clarification and perhaps further thought on that matter.
In Clause 12, a “duty to collaborate” is placed on PCCs and local authorities in England only. Will that apply in Wales? If so, does Senedd Cymru have the necessary devolved powers to make it happen or will such powers be transferred to it?
These and other issues are ones which I hope to address in Committee and I am grateful for this brief opportunity to draw them to the attention of the House.
Lord German (LD)
Before I sum up on behalf of these Benches, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, for his wise and thoughtful speech. Now that he is out of that Box, I think we are all going to benefit from his wise words in the future. I must pay absolute tribute to him for a splendid maiden speech in this Chamber.
This Bill is heading on the right track, but there is a substantial number of bumps, deep potholes and curves which will need sorting before it will be best suited to reach its destination. It is sad that this Bill is of two parts—a victims’ part and a prisoners’ part. As many noble Lords have said, it tends to deflect from the importance of one or the other, and probably this would have been better in two separate pieces of legislation. But, while this Bill is on the right track but needs amending, it falls very short. I am going to mix my metaphors a little, because this Bill has been late out of the station, but in this House we have a duty to ensure that it gets to its destination in a fit and proper state.
I will speak largely about Part 4 of the Bill, but I want to pay tribute to my colleagues who have spoken about earlier parts of the Bill and it is important to recall the main issues my noble friends have raised. My noble friends Lady Brinton, Lady Burt, Lady Hamwee and Lady Benjamin all raised the gaps in the definition of victims, including the rights of rape victims, victims of anti-social behaviour, victims who are coerced and, as explained by my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Benjamin, children who are subjected to sexual and domestic abuse—crimes of the most heinous kind.
My noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Brinton emphasised the need for the victims’ code to have a statutory basis, with a statutory duty for public services to deliver the new rights to these victims. The costs of this provision are strangely absent, as is an impact assessment. I ask the Minister: will we have an impact assessment to cover Part 1 at some stage in this process?
My noble friend Lady Hamwee raised the issue of victims having to pay for transcripts. Can noble Lords imagine the outcry if the public had to pay to download Hansard? I think that would probably shake at the roots of what we try to do in this Chamber.
My noble friends Lady Brinton, Lady Hamwee and Lady Burt spoke of the need for an immigration firewall—we need to protect migrants’ rights to data privacy to ensure that they are free to come forward in the same way as other victims, and my noble friend Lady Burt pointed out quite rightly that currently six in 10 victims do not receive their rights.
This is indeed a catalogue worthy of change, which we on these Benches will pursue during the passage of the Bill. As my noble friend Lady Brinton put it, there are a lot of “shoulds” in this Bill which need to be changed to “musts”.
In Part 4, I want to raise several issues, but the one at the root at some of them is what I call the “public confidence” issue. It is twice used in the Bill, first as the judgment to be used by the Secretary of State to refer a case heard by the Parole Board to the courts and secondly as a judgment test for the Secretary of State to remove the chair of the Parole Board. In other words, it hands power to the politician from the independent board. The problem is that the public confidence test is both undefined in the Bill and subjective. The director general operations of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service in another context said that using these words
“is highly subjective and, as a result, has been difficult to apply in practice”.
The Howard League for Penal Reform points out, from a High Court judgment this year, that
“this policy criterion … adds nothing”.
The court found that all matters said to be relevant to the issue of public confidence were aspects of the prisoners’ risk, with no factor going to public confidence being distinct from a risk factor. The Howard League further states that public opinion should not influence the independent judicial process. I wonder whether the Minister agrees with that statement.
I turn to the disapplication of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act, mentioned by many noble Lords. It is a growing trend within this Government. First, it conflicts with the statement in the Bill. I know that the Minister has asked for us to understand why it says on the face of the Bill:
“In my view the provisions of the Victims and Prisoners Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”,
when, later on, we are asked to disapply the convention rights. I hope that he can tell us how both those statements are correct. What is the justification for the difference of fact between those two statements in the same Bill?
Secondly, on a more general point, could the Minister tell us what the Government object to in Section 3 of the Human Rights Act? It would be good to know what it is.
Thirdly, as many noble Lords have said, a human right is applied universally. As soon as you carve out that a right does not exist for one group of people, it ceases to become a universal human right. Does the Minister agree that a human right applies to all humans, not just some of them? As my noble friend Lady Hamwee put it, the penalty for crime is the loss of liberty but not the loss of rights.
Many noble Lords have spoken about the problems with the IPP section of this Bill. The changes made by the Government in the Commons are welcome, but they do little or nothing, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, pointed out, for those still trapped in the system. There are around 1,200 people sentenced under the IPP rule who have never been released, and about 1,600 who were in custody who were released on licence but have since been recalled. This cohort will first need to convince the Parole Board that the risk to community has been reduced enough for them to be released on licence and remain out of prison on licence for a further two years before the provision to cancel their licence will apply. As many noble Lords have said, the Justice Committee in the Commons recommended re-sentencing as the best way in which to bring this dreadful and much-abused sentencing policy to an end. Will the Minister give attention to using the Justice Committee’s approach for this cohort of IPP prisoners?
There are also practical issues with this Bill that need sorting out. The impact assessment, which needs updating, states that a further 640 prison places will be required. The prison estate, as we all know, is already full. The extra cost to the public purse of building additional prison places will be £250 million over the next decade; the cost of running them will be £28.7 million a year. If those figures are no longer correct, because they were put in place and outlined before the changes were made in the House of Commons, perhaps the Minister can tell us whether there will be a new impact assessment that is to alter those figures. If they are to stand, they are somewhat important to our knowledge and understanding of how the Bill might work.
Additionally, can the Minister tell the House whether there will be a disproportionate impact on black and ethnic-minority prisoners as a result of this Bill? There are also questions around the availability and suitability of community support once people are released from prison and, in particular, the need for mental health services.
I turn to the impact the Bill will have on Parliament and the way it can deal with matters relating to it. Clause 59 basically says that if the Government wish to amend primary legislation, to change it in some way or to repeal or revoke it, they can do that by the affirmative measure of a statutory instrument. It further states:
“Any other statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act is subject to”
the negative procedure. I am sure that the Committee of this House will want to look at that very carefully, but certainly I find that a very strange way in which both Houses of Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise major change to the Bill when it comes about. These are all issues that will need exploring as the Bill passes through the House.
Finally, there are the issues relating to the Parole Board which need further examination. My good colleague, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, expressed that in his normal, vigorous, Welsh manner. It is not just because I am Welsh also that I absolutely agree with him and the manner in which he put it. What is the need for the use of the public confidence test for the removal of the Parole Board chair? Does not the existing power for the removal of the chair provide an appropriate safeguard? Besides which, are we prepared to have a politician making decisions, rather than an independent body which has judicial functions? I would be grateful if the Minister, in replying, could also lay out the reasons for excluding the chair from having a role in individual parole cases. If the chair is to be responsible for the operation of the Parole Board, why on earth can the chair not have a part in those deliberations?
The Bill falls short in an important range of areas, and it will need amendment. I look forward to future stages of our work on it to ensure that it can meet its fundamental objective of an effective, efficient and just victims’ rights system, and a just system for rehabilitation of offenders. To return to my earlier metaphor, this train is years late leaving the station, but when it does leave, it must be in the best condition for those victims who, unfortunately, have to travel on it, and for them to have their rights known, available and enforced.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I open by thanking the Minister for the tone in which he introduced the Bill. It has been widely anticipated, we have all received a huge amount of lobbying on it, and I hope that we can consider it in the same tone as we have had this debate here today. The Bill covers a great deal of ground and there has been a fair amount of consensus displayed in today’s debate.
As my noble friend Lady Thornton pointed out, we have been waiting a long time: the Bill was originally in the 2015 Conservative Party manifesto, since when there have been government consultations, reviews and announcements and extensive revision in the other place. Many of the advocacy groups which have contacted me and others see the Bill as an opportunity to better embed victims at the heart of our justice system. In fact, every speech I have read on the Bill, from the original Lords Chancellor’s introduction to those of opposition Members of Parliament and Peers here, shares that ambition, and it is the role of the House to look to introduce further improvements.
I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. He has huge experience in this matter. Not only do I have no doubt but I do not think anybody who has taken part in this debate will have any doubt that he will make a substantial contribution to the work of this House.
I am taking my structure in dealing with the Bill from the Lords Library Note, which I found to be quite helpful. In that, there are six main provisions, which I will go through, and I will refer to a couple of other matters as well. The first provision in the Library Note is
“placing key victims’ code rights into law and reviewing compliance with the code”.
My noble friend gave the statistics from the latest survey from the office of the Victims’ Commissioner, and those statistics were indeed disheartening. Putting code rights into law is surely the minimum required and we will look at what extra we can do to ensure those minimum requirements are met.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti, the noble Baronesses, Lady Burt and Lady Coussins, the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Russell, and others, spoke about adding teeth to this element of the Bill, changing the culture and the money available to make the victims’ code and rights of tangible benefit to victims of crime, rather than aspirational. My noble friend Lord Bach, a former police and crime commissioner, went into interesting detail on tangible things that can be included in the Bill to encourage code compliance. He also said that legal justice boards should be put on a statutory footing, which is an issue we might want to examine at a later stage.
The second point in the Lords Library Note refers to changing the requirements for making victim information requests during criminal investigations. All noble Lords have had a lot of lobbying on this matter—for example, about whether rape victims’ therapy notes should be available to the prosecution. The Minister referenced that point in his opening speech, as did my noble friend Lady Thornton. There are many other examples detailing how information is made available to victims.
Victim information requests and victim support surely go to the heart of how the criminal justice system treats victims, while maintaining confidence in the fairness of the trial itself. Clause 15 seeks to standardise of the role of IDVAs and ISVAs. While this is welcome, we had a number of contributions from noble Lords about extending this to children. I and other noble Lords have had a lot of lobbying from children’s advocacy groups, which regard the Bill as excessively adult-focused. They are looking for the Bill to acknowledge that children need particular support when they are victims of or witnesses to crime. The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was particularly interesting on this matter. I absolutely acknowledge his expertise as a family court judge, and he made some interesting points about how children need to be supported as they go through those difficult processes, in not only the criminal court but the family court. Other noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Gohir, Lady Finlay and Lady Benjamin, my noble friends Lady Lister and Lady Warwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, all spoke with great authority about beefing up the support for children in the Bill. We have an opportunity, and we should take it.
The third point in the Lords Library Note concerns requiring a compensation body to be established within three months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, in order to deliver compensation to victims of the infected blood scandal. We welcome the Government’s climbdown on this matter, and particularly that the change was introduced in the other place, which makes it even more likely to become law. I understand that there was a Statement earlier today, which will be repeated tomorrow and handled by the Cabinet Office. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, urged the House to consider filling the gaps in compensation in the Bill; she may well bring up that issue at later stages. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke about the position of Welsh victims, who, of course, would have been infected before devolution.
The fourth point in the Library Note addresses Part 4 of the Bill, which introduces various parole system reforms, including allowing the Secretary of State to refer prisoner release decisions for top-tier offenders to the Upper Tribunal or High Court. While I welcome the Government’s amendments to the Parole Board provisions in the Bill, I remain baffled as to why the Lord Chancellor would want to retain these powers for himself. Surely the Lord Chancellor’s involvement in Parole Board cases will create delay and uncertainty for victims and offenders, and a political spotlight on any particular case will not help in the reaching of a just decision.
Many noble Lords spoke about the provisions of Part 4. Although all noble Lords spoke with great authority, I will focus on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, who has particular knowledge of this point. She asked, rhetorically, why the system was broken and needed fixing. She quoted the figures on the extremely low failure rate—when people go on to reoffend—and raised a very fair point. I simply do not understand why a Lord Chancellor would want to be involved in these decisions. It will not help the reaching of just decisions.
My noble friend Lord Bach asked why it would be the Upper Tribunal and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, asked why we do not make the Parole Board a tribunal itself, which is an interesting idea. My noble friend also asked, if the Lord Chancellor is to make these decisions about whether to refer matters, who will actually do the work—will it be him or a civil servant? The Minister should answer that question.
The fifth point in the Library Note is around amending the process for the termination of licences for those serving imprisonment for public protection sentences. A number of noble Lords welcomed this; no doubt, we will hear more from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, at a later stage if he tables amendments, which I would welcome and look at constructively.
The sixth point in the Library Note concerns prohibiting whole-life order prisoners from marrying or forming a civil partnership. While this is perhaps the smallest measure in the Bill in respect of the number of people affected, my personal view is that it is difficult to escape the conclusion that it is a petty measure that will do no good and may do harm. The Minister referred to a particular case in his introduction, but I am not sure that one difficult case is enough to justify changing the law. We are constantly told in debates around sentencing powers and keeping prisoners in custody about the importance of hope and relationships. It is difficult to see how this small measure will enhance the ease with which a prison regime can be managed.
We have heard a number of powerful speeches on independent public advocates, including from my noble friend Lord Wills, who of course has a great background of knowledge on this matter, the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and my noble friends Lady Kennedy and Lord Bach—he also asked about legal aid, which I am sure will be raised in Committee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, raised restorative justice, which is absent from the Bill. We have had many debates on it in previous criminal justice Bills and it is embedded in the work of the Probation Service and the Youth Justice Board. I would be interested if the Minister could say something about the continuing work of developing restorative justice in our wider Probation Service.
As I turn to Clauses 49 to 52, I can do no better than quote Sir Robert Neill, chair of the Commons Justice Committee:
“Whatever one’s view of the Human Rights Act, there is no evidence that this is a problem in such cases. In fact, the evidence we heard from practitioners, from both sides, is that it can be helpful to have … regard to section 3 in these hearings. These clauses seem to be trying to solve a problem that does not exist, and I wonder whether we really need them. It is perfectly possible to have a robust system that still complies with section 3. This is a needless distraction that sends the wrong signal about a certain desire to pick unnecessary fights, which I know is not the current Secretary of State’s approach”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/23; col. 604.]
I think he says it all. Many noble Lords have expressed similar concerns, so I look forward to the Minister’s justification for disapplying parts of the Human Rights Act.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, on his magnificent maiden speech. I hope your Lordships will forgive me but, following a five and half hour debate at a relatively high level, I do not wish to close my door now, having previously said it will remain open, by being too definitive on the various points we have discussed.
I will take briefly three points. First, I will have to come back to the issue of legislative consent, and we will need to explore it further, given the inter-relationship between the various authorities and responsibilities. I acknowledge the existence of that issue. Secondly, on the impact assessment, about which certain comments have been made, I have gathered during the debate that it probably needs to be looked at again and perhaps revised and expanded. That is another task to be completed. Thirdly, I gather that at Report stage in the Commons the Government gave an undertaking that restorative justice would form part of further guidance to the relevant authorities when commissioning various services. At the moment, that is as far as I can take the issue of restorative justice, important though it is.
Having made those preliminary points, I also add a brief word on scope. The Bill does not deal with what could be described as purely operational decisions by the police, such as the failure to make an arrest or not turning up to a domestic burglary or something of that kind. That is for another way of complaint, through the police complaints systems. The Bill does not address the difficult problems victims experience simply because there is a backlog in the criminal justice system. That is for another day. It also does not address—and I do not think it would be in scope to address—certain points made in this debate about sentencing and how we come to sentence offenders.
The first group of points made is about Part 1 and victims, with the essential point being that the Bill does not go far enough. In the Government’s view, the Bill goes a very long way. It is not just a gentle nudge, as has been suggested; it is a tremendous shove in favour of victims. It combines real efforts to change culture, greatly improve transparency and give proper statutory duties to various bodies, including police and crime commissioners and others, to get this organised. It requires cross co-operation and involves further resources.
As I think I said in opening, we have quadrupled the money available to victim services over the last few years. I take entirely the points made by, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that further clarification and development of these ideas could be very helpful. Others have said that bodies such as the Metropolitan Police, for example, would welcome further guidance, clarity and work on exactly how we can make this structure effective.
I think we all agree that we want to make an effective structure; the question is how to get there. At the moment, at least, to bring in a rather blunt statutory duty—in effect, a law giving victims further rights to sue and to bring in more lawyers, more legal proceedings and so forth—is not the right way to go, in the Government’s view. We do not want more satellite litigation. The real issue is how we effect cultural change.
How do we get there? The Government’s position at the moment is that this structure provides a very positive basis for effecting that much-needed cultural change, not least through the existence of transparency and, for example, the power of the Secretary of State to publish where local areas are on all these things and the powers of local police and crime commissioners to invigorate their local communities in all these respects. In the Government’s view, that is the way to go.
In relation to victims, there have clearly been many—perfectly understandable—references to particular kinds of victims, notably children. I briefly point out that child victims of crime and exploitation are encompassed within the Bill’s definition of a victim, and child criminal exploitation is in fact defined in statutory guidance for front-line practitioners in publications such as Keeping Children Safe in Education and Working Together to Safeguard Children. However, the point that we need to think very hard about is how we protect child victims, and it is certainly a point we should jointly further reflect on and consider.
Indeed, in relation more generally to women and girls in the justice system, victims of domestic violence, stalking, grooming and anti-social behaviour, and persons whose first language is not English, those are all examples of particular victims that we need to make sure are encompassed within our remit. Proper attention should be given to those particular kinds of victims. Those points are well made and, if I may briefly use an Americanism, will be taken under advisement.
In broad outline, that is the victims part of the Bill. As far as the IPA is concerned, the Government’s position is that this is a major advance, particularly the creation of a standing advocate who can advise the Secretary of State and, when appointed on a major incident, “look after” the victims. At the moment the Government do not think that it is useful to give this standing advocate a sort of roving power to conduct their own inquiries or demand their own documents and so forth, because of the risk—among other things—of real duplication in major inquiries such as Manchester Arena, Hillsborough or Grenfell. We already have very effective procedures. Bishop Jones’s inquiry was very effective; it was a non-statutory inquiry set up by the Government, and it got to the bottom of things. The Government are not convinced that we need yet another operator operating in this area.
I think that my noble friend Lady Sanderson asked about smaller incidents. Let us take an incident such as the Shoreham air disaster, where 11 people were killed. Leaving to one side the question of whether that was a major incident, in that example there was the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, a criminal case and an inquest. Do we really need yet another body investigating, demanding documents and imposing more costs on the whole system? The Government are not yet convinced, certainly at this stage, that we should go any further than we have gone in the Bill, which is already a very long way. That is the general position of the Government at the moment.
I listened very carefully to noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on the issue of parental responsibility and whether we should go further and include other cases. There are already procedures for effectively taking away, or at least hollowing out, parental responsibility that exist in family law in the family courts and the Government do not feel that we should go any further at the moment.
On infected blood, noble Lords will be able to ask questions of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe tomorrow when she updates the House on the Government’s position. I have no doubt that we will come back to that in the fullness of time in Committee.
On IPP prisoners, the present proposals, I hope and trust, will deal quite effectively with prisoners who are currently in the community and who have a prospect of being released—I think they will deal with that. I think that we all recognise that our real problem is the hard core of about 1,200 prisoners who have not been released. It is very important to say that the Government have not given up on those prisoners. In the last two years, 400 prisoners who had not previously been released have been released. There is very detailed work going on in the Prison Service; I am very happy to share with noble Lords more detail about that, if it is of use. It relates to particular sentencing plans for particular prisoners, so that they have an individual sentencing plan for further support in the community when they are released, and for a much more active IPP progression programme. So we are still working towards the release of these prisoners when it is safe to do so. The Government currently see that as a much more sensible and justifiable approach than the alternative of the re-sentencing exercise.
As noble Lords know, the basic problem with the re-sentencing exercise is that you are raising expectations that people will be released. But the people we are dealing with have been found not to be safe to be released, so how are we going to tackle that? Are we going to take the view, “We’ll just release them”? As in the case of Mr Bierton that I mentioned in my opening speech, do we say “We don’t care whether further offences are committed by these highly dangerous people, we’re just going to release them because that is what justice demands”? The Government ask: what about future victims? What risks are you taking; is it worth the risk; can you take the risk? The Government are not prepared to take that risk. But they are prepared to work very hard for these prisoners, to give them at least some hope of an eventual release. That is the Government’s present position on these issues.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is with the greatest respect that I intervene on my noble and learned friend. I genuinely congratulate him and welcome his personal and very human engagement with this problem, which I know he has wrestled with the whole time he has been a Minister—I think it is fair to say that it has always been on his agenda. But I add, in fairness, that the Prison Service releases daily people into the community who would be assessed as dangerous if the Government had the option of retaining them in custody. That is because they have reached the end of a definitive sentence.
It is a risk that we have learned to manage. It does indeed occasionally go wrong—of course it does—and there are future victims; the point made by my noble and learned friend is not empty. However, we manage it. The fact is that of these people we are discussing, very few committed crimes that were egregiously heinous or violent, compared to many others who have, before and since, being given determinate sentences that see them released into the community at the end of that sentence, if not earlier.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend makes a perfectly fair debating point—and we are debating, so it is perfectly fair that he makes a debating point—but it is a debating point at the end of the day. The point is: are you prepared to take the risk of 1,200 dangerous people being released from prison? The Government are not prepared to take that risk. We can of course discuss it further, but I am just explaining what the Government’s position is: it is better to work with those prisoners to ensure that they are safe to release eventually.
That probably takes me on to the issue of public protection and related issues. First, perhaps I may clarify what seems to be a muddle that has arisen about the statement in the Bill that it is compatible with convention rights. The Bill is perfectly compatible with convention rights: it does not take away any convention rights at all. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act is a procedural provision only, which gives the court an—to use a neutral word—unusual power to reinterpret what Parliament has said in a manner that may not have been and probably was not Parliament’s original intention so as to render a particular provision compatible with the convention.
On the provision in the Bill disapplying Section 3, which at least one member of Sir Peter Gross’s commission thought we should get rid of, and on other parts of Section 3, Sir Peter himself recommended a rather complicated hierarchy of different ways of applying the section. It has been quite a difficult section to apply. Case law has gone all over the place over the years, although it has settled down more recently. It introduces uncertainty where the Government want to have certainty in this area: that this is the test for public protection for these prisoners, that is what Parliament has said, and that is the end of the matter.
If that was found to be incompatible with the convention in any case, hypothetically, the court would have to make a declaration of inapplicability, and Parliament would have to deal with it. But the underlying issue is the constitutional balance between the courts and Parliament. That is quite an issue, and it has not gone away, but that is how the Government understand this particular point.
As regards the question of the Parole Board and all the various provisions affecting it, it is worth making the point that when these very high-risk offenders are released, they live in the community. Who speaks for the people in the community who have to live with them? Are they represented at all in this system? The only person who can represent the interests of the community with whom released prisoners have to live is the Secretary of State. All we are doing is saying that if there is some doubt about the application of the public protection test, it is wise from the point of view of the system—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord understands the irony of that statement, set against his statement that victims’ rights should not be put on a statutory, enforceable footing.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am not sure that I entirely understood the noble Baroness’s point, but it is perfectly true that I am thinking—rather, the Government are thinking; I should not put it in personal terms—about the potential victims of people who have been released and the actual families of those who have suffered at the hands of the offender. We are simply saying that there might be some very high-profile cases where it is sensible for there to be a second judicial look. That is a very much modified position from the position originally in the Bill, but it is, I hope, a sensible one.
I have used up my time, but I hope that I have covered most things. I apologise to noble Lords whose specific points I have not met. Anyone is fully entitled to write to me or ask me questions and I will, of course, answer them. If I may just finish with the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who was kind enough to say he was going to be kind to the Bill. Let us be kind to the Bill and—
Baroness Brinton (LD)
It is very generous of the Minister to say, as he has done with other Bills, that we should write to him with concerns, but given that he said at the start of his response that he was going to take a high-level approach, it might be helpful if he were to write to all of us about the issues we have raised. There might then be a subsequent correspondence. However, if we are thinking about tabling amendments, rather than waiting for us to write and say, I think he has most of our questions.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I warmly thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I will ask my officials to go through this debate, identify at least the principal questions and see whether we can write to the House on the various points that have been made.
On that note, given the season of the year in which we find ourselves, we may not quite have reached
“Peace on earth, and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled”,
but I hope we have taken the matter forward. I beg to move.
Lord Bellamy
That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 42, The Schedule, Clauses 43 to 62, Title.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Wednesday 24th January 2024
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 31-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (23 Jan 2024)
Baroness Brinton
“(aa) witnessing criminal conduct,(ab) having subsequent responsibility for care because of criminal conduct,(ac) experiencing vicarious harm due to criminal conduct”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to extend the definition of a victim under Part 1 to include people who support and provide care for victims of serious sexual and violent crimes.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, as we start this Bill, from these Benches we are pleased to see that the first part of it relates to victims. Even though we want to improve the Bill, I thank the Minister for the meetings and dialogue we have had so far and look forward to more as the Bill progresses.
Amendment 1, in my name, starts this group on the definition of a victim. I thank Restitute, the lived-experience CIC, which supports third-party victims of crime—whether they are the parents, carers, partners, siblings or loved ones of people who have survived sexual abuse, sexual violence or other serious crimes including domestic violence and stalking. It specialises in building the service that its members wish they had received, and which professional service providers often do not spot, nor have the resources to be able to provide: namely, crisis support in the short term and, above all, someone to help them and their loved one, who is the direct victim, to navigate the new world of professionals they encounter during their case.
Why is this important? Unless you have been the victim of such a crime, you cannot understand how it affects those who care for you. Most professionals would not recognise that your loved ones may also be victims of vicarious harm due to the crime. More than that, parents may have to give up work, partners need time off and children have poor educational outcomes. Families that have previously had two incomes often see that cut in half at a stroke. Carers are not entitled to any therapeutic or emotional support. The impact on their health and well-being is devastating. That is before we even face the problems related to family breakdown.
Most of Part 1 of the Bill focuses on the rights of the direct victim of the crime, and the services that they will encounter afterwards. One of the worst examples is the impact of child sexual abuse on victims/survivors, including on non-perpetrator family members. The impacts on mothers, for example, can mirror the experience of their child. Social services can also force them to make rapid and difficult decisions at the exact moment they are coming to terms with the abuse that their child has suffered. Healthcare and the criminal justice system often do not recognise that the impact goes beyond the direct victim.
This can include siblings who are children themselves but who, under the Bill, would not be able to access any support under the victims’ code. The siblings of abused children may have feelings that they have let down their sibling because they could not prevent the incident, or may be fearful that in the future it may happen to them. These children also see distressed adult carers struggling to navigate the system, which currently does not recognise them as victims either. Without support these families struggle, and it becomes harder for all of them to recover from the incident.
Amendment 1 extends the definition of a victim of crime to include someone who is
“witnessing criminal conduct … having subsequent responsibility for care because of criminal conduct … experiencing vicarious harm due to criminal conduct”.
I have also added my name to Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, which would ensure that bereaved victims of homicide abroad are given the same support as victims of homicide within the UK. These victims not only face the extreme distress of losing their loved one in a horrible way but have to deal with the criminal justice systems of foreign jurisdictions.
Many years ago, my sister worked for Thomson Holidays. Her role was to deal with the immediate aftermath of death—including homicide—of her holiday- makers. Once the families had returned home, for many, having to deal with an overseas criminal justice system was even more bemusing, and they felt very isolated. We know that just being the family survivor of a homicide is hard enough.
I also support the other amendments in this group, all of which raise key questions about the definition of a victim of crime or try to establish how victims can get parity of treatment at their review—as in Amendment 8—whether they are victims of a perpetrator serving a custodial sentence or a perpetrator being detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. Amendment 3 adds in a person being killed by a family member such as a dangerous driver. Amendment 4 adds serious anti-social behaviour. Amendment 12 takes us into the debate on the content and context of the victims’ code, and states which services must be involved in decisions regarding leave or discharge for the perpetrator. Currently, the victim is far too often the last person to hear that the perpetrator has been released. That is unforgivable. Amendment 19 would ensure that victims have information to understand the justice system and relevant state agencies.
The Government will have gathered that noble Lords across your Lordships’ House believe that the definitions in Clauses 1 and 2 are too narrow and will exclude certain people who are seriously affected but not defined as a victim. I look forward to the Minister’s response. In the meantime, I beg to move Amendment 1.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, Amendment 3 acknowledges that the definition of victim in the Bill is quite broad, and that will mean, I hope, that as many victims as possible are supported by the victims’ code and related services. However, I want to probe the Government as to whether they intended the definition of victim to be so broad as to include the close family of a person who died as a direct result of their own criminal conduct; for example, by dangerous driving or possessing and consuming illegal drugs.
Clause 1(2) defines a victim as including
“where the death of a close family member of the person was the direct result of criminal conduct”.
This appears to include where the deceased caused their own death by their own criminal conduct. This broadness is underlined by Clause 1(5), which makes it “immaterial” whether anyone has reported the criminal conduct, or if anyone has been charged with, or convicted of, an offence.
The family of someone who dies as a result of consuming illegal drugs are victims of the Government’s ideological war on drugs. The Government refuse to treat drug use as a health issue and to implement a safe, regulated market of drugs that would take the multi-billion pound drugs trade out of the hands of criminal gangs.
Can the Minister please clarify whether it is the Government’s intention that family members of people who die as a result of their own criminal conduct will be supported by the victims’ code and the associated support services provided to victims?
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my relevant interests as outlined in the register. I support Amendments 8, 12 and 19, which seek to ensure that people who have suffered as a result of a crime committed by a patient with a mental health disorder who is detained in hospital under a restriction order are afforded the same rights under the victims’ code as victims of offenders who are held in the prison estate. This is not the case presently.
The amendments seek to extend the principle that all victims have a right to be heard in the justice process and to include the NHS and His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service in the list of responsible agencies. This would bring mental health tribunal processes in line with the rest of the criminal justice system and remove a long-standing and unfair disparity in treatment for people who have experienced these crimes. The principle that everyone who experiences a crime should have the opportunity to make their voice heard in the criminal justice process is at the heart of why these amendments are necessary. Those who have experienced crimes committed by patients with a diagnosed mental health illness deserve parity of treatment with all other people who have experienced crimes.
Under the victims’ code, people have the right to make a victim personal statement before the Parole Board when the person who has offended is being considered for release. Anyone who is directly affected by violent crime should have the right to be heard, but, as the victims’ code does not extend to mental health tribunals, victims of an offence caused by somebody held under a mental health restriction order cannot make any personal statement in writing, or in person, to the mental health tribunal panel.
The VPS is the single key entitlement which allows people to explain the impact of the crime committed against them, and there is a widespread consensus that the opportunity to submit a VPS is beneficial for all victims. It can offer some catharsis, which is essential in assisting the recovery from the trauma of a crime. In addition to this being beneficial to people who have experienced crime, this process may offer the opportunity for patients with a mental health disorder to gain further understanding of the impact of their actions on other people. This is particularly important when these people return to the community and sometimes feel that it would be better not to take their medication. Understanding the risk of not doing so might be beneficial for the proportion who are able to leave hospital.
The anticipated number of victims wishing to speak directly to the mental health tribunal is likely to be small. I understand that in cases of people wishing to address the Parole Board in person, it is currently fewer than one in 10. The majority are likely to submit a written statement to the panel that explains the impact that the actions of the patient has made on their lives.
The practice of allowing statements to be made to the tribunal is established in other jurisdictions, such as Scotland and Australia. In research undertaken by the Victims’ Commissioner in 2019, a family in Scotland discussed their experience addressing a mental health panel. They attended a separate hearing where the patient was not present but a legal representative attended on their behalf instead. The family did not get the outcome from the hearing they had hoped for but, crucially, they felt acknowledged and a party to the process despite that. They said:
“We … did feel given a voice, and one of the few occasions in the whole process we felt we had a voice and able to articulate our position”.
Clearly, it should be possible to balance the rights of patients.
Of course, as a nurse, I cannot overemphasise the need to maintain the confidentiality of medical records in tribunals. None of this needs to be shared with the victim making the representation and those impacted by crimes, so why is there such a different process in England and Wales, even just north of the border? As victims of crime are not currently able to address mental health panels in writing, by video link or in person, we are left with a two-tier system in which a distinction is made based on whether somebody is detained in a prison or in a mental health hospital. It is those who have suffered from the crime who lose out in terms of being heard.
I have worked closely with the Victims’ Commissioner, who has long called for this change. I hope that the Government will look favourably on these amendments and identify any changes to mental health tribunals that may be necessary.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Minister kindly came to today’s Cross-Bench meeting and talked us through the Bill from his point of view. He started by saying that we will have quite a problem defining a victim because, as evidenced by this group of amendments, there are an awful lot of groups of people who clearly identify as victims and for whom there is evidence that they are victims. Although I understand the Government’s wish to try to contain this to some extent, it is important that we have a proper discussion about all these different groups and work out whether there is an intelligent, sensible and pragmatic way for us to be cleverer about the definition than we are at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who put his name to my Amendment 4, apologises for being unable to be here to speak because of another appointment. Amendment 4 seeks to ensure that victims of persistent anti-social behaviour—we all love acronyms, and I will mostly refer to it as “ASB” from now on—are recognised as victims and provided with their own code rights. Persistent anti-social behaviour can be defined as behaviour that meets the level required to trigger an anti- social behaviour case review; this means three reported incidents of ASB over a six-month period.
Currently, many victims of ASB are not recognised under the code because the criminal threshold has not been met. The police may treat and regard some of these incidents simply as misdemeanours or disputes between neighbours. The police’s failure to recognise the reality of what these victims undergo can make it worse, so it is important that we and the police are able to look at the whole picture.
The cumulative impact of ASB can be, and is, devastating. It affects victims’ sleep, work, relationships, health and feeling of safety, even in their own home. Left unpoliced, the consequences can be absolutely devastating. In this instance, an example would be the deaths of Suzanne Dow, Fiona Pilkington, Bijan Ebrahimi, Matthew Boorman, Stephen and Jennifer Chapple, David Askew, Louise Lotz and—last but by no means least—Garry Newlove, the ex-husband of the former Victims’ Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. In the case of David Askew, he collapsed and died on his own doorstep after years of torment.
Every day, victims of ASB in England and Wales are failed by the system and are unable to access the support they need and deserve. Every year, the charity ASB Help receives tens of thousands of pleas from victims trying to work out how they can find help. This is made worse because no single agency holds responsibility for tackling ASB, resulting in a not untypical diffusion of responsibility across the police, local authorities, housing associations and private landlords.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for the way in which she introduced this important group of amendments. I am also grateful to her and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for their support for my Amendment 2, which seeks to ensure that victims of homicide outside of the United Kingdom receive adequate support and are provided for in the victims’ code. The distress they experience can be exacerbated by having to deal with the criminal justice systems of foreign jurisdictions and other difficulties that re-traumatise.
There are approximately 80 homicides of British nationals overseas each year. In addition, there are suspicious deaths, accidents and unexplained deaths. Families bereaved by a homicide in the UK are recognised as victims in their own right and are able to access rights under the victims’ code. Yet these same rights are not extended to those bereaved by homicide abroad, for no reason other than that the homicide occurred overseas. To lose a person you love to murder is a devastating and traumatic event wherever the crime occurs, but there are many additional problems and hurdles for British families bereaved by a murder overseas. As has already been explained clearly, these difficulties include repatriation, travel, accommodation, language barriers, lawyers, foreign judicial processes and many more.
These issues are exacerbated by the fact that these families have no right to access support to help them deal with these problems, putting them distinctly at odds with their compatriots. Bereaved families frequently have great difficulty accessing financial support for advocates and witnesses to travel abroad to attend trials. They cannot claim criminal injuries compensation because the crime occurred in another jurisdiction. Yet we know that it does not have to be this way. If the victim is killed by a terrorist, the family have a legal right to claim compensation. This clear distinction between these two cohorts of victims has no apparent rationale. It appears discriminatory because, for the victim’s family, murder is murder.
When it comes to supporting bereaved victims of homicide abroad, the responsibilities of the UK seem unclear. Of course each case is different, but it is unclear which UK agency has an overarching view of the end-to-end experience of the victims. Families frequently feel unsupported, describing falling through gaps between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—FCDO, the Ministry of Justice, the jurisdiction of the crime and our own police. The FCDO is the key body that the victims will interface with when homicide occurs abroad, but this department is not included within the remit of the victims’ code. The only document that exists to help provide a minimum standard of assistance to victims is a memorandum of understanding between the FCDO, the association for chief police officers and the Coroners’ Society of England and Wales. This memorandum is not legally enforceable, and the Homicide Service, which is contracted by the FCDO to support victims of homicide abroad, is not a signatory to it.
There is therefore a complete lack of accountability and oversight when it comes to support for victims of homicide abroad. The damage that this absence of support causes is immeasurable and often has a long-term and wide-reaching impact. There are numerous case studies of victims who have been let down by UK agencies. In one shocking example, the FCDO gave a family a list of local lawyers based in the location where the murder occurred. The family was not told whether any of the 12 names supplied had been vetted or whether they spoke English, and the FCDO refused to give advice or a steer about which lawyer to use. As a result, the family ended up with an unreputable lawyer, costing £3,000, further compounding their enormous family pain.
A harrowing example of a family having to deal with the criminal justice system of a foreign jurisdiction is illustrated by the case of Halford and Florence Anderson, a British married couple. The 74 and 71 year- olds were both murdered in 2018 near their home in Jamaica, after reporting being victims of fraud. A senior coroner in Manchester, where the couple was from, concluded that they were both unlawfully killed. However, no one has been charged with their killings. Their son, Mark, has expressed the devastation that the family is going through, with still no sign of justice and no official updates on the case. This contrasts starkly with the positive experiences of victims who receive support from the charity, Murdered Abroad, which provides valuable support, both practical and emotional, as well as putting victims in touch with reliable lawyers and providing peer support for victims through group meetings.
But the burden of support should not be solely on charities. UK agencies have a duty to British citizens and should provide support to families impacted by homicide, regardless of the geographical location of the crime. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve. I have worked with, and have the support of, the Victims’ Commissioner, which is reassuring. I know that she has been calling for this change since her last time in that office. I hope the Government will look favourably on this amendment and be prepared to discuss it further before Report.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my name is on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, although it was not meant to be—there was some confusion between “Sally” and “Sal”—but I am glad that it has remained there. I also commend the noble Baroness for that neat handover of the chair.
The noble Baroness introduced the amendment thoroughly, but, reading the briefing from the Victims’ Commissioner, I remembered one experience of a friend. It was nothing as extreme as a homicide, but her husband died unexpectedly on a business visit to the United States. It was hugely emotionally difficult for her, as well as practically difficult: different language is experienced even in the United States, and certainly there are different procedures and cultures. One needs signposting to the right people, who can deal with the procedures as well as support. I remember her talking about the difficulty in bringing him home.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome this discussion and having a sense of clarification about who a “victim” is in a Bill at least half of which is about victims. I especially support Amendments 2 and 8, but I have some questions for those who tabled the other amendments. Although having too narrow a definition can be a problem, it strikes me that we could cause real problems for victims if we had too broad a definition. I am obviously thinking about resources and overstretching support. So many people can be victims of crime if you start broadening it so much.
As hinted at by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in her interesting Amendment 3, it is a tragedy for the families of perpetrators too. They can also be victims, and whole ranges of people—friends, acquaintances and other people who have genuinely suffered—could say that they are victims, but are we seriously trying to put them all in scope? I want to know how we can ensure that, even if we are acting in generosity to try to broaden the definition, we do not water down a focus on the actual victims of crime that the Bill is designed to help. In other words: where do we draw the line?
In that context, I am slightly concerned about a broadening of what now constitute victims of crime. In Amendment 4, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, explained, it then becomes anti-social behaviour. He gave a moving account of what it feels like to be a victim of anti-social behaviour, but we could probably all stand up and give moving accounts of being victims of something—bullying and all sorts of other behaviour that makes people suffer. I am slightly concerned that we might end up relativising the experience of victims of crime in an attempt at broadening this too much. Whether we like it or not, culturally, we live in a society in which victimhood is valorised. I do not want the Bill to contribute to that relativising experience, because there is a danger that, if we make it too broad, we could trivialise the real victims of crime. But then you could rightly ask me: who do I mean by “real victims”? I do not want it to go so far so that we lose all sense of its meaning.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this Committee, both as Helen Newlove and as Victims’ Commissioner. I thank all the victims I have spoken to over the years. We are bringing their voices to this Committee, right through to the end, because we cannot be grateful enough for their bravery and their having come forward.
I have a list, but I will try to get through it. Amendment 2 is welcome and rightly looks to put bereaved victims of homicide abroad into the code. As has been said, to lose a loved one to murder is horrific and devastating—I can personally say that—no matter where the crime takes place. However, the families I have met whose loved ones have been murdered abroad have to get through significant additional financial, legal and logistical burdens in a different language and a different system—it is not as simple as we put on this script for Hansard today, believe you me.
To have to repatriate the body of a loved one is not simple, because families have to look to the coroner so that they do not harm evidence. That has to be co-ordinated with a foreign criminal justice system, where some families have sat in police stations with photographs of their loved ones, waiting for someone to pick up on that in their language. That image has never left me to this day. To feel alien in a country, knowing how you have lost a loved one, must be horrendous. It is bad enough in the system in this country, but to have that in a foreign country is very demeaning to a hurt family.
As has been said, there are only 60 to 80 such families a year, but that is enough. It is important that this small group of families has the same entitlements as those of bereaved families in this country. There really needs to be change. They are not entitled to criminal injuries compensation unless the death occurred as a result of a terror attack, as we have heard. This is particularly unjust when you bear in mind that they will have the same additional financial burdens as a victim of terrorism abroad. We all live on mobile phones; to have to pay a mobile phone bill just to get family help, when you do not have the finances, must be horrendous. We need to look at how we can balance this.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to be participating in the discussions on this important Bill. We have got off to a great start today—albeit a little later than we were expecting. I say from the outset that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and I are very keen to work with colleagues from all parts of the House, and the Minister and the Bill team, to ensure that we end up with the best possible Bill and the best possible future of support and attention for victims in our criminal justice system, as eloquently expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove.
The amendments already show that commitment. I am thankful for the briefing that we have received from many directions, including from the victims’ commissioners of both the UK and London, the Children’s Commissioner and many other organisations, whose help and support will be important for our deliberations over the days and possibly weeks to come.
I will speak to all the amendments in this group, with particular reference to Amendment 4, to which I have added my name, and Amendments 12 and 19, to which my noble friend has added his name. These amendments address what should be included in the definition of “victim” in the Bill in Clause 1. In this debate, we are testing whether that definition is inclusive enough to cover the range of people who find themselves victims.
In Amendment 1, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seeks to include people who support witnesses or victims of the most serious crimes. She explained—with great clarity—what that would mean and how that would work. Amendment 2 recognises that being a victim abroad means you are a victim and recognises the distress that that experience brings. It was movingly described by the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Finlay.
Amendment 3 very interestingly probes the width of the definition, as exposed by the discussion and the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Amendment 4 addresses the issue of anti-social behaviour victims, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I thank both him and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for the way that they have talked about this. I added my name to this amendment because, although the Bill seeks to introduce measures to help victims, we have to have confidence that the right support is available and that, if they report a crime, the criminal justice system will treat them in the way they should rightly expect.
However, this Bill misses the opportunity to extend the right to access support to victims of persistent and anti-social behaviour in cases where the police choose not to take action. We can have a discussion about why the police may or may not choose to take action, but it seems to me that our duty to put into the Bill a way in which to recognise that these people are victims and that they need support in the victims’ code. This Bill presents us with the opportunity to recognise the victims of persistent anti-social behaviour and to set out their entitlement in the victims’ code.
This is an important matter. While it is possible that this amendment may not be the right way to do it, we need to do what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has suggested, and work out with the Bill team and the Minister how we can do that in a way that recognises the very serious issues. I was very struck by both the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and by the comprehensive brief that her office provided for us about this matter. For example, in one case study, 280 incidents of anti-social behaviour were reported over 10 months, including noise, nuisance, anonymous harassment, threats and intimidation—incidents that culminated in a firebomb attack on victims’ property. The continued impact of anti-social behaviour resulted in one victim attempting suicide on two occasions, and victims eventually having to move house due to the trauma that they were experiencing. These are victims and we need to work out how we can best recognise and support them in that.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for my lateness—I got slightly confused about the Northern Ireland Bill and when it was coming.
I will speak to Amendment 4 in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell. I follow my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, so there is very little more to be said. The only thing I can say is that ASB is so important. ASB is far more common than we know and far more common than the police will say. It must be taken seriously. I have a friend whose father was the victim of ASB over many years and actually snapped. He attacked the person who was causing it and ended up with a custodial sentence himself. So you can turn victims into perpetrators with this and it needs to be defined in this Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords very sincerely for their most moving and constructive speeches. I will first respond to the invitation of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to conduct these proceedings in as open and consensual way as possible. In the other place, my right honourable friend Minister Argar did precisely that, and I propose to follow exactly the same approach, and to discuss as widely as we can the various difficult issues that are in front of us. That is an essential function of this Chamber.
To a great extent—I think my noble friend Lady Newlove accepted this, up to a point—we have made very considerable progress in support of victims generally over the last few years. But the problems that remain are, in particular, that victims are still often unaware of their rights, that the required services are not provided, or that the relevant authorities are not accountable. So the questions in front of us are not so much points of principle as questions as to how we change the culture of a system to make sure that victims are properly supported, as they should be.
I suggest, in shorthand, that essentially we should seek four things. First, victims should be aware of their rights and entitlements under the code. Secondly, those services should be accessible. Thirdly, those responsible for providing them should be accountable. Finally, the system should be affordable; speaking on behalf of the Government, I am bound to make that point. Essentially, we have four As: awareness, accessibility, accountability and affordability. It is within that framework that I will respond to the various points that have been made, with great conviction and sincerity, about the definition of “victim” in the current draft of the Bill.
We are dealing with five questions all together. One is about carers and those who suffer vicarious harm, which is raised in Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The second is about people who have been victims of a defendant who has subsequently been made the subject of a hospital order as distinct from another criminal sanction. Thirdly, there is the question of anti-social behaviour. Fourthly, there is the question of homicide abroad. Finally, where the criminal conduct has been caused by another family member, there is the question of whether they are still a victim; that is raised in the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I will take those points, and probably in that order.
As regards Amendment 1, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as I read it, the definition of “victim” is not confined in its present form to victims of serious sexual or violent behaviour; it is very broad, extending to all crimes. It refers first to persons who have been subject to witnessing a crime. The Government’s position is that those who have witnessed a crime are already covered fairly explicitly in the definition in Clause 1.
That takes us on to the difficult question of how far you go on the carers of victims and others who have suffered indirectly rather than directly. On that point, the Government’s present thinking is that we should have a system that serves the direct victims primarily, and that we cannot, at this stage at least, extend the definition of a victim too far. If I may say so, there is force in the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox: if one makes the concept of a victim too wide, one may well finish up with a system that is not as workable as it otherwise would be. There are all kinds of people who are, in one sense, victims but who are not necessarily the direct victims to whom we must give priority. The job of a Government is to make decisions as to how to prioritise services. We are very pressed on resources on all fronts, so I urge your Lordships to take that point into account and to consider that the definition of victim in Clause 1 is already very wide. I will come to certain points made in that connection in a moment. It would not be the right approach, by statute, to extend that already broad definition any further than it is. Broadly speaking, that is the Government’s position on Amendment 1.
On the point about hospital orders in relation to Amendments 8, 12 and 19, the question is whether the victim is a person who has been subject to criminal conduct. A person may well be the perpetrator of criminal conduct but still finish up being ordered by the court to be detained in a secure hospital, rather than serve a criminal sentence. The Government’s position is that many of the victims whose perpetrator has finished up in front of a mental health tribunal are already victims under the Bill. They are covered so long as the conduct is criminal. Your Lordships may have seen the tragic case in Nottingham this week, where the defendant, who was clearly schizophrenic and should never have been on the streets, was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of dismissed responsibility. It was criminal conduct, so those unfortunate families are victims. The point that is rightly made—
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
If the Minister would not mind giving way, I will clarify—I am sure that this is what he meant—that there are many people who are successfully treated for schizophrenia who live in the community. I think that he is referring to an individual who was very ill and who sought the charge of manslaughter yesterday because of diminished responsibility. I would not want the impression to be given in Hansard that people cannot live their lives—quite challenging lives—with schizophrenia in the community.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I entirely accept that point. I have in my own family direct experience of a similar situation. That particular individual had already committed a number of crimes and there was a warrant out for his arrest. That is a very specific case and that is the context in which I made my comment.
On the assumption that, in many of these cases, we have someone who is already a victim under the meaning in the Bill, the problem rightly identified is that the procedures of the mental health tribunal do not, at the moment, quite correspond to the procedures in the main courts, particularly on the right to give a victim statement. The Government’s position is that that is not a satisfactory state of affairs; they are working with the authorities in the mental health tribunal and others to operationalise how we have the same system for mental health tribunals as for the main courts system. I hope to be able to give your Lordships further information that will enable your Lordships to say that this point—which is rightly being made—is being addressed by the Government. As soon as I am in a position to give further information about that, I will. The point of principle that a number of noble Lords have made is accepted; there is no dispute about that.
We then come to the equally difficult question of anti-social behaviour. Again, the first question is whether the victim has been subject to criminal conduct. Strictly speaking, whether or not the police have taken any action is not decisive of the question of whether the conduct is criminal. It may well have crossed the criminal threshold and, if it has, the victim should be entitled to relevant circumstances.
If the conduct has not crossed the criminal threshold, that is a more difficult situation because the scope of the Bill is victims of criminal conduct, and it is quite difficult for the Government, at least at this stage, to contemplate bringing within the scope of this Bill conduct that is not criminal. But a lot of anti-social behaviour is criminal, so how are we going to tackle this? Again, I am not in a position to give your Lordships as much detail as I would wish, but there will shortly be before your Lordships the Criminal Justice Bill currently making its passage through the other place, which will tackle and address a number of legitimate concerns about anti-social behaviour by enhancing the powers available to the police and other local agencies under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
I am grateful for any further meetings about anti-social behaviour. I get that we have three Bills coming—it is like buses; we do not have anything, then we have them all at once—so I am keeping track of those as well. On the Criminal Justice Bill, I think we are looking at Clause 71 on the ASB case review, which used to be called the community trigger. I have my eye on that, and I gave evidence about that. Again, it is about the victim being involved, but that is for another day.
I am conscious that when we talk about anti-social behaviour and the threshold, if you have it constantly it is harassment, so there are already laws for the police. We do not have to have a criminal threshold. I would welcome further conversations because you can shift the boxes around for the police to look at, but there are laws in place that will protect the victim that would automatically go under the victims’ code. When you focus on just anti-social behaviour and the police look at that as low level, they are never going to protect the victim. They have never learned from Fiona Pilkington. The victim is having to log this. I think we need to run this in parallel so that the police follow this from day one and do not leave the victim feeling that their life is worthless. Anti-social behaviour is not litter. We have heard about the level of violence—firebombs and everything else. It is quite serious.
I heard what the Minister said, and I would like to take this forward when we have a meeting with other Peers. We really need to look at the police knowing what laws they already have to help these victims instead of just focusing on the words “anti-social behaviour” because they see it as low level. We need to get that first and foremost to protect victims.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I entirely accept the points that my noble friend is making, and I am very happy to have a further meeting to discuss this, the interrelationship between the bits of legislation that we are dealing with, the interrelationship between the various authorities and who exactly is responsible for what.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, to further emphasise that, I think it would be helpful to the Committee to recognise the sheer scale of anti-social behaviour. Some freedom of information requests looking at the period between 2019 and 2021 identified that, believe it or not, there were 3.5 million reports of anti-social behaviour, so it is on a similar scale to stalking on an annualised basis. Those are probably the largest two areas of cases involving victims across England and Wales.
Those statistics were done across 34 out of the 43 police forces. They demonstrate the huge variability across the country, police and crime commissioner by PCC, and police force by police force. That is the problem. Some areas are doing really well with existing resources, without needing extra money. With proper leadership, organisation and training, they are doing a really good job. Kudos to the Government and the Minister for achieving good results in some areas. The challenge for the Government is: what is the problem with taking action to ensure that is replicated efficiently and systematically right across England and Wales? The evidence is clearly that it is not. If the authorities can do it within existing resources, we are not talking about huge amounts of extra money. That is not the issue; the issue is the way they go about what they do.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention and entirely accept the point he makes about the variability across the country. Although this evening we are not on Clause 6 and supplementary Clause 11, for example, or Clause 10, about code awareness and reviewing compliance by criminal justice bodies, one of the main drivers of the Bill is to raise the standard of victim support equally across the country; to publish league tables; to have the data; to put pressure, if you like, by almost shame and stigma on those that are not performing as well as they should so that it is publicly known; and, in extreme cases, to give directions that they need to improve and so forth.
The steps we need to think about are how we make the various parts of the legislation consistent and operational, what role the code plays in anti-social behaviour when it is criminal conduct, as it often will be, and how we operationalise the way in which particular police forces and other agencies offer consistent services across the country. That is my thought on this point.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
On this particular point about anti-social behaviour, Louise Lotz was a friend of mine. The problem was that her local police force did nothing about the earlier stages of anti-social behaviour. One of the things that this amendment is trying to achieve is that police forces just watch the pattern of anti-social behaviour; if they see it going up, their response should also start to change. I wonder whether the Minister will take that into account. I look forward to joining any meeting about that as well.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I certainly take that into account. I again think that we collectively need to understand a little more about what the Criminal Justice Bill progressing through the other place is doing about this, because the problem of anti-social behaviour is that it exists and is not being controlled. That Bill is trying to address that problem. Here we are dealing with the victims, which in some ways is the end result, rather than the fact that it is happening in the first place, so tackling it and what is happening in the first place is probably a very important aspect that we need to understand further. I take all these points, and I think we should take it further collectively as soon as we can.
Then we come to the difficult issue of homicide abroad. I hope that nobody infers that the Government do not have enormous sympathy for those who suffer these very difficult situations, but I respectfully suggest that a crime of homicide committed abroad is in a slightly different category, as far as the victims’ code is concerned, from a crime of homicide committed in this country. Clearly, the various rights under the code —for example, the right to make a victim statement—as well as the nature of the offence, what the criminal processes are and so forth are rather different if we are talking about a crime that has been committed in South America or somewhere outside this country. The responsibility for looking after victims of homicide abroad falls primarily on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which offers support through the homicide service. Noble Lords may well say that it is not adequate support or enough support.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
I have worked with the Foreign Office on this as well, and every time I have gone there, its first point of call is “We don’t have many resources; there’s not much money; we make the money from passports; it is only a small number of families that come through”. If we keep putting it to the Foreign Office, it will keep batting it the other way. Not only are we talking about families dealing with countries with different languages which are trying to get financial gain and who also have jobs to hold down but we have a Foreign Office that really does not do much for them and they feel lost. I appreciate what the is Minister saying, but I think it is about resource. I am not asking for lots of resources, but I want them to work collaboratively to help those families resolve the issues.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I of course understand the point that the Minister is making—procedures in other countries and what is available in other countries by way of support are different—but should that stop us requiring part of the Government, the organisation in this country which has immediate, close responsibility, to take on a role of proper signposting, which may be to equivalent services? Partly, it is interpreting, but it is obvious that there is a lacuna here.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
If there has been a homicide abroad and those families are living here, there is a real danger that the message will be that the Government think that that homicide does not matter as much as a homicide that happened here. The Government might say that they do not have the resources. I pointed out that it is about 80 homicides per year—the numbers are not huge—but those people who are so severely traumatised, retraumatised and carry on being further damaged by the experience often become enormous consumers of resources because of mental health services, because they are unable to work and so on, and eventually they may need benefits. There are all kinds of things that they may need. It is a false economy to look at it in terms of resources to the FCDO. I hope that the Minister will meet me and others to discuss ways that the victims’ code could be asterisked where there are things that may not be as appropriate if the homicide occurred here, but it would say that the lives of British citizens are of equal value wherever they are in the world and that whether it was a terrorist attack, a homicide here or a homicide overseas, those lives are of equal value.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, of course I am prepared to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and any other noble Lords on this point to discuss it further. There is certainly a point about the signposting in the code, what the code should say about all this, whether we should give further additional priority to homicides abroad, and exactly what the role of the Homicide Service is and other related resource issues, as well as where the earlier point I raised about priorities comes in: we cannot do everything. This is an important topic for further discussion, and I do not rule out examining further how far we can go in response to the very legitimate concerns raised.
I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will forgive me for coming to her last, but I think her point was about the definition of a victim where the person is a victim as a result of the criminal conduct of a close family member. The obvious example would be a road incident where somebody who had been driving over the limit or driving dangerously had killed themselves, leaving behind bereaved children. On the wording of the code, those children would be victims. The Government do not think that even in those circumstances should we reduce or limit the concept of a victim. It is conceivable that somebody could be a perpetrator and a victim at the same time, because if you have driven dangerously, had a crash and killed your child, you may both be guilty of criminal conduct and a victim of your own conduct, as it were. That may be a highly theoretical and hypothetical example, but the Government are not proposing any change to Clause 1 in relation to those very tragic kinds of case.
I hope I have dealt with the main amendments proposed in this first group, and I respectfully invite your Lordships not to pursue them at this point.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to the Minister for his detailed responses to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate on a range of different issues, even though they are all part of the concern about some of the holes in the system. I thank him for offering some meetings, which I think is extremely useful, because as I think he will have heard from the debate, we all have a reasonable amount of knowledge and not necessarily the same knowledge.
On his comments on my Amendment 1, I absolutely accept that my proposed new paragraph (aa), inserting “witnessing criminal conduct”, might already be covered earlier in Clause 1. Proposed new paragraphs (ab) and (ac) are not covered at all. They are the direct consequences for a family member or person close to somebody who has had a very traumatic experience. They would have their life changed in all the ways that I described. I would also welcome a meeting on that to discuss how the Minister believes that it is already covered, because as far as I can see, it is not.
I want to make a more general point about the Bill. The Minister, uniquely, has his four As for what we should seek to achieve—the victims being aware, access, accountability by those providing services, and it being affordable. One of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made is that costs may not actually be so great, providing that the first, second and third categories are completely fulfilled. That is an area where—as we have said to him in private meetings already—there will be cost savings. Not all of them will be to the Home Office or the justice system, but there will be substantial savings in healthcare and in social services, particularly where children are involved, if the victims’ code is on a statutory footing and applied across the board. He is right that changing the culture is vital. The problem is that if you do not give public organisations targets, they do not work to them, and the real problem we have here is that there is no onus on the services to make sure that those are provided for. With that, I beg to leave withdraw my amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“(e) where the person is a child who is a victim of abuse and exploitation which constitutes criminal conduct.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I open by reiterating my noble friend’s point about acknowledging the way in which the noble and learned Lord wound up the previous group of amendments and about working consensually across the Committee as we progress through the Bill. My second point is simple, but I think it worth making. As noble Lords will know, I sit as a magistrate in London in family, youth and adult jurisdictions, and I rarely see victims. I see victims only in trials—they sometimes turn up to trials to give evidence—and I hear from victims only when I sentence and the victim’s impact statement is read out. Through all the rest of the processes which I routinely go through sitting in a magistrates’ court, I do not hear from victims, and I do not see them. It is a simple point, but I thought it was worth making.
The Minister also had his four As, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has just referred to—awareness, accessibility, accountability and affordability. We agree with those as far as they go, of course, but of course many of the elements in Committee will concern whether accountability should be enforceability. That will be the crux of a number of our debates in Committee.
This group deals with child victims. Amendment 5 in my name clarifies that the definition of “victim” should include a child who is a victim of abuse and exploitation that constitutes criminal conduct. I will go through the amendments in the group and then comment more widely. Amendment 6, and Amendment 10 in my name, extend the definition of “victim” to a child who is
“a victim of child criminal exploitation”.
Other noble Lords will speak to that as well. Amendments 7 and 11 seek to ensure that the explicit definition of a victim includes those who are subject to modern slavery—another aspect that we will debate within this group. Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt, is specifically about verbal abuse of children.
While the Bill makes important reference to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and to children as victims of domestic abuse, the same organisations that fought for that Act are now asking for the same ambition to be applied to children who have experienced abuse and exploitation. Last week, I and other noble Lords now present in the Chamber went to a survivors’ presentation organised by a coalition of charities led by the NSPCC, where we heard first-hand about survivors’ experiences and how the support organisations and criminal justice system responded to their trauma.
What was particularly telling about those survivor experiences was that, although the abuse itself was, of course, wholly negative, we did hear from one or two survivors who had had a relatively good experience of the criminal justice system—although there were other experiences that were much more negative. That contrast made those testimonies even more powerful. This morning, I, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, visited the Lighthouse project in Camden. This provides a one-stop shop for child victims of sexual abuse. It is a model of how these services should be provided.
It is in that context that this group is being debated. I want to set out the scale of abuse and exploitation of children. Children—that means people under 18—make up about 20% of the population. The Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse has found that children are the victims of about 40% of all sexual offences. One in 10 children in England and Wales is sexually abused before the age of 16 and that number means that there are an estimated half a million child victims every year.
Children abused by parents or carers are almost three times more likely to experience other forms of domestic abuse as well, and it was found that 42% of childhood abuse survivors suffered more than one type of abuse. The Bill explicitly recognises children as victims only of domestic abuse and as a result fails to acknowledge the multiple forms of abuse and exploitation that children can experience. They can be subjected to multiple forms of abuse and exploitation during their lifetime. To avoid failing these children, the definition of a victim must cover all forms of abuse and exploitation, in addition to domestic abuse.
The victims’ code of practice recognises that those under 18 are vulnerable and affords them enhanced rights. The children’s coalition, a coalition of charities that are informing what I am saying now—and has no doubt briefed all noble Lords here in Committee as well—has argued that there should be consistency across all legislation, recognising as distinct victims all children, not just those who are affected by domestic abuse. The coalition urges government to ensure that the Bill reflects the code by ensuring that children who experience abuse and exploitation, in addition to those who experience domestic abuse, are in the Bill so that the entirety of the harm they experience is explicit within primary legislation.
If the definition is not amended, the children’s coalition foresees that this will have unintended consequences for the relevant authorities and those in charge of delivering victim support services. Resources will be directed to focus on the needs of children who are victims of domestic abuse above other forms of harm. The coalition is concerned that there is the potential for a hierarchy of abuse that would leave thousands of children affected by other forms of abuse and exploitation without recognition and, ultimately, without support. By not explicitly recognising children as victims in their own right, the Bill could have significant implications for the level and quality of support available.
I am told that evidence already shows that a lack of support for children following abuse and exploitation exists and that ensuring that children and the full scale of the harm they experience are explicitly in scope will act as a cornerstone for responsible agencies commissioning services to make sure that they reflect the needs of children in full. So this is a specific example where legislation will make a difference.
It is impossible to design an effective justice system response to childhood victims without understanding the scale of what we are talking about, which I set out earlier. This cannot be done without recognising all forms of abuse, but this is a specific example where the black letter of the law will have an impact on the services that are delivered to childhood victims of abuse that falls outside the scope of domestic abuse. It is in that spirit that I beg to move Amendment 5.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendments 7 and 11 in this group and I want to be clear that I agree very much with the views that are behind all these amendments.
I hope that my first question—a technical question—will not be regarded as negative. Is a child a person within Clause 1(1)? That will affect amendments and how they are framed. My second question is probably a bit indelicate. It has only occurred to me this evening, while listening to the examples that your Lordships have given. It is a direct question to the Minister. Is the MoJ aware of examples of possible candidates—that is probably not a very happy term—who have been exploited or subjected to criminal or marginally criminal behaviour, which have not made their way to us? It may be possible. I possibly should not put the Minister on the spot now, but maybe we can talk about what the MoJ has considered and discarded. Amendments 7 and 11 have been brought to us by Hestia, which supports victims of modern slavery. It is concerned with ensuring that those who are born to victims of modern slavery are covered.
I know that we have Clause 1(2)(b), which refers to circumstances
“where the person’s birth was the direct result of criminal conduct”,
but it would be very unfortunate if we were to run into the weeds of whether someone is a victim of rape—in other words, what is the relationship between the mother and the offender?—or if there is a doubt as to who is the father because the woman has been subjected to forced prostitution and the object of multiple rapes, because that kind of issue detracts from the support that is needed by the children of victims of modern slavery or human trafficking, whose experience in itself requires support.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on Amendment 5. The Bill offers a landmark opportunity to make a difference to victims’ and survivors’ lives and has the potential to restore confidence in our criminal justice system.
As noble Lords know, alongside organisations focused on supporting women and children, and together with many other noble Lords from across the House, we fought hard for children experiencing domestic abuse to be recognised as victims in their own right, and I am proud that that is included in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. However, I am saddened—I think that is the word I am looking for—that we are having to make this very same case again.
Sadly, children experience multiple forms of abuse and exploitation, sometimes including domestic abuse. The Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse has found that it is common that victims and survivors experience multiple forms of victimisation in childhood. Over half of adults in England and Wales who reported being sexually abused before the age of 16 also experienced another type of abuse, whether physical, emotional, or witnessing domestic abuse. As has been said, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse found that 52% of victims and survivors who gave evidence spoke about experiencing at least one other form.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, suggested, we were reminded of these facts just last week at a meeting here in Parliament. We were given the privilege, I would say, of hearing directly from the survivors of child abuse about what this opportunity means to them. At this event hosted by the Children’s Charities Coalition, they all shared the same vision: that the Bill offers an opportunity to transform our response to children affected by abuse and exploitation. Often, it is not until you speak directly to victims and survivors of crime that you truly understand the magnitude and impact of what we are discussing today. Yet their ask is very simple: recognition and support for all children who experience abuse and exploitation.
At the event, we heard harrowing experiences from survivors of child sexual abuse and exploitation. In sharing their experiences, they also shared their bravery and resolve to improve support for children today and for generations to come—which, in some cases, was so lacking when they truly needed it. We heard from David Tait, who shared his experience about the horrific abuse he faced as a child. He challenged the room and asked whether any of us felt it was appropriate that children were not specifically recognised within the Bill. The room was silent, in realisation that it is almost unthinkable that children are not specifically recognised. I offer my deepest gratitude to all those who bravely spoke out. It sharpened my own focus on how the Bill can truly make a difference for them.
The final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse gives a glimpse into what it is like for these children and why it is so important for all children who have experienced, and, sadly, will experience, abuse and exploitation to be recognised. Many victims and survivors said they were traumatised by child sexual abuse. Olivar, a survivor, described the “traumatic long-term effect” of sexual abuse:
“I’ve thought about it for over 50 years”.
Another survivor, Laurie, said that
“hardly a day goes by where I do not think about the events from 58 years ago”.
Another survivor described feeling “misery” and “bewilderment” after being sexually abused as a child. Finally, a survivor shared:
“I was never able to be nurtured … I have to grieve for the childhood I never had”.
I support this key amendment in ensuring that these children and all children are recognised. This Bill must recognise all children as victims in their own right and we must get that definition and recognition put at the heart of the Bill. Children have distinct needs and require a child-centred approach and specialist support. Let us not go through the pain that we had last time with domestic abuse, let us get children into the Bill now.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, as I said at Second Reading, this is a good Bill for victims. It contains many provisions that I strongly support. I hope and believe that we can make it an even better Bill by working across the House, which is the mood tonight, as it was then.
I put my name to Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I also support other amendments in this group, including those that my right reverend friend the Bishop of Bristol, who is unable to be in her place today, has signed. Amendments in this group seek to clarify how the Bill properly addresses the needs of children.
Amendment 10 places on the face of the Bill a short but clear definition of “child criminal exploitation”. This would include any child under 18 who is
“encouraged, expected or required to take part in any activity that constitutes a criminal offence”.
This is not widening the definition of a victim, merely giving it clarity. I learned in my teens that if I was on the receiving end of some wrongdoing, I was a child. By contrast, if I was deemed the perpetrator, I suddenly became a youth.
We have also heard too often in your Lordships’ House of the adultification of children. It is an ugly word for an ugly phenomenon, where a child is treated as a grown-up when they are caught up in wrongdoing. Moreover, we know that in the absence of a strong countervailing pressure, this is disproportionately applied to black children. This has been a long-standing concern of many civil society organisations focused on countering the exploitation of children. I hope we can begin to respond to it today.
In my own diocese of Manchester, we are still reeling from the discovery of the extent of grooming gangs exploiting children for sexual crimes, most notably—but I doubt exclusively—in Rochdale. If the children caught up in these crimes had been seen by the authorities primarily as victims, and treated as such, I believe that the gangs would have been brought to justice far sooner.
Getting a clear definition of child criminal exploitation into the Bill will, I hope and pray, not only improve this legislation but set a precedent for how we treat child victims better, both in future legislation and in practice at every stage of the criminal justice system. I hope that the Minister will either accept our words as on the Marshalled List or come back to us on Report with a suitable government amendment to that effect.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendment 9 in this group. It concerns verbal abuse to children and, in terms of the challenges the Minister set us with the four As, it is concerned with raising awareness.
I share the view of other noble Lords that it is important to get children into the Bill, particularly in relation to this clause. My amendment seeks to make it clear that when it comes to the definition of “harm” in Clause 1(4)(a), it should include a definition that embraces children and includes verbal harm.
My amendment has been inspired by the work of an inspirational, newish charity called Words Matter, which I believe to be the first charity in the world focused solely on verbal harm to children. It aims to eradicate this damaging and underestimated form of abuse, and I pay tribute to its inspirational founder, Jessica Bondy.
We all understand verbal abuse. It can mean negative words, and language that causes harm to children. It can take the form of blaming, insulting, belittling, intimidating, demeaning, disrespecting, scolding, frightening, ridiculing, criticising, name-calling or threatening a child. It does not constitute only shouting. In fact, abuse can be quiet, insidious and subtle in tone, where volume and facial expression play a part. We have probably all personally experienced verbal abuse, certainly in the profession we are in. It can be extraordinarily damaging, particularly to young people.
We know that children’s brains are responsive to relationships as they grow up with words, tones and sounds around them. The noble Lord, Lord Polak, has just talked about the long-lasting impact on people who were sexually abused many years ago, and destructive language can have some of the same impact. If one looks at what comprises child maltreatment—physical, sexual and emotional abuse, and neglect—verbal abuse is a key attribute of many of those aspects. It can also be individually damaging to a child’s development, perhaps as damaging as other currently recognised and forensically established subtypes of maltreatment.
We believe that emotional abuse, including verbal abuse, is on the rise, and is perhaps the most prevalent form of child maltreatment. A systematic review of childhood abuse undertaken by UCL and Wingate University in the US found that verbal abuse does profound damage to a child over their lifetime, affecting their self-esteem, confidence, future potential and ability to function at home, school and the workplace, really affecting life outcomes for them.
The study commissioned by Words Matter found that this kind of abuse is pervasive in society. That study, which it recently undertook, revealed that two in five children aged 11 to 17 experience adults regularly using hurtful and upsetting words to blame, insult or criticise them—that is, around 2 million children in this country.
The real problem here is a lack of awareness, because without awareness you cannot have strategies and policies to try to deal with it or engage in the educational programmes that are needed, particularly to help teachers, parents and other adults who are in a situation to try to change their behaviour. I do not pretend that an amendment tonight would magically deal with this issue, but in the spirit of the Minister’s wind-up on previous groups, I hope that by drawing attention to it he will be able to say something constructive about how we might tackle verbal abuse and protect children in the future.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, my right reverend friend the Bishop of Bristol, as has been said, regrets that she cannot be in the Chamber today but along with her, I support Amendments 7 and 11. The children of victims of modern slavery are currently underserved by support services, despite that lasting and intergenerational trauma which witnessing the crime of modern slavery can cause. We have already heard about the organisation Hestia. In 2021, it estimated that as many as 5,000 vulnerable children could be identified within the NRM as children of victims of modern slavery. I want to add that there is an urgent need to extend victims’ rights to this group, and I am glad to see these amendments.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 6 and 10, which are designed to ensure that children who have been criminally exploited are seen and treated as victims rather than perpetrators. As has already been discussed, I understand the Government’s desire to keep definitions broad and to resist requests for too much specific detail in the Bill, but there is a case to be made about child criminal exploitation.
First, there is a need for clarity. The Government’s own Serious Violence Strategy says:
“In order to support different agencies and sectors working together it is important we have common definitions of the issues we are tackling”.
Yet on the issue of criminal exploitation, there is no common definition. The definition used in that strategy is the same as that in Working Together to Safeguard Children but differs from the definition in Keeping Children Safe in Education. As a result, different parts of the system are working to different understandings of what constitutes criminal exploitation. They have found the current definitions to be not only different but overly complicated.
As one police officer said in the very helpful briefing from the Children’s Coalition, which has already been mentioned:
“What is applying in Newcastle is totally different to Surrey”
and current definitions
“are too open to interpretation and this breeds an inconsistent approach”,
so we need consistency. We also need a statutory definition for criminal law purposes for, as that police officer also explains:
“We definitely need the definition to do our job. It’s a 21st-century crime we are prosecuting with outdated legislation”.
The Government should be given credit for their focus on the growing threat of serious violence, which often gives rise to criminal exploitation but, if I am honest, it feels a bit odd that they would not see that this might be a useful step. It would not only help those victims having to live with a criminal conviction, making life even harder for them in the long run through no fault of their own; it would also send an important message to the real perpetrators in all of this—the people who take away these children’s lives, forcing them to live constantly on edge and in fear. It is a fear of the people exploiting them but also a fear of the authorities, if their situation is not properly recognised or understood.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I am interested in verbal harm because it is true that, as politicians, we get a lot of that. I have had verbal abuse from that Front Bench, in fact, but I am old enough that it has not affected my behaviour.
Amendments 5 and 6 are quite crucial here, as is Amendment 10 on child criminal exploitation. On top of all the important points made by noble Lords here about child victims, I want to ask the Minister about the Government’s role in re-victimising children and young people by deploying them as covert human intelligence sources or child spies. I have raised this issue a few times over the past few years. It is still a practice that absolutely horrifies me—that the Government would actually encourage the further criminalisation of children. In recent years, the Government have actually expanded the use of child spies, including authorising them to commit criminal offences. I do not expect the Minister to answer this this evening, but I would like a full answer, because this is an issue that fills me with horror.
The Government’s actions obviously meet the definition of child criminal exploitation in Amendment 10, as these children are being
“encouraged, expected or required to take part”
in criminal offences by the police. Can the Minister therefore outline what victim support and other help is provided to these child spies when they are being sent back into dangerous criminal situations? Will they be eligible as victims under the victims’ code—I assume they will—and can the Minister give up-to-date figures on how many child spies are currently being used by police forces? I have been consistently told that it is a very small number. In my view, any number is wrong, but if I could have that information, I would be very grateful.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was quite surprised to see the amendments, and also the way they have been motivated—by the need to get children in the Bill, as though there were a lack of sympathy with children as victims, particularly of sexual abuse. That is not something that I am aware of in society, which seems to me to be more than preoccupied with that issue, and rightly so.
If anything, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester made clear, it depends which children you are talking about, because one of the shocking aspects of the Rochdale grooming scandal was that a particular group of children were seen to be the wrong kind of children—in the words of the perpetrators, “white trash”. If you read the many reports on this, as I have done, even the officialdom—the police, local authorities, social workers and all sorts of things—saw these children as perpetrators who could be ignored. In general, society is horrified, it seems to me, at child abuse, but it depends which children. I did not know that we needed to get the idea of children as victims on the face of this kind of Bill in order to be sympathetic to children as victims, so I am a bit confused about the necessity of that. However, I am open to being convinced.
As it happens, I completely agree with the horror of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, at child spies, and I share that point of view as well. But she does raise a problem that I have with Amendment 10, inasmuch as I think it is unclear what the definition of “child criminal exploitation” would be. Where it says that
“a child under the age of 18 is encouraged, expected or required to take part in any activity that constitutes a criminal offence”,
first, there would be an argument about those child spies. Other people would presumably say that that was not what was happening there.
But there is a danger, particularly when we use that wording: “encouraged, expected or required” is very loose in terms of problems we might well have with agency of young people. We have already heard about anti-social behaviour; often that is committed by under-18s. Knife crime is often committed by under-18s. There is a danger that, in our attempt at fighting genuine exploitation of children to force them into criminal activity, we end up in a situation whereby young people, who I am afraid can on occasion be responsible for crimes, are able to say that they did not do it because they were encouraged or put under pressure and so on. I am just worried about the wording there.
Finally in this group—and this is not something I like doing, because I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—I absolutely disagree with his Amendment 9 on verbal harm. One thing that is quite interesting is this idea that we have to make young people—or everybody—aware of the dangers of verbal harm. The one group of people who are very aware of the dangers of verbal harm are young people and children because they are reared in a society that tells them that words are harmful. They are so embroiled in that notion that, as we know, they will say that they are victims because of words that have been said to them. We see this played out in schools, sixth forms and universities all the time, to the detriment of free speech.
People might think that is glib, but I am constantly involved in arguing the point with young people who say that words are as harmful as fists, knives and anything else and that they should not be exposed to individuals saying certain words because they are just as harmful as criminal activity. I do not want the Bill to give even more succour to this idea that words, which are often opinions that people do not like, are harmful. Even though words can make you feel uncomfortable, we must distinguish between words and actions, in my opinion, and not encourage young people to always think that they are victims of some crime if they hear words that they find unpleasant, even though I understand that some words are unpleasant to be on the receiving end of.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 6 and 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I was pleased to hear that verbal abuse is being highlighted and I commend the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for that.
Children who are criminally exploited suffer unimaginable abuse and harm, which have long-lasting impacts and can cause physical and mental harm and trauma which can impact their development. As we know, childhood lasts a lifetime so this will go on to affect society in the long term, directly and indirectly.
The Covid-19 pandemic increased the risk of children being exploited and this has been made even worse by the cost of living crisis. Despite this, all too often children who are victims of exploitation are blamed and criminalised for their own abuse. Black and minority ethnic children and children in care are more likely to be criminalised than other children, which can be a double jeopardy for them.
There is no statutory definition of child criminal exploitation, which means that those working with children lack a shared understanding and can miss key intervention points and fail to identify victims. For child victims, this means that they are falling through the cracks of statutory support and perpetrators of this vile abuse are going unpunished.
At Second Reading, the Minister set out that a definition of child criminal exploitation already exists in statutory guidance, which is a good step in recognising the issue. However, confusion remains among those on the front line, and it is clear that a statutory definition would be welcomed by them. The Government need to use the Bill to give child criminal exploitation a statutory definition in its own right.
In 2021, Barnardo’s—I declare an interest as its vice-president—made a freedom of information request to police forces across the UK. Some 30 police forces responded, but only one force was able to provide any data about child criminal exploitation. Interestingly, many forces asked Barnardo’s about how child criminal exploitation is defined, which shows just how misunderstood it is by those working in this area. A police officer who spoke to the Children’s Society said:
“What is applying in Newcastle is totally different to Surrey, and current definitions are too open to interpretation and this breeds an inconsistent approach”.
Other police officers working on the front line have said that they would definitely value a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation, and that the definitions that already exist in statutory guidance are weaker and can be harder to prove.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, which seek to ensure better focus on the position and needs of children and thereby provide a better framework of support for children who are victims or potential victims.
I assume that the word “person” in Clause 1 includes a child but nevertheless I think that should be emphasised in the Bill, as so many noble Lords have said. The priority to be given to children should rest on at least three obvious points. First, children are much more vulnerable than adults. Secondly, children are less able to speak for themselves; exploited and abused children notoriously lose self-esteem. Thirdly, clearly children have much longer than adults to put up with the consequences of abuse and of inadequate decisions made when the abuse comes to light.
The Government may say that it is not necessary to highlight particular types of criminal conduct, as attempted in Amendments 5 to 7, and that they are already covered by Clause 1. I am not entirely convinced of that, and if there is any doubt about it, I hope the Government will look again to ensure that the particular categories of abuse highlighted in those amendments are indeed covered.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to which I have added my name digitally. We start on the thorny subject, to which I think we will return, of children. I declare my interest as a secondary school teacher in Hackney.
I am delighted to have my noble friend Lord Meston with me, because he can say it far better than I can when we are trying to persuade the Government that children should be defined separately as victims. I will speak more about that in the sixth group of amendments.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, in saying that we need a definition of victim, which is not contained in Keeping Children Safe in Education—there seem to be variations on that—and we need to deal with the children of victims of modern slavery. I support all the amendments in this group.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we add our thanks to the Children’s Commissioner for her very helpful round table and briefing notes. We also thank Hestia. I thank other noble Lords for their amendments, which specify children in the definition of a victim. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Benjamin made strong arguments to include who victims of abuse and criminal exploitation are, as well as those who are victims of modern slavery or human trafficking.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is a salutary reminder that children can be damaged by verbal harm. Intense and repeated verbal abuse is damaging. That is somewhat different from the point the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was trying to make, which was about young people having arguments about matters of principle and offence; that is not what we are talking about.
Some years ago, I lived next door to a family who used the most extraordinary bad language to their toddler, time after time. The example I can just about repeat in your Lordships’ House was his name, which was “Paul, you little bleeder”. It went on, from worse to worse. As he grew up, we heard his own language mirroring that of his parents. One of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is right to propose this is that a child like that needs help and support from other agencies, as do his parents. It can be within a house, or it can be separate, but it is very different from the argument the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was trying to make, and I hope she would accept that.
In a later group, probably next week, we will come to a group with much more detail about the protection required for child victims. All these amendments would ensure that definitions at the start of the Bill recognise that child victims have as many needs as adults. Agencies need to remind themselves that child victims may not always present in the same way as an adult and may not always need the same services as an adult. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said, the lessons of Rochdale show that too many agencies do not always see children as victims. There, I am afraid that the police and some other agencies saw them as perpetrators. That is absolutely unacceptable.
I apologise again to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, but I am picking up on the arguments she made about the lack of sympathy from officialdom and police. She went on to argue that it is important that people recognise that these children are victims. But this is not about sympathy; it is about getting help and support for these children. Sympathy may be part of it, but these amendments are not put forward to get sympathy for children; it is to change their lives, and to recognise that they are victims and will need specific services thereafter.
I am mindful of Nicky Campbell and others who were abused at the schools he attended and how their experience of not getting support early in their lives has affected them for their entire lives. This is not just an issue about children; it is about how those children grow up and manage their own lives. As I said at the end of the previous group, one can save money in the longer run on services by ensuring that victims—in this case child victims—get support as early as possible.
Finally, I echo the points made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee in Amendment 7 on the child victims of modern slavery or human trafficking. Hestia’s briefing was very helpful in reminding us that everyone in a family unit, especially the children, is affected by modern slavery and human trafficking, the consequences of which have long-standing impacts. So it is becoming clear from all parts of the House again that we need a separate definition of child victims. Their experiences, needs and the services they seek are all different.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this very important debate on how we assist, support, improve, validate and value children who have suffered various kinds of abuse. The question—I respectfully suggest it is a somewhat technical question—is whether we need to amend this Bill, whether we should do it through further sections of the code, and how we should approach the problem.
The Government’s position at the moment is that a child who is a victim of abuse and exploitation which constitutes criminal conduct is already a victim under the Bill. So the large numbers of children, rightly referred to, who have apparently suffered domestic abuse in the past—children who have been through the recent domestic abuse inquiry and so forth—would, in the ordinary meaning of words, I think, have been subject to criminal conduct under Clause 1(1)(a). As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, a child is undoubtedly a person, and the Government’s position is that this is very largely covered.
The phrase “child criminal exploitation” in itself implies someone who has been exploited by criminal conduct—which is already covered. So I hesitate to recommend to your Lordships that we need to further complicate the Bill itself, or the Act as it will eventually become, one hopes, by having further definitions. I accept the point made by my noble friend Lady Sanderson that there probably is some confusion at the moment in some of the guidance out there, and there is probably a great deal of inconsistency in how it is applied by different authorities in different parts of the country. As I said earlier, one of the purposes of the Bill is to ensure a much more even and consistent approach across the country by all relevant agencies.
It is important to clarify two things—and I respectfully suggest we should do this in the code rather than the Bill. The first is that we need, perhaps, to clarify that the phrase “criminal conduct” in the Bill does not imply that there has been a prosecution, let alone a conviction. It is whether, on the facts, this is a person who has suffered from the relevant conduct. Secondly, I suggest to your Lordships—and I cannot officially commit the Government tonight because I do not have the authority to do so—that we need when revising the code to have a detailed section on children, and special reference to the particular problems that have been rightly raised tonight, so that everybody has full guidance on what they are supposed to do with child victims of various kinds. That is probably a more apt way of proceeding than trying to redefine what we are talking about in the Bill. With the greatest respect, I suggest that “child criminal exploitation” is a somewhat difficult concept to define.
I could add that the act of manipulating, deceiving, encouraging, coercing or controlling a child almost certainly amounts to a criminal offence in itself—it does under Part 1 of the Modern Slavery Act, and we have been talking about modern slavery. We also have the wide terms under the Serious Crime Act 2007, in which encouraging or assisting an offence is also an offence. So I respectfully suggest that almost all the examples one can think of are already covered by the definition of “victim” in other Acts. At the moment the Government are not persuaded that we should be tinkering further with this particular definition, but I see the force of the argument that we need to have special mention and explanation as regards children when we come to revise the code and the guidance that accompanies it, and the duties of the various agencies to provide their services.
I suggest that the same broad analysis covers the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in relation to verbal abuse. It is already in Clause (1)(4)(a) that “harm” includes physical, mental, emotional or economic harm. I think that most kinds of verbal abuse are covered—but, again, this is a matter that is more for the way one drafts the code than it is for the Bill itself. That would be, I think, the Government’s position at the moment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I did not quite catch what the Minister said when referring to Clause 1(2)(a). Was he saying that a child who is the child of a victim of modern slavery will fall within
“seen, heard, or otherwise directly experienced”?
I am not sure what “directly experienced” extends to. Is his argument that the child of a victim of this particular crime would fall under Clause 1(2)(a)? I am sorry; the Minister talked about it but I did not quite hear.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I think that is the Government’s position. In most cases the child will experience the effect of criminal conduct, that being the effect on the mother. That is a sufficiently direct nexus, as it were, to bring it within the scope of the clause.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. The gist of the Minister’s summing up is that he believes that all the examples given in this short debate are already covered in the Bill. I think he said that there may be a detailed section in the code covering children; I understand that that was not a firm commitment but, nevertheless, it is a step forward.
The Minister gave a number of examples of why the Government want a more explicit recognition, but I gave a specific example where I argued that the black-letter law on the recognition of children could—and does—affect the accessibility of victims’ services. When local authorities look at how to allocate services, there is potentially a hierarchy there. We think that children should be at the top of that hierarchy, equal to domestic abuse victims; that was the specific example that I gave to the Minister.
Nevertheless, this has been an interesting debate on which I and others will reflect. I agreed with every word of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said about my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment. He clearly tabled it to raise awareness—one of the Minister’s four As—and he has effectively achieved that goal. I will be interested to see whether he wishes to take it further. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Gohir
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that all victims can request a review of a police or Crown Prosecution Service decision not to charge a suspect including when there are multiple perpetrators.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register, particularly as CEO of the Muslim Women’s Network UK, which operates a national helpline. I will speak to Amendment 13 in my name; I also support the other amendments in this group, which I will address at the end.
The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that all victims have an equal right to have the police or CPS decision reviewed when suspects are not charged. Not all victims will exercise this right, but it must be available to all victims if their voices are truly to be heard in the criminal justice system. At present, some victims do not have the same right to review a decision. For example, when there is one suspect and they are not charged, there is a right to review the decision. When there are multiple suspects and none of them is charged, there is a right to review the decision. However, if there is more than one suspect and some of them are not charged while others are, the victim cannot ask for a review into why the other suspects were not charged. This creates a hierarchy of victims.
I will explain how I stumbled on this gap in the law. The Muslim Women’s Network helpline supported a south Asian Muslim teenager who had been groomed and sexually exploited. She was raped by a gang of men. With the support of the helpline and her family, she reported the crime to the police, which was very difficult for her as she came from a south Asian background. The culture of shame and honour could have been a huge barrier to reporting, but she did it. The police then arrested several men, but ended up charging only one of the suspects. This was a huge shock to the victim, her family and the helpline. She then decided to try to get the decision reviewed but was told that she could not, for the reasons I have stated. She lost trust and confidence in the process, which led to her eventually dropping the case against the one perpetrator, so she got no justice at all.
I do not believe that this is an isolated case. We already know that rape convictions are extremely low, even in simpler cases where there is just one suspect, so one can imagine the conviction rates in more complex cases where there are multiple perpetrators. It is very plausible that this current loophole is contributing to victims dropping cases. Although I am using rape cases as an example to highlight the gap for reviewing decisions, this can also apply to many other scenarios in which more than one perpetrator is involved in the crime, such as anti-social behaviour.
I thank the Minister for listening to my concerns. We have exchanged letters and he has committed to explore this issue further with the CPS and the police. However, I believe they will continue to follow the current legislation, which has been adopted from the EU. Unless this is changed, it is in their interests to continue with the status quo rather than to follow non-binding policies.
Bringing multiple perpetrators requires more work because there needs to be more evidence gathering. It can be easier for the police and the CPS to say, “Well, we are only charging one person and not the others”, knowing that the victim cannot appeal this decision. That will mean less work for the police.
Police forces have already been heavily criticised for the way that they treat and investigate sex abuse crimes. The loophole therefore works in favour of the police and against the victim. One explanation that has been provided for not reviewing decisions is that if some suspects are not charged, and this is then reviewed, it could delay prosecution, which, in turn, can result in witnesses and victims withdrawing from the case. However, this theory has not and cannot be tested, because victims cannot review the decisions. In fact, this very mechanism has resulted in the withdrawal of cases, such as the case study that I provided today.
Earlier, on the first group of amendments, the Minister talked about thresholds being crossed and victims having a right to certain processes. This speaks to one of the As, of accountability. Therefore, how will the victim know? That is why the victim’s right to review exists. Some victims have had their decision reviewed, the decision has then been overturned and suspects have been charged, which means perhaps that the police have not charged suspects despite thresholds being crossed.
I understand that the Minister is exploring other potential routes outside the Bill; for example, challenging decisions by going through some kind of complaints process where a senior manager can review cases, thereby allowing reviews in certain exceptional circumstances. While I appreciate that the Minister is actively considering other options, I believe that this measure would not work for the following reasons. It would be a subjective process which would vary widely across the regions. It would add another separate process and yet another barrier for the victims. The message then being sent to the victims would be, “Well, the decision would only be reviewed in exceptional circumstances, so don’t bother”. Also, we would then have to have a definition of what we mean by “exceptional circumstances”. Alternatively, we could just simplify the process with this amendment, so that all victims followed the same process. I therefore urge the Minister to reconsider his options.
I end by stating my support for the other amendments in this group. I support them because from my experience of operating a national helpline I have found that victims need more support—to be referred and signposted to specialist services that meet their needs and to restorative justice services. There is also a particular information gap when it comes to minority-ethnic victims, because service users have informed the Muslim Women’s Network helpline—when they have eventually found us—that they were not informed about the service. They were not informed or made aware of the victims’ code, nor of the restorative justice service.
I therefore look forward to the comments and response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 14. This amendment would ensure that all victims knew of and had access to restorative justice services. I am glad that it has the support of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who unfortunately has a long-standing speaking engagement this evening and sends his apologies, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I also add my support to the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, whose effect is the same as mine, to ensure that restorative justice services are clearly in the Bill.
I will not repeat what I said at Second Reading in favour of restorative justice; instead, I will make two very brief points. First, research has shown that restorative justice is effective. It has been a benefit in two ways: one is the impact it has on the offender, reducing the likelihood that they will reoffend; the other is the impact on the victim. For example, restorative justice has been shown to bring satisfaction to victims in reducing stress and trauma. Interestingly, victims found that apologies were more important than restoration.
RJ has proven effectiveness; however, awareness of it and its availability are not as they should be. Research commissioned by the APPG on Restorative Justice showed that there is a postcode lottery and a number of factors resulting in RJ not being taken up in the way that it might be. For that reason, there needs to be a statutory duty on authorities in the criminal justice system to ensure that it is available for those who wish to make use of it.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 15 in my name. I also offer my support to the other amendments, not least that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, which seems to be an uncontroversial proposal that simply corrects a lacuna in the Bill.
One of my abiding mantras is that there is no such thing in our society as a hard-to-reach group. What we have—and have all too often—are services that fail to make sufficient effort to ensure they reach all those they are intended to assist. It is not good enough for a service to exist; the people it is meant to support have to know it is there and be able to access it. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, spoke powerfully earlier this evening. I gather that she spoke at a Women and Equalities Committee oral evidence session where she emphasised that many victims are unaware of the support services available to them. I will not go any further, because I think she may want to speak in a moment; I will not steal her thunder.
The intention of the amendment in my name is to make it clear that responsibility for ensuring that victims can access services does not lie with the potential service user. We need it in the Bill because too many victims are simply not aware of what they ought to be able to look for for help—or they cannot access that help in a format that meets their needs.
I gather that in the other place the Minister claimed that the duty on criminal justice agencies to use reasonable steps to make victims aware of the code would suffice. Yet signposting is much more than enabling someone to know that a service exists. It means putting them in a place from where they can access the service. Sometimes that cannot be done by a leaflet, however good, or a few words spoken to a traumatised victim in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy. It requires enduring engagement by service providers until the message can be heard, and that may be some considerable time later.
The Women’s Aid Survivor’s Handbook provides a clear example of what practical support should be included. Such support can be a lifeline to victims of abuse who, for example, may be planning to leave their perpetrator. The ability to access thorough information on a full range of issues, with easy-to-follow guidance, is crucial. It is also imperative that black and minoritised women, deaf and disabled women and LGBT+ victims are able to access support that meets their very specific needs and is sensitive to their experiences of additional inequalities and intersecting forms of discrimination. Victims should also be made aware of the range of helplines and online support, including the Women’s Aid live chat helpline and other appropriate domestic abuse and violence against women and girls support. Simply saying that there is a code will not bridge the gap between the victim and the service they need. I hope the Minister will feel able to offer proposals to strengthen the signposting requirements in the Bill ahead of Report.
I finish by recollecting that exactly one week ago in your Lordships’ House we debated, for a good hour and a half, what makes for good signage and who is responsible for it. Specifically, we discussed changes to the requirements placed on warning signs for level crossings between private or heritage railways and farm tracks—it was more interesting than you might imagine. Surely if we can improve signage to help a farmer get his sheep across a railway track, we can properly sign victims to the services they need.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I will not follow the right reverend Prelate down the byways of Manchester, or the sheep farmers and their signposts, but I support him and indeed the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, in the thrust of the amendments that they have introduced. I am part of a catholic gathering which supports the amendments tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord. I do it because I think it is a sensible, practical thing to do, but also because I have seen it work.
Many years ago, when I was the shadow Minister for Prisons in the other place and my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was the leader of the Opposition, I visited a huge number of prisons. I think I visited about 75 of the 145-odd prisons, secure training units and young offender institutions in England and Wales, and in a number of prisons, certainly adult prisons in London, in Wales and in other parts of England, I saw restorative justice in action.
It is a delicate process and one needs to be very careful that it is, as the amendment tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, makes clear, carried out where appropriate and that it is available where appropriate. Not every victim is ready to enter into a conversation with the person who committed a crime against them. I have been in the room when RJ took place between prisoners and the victims of murder, the victims of serious violence and the victims of domestic burglary. It takes a very strong person to go into a room and listen to the explanation, the apology, the regret of a prisoner who has killed your husband or your son or your daughter. You need to be very strong and very brave. Equally—I suppose to some extent it is easier because there is, if you like, an advantage to the prisoner to be seen to be behaving in a humane way—I think it is fair to say that for many of the prisoners, some of whom were not very articulate, who had not been educated and who had many social, economic and other disadvantages, it was quite brave of them to come to terms with the horrific things that they had done. So I think “appropriate” is the most important word in the amendment tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries.
Also, tailoring the scheme, or the particular episode of restorative justice, to the needs of that particular victim is so important. It is not just a blanket answer: putting two people in a room with a presider, if you like, to make sure that it goes well. You need to think about it extremely carefully and treat the individuals concerned extremely carefully; it cannot be forced and it cannot be rushed.
But I believe that restorative justice is a hugely important factor in the reduction of crime and recidivism. It brings together people who have been perpetrators and those who have been victims in what can only be a traumatic experience—namely, the experience of the crime but also the experience of meeting the person who committed the crime against you or a loved one.
I am delighted that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has tabled his amendment, as I am that the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, have tabled theirs. This is a subject which has been discussed many times but has never been properly resolved. It has to some extent been seen as a luxury add-on to the criminal justice system; it is not—it is vital and fundamental in the appropriate cases. I say this as someone who has looked at the practical effects of it not only as a shadow Minister but also as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust, which has been well-invested in this aspect of the criminal justice system.
Finally, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling her Amendment 13. I thought I knew quite a lot about the criminal justice system, but I had absolutely no idea that the oddity she highlighted this evening existed. It needs correcting.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is perhaps particularly appropriate that I follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, as a way of highlighting the fact that the amendments in this group addressing restorative justice, a number of which are in my name but have already been introduced by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, are not party-political. This is a conviction, understanding and belief that goes right across the political spectrum and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, has arisen from practical experience. Speaking to other noble Lords in the Corridor who have seen my amendments, I have had many people who said, “I wasn’t really convinced and then I saw restorative justice in action, and now I am totally a convert to this idea”. The Government are getting a clear message from right across your Lordships’ Committee that, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said, what was said in the other place—the idea that “Oh, we can put something in the code”—really is not going to do it; we need this in the Bill as a step forward.
I went through this at Second Reading, so I will not repeat it all, but if we look at what the Government are offering now, in their wording is a suggestion that restorative justice is nice when we can find the resources, so you might be lucky enough that there might be the resources available in your area or you might not. That is simply not good enough.
Briefly, I agree very much with all the amendments in this group and echo the comments about Amendment 13. The noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, has found something that the Government can surely pick up, because it so obviously needs to be sorted out.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I want to say a few words about restorative justice but, before I do, I give my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, on what she has just said. I am happy to help and assist in whatever way I can.
I acknowledge that this does not apply to all victims, but for some victims, restorative justice can be a transformative tool that can empower victims to move forward. Over the years, I have met many victims who have given me their true thoughts on restorative justice. In my last term as Victims’ Commissioner, I published two reports on restorative justice and was satisfied from my findings that the majority of victims that I spoke to who had participated in it had found it to be a positive experience. However, the ONS crime survey for England and Wales in 2019-20 found that just 5.5% of victims were given the opportunity to meet the offender. Between 2010 and 2020, this percentage has not increased above 8.7%, while 26% said that they would have accepted an offer to meet the offender if it had been made.
Funding for RJ is no longer ring-fenced by the MoJ. Police and crime commissioners make the decisions on how much they spend on RJ from their victims budgets. This has led to a wide variation across England and Wales in the provision of services, as we have heard. In 2023, the Why me? charity published a report showing that the lowest reported spending by a PCC on such services was £6,250, while the highest was £397,412. The type of crime where RJ is available varies, as do the conditions of service provision.
Data collection on the provision of RJ is poor, preventing effective monitoring of what is happening on the ground if national criminal justice agencies are unsure as to what they are required to do. For example, the HMPPS guidance issued last year states:
“When a victim … requests information about restorative justice services, the VLO must provide it within ten working days”.
This is not in line with the victims’ code of practice, which includes the right to receive information about RJ and how to access RJ services. It does not depend on whether the victim has requested it. In short, access to restorative justice has become a postcode lottery.
I hope, therefore, that these amendments and the debates that we have heard across the Chamber will prompt the Minister to give this House reassurance that such concerns about the provision of RJ are, and must be, seriously addressed. Lots of money has been spent, and it would be so sad not to carry on when victims would like to have that option.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I also support the importance of providing for restorative justice. I had a look at the current code of practice to see what it has to say. I was a bit surprised that a paragraph referring to RJ, which is obviously deliberately separated from the right to access support services generally, starts:
“If you report a crime to the police, you have the Right to be referred to a service that supports victims, including Restorative Justice services”.
I do not know whether this is a real point or a non-point, since the offender has to be involved by definition and, by definition, the offender would have been reported to the police, but it seems to me to be inconsistent with Clause 1(5) and the whole ethos of the Bill. I was not clear either whether paragraph 4.5 in the code is dependent on being entitled to receive enhanced rights—ER—for victims who are considered vulnerable or intimidated, the victims of most serious crime or persistently targeted.
The debate is, to an extent, that crime has been defined at different levels: it has been for serious crime, but I argue that it is not only the most serious crimes for which RJ is appropriate. I was glad that the noble and right reverend Lord mentioned reducing reoffending because, looking at the whole picture, that is a very serious and important aspect. My name is to his amendment, and the noble Baroness’s amendments appeared without giving me time to do that.
In this group, I have Amendment 17, to provide for a single point of contact—a “victim care hub” was the term used by the London victims’ commissioner, who was particularly keen that we should address this, as you would expect from her own experience.
On the usual issue of timely and effective communication, there are other amendments dealing with another aspect of this, which is that justice agencies are struggling to deliver victim care with awareness and in compliance with the victims’ code, which the London victims’ commissioner said was at seriously low levels.
In the 2019 review into the code, the Victims’ Commissioner for London recommended a victim hub model. We have had reference this evening to the Lighthouse in Camden, and she also refers to the lighthouse model in Avon and Somerset—a single point of contact to help a victim throughout the process. Such a model would secure more effective compliance with the code, which was discussed by many noble Lords at Second Reading.
In June 2022, the office of the Victims’ Commissioner launched a victims’ survey. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, is nodding. This dealt with experiences as a victim of crime, ran for eight weeks and gathered 489 responses from self-selecting individuals. All this bears out what we have been referring to: a lot of dissatisfaction, and a lack of confidence in the system. I understand that less than a third of respondents were aware of the victims’ code. In London, a user satisfaction survey for one quarter in 2022-23 showed only 25% of victims being made aware of the code.
What would a hub do? Such a service would provide a single point of contact, key updates on case progression, information and advice; answer questions; refer on to specialist support—signposting by another name, although perhaps referring is more than just signposting—and ensure and monitor that entitlements under the code are being delivered. This would not replace existing support services but would be a navigator; perhaps that is close to signposting. It would also provide information on what to expect and clarity, and simplify the whole thing.
I am conscious of the time, so I will not go through all the case studies in the briefing, other than to make a few quick references. The commissioner refers to good practice in Quebec, where I understand there is a similar model: the support worker—I do not know if that is the right term—is embedded in police stations and courts, which gives them access to computer systems and, hence, to victim records. I found the case studies quite shocking. I should not have, because from what noble Lords have said, we should all be expecting to hear shocking stories, but that is why we have the Bill. To me, to have a victim care hub seems blindingly obvious.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Wednesday 31st January 2024
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 31-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Committee - (30 Jan 2024)
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the chance to participate—I thought I was going to be cut off at the knees at the end of the last session when the Committee was adjourned promptly. I also apologise to the Committee because I did not participate in the Second Reading debate. I intervene this afternoon to support Amendment 14 tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and supported by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the other amendments concerned with restorative justice or RJ.
I have quite a personal reason for this because when I came into your Lordships’ House some years ago, my best friend rang me to say that his best friend from school had just been made a chief constable and was very interested in this thing called restorative justice, and would I be prepared to go and meet him? I said I would, of course. I knew virtually nothing about RJ at that time. I went to meet the chief constable and he explained to me how he thought we were missing a trick in not using RJ more widely to deal with what he described as our lamentable record in reoffending.
He arranged for me to go and get involved in some cases, hear the facts and even, with the permission of the participants, sit in as a facilitator on one or two cases. I got a great deal of first-hand experience of how RJ might or might not work. All he said when I finished was, “Will you just repay me by raising RJ and speaking about it in the House of Lords in the future?”. So here I am this afternoon, keeping faith with my friend, the chief constable. From my great experience, then, the key issue—this important point was made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries—was that it works only if each participant, on the two sides of the argument or the case, is prepared to get inside the head of the other. That was an important part of what I learned while I was there.
I will not talk at length about what I learned specifically, but it is worth briefly recounting one case. A confirmed drug user with a charge-sheet as long as your arm saw an empty house and thought he would break in, find a piece of electrical equipment, take it, flog it and use the proceeds to feed his habit. Unfortunately for him, the house was not empty. The owner of the house, a designer, had a small studio upstairs on the second floor. He came downstairs to find this man in the hall and asked, “What are you doing?”. The man said, “I’ve come to read the gas meter”. The owner said, “Bad idea, because there’s no gas in this house. We don’t have gas”. A struggle ensued, during which the owner of the house hit the man over the head with a flowerpot. There are pictures of the person with blood streaming down his face when the police arrived and arrested him.
From this unprepossessing, unlikely beginning, a case of RJ was introduced. The men met a few times then, as was inevitably right, the burglar got a custodial sentence. The men corresponded while he was in prison and a degree of agreement and understanding—the ability of both sides to put the past behind them and do better in future, from the point of view of the perpetrator —was arrived at. When I talked to the perpetrator, I asked, “What was it?”. He said, “You can see my charge-sheet. All I saw on it were names but, this time, when I met the owner of the house, he said, ‘Do you know what you’ve done? You’ve terrified my family. My two teenage daughters will no longer sleep in separate bedrooms upstairs; they share a room next door to me and my wife. My wife has every single door and window locked—everything locked. You have completely wrecked our security as a family. What do you think about that?’”. Although he did not put it this way, it was a bit of a lightbulb moment for him.
On the other side, when I talked to the owner of the house, he said, “When we began to talk to the chap, he had had a hopeless start. He had a single mum—not much of a single mum, really—and was in and out of care, with little to no educational achievement. Inevitably, his life was largely devoted to crime”. From these two understandings came an ability to work together; it put them, in particular the perpetrator, to an important and life-affirming task to live better and have a worthwhile lifetime.
That is a great, moving story but I said to the chief constable, “There must be a but”. He said, “Of course there’s a but”. He was anxious then, as I think I would be anxious today, not to put too much weight on restorative justice. He said, “There are two things you can do to make sure that RJ does better”. The first is that you need—these are the words from the briefing, not the chief constable—“voluntary and honest participation” by both sides. That is straightforward.
Not in the briefing is the second point that he made: you need expert, trained facilitators. Being expert and trained means, first, that you move the conversation forward but not so that you avoid tackling the awful, painful issues that lie at the heart of the problem; and, secondly, that you are tough enough to blow the whistle when you believe that somebody is not trying. This is not always easy to do because, sometimes, a bit of effort has been invested and people are reluctant to let the case go, but someone has to realise that there are cases in which people will, in the famous phrase, swing the lead in the hope of a reduced sentence. The facilitator needs to be well trained. As the chief constable would say, “A facilitator cannot take on too many cases because they’re quite emotionally exhausting if you get really stuck into these people’s lives”.
The chief constable, if he were standing here, would say, “I certainly would not want RJ to be presented as a silver bullet”—the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier. “Above all,” he would say, “I don’t want it to be presented as a cheap silver bullet because it isn’t—at least, not in the short run. However, if you can turn a number of cases round, the long-term savings and benefits to society are incalculable.
Our re-offending rates remain too high—the same situation as when I met the chief constable. We surely have an opportunity now to be imaginative in our thinking about how to reduce offending rates. We need new tools in our toolbox, and restorative justice would be an important one. I hope my noble and learned friend the Minister will react sympathetically to Amendment 14. That would give me great pleasure, because it would mean that I have kept faith with my friend the chief constable.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that his faith will be even better kept if he keeps on advocating RJ? Does he also agree that it has its limitations, one of which is that there is a need, in the case he has described, for drug addiction treatment to go alongside it in some way? One must look at the underlying causes, as he has well indicated.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I could not disagree with that. I suspect that there are a whole host of issues behind habitual offending which we need to think about, of which drug addiction is one. People involved in this policy area are clearly more experienced than I am.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, this is the first group of amendments which really gets into victims’ rights—not just what is expressed in the victims’ code, but ensuring that they can access it. The noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, started the group with the important issue of a victim’s right to challenge decisions, including but not only relating to multiple perpetrators. I thank her for that, because that and some of the cultural issues she raised are important in ensuring that victims’ services are tailored to victims’ needs and are not a tick-box exercise.
I thank Restorative Justice for All for its briefing, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will not repeat it all, but we know that restorative justice is a well-established and evidence-based alternative that certainly does not let offenders off the hook; it is as difficult for offenders as it often is for the victims. Restorative Justice for All wrote to us because it is concerned about how long it has been since issues about the right to restorative justice were addressed. It goes back to an EU directive of 2012, yet there is still no absolute right available. That needs to be remedied.
Unfortunately, under this Bill there is no obligation for criminal justice agencies to inform harmed parties about restorative justice systems. When we come to later amendments, we will be fighting hard to ensure that that does become a requirement, because victims deserve no less. The other part of this group also talks about signposting of services. I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harris of Pentregarth, who believes that the perpetrators need restorative justice as much. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said that being told there is a code is a start, but much more is needed. I suspect that the Minister will try to say that having such a system would be expensive. However, we know that not having the alternative is even more expensive not just in terms of the consequences for victims’ lives, but for the criminal justice system, parole and stopping recidivism. Without restorative justice, all those costs will continue to pile on.
I do hope that the Minister will bring us some good news. I gently remind him that in the costings for this Bill we were reminded that Part 4, on prisoners, will cost around £0.5 billion, but only a very token amount is allocated for victims’ services. Perhaps that balance is not yet quite right.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as I often do, that we are now digging into how this legislation can be improved for victims. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, on raising the issue of the gap in proceedings whereby, if there are multiple perpetrators, some of whom are not charged and some of whom are, the victim does not have the right to challenge why people are not being charged. That clearly needs to be remedied, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s suggestion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments. The Government appreciate the considerable work that goes into preparing amendments and arguments and bringing issues before this House.
By way of a brief reminder, in general terms the Government have a threefold approach to the Bill. The first is to set out general principles of the victims’ code included in Clause 2(3), supplemented by regulations in subsection (4). The second approach is to put the detail and the operational information that victims need in the code, rather than in the Bill. I commend to your Lordships the latest draft version of the code, published in June 2023, which sets out the 12 rights in a particularly user-friendly way. The third approach is to create a system whereby victims are aware of the code, and the relevant criminal justice bodies comply with their obligations under the code. The mechanism for this is set out in Clauses 6 to 10, supplemented by guidance under Clause 11.
I have reiterated that framework because, in the Government’s view, a lot of the debate we have had today is about what should be in the Bill and what should be in the code, in guidance or elsewhere in the framework. There may be no disagreement in principle about the importance of many of the things we are discussing, be it restorative justice or the right to object to a charging decision, but the question we are on now concerns the way the Bill should be drafted. The broad view of the Government on most of the amendments in this group and subsequent groups is that the matter is either already covered in the code or should be covered in the code, rather than being expressly on the face of the Bill. That is the Government’s broad position.
Turning to the amendments, I take first the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, relating to multiple perpetrators and the fact that in some cases if only one perpetrator is charged, the victim may be aggrieved because other perpetrators were not charged. First of all, this is a good example of how it should work; the principle of a right to challenge, from the victim’s point of view, is set out in Clause 2(9). The implementation of that principle in this context is in code right 6, which refers to the victim’s right of review scheme in respect of various police and CPS decisions. The noble Baroness rightly draws attention to an apparent lacuna in the CPS part of the scheme, which currently does not cater for the situation where only one of several perpetrators is charged. The Government are very happy to look again at that issue and to discuss with the relevant agencies how that lacuna should be addressed.
As the Government see it, this is a very good example, rightly drawn to public attention, of a possible gap in the code that should be addressed by making improvements to the code rather than putting the issue directly in the statute. The draft code itself, in its present form, will be subject to further consultation anyway under Clause 3 if and when the Bill is passed. That is essentially the Government’s position on Amendment 13.
I take next the important issue of restorative justice, of which the Government are wholly supportive. Amendment 14, in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and Amendments 16, 17, 22, 32 and 52, in the name of, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, aim to ensure that on the face of the Bill victims should have access to restorative justice—that is the broad thrust of it—and that the Secretary of State should issue guidance about that.
The Government entirely accept that restorative justice is extremely important; again, I salute, if I may, the words of my noble friend Lord Hodgson in raising this issue so eloquently. However, important though it is, the Government do not feel that restorative justice should be elevated above all the other victim services by being specifically included in the Bill. Once you start including specific services in the Bill, either you have a very long list or you have to prioritise certain things. The Government’s view is that the structure should be that the Bill contains short principles, and almost everything else is in the code or guidance. To do otherwise is to introduce rigidity and might have the somewhat perverse effect of concentrating what are admittedly limited resources on some specified kind of support at the expense of other, equally valuable, kinds of support.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I think we are all very sympathetic to the idea that a huge amount could go in the code and the guidance, certainly as far as restorative justice is concerned. But the third part of what the Minister said the purpose of this Bill was is to ensure that the criminal justice system knows what its responsibilities are. Surely some things could go in there, including restorative justice. Will the Minister look particularly carefully at the evidence produced by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, about how at least 27% of people would have taken up restorative justice if they had been asked? Would he not come to the conclusion, perhaps, that it is only if it is on the face of the Bill that that situation will be remedied?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, as the noble and right reverend Lord invites me, I will look again at that evidence and the whole argument. However, in relation to this aspect, noble Lords should be aware that access to all the supporting services and processes in the criminal justice system are already part of the principles under Clause 2(3). In the implementation of those rights, access to justice is already specifically provided for under right 3 in the present draft code, which, among other things, requires the police to provide all the information you need to exercise that right.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the problem with Clause 2(2) is that it is followed by Clause 2(3), which starts by saying, “The victims’ code must” but then in all its sub-paragraphs says simply that things “should” be provided, so it is watered down. I apologise for being pedantic on this point but it goes to the heart of what the Minister is trying to do. I believe he is saying to us that there is enough in the Bill that will support victims in regulation, but the problem is that there is no watertight “must” in the Bill as it stands.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I think we will come to the “must”/“should” point a bit later when we discuss the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. If I may, I will deal with that issue in general, in an umbrella way, in that context.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I want to pick up the point made by the Minister about victim services going into the code rather than into the Bill. I feel I should apologise that although I have three degrees, none of them is in law—I often regret that these days—so perhaps I am wrestling with some technical questions here.
It seems to me that we are not just talking about restorative justice as a victim service. If you have been a victim of a crime, it goes to court, the police investigate and the criminal is punished; all those might be regarded as victim services but they are all in other Acts—they already exist as an absolute legal right that is laid down. What we do not currently have in any Bill is a right to restorative justice that is balanced. We are saying that restorative justice needs to be in there with an equal or at least appropriate level of weight, and it will not have that unless it is in the Bill.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, if I may say so, what one should put in the Bill and in the code are matters of judgment and balance. In relation to restorative justice, which we are on, there have already been extensive discussions in the other place. The Government have said, first, that the code should include the right of victims to receive more information about restorative justice, particularly at the point of sentence, and that the importance of restorative justice services should be included in guidance to police and crime commissioners under Clause 11. I think that partly meets, and maybe substantially meets, the point made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, that you need to have in writing somewhere an emphasis on supplying restorative justice. The Government’s position on restorative justice is that that is a proper recognition of the importance of restorative justice.
One should also bear in mind in this context that restorative justice does not just happen; it also needs the consent of the offender, and is quite a delicate operation. You need a facilitator, and so forth. It is one of many services, mechanisms and procedures that are available. The Government’s position is that we should not spell out in the Bill all the mechanisms and procedures that are available but we should work hard to ensure that the code itself, the guidance thereunder and the arrangements for awareness that we will be discussing in due course together raise the profile of restorative justice so that it has its proper place in the system among other things. That is the Government’s position. No one is denying the importance of restorative justice. No one is saying it is a waste of time or should not be there; on the contrary, we are saying that its profile should be raised. The only argument is about how we do that, and Government’s position is that we do not do it by an amendment to the Bill itself.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am quite a localist normally, but is this not the very point? A single point of contact that is not prescribing what is available locally but is “signposting”—to use the right reverend Prelate’s word—should be provided, so that any victim, anywhere, will know where to go. They might not necessarily take the step of taking advantage of it, but it seems to me pretty central to the way services are made known that something such as this should go into the Bill.
I should also say that my noble friend Lady Brinton was trying to email me something, but it has not come through, so she may have another point.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I shall not be attempting to answer the email that has not yet come through until it does, but my general answer to the noble Baroness is that the whole thrust of the Bill is that each criminal justice body must take reasonable steps to promote awareness of the victims’ code among users of those services and other members of the public, et cetera. I cannot conceive how you could discharge that duty of raising awareness without informing people how to access or go to whatever services they need, so it is implicit in the operation that that sort of information will have to be provided. The way in which it is provided and the detail of it is not for the Bill but for the code and the guidance.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry to delay things, but there is one thing I am not clear about. Restorative justice at the moment is available for the suspect as an alternate to going to court, with the agreement of the victim. If the right is to be given to the victim to insist on restorative justice, is that an addition to a potential court appearance or an alternate? If the Crown Prosecution Service has decided that there will be a prosecution but the victim insists on their right to restorative justice, does that change that decision? I am not quite clear from the amendments, nor the Minister’s response, how that dilemma is resolved. It may be that I have just misunderstood, in which case I apologise, but I do not quite understand how that gets resolved.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I may be as underinformed as anyone but my understanding is that the classic case of restorative justice is that once there has been a prosecution and a conviction, there is a process for some kind of reconciliatory interaction between the victim and the offender—for example, of the kind that my noble friend Lord Hodgson so eloquently described—in a way which enables both parties to process and come to terms with what has happened. It is not typically an alternative to having a prosecution in the first place, as I understand it, although that might arise.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I know there is an unwritten convention that noble Lords should not intervene when they were not able to be here at the beginning of a group, which in this case was last week, but I do not think that convention prevents me asking a question. Is it not really important that people in the prison system are able to understand what they can do for themselves, and for the victim, by engaging with restorative justice? That is one of the reasons I put my name to Amendment 14. The right honourable Stephen Timms in the other place is an excellent example: he has corresponded with, and is arranging to meet, the perpetrator of the attack on him many years ago. That will, I hope, assist them both—the perpetrator in her release and her future—and give some consolation through her coming together with the victim, who in this case was Stephen Timms.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for his question. I would obviously not dream of making any procedural point, as it is a very fair question. I do not think it is clearly envisaged in the Bill or the code, as it stands at the moment, that it should be the perpetrator who is seeking some sort of restorative justice, rather than it being something that the victim is entitled to. The noble Lord’s point is well made and we should think further about it.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
I thank noble Lords who have spoken on this group and those who supported Amendment 13. I thank the Minister for his response on the concerns raised in the group, particularly on ways to address the gaps in victims’ right to review. Although I am encouraged, I remain concerned, so I hope that the Minister will be able to share a draft code and continue the discussions. For now, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 13.
Baroness Coussins
“(3A) Where interpreting and translation services are needed, the victims’ code must specify that specialist, qualified and experienced professionals must be engaged.”
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to the four amendments in the second group in my name, which are supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. These amendments concern the issue of interpreting and translation in relation to the victims’ code. I gave an outline of my case at Second Reading, so I shall not of course repeat that today.
Since then, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, has been kind enough to meet me to discuss my amendments. I am very grateful to him for taking the time to hear me out. I should first declare my interests as co-chair of the all-party group on modern languages, and vice-president of the Chartered Institute of Linguists. I am indebted to the chartered institute, to the National Register of Public Service Interpreters and to the Bell Foundation for their helpful background briefings, constructive proposals and hard evidence of why these amendments are needed.
Amendment 18 adds an extra specification to the face of the Bill about what the victims’ code must do, in addition to what is already listed in Clause 2(3). The current interim code states that victims have the right of
“access to interpretation and translation services”
if needed.
As a technical aside, the word currently used in the code is “interpretation” rather than “interpreting”. However, I have used the word “interpreting” as it is the more accurate word and the word already used in other MoJ contexts. I have discussed with the Minister why this word should be brought into the text of the code itself. In case other noble Lords are beginning to nod off and think that I am splitting hairs unbearably, I will explain. The word “interpretation” implies analysis and paraphrasing, whereas the word “interpreting” explicitly means repeating in another language exactly, accurately and only what the speaker has said, without any commentary, advice or suggestions—all of which would be totally unprofessional and anathema to any properly trained and qualified interpreter.
With the technical detail over, I go back to Amendment 18. It is vital that this overarching requirement be enshrined in the Bill and not left to the code, guidance or regulations. As I said at Second Reading, it is completely unacceptable that unqualified, underqualified or inexperienced individuals should be used as interpreters, especially in situations which are dangerous, sensitive, emotional or otherwise challenging for victims.
We know from thoroughly documented experience in the criminal justice system, and other areas of the public sector such as the health service, that a general or vague commitment to interpreting and translation services does not always deliver what is needed or required in practice. If it is left to guidance only, we also know from the NHS experience that there is no monitoring of whether the guidance is observed. Public service interpreters are specialist, qualified and trained professionals. A member of the family does not count. A teenage child certainly does not count. A neighbour does not count. A court official who happens to speak the same language at home does not count. Google Translate certainly does not count.
Put simply, fair access to justice for non-English speakers should be a legal right, not a guideline, recommendation or piece of good practice advice. If the need for a professionally qualified interpreter is stated only in a code or piece of guidance, it is in practice effectively optional. If it is on the face of the Bill, it becomes mandatory and enables us to put a stop to bogus or unqualified people pretending to be interpreters. In the world of public service delivery, that makes all the difference.
We know from various surveys, including one commissioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, that awareness that the code even exists is at very low levels. How much lower must the awareness levels be for people with poor or no English?
At the same time, different scenarios might legitimately demand different levels of qualification or experience. This is why the MoJ, in the light of discussions that I held with the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, over the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, embarked on a thorough independent review of the qualifications and experience required of court and tribunal interpreters. I believe that it is close to publication, in time for the issuing of the next invitation to tender for contracted-out language services.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I apologise that I was not able to be present at Second Reading—the day job had to take precedence. I rise to endorse thoroughly what the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said in her speech. I wish not to speak to each amendment but to add a bit of heft to what she said. I do not exactly declare this as an interest, but I was a professional linguist before I went into the Church, so language has been important to me right the way through.
We heard in the Minister’s response earlier that victims must get the information they need. They also must get it in a form they are able to read, or hear, and understand. In this country language is often misunderstood or not taken as seriously as it ought to be, or as one might find in some countries in continental Europe, for example, where you live on boundaries and have to operate in a number of languages. Because we are an island nation, this is something we do not necessarily experience.
Having trained as a translator and interpreter—these are very different skills and professions—I understand the problems of inaccuracy and of getting even nuance wrong. We are talking here about victims who are already seriously disadvantaged. That disadvantage, that damage, should not be exacerbated by running the risk of them simply not being able to be understood, or to understand what is being represented to them.
There is something here about professionalism. If noble Lords do not believe that this is important, I hope they watched the funeral of Nelson Mandela, where the deaf interpreter simply went awry—it looked like he was conducting an orchestra, but badly. He said afterwards that he was simply overawed by the experience, but many people doubted that he had the skill to do what he had been signed up and paid to do. It really matters. I found it very entertaining but not very edifying, so I emphasise the need for professionalism in this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, referred to Google Translate, which most linguists go to for a bit of a laugh and to see what it suggests. When I lecture in German at German universities, I often run my texts through it for the entertainment value, but it is rarely accurate. Now we have translation by AI systems—Google Translate is that, really—which can be entertaining too. They can be helpful if you need a bit of a boost, but you would not rely on them for something that was important for life and death.
That is why the national register is so important. My understanding is that this country has a shortage of not only linguists—I could say much more about that—but qualified linguists able to go on the register and do what we are asking them to do. That triggers a different question. We cannot just say that we do not have the qualified people and therefore must make do; we have a bigger challenge to emphasise the importance of language learning, which has many knock-on effects for how we understand people and culture. As I often repeat, the former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, when giving advice to younger Germans asking him about going into politics, wrote: “Don’t even consider it unless you have at least two foreign languages to a competent degree, because you can’t understand yourself and your own culture unless you look through the lens of another. For that you need language, because language goes deep”. Some things cannot be translated; you need a degree of expertise to deal with them.
There is a wider issue, but I will not bang that drum any further now. This is fundamentally a matter of justice. If victims are to be heard and to hear accurately, this ought to be in the Bill.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for bringing forward this amendment. When I spoke at Second Reading, I did not realise that this dimension might arise—clearly it can, and it is important. I address the Committee as one of a small minority here who do not have English as their first language. In fact, I calculated over the Easter Recess that I speak in English less than 10% of the time. This Bill will impact not just England but Wales, where Welsh is an official language. I do not see much evidence in the Bill of any adjustment being made for that purpose.
Fundamentally, the Bill deals with victims. There are perhaps four groups of victims for whom the language dimension is critical. First, there are children; at home in Wales, a large number of children—certainly tens of thousands—have Welsh as their first language. They acquire English as a second language as they get older, but under pressure they will no doubt want to revert to their first language, which is the natural language in which they express themselves. Another group of great importance to me and a number of other noble Lords is disabled people. When put under stress, they need assistance. If there is additional stress from dealing in a language that is not their first, they will need assistance.
That is also true for elderly people. As people get older, they revert to their first language, particularly those who have had strokes. People from Wales have found themselves in residential homes in the south of England; the staff think they are speaking gibberish, but they are reverting to their first language. That group also needs to be brought in. Finally, there is the general group of people who are under stress, whatever their age or background, and need to be helped to express themselves in their first language. This is important in Wales. Reference was made a moment ago to the Children’s Commissioner. We have our own Children’s Commissioner for Wales and our own framework, but I am not sure that the Bill takes that on board. Clearly, provision needs to be made.
The day has now passed when an ad hoc translator would be whistled up for a court case from those who happened to be around—usually a minister or a teacher, who could roughly translate what was being said. I have mentioned before in this House how many people over the centuries—although not in this or the last—were hanged without understanding a word of what was going on in the court that declared them guilty.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I support of all four of the amendments and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for a thorough explanation. We are talking about victims in the criminal justice system understanding their rights and entitlements in so many languages. We are talking about understanding the legality of words in the English language, and it is no wonder we find these barriers as we go through the system.
The first right under the victims’ code is:
“To be able to understand and to be understood”.
That seems fairly basic, but for many it is not their experience. I have met many victims of other nationalities who have said the same. I am grateful to the VAWG sector communication barriers working group for its guidance, and in particular to the late Ruth Bashall, who was the CEO of Stay Safe East and a tireless advocate for deaf and disabled survivors. They have consistently raised how disabled victims and other victims of crime—for example, those with English as a second language—are severely disadvantaged in accessing justice by the lack of accessible information, communication support and physical access to buildings or facilities. In this context, disabled victims and other victims have fewer rights than suspects, who have some basic rights under PACE—for example, the right to an interpreter.
Though some adjustments, such as the right to an intermediary, are contained in the victims’ code, they are rarely used. I am disappointed that, six years on from my report looking at the availability of intermediaries, A Voice for the Voiceless, I am still hearing that there are far too few intermediaries to meet the demand, and that this is causing significant delays, with the victim sometimes simply withdrawing.
I often hear that information provided to victims is inaccessible. Both my predecessor, Dame Vera Baird, and I have directly asked the criminal justice agencies to provide victim information in clear, accessible language, as well as in Easyread, BSL and other language versions. All too often, communication with victims is lacking, and there is still a great deal of work to be done by agencies to ensure that victims understand and are understood. It is vital that the criminal justice system is accessible to all victims of crime and that they receive the communication support they need. As a first step, the code itself must be accessible. Although, commendably, the Government took steps to make most recent iteration of the code easier to understand, as well as publishing Easyread, translated and children’s versions, it is still not accessible for a large number of victims. The Government must ensure that the code is accessible to all victims of crime.
I want to end on a personal story from a victim who was raped and trafficked from Albania. She was disabled. In Albania, if you are born disabled, your body parts are very valuable, so a baby tends to be hidden if he or she is disabled. She reported the rape when she was in this country and rehoused. She went to a police station. The police looked for an interpreter. They found one who had the same dialect but who was actually from the trafficking gang. She was mortified. She simply could not believe that she had gone to the police station and that that interpreter was taking over her complaint. She withdrew it.
It is not simply about producing someone who can speak a language; it is about understanding a dialect. We need professional people who can help victims through our criminal justice system.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, particularly on the collection of evidence in criminal cases. She is arguing for precision, accuracy and consistency. At the moment, the system suffers in respect of all those three criteria.
The establishing of truth relies on the establishing of accurate evidence. It usually looks for accuracy, precision and consistency, but if we have any doubt about interpretation of another language, all those three things suffer. There is a concern that where the standard of interpreters is not established to a high and consistent level, there is a risk that the obtaining of evidence is damaged. This matters particularly for the police in the initial obtaining of evidence—which is usually an oral account. Eventually, the oral accounts have to be reduced to writing and the written evidence then fed back to the witness or victim to establish whether it relates to what they have told the police officer. If there is a difference in how those are interpreted, the person may not have a proper, accurate account of how they described their experience.
A secondary issue is that if there is not a consistent standard, different interpreters may help the police and the victim during different parts of the process. They may help the victim with the initial account; then there may be a written statement. After an interview with the suspect, the evidence may be checked. It is important that the interpreter is the same person or, if not, that there is a common standard of interpretation. Otherwise, there is a risk that the truth is not established.
Precision matters in obtaining the victim’s or witness’s account. It also matters in interviews to establish the suspect’s account. It matters generally in evidence collection because the person who holds the evidence may not be the person who is going to give it. You need to establish whether the CCTV and all the other digital evidence that is available now is what you want, and to make sure that it is accurate.
Finally, precision matters for juries. They will not only want to hear what is said in court; they will want to compare it with the first account as well. If there is inconsistency, they will want to understand it. If we are not careful, they may judge the victim or the witnesses harshly. In turn, that may impact on the suspect. It is vital that consistency and precision are there. As the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said, it matters also for the care of victims and witnesses. If we do not understand how people are living, the challenges they face and the nature of their lives, it is very hard to do what this Bill is trying to establish, which is consistency in care for victims in a way which supports them beyond the event and beyond any criminal prosecution.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, brought out well that this is not only about the interpretation of language—that is, what happened, who said what or who did what—it is also about the legal process. An interpreter may be well qualified to interpret language but may not always understand the legal process. Of course, the victim relies on them to understand both. They need good advice to understand how the process will affect them and its impact; for example, in a court case. The evidence may be challenged in a court case to establish its accuracy, but the victim may take this as an attack. In particular, somebody who has a second language may have an experience of another criminal justice system which may not be like ours. It may be more adversarial—sorry, it could not be any more adversarial than ours, could it? It may search for the truth in a different way. They certainly need to understand how our system works if they happen not to have experienced it before.
For all those reasons to do with evidence collection, precision and accuracy, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. She has been pushing this point for a while. It has not been established; it is time it should be, and this is a great opportunity to do it.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 18, which would require the code to provide for interpreting and translation services and, more importantly, for the standards to be expected of the professionals supplying those services.
Good and reliable interpreting and translation is an increasingly necessary part of the justice system in all areas. It is also an expensive part of the system, for which value for money should be important. Most interpreters are good and efficient, but others, regrettably, are less so. A long time ago when in practice, I recall a particularly impatient interpreter helping me and my client who pulled me aside and urged me to get my client to plead guilty, which I politely declined to do. That completely undermined the confidence that either of us could have in that particular interpreter.
At present, as I understand it, court interpreting services are obtained through agencies used by the Courts & Tribunals Service. If this amendment or something like it is enacted, I would assume that the same agencies would be used. In any event, I would hope that care is taken to stipulate, ensure and review the efficiency of the agencies used and the quality of the work they do.
Finally, I would also hope and expect that this amendment, if approved, would be understood to be wide enough to help those requiring sign language and lip-reading assistance. If not, will those requirements be expressly covered by the code?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I also apologise for being unable to be present for Second Reading. I will speak very briefly in view of the comprehensive opening speech on this group of amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the speeches from all other noble Lords. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for a sustained campaign on the need for professional interpreting and translation services. We have travelled this road before in other contexts, but I hope that the Government will pay the closest attention to her arguments and her justification for these amendments.
The first point is an obvious and a human one. Just as for witnesses, complainants and defendants in formal criminal justice proceedings, so for victims in understanding the code and in securing, receiving and understanding services, the experience of being a victim is extremely traumatic, emotional, often unique in the victims’ experience, and it is very difficult for the victim to comprehend what is happening to them—in short, it is difficult to understand in a human way. These problems are all the more acute for victims whose first language is not English.
However, the main point that the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, made, and the point of these amendments and the conclusion, while in the context of that initial human point, is thoroughly supported by her arguments. Complete understanding of the language is vital. What is needed, therefore, is a service that as closely as possible diminishes and removes language barriers, so what is written and stated in English is understandable to the victim, and what is written and stated in the victim’s native language is understandable in English. That can be reliably achieved only if the translation is full, accurate and direct.
The stress the noble Baroness places on the distinction between “interpreting” and “interpretation” is of the greatest importance. It is crucial that, just as in courts, when evidence, submissions or judgments are delivered, in the context of victims’ needs the translator’s or interpreter’s view must not be interpolated between the service provider and the victim or between the code and the victim. Translation and interpretation should convey exactly and straightforwardly what is said or written to and by the victim.
There is a risk, which is well known in courts and other contexts, that when non-professional, unqualified or inexperienced translating or interpreting services are involved, the directness and accuracy are compromised, not just because mistakes of meaning may be made but because the translator’s or interpreter’s own ideas and understanding colour, embroider or develop the meaning of what is written or of what is being said. This process may, and often does, reflect the best of intentions on the part of the interpreter—the intentions of those who are genuinely trying to help.
We should not underestimate the temptation for people, including professional service providers, looking for understanding or expression in order to seek or accept help when that is well-meaning but unprofessional, and the risk that those good intentions may involve. That risk, whether well-intentioned, or, as in the example of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, of the interpreter in the police station who was effectively on the other side, always needs to be minimised, and these amendments offer a good chance of achieving that minimisation.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments, and I particularly emphasise the points we have heard about having people with expertise. The right reverend Prelate spoke very clearly about this.
This can also be very much affected by dialect-inflected accents which mean that it can be very hard for everyone, including members of the judiciary, to understand what is being said. I spoke before in your Lordships’ House about an occasion where I actually heard the word “car” misread as “cow”. Of course, you do not really want a collision with either, but the Highway Code can deal with only one of those two. In the interests of justice, clarity is important and interpreters must be well trained. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, mentioned Wales, where I spend a lot of time. Of course, there is a huge area here for confusion. We need people who are to a certain extent site-specific. For example, if you are in Newcastle or Liverpool, you may well—if you come from London and, like me, from the BBC—have trouble understanding exactly what is going on. But it is imperative in the name of justice that people are well-trained and can really do the job properly, so I strongly support my noble friend’s amendments and I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say about them.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Benjamin would have liked to speak from these Benches today, but, unfortunately, she cannot be here. She told me that, in signing all these amendments, she supports the attempt of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, to strengthen interpretation, in particular, but also access to services in other languages. Much has been said, and I will not repeat it, but we need to commend the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who has from every possible aspect in your Lordships’ House—whether in debates or on legislation—ensured that we think about the importance of other languages that are not our first or our own. One of the key things that has come through this short debate is that that relates to not just the traditional languages that we may have perceived through learning at school or going on holiday but the rights of people who are deaf to have BSL interpreters; to have easy-read or particular interpreter support for children or those with learning difficulties is equally vital.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds reminded us that this is all about fair access for victims, and he talked about “the culture”. I worked at Cambridge University for 20 years in various roles and on two or three occasions had to help foreign-language students when they had been victims of crime. They had good English, but they did not have confident English to deal with what had happened to them in the aftermath of an incident, let alone understand the culture of how our system works—whether it is the police or the criminal justice system. Having an interpreter to whom they can explain what has happened and in return to hear how the process will happen—importantly, that must neutral, as many noble Lords have mentioned—is vital.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for raising the issue of vulnerable groups because that is important too. He might be amused to know that I am now the step-grandmother of a six year-old child for whom Welsh is very much her first language—I am trying to catch up. A child of that age just speaks the language as it comes and even in the family environment it can throw you when you do not understand. How much more important is that when you are navigating a system such as the criminal justice system?
My noble friend Lord Marks set out the important reasons for the criminal justice system that we professionalise language and interpretative services. We absolutely support that on these Benches and I hope the Minister will listen favourably to all the comments that have been made so far.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for this group of amendments, to which I have put my name. I echo the point that she has had a sustained campaign on this through a number of Bills and I very much hope that this group of amendments will reinforce her campaign, if I can put it like that, and the Minister will look at it favourably. She gave various examples of shortcomings in the court system where interpretations go wrong and I have had personal experience of every single one of the shortcomings that she highlighted. I suspect that anyone else who has worked in the courts, particularly in our metropolitan cities, will have experienced those shortcomings as well.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds spoke about his work as a linguist and I think I am right in saying that he is a Russian linguist—he is nodding his head a bit. It reminded me of when I understood the difference between interpretation and interpreting. That was when I was working in Ukraine and had a Russian interpreter interpreting for me. She was so fluent that she could talk simultaneously in whatever conversation was happening and, she told me, she also did her shopping list in her head at the same time. That is how fluent she was. There really are some remarkable people who do this work. The other thing I learned through various aspects of my life is that there are specialisms within interpreting and it is very important that you recognise the limits of the interpreters one is dealing with at any particular time.
This brings me on to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. She gave the example of an Albanian gang member who was involved in interpreting in a case of alleged rape. One thing I have become aware of in dealing with domestic abuse, particularly when it is minority groups with minority languages, is that you have to be very cautious about who the interpreter is. The information that comes through the interviews with the lawyers and the like can easily leak out into the wider community of that group and can undermine the woman in whatever legal remedy she is seeking. It is a point that I absolutely recognise.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, talked about the processes themselves and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, talked about value for money. He also spoke about sign language and lip-reading, both of which I have experienced in court. It is quite an exhaustive process and I understand that it is quite expensive when you have to have relays of sign language interpreters when one is dealing with particular cases. Nevertheless, there is a fundamental point underlined in this group of amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, about access to justice and we need to make sure that the standards are as high as possibly can be obtained.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, “Don’t underestimate good intentions when interpreters are interpreting”. Many times, I have seen them try to help understanding by overexplaining things, which actually undermines one side or another of the case. I understand that this is a difficult, sensitive issue but I very much hope that, when he comes to reply, the Minister will give as much reassurance as he possibly can—both that standards are kept at the highest possible level and that all necessary procedures and protocols are properly reflected—so that the aspirations of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, can be fully met.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for raising this important topic. I join in the general commendation of the way in which she presented her amendments and the way in which noble Lords have subsequently supported them.
In relation to the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, I will, if I may, trespass on your Lordships’ indulgence. Let me say that, having had to work for several years in an entirely foreign language and an entirely unfamiliar legal system, I am quite conscious of the difficulty that one has. There comes a point—in my experience, at least—when you get stuck between two stools and you cannot say anything in either language in trying to express yourself. So the subject matter of what we are discussing is well understood.
Perhaps we might start with the common ground. It goes without saying that interpreting—I emphasise that word—and translation services must be of the highest quality and clarity in the criminal justice system, as well as tailored to the victim’s needs. As far as the Ministry of Justice is concerned, interpreting and translation services are provided under contracts where the various standards and requirements are laid down. As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, pointed out, those arrangements have been subject to ongoing and extensive review, which I hope will be completed shortly—at least not before long—to ensure that we have the highest quality. Obviously, the general objective is fairly self-evident: in the justice system, you must have a high standard of interpreting and translation. For the CPS, interpreters must be on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters. That is the first area of common ground.
The second area of common ground is that, for those whose first language is not English, the right to understand and be understood is enshrined in the code. It is right 1—the most important right of all—and is set out on page 15 of the present draft of the code, which says that
“providers must communicate in simple and accessible language and all translation or interpretation”—
I take the point that it says “interpretation” but probably should say “interpreting”—
“services must be offered free of charge to the victim”.
So this is recognised as a right. If it is not always achieved, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, feels, that is, in effect, why we are here. The whole structure of the Bill aims to remedy possible defects and create a system in which we can raise standards progressively and consistently across the country, commissioning bodies can learn from each other and we can improve the service available to victims, generally speaking; that is an operational issue rather than an issue of principle. No one is disputing the broad thrust of the comments that have been made.
Here, once again, we come to what is in some ways the philosophical issue behind everything that we have been discussing: to what extent should we introduce matters in the Bill and to what extent should we deal with the operational and detailed aspects in the code or in guidance? On that point, the common ground tends to be a little more limited, if I may say so.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in support of my amendments in this group. I also thank the Minister for his reply. He drew a distinction between principles, which he said should be in the Bill, and operational guidance. I would argue that surely it must be a non-negotiable, bottom-line principle that interpreting and translation services should be provided by qualified trained professionals; that to me sounds like a principle. An example of an operational guideline would be specifying a level of diploma qualification for a particular category of case, situation or scenario. So I urge the Minister to be emboldened by the unanimous support around the Chamber for this set of amendments and to negotiate for a bit more room for manoeuvre, particularly on Amendment 18.
To answer his question about Amendment 25 and why we should have consultations in translation, the surveys conducted by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, showed that awareness of the code was very low. If we want to know what all victims, not just native English speakers, think about it, we need to consult properly, not partially.
I will beg leave to withdraw my amendment at this stage, but I fully expect to come back at a later stage to press further. I hope that, in the meantime, the Minister might agree to meet me again to see whether we can find any of that room for manoeuvre.
Baroness Brinton
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) must make provision for a person to be able to obtain free of charge, on request, a transcript of a trial in which the person was involved as a victim.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to provide victims of crime with a right to free transcripts for the trial in which they were involved.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 20 and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for signing it. The background to this amendment is that victims and their family members often feel that they are bystanders in the justice process, unable to have their voices heard and sometimes actively dissuaded from having any involvement in proceedings. We believe that open justice means transparency for the public, but even more so for the victim, because they have arguably the most vested interest in seeing justice done.
My honourable friend Sarah Olney had an Adjournment Debate down the other end and correspondence with Ministers Edward Argar and Mike Freer on this issue. She tabled an amendment to this Bill when it was in the Commons; it was not selected for debate, but she continued to take the matter up and Ed Argar announced in the Commons a one-year pilot scheme to enable victims of rape and other serious sexual offences to request Crown Court sentencing remarks. But this is insufficient, and it is the reason we have retabled this amendment.
We have heard in some of the stories from victims that they are not just actively dissuaded from returning to court after they have given their evidence but that various people in the criminal justice system have told them that they should not return to court. The reason for that is they are told, whether by court officials, their own counsel or even the judge, that their presence in the court will affect the jury’s attitude towards them and, as a result, might mean that the jury would go against them—as if they wish to be voyeurs in the case in which they have been victimised.
Claire Waxman, a long-term victim of stalking, was told repeatedly not to attend her offender’s sentencing as it could make her look vindictive. Another victim said: “I was told I could not watch the court case after giving evidence, as I’d look like I wasn’t scared of the perpetrator and it could harm the jury’s decision”.
After inquiry, we have some data that shows there is a range from about £30 for a copy of a judgment to more than £300 for an original transcript of sentencing remarks. Where a victim requires a transcript of the entire court case, we have seen figures going from about £7,500 to £22,000. That is absolutely unacceptable.
Sarah Olney reported that in 2020 one of her constituents was raped and drugged by a former partner, who was sentenced to 18 years in spring 2022. Her psychiatrist advised her to apply to the court to obtain a copy of the trial transcript, to aid her recovery and understanding. Her application for a free transcript was denied by the court, and she was then quoted £7,500. That was unaffordable, as she has been unable to work following the attack because of PTSD. Unlike many other victims she attended the 10-day trial, but she said she could barely remember what was said due to emotional distress.
Judges need to ensure that the discrimination that is happening is cut out. The Bill cannot address that, but I would be really grateful if the Minister gave some thought as to how we can stop victims being victimised yet again in the middle of their own court process when their case is being debated. The current system of fees flies in the face of open justice, because a victim must pay for the details of their justice. Many will not want it, but some will. The psychiatrist of the lady I just referred to thought it was absolutely key for her to come to terms with what had happened to her, and indeed to her offender.
Technology has moved on, I suspect, since concern was first raised about this. One of the issues is how easy it is to get access to audio in Crown Courts. That would leave the victim, even if they could not get a written transcript, to be able to listen to a judgment, at the very least. We know that this is already available in coroners’ courts—and without charge. Why not in Crown Courts?
Above all, AI technology means that the old days of having to get a stenographer to listen to audio and spend many days typing it, perhaps getting some of it checked back to make sure that names and exact details are right, are long gone. Obviously a court would not want something that had not been checked to go out, but the really long part of it has been completely overtaken by events.
As Mike Freer MP said in the debate in the other place:
“The ability to access transcripts from court proceedings is an essential part of maintaining transparency and accountability within the system”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/23; col. 848.]
From these Benches we really wish the pilot well, but the pilot itself is too narrow and does not cover the wider range of crimes that victims are covered by in Part 1 of the Bill. Secondly, the pilot has not even started and will run for at least a year. I hope that the Minister will consider expanding it a bit—at least for the pilot to cover other crimes, but also to ensure that it is not a wonderful pilot that will then sink into the long grass. I beg to move.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in this amendment. I pay tribute to her and to Sarah Olney, who has been meticulous in her pursuit of clarity on this issue.
At a trial, the judge’s summing-up and sentencing remarks in particular are of obvious and great importance to victims. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said in the debate on the previous group, for many victims the experience of being in court is highly stressful and often quite traumatic, and one would not exactly have total recall of what was going on. Indeed, I suspect that most of your Lordships would not have total recall of many of our proceedings here. The ability to read and review the summing up and sentencing and ensure that they are taken fully on board is surely a fundamental right.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is a total privilege as always to dip my first toe into your Lordships’ Committee on this very important Bill. It is a pleasure, not for the first time, to be in support—it is always very loud at that end of the Chamber; I am just saying —of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. I would say that they robbed my arguments, but they are their arguments and we share them.
I think the amendment is a no-brainer. It is not partisan and not controversial. In a previous era, the controversy would have been about cost. The argument against it in a previous era would have been, “Goodness me, we would need armies of people”, probably women, “sitting there, typing away with headphones on, to deliver these transcripts in real time”—but of course we are not in that place any more. Even in that previous era I might have argued, because I am who I am, that it was a price worth paying, but we are not in that place.
I also give respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, whose previous group I heard—she is not in her place at the moment—because in a way my argument and what we are discussing in this group is similar to what I just heard.
The cost implication is not such a problem now because of AI—there is wicked old AI but also positive AI, right? AI is already being used across public services, in the City and in financial services. I have some qualms about AI making decisions instead of humans that have a huge impact, but not when it is supporting transparency. This amendment is, in a way, about translation, just like the last group was. How can victims be part of this process if they do not have a record of what happened?
The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, made an analogy with Hansard, and it is quite a good one. Looking at friends around the House, I ask how many times, in honesty, when the adrenaline is going and the heart is pacing, have noble Lords left the Chamber to be glared at or congratulated by friends and colleagues, and remembered word-for-word what happened. And I am talking about noble Lords who have the privilege of being legislators and being in this place. This is the point the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, made so well. If that is a problem for us as human beings, imagine not being a noble Lord giving wisdom in your Lordships’ House, but instead a victim of crime with all the pressures we all know about. They go into the court and, in the current underfunded system, do not even know if they will bump into the defendant and the family members, or know what will be said about them or what their community think, et cetera. This applies as much to the previous group on language translation as it does to this important amendment on transcription.
How lucky are we, in this generation, with all the challenges we face, to have the technology that would now allow us to give a transcript to a victim of what happened? This is not a partisan amendment; this is not a difficult amendment. This is something that the Minister—who I know really cares, from a lifetime of public service to the rule of law—and his colleagues could deliver. I really believe that this is so deliverable. Therefore, I urge the Minister and his colleagues, hopefully with the benefit of AI so no one has to take everything down, really to think about this. It is an easy win for everyone. To have a record they could look at after the event with family, friends and lawyers could make such a difference to people who are scared, excluded, have adrenaline rushing and experience the fight or flight of being a victim—sometimes of minor crimes and sometimes very serious crimes. I look at my noble friend Lord Winston. I sometimes think we could do with this when we go into see an oncologist. In these difficult moments in life, if we could have this opportunity, with family, friends and advisers, to look at a record of what happened, it could really help people. As I say, it is not a partisan or ideological amendment, but such amazing 21st-century common sense. I support the noble Baroness.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I am listening to all of this. My brief, from my team, is to correspond with Ministers, but I will speak, I hope in a succinct way—because I do waffle at times and get so distracted because I am that passionate—and as eloquently as other speakers in the Chamber.
I have dealt with transcripts—I am showing my age here—since 1980. This is how I know we should not have to have this discussion. As a committal court assistant, I used to take evidence down and do these transcripts the old-fashioned way with headphones and typing. That got abolished because of cutbacks. I then became a legal PA where I did barristers’ briefs. Again, everything was all there for the client, the defendant and everyone else, indexed.
Then came Garry’s murder. I listened to everything at a 10-week court trial. I listened to my daughters giving evidence. They wanted to come back and sit in the court, but as a mum I advised them it was too brutal for them. I am very glad I did, because five QCs goaded by defenders is not something I want my children to see after seeing their dad kicked to death. So, I know that element of it. I did get a summary of the judge’s direction, but I do not remember that document to be perfectly honest because it is so traumatising. I found a lot more out from the media, believe it or not, because they could see the dock and they give out everything 24/7—even to this day, I check on things because my mind is a blur.
Parole hearings are where statements are made. People do not know what date the parole hearing will be, they are just asked to do it and it goes off—not into the iCloud, but into something they cannot control. In all of this, the defendants and the barristers for the offender have a copy. The offender has a right to see these copies. In parole hearings, the offender has a right to see what I say about the impact of the crime. Surely, we should be able not to pilot this scheme, but to have the decency to just give a copy. We can go to the Post Office and pay 15p for a photocopy of a document. We have a digital system now even for passport photographs; we can go in a photo booth and give a code number and it appears on GOV.UK. Surely, we can have a copy of the transcript—the direction, the sentencing, how it was all resolved—for whenever a victim decides to pick it up. It is at their discretion, but surely we should not be looking at the monetary value of their damage, of the direction of the sentence and the direction for the judge, because it is so important to victims.
I ask my noble and learned friend: could we have further discussions and make sure that every victim of crime, not just those of rape and sexual abuse, has the opportunity to have that document whether in their hand or digitally? For too long it has been the offender’s right to see everything and surely now, while we are discussing victims legislation, we could have that in this Bill, to say they have a right free of charge, and let them have that document for sound peace of mind.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, what this debate has shown is the need for some clarity about what can and cannot properly be provided to the victim after criminal proceedings. While I understood and supported the provision of a transcript, the conventional view always was, at least until I heard the arguments today, that the provision of a transcript of the whole trial would be very expensive and probably, in many cases, unnecessary and of little benefit. However, if modern technology enables it to be done much less expensively, then so be it. Indeed, the transcript or a recording could and should be provided. Subject to that, clearly a free transcript of the sentencing remarks of the judge or bench, or a transcript of the summing up in cases in which there has been a contested trial and an acquittal, could be of considerable value in helping victims and their families understand what was decided and why.
In particular, the sentencing remarks may help victims and their families to understand what account was taken of the impact on the victim and the court’s assessment of harm. In some cases, a transcript could also be provided to those offering counselling, therapeutic services and treatment to victims, or otherwise offering them professional advice. However, I would like to hear what can now be usefully provided without enormous expense, in the light of modern technological advances.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I too speak in favour of this amendment on court transcripts. I too pay tribute to Sarah Olney, the Victims’ Commissioner, brave survivors, and others who have been campaigning on this issue.
I once gave evidence, a long time ago. It was extremely difficult and a challenging experience. To be honest, I struggled afterwards to remember a single word that I had said. Courts are not normal places. The language, formality and methods of cross-examination are completely different from anything we experience in everyday life. Some might even argue that giving evidence in court is more intimidating than giving a speech in your Lordships’ House—except that when I speak here, unlike in court, every word is recorded and available online, free of charge.
In a court, you would naturally expect to be able to tell your story, to be listened to and then to be asked some questions. Instead, you are led towards blunt choices and decisive statements. You are often challenged on your credibility, truthfulness and ability to remember, let alone your morality and intimate details of your personal life. Doing this when you have been a victim of a violent or sexual crime must be horrific and re-traumatising. Often, victims are not present in court. They may be scared of facing attackers, wrongly advised or just unable to face it all again.
When the outcomes of legal proceedings are not what was wanted or expected, victims really want to know why. For justice to be done, it must be seen to be done. If there is no transcript, how do victims begin to comprehend what has happened in court, why it happened and how they might set about responding to the results? No money means no record: the victim is victimised again, this time by the justice system itself. The right of a victim to a transcript—a record of a legal case—seems like a fundamental part of our justice system. How did we get to a common place where the most basic of things is so inaccessible to and unattainable by so many people?
We live in a technological world. My laptop can easily be dictated to. AI tools, as other noble Lords have mentioned, are readily available. My phone can make an audio recording. Yet the evidence and testimony of victims, the evidence of their attackers and the summing-up of the judge are all unattainable. They are secret preserves of the legal system alone. What good does this do and how can it be? It cannot be beyond the wit of man and government to provide this information at either no cost or a reasonable cost.
No doubt there are practical problems that need addressing. I am certain that the Government have entered into some poor contracts for court transcripts. Technology has moved on, faster than expected, and now the exorbitant costs and contractual obligations perhaps leave the Government between a rock and a hard place. However, the idea that transcripts of legal cases are being charged at anywhere between £7,000 and £20,000 is just not acceptable. The Bill must set down a marker that the failure of this part of our legal system must end.
I acknowledge that the Government have argued that there are cost implications and have made some concessions. These are welcome, particularly the open justice consultation, and we recognise that a one-year pilot has been announced to enable victims of rape and other serious sexual offences to request Crown Court sentencing remarks, free of charge. This is welcome, but what happens after the pilot? Who assesses it and is there a commitment beyond that? It is too little and does not go far enough.
This service should be available to victims of all crimes, not just one group. We do not want to see a victims’ hierarchy established. As a minimum, all victims must have access to sentencing remarks. Ideally, full court transcripts should be made available when asked for. In the interim, the Government must do more to cover the excessive cost, especially for bereaved victims. I question whether the current contracts for transcript services provide anyone with any value for money. The Government should look to bring them to an end and, instead, work to find better and more cost-effective ways in which this can be done. I hope the Government are aware of the strength of feeling on all sides of the Committee on this issue and are of an open mind, willing to find better and faster solutions then they have up until now.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, it will be abundantly clear what our view is from these Benches, but I am speaking formally from them to support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, referred to Sarah Olney as being meticulous—she always is.
The recent public discussion about dissatisfaction with sentences has made me think about this issue. Without wanting in any way to disparage, and I do not, the comments of relatives and the victims of crimes themselves who make public statements on the steps of the court, one wonders how much they have been able to take in. That is no criticism of them, but they are responding to a very emotional experience and will have been emotional while hearing, or possibly not very thoroughly hearing, what has been said. I had a very minor example of that experience myself last week. I went to a medical appointment and a friend came with me. When we discussed afterwards in the car what the consultant had said, our recollections were completely different.
I want to ask the Minister some questions about the pilot which has been announced. I wonder whether he can give some details. Is it in all courts for the category of crimes that has been announced? What monitoring will there be of how the pilot is going and how will it be evaluated? Like other speakers, though, I would like to go straight to a new procedure.
I am not sure whether the technology actually comes within the category of artificial intelligence; it may be a much earlier generation than that. There are other noble Lords in the Chamber who probably could have answered this question, had I thought to ask them before we started the debate, but are the judge’s remarks not normally written down before the judge makes them? That might differ among members of the judiciary —I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I suppose it is like our written notes: sometimes we have them, sometimes we do not and sometimes we do not follow them.
We have heard that Minister Freer is looking at how audio recordings can be used. I wonder whether there is any more news on this than has been in the semi-public domain so far. The suggestion of listening to a recording or reading a transcript while supervised reminds me of the arrangements made for a very few senior politicians to read the assessments of the Chilcot inquiry. To me, like to others, that is not a sensible arrangement.
In any event, as I understand it, in magistrates’ courts recordings are not made. For a victim to have to sit in court and listen it is very likely that she or he will be close to the family and friends of the defendant. As my noble friend Lady Brinton said, it is a matter of open justice. This debate confirms that the adversarial system treats the victim as little more than a witness.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I appreciate that this places the Minister in a somewhat interesting situation; yet again, he finds that the Committee is united on this issue, as I think we are.
As when I last spoke a few minutes ago, when I first read this amendment, I thought, “Oh, for goodness’ sake”. What is the problem with people having access to the transcripts of the case that affects them as victims? As this debate has proceeded, and I have learned more about the barriers and what happens to people—supervised listening and people discouraged from going into court to listen to proceedings—I feel even more that this is an important matter which would enormously strengthen our victims’ code and the way victims are treated.
Let us think about how every single word that is said in public in this place is available to watch, and re-watch if you really want to, and to read—the committee transcripts may take a little while to be published, but they are there—and how important that is for our proceedings and for us to be able to do our job so much better. It is not a difficult thing to do given technology today; it is not difficult for those things to happen in this place. Think how much more important that would be for somebody who was the victim of crime.
In many ways, access to information about the proceedings that affect them is symbolic of victims’ rights. I accept that child victims would need to be considered because, apart from anything else, we would not want a child to be able to be identified through transcripts of their proceedings, but it is not beyond our wit to sort that out. A pilot is good, but there is a matter of principle here that the Government will need to address.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, as my name has just been mentioned in this short debate, I will make a quick interjection and give the example of medical treatment of patients. It is extremely common to have a detailed conversation with a patient who has listened and apparently understood exactly what has been said, but then you find that they have understood nothing at all and are later really confused about their treatment.
Perhaps I may tell a very short story. I once had an extremely well-off woman who was totally infertile; she had no chance of a pregnancy. I spent an hour and a half talking to her explaining why this was the case and that there was no possibility of her being pregnant. However, 18 months later, she came into my clinic— she had flown in from another country—and said, “Dr Winston, I am pleased to tell you that, as you predicted, I am now pregnant”, and she was. I was a complete fool; I was wrong. It is really important to understand that, because this is a situation that happens quite often, and it is significant in terms of a court when you are very anxious.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, it is heartening to hear a story with a happy ending in one respect, as we are generally dealing with unhappy or less happy outcomes.
This Government are very much in favour of open justice as a general proposition, and we are in the middle of a consultation on it. This debate should—I will make sure that it happens—figure in the evidence presented to that consultation so that we can see where we go. Anecdotally and in terms of the shape of things to come, we are already live-streaming the proceedings of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which I used to have something to do with many years ago. Hopefully, in the years ahead, this problem will diminish if not be resolved through those kinds of technical developments. The twin obstacles are cost and the state of the technology.
It is true that this House, through the—in historical terms—quite expensive use of the Hansard reporters and the more recent introduction of our technology, is able to read and see what is happening. But we are one place. Every day in this country, hundreds of courts are in operation. To stream, record or make immediately available the proceedings of those courts is quite a challenge.
At the moment, a judge’s sentencing remarks are made freely available in cases of murder, manslaughter or causing death on the road. From this spring, as has been mentioned, we will run a further one-year trial of similar arrangements in cases of rape and serious sexual offences. That will, I hope, further inform which way we should go. I am not in a position to give further details on exactly how many courts will be covered by that pilot and on other matters raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. However, I will write to the Committee to fully inform it.
It is less well known, and I do not think it will be an answer to the problem, that a victim can go to a Crown Court building to listen to a tape of the proceedings if that can be suitably arranged. That right is not very well known. It may not be quite in the direction that the technology is going.
To come back to the present situation and our twin obstacles of cost and technology, some of the figures of cost have been mentioned; it is expensive to do it manually. As to the technology, we have made considerable advances in the use of technology during the pandemic. Most courts can operate remote hearings of one sort or another.
Although I hold no ministerial responsibility for criminal justice, in terms of my day job, I was somewhat surprised and worried by some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about witnesses being asked to leave the court and not to listen. I would have thought that in many court buildings these days there would be another room where the victim concerned could watch the proceedings on a screen, for example.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
Unfortunately, there are no rooms available to do that. I would love that—and I welcome my noble and learned friend the Minister’s warm tone in hoping that there were—but there are not. I went past two rooms in the murder trial that were video-link rooms. There are no rooms in our court buildings for families, witnesses or anyone else to watch privately and be taken care of. That is why it is so important that we try to assist them by giving them these scripts, so they can reflect on the proceedings whenever they want to.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
That would be enormously helpful in many civil and family cases as well, and it simply is not available.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am very grateful for those interventions. I have personally seen this in operation in Manchester, but it may have been that the court had particular availability of rooms that is not generally the case.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I recognise the nature of the problem.
The modern versions of AI, or whatever generation of technology we are talking about, have opened up recent possibilities for us. Of course, any Government have every incentive to reduce cost. Why should we spend money on transcription, if it can be done more effectively and cheaply? The view currently taken is that a 99.5% accuracy is required. When we last trialled this in 2022 that level was not achieved, so we have not further proceeded with that development at the moment —but it remains a distinct possibility.
There is a specific situation with the magistrates’ courts whereby we do not even have recordings, let alone transcription. But again, if those courts now have screens that can be adapted in some way, the further development of technology is going to be the answer to the problem. At the moment the Government, although very sympathetic to the point, do not feel that they are in a position to accept a statutory obligation to provide a victim with a free transcript of the trial. We are working through the development with regard to sentencing remarks.
Of course, I will keep this under review and discuss it further with my noble friend Lady Newlove and others. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, makes very sensible points about the nature of some of these transcripts. We are going to have to be very careful in some cases. That is a quite separate issue.
With regret, I do not feel that the Government can accept Amendment 20 in its present form, but I hope I have explained the direction of travel as far as the future is concerned.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who talked about their personal experiences, which was extremely valuable. I will not rehearse what has been said and repeated by others. I think the Minister needs to understand that the opinion of those who have contributed is somewhat different; certainly, the issue is worth discussing. I hope he will be prepared to have a meeting with those of us who are here. For example, we have just had a debate about the importance of being able to find rooms, but many speakers said that it was still too early for a traumatised victim to be able to take in the proceedings.
To give noble Lords my own experience, when I went into the court to hear my stalker being sentence, I was not just near his family; I was next to him—that far away. The result was that I did not hear a word of the sentencing, so thank goodness journalists covered it. I missed the absolute key bit, because all I was thinking about was how close he was to me. Extra rooms would be enormously helpful, and I believe the court system needs to find a way to make sure juries understand that victims should not be penalised if they wish to listen. I do not have an answer to that but, if the Minister agrees to a meeting, perhaps we will have that as one of the topics for discussion.
My final brief point is that in your Lordships’ House we already use Zoom and Teams. I chair a disability committee for the Local Government Association— I am a vice-president of the LGA—and we have deaf and hard-of-hearing people in the group. I use close captioning for every single one of those meetings, and it can be saved. This is not a future technology; it is available. If the Government and the court system do not recognise where these are, we will lose the benefit of what is happening now by not harnessing the technology available to help victims who really need it. I hope the Minister will agree to a meeting.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, as I suspect she is about to, I ask the Minister whether the Government could make some representations to the Sentencing Council, if that is the appropriate way to do it, after hearing what noble Lords have said about their experiences. This is a matter for sentences as well.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I am going to give the Minister an opportunity to respond, if he wishes.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Thank you. The Sentencing Council point is an interesting one, which I will reflect on. As for the request from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, of course I am prepared to have another meeting.
Lord Hampton
“(8) The victims’ code must make different provision for children and vulnerable and intimidated victims, and may make other different provision including for—”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the distinct needs and rights of children and vulnerable and intimated witnesses are reflected in the Victims’ Code.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, this is where I again declare my interest as a state secondary school teacher in east London. I will speak to Amendments 21, 34, 61, 118 and 119 in my name in this group. I thank the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for help with these amendments, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool for adding their names to them.
At Second Reading, at the Cross-Bench meeting with the Minister and on the first day in Committee, the Minister stuck to his message that the Bill covers all victims, including children. I will try to continue to persuade him otherwise. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, said on the first day, we should put children at the top of the hierarchy of victims. I slightly disagree with my noble friend Lord Russell, who said that there should not be a hierarchy of victims. There is a hierarchy of victims, and children should be at the top of it. I am also aware that everything needs to be accessible, accountable and affordable.
We cannot lump all victims together. As the Children’s Commissioner said last week, children do not disclose like adults. It is important that children are treated differently as victims, and that is reflected in the amendments we have proposed. This will bear fruit not only in getting justice and restorative justice but, even more importantly, in repairing the damage done to those young victims and allowing them to become healthy adults. Would it not be lovely if a government department were to make decisions that could save money for other departments in future, and maybe future Governments? Could that be the Minister’s lasting legacy? The amount of work that the Children’s Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner, the children’s coalition and many other organisations are putting into this Bill, plus the number of noble Lords speaking to amendments, shows that we have a once-in-a-generation chance to put children first and really invest in our future.
Amendment 21 would make a different provision for children, ensuring that distinct needs and rights of children and vulnerable and intimidated victims were reflected in the victims’ code. They have different needs, and this needs to be reflected in the Bill to make it accessible.
Amendment 34 would insert “including children”. This is a vital amendment, which we talked about on the first day. It would mean that the victims’ code had to be promoted to children specifically, as well as to victims in general, as we need to make children aware—and they are not, at the moment—that if they are victims, they have rights. There should be a statutory obligation to advertise this in schools and possibly online—wherever—as a way of spreading this information so that it becomes widely understood. It would have little or no cost attached to it; it is affordable.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I shall not detain the Committee. I have my name on several amendments, but they have one theme, which I spoke about last week. It is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who is a schoolteacher and knows what he is talking about. I was a youth worker many years ago—that was my profession in my early adult years—so I was pleased to support several amendments and put my name to Amendments 44, 46, 55, 66, 68, 70, 71 and 73.
I will make one contribution, which I hope the Minister will take away and understand why children should be right on the face of the Bill. I remember last week when we discussed this, the Minister kindly turned around and said that he appreciated what we had all been saying and that maybe this is guidance and that we did not want to change the way the Bill looked. Well, we are adding one word: “children”. It means so much to the children’s organisations that are working daily.
Amendment 108 concerns a
“Duty to commission support for children and young people”.
This proposes the inclusion of a new clause after Clause 27, placing a duty on relevant local commissioning bodies to commission specialist support and advocacy services for children and young people who are victims of abuse and exploitation. It is imperative that we address the unique needs of this demographic, whose abuse has a devastating and long-lasting effect on them, on their families and on society more broadly. They cannot, and should not, be left unsupported, or be lost to the broader category of adult victims.
There is a scarcity of support and advocacy services available for child victims. A recent study by the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse found that, across England and Wales, there are just 468 services providing support to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and their families, despite an estimated 500,000 children suffering some sort of abuse every year. There is a clear lack of support services available.
Advocacy services also play a vital role in supporting child victims, helping them to navigate the complex criminal justice and support service systems. Advocacy services include such roles as the child independent domestic violence advisers—the CHIDVAs. I will not repeat the others as your Lordships know them. However, they are few and far between. New freedom of information data from Barnardo’s has found that just 84 child independent domestic violence advisers, and 112 child independent sexual violence advisers were commissioned by police and crime commissioners this year. Its research found that a staggering, additional 1,900 CHIDVAs and almost 500 CHISVAs are needed to support the number of identified children who are victims of domestic and sexual abuse. I emphasise the word “identified”—there are many, I am sure, whom we do not know.
What is available to support children is just a drop in the ocean. Yet we know that these services can have a huge benefit to children and society more broadly. This can include reducing the impact of harm and other future risks, including going missing from home, alcohol and drug abuse, accommodation and housing needs, and interaction with the criminal justice system in the future. As was said just now, a little investment now will save a lot in the future. The Government’s own costings found that the cost of contact child sexual abuse is at least £10.1 billion annually—which, I believe, is a conservative estimate. Investment in support and advocacy services for child victims will reduce these costs in the long term. Barnardo’s and Pro Bono Economics evidence found that for every £1 invested in specific support services for child sexual exploitation, it can save the taxpayer up to £12.
In essence, Amendment 108 is about putting the duty on commissioners to protect and support children who are victims of crime by making funding specific, and directing it toward children’s needs to create a system where no child is left without the necessary support, regardless of their circumstances.
Amendment 109 proposes a duty on the Victims’ Commissioner and Secretary of State to conduct a review and issue a national statement on the current state of support for children who are victims of crime. This review is critical in assessing the adequacy of existing provision, identifying unmet needs, and evaluating the current investment in these services, to ensure transparency for the provision of these services.
The review will cover the current volume of provision and unmet need and the level of investment in these services. This information will then be made public through a report, to be published and laid before Parliament within three months of the Bill becoming an Act. The purpose of this amendment is to foster transparency and accountability in the support provided to child victims. By clearly outlining what is already being provided—where the gaps exist and how much funding is allocated—we can ensure that our efforts are targeted and effective. These two amendments seek to fortify our commitment to the protection and support of children who have suffered at the hands of crime.
If I may, I will repeat the testimony of a very brave young woman called Poppy Eyre—I am honoured that she is sitting in the Chamber—who has made it clear to me and to other noble Lords why these amendments and the others that I have signed are crucial additions to the Bill. Before I continue, I should preface that some may find what I am about to share distressing—and I apologise to Poppy that I probably will not do it justice.
Poppy grew up in the countryside with her siblings and parents: an idyllic setting surrounded by nature and space. Yet, at the far too young age of four, she was molested by her grandfather. While most four year-olds were focused on playing, Poppy was preparing for the end of a CBeebies episode, followed by humiliation and sexual abuse by her grandfather in her own home. Yet how could Poppy truly know or voice that what was happening to her was wrong? She would never question her grandfather, whom she trusted and loved. She assumed it was normal. Yet the shame and negativity that manifested as a result of her abuse led Poppy to develop thoughts of guilt and hatred that led to physical illness and anxiety.
At the age of 11, Poppy found the courage to tell her mother after another sleepless night of physical and emotional anxiety. I want to quote Poppy directly on what opening up about her experience did for her:
“Admitting what had happened was the best thing I think I could have ever done for myself. It’s a funny word admit … it indicates fault, but that was my mindset at the time. For the first time in my life I didn’t feel responsible. This moment in my story is very unusual. The fact I was believed is something that many don’t experience”.
Over time, Poppy was able to gain some understanding of the enormity of what had happened to her and, along with her mother, she decided it was time to go to the police. Only at this point did Poppy begin to understand that she was the victim and survivor of a crime, that that crime was sexual abuse and that her grandfather was the perpetrator. She wanted to seek justice.
Seven years ago, Poppy found herself at the intersection of vulnerability and strength, navigating a court process that, surprisingly, restored her faith in the system. When she approached the police, they embraced her case with gravity and compassion, providing crucial support during the investigation. Poppy was connected with specialist counselling services that became a lifeline in one of the darkest periods of her life. Her healing journey underscored the potential of the justice system to offer assurance and validation. In the courtroom, justice was not merely a word but a tangible reality. Poppy’s age was considered and she was treated with respect and understanding. The system functioned as it should and Poppy received the justice she deserved.
Yet, unfortunately, Poppy’s journey is not representative of all survivors. Too many brave individuals who have come forward with their stories have been denied justice, their pain compounded by a system that failed them. There are far too many heartbreaking stories of those who were just not believed or supported and were denied the closure they deserved. The justice system possesses the power to heal, but it also has the potential to inflict further harm. There is a collective responsibility to acknowledge its flaws and work together to address them. No survivor should be left feeling abandoned or disbelieved. They must have access to support and advocacy services. It is our collective duty to ensure that the justice and support Poppy experienced become the norm, not the exception.
These amendments are one step towards ensuring that all survivors of these crimes are supported like Poppy was. We cannot waste the opportunity of this Victims and Prisoners Bill and let the thought remain that support and advocacy services for child victims are just an optional extra. They are a life-saving necessity and must be available for all child victims.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group on child victims. I thank my noble friend Lord Polak for speaking about Poppy’s story. She is in the Chamber—a very gracious young woman who articulated her story very well. As a mother, when I watched my children have to give evidence, covered in blood, on the actions against their father—my sisters were told to turn in a corner when they were trying to ID on a VIPER parade—I called them “my heroines”. And Poppy is a heroine. As a mum, I felt that evening for her mum because, believe you me, as mothers we want to wrap you in cotton wool to protect you from pain. It was very emotional to listen to, and I send my huge respects to her mum as well.
This Bill needs to take into account the needs of all victims, but especially children. Children need to be recognised in this Bill. They are victims in their own right. As I said, my three daughters witnessed every kick and punch to their father, having to pull his tongue out because he was choking on his blood and say goodbye while he was in a coma. They live with that on a daily basis. They were not treated as children—they were told to act properly, because they were children.
Children who have been victims of crime, especially sexual abuse and exploitation, are among the most vulnerable in our society. This type of abuse can devastate the lives of children, impacting on their mental health, relationships and education. We in this Chamber have a responsibility to make sure that this Bill recognises and provides for them. The needs of children are not the same as those of adults, so they require specific provision that is designed for them, not against them. The victims’ code should consider children’s specific needs. They should be able to access registered intermediaries who can help them give their best evidence and, when they are interviewed, it should be done by people with specialist training in interviewing children.
When I was last in this role, I undertook a report on registered intermediaries. One of its findings was that the police and the CPS had a lack of awareness of the existence of registered intermediaries and how they worked. That was in 2018 and it is still the case now. This Bill gives us an ideal opportunity to make sure that these code rights are secured for our children. They are our future and we must care for them. That is the key here.
Children must have a needs assessment that takes into account their individual requirements, and we must have properly funded victims’ services, such as the “child house” model. This offers children who have experienced sexual abuse a child-focused, targeted response that can support children and their families as they recover from their ordeal—although, to be honest, they never recover; they survive. Currently, there is only one “child house” in the UK, which is the Lighthouse, in London, and, as a northerner, it really gets me to say that.
Children face a postcode lottery when it comes to support services. An FoI request by Barnardo’s to PCCs found that, of all the local authorities that responded, 68% had not in the last 12 months commissioned any support services for child victims of sexual exploitation. That is why I support these amendments, both as the Victims’ Commissioner and as legislator in this House—but, more importantly, as a mother of three daughters who, to this day, suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder because they felt they were not listened to but were told what to do. As a mother, I could not give them a hug because I might persuade them to give other evidence.
This amendment is so important for children and the victims of crime. We need to make sure the Bill provides specialist support services designed for children—in fact, designed for children, by children, because they will know their individual needs and vulnerabilities. We have a duty to help them cope and recover from such horrific and traumatic experiences.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly and cover all the amendments, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. I put on the record that I am a governor of Coram, the oldest children’s charity in the United Kingdom, and I am a trustee of the Foundling Museum.
Like other noble Lords, I have had the privilege of listening to some of the child survivors of child abuse. It is difficult for them to speak of their experiences; it is also extraordinarily difficult to listen to them—it really is. I pay tribute to Poppy, who described the trauma she went through in the most brilliant, clear way, without undue emotion or embellishment, and it was far more powerful than anything I—or, I suspect, any of us—will say this evening. It is an honour to try to speak on their behalf, although I fear we are poor substitutes for the way in which they are able to describe what they went through.
What they are asking for is very simple. It is one word: recognition—that is, recognition of the fact that they are not adults. The vast majority of victims whom we are going to talk about during the course of the Bill, including, of course, the part about prisoners, are adults. However, a very significant proportion of victims are not adults, and children have very specific needs and are particularly vulnerable and open to manipulation. They can often have great difficulty in understanding what is going on around them and discerning what is right and what is wrong, depending on who is telling them what. To help them navigate their way through some of the situations which adults—usually—have landed them in, requires particularly sensitive, careful and deeply knowledgeable treatment. At the moment, the reality is that it is a postcode lottery for children.
My colleague on the Cross Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, is well known for his theory about some of the difficulties we appear to have got ourselves into in this country. We still seem to subscribe to what might be called the “good chaps” code of government: assuming that, if you tell people what it is they should do, that is what they will do. If one has a law, a code or guidance, the assumption is that people will read the guidance and then follow and adhere to it in a consistent manner. However, the evidence we have is overwhelming. When it comes to the treatment of children, there is a total and utter lack of consistency. There are statistics to back this up, and financial statistics which explain the cost of it. It is unacceptable that large parts of the country are effectively a desert when it comes to helping children who might get into the same sort of ghastly situation that Poppy was in.
As a Cross-Bencher I am not going make a political point, but, if I was a member of His Majesty’s Government, after being in office since 2010 and looking at the state of the way in which children are treated as victims at the moment, it is not a record I would feel proud to defend. It would be nice, for a change, to hear people say, “We have tried various things and spent money on them, but it is not all working and we acknowledge that. We have learned from it and we are doing something about it”. But to try and continue with the “good chaps” version of government—in which you tell people what they should be doing and they do it—is just fantasy. We need to wake up to that and do something about it, for all the poor children who deserve much better.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendments 108 and 109, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who would have made a contribution. She comments that child abuse and exploitation can happen to any child, in any family, in any location, and, as she would always say, “Childhood lasts a lifetime”. Child abuse and exploitation can have a detrimental impact on children that stays with them for the rest of their lives, harming their mental health, their development and sense of trust. Right at this moment, there is a child experiencing this type of trauma. Of course, it also has a devastating impact on their family and friends, and society as whole. As a country, we still do not provide or fund anywhere near enough for specialist support services to stand up for children’s rights and those who have experienced devastating trauma and abuse. It is shameful that, as a nation, children are left with the horror of abuse, and suffer in silence without any statutory right to support.
Support services are vital for child victims. They give children a space to work through their trauma and begin to recover, offering mental health and counselling services, and advocacy services which help children and their families to navigate the complexity of statutory agencies and the criminal justice system. Child-centred services, such as the Lighthouse, which was described earlier, can also reduce the impact of harm and other risks later in life, including going missing from home, alcohol and drug misuse, homelessness and interaction with the criminal justice system.
In one study, more than eight in 10 male prisoners said they had experienced at least one adverse childhood experience, which includes physical and sexual abuse, and domestic abuse. Yet local services, mostly run by the voluntary and community sectors, are chronically underfunded and undervalued. The Centre of Expertise on Child Sex Abuse, which is hosted by Barnardo’s, has recently published a comprehensive study of the current landscape. I will not go into the detail because the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has already covered the results. But just as much as Barnardo’s and the other children’s charities feel that they have a moral duty to support vulnerable children and young people, we cannot continue to see these vital support services as just a charitable add-on that is nice to have. These are life-saving services for a lot of children who have experienced abuse and exploitation. We must ensure that enough are available to support the number of children who, every year, face abuse and exploitation.
From these Benches, we support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, which would place a duty on the relevant authorities to commission sufficient child-specific support services for child victims of abuse and exploitation.
My own Amendment 100A in this group follows on from the very thorough report from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which gave the Government 20 recommendations, of which the first is a statutory duty of mandatory reporting, by which those in certain employment, whether paid or voluntary, and regulated professions should report allegations of child sex abuse to relevant authorities. The Government have yet to respond on these recommendations. I hope that will change soon.
This Bill is not the right place for an amendment on mandatory reporting. The amendment would provide children and young people with the status of a victim if a person in a regulated profession had a suspicion that they were a victim of child sex abuse. As we have heard from most speakers on this group of amendments, children and adults react differently to trauma. Children need specialist help right from the start. Giving them that recognition as a victim is vital.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the discussion on this group has been remarkable. I agree with everything that all noble Lords have said. Indeed, I went to many of the same meetings about which other noble Lords have spoken so eloquently.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank all speakers in this debate. Like others, I particularly salute Poppy and her story. The whole purpose and point of the Bill is that the system should function as it apparently did in Poppy’s case; I am glad that it did. We should bring everything up to that level. It is part of levelling up. The Government have brought forward quite an extensive framework in which the improvement in the rights of victims, victims’ awareness, accessibility of services and the duties of police and crime commissioners and local agencies are being given a tremendous shove. I think that was the phrase I used at Second Reading. I respectfully do not accept the description by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, that this is “good chaps” stuff. This is serious stuff to deal with a serious problem.
I support the last comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that it is a bit sterile to argue whether this word or that word should or should not be in the Bill—whether it should be “must” or “should”—and get all legalistic about it. We should really be discussing the practicalities, the costs and how we do it. That is more about what we do with the code itself than about having a sterile debate on the statutory framework. Those who are pursuing the interests of victims should not, I respectfully suggest, get hung up on exactly what the statute is saying; they should be thinking about what we should do in practical terms. From the government side, I rather welcome that general suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Let us get down in the weeds on some of this.
On the general question of the treatment of children in the Bill, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that children are already quite extensively referenced in the statutory framework. Clause 11 is about:
“Guidance on code awareness and reviewing compliance”.
Clause 11(2)(b) says that the guidance may include provision about
“the way in which information is collected (and in particular, how information in relation to children or individuals who have protected characteristics within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 is collected)”.
Clause 13 is about the crucial stages of needs assessment and the collaboration of the relevant authorities. Clause 13(4) says:
“When making an assessment under subsection (3), the relevant authorities must have regard to the particular needs of victims who are children or have protected characteristics within the meaning of the Equality Act”.
Lastly, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has just pointed out, a similar phrase appears in Amendment 74 —the proposed new Clause 15. The same phrase is in the existing clause as well. Talking about guidance about specified victim support roles, proposed new Clause 15(5) says:
“Guidance under this section must (where relevant) make provision in relation to victims who are children or have protected characteristics within the meaning of the Equality Act”.
We already have a statutory framework for getting to where I think all your Lordships would want to be.
What, then, is the next stage? In the Government’s view, it is to make sure that we have it right in the code. The code already deals with children on page 7 and provides that they and other victims who have protected characteristics have enhanced rights, so that you have the right to receive information earlier, or better information, in various ways, and those enhanced rights are there in the code.
What the code does not do at the moment is to distinguish clearly between children and other vulnerable or intimidated persons or those who have protected characteristics under the Equality Act. Therefore, the Government are very open to considering how we develop a section in the code that deals specifically with children, and we are working with that aim, with the Children’s Commissioner, to deliver on that commitment to address children’s needs in the code. We started with a round table activity last week, attended by academics, criminal justice bodies and other important stakeholders, including the domestic abuse commissioner. We have to meld the respective roles of the Children’s Commissioner and the domestic abuse commissioner, who I think jointly wrote an article in the national press not very long ago saying that we must do better—indeed, perhaps arguably, we should.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
This is absolutely no criticism of the Minister himself. The Government have often tended to focus on domestic abuse, but child victims are not always victims through domestic abuse. Can the Minister reassure the House that while it is important that the domestic abuse commissioner is involved, the focus will remain on the experience of the child victim, wherever it has happened?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am extremely grateful for that important intervention. As a number of noble Lords pointed out, although from various quarters adults can—sometimes quite vociferously—speak for themselves, children cannot, on the whole. They are the silent ones. We have heroines such as Poppy but on the whole, we are dealing with a cohort that does not have the ability to raise its own profile, for that fairly obvious reason. I am grateful indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for making that point. For myself—I cannot commit the Government—I would say that we need available a part of the code or something that is particularly child friendly, so that at least some children can themselves consult it and understand their rights. So the Government’s door is not at all closed on this point. If I may say so again— I am conscious that sometimes I sound a bit like a broken record—can we please work on the practicalities of the code and on bringing everybody up to the same sort of level, rather than getting hung up on rather dry legal points?
I think I have covered in general terms the spirit, drift and direction of the amendments. I have to make one point on Amendment 100A which it does not at all please me to have to make. The difficulty with that amendment, as the Government see it, is that it relates to cases of suspected abuse. We have in the Bill a definition that turns on the existence of criminal conduct, and if there is criminal conduct, there is a victim. The Government at the moment are reluctant to extend that to suspected criminal conduct. That is a difficulty.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
But that is not quite right, though, is it? I do not believe that the definition of a victim in the Bill requires there to have been even a charge of criminal conduct, let alone a conviction, so I do not quite understand the reasoning that says we are concerned about suspected criminal conduct.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Any suspected child sexual abuse would be a crime, as covered under Schedule 1. In that context sexual abuse is covered, particularly that of minors.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
We may slightly be dancing angels on a pin. It may well be that if a regulated professional says to an authority, “I suspect there is criminal conduct”, there is enough there to say that there actually is criminal conduct to enable—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
For clarity, it is important, given that I intervened on the Minister before, to refer the Committee to Clause 1, “Meaning of ‘victim’”, and to subsection (5) in particular, which says that
“It is immaterial … that … no person has reported the offence”
or that
“no person has been charged with or convicted of the offence”.
Therefore, if no person has even reported the offence but a victim is still a victim, I believe—with huge respect to the Minister—that victims of suspected crime are included in the definition of “victim” that is the foundation of His Majesty’s Government’s Bill.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure that we are really in disagreement on this. As I think I pointed out several times on the last occasion, criminal conduct does not depend on whether something has been reported; I had a discussion with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about that before. We are discussing what level of evidence there has to be before somebody has to say that there is criminal conduct. Somebody has to judge whether there is criminal conduct if the thing has not been reported to the police, prosecuted or charged. It may well be that, in the circumstances the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, refers to, the fact of that kind of reference may be enough to establish criminal conduct. However, if it turns out that the suspicion is wrong, there has not been criminal conduct. That is the only point I am making: it is either covered already, or it should not be extended to the situation being envisaged. I do not think I have made myself very clear, but I was struggling to do so.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. As the debate we have just had demonstrates, the problem is that we need more clarity. If it is covered in the Bill—we are not convinced that it is, which is why we tabled the amendment—for children it needs to be made clear in the Bill, because of IICSA’s first recommendation about mandatory reporting, which we hope will come in due course. I understand that the Government have not made a decision on that, but at least it would nod to that recommendation, saying, “If somebody in a regulated profession believes that a child is a victim, and has a suspicion or belief that they have been the victim of CSA, then they are a victim”. It would be clear, and I am not sure that it is clear in Clause 1(5).
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I need to think about this point. The amendment came in a little later than some of the other amendments, so I will take it under advisement. I see the point that is being made.
Lord Hampton (CB)
That, in my short experience of this House, was the most extraordinarily powerful debate and I thank everybody who took part in it. I was honoured—and I genuinely mean honoured—to hear Poppy speak recently, and anybody who was in that room will carry it with them for the rest of their lives.
I thank the Minister for his advice, and a lot of other people. There have been some extraordinary experiences. The experiences of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, have been extraordinary. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, talked about the murders of the people in the court cases. I will go away with the good chaps theory of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, as an example. What I am taking away from this, because I am an optimist, is that the Government’s door is not at all closed. The advice is that we look at the code. There are mentions of children in the Bill, but not many. We will look at the code, but thankfully the Government’s door is not closed, and I beg to withdraw my Amendment 21.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“The victims’ code(1) Schedule (The victims’ code) to this Act contains the code of practice as to the services to be provided to victims by persons having functions relating to—(a) victims, or(b) any aspect of the criminal justice system.(2) In this Part, the “victims’ code” means the code of practice in Schedule (The victims’ code) as from time to time amended by way of subsection (4) below.(3) The victims’ code shall make provision for services which reflect the principles that victims—(a) must be provided with information to help them understand the criminal justice process;(b) must be able to access services which support them (including, where appropriate, specialist services);(c) must have the opportunity to make their views heard in the criminal justice process;(d) must be able to challenge decisions which have a direct impact on them.(4) The Secretary of State may amend the victims’ code by way of regulations made by statutory instrument.(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(6) But the Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (4) only if satisfied that such amendment would not result in a significant—(a) reduction in the quality or extent of the services provided in accordance with the victims’ code, or(b) restriction in the description of persons to whom services are provided in accordance with the victims’ code.(7) The victims’ code may restrict or vary the application of its provisions to— (a) victims of specified descriptions (including those who are victims by virtue of specific conduct or conduct constituting specified offences);(b) specified persons who have functions of the kind mentioned in subsection (1).(8) The victims’ code may include provision requiring or permitting the services which are to be provided to a victim to be provided to one or more other persons—(a) instead of the victim (for example, where the victim has died), or(b) as well as the victim.(9) The victims’ code may make different provision for different purposes including different provision for—(a) victims of different descriptions;(b) persons who have different functions of a kind mentioned in subsection (1);(c) different areas.(10) The victims’ code may not require anything to be done by a person acting in—(a) a judicial capacity, or on the instructions of or on behalf of such a person; (b) the discharge of a prosecution function, if that function involves the exercise of a discretion.(11) In this section, “specified” means specified in the victims’ code.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment places the victims’ code on a firmer statutory footing as a Schedule to the Bill, amendable by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. Another amendment will follow to add the Schedule referred to in this clause.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
It is an interesting time for me to be beginning this group. I do not know whether the usual channels have had the opportunity to consider timing.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Wednesday 31st January 2024
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 31-II(Rev) Revised second marshalled list for Committee - (30 Jan 2024)
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, now we are once again resolved into a Committee, I can say that it is particularly humbling to follow the last group. Once more, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and to all the other survivors and survivor advocates we have heard from this evening and will hear from again, no doubt, before this Bill is done.
In speaking to Amendment 23 I shall also speak to its consequentials, Amendments 139 and 140, with support, for which I am grateful, from my noble Fred—my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede—and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I hope the Minister will forgive me because this may be caricatured as legalism, angels dancing on the head of a pin, et cetera, or legal weeds, but I believe that putting the victims’ code on a firm statutory footing is incredibly important and something all parties and all Members of your Lordships’ House ought to support.
My reasoning is twofold. In a later suite of amendments, I will suggest that the victims’ code needs more teeth—not the sharpest teeth, but just some teeth. We will debate that later. If we are going to create some statutory powers to enforce the victims’ code, which I think is a pretty good code, we should all think about the fact that we have it. I thank the Public Bill Office and all those who were involved in putting the code on the many pages the Committee will see. It is a code full of very positive rights for victims but, sadly, too many of them are not real in practice at the moment. So, I am grateful for that.
One of the reasons I want to put the code on a statutory footing, as I have said, is that I am dovetailing these amendments with later amendments to give the Victims’ Commissioner some modest powers to enforce this noble code when it is not put into practice by the public authorities that have that duty. But even before we get to the amendments that will come later in the Committee’s consideration, there is value in putting this code on a statutory footing in the Bill, which is supposed to be a Bill for victims.
I have been a human rights lawyer for 30 years this year. That is an admission one does not want to make for all sorts of reasons—some personal and some political, I guess—and I have so much respect for English and Welsh common law. I believe it has done so much for fair trial rights and defendants’ rights: the golden thread and so on. Ironically, it is international human rights norms that taught me most about victims’ rights. The presumption of innocence, the burden of proof and all of that is pre-ECHR in our system, and I defend it. If anyone googles me, they will find all sorts of associations—“I am a terrible person who supports terrorists and murderers” and so on. I do not, but I do really believe in fair trials. I do not believe that any victim benefits from a miscarriage of justice. When there is a miscarriage of justice, there are two victims—and many more.
It is slightly ironic that, in our contemporary politics, politicians get brownie points for saying, “Let’s lock up more people. Let’s lock them up for longer. Let’s create more criminal offences” and “Let’s put more statutory provision on the books”—not to get stuck in the legal weeds or dance on the head of a pin, but as performative politics. Yet we do not create the facilities the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has been campaigning for: simple things such as a separate room for the victim at a murder trial, translations, and transcripts. All the things we were debating earlier this evening just cannot happen, but what can happen is longer sentences, more crimes et cetera. We can do that legislation —the legal weeds stuff—but we cannot do the basics.
I respect fair trials, and I respect a great piece of human rights legislation that goes back to 1984. The Thatcher years’ Police and Criminal Evidence Act did so much for suspects’ rights and defendants’ rights, including in the police station—and not just in its codes, but in the Act itself. It is framework legislation that creates all sorts of precious and important rights for suspects and defendants.
I believe that victims need at least the equivalent of that. It is a modest ask. For someone who completely believes in the presumption of innocence, fair trials and suspects’ and defendants’ rights, it is time for victims to have their equivalent. Putting the victims’ code on a statutory footing to make the Bill the equivalent of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for suspects and defendants would be the least that we can do for victims of crime.
Even without my later suite of amendments, which would give the Victims’ Commissioner some enforcement powers—modest ones, which we will discuss later—putting this on the face of the Bill would pay respect to victims. In this age once more of connectivity, it would make the code more widely known, talked about and accessible. I also propose that, because this would now be in primary legislation, it would be amendable only by affirmative resolution in both Houses. I also argue that the Victims’ Commissioner should at least be consulted alongside the Attorney-General and so on, because otherwise this is all talk.
We have been doing this talk for many years in a performative, posturing arms race. Noble Lords know what I am talking about—and there is no monopoly of vice or virtue in any part of your Lordships’ House. This is the least we can do. Do we believe in victims’ rights? Let us put them into the Bill, and then debate later what we do about them and the enforcement powers which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and those who follow her should have. I beg to move Amendment 23 and hope I will have the unanimous support of the Committee.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 23. In my previous term as Victims’ Commissioner, a government lawyer once described the victims’ code to me as “persuasive guidance”. Those two words spoke volumes to me, because they go to the very heart of what is going wrong with the treatment of victims in our criminal justice system. If the Bill is to have a substantial impact on the victim experience, the first thing we need to change is the culture of the criminal justice system. I fear that victims’ entitlements are all often viewed as “Nice to do”, “If we can”, or “How can we tick the victim box with minimum effort?” This clearly came across in the findings of the joint inspection report on the delivery of victims’ entitlements, published on 23 December.
Victims need to be seen as participants in the justice process and not as observers. For this to happen, they need more than “persuasive guidance”; they need statutory rights. We do not talk about the defendant having “persuasive guidance”. They have statutory rights, and rightly so—we would not expect anything less. Rights are to be respected and adhered to. As we have seen over the past 20 years, entitlements in the victims’ code have been viewed by many practitioners as no more than this persuasive guidance. For this reason, I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, which seeks to place the victims’ code into a Schedule to the Bill.
If this amendment is successful, for the first time we will be able to say that victims have statutory rights. This would be a significant step forward for the victims and place a much greater responsibility on key agencies to deliver compliance. The amendment cannot by itself change the landscape but, if coupled with greater accountability, effective scrutiny and better public awareness, it is one of the many steps we need to take if we are to deliver transformative change for victims.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, very briefly, I can only entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. If something like this does not happen, what we are all asking ourselves is: will anything really change? The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, contrasted the last part of the Bill, which has more substantive legislative power that will go on to its face, with the part of the Bill we are talking about at the moment, which is largely advisory and selective. It tells people what they should do. However, it does not tell people what they must do.
Most importantly, it does not even give the Victims’ Commissioner, himself or herself, the authority to insist. Unfortunately, the noble Baroness’s predecessor did not have her tenure extended because, I gather, she was felt by certain members of the current Government to be somewhat unhelpful in her attitude and demeanour; thus her tenure was not renewed. Until the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, was put in on an interim basis, the role of Victims’ Commissioner was vacant for a significant period. That is not good or acceptable. It speaks volumes to some people about the level of real intent of His Majesty’s Government to put their legislative money where their mouth is.
I do not think I need to say any more than that. The onus is on the Government to demonstrate that this law will have real teeth and that the code, wherever it is, needs to be complied with and understood. The track record of the past few years has resulted in these amendments being put forward. There is a loss of faith in His Majesty’s Government’s true intent to put muscle and weight behind the provisions in the code, so the onus is on them to explain, on Report if the House so chooses, why we should not insist on amendments such as these.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, to answer the noble Lord’s rhetorical question, or perhaps pre-empting it, the Justice Committee in the House of Commons said that this was
“not … strong enough to drive the necessary cultural change”.
At the heart of the Second Reading debate was the importance of compliance with the code. If the code is not statutory, compliance is that much harder to achieve. We heard from the Minister at Second Reading, and in his letter following it—for which I was grateful—about guidance proposed by the Government for where non-compliance is severe and persistent, and how the ministerial taskforce may issue a public non-compliance notification. That is much too convoluted. One can see that it would take very serious non-compliance—something very dramatic—for such a non-compliance notification to be issued. I am sure it would be regarded as a very extreme step. We should not have to get to that point. It should be the norm and understood by the affected stakeholders—I hate that word—that they must comply.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the justice committee, and I endorse everything that has been said by speakers in this debate. I do not need to repeat their reasons; I shall be expanding on them in the same vein when we debate Amendment 51.
We have to give teeth to this. There has to be cultural change and it has to be a change that affects those in the Crown Prosecution Service and police at ground level because those above them will know that, if they default, something not so nice—a failure to get promotion or something practical—may happen because they will have a black mark against them by having failed to implement the victims’ code. We need teeth.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I agree with everyone who has spoken so far. I say to the Minister that, given the mentions earlier today about putting the victims’ code on a statutory footing, the brevity of this debate is in inverse proportion to the importance of the amendments. We appreciate that the Government have not come as far as us. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who helpfully set out the concerns of the committee that she quoted about this not being strong enough to get compliance.
I want to go back over a little bit of history. When I joined your Lordships’ House in 2011, a number of inquiries were going on relating to victims of crime. I became vice-chair of the all-party group on victims of crime. That group introduced the stalking inquiry report, which led to stalking law reform. Between 2011 and 2019, this House debated the role of a victim’s code and the victims of crime on many occasions. I had a Private Member’s Bill on the issue which had its Second Reading in July 2019. Not only did the Conservative manifesto of 2019 mention it but there was more detail about it in an addendum to it. I have no doubt that that was due to the work of the then Victims’ Commissioner, who is the Victims’ Commissioner again, sitting on the opposite Benches.
All that was because the current system does not work; it is quite simple. Until the services that have to provide the victims’ code are made to do so, there will be no incentive for them to deliver it if they have other pressures. It is the old thing: if you have to do something, then you will. You will have targets and you will be judged by your performance. Without that—if this is just a “thing too much—it will not happen.
As we come to the end of this Parliament, I want to say that it was a key tenet of the Conservative manifesto to make sure that a victims’ code was enshrined in law, but what we have seen is not what was spoken about during that general election campaign.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I find myself in a difficult situation, because in the previous group I had said that we should not have a sterile debate about whether we should have all the victims’ code on a statutory basis, and I challenged the Minister to look at individual provisions that should be on a statutory basis. I understand that that is not the tenor of the debate that we have been having in this group. However, Amendment 108, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, in the previous debate, looked at a specific element—namely, to do with the relevant local commissioning of bodies for specialist support for children who are victims, and whether that should be on a statutory basis, so as to put it on a similar basis to that for domestic abuse victims. I do not think that the Minister answered that amendment. While on the one hand I acknowledge the point that having an all-or-nothing approach may not be the best use of our time, on the other, it would be helpful if the Minister addressed the specific proposals in the amendments in the previous group.
Having said that, we are at a relatively early point in Committee, and there will be opportunities to bring these matters back. As my noble friend said, she has a further group of amendments looking at the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. Having explained my position to the Minister, I look forward to his response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and others, who have spoken in this part of the debate. To take up at once the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the Government’s position is that there are no specific amendments, including Amendment 108, which could or should be promoted into the Bill—they should all be dealt with in the code, in the right place. The difficulty of putting specific matters in the Bill, among other difficulties, is that you make a policy choice, irrespective of the available resources and the available situation in different areas, and so forth, as to which—
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I was just going to finish my sentence, but of course I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am sorry for being premature. I totally see the Minister’s point about the challenge of taking particular parts of the victims’ code and putting them in the Bill. That is why some of us are offering the suggestion that the whole victims’ code should be in statute. I hope that that would assist the Minister, because he would then not be picking and choosing particular aspects of the code, as the whole code of victims’ rights in this country would be in primary legislation, subject to amendment and so on. That would make victims’ rights a little bit closer to the appropriate rights of suspects, defendants and convicted criminals.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention and clarification. Perhaps I could explain why the Government do not think that this is a positive way to go.
The first point is that the present code is still a statutory code. It is grounded in statute, authorised by statute, has been subject to negative resolution in Parliament and therefore has a legal status. The Government’s position is that putting the code in a schedule to the Bill does not materially increase its legal enforceability, or indeed its legal status. Therefore, there does not seem to the Government to be a compelling reason to do it in either case. The Government would consider the present code to be subject to judicial review. There could be a legal challenge; in fact, the legislation on the face of it accepts that the code is admissible in legal proceedings, and so forth. So we already have a statutory code, and we are dealing with quite a fine point—whether putting in a schedule really has any material effect. The Government’s position is that, certainly legally, it has no effect—but in practice there is a very significant downside.
The downside is that what you have on the statute is no longer user-friendly and no longer contains the information that victims want when they reach for the code and want to know what to do, where to go, what the telephone number is and what the website is that they need to consult. You cannot put that in the statute, and I invite noble Lords to compare the code as currently reproduced in the amendment we are discussing with the code as published. The latter sets out 12 rights very clearly, has boxes that explain various things, tells you where to go, elaborates on the rights, et cetera, all in very user-friendly language. Either you abandon that—in which case, you abandon the signposting and everything we were discussing in the previous group—or you have two documents. And that, in the Government’s view, is not very satisfactory. Although we all have touching faith in the interest of the general public to read long schedules in the statutes that we pass, that is not actually the way to raise awareness. You raise awareness through other means.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry to intervene. I have been listening and have found the arguments very persuasive. If the Government are saying it does not make any difference to put it into the statute itself—and yet I know from briefings I have received that there is a very strong push from bodies on the ground saying we do need the code in the statute—why can we not have the statute and then a user-friendly version of it? That does not seem to me such a terrible thing.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The Government’s view is, first, that there is no need to go down this route at all, because the present structure of the code under the existing legislation creates statutory duties, obligations and rights that can be enforced by one route or another. If you burden the statute with this, the Government’s position is that it has no real effect, either in law or in any other way, but does have the complication that you must have—as I think the noble Baroness is conceding —at least two documents. That, again, overburdens the system, and the document that is trying to be user-friendly and communicative may turn out to be more difficult to draft, if you are always stuck with the framework of what is in the statute. So it gets us nowhere and simply complicates life.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
I am sorry, I am not a legal person, so I am just trying to join the dots, if you will bear with me. I think what is really insulting to victims is that it is like a two-tier level—one is a code and one is a law. What we want is to make sure that that persuasive guidance is in law, because it is about accountability and while it is in the code—with the words “should” or “must” or “do”—there is no accountability. So I am confused by the Minister saying it makes no difference if it is put in law and that it is easy language. It is nothing to do with that. It is important for victims to know that they have legal rights—not to take away from the offenders’ rights, but to start a level playing field—so I am a bit confused about my noble and learned friend’s response, as it does not make sense to me, and I am not a lawyer.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her intervention. Let me have another go at explaining it. The code is not in itself a statute. Once you go down the route of having a code and not a statute, you effectively have a framework that is still a legal framework—it is still legal guidance that gives people rights. The code says that you have 12 rights and lists them: this is what the authorities have to do and this is what you do if those rights are not observed. It is a legal framework; we are talking about degrees of legal right, but these are legal rights. If you wanted to, you could go to court and say that you have not had them.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
I am sorry, but I think there is a miscommunication here. The courts may be saying that these are your rights, but they are not legal rights. My inbox is full of victims not getting their rights under the code. I have been doing this since 2012 and have been at every code launch—you name it—but it just does not happen because the profession does not see this as law. It sees it as a code, so there is no legal route to accountability. It is all down to agencies which, if we are to line all the ducks up, have no funding and are short of staff—and again, the victim has not had that communication. My noble and learned friend talked about raising awareness of the code because nobody knows about it, so I am at a loss to understand this impression that “They have a right and they should do this”. As we saw recently in the Nottingham case, there is a miscommunication of rights and what they do: it is not being delivered.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Before the noble and learned Lord gets up—I know that is the inverse of the usual statement—perhaps it might be helpful if I cited something from the code and then asked a question. The second right states:
“You have the right to have the details of the crime recorded by the police without unjustified delay after the incident”.
We know that there are a lot of delays, but let us put that to one side. Where does it say in legislation that governs the actions of the police—whether that is primary legislation, secondary legislation, codes of practice or statutory guidance—that they have to do this? The problem is that we cannot find any of the rights in the victims’ code reflected in the statutory duties of the agencies listed in it. Please tell me I am wrong; I would be delighted to be wrong.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
If I may say so, sometimes one is in the middle of the flow of one’s argument and people jump up and down when one has not quite finished explaining the overall framework. The essential problem here is not the code itself, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, kindly said—it is not a bad document, I venture to suggest—but a lack of awareness, police not doing their job and nobody knowing quite what should be done if that were to happen. The idea behind the basic framework of this legislation is to force the relevant bodies to take steps to comply with the code. That is why Clause 6 says:
“Each criminal justice body which provides services … must … take … steps”
and “must … keep under review”. Clause 7 provides that they must provide various activities, et cetera, and must collect information, that a local policing body must do this, that and the other and that the various constabularies referred to later must do these things. The idea is that we have a code and a framework, and we must make sure that the bodies responsible for enabling victims’ rights do so.
In the Government’s view, you do not materially increase the likelihood of them doing so by putting the code into a schedule, any more than you increase that likelihood—to deal with another point—by converting a “should” into a “must”. That is another bit of fine tuning. The principles of the code are set out in Clause 2; for example, that you “should provide information”. You could say that you “must provide information”, but that does not really change the enforceability unless you have a whole statutory framework for what the information should be, who should provide it and how it is to be done. That is all in the code at the moment, where it should be.
I do not want to refer again to angels dancing on pins, but I think we are slightly at cross-purposes as to what we mean by things “in law”, “legal enforceability”, or “statutory codes”. That is the Government’s basic position on this.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I do not want to stop the Minister when he is in full flow. I understand how difficult it must be when people leap up because he has a comma in the middle of a sentence.
It seems to me the Minister has already conceded the next group of amendments, which are about compliance and data monitoring. Can he remind us why in Clause 2 it is “should”, not “must”, since he has just cited and relied on other clauses which use “must”? I do not know whether I have elevated myself to the status of an angel with that.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I think the short answer is that the purposes of those later clauses is to impose a statutory duty on the relevant bodies. The purpose of Clause 2(3) is to set out the principles. In terms of these, the Government’s view is that “should” is a more appropriate word than “must”, because the principles are very broadly expressed. Noble Lords might argue that “should” and “must” are almost interchangeable. I think we are again drawing really fine distinctions.
Perhaps I could just deal with two or three other points that arise on this part of the Bill. One is the question of the affirmative procedure as against the negative procedure. If I may say so, at the moment the code is subject to the negative procedure. Noble Lords can pray a resolution against it—of course there is going to be a debate in Parliament. I would respectfully suggest that it is more flexible than our somewhat—on some occasions at least—torrid debates in the Moses Room on affirmative resolutions. Noble Lords cannot change anything, it is very formalistic, and I respectfully suggest that making it an affirmative resolution is not a material improvement.
To keep the whole structure flexible and adaptable—I have used various words beginning with “a”, and I think I could add “adaptable” to this cohort—the Government suggest that it is not a useful move to put the code without the accompanying description in the statute itself; that in itself has no material effect on the Government’s view.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated in this debate.
I remind noble Lords that Clause 5 makes it clear that failure to comply with the victims’ code, currently and as proposed in the Bill, does not make a person liable to criminal or civil proceedings. The code has no legal teeth.
Let us cut through a bit of the legal waffle. The noble Baroness the Victims’ Commissioner is right: this is a code without enforceability. No victim can enforce their rights in any court in the land, and even the Victims’ Commissioner appointed by the Government of the day cannot enforce the code. That is why the amendments in this group dovetail with later amendments which would give the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and her successors and heirs, some modest powers to issue notices to public authorities, to publish those notices and, in extremis, to take legal action.
With the greatest respect to the Minister, to say that there is no difference between the scheme that is offered in these amendments and the current position is just not accurate as a statement of law. He said that this amendment is unnecessary and unhelpful. I hope that I have dealt with that. He said he did not want to burden the legislation with a schedule. I do not want to burden victims because this Bill is supposed to be about them. I know where the balance of the argument is between a few extra pages in a schedule and this toothless, illusory, broken promise to victims.
As for the arguments about how clunky it looks to have a code in a schedule to legislation, compared with the sparkly thing that could be on the Victims’ Commissioner’s website, we have that all the time. The convention rights—which may not be totally popular with everyone on the Benches opposite—are popular with me and mean a lot to people. They are in a schedule to the Human Rights Act. They are popularised in all sorts of ways to all sorts of people. They know that this is not a code of guidance; it is a Bill of Rights.
As I have said before, parties on both sides of this House have, for many years, talked the talk about victims’ rights—more legislation, longer prison sentences, et cetera—but have not actually delivered a right to see the transcript, to have a separate room at the court, to be treated with dignity. Let us have this debate but let us not pretend that there is no legislative or legal difference between the current and proposed positions.
I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. Because I have so much respect for him as a lawyer and a former senior judge, I urge him and his colleagues to think again about this. It would not cost a penny, but it would mean so much to so many people. Putting this and the subsequent amendments that we will debate on a legislative footing would give the Victims’ Commissioner some judgment and power to give this code teeth.
For the time being—but only for the time being—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti
Member's explanatory statement
This refers to the duty on the Secretary of State to prepare a draft Victims’ Code. The Victims’ Commissioner has a statutory duty to “review the operation” of the Victims Code. The amendment would put a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult the Commissioner when making any changes to the victims' code or issuing any statutory guidance relating to it.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, at the risk of trying the Committee’s patience, we are now talking about the role of the Victims’ Commissioner. Again, the thrust of these amendments moves in a similar direction and gets more into the specifics of the role of the commissioner.
Even under the scheme as currently proposed by the Government under the various provisions of the Bill, the government-appointed Victims’ Commissioner has very little respect and power. Even in places where the Secretary of State must, for example, consult the Attorney-General, there is no similar obligation to consult the Victims’ Commissioner. I find that constitutionally odd. It seems that one does not require a statutory duty to consult the Attorney-General. One hopes that in a rule-of-law Government and with cabinet government, it would be commonplace, without statutory provision, for Home Secretaries, Justice Secretaries and Cabinets to consult the Attorney-General. Maybe I live in the past and that is another place.
The Victims’ Commissioner is a creature of statute; therefore, there should be statutory duties to consult the Victims’ Commissioner, particularly when there are the sorts of provisions that the Government are already proposing in their own scheme.
I have, perhaps, taken up too much time already. In short, wherever there are powers and duties and anything proposed in the Government’s case to protect the victims by improving the code or compliance with the code, there must be a role for the Victims’ Commissioner. The Government should not be afraid of that because they appoint the Victims’ Commissioner. One would hope that they would appoint someone whom they trust and respect and who has at least enough judgment to be the guardian of the victims’ code and of this whole approach.
Anything less is really, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, suggested in her remarks earlier, a bit of an insult to victims. This is not just a toothless tiger; at the moment I wonder where even the gums are. It is embarrassing. At least in the Government’s own case, with their own scheme as currently devised, this suite of amendments, to put it shortly, is putting the Victims’ Commissioner in every place where she should be.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, the role of the commissioner is to review the operation of the victims’ code. The 2004 Act, which introduced the code, also created the post of a Victims’ Commissioner. It was the clear intention of the Government and Parliament that an independent Victims’ Commissioner should be able to champion the needs of victims and challenge the Government when code entitlements were not being complied with. Given the concerns many of us have about code compliance, the importance of the commissioner role cannot be overstated.
Since 2004, there have been just three Victims’ Commissioners: the noble Baroness, Lady Casey; Dame Vera Baird; and me. We have all come to the post through very different journeys, but, as those of your Lordships who know the three of us will testify, we have one attribute in common: we are, shall we say, a feisty bunch. However, I have to tell your Lordships, and I feel sure that my erstwhile fellow commissioners would agree, that there are times when being feisty is simply not enough.
Twenty years after the role was created, the time has come to give future Victims’ Commissioners the tools to do the job Parliament intended. This means that, when the commissioner makes recommendations, the Government and agencies take the trouble to consider them and respond. In my experience, this rarely happens. I therefore welcome the provisions in the Bill to make this a statutory requirement.
However, we need to go further. A basic requirement should be that the Victims’ Commissioner is consulted when the Government amend the code or issue statutory guidance in relation to it. Yes, the Government do consult me, but as a favour, not as a statutory duty. All too often, the consultation comes after the policy has been developed, and occasionally on the day it is to be announced, giving the sense of a fait accompli. Changes in the law will not necessarily stop this happening, but it is a start. That is why I am supporting Amendments 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 35, 43 and 48 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.
I also welcome Amendment 49, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which requires criminal justice agencies to co-operate with future Victims’ Commissioners. Again, if successful, this clause will not take effect until after I have left office. In my experience, many agencies I deal with are very helpful. HMPPS, for example, is particularly helpful. With some others, it can vary. For an independent Victims’ Commissioner to offer robust scrutiny, they need to have access to data and information relating to their statutory duties.
The duty set out in this amendment is not without precedent. The domestic abuse commissioner has exactly the same power. I understand it has never had to be used, but all parties concerned know it exists. These amendments combined will change the dynamics of the relationship of the commissioner with the agencies and with government. It makes her or him a formal part of the criminal justice architecture, and it gives them the authority to speak and be listened to.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will amplify what the noble Baroness just said by actually quoting from the Government’s own description of the Bill and what is in it. A paragraph headed
“What happens if victims do not receive their entitlements?”
says:
“We think that all the measures set out will strengthen the service victims receive. As the Code is a statutory code of practice, all relevant bodies should already comply with it”.
We know they are not, so the status quo we are starting from is, to a very large degree, that the bodies which are meant to be complying with the statutory code of practice are not doing so. The paragraph continues:
“However, if things go wrong, victims can make a complaint”.
It is up to victims themselves, who may or may not be aware of what their rights are under the statutory code, to identify that they are not receiving their rights, and then it is up to them to make a complaint. What is the Victims’ Commissioner for if not to act as the obvious channel and filter for all such complaints so they can go directly through her or him to His Majesty’s Government?
What the Government have described here is a complete, accurate illustration of the problem we have. It is not working at the moment. What the Government have said will improve it, on the basis of the evidence we have, but, frankly, the arguments we have heard so far do not really give us any room for optimism, so I suspect I speak for everybody in the Committee when I say that, rather like my school reports, I think the Government “should do better”.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have my name to Amendment 49 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on the duty to co-operate—which seems to me not something that should have to be said, but clearly does. It is another aspect of compliance. As ever, it is important to have the data on which to make recommendations and directions, give advice, or whatever. That is what Amendment 49 is about. It is about providing the tools for the independent Victims’ Commissioner to be effective. The amendment is based on the importance of monitoring compliance with the code, and one would think that the commissioner will be expected to be on top of the data. That needs co-operation. I think that is probably enough said. I am very much on the same page and the same paragraph as other speakers.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
From these Benches, I will be extremely brief, because I agree with everything that has been said. I signed Amendments 27 and 29 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and I absolutely support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which my noble friend Lady Hamwee has also signed. We cannot have commissioners who are commissioners in name only. They need clear roles, responsibilities and powers, and clear limits to those powers. The problem at the moment is that they do not, so we support the amendments.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said it right when she said that it is time to give the Victims’ Commissioner the statutory place and rights that are appropriate. That is exactly the point of this suite of amendments. They aim to do two things. One is to give the Victims’ Commissioner the right status to be able to get the right information and have the right relationships to make them most effective, but it is also placing duties on other organisations to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. That is what this suite of amendments is about. That means that they are very important. They also reflect the powers that other commissioners have in this space.
We have a group of amendments which give the Victims’ Commissioner a statutory duty to review the operation of the victims’ code, placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult the commissioner when making any changes to the victims’ code or issuing any statutory guidance relating to it. The amendment refers to the duty of the Secretary of State to consider any representations in relation to the drafting of the victims’ code in consultation with the Attorney-General. Again, I thought, “Why do you have to say that?” But, actually, I think we have to.
Amendments 27 and 29 alter the procedure for amending the victims’ code to require formal consultation with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses—I did not think that was necessary either, but if we need to say that, then we do—and affirmative parliamentary procedures.
Amendment 28 refers to
“the duty on the Secretary of State to consult the Attorney General on any revisions”.
Amendment 35 refers to
“the Secretary of State’s duty to issue regulations on the information to be collected by PCCs at a local level”.
Amendment 43 also places a duty on the Secretary of State to
“issue regulations on the timing and format of the information”.
This is about relationships that the Victims’ Commissioner needs to have to do their job effectively—with the Attorney-General, with PCCs, with the agencies with which the commissioner has to work.
My amendment—again, you would not think it would be necessary, but it clearly is—states that there is a specific public authority duty
“to co-operate with the Commissioner in any way that the Commissioner considers necessary for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the victims’ code”.
If we do not give the Victims’ Commissioner the power to ensure that the code is being complied with, we are not taking victims seriously. If we do not do that, we do not place the right kind of duties on the Secretary of State. We also need to make sure that the way the Victims’ Commissioner works is joined up with all the different agencies that she—it has always been “she” so far—needs to have.
We are very keen on this group of amendments because it does those two things: it gives the Victims’ Commissioner power, and it places a duty on different parts of the state to provide, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said, formal parts of criminal justice infrastructure. This a powerful suite of amendments that I hope the Minister will agree to, and certainly will discuss with us as we move forward.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am very grateful, once again, to all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments, which is related to the previous group. I am very sorry if the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and I have managed to fall out over what is actually a legal discussion. Maybe we can pursue some of the points that were made in the previous group further, so that we understand each other and where those who support those amendments are coming from.
As far as this group of amendments is concerned, I will take first the amendment that would place a specific duty on specified public authorities to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. I do not think anyone is in any doubt—and certainly the Government are not—that the Victims’ Commissioner plays a most important role that requires collaboration across the criminal justice system and the support sector. We recognise that there is other legislation affecting the domestic abuse commissioner which gives them the kind of powers that I think are partly, at least, being sought under this amendment.
I cannot at this moment accept the amendment, as I am sure noble Lords completely understand. But I am very much open to working with the Victims’ Commissioner and the House on whether there is any common ground on this approach, which would help us build up the bricks we are looking to build up to create the building that will enable this whole system to be more effective.
As regards the amendments to require the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner, I first make an extremely nerdy point, just for clarification. Clause 3(3) states:
“In preparing the draft the Secretary of State must consult the Attorney General”.
That is probably a bit confusing at the outset, but what is essentially being said is that the Secretary of State must consult relevant Ministers responsible for the bodies to which the draft is to apply: the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary—both of whom are englobed in the phrase “Secretary of State”—and the Attorney-General, who is responsible for the Crown Prosecution Service and similar justice bodies. It is a sort of ministerial consultation.
As to the question of consulting the Victims’ Commissioner on the code, further amendments to the code and so forth, I cannot imagine any circumstances in which the commissioner would not be consulted on all these matters. We have not set out in the Bill all the stakeholders that should be consulted but I would very much like to continue to work with the Victims’ Commissioner on this issue and how we continue to recognise that vital role. Again, may we take this amendment under advisement and see how far we can go?
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am mindful of the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove: because the Victims’ Commissioner is not a statutory consultee, consultations often arrive as the policy is announced. It is a tick-box exercise. The point of making someone a statutory consultee is that they have to be notified as the process starts, not as it ends. If the Minister is going to have a discussion with the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, it would be really helpful to understand how the position outlined by the noble Baroness can be prevented.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that that point deserves full consideration alongside other points.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords in the Committee, in particular the Minister. He will forgive me if I was overly animated; I hope he does not think that we have fallen out as I find it hard to envisage circumstances in which we would do so.
I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification of the Government’s intention in Clause 3(3): that the consultation will be broader than just the Attorney-General and will include the whole Cabinet or any relevant Secretary of State. I may be a fool but I always thought that, in our constitution, the Cabinet, the Government and the Secretary of State were virtually indivisible and there was no need to create statutory duties on individual Secretaries of State to consult each other. I may be wrong about that but the Minister’s argument is that he needs provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to consult the Attorney-General, yet no similar provision is required for the Secretary of State to consult the statutory creature—the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, does not look like a statutory creature; she is a wonderful human creature—that is the Victim’s Commissioner. I am confused about that but perhaps, in due course, the Minister and his colleagues will deliberate it; I like the noises that I am hearing about possible reflection.
Without provisions of this kind and of the kind that we will debate in the next group, this whole part of the Bill will be Conan Doyle. In particular, for fans of Conan Doyle, this is The Adventure of Silver Blaze. This is the curious incident of the victims’ code that made friends and did not always bark in the night. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and not bark in the night.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
“Compliance with the code: minimum thresholds(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations issue minimum threshold levels of compliance with each right of the victims’ code.(2) If a minimum threshold is breached by an organisation for two consecutive years, the Secretary of State must commission an inspection of that body with regard to that breach.(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, lay before Parliament the report of any such inspection.” Member’s explanatory statement
This clause requires the Secretary of State to establish for agencies listed in the victims’ code minimum levels of compliance with code entitlements, which, if breached, will prompt independent inspections.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, we are starting this group, but I suspect that we will stop it in about 29 minutes, so we will make what progress we can.
In moving Amendment 30, I will speak also to a large number of amendments in this group: Amendments 37 to 46, 50 and 83. They come in three groups. Amendment 30 is to do with requiring the Secretary of State to set minimum threshold levels of compliance for each right of the victims’ code, carrying on from the discussion that we had on the previous group. The group of amendments consecutive from Amendment 44 seek to place a statutory duty on the Victims’ Commissioner to compile and publish an independent annual report on justice agencies’ compliance with the victims’ code. Amendment 83 is an old chestnut for the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and me, to do with training for the police to better understand and deal with stalkers.
Starting with Amendment 30, which is about the minimum threshold levels of compliance for each right in the code, during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, the Justice Committee stated:
“As drafted, the Bill fails to adequately address the issue of agencies’ noncompliance with the Code—we are concerned by this given that it is one of the principal reasons for the Bill”.
Therefore, this amendment has been designed, working very closely with the Victims’ Commissioner and her office, precisely to fill the gap that was identified by the Justice Committee.
For many people, experiencing crime is a life-changing event, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has testified on more than one occasion. It is the effect of not just the crime but the justice process that may follow it which victims have to endure. While we know that some victims receive an exemplary service, this is not everyone’s experience. Victims can end up in a very bad place, feeling lost, voiceless, in a complex and seemingly unfeeling system, feeling like a bystander, being told about rights which in theory they have but which are probably not properly explained to them and certainly do not feel as if they are being received.
Clearly, this should not be the case and I do not think that it ever was the intent of His Majesty’s Government when they were drafting the original Bill, the code and now this Bill. However, we are where we are. While the victims’ code sets out the minimum level of service that victims should receive, that they should be treated with respect, dignity, sensitivity, compassion and courtesy, be provided with information and updates about their case and be referred to the right support services, we know that this is not always the case, and a systematic lack of compliance with the code means that many victims are being let down.
The most recent survey by the Victims’ Commissioner found that only 29% of victims had been offered the opportunity to make a victim personal statement, despite that being one of the key rights under the code. That is under one-third, on a part of the code which the Minister said a few minutes ago is a statutory requirement to deliver. That is not a very impressive scorecard. The Bill as it stands does go some way to address this: it places the key principles of the code in law and introduces a duty on criminal justice agencies to collect and share data. However, while these are welcome steps, they do not go far enough. They go some way towards monitoring victims’ rights, but they do not ensure that victims receive them. Introducing minimum compliance thresholds will strengthen accountability and provide a means of putting the victims’ code into force.
Organisations which persistently—by which one means over a period of two consecutive years—and systematically fail to meet the thresholds will be subject to an inspectorate inspection to investigate problems and drive improvements. The thresholds that will be put in place by this amendment will make absolutely clear the levels of service that victims must receive. They will provide a systemic and consistent way of holding justice agencies to account for how they treat victims. If victims are consistently not being referred to support services, not being provided with updates and not been given the chance to make a victim personal statement, this amendment provides a clear way of identifying this, of escalating it and, perhaps most important of all, putting it right.
The Government made it a laudable aim of the Bill to
“put victims’ interests firmly at the heart of the justice system”,
but we contend that the Bill falls somewhat short of that.
The next series of amendments, from Amendment 44 onwards, seeks to place a statutory duty on the Victims’ Commissioner to compile and publish an independent annual report on the compliance of justice agencies with the victims’ code. The Government are committing in the Bill to collect the sort of data that will identify what is happening out there, but data alone will not deliver the culture change that is required to ensure that victims are treated better within our justice system. We must go further to ensure that victims have guaranteed rights, not apparently guaranteed favours.
Clause 10 requires the Secretary of State to produce an annual national report on code compliance. The Government are proposing that they collect, analyse and publish a report on code compliance themselves. Sceptics could possibly perceive that the Ministry of Justice is, in effect, marking its own homework. I suppose the question we are asking is: do we feel that is right? I think we feel that there should be—this is absolutely crucial—robust and independent scrutiny of code compliance. The proposed system of police and crime commissioners collecting compliance data locally, and the Ministry of Justice preparing a national report, provides neither independent rigour nor effective challenge.
One of the core remits of the Victims’ Commissioner is to monitor how criminal justice agencies comply with the victims’ code. Surely, as this is a core function of this office, it only follows that it is right and proper that the Victims’ Commissioner should be the person to collect, analyse and publish this report on code compliance. It is only by having a truly independent appraisal of code compliance, issued by the Government’s own appointed Victims’ Commissioner, that we can start to deliver true accountability, with criminal justice agencies fully held to account on their delivery of victims’ code rights.
Lastly, there is the matter of training for dealing with stalking. Last week, I had the privilege of speaking virtually to Richard Spinks, the father of Gracie Spinks; your Lordships may remember this particularly horrendous case where Gracie was attacked and killed by a man, a rejected partner, who had been stalking her continuously for an extended period. She had made more than 40 complaints to Derbyshire police; but they did, in effect, nothing. The coroner’s report was absolutely devastating. The Derbyshire police were not trained; they did no proper assessment of the level of risk; and they were found to be guilty of gross negligence. One of the results of this was that South Yorkshire Police, which was brought in to investigate the lamentable performance of the Derbyshire Constabulary, was so affected by what it found in this investigation that it resolved to go back and transform the way it prepares for, deals with and understands cases of stalking. The effect was such that it saw how bad bad could be.
The good news is that there is some good practice out there. I thank the Suzy Lamplugh Trust for giving those of us who have tried to advocate for better policing and understanding of stalking for many years such enormous support. It has embarked on a scheme in Cheshire, working with the Cheshire Constabulary, which is, undoubtedly, the best in class. The police are properly trained; they can assess risk quickly and effectively; they are organised in such a way that they are properly resourced and can act very quickly. They have excellent internal communication channels, which is not the case in every force, and are able to make it work.
Perhaps I can just remind noble Lords of the sheer complexity of stalking, because there are many different kinds of stalker. The most common is the rejected stalker; I think that was the individual who was in the BBC news today—the gentleman who was confronting police officers with a crossbow two days ago, and who was shot dead. He had not only a crossbow but body armour, several knives and machetes et cetera, and he was determined to break into the bedroom of a woman who lived in that area, no doubt to try to kill her. This is a man who had a record of harassment and bad behaviour, and was supposedly under monitoring by the police. None the less, he managed to accumulate this variety of weapons and personal armour, and we must be very thankful that the police managed to intervene and at least put the perpetrator out of his self-inflicted misery, although I am sure that the trauma felt by the intended victim will live with her for a great many years.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, this group is about giving teeth to the toothless tiger that is the victims’ code. To be clear, currently in law, and as proposed by the Government’s scheme in this Bill, the only indirect enforceability would be that if anybody has any other kind of proceedings against a relevant public authority, the victims’ code can be taken into account. That is it. That is not an enforceable right in any usual sense of the concept, because enforceable rights require duties that must be enforced.
Various options have been proffered by noble Lords in the Committee in the various amendments in this group. Mine is Amendment 31, on which I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and, once more, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I propose here that the teeth, to some extent, go to the Victims’ Commissioner. As I said in the debate on the previous group, the Government appoint the Victims’ Commissioner; this is not some dangerous person who will be litigating everywhere. This is an appropriate person who has been appointed by the Government of the day.
I am not suggesting that victims should be able to sue directly in the courts on the victims’ code. Frankly, there is no legal aid for them to do so anyway, and I do not want them to be traumatised by more litigation when they have been so traumatised by the principal proceedings in which they have had such a bad experience. But I do want them to have real rather than illusory rights, which can be enforced.
The thing about enforceable rights is that they become more real just because they exist, because the public authorities concerned will take note. I believe they will take greater note when they know that down the road, in extremis, there is a potential reckoning if they continue to ignore victims in the way that they have, to deprioritise them or to do whatever it is that has led to some of the stories we have heard in Committee this evening.
My proposed scheme is to replace the current Clause 5, the toothless tiger, with the following enforcement procedure. Incidentally, this is not about specific cases. It is not about the Victims’ Commissioner doing something that she does not do at the moment and getting involved in this criminal case or that; there would be obvious problems with that. This is about general practice. When, for example, it comes to the notice of the Victims’ Commissioner that women are being treated appallingly when they report rape and have their mobile phones taken or are not allowed to speak to counsellors—clearly things that would never happen in real life; I am just hypothesising for a moment—the Victims’ Commissioner in the first instance would do what she does already, which is to try to engage with the public authorities at length and persuade them that there is a problem in general that needs to be dealt with.
However, there are measures in the proposed new Clause 5(4) for when that is not being complied with. In the first instance, in Clause 5(4)(a), the Victims’ Commissioner would be able to issue a notice of general guidance. It would not be about a specific case but would be general guidance to the relevant public authority about its practice that, in her view, was not complying with the code. Whether it is about separate rooms in the Crown Court or the information being required, the victim is not being treated according to the code, so the commissioner issues the notice, initially in private.
If that is not complied with within a reasonable period of time, under Clause 5(4)(b), the next tool in the armoury—which is still pretty modest—is that the Victims’ Commissioner would be able to publish that notice. In my view, that public notice is another tool for accountability in relation to the intransigence of public authorities that are simply not complying with the code.
There is then a further step. One would hope that it would very rarely happen, but maybe sometimes it would need to. This is not about specific cases and would not involve individual victims having to go through legal proceedings, but in extremis the Victims’ Commissioner would be able to start proceedings in an appropriate court or tribunal, defined in rules by the Government, to seek enforcement of the code. That would be only the Victims’ Commissioner, not any litigant in the land who was being mischievous with their money, or lefty human rights lawyers and all that stuff. It would be the Victims’ Commissioner, who is trusted and was appointed by the Secretary of State in the first place.
I think that is a pretty modest and balanced scheme for giving the toothless tiger not great big scary teeth but just some milk teeth so they can nudge these public authorities, which have had all this time and all these years with the current code and the current scheme, which is going to be replicated in the Bill proposed by the Government. It would get the Victims’ Commissioner a little bit more by way of a power to deliver for the victims that she serves.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I hope I can do this in the time allotted, as they say.
I shall speak to Amendment 51 on training in relation to support for victims. Very simply, Clause 6 directs that criminal justice bodies must take reasonable steps to promote awareness of the victims’ code to victims and other members of the public, but the Bill does not mandate that professionals within these bodies receive any training in the code. There is no point in this provision in Clause 6 if those who are to carry it out—those who are acting on the ground within the agencies, under the chief constable or within the prosecution service—are not aware of their duties or trained properly to deliver them. This part of the Bill risks being a fig leaf. To make it effective, those responsible for it must be trained in delivery. Is this not just common sense?
The evidence base is that there is a need to provide training and that it is clear that there is a widespread lack of awareness of victims’ rights. I take you back to two surveys. In 2019, the London victims’ commissioner conducted a review into compliance with the victims’ code of practice. She heard from over 2,000 victims of crime. The review revealed examples of unacceptable service. It showed that a proportion of those who work in the criminal justice service lack the skills or training to understand and respond to victims’ needs effectively. Victims suffer the consequences of those problems time and again; they simply were not informed of their rights. In short, the code was not delivering.
Let me give some examples. Fewer than a third of the victims reported being told about the code of practice. Of course, some of them may have forgotten, but certainly a large proportion were not told. As a result, they did not know what their rights were—they did not know they had any rights. It is no use giving the victims rights if they do not know about them. Largely, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are not trained to do this. It is not because they are wicked people; they just do not know about it. There are many other deficiencies. Read the review if you want to know more.
More recently, in June 2022 the office of the Victims’ Commissioner launched the Victim Survey, an online survey of victims of crime in England and Wales that asked them about their experiences as a victim of crime. I will give a few examples. Fewer than a third, only 29% of respondents, were aware of the victims’ code. The same percentage said that they were offered the opportunity to make a victim personal statement. In other words, if that is right, 71% were not offered that opportunity. Again, allowing for some people not being very capable or bright, it shows a large proportion, on any basis, were not informed of really basic information.
Data from the user satisfaction survey in London shows that only 25% of victims were made aware of the victims’ code. In the same period, the answers showed that 50% were offered victim support services—in other words, half were not; and 59% were given the opportunity to make a victim personal statement, so around 40% were not. It is the “nots” we are interested in here. Only 12% were offered information on compensation. Again, making allowances for the fact that it may not have been appropriate or necessary and that some people are forgetful, a large proportion were not told about possible compensation and how to claim it, and that is important. Even a small amount of compensation can make an individual who has been the victim of crime feel a bit less disgruntled. I speak as someone who sat as a recorder in the Crown Court for 20 years.
Those are all rights in the victims’ code. They are all failures; just read the survey for more. It is plain that there is no training. We need it and it should made part of the statute. So, I commend this amendment to the Committee.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Monday 5th February 2024
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 31-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (5 Feb 2024)
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to Amendments 30, 31, 37 to 46, and 53. Compliance with the victims’ code goes straight to the heart of what the Bill is about. This year, the code will have been on the statute book for 20 years. Its creation was based on good intentions, and the many entitlements, if properly implemented, would deliver the support and treatment deserved. On that we all agreed.
As discussed in the previous debate, the same piece of legislation sought to underpin the code by setting up the role of an independent Victims’ Commissioner, whose role is to
“review the operation of the code”.
Twenty years later, I think we all agree that the expectations created by that piece of legislation have never been fully met. Victim Support has found that as many as six in 10 victims do not receive their rights under the victims’ code, two in 10 are not referred to support services, and six in 10 are not referred to a needs assessment. In my most recent victim survey, fewer than three in 10 respondents were aware of the existence of the code. Only 29% recalled being told about the entitlement to make a victim personal statement.
In December, we had the report of the joint inspection on how well the police, the CPS and probation supported victims, which also found that the focus on complying with rights under the victims’ code has led to an emphasis on process rather than quality of service. The police, the CPS and the Probation Service did not always consider the needs of victims. As for police sharing information with victims, the report found that this was often a box-ticking exercise, with no evidence of quality. We love tick boxes, but we are missing the whole point of issuing this information and supporting victims. As the recent case in Nottingham has shown so powerfully, the quality and timeliness of communications with victims are crucial.
After 20 years, it is disappointing that we need to have this debate yet again. During that time, there have been many well-intentioned attempts to drive up performance: a tweak here, a nudge there, and yet another revision of the code. This Bill must not be allowed to become another nudge and another tweak.
There is much in the Bill to commend it. It will set up a structure whereby data is collected locally, with the Secretary of State issuing guidance on the data required. There will be an internal process to oversee monitoring of compliance, a programme board, and a ministerial task force. If an agency fails to deliver, it will eventually be issued with a notice of non-compliance. These are all positive developments.
Yes, I do have some concerns—for example, about whether the police and crime commissioners will be resourced to undertake the required data collection and analysis, and about the influence they will be able to assert over national criminal justice agencies at a local level—but let us not focus on those for now. The question we must ask ourselves is: will regional directors of, say, the CPS or the Probation Service lie awake at night worrying about an MoJ notice? I very much doubt it. Where are the transparency, the public accountability, the independent scrutiny and the challenge? By itself, will this worthy framework deliver the culture change we have all been talking about?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said last week—I know we have had a weekend in between—we might ask: does it have teeth? I fear that it does not. I support the amendments in this group not because I want to undermine or devalue the work that has been done in government, but because I want to give the Government the tools to make it succeed.
Amendment 30 sets out a framework for the Government to hold the criminal justice agencies to account should they fail to deliver a minimum level of compliance with victims’ rights. This proposal is not a straitjacket; it is a framework. The Government set the threshold, and the timeframe is two successive years. A failure to meet the Government’s set thresholds will result in an inspection, which in turn will result in a published report highlighting shortcomings and making recommendations for the change. This holds agencies fully to account and provides much-needed transparency. To put it bluntly, it has much more clout than an MoJ non-compliance notification.
For the same reason, I support Amendment 31, which gives holders of my role the opportunity to issue non-compliance notices where there is evidence of persistent non- compliance.
I turn to Amendments 44 to 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. The systematic collection of compliance data offers an opportunity for proper scrutiny and accountability. The publication of the data will be a significant development, but the Government propose to give themselves the responsibility for delivering the assessment of the data. Therefore, they decide on the data to be collected. They fund the PCCs, victim activity and data collection. They also publish their own internal assessment of the data. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, says, this smacks of the Government marking their own homework.
This framework lacks independent scrutiny and challenge. We can do better than this. This assessment needs to be undertaken by the person who has statutory responsibility for reviewing the operation of the code—in other words, the Victims’ Commissioner: someone who has the freedom to report without fear or favour, and who is able to challenge both the Government and the criminal justice agencies. As a person independent of government, his or her findings would be viewed as credible by victims, the public and the media. I add that my term expires in October, so this responsibility would fall to the future commissioners.
A former CEO of the office of a police and crime commissioner watched the debate last Wednesday, and she emailed me to say that the concerns from speakers about the approach of the criminal justice agencies to the code resonated with her. She said:
“On the additional ‘A’ being added by Lord Bellamy of ‘adaptable’, I understand the point he was making, but I would suggest the agencies sat around the Local Criminal Justice table have made full use of the adaptable nature of the code to date and the lack of governance around it which is why we are in the position we find ourselves with only a third of victims having awareness of the code”.
This needs to change. From the outset, I have constantly said that the credibility of the Bill rests on delivering code compliance and ending the culture within our agencies of adapting themselves around it. This is something on which we are all agreed, and I hope the Minister and the Government will, at long last, listen and act upon our concerns.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 30 and 44 to 46 in this group, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. Others have spoken at length and much better than I can about these, so I really just want to echo the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, here. These amendments are about compliance, accountability and the Victims’ Commissioner. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, talked about tweaks and nudges, which we do not want—just give the Victims’ Commissioner teeth, because independence and rigorous scrutiny are vital if the Bill is to have the confidence of victims.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have signed Amendments 31, 51 and 83 in this group. Amendment 31 would give the Victims’ Commissioner an additional role in ensuring the victims’ code in the event of non-compliance. As other noble Lords have said today and last Wednesday, the real problem with the Bill is that there is no duty on agencies to comply. I support the two previous speakers—nudging agencies will not create the right effect.
Amendment 51, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would ensure that the justice agencies are properly trained. As with Amendment 83, the aims and objectives of Amendment 51 are something I have laid repeatedly over the decade and more since I have been pushing for training, particularly on matters to do with victims. I am really pleased that the noble Lord has tabled the amendment; I am also pleased that the family courts are beginning to understand that there is a crossover between what happens to victims in the criminal justice system and their experiences in the family court system. I will not say more, because we will be debating a group of amendments on that on Wednesday. However, none of that will happen unless everybody involved in the criminal justice procedure is fully trained. I understand that the justices are extremely concerned that Parliament should ask them to be trained, but it is not just about people sitting on the Bench. This is about everybody who is engaged.
I know that I have said in private and perhaps in public that, when I went to the sentencing of my stalker, I was placed literally next to him. I had no choice of where to sit—that is where the clerk who took me in sat me. It was the first time I had seen him since he was arrested, and it was a real shock to the system. So, when I talk about right through the system, I mean absolutely everything, including the people who help manage the seating areas in the court. Above all, we need a system whereby the family courts will ensure that victims are not victimised twice. It is broader than that, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, for tabling that amendment.
Amendment 83 would ensure that front-line agencies are trained to recognise stalking. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for expanding it to include higher education places. Stalking in its most unpleasant form is manipulative and coercive. Families and friends of those being stalked are also stalked, meaning that people who come into contact with them, including in schools, colleges, universities and the health system, need to understand when they are being played by a stalker. Because stalkers are very good at it—every single day cases come to court with stalkers behaving in this appalling manipulative way. It is extremely unpleasant and frightening. To train everyone to recognise it, to be able to ask the right questions and, as we discussed last week, to signpost people to the right services, is vital.
There is another reason why Amendment 83 is important. One problem of the Domestic Abuse Act is that it has downgraded non-domestic stalking. The priority in the system is for domestic stalking, and without a specific amendment providing for stalking in one form, we will not see this form of discrimination, which happens simply because it is not domestic—and I am afraid that some people in the criminal justice system think that non-domestic stalking is not as severe.
Overall, from these Benches we welcome the amendments. The deluge of amendments that the Minister is facing is because we know that the victims’ code that the Government have put forward, with which we all agree in principle, will not work without the strengthening of the responsibilities of the Victims’ Commissioner and other agencies involved in managing the lives that victims have after they have become victims.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support in broad terms the need for the commissioner to have more powers to intervene on behalf of victims, and my questions are about how that should be done most effectively to create the atmosphere that is needed.
For many years we have had people who have intervened on behalf of suspects, but very few people who have been able to intervene on behalf of victims, and I really support that changing. Amendment 30 talks about the ability to produce reports. My questions are about whether the reports are the right way to achieve the outcome, when people in fact want individual interventions for their particular problem. To give more powers to the commissioner to intervene in individual problems might be more powerful.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 36, which is in my noble friend Lord Bach’s name, as well as my own. This is a probing amendment. It does not set out to challenge the Government’s position on delivering their commitment regarding local criminal justice boards, within the scope of the clauses on code compliance. It seeks to set out the benefits of putting LCJBs and police and crime commissioners together.
First, it will drive consistency of approach to code compliance, which can be monitored through LCJBs. Secondly, it will deliver effective collaboration and shared accountability of code compliance and encourage attendance from criminal justice boards. Thirdly, it will ensure that statutory guidance is reflective of the LCJB approach. Fourthly, it will recognise the LCJB role in victims’ code compliance, given the policy intent to place the boards on a statutory footing.
This amendment does not state that LCJBs are the only forum in which to comply with the current regulations. However, LCJBs are important forums that need to be bolstered in order to deliver on the Bill’s ambitions, drive consistency and ensure local shared accountability for code compliance across criminal justice bodies and the elected policing bodies. This amendment will deliver that aim through enshrining them in this Bill.
The Ministry of Justice published guidance for LCJBs in March 2023. This guidance reiterated the commitment to placing LCJBs on a statutory footing:
“In line with recommendations made by the Review, a suitable legislative vehicle is being sought to place LCJBs on a statutory footing and mandate that the PCC act as Chair”.
By giving local criminal justice boards their own place in the legislation, this amendment would remind local partners of their shared accountability for and commitment to supporting victims of crime and to delivering the new responsibilities set out in this Bill. We would also provide PCCs, who chair the majority of these boards, with the levers they need to ensure that the boards are effective and set clear expectations of their members.
Turning to the other amendments in this group, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, spoke to Amendments 30 and 31, and I agree, of course, with the points she made. She spoke very powerfully on the importance of independent scrutiny and transparency, and she proposed a “framework, not a straitjacket”. She believes, as do I, that what she is proposing is a better way of holding agencies to account. She also quoted the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on the Government currently marking their own homework; he wants to deliver a better system through these amendments.
I also want to endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said about recognising both domestically related and non-domestically related stalking. I have dealt with stalking matters quite a few times in magistrates’ courts, and even though, from an outsider’s point of view, they can seem less important, I am absolutely convinced that, for the people being stalked, it is an extremely alarming and frightening position to find themselves in. In fact, I dealt with that sort of case very recently. It also reinforces the point in Amendment 51 about the training needed for justice agencies in order to recognise stalking and its importance.
In conclusion, I noted with interest the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, about multiple inspectors and inspections and the need for this to be carefully thought through. They were very fair questions, but I do not think they add up to an argument against. Their points were well made, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords very much for their contributions to this group. I first apologise for my heavy cold and thank my noble friends Lord Roborough and Lord Howe for stepping into the breach and dealing with subsequent groups today.
The amendments in this group essentially seek stronger compliance mechanisms, credibility, as has been said, more specific obligations on training and a wider role for the Victims’ Commissioner—in other words, we are in the field of awareness and accountability, to use two of my four “A’s”. The Government would not be proceeding with this structure if they did not believe that they were delivering a credible structure. The whole purpose of Clauses 6 to 10, combined with guidance under Clause 11, is very much to improve awareness and compliance. Under Clause 6, criminal justice bodies must promote awareness and review their compliance, and, in particular, under Clause 7 the PCCs for each area must supervise the criminal justice bodies in their area and provide reports for the Secretary of State. That is all combined with the collection and sharing of information about how they are functioning, together with the publication of compliance information under Clause 10.
In that latter regard, I ask noble Lords not to underestimate the importance and strength of shining light in dark corners. We have seen it in other parts of the criminal justice system, such as the family justice system. Once you have the information and it is in the public domain, that is a huge contributor to raising standards generally. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, pointed out, some police forces are doing extremely well; I think Cheshire was the example he gave. So it can be done under the existing system. The question is, how we bring everybody up to the same standard. Clauses 6 to 10, coupled with the duty to collaborate under Clause 12, and the preparation of the strategy and the needs assessment under Clause 13, all involve everybody collaborating, working together, learning from each other and generally arriving at best practice. In the Government’s view, that is a perfectly sensible and entirely efficient and fruitful way to go. So in general terms, at least at this stage, the Government are not persuaded of the need for the further amendments in this group.
I turn for a moment to the rights of individual victims under the statutory code. Without reopening exchanges from the previous occasion, I would like to state categorically on behalf of the Government, at the Dispatch Box, that Clause 5 is not and is not intended to be an ouster of judicial review. The code, its operation and the bodies responsible for this operation are, in the Government’s view, subject to judicial review. From the point of view of the individual victim, that may be something of a technicality but, given the modern prevalence of public interest litigation by groups of various kinds, it is not insignificant that the relevant bodies and the code itself are subject to judicial review.
As for the individual victim, the Government agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that giving victims the right to sue directly in the courts—for example, for damages—is not the best approach. In the case of the individual victim, the route is a complaint to the ombudsman, who may give such redress, including compensation, as it is within their power to give. Noble Lords will note that another improvement in the Bill, in Clause 23, enables the victim complainant to go direct to the ombudsman rather than through one’s MP. That is an important reform.
What are the enforcement mechanisms if this system does not work as envisaged? What are we going to do about it? I shall give noble Lords a little bit of colour from the additional document about compliance oversight, published on the MoJ website last month and referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. At national level, there will be a new cross-criminal justice system governance system, with a programme board and a ministerial taskforce to monitor compliance nationally. The Victims’ Commissioner will be fully involved; we are putting the Victims’ Commissioner at the heart, administratively speaking, of the way in which this is developing—as will the various inspectorates and other important stakeholders.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said, one weapon with which to address non-compliance will be the use of non-statutory non-compliance notifications similar to those used in the Prison Service to drive change. Also very potent, if I may say so, are the inspections themselves. Clauses 19 to 22 give the relevant powers to the inspectors of constabulary and probation and so forth to have inspections. Another aspect that adds to the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner is to build the commissioner into those structures and to require those bodies, when developing inspections, to fully consult the commissioner. There is also the possibility of joint inspections, which is another tool. So when you need to do something on a targeted basis, in this Bill you have the powers, in the end, to do it. That is the Government’s general position.
I now turn to the specific amendments. Amendment 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, seeks to create a duty on the Secretary of State to set out in regulations minimal thresholds for the code of compliance and to instigate inspections when these are breached in two consecutive years. The Government’s position is that we fully agree that clear indicators are needed to identify severe and persistent non-compliance. However, it is almost certain that what the Government propose to adopt will be a range of indicators, rather than a specific minimum threshold, to consider not just when entitlements are being delivered but how they are received by victims. Those indicators should be decided by the bodies that are responsible for delivering the code, which is why it will be a matter for the ministerial task force. As I have said, the task force will include the inspectorates, the Victims’ Commissioner, and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Perhaps the Minister can drink a bit more water at this point, though that is not the sole reason for my intervention.
I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification, but my own clarification is that no one suggested, at any point, that Clause 5 is an ouster of judicial review. Last time, I was trying to make it clear that, in Clause 5, the code does not give any right to civil proceedings, and so no individual can sue on the code. In the creative scheme that we devised, we were not suggesting that individuals should be able to sue either. We certainly agree with not wanting more litigation for people who have already had a terrible time with litigation and probably have no civil legal aid anyway.
The point was that the Victims’ Commissioner should be more than a toothless tiger. Whether or not it is through force of personality, as with the current commissioner, future commissioners should have something in their back pocket for recalcitrant public authorities which, year after year, do not respect the victims’ code. Even in the scheme that we developed, litigation should not be the first resort for a Victims’ Commissioner either today or in future. They should have to jump through hoops first—the issue of private notices followed up by the issue of public notices. Only in extremis should the Victims’ Commissioner alone—in relation not even to particular a criminal case but to systemic failure—be able, as a last resort, to sue on the code. I understand the Minister’s position, but I hope he will at least take the opportunity to reflect on what noble Lords have suggested before the next stage.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I will continue to reflect on all the points made, including this one. The Government’s present position is that this “slap on the wrist” power for the Victims’ Commissioner probably does not take matters much further forward, but I may reflect on that further.
I turn to Amendments 37 to 42 from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and other related amendments, which, as I understand it, require the Secretary of State, rather than the police and crime commissioner, to monitor code compliance for a local police area. For transparency, the Government are committed to national oversight via the ministerial task force, but there is an essential role for local accountability. There is a hierarchy here, and the police and crime commissioner is the right person to be responsible for ensuring compliance in that local area as they already play a vital role in improving and championing services for victims through commissioning support services and chairing local criminal justice courts. The Government attach importance to that local activity.
This brings me to Amendment 36, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Bach, which seeks to specify that criminal justice boards and PCCs may use local criminal justice boards for the purposes of local review. We entirely agree. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said—I completely recognise this—we need a wider debate about placing local criminal justice boards on a statutory footing. The Government have expressed support for that happening in a way that reflects the full remit of the work they do. Once we find a legislative opportunity to do so, it should be taken forward. The Government are very much of the view that their often vital work should be supported.
I return to awareness and training in Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and Amendment 83 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on training in support for victims of stalking. The noble Lords are quite right that there is an obvious need for more training. The Government hesitate to have a national training framework because so much will depend on the local situation. These amendments apply to a vast range of organisations and a one-size-fits-all approach will not appropriately support staff to meet the diverse needs of victims in the wide range of settings in which they operate.
However, it is very difficult to imagine guidance on Clause 11 which does not include a reference to the kind of training that should be done. If you are placing a duty on the agencies to work with victims day in, day out to promote awareness of the code, it seems implicit that the relevant persons have to be properly trained. The Government agree with that.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the Minister, who for 25 minutes has responded to this group when he quite clearly would rather be in another place; I do not mean down the Corridor. We all wish him a speedy recovery, but we would also be well advised to keep a fairly safe distance from him for the immediate future.
The Minister said at the beginning that the key to making the victims part of the Bill work is culture change. To mix metaphors, there was culture change with teeth—which sounds like a strange creature for well-paid Harley Street specialists to dream up new procedures for.
Before I continue with that, it would be nice if we could try to stop in its tracks the growing confusion which has come since the arrival in your Lordships’ House of a brace of Russells. I point out that I am a lowly Baron—the bottom of the heap, Lord Russell of Liverpool—and not the much more elevated noble Earl, Lord Russell, who is in his place. To back up my point, I will quote the letter that the noble Earl’s grandfather and my grandfather wrote jointly to the Times in 1959, which I think makes the point rather clear:
“Sir—In order to discourage confusions which have been constantly occurring, we beg herewith to state that neither of us is the other”.
I hope that puts that particular care to rest.
When talking about what the Government are proposing in the victims part of the Bill, the Minister asked the rhetorical question of whether it is a credible structure. Do we need, as the Government are saying, a strengthening and reinforcing of the current structure or—and this is not rhetorical—is the structure itself part of the problem? The structure has been in place in a slightly weakened form for many years and it is clearly not working. The Government have recognised that, and put a commitment in the 2019 manifesto to try to put that right and produce a victims Bill.
In reflecting on how best to respond to the manifest failings in the current structure—although there are some good points—I suggest to the Government that the best solution is not to try to reinforce the current structure by putting sticking plasters and various forms of glue into various parts of it.
I also point out that, while best practice certainly exists—we know it is exists; there are examples all over the country—we also know a great deal about human nature. Human nature is perhaps best exemplified by something known to anybody now in your Lordships’ Chamber who was once a Minister—a political Minister, not of the Church—in any shape or form: hell hath no fury like different government departments trying to ignore one another, and, above all, like a department doing everything it can desperately to avoid taking on any good practice from another department, which might be seen to imply that its own practice was not as good. We have all known about that; “Yes Minister” was a very successful programme for many years, partly on that premise. That is human nature; it is the same with departments of state, police and crime commissioners and the 43 separate police forces in England and Wales—all the different bodies dealing with this.
I come back to what I mentioned last week: the paean for a past age identified by the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, when you could essentially rely on people and parts of the state doing what is expected of them—the “good chaps” theory of government and administration, if you like. There is so much evidence to indicate that, for all sorts of reasons that we will not go into today, that is not happening. We would be doing ourselves, and in particular the Government, a favour if we looked in the mirror and recognised that it is not working.
The Victims’ Commissioner has to be the most obvious channel for dealing with an awful lot of these issues. In particular, the current interim commissioner, who was largely responsible for the role being created in the first place, has direct experience of being a victim at great cost and has, for the last 15 years or more, dedicated her life to helping other victims and to talking to a variety of individuals and organisations to work out how better to understand what victims are going through and to do something to help them. She knows what she is taking about—she really does. When she talks to the Government and suggests, in her usual very polite way, that things are not quite as they may seem and that things may not turn out quite as the Government hope they will, it behoves the entire House to listen to her very carefully.
An unfortunate fact in recent history is that because the noble Baroness’s predecessor as Victims’ Commissioner was not invited to return for a second term of office, there was a significant period when there was no Victims’ Commissioner and no proper voice for victims. That took place at a critical time when the Bill was going through its birth pangs and was being put together. It would be good for the Government to acknowledge the insights and information that the noble Baroness could have given to the inception, crafting and architecture of the Bill—particularly its structure, which we will come back to. The Bill would have been infinitely improved if it had had the benefit of more input from her and the team around her. It is never too late, and I hope that we can use the time between now and Report to have some intensive meetings and discussions in a completely non-combative way. I and others said at the beginning of the Bill that our role is to drain any politics from the Bill to the extent that we can. It is not about politics; it is about people and victims. The Victims’ Commissioner is the obvious driver of culture change; she is better placed to do that than anybody else, and it behoves the Government to acknowledge that and to listen to her.
As for the minimum threshold, I hear what the Minister said about having a range of indicators rather than minimum thresholds. The sceptic in me would point out that if you are asking a range of institutions—which are themselves being asked to work out whether they are meeting those thresholds—to come up with their own preferred indicators, you may possibly not come up with some of the more challenging and awkward indicators. You may well come up with a preferred list of indicators that are rather more easy to accede to. Philosophically, there is at least a question mark over that approach, and we would like to discuss that further.
I say a big thank you to the Government for acknowledging that an annual statement of the state of affairs is very welcome. I think I can see the noble Baroness nodding. We are grateful for that and regard it as a good step forward.
To come back to the role of the Victims’ Commissioner, whoever is in this role should be front and centre in making the Bill as effective as possible, and then being accountable for holding the Government and the different agencies to account for delivering on it. It is not a satisfactory course to expect the Government to hold themselves to account. In theory, the Government have held themselves to account in this area for the last 20 years, and the report card is perhaps not as stellar as the Government would like it to be. I am grateful that the joint criminal boards are acknowledged as an important part of the process; that is a good move.
As far as training is concerned, I am grateful in particular that the Government are looking at the super-complaint that the Suzy Lamplugh Trust put forward on the basis of some dreadful stories. Stalking is incredibly complex. We need to sit down and try to make sure that people understand just how large scale, complex and insidious it is. To expect any public servant—or even victim—to understand what they are dealing with without effective, precise training will not give a good result, as I learned from talking to Richard Spinks, the father of Gracie Spinks, two weeks ago. He was not bitter, but he was desperately disappointed that Gracie had complained to the Derbyshire police more than 40 times about the way she was being threatened and the concerns she had about what might happen—and it did happen. It happened in plain sight, and the Derbyshire police in effect chose to be blindfolded and mute. To their credit, they have acknowledged after the event that they failed egregiously. What was needed was proper training in place, a proper understanding of dealing with this and, above all, proper leadership. If you want real culture change, you need really good leadership. I put it to noble Lords that having the leadership of a really effective Victims’ Commissioner is probably the most effective way to drive this forward.
We all welcome the Minister’s invitation to have further meetings to, as he put it so elegantly, reflect further—hopefully when his sinuses permit. On that basis, I withdraw the amendment.
“(4A) Regulations under subsection (2) must require information about compliance with the victims’ code to be linked to a consistent victim identifier that is used across the agencies of the criminal justice system.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment comes from the perspective that achieving the Bill's aims of putting victims at the heart of the criminal justice system requires addressing the issue that the information systems used by criminal justice agencies do not at present collect or share information satisfactorily.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, although this amendment has been put down rather late, I hope that once the Committee has heard about it, it will realise that it has some potential importance in this debate. I want to thank publicly the Public Bill Office of this House, which is superb in the way in which it deals with each of us in turn so ably. For it to be able, on Friday afternoon with an hour to go before closing, to deal so satisfactorily with the issue that I now raise is a real compliment to it, and I do not think you would see that in every part of the public or private services.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, as it happens, I did read the article in the Financial Times, and pressed the little button to save it, because I thought what an interesting idea it expressed, particularly as this Bill was sailing on its way into Committee.
Victims in our system, depending on where they are in the system, are often invisible. I spoke earlier about the case of Gracie Spinks, and the number of times she complained to the police, yet none of it was joined up. Eleven years ago, there was a lady called Helen Pearson, who was repeatedly stabbed in a churchyard after she had been given a new and different reference number for each of the 125 previous reports she had made against her stalker. The failure to link these reports meant that the police had missed vital opportunities to understand the pattern that was building up and the degree of danger that she was potentially under. That is a graphic example: there were 125 different reference numbers for the same person, in each case complaining about the same person. That is not good practice, and it is not acceptable.
We do not have an answer today, but I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for raising the issue at this stage, to give us a chance to look at it carefully. I know that His Majesty’s Government, and many other institutions, do not have a brilliant track record in implementing new data and information systems, and many careers have suffered as a result. But that is not a good reason for not looking into this and seeing whether we can use modern technology to try to make victims’ experience better, and above all to help the bodies that are charged with trying to identify what those victims are suffering to do something about it. Having a tool such as that suggested by the noble Lord seems a bit of a no-brainer, and it would be an excellent topic for further discussion between now and Report.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
I too support the amendment. I am grateful that we have put people into the Bill, because that is what this legislation is about: it is about people. I do not think that victims want to be at the centre of the criminal justice system, but they do want a level playing field; that narrative has been overused, although I mean no disrespect to the noble Lord, whom I met as police and crime commissioner—I loved travelling round the country on trains for two and a half years, meeting everyone, when I was previously Victims’ Commissioner. I agree that the Bill is about people. We hear many times that the police servers do not talk to one another, and all these servers do not seem to interact with all the other agencies or all feed into the Ministry of Justice.
I am delighted that this issue is being raised. This morning we talked about it in the context of the National Health Service. A Times Health Commission report out today looks at a similar thing. Even GPs cannot talk to hospitals, and even consultants within the same hospital cannot talk and get the information out. Again, that is about patients. It is important that we are talking about it at this stage. I would welcome further discussions. Victims are given different messages, different police officers and different everything. It does not mount up. How many recordings and crime reference numbers do we need? It should be one. There is one portal for every police force that a victim can feed into. Therefore, it should be the other way around. A victim should have one record and be able to put the narrative together so that they feel safe in our communities. I welcome the amendment.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I too welcome this amendment. Although I am speaking from the Liberal Democrat Benches, first, I will speak personally, as I have had a number of amendments in other Bills relating to the use of very personal data, whether it is medical data or data with other identifiers.
There is a very strong argument for this. I noted that the briefing which we were sent earlier today talked about the independent review of children’s social care, recommending the re-use of the NHS number for the consistent child identifier. One of my concerns is that a lot of different departments of government or agencies are trying to create their own individual number, which suddenly means that you must remember or have access to your NI number, your DVLA number, your NHS number, your school number or whatever it is. For things such as this, provided that there are the appropriate data safeguards, it is sensible to use a number that is already there. My personal view is that it would be interesting to hear the arguments about whether it should be a separate number or the NHS number, because, after all, everybody has an NHS number.
The briefing also talked about the savings to the criminal justice system from having such an approach. One of the big scandals that we have at the moment is that, because the system is failing, victims often withdraw from any criminal justice system. They do not want to appear as witnesses or they find it very difficult to do so. If we really believe that this number is going to help support victims and to help them to stay through the course and get the justice that they deserve, it will also provide many millions of pounds of cost saving over the years to offset any very minor costs and administrative irritations from adding the NHS number or the victim’s journey number to every form.
From these Benches, we welcome anything that we can debate with the Government between Committee and Report to strengthen the role of a victim and ensure that they get the right support.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I too read Dr Natalie Byrom’s compelling piece. I very much took to heart the points made by my noble friend Lord Bach. He said that the police count crimes, the CPS counts defendants, the courts count cases, but nobody counts the victims.
I was interested in the reference by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to using NHS numbers so that you are not constantly duplicating numbers. I was reflecting on this because in another life I have dealt with large amounts of data as an engineer. I am very conscious that putting in more identifying numbers does not necessarily make situations more straightforward. Nevertheless, it is a good idea and worth exploring further.
A couple of questions occurred to me during my noble friend’s speech and other contributions. How would you record out-of-court disposals? How would you record withdrawals from cases where there may have been a crime committed but not necessarily a victim identified? Also, what would happen when you got cases of a relatively low nature which were across different police forces and were not necessarily picked up? That is often a source of problems.
The context of this debate is stalkers and domestic abuse, but of course it goes wider, because we were talking in earlier groups about anti-social behaviour and where repeated examples of it were not picked up and acted on. It is a good idea and one that is worth looking at further, but I do not underestimate the complexities of putting it in place.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I do not think I could have put it better than the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. It is a good idea, but there are lots of complexities. I am sure that noble Lords agree that, in many ways, joining the dots and handling data is one of the most critical challenges any Government face—whether it is between departments or within the NHS, within the justice system, within or across police forces, et cetera. We still have 43 different police forces with computers that do not even necessarily talk to each other.
I thank the noble Lord for his amendment, which would introduce a consistent victim identifier for the collecting and sharing of code compliance information. This is extremely important so that we can better understand and meet victims’ needs. As I understand it, there is a Ministry of Justice pilot called the Better Outcomes through Linked Data—or BOLD—programme, which is already exploring how to link victims’ data to improve our understanding of their experiences. It is right that we should have a much better knowledge of the victim’s journey through the system and, in particular—to pick up a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made—better understand why people drop out of the system at a certain stage. Although I do not have a more precise date, I gather that the results of that pilot will be available in 2024.
Whether it is something that is either sufficiently developed or should be in the Bill as a matter of principle is perhaps another question. At this stage at least, the Government are not persuaded that it that should be in the Bill, but they are persuaded that it is something we should continue to work on to understand the complexities and arrive at practical solutions.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this fairly short yet important debate. I thank the Minister for answering the question so positively. Whether or not it is for this Bill is a matter for discussion between now and Report, but it seems that while there are, of course, considerable issues around this in practice, the idea that the victim should be treated in the same way, being known about and followed, as it were, in this area seems an important principle, and would raise the position of the victim—as the Bill says it intends to do. I hope we will come back to this issue. It is worthy of discussion and has had a good outing today in Committee. I do not think it will go away—if we do not take advantage of digital advances in this area, as in every other, we are not doing our duty. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hampton
“(4A) Collaboration may include the co-location of services in accordance with the Child House model, as defined by the Home Office guidance entitled “Child House: local partnerships guidance”, published on 6 September 2021.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would include within the duty to collaborate the use of the Child House model, described by the Home Office guidance as “a multi-agency service model supporting children, young people and non-abusing parents, carers and family members.”
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 53, which would insert the concept:
“Collaboration may include the co-location of services in accordance with the Child House model”.
We have heard much talk about the child house model pilot project at the Lighthouse in Camden. It is a multiagency model for children and young people who have experienced any form of sexual abuse. I urge noble Lords to visit this place; it is a shining example. It is an extraordinarily light, welcoming and unthreatening place where children and young people can go to receive medical help and counselling, but also where they can tell their story. As we have said, children tend to tell their story only once, so if we want justice from these places, this is the place to do it. It is a pilot scheme that needs to be rolled out.
At the moment the Bill seems to be in either/or mode when it talks about local authorities. The amendment would clarify that a multiagency, multiborough or multi-council format could be used as best practice for child victims when, as must happen, this model is rolled out across the country. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to a variety of amendments. I support the amendment just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, but I will leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to talk about it when he winds up. I will speak to my Amendments 54 and 81. I support Amendments 56 and 59 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I will then speak to my Amendments 58, 60, 62 and 64.
Amendments 54 and 81 return to the subject of stalking. There were 1.6 million victims of stalking in the year ending 2023, so it seems strange that there is relatively little mention of stalking and stalking victims in the Bill. That is something we hope to persuade His Majesty’s Government to consider. Part of that is the importance of independent stalking advocates, which we will come to in a later group. We particularly welcome the Government’s new measures to expand Clause 15 to include guidance about a number of specialist support roles, including, we hope, independent stalking advocates. But I stress that, although what they propose is extremely welcome, it is obviously a very good idea to think about this and develop the list in close co-operation with some of the organisations and bodies closest to the front line in dealing with victims and experiences.
Stalking should certainly be included within the scope of the duty to collaborate in Clause 12. The Minister said in considering the previous group that the Government are looking carefully at the super-complaint made by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust about stalking not being dealt with effectively, but again, we know that it is being dealt with extraordinarily well in some parts of the country. So we know that there are ways of tackling it, but unfortunately that is being done in only a handful of parts of the country. If you are unfortunate enough not to live in those parts, you will have a pretty ghastly experience, like Gracie Spinks and so many other people. That is probably enough on stalking; I think the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, can be relied on to talk about that in more detail, and, very importantly, from direct personal experience, which has its own power.
The two amendments put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester try to ensure that funding for victims and witness support services is sufficient to meet the needs across the country, particularly the demand for specialist domestic abuse services. While the idea of a duty to collaborate is a wonderful one, to be truly effective we judge that it would be helpful if there was a requirement on the Secretary of State to support duty-holders to meet the needs identified by providing adequate and sustainable funding. The figures are not insignificant. Women’s Aid estimates that it would cost at least £238 million per year to meet the need for community-based services across the country. We feel that the Bill is an opportunity to put in some safeguards to provide a legal framework through which sustainable community-based services and funding could be provided.
Turning to Amendment 59, some “93% of frontline workers” surveyed for Refuge’s Local Lifelines report said that
“their service was being impacted by staff shortages”,
and
“64% said their service was impacted by short-term contracts”.
Therefore, the principle of multiyear funding to try to enable these services to be set up to a sustainable and effective level is extremely important. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate will expand on that in a minute.
I come to the last set of amendments—Amendments 58, 60, 62 and 64—which come from working closely with Nicole Jacobs, the domestic abuse commissioner, and her team. There is a patchwork of provision for victims, survivors and their children when trying to access services. Community-based specialist domestic abuse services are literally life-saving and life-changing for many of these victims. Despite this, there is no duty to fund these community-based services, and in the current economic environment, you can imagine that they are not necessarily at the top of every cash-strapped local authority’s “must do” list of services to which to try to apportion diminishing funds.
Without making too much of it, this is a crisis, and in the Bill we have an opportunity to ameliorate that. We must really try to focus our minds on what is required to deliver sustainable, entrenched, well-run, effective services across the country. This Bill is a chance to try to do it right, so I hope we will take that opportunity.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 56 and 59 in my name; I also support the other amendments in this group. These amendments would all help to firm up the very good intentions set out in Clauses 12 and 13.
In an earlier group, I tabled an amendment to ensure that victim support services were properly signposted; it is no use a service existing if the people it is meant to serve are not able to access it. But now we come to, if anything, a more fundamental point: how do we ensure that the right services exist for victims, and in each and every part of the country?
The Bill as drafted gets much right: it requires policing bodies, integrated care boards and local authorities to collaborate in assessing the needs of victims, producing a published strategy and, indeed, revising that strategy as occasion requires—so far, so good. But, as things stand, and as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has indicated, that assessment and strategy could be little more than a combination of the unaffordable and the non-existent—a bit like an overambitious child’s Christmas wish list.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group specifically on domestic abuse services. The Justice Committee, in its pre-legislative scrutiny report, observed:
“Additional funding is required to enable services to meet demand and allow the Victims Bill”—
as it then was—
“to live up to its ambitions”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, pointed out, a mapping exercise by the domestic abuse commissioner revealed just how patchy is the support available to domestic abuse victims and survivors from community-based services because of funding difficulties. Funding, such as it is, is often short-term and insecure, which reduces services’ capacity and ability to plan, with implications for effective service provision and the recruitment and retention of staff.
The mapping exercise also underlined the importance of community-based services, which was what most victims and survivors wanted. This chimes with the experience of organisations such as Refuge and Women’s Aid. The domestic abuse commissioner found that the weaknesses due to funding difficulties were
“compounded for victims and survivors from minoritised communities who face the greatest barriers to support, with specialist ‘by and for’ organisations increasingly defunded despite being best placed to meet their needs”.
In an earlier briefing on the Bill, she pointed out that such organisations
“are particularly ill served by local commissioning, where commissioners can favour fewer larger contracts to cover their whole population, or where there is not the critical mass of individuals from a particular community in a given geographical area for commissioners to commission a bespoke service”.
She emphasises that her mapping exercise shows that by-and-for services are
“by any measure, the most effective services for victims”,—[Official Report, Commons, Victims and Prisoners Bill Committee, 20/06/23; col. 7.]
especially those from minoritised communities.
Women’s Aid makes an important point that the distinction between specialist and generic VAWG services is recognised in Article 2 of the Istanbul convention and should be reflected in the Bill. Women’s Aid also argued that, on the basis of economic analysis conducted for it by ResPublica, the funding of specialist domestic abuse services can be seen as spending to save, given the savings it would generate elsewhere, as the right reverend Prelate underlined.
I return now to a point I raised at Second Reading on the significance of economic abuse. To the Government’s credit, this is now recognised in law. Community-based services need to be able to help victims and survivors of economic abuse, the impact of which can be devastating—even more so given the financial pressures so many families are facing. A Women’s Aid survey last year found that the cost of living crisis has hurt both specialist domestic abuse services, leaving many on their knees, and of course victims and survivors themselves. Of the women surveyed, 73% told them the charity it had either prevented them leaving or made it harder for them to flee. Some two-thirds said that abusers are now using the increase in the cost of living and concerns about financial hardship as a tool for coercive control, including to justify further restricting their access to money.
This underlines the importance of economic advocacy, both for those who have suffered economic abuse and more generally for domestic abuse victims and survivors. Surviving Economic Abuse has done so much to put the issue on the political map. It has made the case for including economic advocacy in the provision of community-based services, including by-and-for specialist services. It sees this as
“key to victim-survivors’ immediate safety as well as long-term economic independence”.
The charity warns:
“Post-separation economic abuse is the primary reason women return to an abusive partner”.
Economic instability affects the ability to access the criminal justice system and pursue a prosecution. Economic abuse, including post separation, makes rebuilding an independent life extremely challenging. The charity therefore recommends
“that the standard support offer in all domestic abuse services should include economic advocacy in partnership with money, debt, and benefits advice as well as financial services, to help victim-survivors establish … economic safety”.
Existing examples of such support show how it can help victim-survivors establish their economic safety and rebuild their financial independence.
As I have said, economic advocacy is important not just for those subject to economic abuse. The DAC’s mapping exercise found that half of victim-survivors wanting support for domestic abuse during the previous three years mentioned the need for help with money problems or debt. Of those, only 27% were able to get such support, which is almost the largest category of unmet need that the survey found. This suggests that higher priority must be given to funding economic advocacy generally; otherwise, there is a real danger that some victim-survivors will end up returning to an abusive partner because of the dire economic circumstances they face trying to establish an independent life free of abuse.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendments 59, 60, 62, 64 and 65. When you become a victim of crime, your life is thrown into disarray in a moment, as I know only too well from bitter personal experience. Indeed, I had to become the main breadwinner as well as supporting my daughters through the most horrendous acts they had ever seen in their lives. What people need at this time is help and support so that they can attempt to pull their lives back together and to recover. The victims’ code gives all victims of crime the right to refer to support services. However, I am often told how difficult it can be to get access to these services. In fact, people do not even know they exist half the time.
In my victims’ survey, only 46% of people—less than half of the people who responded—said they were referred to victims’ services. Even if they are referred, getting that service does not prove easy, with only 43% of respondents agreeing with the statement, “It was easy to get access to victims’ services”. One victim told me that
“it took a really long time to get the support I needed at that time, as I was going through a very traumatic time and this was really impacting my mental health in such a negative way”.
I appreciate that there are, and will always be, constraints on funding, but the way victims’ services are funded contributes to the problems faced by many of these organisations. Victims’ support services are currently delivered via a complex network of statutory and non-statutory agencies, which compete with other providers for funding. There are huge regional inequalities for victims trying to access support services. Access to counselling—the most sought-after type of support—showed the biggest disparity, with 58% of victims in the north-east of England able to access counselling, compared with 37% in Wales. Demand is increasing for these services, but this increase is not being met by additional funding or capacity being allocated by the local authority.
We need long-term, sustainable funding for victims’ services. Importantly, these contracts should be for no less than three years. I feel that I am on a carousel, because I have been arguing for that since day one as Victims’ Commissioner. This would give these organisations the stability they need to be able to recruit, train, and, most importantly, maintain staff. Staff are given notices three months before this funding is even being put into accounts. Nobody in any job can absolutely go through that, when they have mortgages, children to feed and everything else. It is not acceptable.
In the victims’ funding strategy, the Ministry of Justice is committed to the principle of multiyear funding for core victim support services, and I welcome this. However, the short-term nature of contracts and the competitive tendering process really do have a damaging impact on organisations’ ability to deliver services—especially the smaller organisations, many of whom deliver by-and-for services. By-and-for services are extremely valuable in the support landscape, because these are organisations that are run and staffed by the marginalised communities they support. It is vital that victims feel supported and, more importantly, build relationships to feel they are being understood by getting support in an environment that is comfortable to them. For many, this means being supported by people who understand their culture or have similar life experiences. Again, in my recent survey, only 29% of victims told me they were able to easily find suitable services for their specific issues.
The commissioning processes fail these specialist by-and-for organisations, because the way in which they are structured favours bidders who can provide support at lower costs and have a larger reach in terms of numbers—not necessarily the best practice for victims. They can also force providers into partnerships and consortium arrangements in which by-and-for organisations are underresourced, silenced, marginalised or squeezed out. It is vital that these organisations can continue the vital work they do, and not be continually disadvantaged by short-term funding rounds. That is why I am in favour of ring-fenced funding. I know that the Government do not like ring-fencing—but a ring-fencing pot is essential for specialist by-and-for support services.
I also want the statutory guidance on the duty to collaborate to include direction to commissioners on the importance of commissioning practices that do not discriminate against smaller specialist services but encourage them to fund a range of services suitable for all victims.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I am going to speak to my Amendment 65. I am delighted that the noble Baroness who has just spoken supports it. It was supported also by the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, who cannot be in his place today. I remind the Committee that I was a police and crime commissioner for five years and had some responsibility for victims’ services at the time. This amendment springs from a view of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, and I am very grateful for its help.
Noble Lords will have seen that the duty in relation to victim support services to collaborate and the strategic guidance under Clauses 12, 13 and 14 refers to police areas in England alone. The purpose of the amendment is to try to persuade the Government that the duty to collaborate should apply to elected policing bodies across England and Wales while, of course, respecting Welsh devolved powers.
The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, which of course represents all police and crime commissioners across England and Wales, is enthusiastic and welcomes the Bill—I should say that to start with. However, it thinks that there is a problem in that, as the clause is drafted now, it could make a real difference to the effectiveness of Welsh police and crime commissioners, and more particularly to how they are perceived in both Wales and England. I want to make it clear that I am advised that the four Welsh police and crime commissioners who would be most directly affected by the amendment are all strongly in favour of it. I emphasise to the Committee that they are not all from one political party; politics does not come into this particular issue.
All noble Lords will of course appreciate that policing in Wales is a reserved power of the UK Government, so that these four Welsh police and crime commissioners operate under the same rules and regulations as their colleagues in England. Nevertheless, of course, they operate entirely within the boundaries of the principality. Therefore, to be effective they have to take fully into account the ways in which health, local government, highways, housing and their local public services are organised and delivered in Wales, notwithstanding the fact that they themselves are not under the control of the Welsh Government.
The four Welsh police and crime commissioners have expressed concerns about the Bill, hence this amendment. Their concerns are that while the Bill imposes on their English colleagues a duty to collaborate in the exercise of victim support services, it does not impose the same duty on them. The Welsh police and crime commissioners believe that this could make a significant difference to their effectiveness in this field and, more significantly, lead to a perception that they are less committed to dealing with such issues as violence against women and girls than are their English colleagues—and nothing could be further from the truth.
Equally, and this is perhaps a significant point, although Welsh police and crime commissioners engage enthusiastically at present with the partnerships set out in the Welsh legislature, they are under no statutory obligation to do so. There are impending elections, and these could change collaborative approaches without such a duty as this amendment seeks to safeguard continued partnership engagement.
It is for this reason that the amendment has been drafted. It recognises the special circumstances under which the four Welsh PCCs operate, but at the same time makes it clear that Welsh police and crime commissioners are no less determined to support victims of crime than are their English colleagues, and no less determined to collaborate with other agencies in Wales to achieve this object.
Neither I nor, with great respect to him, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, are experts in the details of the Government of Wales Act 2006, or the legislation, regulations and administrative arrangements that flow from it. If the Government, in further discussion with the Welsh Government, have concerns with the drafting of the amendment and suggestions for improving it, we would be very happy to welcome them. We are concerned here with the principle of the amendment: to ensure that the obligation that the Bill imposes on police and crime commissioners in England to collaborate in the exercise of their functions to support the victims of crime is extended to the four police and crime commissioners in Wales, whose powers are in every other way identical to those of their English colleagues. On that basis, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I want to pick up the last point of the noble Lord, Lord Bach. The duty to collaborate is extremely important, and both his amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, are certainly worthy of consideration. The lighthouse model that has been referred to is extremely impressive. I have also seen, in times past, really effective local working, particularly through services for child victims. However, it would be good if this were strengthened to ensure that part of the victim’s journey, regardless of their age, was helped.
It is a convention in this House that, if we are not quite sure where to go next, we ask for reports. However, we have tabled a lot of amendments about a lot of detail because we are concerned about the practice, and this is one instance where reports actually become vital. They are vital not just to hold the Government to account in Parliament but to ensure that the Government are forced to reflect on how the systems are working, because if this continues for yet another decade, we will be going through another Bill in 10 years’ time saying the same things. A report might help focus the mind when the systems are not working.
I support the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in her comments about the provision of DA support and the real crisis times that victims face, with their lives in complete upheaval. I agree particularly with her points about economic coercive control, which is really worrying and something I have heard more and more about. I have been working with one victim for about 15 years; it took her 10 years to clear the debts that she was left with as a result of the coercive control of her partner, who completely disappeared. She is on the minimum wage, and it has been very difficult and has affected her life for that long.
I signed Amendments 54 and 81, which the noble Lord, Lord Russell, outlined in his speech, on including stalking in the list of relevant victim support services and placing a duty on the Secretary of State to assess a number of advocates, including stalking advocates. I go back to the issue we discussed in the last group: how important it is to have a victim journey number.
In the case where my colleagues and I were victims, our first barrier was finding one crime number. The man who stalked me pleaded guilty to 67 crimes and asked for another 100-and-something to be taken into account. Not all of the crimes happened to me; some of them happened to council colleagues and supporters of my party, and some happened to people who were, unfortunately, parked on the driveways of supporters of my party. Each time we rang the police, we were given a different number. As the PPC, I started a spreadsheet, and when it got to 30 I went back to the police and said, “This is impossible”. We did not know who it was—we had suspicions—but we knew that it was a very particular campaign.
At that point, about six months in or perhaps slightly more than that, we had the one funny incident of a two and a half year-experience, where, every week in the Watford Observer, there was a letter being very unpleasant about me and occasionally about my council colleagues. The letters got more vitriolic, but each was signed by somebody else. I went with a colleague to see the editor of the newspaper, and he said, “Politics is a tough old game, and you just have to accept that, if people want to write in and tell me that you are poor on this topic and not a very nice woman given what you do with your children, I will print it”. I asked him if I could read out the surnames of the people who had written in over the last few weeks: they were Freeman, Hardy, Willis, Debenham and Freebody. At that point, he realised he was being had, but we had been watching the letters go in for four months at that stage. The objective was to destroy my campaign—that is what the judge said when the man was sentenced. But that was the only funny part.
The other thing about stalkers is that, when they do not achieve what they want, their behaviour becomes more drastic; the Suzy Lamplugh Trust will tell you that this is well-known. The man then started printing completely fictitious letters about one of my council colleagues who lived just round the corner from me and literally scattering them along the road in his car. At that point, we thought we knew who he was, but we could not get the police to take it seriously. The letter said that my council colleague—who was married to his one and only wife—had deserted his previous wife and was not paying her maintenance and that his daughter was distressed; funnily enough, my colleague was up for election that year. That was a step up, and then it went a step further up during the 2005 general election, when all the poster boards were pulled down. My husband, who happened to be our poster board supremo, kept creating higher and higher stakes for the poster boards—we really made it into an artform. When one got to three times the normal height, the man scratched the car on the driveway of the house. Thereafter, it moved on to petty crime, but it was not stalking because it was petty crime against other individuals. That is why we need one crime number for this sort of thing, but also recognition that, although there is a core victim, there are other victims because of the nature of stalking.
What really freaked them out was when he started to put knives through the tyres of cars on driveways at night and spray epithets on the homes of councillors. My husband had installed 10 closed circuit cameras on the most likely places by then. The police provided one on our house, and our house was never targeted—I cannot imagine why. We were able to use that evidence, along with a picture of him where you could see that he was wearing a watch on his right arm which matched the one seen during the spray-painting. At that point—this was the worst day—the police said that a forensic psychiatrist had come in as they were worried about the behaviour, and it was clear that he was going to go for people with the knife next, and it was a 10-inch knife.
At that point, we were well over two years in. That is why, 15 years on from his sentencing, when the noble Lord, Lord Russell, spoke about knives the other day, my blood ran cold. I was remembering when the police came to our house and upped security. Stalking can be very dangerous. I was lucky; we got it taken seriously and he pleaded guilty when caught, but there are other cases.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, to repeat what I said earlier, I dealt with a couple of stalking cases relatively recently. Interestingly, they were both of women stalking men. It is a very difficult scenario and can get extremely complex when you are assessing behaviour over sometimes protracted lengths of time. I absolutely recognise the trauma that it inflicts on the victims.
I will open by looking through the other end of the telescope. As a magistrate, for every sentence I give, I put in place a victim surcharge. That money, which at the moment is 40% of any fine I put in place, goes into a victim and witness general fund. Can the Minister say where that money goes? Is it enough to fund all the victims’ services that we are talking about? Does it need topping up for the other victims’ services that are provided? Interestingly, when the fund was first introduced in 2007, it was set at about 10% of fines. Now it is 40%, so there has been a big increase in the amount of money going into that fund over the last few years.
In general, this group of amendments is about the funding and provision of victim support services. The theme from all noble Lords has been sustainability, predictability and consistency of funding. There are any number of organisations and charities supporting victims, sometimes on a small scale and sometimes on a large, integrated scale. I know from my experience of the Minerva project in Hammersmith in London that it is part of a wider network of support for women going through the criminal justice process, sometimes as victims and sometimes as perpetrators. There is a wide network of services, but it is uneven across the country and funded in different ways. They all aspire to sustainability of funding, as we have heard from all noble Lords, so that they can make best use of the available funding.
My noble friend Lady Lister spoke about economic coercive control in particular; I absolutely agree with the points she made. Nicole Jacobs, the domestic abuse commissioner, has been campaigning on this for many years. I am very glad that it is getting more recognition as an offence that should be brought to court if appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, spoke earlier about the “child house” model. I went on that visit to the Lighthouse project with him. The general theme here is the integration of services to meet the particular needs of victims. I have some peripheral experience of that, but my most direct and relevant experience is not of victims but of young men coming out of jail under a previous funding model by the Conservative Government—the troubled families programme—funded in three boroughs in south-west London. There was an integrated approach to supporting and providing services to those young men as they came out of prison, across the CPS, housing, health and education, and more widely, so that they did not reoffend. I sat on the board for a number of years. It was very interesting that, when the money dried up, the co-operative approach dried up as well. That was very regrettable, but it taught me the lesson that the co-operative approach works best when there is a focus and an impetus through funding to make those co-operative services work effectively.
Everybody aspires to co-operative funding. Of course it is a good thing, but there needs to be either a direct instruction or a direct pot of money for people to co-operate as they should. So often, co-operation is difficult and the lack of it makes it easier for individual organisations to continue to work along their separate tramlines. I hope the Minister will say something about how to use that money imaginatively and sustainably so that co-operation across services can be embedded into victim support.
The Deputy Leader of the House (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments brings together a very important set of issues, as we have heard. I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for their amendments on the funding and provision of victim support services, where I will start.
The right reverend Prelate’s Amendment 56 seeks to require the Secretary of State to have regard to the needs assessments identified under the duty to collaborate and use these to ensure that local commissioners effectively commission relevant support services. I hope I can be helpful in providing some reassurance on that topic. Under the duty to collaborate, local commissioners must have regard to their joint needs assessments when producing their local strategies. The strategies should include evidence of how relevant authorities have carried out the needs assessments, as well as how the assessments have informed their commissioning decisions. A ministerially led national oversight forum will be set up to scrutinise the local strategies; that is how we can join up the process. For that reason, I respectfully suggest that the amendment the right reverend Prelate has tabled is unnecessary.
The oversight forum will have the relevant insights and information and undertake appropriate scrutiny of the published strategies to assess whether and how relevant support services are commissioned in individual local areas. The insights will also be used to inform national funding decisions made through the spending review process; again, that is another element in the join-up process. That is the right approach to setting government budgets. Looking at everything in the round, the measures will achieve the objective the right reverend Prelate’s amendment also seeks to achieve.
Amendments 58, 59, 60 and 62 would require the Secretary of State to make a statement every three years, in response to the strategies published under the duty to collaborate, on support for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and stalking. They would also require the Secretary of State to ensure that commissioners, under the duty, have sufficient multi-year funding, and the establishment of a cross-government by-and-for funding stream. The key point here is surely transparency. As I indicated a moment ago, the local strategies under the duty to collaborate will be published and will provide valuable insights into the levels of service certain victims are receiving in each local area. Therefore, additional reporting in a statement made by the Secretary of State would be largely duplicative.
I am, however, in full agreement that the funding of victim support services is crucial to enable victims of crime to cope and build resilience to move forward with their lives. That is why we have already committed to quadruple funding for victims’ services by 2024-25, up from £41 million in 2009-10. This includes funding that the Ministry of Justice provides to police and crime commissioners, specifically ring-fenced for domestic abuse and sexual violence services.
There are two additional points I can make on this. The joint needs assessments will help local areas to make the best use of existing funding through the collaborative process. This will lead, I suggest, to a more efficient use of money. Following on from that, the information that flows from it will strengthen the evidence base used to inform funding decisions made through the spending review process. The Government have responded to intelligence from local commissioners previously. For example, PCCs received a £6 million boost in funding per annum over the spending review period for community-based services supporting victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked what happens to the money that goes into the general support fund for victims. The victim surcharge provides a contribution towards MoJ-funded victim and witness support services. It does not cover the full cost of victim support services funded by the MoJ, but it makes a contribution. Income from the surcharge is then topped up from departmental budgets.
On multi-year funding, for which my noble friend Lady Newlove so powerfully advocated, the Government have already committed to it where possible and appropriate. The victims funding strategy set out an expectation for all commissioners to pass multi-year commitments on to their providers.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt, and I realise that the Minister has had to take over the brief at short notice. He paints a rather positive picture whereby the Government are doing all these wonderful things. Why, therefore, is the domestic abuse commissioner so concerned about the patchy provision of services in general, particularly by-and-for services?
Earl Howe (Con)
That is clearly a concern, and we must listen to the domestic abuse commissioner very carefully. I have tried to set out how we have responded within existing powers and structures to improve funding across the piece. If one is not careful, there will be too much micromanagement from the centre. I always resist that, and we know that it can lead to perverse results in all sorts of contexts. I would be very happy to talk further to the noble Baroness about the domestic abuse commissioner’s concerns in this context after we finish the debate, as I am sure my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy would also be glad to do.
Moreover, as part of the joint needs assessment in the duty, commissioners will be required to have regard to the particular needs of victims with protected characteristics. This could result in the commissioning of by-and-for services.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for submitting Amendment 64, which would introduce a statutory requirement for certain commissioners and sector stakeholders to be consulted before issuing statutory guidance on the duty to collaborate. The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to consult such persons as they consider appropriate before issuing the guidance, without specifying particular bodies or roles. This is because of the wide-ranging nature of the duty and the key stakeholders involved—a list of relevant consultees could be extensive and change over time. Naturally, the department would continue to engage thoroughly with the various key stakeholders as the guidance develops. Therefore, we do not need a legislative requirement specifying who exactly that should be to enable them to do so.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I thank the Minister very much for what he said. Does he accept that the officeholder, who is perhaps in the best position of all to guide His Majesty’s Government towards the most effective organisations with which they should be co-operating and talking, is the Victims’ Commissioner himself or herself? The Victims’ Commissioner is at the centre of an information web and, frankly, is likely to be better informed than His Majesty’s Government.
I understand the virtues of police and crime commissioners and, in principle, would agree with the Minister that micromanagement can be a very bad thing. However, if I were a victim, I would be in favour of slightly more micromanagement to make sure that, wherever I lived in England and Wales, the type of service I got was more uniform, consistent and joined up. In evidence, I cite a glossy 2022 document from the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners celebrating
“10 years of PCCs Making a Difference”.
It lays out no fewer than 39 different schemes across England and Wales that different PCCs have put in place for
“advocating for victims; developing innovative services for victims; and using multi-year funding to fund quality services”.
While that is a wonderful idea—let a thousand flowers bloom—what the system is currently sorely lacking is any comprehensive follow-up and measurement to see how effectively all those initiatives work. Do any of them still exist? Have they been developed any further? If some of them are working particularly well, is there an effective mechanism to ensure that other police and crime commissioners are taking on those best practices and applying them in their areas?
Earl Howe (Con)
First, I take the noble Lord’s point about the Victims’ Commissioner; I am happy to feed that into the department. Secondly, I come back to the point I made earlier about building transparency into the process. The local strategies will be published and then scrutinised by the oversight forum, which will be ministerially led, so there will be a way for the commissioning practices to be exposed to daylight at the local level. I suggest that that could reveal the kind of disparities that the noble Lord referred to; that would be very helpful, not only as regards funding but for sharing best practice. He raised a very important point, but I like to believe that we have thought about it and are addressing it.
I turn to the issue of stalking. I do not think that any of us could fail to be impressed by the horrific examples given by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I listened also with care to the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Ponsonby, on this issue. Amendment 54 seeks the inclusion of support services for victims of stalking under the duty to collaborate. Stalking—which I am the first to agree is a tremendously important and emotive issue—can already be covered by the duty. The accompanying statutory guidance will make it clear that stalking is one of a number of crime types that sits across the scope of domestic abuse, serious violence and sexual abuse, and needs should be assessed accordingly. I fully appreciate the concerns raised by stakeholders that, all too often, stalking is considered only as a form of domestic abuse, and support is provided largely on that basis. The definition of serious violence under this duty is deliberately broad to allow commissioners to determine what constitutes serious violence in their local area, which can include stalking as well, including where it is not perpetrated by an intimate partner.
It is important to retain legislative flexibility in this area so that the duty can evolve, if it needs to, just as the overarching offences of serious violence, sexual abuse and domestic abuse evolve. A prescriptive approach, as proposed by the amendment, would restrict our ability to be flexible, but we will continue to engage with commissioners and stakeholders on the guidance as it develops, and with noble Lords who are willing to lend their expertise. I am sure that my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy would be glad to do that. I can commit him in his absence to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, if they would find that helpful.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister. I am very grateful for his response; I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, would have responded in the same way. What is happening in practice and on the ground with front-line services—in the police and the criminal justice system—does not reflect what the Minister just said at the Dispatch Box. The problem over the last few years has been trying to make that happen, which is why we believe that stalking needs to be added to the duty. Can he reassure me, in other ways, on how the actual practice will change? Therein lies the problem.
Earl Howe (Con)
Indeed. We come back to the earlier amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, on how one should best join up individual reports of crime, abuse or whatever else so that the police and others can obtain a rounded picture of what is going on. I fully take the point about changing practice. This is perhaps a subject for a longer discussion than today’s debate. I do not pretend to be expert on operational practices at the local level, so it would be wrong of me to chance my arm. The point is well made, and I am very happy to ensure that we have a separate discussion about it before Report.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
Can I make one additional point? The Minister just referred to allowing police and crime commissioners—and, I assume, chief constables—to decide what type of criminality should be regarded as serious or violent. One of the issues with the complexity of stalking is that, in many cases, stalking does not start from a violent position. Stalking, in many cases, can evolve, sometimes over a period of years, in a series of interactions by the predator, in such a way that, unless you know what you are dealing with, it is very hard to understand that there is a pattern developing or what type of stalking it is. We will come to the issue of training and advocates in the next group, but all the evidence produced by using the police force in Cheshire as a test case—to drive through the organisation clear understanding, training, lines of communication and technology to put this all together—has been transformative for the victims.
This is a victims’ Bill. Often, when I hear the Front Bench talking about the response to some amendments, I hear the voice of—understandably—the Government looking down on the victims. I very rarely get a sense of the Government articulating and espousing the rights of the victims themselves as they look up into the system, which they feel is failing them at the moment.
Earl Howe (Con)
I think we come back to the guidance on this—to get the guidance right and ensure that the focus on victims’ needs is there, and on teasing out what we mean when we refer to certain terms. Again, the process of formulating the guidance is not by any means complete. I am sure the whole debate that we have had today will be extremely helpful for officials in the work that they are doing on that front.
I am also grateful for the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his Amendment 81, which seeks to improve the process for assessing the numbers of ISVAs, IDVAs, stalking advocates and other specialist support services in England and Wales. I reassure him that I fully recognise the importance of understanding both provision and demand so that resources are targeted, as they should be, and the right victims’ services are commissioned. I am confident, in the light of advice that I have received, that measures are already in place to appropriately assess support provision through existing reporting measures, and I believe that a central annual report risks duplicating work.
I also point to the Bill’s duty to collaborate, which will enhance transparency around what local services are being funded by requiring the relevant authorities to publish local strategies, which is the point I made a little earlier. These strategies will be informed by joint needs assessments that will assess the needs of victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and serious violence—which can include stalking—and consider whether and how those needs are being met. This will encourage joint local efforts to rectify data gaps, and drive evidence-informed decisions for prioritising funding to address local needs. The noble Lord suggested that too often he was hearing from the Front Bench a kind of government top-down view of life. What we have tried to emphasise through these measures is our desire to see local needs defined, and those needs—the needs assessment—being the bedrock for any service provision that commissioners decide upon. So we are encouraging, I hope, a victim-focused process.
Requiring separate reporting will, I fear, duplicate the activity that I have outlined and put an additional burden on victim support services to share information, which would inevitably take resources away from direct front-line provision for victims. However, I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy is, again, open to considering what could be included in the supporting guidance for the duty to help ensure better understanding of provision.
I hope that what I have set out demonstrates that we already have the necessary mechanisms for assessing need and provision for victim services. So I hope that the noble Lord and, indeed, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester will not feel compelled to move their amendments on this topic when they are reached.
Amendment 53 from the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, would include the “child house” model in the duty to collaborate. I listened very carefully to what he had to say about that. It is right that we continue to innovate and trial different ways to support victims, such as the “child house” model, exemplified in areas such as Camden through the pilot programme. The duty to collaborate aims to create a strategic and co-ordinated approach to commissioning services, ensuring that victims—including, notably, children—receive the necessary support. I assure the noble Lord that the services which the “child house” model co-ordinates will already be caught by the duty to collaborate where they provide support to child victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and serious violence. Moreover, the statutory guidance for the duty will suggest that local commissioners refer to Child House: Local Partnerships Guidance when considering how good commissioning practices can help address the needs of children. I hope that is helpful, because I do not think that we should be specifying operational models in primary legislation. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw that amendment.
Turning finally to Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, I am grateful to him for raising the issue which it covers. The amendment would ensure that the duty to collaborate will apply to elected policing bodies across England and Wales, while respecting Welsh devolved powers. There is already similar legislation in Wales under the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015, which I will refer to as the 2015 Act. The 2015 Act places a duty on Welsh local authorities and local health boards to jointly prepare, publish and, from time to time, review a local strategy setting out how they will help improve local arrangements and support for victims of these crime types.
The noble Lord, Lord Bach, is right to state that elected policing bodies in Wales are not required to collaborate in this duty, but the statutory guidance states clearly that Welsh local authorities and health boards must invite PCCs to participate in their activities under the Act. Engagement between the Welsh Government and Welsh PCCs has shown that Welsh PCCs are active partners in the delivery of the Welsh Government’s 2015 Act strategy through the blueprint, which is the shared governance structure to support delivery of the strategy, and also through regional boards. As a result of ongoing engagement and collaboration with the Welsh Government, we have come to the collectively agreed position that we do not currently consider a duty on Welsh PCCs to be necessary, per the intention of the noble Lord’s amendment.
There is a subsidiary point on the drafting of the amendment, but I do not need to go into that, unless the noble Lord would like me to. However, I reassure him, because this is a significant issue, that we will continue to work with the Welsh Government on the implementation of the duty to collaborate and any interactions between this duty and that under the 2015 Act. On the basis of the points I have made, I hope the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to move the amendment when it is reached.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this extraordinarily wide-ranging debate, which seemed to come down to three strands. The first was collaboration and how local services, the police—any groups—can work together better. Secondly, we had powerful discussions again about stalking and how we can make that work much more efficient so that these ridiculous repetitions cannot go on; the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, gave some extraordinarily good examples and a very amusing one I will take away. The third was how on earth it will all be funded, with some eye-watering numbers being talked about. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, asked the very interesting question about where the victims’ fund goes.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, is drinking a soothing hot lemon and honey somewhere, perhaps taking two aspirin and lying down, but I thank the noble Earl the Minister for another very collaborative series of answers, with lots of words of reassurance on the needs assessment, the forum being set up for national funding assessments, the duty to collaborate, talk of transparency—which is always good—and of exposing to daylight, about stalking being tremendously important, and what statutory guidance will make clear. A lot of points were made and I am afraid my pencil got worn down to the nub trying to write down the different funding strands pouring in that will be used, so I cannot get too technical on that.
There was talk of more efficient use of money and full agreement on funding victim support—quadrupling the funding of that. The victims’ surcharge is being topped up and multiyear funding is happening—the Government are committed to that—although the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has concerns there as well. This genuinely sounds great, but partly we need to make the money work not harder but smarter, which I think is what we are all trying to do here. The proof is inevitably what will come out of the oven at the end of it all. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 53.
Baroness Thornton
“(c) independent stalking advisors.”
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 69 in my name, and I have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, whom I thank very much. The Government also have an amendment in this group, which I will comment on when we reach the end of the debate and I have heard what the noble Earl has to say about it.
We are in that part of the Bill that is concerned with the issue of stalking—indeed, in the group that we have just discussed I had my name to Amendments 54 and 81, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Russell. It is important to say that we are indebted to Laura Richards, the founder of Paladin, and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, for their relentless work to have the vicious and pernicious crime of stalking recognised, acted on and integrated into the legal framework tackling violence against women and girls—and for us that includes this victims’ Bill.
I am aware that we have to ensure that stalking is dealt with across all the criminal justice legislation that we are dealing with, so that there is a read-across with MAPPA and the issues that we will be discussing later in the Bill, not just for this Bill but for the Criminal Justice Bill, which we know is coming down the track. Can the Minister assure the House of that legislative coherence? For too long we have been waiting for there to be legislative coherence that can be enforced for the crime of stalking—its recognition and dealing with it.
The context is that women, children and men are being failed and not protected. There is no compulsion on the police to automatically identify serial domestic abusers and stalkers, so they do not—of course they do not. So, for example, although the application of Clare’s law is not in the scope of the Bill, it is the lack of that application across all police forces which means that there are victims in the criminal justice system who need not have been there. This amendment seeks to address that issue of recognising the particular needs of victims of stalking.
We should recognise that a lot of work has been done on this over the years. These two amendments are quite simple. Independent stalking advocates should exist, and an independent stalking advocate means
“a person who provides a relevant service to individuals who are victims of criminal conduct which constitutes stalking”.
That means creating what are called ISACs in the Bill—independent stalking advocacy caseworkers.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for speaking to these amendments.
We return to stalking; stalking is stalking us yet again, as I am afraid it will continue to do through time immemorial, and until and unless we really grab hold of this. The case for independent stalking advocates is fairly undeniable. One can scarcely imagine what it must feel like when you do not know where to turn, you do not really understand what is going on, and the people that you are turning to for help clearly do not really understand what is going on either. It must be a pretty horrendous state to be in, and the independent stalking advocate can and does make an enormous difference. They can undertake risk assessments and work with the different authorities to ensure that safety plans are put in place to protect victims—and, importantly, where children are involved, those around them—from further harm.
The research that has been done by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust indicates that: 77% of stalking victims are not able to access an independent stalking advocate; 69% could find no advocacy support of any kind whatever; only 4% access support from a non-specialist service; and only 15% of victims were referred to an independent stalking advocate by the police. So even the police themselves, in 85% of cases, failed to point the potential stalking victim in the direction of help.
The demand for such stalking advocates far exceeds current capacity. National stalking services supported a combined total of just under 12,500 stalking victims in 2021, and there were 1.5 million stalking victims in total. Noble Lords can do the maths; that is not a highly impressive percentage. In some parts of the country, there are effectively no local specialist supporting services whatever.
I mentioned earlier that I had the privilege of speaking with Gracie Spinks’s father, Richard Spinks, a couple of weeks ago. One of the extreme examples of the more than 40 reports that Gracie made to the police over an extensive period was a case when, after she had pointed out that she was again being threatened, the police undertook a search in the vicinity of where she lived, and they found a bag of weapons—knives, hammers and so on. What did they conclude from having found that cache of weapons? They told Gracie that they were probably theatre props. Clearly, the officers involved had undergone extensive training, but probably in how to supervise playgroups, rather than in helping victims of crime. That shows the gulf between the sort of support, help and advice that one might expect as a victim of stalking and what actually happens.
As we mentioned on earlier groupings, at the end of 2022 the Suzy Lamplugh Trust submitted a super-complaint against the police, outlining systemic issues such as those that we have talked about in previous groups. One of the recommendations was that the College of Policing
“mandate that all officers that deal with cases of stalking complete training by a specialist stalking training provider, in order to adequately identify, investigate and—
this is very important—
“risk assess cases of stalking”.
We referred earlier to the pilot that the Suzy Lamplugh Trust ran in Cheshire. I conclude by giving some quotes from the senior police officers involved in the study and what they observed happening through the results of this programme. One front-line officer said:
“It’s an injustice that in nearly half of all stalking cases unrelated to prior intimate relationships, victims must rely on luck for access to specialised, local advocacy—something that should be a non-negotiable right. Including Independent Stalking Advocates … in the Victims and Prisoners Bill isn’t just an option; it’s an imperative step towards rectifying this imbalance.”
Finally, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Cheshire said:
“Cheshire’s example shows that multi-agency working delivers results for victims and it benefits all agencies involved. The impact of ISAs”—
independent stalking advocates—
“here is clear to see, and I believe it would hugely enhance our collective ability to deliver justice for victims of stalking if they were to be included in the Bill”.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I support all the amendments. Listening to stories of stalking, we realise that it is just one simple word but it has a huge impact, including, sadly, loss of life. Before we start talking more about it, it is important to say that, as legislators in the House of Lords, we have done enough talking; we need now to put in legislation support to protect families who have lost loved ones through such horrendous acts.
I welcome government Amendment 74. Since my appointment as Victims’ Commissioner, my feet have not touched the ground. I have met over 20 different victim organisations to discuss this Bill. Many raised concerns about placing advocates, or advisers—whichever the Government want to choose—in the Bill. I know that the judiciary gets a bit twitchy when we mention advocates; for me, it is all about what the victim gets from this person who helps them tremendously. These concerns were set out very clearly by the VAWG sector in particular. I hope that Amendment 74 will alleviate concerns when the Government come to explain it. It provides the flexibility to include as many or as few advocates as they see fit, working, I hope, in close collaboration with the relevant stakeholders in the victims sector. However, I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the Government will consult extensively with all stakeholder groups before finalising the guidance.
I have also received a briefing from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. I feel that we are on a carousel now—none more so than the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, who has worked tirelessly, having been a victim of stalking herself.
I agree about the collaboration in Clause 12, because it is extremely important to ensure that we have multi-agency working. I also agree on mandatory training for police; that goes without saying. I work with trainee police students to ensure that they understand the victim’s journey, but, again, it is about breaking down the culture.
I have lots of briefing here, and I would like to thank many of the organisations. Laura Richards, who I work closely with, has given me tons of briefing, because she has worked in this area for so long. She must feel like a parrot, but she does it so elegantly. I will pull out bits from the briefing that people really need to understand.
Stalkers do not play by the rules. Restraining orders and other pieces of paper do not protect the victims. There is still no stalkers register, which would mean the perpetrator’s history would have to be checked. Sadly, though we still hear about Clare’s law, it has not been put into practice. Yesterday, I heard a victim who was desperate for Clare’s law, but the police did nothing. Even as we speak, I am still helping and supporting somebody.
My friend the noble Lord, Lord Russell—not the Earl—emphasised how tragic the murder of Gracie Spinks was. Similarly, when I was working on the Domestic Abuse Bill, I had the honour of talking about Georgia’s story. She was 14 years old, and watched her mother being murdered. I will never forget that.
For me, the solution is amendments to prevent and protect, saving lives and saving money. The same tactics must be applied to serial and dangerous domestic violence perpetrators and stalkers as to organised criminals and sex offenders. That would cut off opportunities for them to cause harm, and ensure that they faced the consequences of their actions. As we discussed in the context of anti-social behaviour, more and more the police report such actions as individual crimes. They do not join the dots, or “flag and tag” serial high-risk perpetrators. Instead, they focus on the victims. The victims do not know what happens on any other crime, so they feel that they are constantly going back and back.
Stalking is not like having a broken leg, where people can see it; it is like having a chronic invisible illness. Because people cannot see anything they think everything is okay—again and again, it is all down to the victim.
I finish with a recommendation from Laura Richards, who recommends a consistent national and collaborative multi-agency approach, led by statutory agencies, with specialist domestic abuse and stalking professionals round problem-solving tables. That would save lives and money. It would not be a talking shop; they would know what they are doing and would be professional, and they would make better policies.
In this Chamber, we are all so passionate about this, but we really have to do something to protect victims of stalking. We cannot keep doing the talking and then reading in the media about these horrific offenders. Even this weekend, we have more victims, because the police and the agencies are not joining the dots. I am sick and tired of inquiries and “lessons learned”. This is about lessons learned now, to protect the victims of stalking and give them the advocates that they rightly deserve and must have in the future.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I signed Amendments 67 and 69, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. She was right to talk about a strategic perspective over the whole of the legislation coming through from both the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office. Once again, the debate we are having about stalking advisers is because other parts of the system are not working.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for laying Amendment 74. However, it is not specific to stalking, and talks about the importance of having a range of advisers. I do not disagree with that at all, but, for reasons I shall go into when I say more about why stalking advisers need to be visible in the Bill, there are very particular issues relating to stalking that mean that we must ensure that people get the best support they can.
I also thank the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and Laura Richards, not just for their briefing but for the phenomenal work they do every single day. It is extraordinarily difficult work and, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, it is only a drop in the ocean given the number of victims of stalking now. In an age when people can use mobile phones and apps, stalking is becoming all the more prevalent.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, cited the benefits of an independent stalking adviser. From my perspective, most victims of stalking arrive at the beginning of a journey through the criminal justice system knowing nothing about it, let alone about any stalking experience other than theirs at that point—which may not be the last point of the crime of stalking against them. We need training for police officers, community officers, call centre staff and those in the education system to be able to recognise it and know when they need to get help.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
There is an important point about parole. I know that parole is in the Bill later, but I cannot wait. What people do not understand is that if there are exclusion zones, the offender knows where you are yet the victim does not know where they are because the victim is not allowed. We need to protect victims even more when the stalker comes out because they will carry on, and the exclusion zone gives them an idea, even though it is there to protect the victim.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that very helpful intervention.
At the end of the debate on the previous group, I asked the Minister how we can get into the culture, focusing on the things that need to be looked at in stalking cases. Stalking advisers would be key to that. They would not just support the victim but know and understand the local people in their system and the criminal justice system; they would talk to them and ask them to look out for things. I hope the Minister can give a positive response. From our Benches, we support these amendments.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I will speak extremely briefly, because others have spoken at great length, to support very strongly Amendments 67 and 69 and to applaud the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State provides guidance for stalking advocates along with guidance for domestic abuse and sexual violence advisers.
As we know, stalking all too often ultimately leads on to criminal violence against women. An important measure ultimately preventing violent crime against women is to provide this support and advice for stalking advocates. It is far better than waiting for violence to occur before intervening. These are much more important amendments than they might appear.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, government Amendment 74 has been tabled to place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance about victim support roles specified in regulations and to give the Secretary of State a power to make regulations that specify those roles. This replaces the current Clause 15, which specifies that guidance must be issued about independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers.
Through the Bill’s passage to date, we have carefully listened to concerns that naming particular roles in the Bill could be misinterpreted by funders as the Government prioritising these roles above others. We remain clear that ISVAs and IDVAs are only two roles within a rich and diverse support sector, meeting a range of victim needs, and that the right mechanisms are in place to ensure that funding for services is determined on the basis of local need for a resilient and cost-effective support offer. But we are conscious that the debate about naming certain roles in the Bill risked overshadowing the purpose of the clause, which is simply about improving a consistency of certain roles. While we know that this is not an issue or intervention wanted or needed for all support roles, we have also listened to arguments put forward that there are other support roles that might benefit from the improved consistency provided by national statutory guidance.
Therefore, this amendment avoids naming any victim support roles in the Bill. It instead provides the more flexible mechanism afforded by regulations to set out the relevant roles for which guidance must be issued, for use now and in the future. We intend to still use this only in cases where consistency of service provision is of sufficient concern to warrant national statutory guidance. This of course remains the case for ISVAs and IDVAs.
I am pleased to announce today that following constructive debate and engagement, the Government agree that such guidance is warranted for independent stalking advocates. They do vital work to support victims of these terrible crimes, as highlighted in the coroner’s report following the inquest into the tragic death of Gracie Spinks. Clear national guidance on the role of independent stalking advocates will be an important step in improving support for stalking victims. In response to my noble friend Lady Newlove, the Government can of course commit to consulting thoroughly with all stakeholders. We will require guidance to be issued on support services named in regulations. We will shortly publish draft regulations that will list independent domestic violence advisers, independent sexual violence advisers and independent stalking advocates. We have therefore heard the point on the value of ISAs and will require guidance to be issued.
I offer my thanks to the Victims’ Commissioner, my noble friend Lady Newlove, and the domestic abuse commissioner, Nicole Jacobs, for their engagement on this clause, to the National Stalking Consortium, convened so well by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, and to the wider victim support sector, which is assisting the Government in developing the relevant guidance.
Turning to some of the points that have been raised in this helpful debate, I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. The Criminal Justice Bill does not have any stalking-related measures, but stalking victims have further been supported by the following legislation since 2012. The Stalking Protection Act 2019 aimed to protect people from the risks associated with stalking. Stalking can fall within the scope of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 where the perpetrator and victims are 16 or over and personally connected. With the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023, if someone commits an offence under existing Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, and does so because of the victim’s sex, they are liable for a higher maximum penalty. Finally, the Online Safety Act 2023 names Section 2A and 4A offences as priority offences.
I turn to some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. The Government of course recognise the value of ISAs—and I have recognised it in this amendment today—and have provided additional funding to stalking charities to help support victims, including funding specifically for advocacy. The Home Office part-funds the National Stalking Helpline, run by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, providing £160,000 annually between April 2022 and 2024.
Through the Government’s up-to £39 million domestic abuse and stalking perpetrator intervention funds, PCCs for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Cheshire, Kent, Sussex and the West Midlands are delivering interventions for perpetrators of stalking, and support for victims. An evaluation partner has been appointed so that we can develop an evidence base from this fund that works to protect and support victims. It is fair to say the Government can always do better, and we welcome a response to many of the points that have been raised and any dialogue between the department and interested parties.
In response to the noble Lord’s point about the Suzy Lamplugh Trust’s super-complaint to the police, we recognise the devastating impact stalking can have and expect the police to take reports seriously and to take swift action. We thank the trust for submitting this complaint—the Government will follow its progress with interest and have already provided relevant information about some of the issues to the investigating organisations.
To, I hope, reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we have been engaging with stakeholders about the inclusion of ISAs throughout the passage of the Bill, and we are pleased to be able to confirm that we intend to specify in regulations that ISAs are included in the duty of the Secretary of State. As I mentioned earlier, our point is that these advocates are of equal status, and we do not want to create a hierarchy, so inclusion puts them on the same level as ISVAs and IDVAs.
On the points about information and how these offences are treated, stalking is an offence that often escalates over time—as we have heard earlier in this debate. That is why it is important to take preventative steps to protect victims of stalking at the earliest possible opportunity. In January 2020, the Home Office introduced stalking protection orders, which aim to address perpetrators’ behaviours before they become entrenched or escalate in severity. The Government have also awarded up to £39 million, as I mentioned, for the domestic abuse and stalking perpetrator intervention funds. Finally, victims can access support at any stage of their journey through the National Stalking Helpline, which is run by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and funded by the Home Office.
As we are bringing forward this amendment, and intend to specify ISAs in regulations, I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, not to press her amendments requiring guidance to be issued for independent stalking advocates. I hope that this demonstrates that the Government are committed to ensuring that victims of these terrible crimes receive the right support.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, he said there is no need to add or specify independent stalking advisers because there is no other specific reference, but in Clause 15(1) there is a reference to “domestic violence advisors” and “sexual violence advisors”. That is the problem, because some advisers are named and, unfortunately, stalking advisers are not. If they are not in the Bill, they will not go down—right the way down to the front line—as people who need to be approached.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her point. While we are clear that there should be no hierarchy of support, and we know that ISVAs, IDVAS and ISAs are most effective when part of a wider support network, I will take that point away and consult the Minister.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive remarks and for his explanation about why Clause 15 is being replaced. I sought advice from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and from other organisations which I knew had been in discussion with the Government. I am advised that the reason the Government have put forward their amendment is that they have met stakeholders and that the original plan to place ISVAs and IDVAs in the Bill was a concern that came from the violence against women and girls sector and was shared by the children’s sector and modern slavery and stalking charities. There was a concern about creating a hierarchy and, therefore, I understand the Government’s motivation for replacing Clause 15.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
“(c) older people’s independent domestic violence advisors;(d) older people’s independent sexual violence advisors.”
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I must declare an interest, not because of my own age but because I used to work for Age Concern Scotland and am now proud to be a patron of the Hourglass Safer Ageing organisation, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Gale, and Lady Ritchie, who both support this amendment. The amendment would ensure that police and crime commissioners included specialist
“older people’s independent domestic violence advisors”
and
“older people’s independent sexual violence advisors”
in their work.
There are currently PCC contracts for such OPIDVAs in Thames Valley, Sussex, Kent, and in five boroughs in London—Greenwich, Southwark, Bexley, Lambeth and Lewisham. There are similar domestic abuse support workers who specialise in supporting older victims in Sussex, Surrey, and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, and another commissioner in Wokingham Borough Council. They are doing a good job, but clearly there are many parts of the country that do not have them, and I am suggesting that we should encourage them.
In areas where local PCCs have commissioned generic adviser services, their casework is often referred to the Hourglass Safer Ageing charity, which is a UK-wide charity supporting older victims, survivors of abuse and survivors of neglect, to provide the specialisms as a backbone service. Hourglass receives no additional funding or support to deliver what is, in many instances, very complex casework.
The challenges that older victim-survivors present include digital exclusion, dementia and increased vulnerability due to disability. As a result, generic domestic abuse services are often not appropriate for older victim-survivors. Older people often do not want to take up the time of other abuse services, which they deem to be for younger women escaping domestic violence, while the abuse of older people is just as harrowing as the victims often do not see themselves in that way. Sadly, the perpetrator is often a close family member—for example, where the abuse has been committed by the victim’s child or grandchild. As a result, victims are reluctant to report it or feel that it is a reflection on them as a parent or a grandparent if they do so. That abuse can be financial, as well as physical and in other forms.
When PCCs were given funding to commission IDVA and ISVA services in 2022, the Government said that specialist children’s services should be provided by each PCC, but older people also require specialist support when they experience abuse or neglect. PCCs should be required to make this support available. The Bill provides us with the opportunity for the Government to ensure that this happens.
The Minister, Edward Argar, has said that the Government will issue guidance to PCCs on tailoring support to meet victims’ needs. He also said that the duty to collaborate will require PCCs to work together to ensure that services support people with protected characteristics, including older people, so that they have the support they need. While this is encouraging, it falls short of ensuring that specialist support for older people will be available in every PCC area. I hope the Minister will take note of these amendments, consider them carefully and see what can be done to make that commitment stronger.
In 2018, Hourglass received 4,000 calls to its helpline, but this year it expects to receive more than 50,000 contacts from the ageing population, and the number of cases will increase rapidly. We need to ensure that there is specialist support and advocacy for older people everywhere. It is something that families are often reluctant to talk about and older people are reluctant to reveal, but it can cause great hardship and misery and ought to be dealt with by specialism. I hope consideration will be given to this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 72, which I am delighted is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. This was originally an amendment to Clause 15 relating to guidance for independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisers, but the Government have rather usurped that, as we have heard. However, the issues my amendment probes the Government on—specialist victim support for women, in my instance—are still pertinent. I listened to the debate on the previous two or three groups and refrained from speaking, but the issues we have been discussing could have been reflected in all the themes I am interested in looking at.
To state something absolutely obvious, but it is important to remind ourselves: certain crimes are predominantly aimed at women. Although it is true that anyone can suffer domestic abuse or be raped—I acknowledge that male victims may be underreported and I do not want to downplay that women can be perpetrators—all the evidence suggests that approximately 90% of victims of rape or domestic abuse are female. I will return to the reliability of data and whether we can trust it with an amendment in the next group.
My amendment probes whether the Government can ensure, via this Bill, that female victims of sexual and domestic violence have the option of female advocates, advisers and services, and that these victim advocates respect victims’ requests for access to women-only provision. This choice is no longer guaranteed, largely due to the turmoil and confusion caused by gender ideology and political rather than material definitions of what a woman is. This turmoil was vividly illustrated by an invaluable report published last week by the campaign group Sex Matters, entitled Women’s Services: A Sector Silenced. I will ensure that whichever Minister responds gets sent a copy of the report because it is a must-read. Will the Minister agree to meet with its authors? Its contents directly relate to the Bill’s important aim of improving service provision for victims.
The Sex Matters report reveals that the women’s service sector is mired in confusion as it grapples with the conflicts arising out of a move towards either trans-inclusive or so-called gender-neutral services, which are often forced on them by funders and commissioners, all at the expense of women victims’ choices. I will stress why this choice is crucial for victims of certain crimes. I have used the point about choice and options very carefully in my amendment. I quote JK Rowling explaining why she financially backed Beira’s Place, a single-sex rape crisis resource service in Scotland:
“As a survivor of sexual assault myself, I know how important it is that survivors have the option of women-centred and women-delivered care at such a vulnerable time”.
I testify to that from my own experience.
The Equality Act recognises the importance of offering such support as a choice and uses rape counselling as an example of a service where it is proportionate to discriminate—for example, by restricting counselling jobs to women. Despite that, even services that claim to be women-only are compromised by policies based on the belief that anyone who identifies as a woman—even those with male bodies—is a woman. To quote the head of operations of one charity that offers, it says, counselling, advocacy and group work for survivors of sexual violence and abuse in Sussex:
“We do not police gender and we do not define who is and is not a woman; we allow women to define this for themselves”.
I am afraid that such policies are hardly reassuring and create real quandaries for some victims and, indeed, service employees alike.
As we speak, a high-profile and important employment tribunal is taking place in Scotland, involving former staff support counsellor, Roz Adams, who is claiming constructive dismissal against the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. In evidence, Ms Adams explained how she was told that revealing the biological sex of support workers to centre users was transphobic. The issue arose when a 60 year-old female survivor of sexual assault said she would feel uncomfortable talking to a man, but when she inquired about the sex of the centre’s volunteers, Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre’s response was that it was inappropriate to disclose such information. Worse, her question led to her being sent an email saying that she was not a suitable user of the service—the wrong sort of victim, I assume. Surely it is essential that any advocacy or advice services should be honest with victims about something as basic as the sex of staff who will provide victim support.
Yet, to muddy the water further, consider this. When Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre advertised a senior post a couple of years ago, the job blurb read “only women need apply”, citing the single-sex exemption in the Equality Act. All clear, noble Lords might think, and that would satisfy me. Or perhaps not, because the “only women need apply” job advert then added that as a diverse organisation, applications from trans women—that is, biological males—were especially welcome. Noble Lords may think, “That’s just Scotland: it’s all got a bit gender bonkers up there”, but these confusing trends are widespread throughout the UK. The domestic violence and sexual violence service sector is in turmoil. As the Sex Matters report reveals, there are serious consequences, such as women victims self-excluding and being reluctant to seek help because they do not want to risk being counselled by a man.
A story from Sussex Rape Crisis Centre illustrates the dilemma—it has been in the news recently. One service user, Sarah Summers, is suing Survivors’ Network for discrimination because it refused to provide a women-only peer support group. Sarah had joined a female-only group, which she found helpful and supportive as a victim, until a man who identified as a trans woman joined the group, making her feel uncomfortable and unable to be open about her past trauma. Sarah explains, in completely reasonable terms, that she knew:
“Some women are happy to be in that space, and obviously trans survivors have a need for that support. But single-sex spaces should be an option”.
Indeed, Survivors’ Network has such groups for trans, non-binary and intersex people.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and to support her Amendment 72 to Clause 15. I do so as a man, because I am not embarrassed to say that the safety, health and welfare of women is not just a women’s issue. It is an issue for men and women, and anything that compromises that is an issue of public interest.
It seems to me, reading the amendment, it is pretty axiomatic that it is a good thing and I hope Ministers will look very favourably on it. The wider context we need to look at, though, is the whole issue of gender-critical views. Noble Lords will know that in June 2021 in the Forstater ruling, it was found that it was not an ignoble thing to have gender-critical views. The premise that they were not worthy of respect in a democratic society was repudiated by Mr Justice Choudhury in that ruling, which overturned an employment appeals tribunal.
I also draw your Lordships’ attention again to the excellent report that the noble Baroness referenced, from the author Matilda Gosling and the Sex Matters organisation. The ruling found specifically that gender-critical beliefs are now legally protected from discrimination and harassment in employment and specifically—the key words—in respect of service users. To further quote from that ruling,
“it is clear from Convention case law that … a person is free in a democratic society to hold any belief they wish, subject only to ‘some modest, objective minimum requirements’”.
So a lack of belief in transgenderism and a lack of belief that someone can change their biological sex are both protected by the Equality Act 2010, provided that there is a reasonable expression and manifestation of that belief.
So I believe that this amendment should be in primary legislation because there is a concern among many women in many of these organisations that do superb work—refuges, counselling and support services, and rape crisis centres—that further guidelines without statutory impact and force will not actually deliver the results they need and want. This is about clarity in the Bill, but, more fundamentally, it is about the agency and autonomy of women in the most difficult circumstances imaginable—women who are damaged, women who are angry, women who are vulnerable and women who have been mistreated, in particular by men but also by society as a whole. It is about their agency and autonomy, and this amendment makes that specific.
It is not about bigotry or discrimination in respect of trans people, or biological men who identify as women. It is not that at all; it is important to put that on the record. The report referenced earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, gives much food for thought in terms of some of the impacts of self-censorship and a feeling that people have to change their policies in order to protect themselves from, sometimes, the pernicious attacks of trans activists, and their representatives and supporters in, for instance, Stonewall. That may give rise to things such as poor mental health, safety risks, self-exclusion, a poorer quality of service delivered, discomfort and forced compliance. So it exacerbates the very reason they had to access these services. Therefore, it is not just an arcane technical issue; it is about real-life, vital and imperative issues for a small group of women impacted.
I put on record my admiration for those women who have stood up and been counted on the gender-critical side in the so-called culture wars. It has taken great courage for them so to do. They include Maya Forstater, Jo Phoenix, Allison Bailey and Rachel Meade.
The wider context of the report is that the Government need to be seen—I hope that the Minister is mindful of the strength of feeling over this—to be taking real action and cutting through the confusion. The report says, among other things, that the GRA and the Equality Act 2010 need to be explicit in protecting women and the concept of women as a sex, and allow for information sharing. There is clear guidance on gender recognition certificates in the GRA with organisations, and those organisations should leave the Stonewall champion scheme and review their own training.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission also needs to issue guidance and model policies for organisations in the women’s sector, and for organisations with statutory bodies subject to the victims’ code. There should also be clear guidance for charity regulators, specifically on charities that provide single-sex as opposed to mixed-sex services.
This is a popular policy. In recent polling, the public are broadly behind this amendment in making the value judgment that it is important to have single-sex services for women in the most vulnerable position. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the amendment; it has broad support across the House, and I support my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was not here to move his amendment. Given the debate we had on the previous group, I think he would have made the point that we need specific guidance for other specialist services as well. I hope that the Minister will respond to that.
I was very taken with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, about older people. We assume that it is younger people who tend to be victims of domestic abuse, economic abuse and sexual violence, but that is not the case. Older people’s circumstances are often different, and they require more specialist advice. That does not mean that a person cannot be qualified to be a specialist adviser in two or three areas, but it means they have done the training and understand the differences. I am very mindful of that, and these Benches are supportive of it.
On the amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, I am wondering how it would work. I think the noble Baroness is saying that trans women are incapable of understanding, helping or addressing trauma, yet trans women are already accessing women’s refuges because they have been victims of trauma.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Let me develop this point first. The difficulty that I have is that the one place where a trans woman can feel safe if she has been assaulted by a man is a women’s refuge. I have looked and looked to see whether I can find evidence of trans women assaulting women in refuges, and I can find none. I cannot find any publicity, and in the current culture wars that the noble Baroness spoke of, it would be everywhere if that were the case. I hope that it does not happen. From talking to trans women, I know that they have frequently—more frequently than women, if you look at the ratio; it is a very small number of trans women—been assaulted and raped. Therefore, I would be very concerned about anything that removes their rights. I am worried that there is not a problem that needs to be solved. I say that with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I only want to clarify. The example that I used, to be clear, concerned instances where there was provision for trans women but not all natal women wanted to share their trauma with trans women. I did not mention assault by trans people against anyone, because that is not what this is referring to. The women’s-only facility argument in relation to services for sex, sexual assault and violence and domestic abuse is quite straightforward; it is understood in the law that women can have only-women provision, but the use of the word “woman” is now so misunderstood and can be interpreted as including trans women that it gets very confusing. I am afraid that that means that the lack of choice is not for trans women but for natal women—women.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, who said he felt that the entire House was behind this amendment, it is important for them to know that some people disagree with it. Although I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from, it does not help the issue inside our refuges. The most urgent thing is to help women, regardless of their natal birth, if they have been assaulted and raped and need somewhere safe to go.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Foulkes on his suite of amendments. I am not surprised that he has tabled them; he is quite right that older people need particular support and help as victims of violence. We can imagine why that might be the case. It feels like we should not really have to say it, but it is the case, and this is an important suite of amendments, which I hope the Minister will invite to be part of the wider discussion that we will have about how different groups can be supported as victims as we move forward. That goes without saying.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that I am confident that the arrangements to be put in place will comply with the Equality Act 2010.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate on two related amendments. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance about older people’s IDVAs and ISVAs. The Government recognise the vital support that older people’s advisers provide to older victims of these terrible crimes. The advisers offer invaluable emotional support, provide a focus on safety and help them navigate the criminal justice system.
As I have indicated in relation to the amendment on children’s ISVAs and IDVAs, the Government are open to considering the case for guidance for other types of roles, although my starting point is that guidance for these roles will be covered within the planned umbrella guidance for ISVAs and IDVAs. This will cover a range of specialisms, including the different considerations needed for older people.
I reassure noble Lords that we are continuing to draft guidance with the support of a working group made up of various representatives across the sector, including Hourglass, which does a fantastic job supporting and advocating for older victims of abuse, so that we get it right. The dedicated section on tailoring services to meet victims’ needs covers the particular needs that older victims may have.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for speaking to the amendment that seeks to require the IDVA and ISVA guidance to include provision about allowing victims to ask to be supported by an IDVA or ISVA of the sex of their choosing, and the Government would agree to a meeting with Sex Matters.
I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government have made it clear through the victims funding strategy that victims should be at the heart of every decision a commissioner or service provider makes. Service providers are best placed to tailor services to individual victims and decide the most appropriate person to support them. They will take into account the needs and preferences of the victim, the availability and capacity of staff, and staff members’ skills and experience, to ensure they can meet the victim’s needs.
This amendment seeks to require that the ISVA and IDVA guidance cover this topic. As there are a wide range of relevant issues that this guidance covers, we do not propose to list each issue in the Bill, but I can confirm that the draft guidance will have a dedicated section on tailoring services to meet victims’ needs. This includes setting out the different considerations for supporting both male and female victims, which may include considering the sex of their ISVA or IDVA.
The noble Baroness raised one particular circumstance, but there could be a number of reasons why a victim may wish to request a particular support worker—for example, language, age or cultural needs. The Bill is not the right place to set out these considerations, nor how a service should respond. Service providers are best placed to make those decisions and must also comply with the Equality Act 2010, as the noble Baroness pointed out, in the provision of all services that they operate. I hope this demonstrates that the Government are committed to ensuring that victims of these terrible crimes receive support, and I hope the noble Baroness will not move this amendment.
Lastly, Amendment 67A would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on other relevant specialist support services. Such guidance would cover a wide range of services. It is not clear, without knowing which support roles this amendment is intended to cover, that such services need or would value government-issued guidance to support or improve the consistency of their service. Government Amendment 74, which amends Clause 15, provides a more flexible mechanism afforded by regulations to set up relevant victim support roles for which guidance must be issued.
I turn to a couple of the other points raised during this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned whether services should provide single-sex spaces for victims. The Government are committed to ensuring that victims get the right support at the right time and that that support is tailored according to needs. The Equality Act 2010 sets out that providers have the right to restrict use of spaces on the basis of sex where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
In response to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about guidance based on age, the draft guidance has a specific section on how IDVAs or ISVAs may respond to meet the needs of different types of victims, which includes examples of how they may tailor their support to meet the distinct needs of female and male victims. The guidance also highlights that some victims may prefer to be supported by a worker of their own sex or age and may prefer to access single-sex services where available.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I think it is rather early to be saying, as the Minister did, having not read the Sex Matters report, that delivery organisations are best placed to make their own policies. The report finds that they are trying to negotiate a maelstrom of difficulties, so for the Government to take a set view that the delivery organisations are best placed to do this, using the rationale of the Equality Act 2010, is not sufficient.
I should also say that I expected a less peremptory response from the Labour Front Bench to the very well-argued amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am afraid that the response to my noble friend is that the Government are absolutely adamant that service providers are the right people to make these decisions. They deal with a number of different concerns from victims and have to balance those against the resources available to their organisations.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I know that noble Lords want to move on, but the key to what I was saying is that service provision has been compromised by political and ideological interventions. If anything, this undermines the very exemptions in the Equality Act. I am afraid that saying “It’s up to them”, when they are the problem, potentially, is not quite going to cut it.
Could the Minister at least take back to the department that we will be returning to this issue on Report? It is very important, and we need some clarification. Maybe it can come after the meeting with the Sex Matters report writers, but saying that the status quo prevails does not work in this instance.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am very happy to take the noble Baroness’s comments back to the Minister and the Government, and to discuss them.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lady Thornton for their kind, sympathetic words. I appreciate them and I know that Hourglass will too.
The Minister has been very helpful, saying that older people will be considered as a group and their special needs will be considered in the following discussions. That was a very helpful response and in light of it, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Roborough
“Guidance about specified victim support roles(1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance about specified victim support roles.(2) In this section—“specified” means specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;“victim support role” means a role performed by individuals which involves the provision of support to victims of criminal conduct (where the support relates to that conduct).(3) A victim support role may be specified by reference to (among other matters)—(a) the circumstances in which the role is performed;(b) the type of support provided in connection with the role;(c) the type of criminal conduct in relation to which such support is provided.(4) Guidance under this section about a victim support role must include provision about—(a) the support provided in connection with the role;(b) training and qualifications for individuals who perform the role;(c) how individuals who perform the role, and other persons who have functions relating to victims or any aspect of the criminal justice system, work together.(5) Guidance under this section must (where relevant) make provision in relation to victims who are children or have protected characteristics within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.(6) Any person who has functions of a public nature relating to victims, or any aspect of the criminal justice system, must have regard to guidance under this section where—(a) the person is exercising such a function, and(b) the guidance is relevant to the exercise of that function.(7) Subsection (6) does not apply to anything done by any person acting in a judicial capacity, or on the instructions of or on behalf of such a person.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance about victim support roles of types specified in regulations.
Baroness Brinton
insert the following new Clause—
“Mandatory training: violence against women and girls(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations require certain police officers and employees of the Crown Prosecution Service to receive training in respect of violence against women and girls.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must—(a) make provision about the content of mandatory training, including training on the impact of trauma on victims of violence against women and girls; and(b) make provision about the persons for whom this training is mandatory.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations to provide for mandatory training for certain persons in the criminal justice system to receive mandatory training in respect of violence against women and girls.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I can be fairly brief because we have covered the issue of mandatory training in other areas earlier today and on previous days in Committee. Obviously, one does not know prior to starting Committee how many vaguely similar amendments are likely to be laid. That does not, however, reduce the importance of mandatory training for police officers and employees of the Crown Prosecution Service specifically in respect of violence against women and girls.
The amendment asks for regulations to be formed and provision to be made about the persons for whom this training is mandatory, and then an SI to be drawn up, presented to Parliament and approved by a resolution of Parliament.
We have not talked much about girls; most of our discussions have been about grown-ups and women. There is a particular need to support younger girls if they have been the victims of domestic abuse or stalking. The Minister said earlier that that was not necessarily excluded from the broader debate, but their needs are particular. The way they are approached by the police, perhaps when they first report an incident, may need to be very different. I know the police are pretty well trained, but it is none the less important that we see that support. I suspect that, when we get to Report, a single global training amendment may be tabled, rather than lots of different ones.
My Amendment 104 asks the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament within six months of the Bill being passed a report on the impact of the UK’s reservation of Article 59 of the Istanbul convention. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred earlier to the convention. It is a vital document, and it was very important that the UK signed it in 2012. It is a shame that it took 10 years for it to be ratified, but it is now.
However, the problem is that there are some reservations, and one of them is Article 59. The real issue is the Support for Migrant Victims Scheme. One of the things we are concerned about is a migrant victim not getting the benefits of the Istanbul convention when they are a victim of domestic abuse or trafficking. It would be really helpful if the Minister could outline the Government’s current position and whether they will report on it. I understand from the Government that it was already under review, pending the results of the evaluation of the Support for Migrant Victims Scheme. In summer 2022, the Government said that this decision is
“without prejudice to the substantive decisions which the government will make on the matters relating to article 59, in the light of the results and evaluation of the support for migrant victims scheme”.
So we are still waiting to hear what the issues are relating to it, and I hope that the Minister will give us a response. I know that elsewhere in this group, my noble friend Lord German might also touch on this issue, so I will leave him to do that; but the Istanbul convention is something that this Government have quoted themselves and believe is still important, and that should happen for anybody who ends up in this country.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 77 and 107 in my name, and in support of Amendment 80, to which I have added my name. I very much support Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, but believe it could be strengthened: first by specific reference to domestic abuse—in particular, to controlling or coercive behaviour, including economic abuse—and secondly by ensuring that such training is delivered by specialist providers in the violence against women and girls sector. I tabled my Amendments 76 and 77 on behalf of Surviving Economic Abuse—SEA—with which I worked closely on the Domestic Abuse Act and for whose help on the amendments I am grateful.
As an officer of the APPG on Domestic Abuse and Violence, I have been struck by how often the domestic abuse sector has referred to the need for “training” or “improved training” on domestic abuse—particularly coercive control, including economic abuse—for those working in the criminal justice system. According to SEA, 5.5 million women experienced economic abuse from a current or former partner in the previous 12 months. As I argued earlier, it causes significant hardship, damages mental and physical health and makes it harder for a survivor to leave the abuser, putting them and their children at increased risk of further harm or even being killed. It also often continues long after separation, yet for those who build up the confidence to report it to the police, the criminal justice system is not using all its powers to tackle controlling or coercive behaviour, including economic abuse.
The latest criminal justice statistics from ONS showed that there were nearly 44,000 reports of coercive control recorded by the police in the year ending in March 2023, yet there were just 611 court proceedings and 566 convictions handed down in the year ending the previous December. Evidence shows that in many cases, the police rank economic issues as “low” when it comes to risk. They tend to focus on gathering evidence of physical abuse, even when victims disclose economic abuse. This is leading to perpetrators not being held to account for this crime, and victim-survivors left without true justice and at risk of further economic abuse. It is also particularly concerning given that economic issues were identified in just over a third of intimate-partner homicides analysed by the Home Office.
SEA has demonstrated that, when training is developed and delivered by specialist providers and is informed by the lived experience of survivors, it can positively change practice. Following training it developed and delivered to domestic abuse champions in 10 police forces, in partnership with SafeLives, nine in 10 police officers could recognise economic abuse and knew how to gather evidence to support a prosecution. There is a real danger that the positive steps that the Government have taken to tackle this form of abuse will be undermined by a lack of understanding on the part of the police and others in the criminal justice system. This can be straightforwardly addressed through access to necessary training, so that criminal justice professionals can identify controlling and coercive behaviour, including economic abuse, effectively build a case for prosecution and make sure that victims are referred to life-saving specialist support. I hope, therefore, that the Government will look sympathetically on these amendments.
I have tabled Amendment 107 as a probing amendment, designed to explore the issue of the use of a victim’s personal data for immigration purposes. Its substance has been promoted consistently and forcefully by the domestic abuse commissioner, and organisations supporting migrant victims of crime. In his letter of 12 January to Peers, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, acknowledged the importance of victims and witnesses being free to report crimes without fear, and that it is in the interests of the general public for all crimes to be fully investigated. But then he continued:
“We are, however, also duty bound to maintain an effective immigration system to protect our public services and to save the most vulnerable from exploitation because of their insecure immigration status”.
Can the Minister tell us how this is consistent with the repeated ministerial claim that domestic abuse victims/survivors must be treated as victims first and foremost, regardless of immigration status, given that the argument is, in effect, putting immigration status first—not “safety before status”, in the phrase used by the domestic abuse commissioner?
The reference to safeguarding those most vulnerable to experiencing serious crime because of their insecure immigration status simply does not make sense. As the DAC and all the organisations in the field, notably the Latin American Women’s Rights Service, point out, the absence of a firewall, in the DAC’s words,
“allows dangerous offenders to continue to abuse with impunity; safe in the knowledge that their victims … are too afraid of enforcement action to report to the police”.
The DAC has heard from many migrant victims and survivors that contact from immigration enforcement, particularly following a disclosure to the police or other statutory services, can instil fear and insecurity and prevent them coming forward for support in the future. In fact, recent data has shown that all police forces in England and Wales have referred victims or survivors of abuse to immigration enforcement in the last three years. Victim Support states that this is often the reason why victim-survivors do not seek support sooner.
The DAC’s concerns were echoed in the pre-legislative scrutiny report. This cited evidence from the organisation Imkaan that more than 90% of abused women with insecure immigration status had their abusers use the threat of their removal from the UK to dissuade them from reporting the abuse. It argued that the lack of a firewall denies safety to victims and witnesses and may allow perpetrators to commit further offences. No doubt the Minister will argue that these concerns will be addressed in the forthcoming immigration enforcement migrant victims protocol that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, mentioned in his letter. It is disappointing that the protocol has still not been published, despite it originally being promised at the end of last year. According to a recent Written Answer to me, it is now expected in “early 2024”. But, given that the Home Office can be rather vague in its temporal references, can the Minister say what is meant by “early”?
However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, said in his letter, we know it will put limits on immigration enforcement action against migrant victims. But that is not enough to satisfy the domestic abuse commissioner, who argued that victims would still be open to contact from immigration enforcement, meaning that the fear of any immigration enforcement is not removed, and nor is the risk of potential immigration action once criminal proceedings conclude—which, for the victims and survivors of domestic abuse, can be within days. In view of the DAC’s continued concern, I urge the Minister to look again at this.
Turning to Amendment 80, the domestic abuse commissioner told the Public Bill Committee that one of her main concerns when it comes to genuinely providing services for all is the continued exclusion of migrant survivors, which could, she argued, be
“fixed quite simply by allowing recourse to public funds for domestic abuse survivors”.
According to the briefing from Southall Black Sisters and four other on-the-ground organisations, these women continue to face a stark choice between domestic abuse or deportation and destitution. Many are unable even to enter a women’s refuge, as they cannot pay their rent or living costs, as they are not eligible for housing or other social security benefits. Women and their children are vulnerable to homelessness and exploitation and can be locked in new, dangerous situations or even driven back to abusive relationships.
We tried to address this issue with amendments to the Domestic Abuse Bill, which were resisted by the Government. The current amendment is much more limited so as to remain within scope; the hope was that the Government would look more kindly on it—yet still they resist it, or they did so in the Commons. When it was proposed in Committee there, the Minister responded that victims without recourse to public funds are eligible for support under the terms of the code. However, he acknowledged that the “no recourse” rule affects the ability of victims of domestic abuse with insecure immigration status to access some accommodation-based support services. He went on to pray in aid the pilot established in 2020, as if that negated the need for the amendment, but did not otherwise offer any substantive arguments.
That year—2020—the Government said that they would consider the pilot’s findings once the evaluation was published and develop sustainable options for the future. The independent evaluation funded by the Home Office was published last year, as was an academic evaluation for SBS. The pilot demonstrated the need for support for this group, and the evaluation found that for the most part it performed well in meeting the immediate and emergency needs of victims and survivors. But it also identified problems with, for instance, the level of subsistence payments—a particular issue for those with children, according to the SBS evaluation—and the provision of suitable accommodation within the constraints of a pilot.
With regard to the latter, the report for the Home Office noted:
“Refuges could almost never be covered within the accommodation budget, meaning that some victims/survivors were housed in a patchwork of other provision which might be unclean, unsafe, or unreliable”.
The evaluators made it clear that it was outside their remit to provide policy recommendations but concluded with the
“hope that the insights contained within this report will help to provide the support needed to victims/survivors with NRPF”.
Well, they will be disappointed, because instead of the long-term solutions, together with a clear timetable for implementation, to which the Home Office committed itself in principle back in 2022 following a DAC report, the response to the evaluations was to extend the pilot yet again—this time to 2025.
I asked at Second Reading for an explanation of why the Government have failed to come forward with the long-term solutions originally promised in principle, now that they have the findings from two evaluations. I did not get an answer; nor was there one in the detailed letter from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, which simply set out the current position. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an explanation now.
More fundamentally, could we have a clear explanation as to why the Government are rejecting this very modest amendment? In the Commons, Sarah Champion suggested that it was due to the hostile environment towards people from overseas. I hope that the Minister can assure us that this is not the case. Surely, whatever one thinks of the hostile/compliant environment, it should be irrelevant if policy is to reflect the ministerial mantra cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, in a Written Answer that
“anyone who has suffered domestic abuse must be treated as a victim first and foremost, regardless of immigration status”.
That point applies also to Amendment 107 on the firewall. I beg to move.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I rise to say very quickly, because I know that we are trying to get through this, how much I support Amendment 75. To be perfectly honest, I find it deeply depressing that we have had so many debates and so much legislation on this issue and it is still so patchy. We have 43 police forces around this country, and we are still the victims of, or are at the mercy of, the priorities of those forces. We have a strategic policing requirement that includes violence against women and girls and domestic abuse, yet I am not sure that we are seeing it put into action. I wholeheartedly support this proposal, in the hope that the Government take it on board.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, reference was made briefly to Amendment 80, and
“services for victims … with no recourse to public funds”.
I want to offer brief but firm support for that amendment. Quite simply, victims of domestic abuse with no recourse to public funds are some of the most disadvantaged people that one sees in the family justice system. It is unthinkable, in my view, that they could be excluded in any way from the benefit of services under the victims’ code.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have an amendment in this group—sometimes the way the groupings lie is a bit difficult. This group covers violence against women and girls, and my amendment relates to how we assess data on that violence. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for their support—and we shall hear from one of them shortly.
Amendment 105 seeks to probe problems with the data that we use to develop policies and ensure that there is guidance to establish that sex registered at birth is used for any analysis of patterns of offending and recording victim and perpetrator profiles. Ideally, this would apply throughout the whole criminal justice system but, for now, this amendment focuses on violence against women and girls. I hope that, on this topic at least, there will be unanimity in acknowledging that sex difference between men and women can impact on people’s experience of victimisation and offending and on patterns of offending and risk.
Official crime data is used to assess the most appropriate services that should be developed, and how resources should be targeted effectively—something that the Bill has focused on at length in relation to support for victims. But any claims for evidence-based policy must be based on material reality and cannot depend on, for example, subjective assertions or ideological beliefs, both of which could be misleading. I invite people to agree with me that data needs to be accurate, credible and consistent. The problem is that accuracy, credibility and consistency are being undermined at present, because the criminal justice system has either conflated or replaced data based on immutable sex with data based on more fluid concepts, such as gender identity or self-declared sex.
I am aware that even discussing the collection of data based on a person’s sex, whether male or female, has become controversial these days. One has only to look at last week’s media reports of internal rows taking place in the Office for National Statistics about the methodology used in the census. But that is all the more reason why my amendment emphasises the need to raise the consistent measure of sex registered at birth. At present, there is an inconsistent model of options. The variable category of “gender” is used carelessly in criminal justice circles as interchangeable with sex. Sex can mean, if used imprecisely, sex as self-declared gender. It can mean a legally recognised but none the less acquired gender, sometimes evidenced by a gender recognition certificate—GRC. It can also mean changed government records, such as passports, driving licences, or NHS numbers, even though a person’s biological sex does not change, even if the documentation does. But the introduction of this vast array of recording practices creates a lack clarity about what is being measured and what exactly some types of official criminal justice data represent.
To illustrate that confusion, let us consider that a few years ago the British Transport Police stated that, because the BTP treats all people—victims, offenders and witnesses—with dignity, it
“records their gender according to the gender they present as, and/or how they self-identify their gender”.
That seems to suggest that the British Transport Police is undoubtedly well meaning but none the less prioritises validating people’s identity rather than understanding that data collection is a critical variable in crime statistics. It is important we ensure that official statistics are not treated as personal records of preference; they must be objectively accurate if they are to be useful. What is more, different police forces use different criteria for data collection, and this is very important for our understanding of violence against women and girls.
Keep Prisons Single Sex is involved in an invaluable project and public service which annually submits freedom of information requests to all police forces in the UK with the aim of determining how they record a suspect’s sex. The campaign’s findings for 2023 make for troubling reading. Just for a taster, of the 32 forces that answered the freedom of information request, no force records sex registered at birth in all circumstances; 20 forces use legally recognised acquired gender where the suspect has a GRC; and 13 forces stated that, where a suspect has a self-declared gender identity, they will record this as sex, rather than sex at birth. Some 22 forces answered the question on how a rape suspect’s sex is recorded, with 20 forces recording legally recognised acquired gender—in other words, GRCs—and only one force recording sex registered at birth. This means that suspected rape perpetrators and convicted rapists can be recorded in official statistics as female, if they no longer wish to identify with their male birth sex. To confuse matters further, 22 forces answered questions on how they record the sex of a suspect who identifies as non-binary, with 11 recording sex as “indeterminate” or “unspecified other”, and only nine using sex registered at birth.
Noble Lords might wonder whether any of this matters, and some say it does not. However, in 2019, when Fair Play For Women revealed results from its FOI requests to police forces, the National Police Chiefs’ Council responded that:
“There is no evidence to suggest that recording a person’s gender based on the information that they provide will have an impact on an investigation or on national crime statistics, because of the low numbers involved”.
That is wrong-headed and complacent. On the point about the low numbers involved, one might ask what will happen if many more people apply for a legal sex change. Organisations such as Stonewall claim that the UK trans population is up to 500,000, even though only a small minority have GRCs. That would make a significant error in the datasets. Small numbers of cases misclassified in this way can lead to substantial bias in crime stats, and, importantly, can distort and mislead public understanding of the nature of, in particular, violence against women and girls and offending patterns in relation to sexual offences.
If the police now record female crime based on gender identity, this means female crime statistics include both women who were born female and trans women who were born male. I do not know whether noble Lords recall that, in 2021, newspaper headlines screamed that the number of female paedophiles had doubled in four years. This shocking statistic was based on a Radio 4 “File on 4” documentary that used data from FOI requests. It claimed that, between 2015 and 2019, the number of reported cases of female-perpetrated child sex abuse prosecuted by police in England and Wales had risen from 1,249 to 2,297, an increase of 84%. A moral panic followed, as people assumed that that meant that more women were sexually abusing children, with endless talking heads on TV discussing why. The furore calmed down only when it dawned on commentators that no account had been taken of whether males who identify as women might be responsible for the apparent increase because of confusion about data protection. Of course, maybe it is the case that there are more women sexually abusing children—after all, offending patterns do change. However, it is impossible to know or make that claim from the collected data based on a mixture of gender identity and sex registered at birth.
This sort of unreliability surely erodes public understanding. Trust is eroded when sex-disaggregated data held by the police does not actually record what most people think it does. Unsurprisingly, this can lead to media reports of female rapists, women as sex abusers and so on, when in fact what is being reported is male perpetrators claiming female gender identity. We have to look only at the widespread public shock when it was revealed that a double rapist treated as a woman when remanded in a Scottish women’s prison was in fact not the female Isla Bryson but Adam Graham. Indeed, that scandal precipitated the downfall of the Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon.
To finish, routinely such confusions continue. Only last week, in media coverage of a trial at Southampton Crown Court, both broadcast and print media reported that a 56 year-old female charity shop worker was charged with exposing “her” penis. Lawyers in court were quoted as describing how Samantha Norris pulled down “her” trousers and manipulated “her” penis in front of two 11 year-old girls as they walked past the window of “her” home. But it is “his” home, “his” pants and “his” penis. Mr Norris may identify as a woman and be treated as such by criminal justice agencies, but he is male. How can the public or public authorities have any realistic picture or analysis of the threats posed by violence against women and girls if these confusions are reflected in official data?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and shall speak to her Amendment 105. I apologise that I was not able to participate at Second Reading due to attending another meeting.
I submit that sex registered at birth is a fundamental demographic and explanatory variable reflecting the reality of sex-based differences between men and women. Sex registered at birth is a powerful predictor of outcomes and is established throughout the criminal justice system as important in the analysis of offending and pathways into offending and risk.
Males and females offend at different rates, with males offending at significantly increased rates to females. In September 2021, women represented just 4% of the total prison population. Some offence categories, including serious violent and sexual offences, are only very rarely committed by females, with the overwhelming majority of these offences being committed by males. For example, in 2019, women comprised 2% of prosecutions for sexual offences, 16% of prosecutions for violence against the person and 7% of prosecutions for possession of weapons. The groups with the highest proportion of males prosecuted were sexual offences, at 98% male, and possession of weapons, at 93% male. Pathways into offending also differ between the sexes. There are strong links between women’s acquisitive crime—for example, theft and benefit fraud—and their need to provide for their children. For women, a history of male violence, including coercive control, frequently forms a distinct pathway into offending.
Sex registered at birth underpins the provision and planning of services within the criminal justice system, with the female offender strategy providing an evidence-based case to address the distinct needs of women in the criminal justice system. More generally, differences due to sex underpin risk assessment processes, the provision of offender treatment programmes, and the differing security categorisation and arrangements in the male and female prison estates. It is for these reasons, I suggest, it is fundamentally important that, throughout the criminal justice system, suspects’ sex registered at birth is recorded—for all offences, not just violent or sexual offences against women and girls.
However, despite the clear, established, evidence-based importance of sex registered at birth, throughout the United Kingdom police forces routinely record suspects’ gender identity, self-declared gender, legally recognised gender or transgender identity and not their sex registered at birth, including in the case of rape. I will not quote all the statistics which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, quoted on the freedom of information access requests acquired by Keep Prisons Single Sex, but it seems to be the case that in at least 32 of our police forces there is a complete mishmash in recording the sex of offenders, and that leads to perverse consequences.
There is no evidence that either legally recognised acquired gender, where an individual has been issued with a gender recognition certificate, or self-declared gender or gender identity have even equivalent explanatory power. In fact, where evidence is available, it continues to demonstrate the superior explanatory power of sex registered at birth to offending. I am sure some will argue that, even if sex registered at birth is erased from data in this way, surely the number of times it happens is so small that there is no appreciable impact on the data overall, so why does it really matter and why get upset about it.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, I rise to speak on behalf of two of my colleagues who have supported amendments in this group. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester regrets that she cannot be in her place to add her voice in support of Amendment 80, which concerns a cause on which she has long been an advocate. She tabled an amendment to the Domestic Abuse Bill, with cross-party support in 2021. Advocates have campaigned for 30 years to improve conditions for migrant women who have no recourse to public funds and who are victims of domestic abuse. While there has been some progress, including the introduction of the domestic violence indefinite leave to remain rule and the destitution domestic violence concession, there is still much more to be done to make sure that victims of domestic abuse with no recourse to public funds, or who are undocumented, are eligible for those schemes. Victims face an impossible choice: domestic abuse or deportation and destitution. Many are unable even to enter a women’s refuge; they cannot pay their rent or living costs as they are not eligible for housing or other social security benefits.
As we have heard, not much has changed since my right reverend friend raised these issues in 2021. The Government have extended the support for migrant victims pilot scheme, so it can be concluded that the support it offers is valued. Why not then grant a long-term solution? The pilot offers a victim financial assistance for 12 weeks towards rent and subsistence to enable them to leave an abuser and to begin the process of regularisation of their immigration status. More support for longer is needed, as those delivering the pilot scheme are finding that they are providing advocacy and counselling support pro bono as the pilot funding is insufficient. Victims of domestic abuse with no recourse to public funds deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and offered the support they need to leave their abuser. Alongside my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester, I support Amendment 80.
I also support Amendment 107, alongside the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who has added her name and sends her apologies because she cannot be present today. This amendment seeks to ensure that the data of a victim of crime is not shared between statutory agencies and immigration enforcement for any immigration control purposes without their consent. The amendment covers victims of serious crimes including domestic abuse, sexual violence and modern slavery. There is much evidence that shows that migrant victims of crime cannot report a crime to the police and other statutory agencies due to the fear of facing immigration control. This is even more pertinent for women who have experienced abuse or exploitation, as the threat of detention or removal is used by their abuser to prevent them coming forward. The Latin American Women’s Right’s Service and the Step Up Migrant Women campaign found that 62% of migrant women had experienced such a threat from their abusers.
The findings of the first super-complaint investigation by three independent police watchdogs concluded that data sharing arrangements harmed the public interest as crimes are unreported,
“victims are denied justice, while offenders go unpunished and remain a threat to the public”.
In the immigration enforcement migrant victims protocol that the Government have proposed, the conflict of interest at its heart remains. Asserting that data sharing with immigration enforcement is essential for victims’ protection misses the years of evidence and campaigning on this issue. It does not address the fear of data sharing that prevents victims of crime coming forward. We have a responsibility to victims and cannot prioritise immigration enforcement over safe reporting pathways. The barriers that migrant women particularly face in reporting crimes put them at risk and protect the perpetrators. I support Amendment 107.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I rise to add my support to those remarks from the right reverend Prelate. I have added my name to Amendment 80, and I wish to say a quick word about the Istanbul convention and about the firewall, which, as we have just heard, is an issue.
If you want to understand why Amendment 80 has been tabled, you need to get out a calendar and track what has happened in the last three years. There have been huge inconsistencies between the Government’s approach and the wording of their priority policies. Initially, they responded to the needs of those with no recourse to public funds—largely, migrants seeking refuge —by saying that they would introduce the support for migrant victims scheme, with two platforms of funding. I will not bore the Committee with the names of those funds, but the Government wished to pilot the scheme. As we have heard, it has now been extended. In fact, the pilot has now been going on longer than if you were to sail around the world in a boat twice over. It has been a hugely long pilot and there has been extensive evaluation of it, so a scheme has clearly been put in place.
However, then the domestic abuse commissioner made a study of the scheme and recommended implementing flexible support for all migrant victims regardless of their status. The Government responded in 2022 by saying that they were not considering a routine pathway between public services and the domestic abuse sector because they felt the regulations already in place were sufficient. In those regulations that they think sufficient, you find that the support for migrant victims—SMV—scheme they put in place is applicable only to those of certain status seeking refuge or to live in this country. Certain groups are excluded. The Government’s response was basically: “We have what we’ve got. We won’t do anything more”. However, they did not say so in their response to the domestic abuse commissioner; there they simply said that they already could, but you can clearly see from the government regulations that they cannot.
Last year, we had the Illegal Migration Act. A whole host of people—I hope the Minister can tell us how many—who entered this country since it was enacted suddenly have no status, because they are not eligible for anything. We do not even ask them any questions. I do not believe that the Government know nothing about these people. They must know something, but we do not know what it is. We know neither the exact numbers of people who have arrived nor anything about them, because we do not ask them what they are here for. We simply warehouse them before some scheme to remove them from the country—although nowhere near the numbers of people who arrived—takes place. There is a cohort of people who do not have the status currently required for the support for migrant victims scheme. We do not know who they are because the Government do not ask them, but we know that there are substantial numbers of people in that cohort who are suffering or have suffered from domestic abuse.
This is where the problem gets complex. In their evaluation of the Government’s scheme, the London School of Economics and the Oxford Migration Observatory found that the extension of the scheme would produce major cost savings for the Government in the longer term. It estimated that there are potentially 32,000 victims with no recourse to public funds who are likely to report domestic abuse to an authority in each year and that only 7,700 of these victims are likely to access a refuge or accommodation for a short period. It recommended the extension of the model to benefit all the people in that cohort and to do so until their circumstances could be put right.
The government-funded evaluation of the scheme said that it needs to be expanded to include all those without recourse to public funds. There is also a view that more money needs to go into that scheme to provide enough money to give people a route out of the problems they face, which anyone who has contributed to this Bill will know about.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will make two extremely brief points. First, I will address Amendments 80 and 107, affecting individuals facing domestic abuse who have an immigration status of “no recourse to public funds”. I strongly express the Green Party’s support for these amendments. We are essentially forming again a collation—across the Committee in total, and with full political breadth—as was put together during the Domestic Abuse Act. The Government need to get the message that this coalition is not going away and will keep hammering away on this point.
Secondly, on Amendment 75, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I am aware that it refers to the education of the CPS. I think we have to look at the very recent context. In a discussion on violence against women and girls with the Culcheth & Glazebury Parish Council, the Cheshire police and crime commissioner, John Dwyer, was quoted as saying:
“I notice school girls in my area are all wearing very short skirts and this did not happen in the 1960s”.
There is an evident need across the criminal justice system for a great deal of education. It is possible we might think some people are beyond education, but we need it to be happening anyway. We need it to deliver confidence to the victims of crime, so that they feel they can come forward and be treated properly.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I was there in the 1960s but that is not quite the object of this debate.
I was struck during the previous group of amendments, and it has continued in this one, by the question of training. What everyone involved in these issues needs is professional curiosity and an ability not to compartmentalise people’s reactions. Older people’s vulnerabilities—I have come across Hourglass, and I admire it—can also be found in younger people, so training needs to be thorough, with no cliff edges in how it is delivered. We are all different people and we all exhibit a variety of traits, which at different ages and in different circumstances may rise higher up the list than at other times. I was glad to hear my noble friend say that she could see a single wide amendment coming, because I think it is needed.
The Istanbul convention has been debated in this House before, as has the reputational damage of the country in this context. However, I put it in again today.
There is an important debate to be had on data collection and the argument about consistency. However, it is a very wide debate and not something that can sensibly be addressed in a Bill which is about a discrete area of work.
My name is to Amendment 107, which may not give it a very good prognosis, since I opposed paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the then Data Protection Bill all the way through its passage through the House and led a vote against it. The paragraph says—this is not verbatim—that the exemption for personal data does not apply, fit to prejudice, to immigration enforcement. I never succeeded in my opposition, but I hope that might change.
On the detail of the amendment, there is one thing I need to say in making the case for it. It is not only a matter of information about someone’s immigration status being given where, in the views of all speakers, it should not go, and immigration officers turning up on the doorstep; it is the deterrent effect of an abuser telling a victim, “You’re not entitled to be here. I’ve got your papers, and there’s nothing you can do about it. If you complain, you’ll be thrown out”. Abusers have been known to lie and, from what one hears from the organisations working in the sector, that happens a great deal in this situation.
I suppose that “domestic abuse” is the correct term, but this situation does not apply only to people who are in a personal relationship; domestic workers are very vulnerable to this abuse. The deterrent effect on them complaining about the appalling treatment that some of them suffer is very notable. On behalf of these Benches, I hope we manage to make some progress on this issue during the course of the Bill.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate; it has been interesting, if slightly wider than we expected. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for introducing it. I put my name to Amendment 75. This is the first time that we have talked about women and girls at all; the noble Baroness was right to initiate that. I also tabled Amendment 80, which we on these Benches feel strongly needs to be addressed in the course of the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to Amendment 107, which the Government will also have to address, because it is clearly about a very serious issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is completely right about the importance of the UK’s reservation on Article 59 of the Istanbul convention, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is right about the reputational damage it does to our country. I hope the Minister will be able to respond to that.
I thank Southall Black Sisters for the excellent brief it produced about seeking to ensure that victims of domestic abuse who do not have the recourse to public funds are still entitled to be provided with services in accordance with the victims’ code. It was thorough and I hope that a Minister will respond, even if it is not this Minister. It is very nice to be opposite the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the first time in quite some years; we faced each other for about seven or eight years on health matters. Of course, we have two Fredericks on our Front Benches, which is probably worth noting.
Southall Black Sisters has done extensive research on the effect of having no recourse to public funds. It has made a very serious record of the hardship and cruelty that this can lead to. I very much hope that the Minister will look at that evidence and that we will be able to take this forward. I will not say anything further, because we have had a very thorough discussion about the amendments.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I too am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments, which cover a range of sensitive and complex issues.
I turn first to Amendment 104, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on the UK’s reservation on Article 59 of the Istanbul convention. We were delighted to ratify the Istanbul convention. I believe that our doing so sent a clear message, not only within the UK but overseas, that Britain is committed to tackling violence against women and girls. I need to explain the point around the reservation, though. First, we are far from alone in making such reservations. Secondly, and more germanely to the noble Baroness’s concern, the reservation does not mean that we are not committed to supporting migrant victims, as I shall now explain.
We will continue to consider the findings of the SMV—support for migrant victims—scheme pilot, along with other assessments, and take account of the domestic abuse commissioner’s report Safety Before Status: The Solutions. This is very much work in progress. I assure the noble Baroness and the Committee that we will consider all matters in the round before making any further decisions on our policies and compliance position on Article 59. We have been clear about this in our last two annual progress reports, which were laid before Parliament, as we have been in many other fora.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Can the Minister give the Committee any sense of the timescale? This is really overdue. It was promised some time ago. It would be enormously helpful to know what the blocks are and how long he thinks it will take.
Earl Howe (Con)
I will need to write to the noble Baroness—and to other noble Lords, of course—on that point, as I have no advice. I shall come on to Amendment 80 in a moment.
Amendment 75 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and Amendments 76 and 77, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, would require the Government to bring forward regulations to provide for certain persons in the criminal justice system to receive mandatory training in respect of violence against women and girls. My ministerial colleague and noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy has emphasised to me that we are deeply committed to driving improvements to the police and criminal justice response, which we know has too often not been good enough.
In that context, we recognise the importance of police officers and prosecutors having the right skills and knowledge to respond effectively to VAWG crimes. While the police and Crown Prosecution Service are operationally independent of government, we have taken action to help ensure that police officers and prosecutors are equipped to respond in three principal ways—through our tackling VAWG strategy and complementary domestic abuse plan, and the rape review. This includes funding the College of Policing, which is responsible for setting standards on police training, to develop and implement a new module of the specialist domestic abuse matters training for officers investigating these offences. This will enable further improvement in the way that police respond, investigate and evidence this crime. The domestic abuse matters programme has been completed by 34 police forces to date.
Ultimately, as has often been pointed out, this comes down to culture. It is therefore imperative that the right culture is in place. That is why the Government are driving forward work to improve culture, standards and behaviour across policing. That includes implementing recommendations from the Home Office’s police dismissals review to ensure that the system is fair and effective at removing officers not fit to serve. Given the significant work already under way that is expressly designed to strengthen both the police and CPS response to violence against women and girls, I hope the noble Baronesses will feel comfortable not to move these amendments when they are reached.
Turning next to Amendment 80 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I thank her for raising this issue because it allows me to put on record how victims without resident status who do not have recourse to public funds are entitled to be provided with services in accordance with the victims’ code. The proposed new clause would state that victims of domestic abuse who do not have recourse to public funds can still receive services under the victims’ code.
However, I reassure the Committee, particularly in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that the code does not contain eligibility requirements linked to immigration status. It explicitly states that victims are entitled to receive services regardless of resident status, which means that victims who have no recourse to public funds are still able to receive support under the code. This includes right 4 in the code, which is the entitlement to be referred to and/or access services that support victims. However, we are aware that, in practice, the recourse to public funds rules in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 impact the ability of victims of domestic abuse with insecure immigration status to access some accommodation-based support services.
Victims with no recourse to public funds can access safe accommodation funding and can do so through our destitute domestic violence concession, which has been in place since 2012. It is a quick route to public funds and for those eligible to regularise their immigration status. Furthermore, the statutory guidance for the duty to provide safe accommodation under Part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act makes it clear that this provision is for all victims of domestic abuse, including migrant victims with insecure immigration status.
We remain of the view that this amendment is not necessary, and I hope that what I have said goes some way to reassuring the noble Baroness of the various ways that the Government are supporting victims regardless of their resident status, especially victims of domestic abuse.
I turn to Amendment 107, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, which I recognise covers a very sensitive issue. We remain determined that all victims and witnesses must be free to report offences without fear. However, this must be balanced with the need to maintain an effective immigration system, to protect our public services, and to safeguard the most vulnerable from exploitation because of their insecure immigration status.
It is the role of law enforcement agencies to protect victims, bring offenders to justice, prevent the commissioning of offences and preserve order. For them to discharge these functions, information sharing, very much on a case-by-case basis, must be allowed to take place, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. I say that especially because this information in some instances may help to protect and support victims and witnesses, including identifying whether they are vulnerable, and aiding their understanding of access to services and benefits.
However, we agree that more can be done to make it clearer to migrant victims what data can be shared and for what purpose. That is why we will set out a code of practice on the sharing of domestic abuse victims’ personal data for immigration purposes. This will provide guidance on circumstances when data sharing would or would not be appropriate and will provide transparency around how any data shared will be used. We will consult on this prior to laying the code for parliamentary scrutiny and approval by this spring.
That is not all: the Government are also committed to introducing an immigration enforcement migrant victims protocol for migrant victims of crime, which we aim to launch later this year. The protocol will give greater transparency around how any data will be shared.
Finally, Amendment 105 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State for Justice must issue guidance in respect of data collection to ensure that sex registered at birth is recorded for both victims and perpetrators of crime in respect of violence against women and girls. I was very interested to hear the statistics that she quoted on this issue and the arguments that she advanced—and I say the same to my noble friend Lord Blencathra about his powerful speech.
It may be helpful if I set out what the current system provides for as regards data collection. The Home Office collects, processes and analyses a range of national crime and policing data provided by the 43 territorial police forces of England and Wales. These collections form part of the Home Office annual data requirement—ADR. The ADR is a list of all requests for data made to all police forces in England and Wales under the Home Secretary’s statutory powers. The Home Office issued guidance in the ADR in April 2021 that sex should be recorded in its legal sense —what is on either a birth certificate or a gender recognition certificate. Gender identity should also be recorded separately if that differs from this. For consistency, this is based on the classifications used in the 2021 census for England and Wales.
Since implementing this guidance, the UK Statistics Authority has launched its own review on guidance given on the recording of sex, and that is expected to report this year. The Home Office will consider the new guidance in deciding whether or not changes are needed to the recording of the sex of victims and perpetrators dealt with by the police, including whether to move from the existing voluntary basis to a mandatory footing. I suggest that we do not need to amend the Bill to achieve what the noble Baroness seeks, in the light of the action under way to help address this issue. I hope she will feel a little more comforted than she was earlier as a result of what I have been able to say.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I gather that I am supposed to speak now, because I moved an amendment to the amendment. I did not realise that I would be responding, so I am sorry if I do not do it terribly competently. I thank the noble Earl for his very full reply, and all noble Lords who have spoken, particularly in support of my amendments. I shall be brief because I am conscious that there is other business waiting.
On training, I agree with the noble Earl on one thing, which is the importance of culture. But culture does not just come out of thin air—and, judging by what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, there will be a more amalgamated amendment on training coming down the track. She is nodding, so I am afraid we still think we need something in the Bill on that subject, but perhaps something broader than the original amendment.
On no recourse to public funds—this is not surprising, and I do not blame the noble Earl—what we have heard is what the Minister said in the Commons, which I argued against as inadequate. We just had the same again. That is what happens so often. There is an argument in the Commons, we argue why that is not enough, and then we get the same argument again.
I asked some specific questions, which I will not repeat now, but again, perhaps a broader letter could be sent to noble Lords covering the different things that were asked about. On the firewall, again there is the sense that we just go round in circles. When I asked for clarification on the protocol promised for early 2024, the Minister talked about later this year, which sounds rather ominous. It sounds later than early 2024.
So it feels that on both the recourse to public funds—the noble Lord, Lord German, spelled out at great length the saga on this and the history of it—and on the firewall, that we are just waiting for Godot. We just wait and wait and get nowhere. I do not know whether the domestic abuse commissioner is watching, but she will definitely read the debate and will be extremely disappointed, because the Minister may say that legislation is not necessary, but organisations on the ground such as Southall Black Sisters, which has been cited, and the domestic abuse commissioner feel very strongly that legislation is needed. It is disappointing, but I will leave it at that. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment to the amendment.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Wednesday 7th February 2024
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 31-IV(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (6 Feb 2024)
Baroness Thornton
“Free independent legal advocates for rape victims(1) The Secretary of State must develop proposals for a scheme to give victims of rape access to free, independent legal advocates available in every police force area in England and Wales.(2) For the purposes of this section “independent legal advocate for rape victims” means a person who is a qualified solicitor, with experience working with vulnerable people, who provides appropriate legal advice and representation to individuals who are victims of criminal conduct which constitutes rape.”
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, as well as moving Amendment 78, I shall also speak to Amendment 79 in my name, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I will speak to the other amendments in this group, and I am particularly pleased to be able to support the amendments in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bertin and Lady Morgan. Both are on important issues, which we will discuss this afternoon.
The amendments in my name seek to ensure that there is a scheme to give victims of rape access to free independent legal advocates—available in every police force area in England and Wales—and that the Secretary of State must develop proposals for a scheme to give these victims access to free, independent legal advice. The idea of independent legal advice and representation for victims in these circumstances is not a new one. In 2005, the then Government announced their attention to introduce legally aided representations for victims in homicide, rape and domestic violence cases—though it was not brought in. In March 2014, the Minister of Justice in the current Government again raised the idea of independent legal representation in a review of the treatment of victims in sexual offences cases, but, again, did not implement the policy. Now it is time to make this a reality.
Independent legal advice and representation can provide an important mechanism and layer of accountability, which results in improved police and CPS policies and procedures. Independent legal advice has already been successfully piloted in Northumbria, and exists in many other jurisdictions, including most European countries, Australia, California and Ireland. Evidence clearly indicates that this legal advice and representation can operate well, alongside the rights of defendants to a fair trial. This proposal does not propose changes to the role of victims and survivors in the criminal justice process, or the rights of audience that currently exist—nor does it change the adversarial system that we have in the UK.
In 2017, the sexual violence complainants advocate scheme was piloted in Northumbria by the then PCC, Dame Vera Baird, to engage local solicitors to provide legal advice and support to local adult rape complainants. The support primarily related to complainants’ Article 8 rights to privacy, advising on digital download requests and demands for material in the hands of third parties—such as school reports, medical records and therapy notes.
The pilot scheme took 83 referrals from September 2018 until December 2019, and was evaluated. Case file analysis showed poor practice around victims’ privacy rights—some police officers believed that there was no need to seek consent from the victims. The SCVAs challenged data requests in fewer than 47% of the cases. The evaluation showed that the scheme was overwhelmingly positive. It increased complainants’ confidence in, and understanding of, the justice system—which is likely to reduce attrition. There was consensus that the project changed organisational cultures—significantly decreasing police and CPS requests for indiscriminate evidence. Police and the CPS felt the investigations were more efficient, relevant and proportionate. A judge commended the pilot as encouraging earlier consideration of disclosures and issues—making cases more efficient and proportionate. All the pilot’s participants agreed with the principle of legal support being made available for sexual offence complainants.
The CPS’s victim’s right to review, which allows a challenge to a decision not to prosecute has been broadened by the High Court to offer an opportunity for a victim to make representations. A victim who wants to use this new voice will need publicly funded, independent, legal representation, so that there can be an equality of arms with the reviewing lawyer from the CPS.
In Amendment 115, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, the
“court’s permission must be obtained for access to, service or disclosure of”
the victim’s counselling record—which is why it is linked, in a way, to the amendments I have previously spoken to.
“The court must direct that access should not be granted, or evidence should not be served or disclosed, if the court finds that this would disclose a protected confidence”.
In the Government’s own end-to-end rape review, and in debates around the digital extraction clauses in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, it has been understood that it has become almost routine for victims of rape to be subjected to credibility trawls. This is when victims are asked, sometimes without proper regard to the law, to relinquish their private and personal information for scrutiny by the police and the prosecution.
I am sure the noble Baroness will tell us about the issues this raises in more detail, but in summary: victims and survivors who have reported sexual violence to the criminal justice system are often put in an impossible position, forcing them to choose between seeking justice and accessing therapeutic support. Neither existing legislation nor guidance in this area has effectively addressed the problem of widespread inappropriate requests for this material. The law must change to introduce new higher thresholds for disclosure that is unique to counselling and therapy records to be applied through judicial scrutiny.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Morgan, who is sorry not to be here today, I shall speak to Amendments 101, 102 and 173, and I shall speak to my own Amendment 115. I give praise and thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for outlining a lot of the issues in these amendments.
First, I shall talk about Amendments 101, 102 and 173, which, I might add, have the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, attached to them too. Amendment 102 and the associated necessary Amendments 101 and 173 seek to ensure that victims of crime—but particularly victims of sexual violence, for that is where the issue most frequently arises—are protected from excessive and unreasonable demands for their personal data. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has pointed out, that is the reason why attrition rates are as they are.
Third-party material is material about the victim held by third parties. It can include medical, educational and social services records, as well as records of therapy and counselling, which I will come to in more detail later. It has become commonplace for victims to be subjected to scrutiny of their personal lives, and thus their credibility, by way of a trawl through their personal data, and nowhere more so than in rape investigations. This issue has been well examined in both the media and at a policy level. These trawls act as a deterrent to reporting, and can cause a victim who has reported to then withdraw. There are fears about deeply personal information ending up in the hands of the defendant or being aired in court, where friends and family of the victim may hear it. In addition, requesting this information in such a non-discriminatory way can dramatically elongate already considerable investigation times.
I applaud the Government for introducing legislation in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, which set out a regime to be used by police when requesting digital data, such as that held on mobile phones. Within this Bill, the Government have tabled clauses which purport to do the same for third-party material, but these clauses differ considerably from those in the PCSC Act. As it stands, there will be two quite different regimes for the police to apply when considering obtaining digital material and third-party material, which, in practice, they frequently do in tandem. This is potentially confusing for the police, but, more importantly, for the victims of crime.
Amendment 102 is quite simple, in that it seeks to apply exactly the same robust regime to third-party material as the Government, having listened thoroughly to campaigners, already laid down in legislation for digital material. I hope Ministers will see the need to follow suit in respect of third-party material. This amendment is backed by my noble friend Lady Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner, so I will allow her to speak to it.
I will speak to my Amendment 115. I am very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Rape and sexual abuse, as we know in this Committee, are deeply traumatic crimes, the impact of which can be wide-ranging and life changing. Sexual violence and abuse are often a root cause of mental health problems, eating disorders and self-harm, and, tragically, suicide. It is common for the impact of sexual violence and abuse to affect family and personal relationships, a victim’s ability to work, and long-term educational attainment. For many victims and survivors, counselling and therapy are a vital means of working through trauma, supporting them to find routes to regain control of their life. It is therefore imperative that those who choose to do so can seek support without fear that their counselling records will be used to humiliate them in court or, more often, to stop their case progressing in the first place.
The reality is that counselling records contain feelings and not facts. Typically, rape survivors will have feelings of shame and self-blame, and often complex feelings towards the perpetrator. Counsellors and therapists will support survivors to work through these painful feelings and make notes of things that will support their recollection for the next session. They are not collecting evidence for criminal investigations.
Routine access to this material by criminal justice agencies has severe consequences for victims’ mental health and well-being. Some try to stay with the process, while receiving no or limited emotional support, while others drop out altogether because of the intrusion into their private lives. According to recent figures, the proportion of adult rape investigations which ended due to victim attrition was 62%. I think we can all agree that that is far too high. Despite widespread recognition of this problem and the good work carried out by the Government to limit the vast amounts of personal data taken from rape victims, this remains a very big problem.
The Home Office’s own research found that, in case file reviews of rape cases, almost one-third contained a police request for counselling and therapy notes. Where a reason was given for the request, 32% were simply related to establishing a perceived victim reliability or credibility, and did not pertain to the facts of the case.
Rape and sexual abuse are treated with exceptionalism in the criminal investigation process. In no other crime does the victim have their counselling and therapeutic records trawled through and scrutinised with a view to finding any content that may disregard their character. I acknowledge 100% the good work that the Government have taken forward and progressed through Operation Soteria. Stronger legal protections are needed to limit far-reaching requests for these notes which very often contain the most sensitive personal data.
Other jurisdictions have demonstrated that it is possible to do this, while allowing for vital fair trial rights to be duly safeguarded. The state of New South Wales in Australia is a good example. It has an adversarial legal system—very similar to ours—but its notes are afforded far greater protection. This is achieved by ensuring that counselling records are disclosed only when they contain material of substantial probative value and by transferring the decision as to whether this meets the test to a judge. In 20 years, no appeals have been overturned on the basis of counselling and therapy notes.
I propose a similar model because it would strengthen and support the important work led by this Government. It would reinforce the transformative effects undertaken by police and prosecutors through Operation Soteria. It would also save precious police and prosecutor time and resources. They would need to access this material only when they were able to ascertain that there was substantial probative value in it, and not waste time simply trawling through irrelevant records.
We should not miss this opportunity. If the situation does not change, tens of thousands of survivors will have their rights undermined, face further intrusion and be deterred from both therapy and from engaging with criminal investigations. I will leave my noble friend Lady Finn to speak to Amendment 106. I whole- heartedly support Amendment 78. I sincerely hope that the Government will take it on board.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 106 in the name of and on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes. She is sorry not to be here today because of family commitments. This amendment was first debated in the other place. It was proposed by the honourable Stella Creasy based on her own experience as a victim of harassment. This experience is not unique to her. I am grateful—as I know she is too—for the support for this amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton.
In short, if an individual makes a malicious complaint about someone to the police, the police can act to remove that record. Malicious reporting to other organisations—whether social services or an employer as part of a campaign of stalking and harassment—does not carry the same safeguard. As a result, data is retained on individuals who have been targeted maliciously, be it through workplace harassment, stalking or something else. Many victims find that, even if the person targeting them has been convicted, their harassment continues because such records remain. Current data protection rules mean that such records cannot always be deleted. The retention of this data has lasting consequences for all individuals involved.
This proposed new clause seeks to enable the deletion of data where a clear threshold is met to show that the report was the result of malice and that retaining it would continue the harassment. As the testimony of victims has shown, it is not necessary to be an MP to be subject to malicious reporting as part of a deliberate campaign of stalking and harassment. Such reporting, designed to have a serious long-term impact on victims and their families, can occur against anyone doing any kind of public work, in the context of domestic abuse or as anonymous, vexatious harassment.
Public bodies can refuse to delete the data on the grounds that they feel it necessary to retain that data for compliance with a separate legal obligation or for performing a task in the public interest. To overturn this, a person has to demonstrate that the public body’s retention of the malicious data is not necessary for either of these purposes, thereby putting the burden of proof on to the data subject and potentially requiring lengthy court action.
For most people, this is not possible or desirable, leaving them with no legal recourse. This amendment would update the UK general data protection regulation and address these inconsistencies, mirroring the concept of exceptional circumstances under which any deletion would take place. The proposed new clause would give all data controllers guidance on how to manage situations where there are competing obligations—for example, in safeguarding or identifying repeated attacks on an individual via third-party reporting. Unlike the current right to object, this would create an absolute right to request deletion and therefore overrule exemptions that currently apply. This would ensure that public bodies such as local authorities are able to comply with these requests for deletion without risking failing to meet their legal duties. At present, these authorities are very clear that due to existing data protection rules they cannot take this step.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 115 and would certainly have put my name to it had there been any space. I was shocked when I discovered this initially, and remain shocked, that victims are advised to postpone counselling and therapy, which goes against everything that I understand about the importance of counselling and therapy. It is another instance of victims being regarded as a sort of unwarranted hindrance to a prosecution. They are bystanders —somehow they are being too awkward, almost by their existence.
I very much support the amendment. However, I wonder whether the arguments do not extend to some extreme offences other than sexual offences—violence, modern slavery and so on. Since we will not be voting at this stage and, on an amendment like this it would be unusual for the Minister to say, “I agree”, and then sit down, if this amendment comes back at a later stage, perhaps thought could be given to extending it. It could be about not just victims of offences—I am not making the distinction between sexual and other offences—but about victims of acts which, if proved, would be offences. That may be a bit technical at this point.
I also support Amendment 106. There is something very perverse about the data subject being so hampered in the deletion of her or his own data, as if our personality and humanity were somehow lesser than our data presence.
My name is to the first two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which are about independent legal advocates and legal advice. We had a long debate on Monday about the skills that are needed by advocates, and Amendment 78 seems to bring those skills together. An advocate needs a range of skills, which should include legal qualification. I do not know whether it needs to be that of a solicitor— I am a solicitor; a legal executive with experience in this could do it equally well—but it is about the combination of the legal skills and other skills that are needed to work in support of victims. I do not suggest that solicitors would not have those.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendments 103 and 103A, which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has already talked about. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Russell of Liverpool.
These amendments would simply add the Children’s Commissioner as a statutory consultee for the codes of practice alongside the Information Commissioner, the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses and the domestic abuse commissioner. The Minister might well say that this is covered by the phrase
“such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, pointed out proudly earlier in our debates that children are mentioned in the Bill three times; this is an opportunity to add them two more times, making five in all. By simply adding the Children’s Commissioner to the list of names in the Bill, the Government can, with no effort or watering down, show the importance of children as victims. I look forward to the Minister’s answer.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I support most of the amendments in this group, which is quite lengthy. One of my key priorities for the Bill is that it delivers greater safeguards to protect the privacy of victims of sexual violence. That is why I am speaking in support of these valuable amendments.
The Government’s rape review was in response to the concern at collapsing charging and prosecution numbers. The review found that most victims did not see a charge or reach court, and one in two victims withdrew from the rape investigations. Privacy concerns led many to withdraw. It had become standard practice for victims who reported to the police to be asked to hand over large quantities of private information. This included digital data from mobile phones, but also what is known as “third-party materials”—personal information about an individual held by organisations.
“Third-party materials” is a seemingly innocuous phrase, but it belies a greater meaning and significance. In reality, it means education records, medical files, social services records or therapy notes. These can all be requested as part of an investigation—an investigation that focuses on the victim, not the accused. I quote one sexual violence survivor:
“I felt anxious, confused and infuriated. I was under far deeper investigation than the rapist (who I have no doubt would have had questionable material had they searched the same). They had refused to take physical evidence—my clothing from the night of the attack—but wanted to investigate my private life. I asked them to justify each request but they could not, so I did not provide it”.
This material often includes documents that the victim may have never seen. These can be introduced at court and used to attack the victim. As one victim told me:
“I had good support for the criminal court. Good preparation. But it made me angry. I was made out to be a liar and it made me feel low. That came as a surprise—it was dreadful. I wasn’t expecting it. Afterwards I was very upset and couldn’t control myself. I started having dreams and flash backs. I was asked about things in my records that I knew nothing about—my past and I didn’t know why”.
In effect, victims are being forced to choose between seeking justice and their right to a private life. That is not a choice; that is an ultimatum. The Government made reassuring noises when they announced an amendment to the Bill over the summer. They promised better protection for rape victims from invasive record requests, but I am concerned that their proposals do not offer the level of protection that we are calling for or that victims need. We need provisions that will offer the protection required. For this reason I am in full support of Amendments 101, 102 and 173, tabled by my noble friend Lady Morgan, which my noble friend Lady Finn eloquently addressed today.
Some noble Lords may recognise these provisions: my predecessor as Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird, secured similar amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. These were designed to protect rape victims from overintrusive and excessive police requests for personal mobile data downloads. This amendment not only provides greater support for victims but provides police with a consistent approach to handling requests for digital material and third-party material. Their job is difficult enough as it is, without lawmakers adding to the complexity of their work by placing two very different processes and criteria side by side.
I am also pleased to support Amendments 78 and 79, which call for free legal representation for victims of rape and sexual assault to ensure that their privacy is also protected. Requests for information are often a clear violation of our human right to privacy—our Article 8 rights, to use the legal jargon. My predecessor argued that there should be a right in law for victims to be given free legal representation where these rights are threatened. I wholeheartedly and absolutely agree. Put simply, a lawyer advises and makes representations on the victims’ behalf, cooling police requests for data and improving victim confidence in proceedings. In their rape review, the Government committed to consider a pilot, and I will push hard to get this up and running.
I also support Amendment 115, which if enacted would enable rape victims to seek therapy to help them cope and recover. I am always concerned when I meet victims of rape who tell me they have declined to seek counselling. They are rightly told that notes from counselling sessions might be disclosed to the court. Worse, they might be disclosed to the defendant: intimate, personal details shared with their abuser. That cannot be right. As a result, many victims will wait until the trial is complete before seeking therapy. This can mean years without support, suffering alone and in torment. Some may take their life. It is no surprise that many withdraw so they can access counselling sooner. That is no good for the victim, no good for justice and no good for society.
Currently, notes are routinely requested and can end up being the subject of cross-examination at court. As one survivor said when appearing on “Newsnight”:
“The defence said ‘Are you truthful?’ and when I said yes, she said—‘Well, you’re not exactly truthful with your husband are you? Would you like me to read your therapy notes out about what you’re currently discussing with your therapist?’ I said no. It was like a physical punch because I wasn’t expecting it. That someone would bring that up in a courtroom, about my current sex life. How, how is that relevant? It was violating—like another trauma”.
That is why I want to see records of therapy and counselling received by victims of sexual violence made subject to a form of privilege that would make them exempt from disclosure. It would not be an absolute privilege: judges could waive it if they considered a substantial value to the notes being disclosed. It is a model that balances the defendant’s right to a fair trial with a victim’s right to access counselling. We know it works. As my noble friend mentioned, it has been in place for many years in Australia, where the criminal justice system is comparable to ours. It is about a fairer model, and that is what the Bill needs to deliver: a level playing field for victims.
I also support Amendment 106. Like many others in this Committee, no doubt, I was appalled to hear that malicious individuals are weaponising legislation designed and put in place to protect vulnerable children. As we have already heard, if an individual makes a malicious complaint about someone to the police, the police can act to remove that record.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support effectively all the amendments in this group, but your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I am not going to speak to all of them. I will speak briefly to Amendments 101 and 102, introduced very ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. The essential point behind these amendments is to try to align this Bill with the clauses in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act that lay down the rules for digital disclosure.
I thought it might be helpful to try to find out what was happening with these new rules and whether they were actually working, so the Victims’ Commissioner’s office put in a request to try and find out. In true and typical form, the Government have not done any evaluation of before and after the Act came into effect specifically in this area.
However, a part of the Project Soteria programme is enacting this new code and some academics are looking at it, so we asked them for their feedback on whether the new code was working in terms of access to private data. They said they had
“seen a move towards better proportionality which they attribute to the Act. They have also seen less threats that investigations will end if the victim does not want to hand over their phone. There is also greater consideration given to alternative means of obtaining digital evidence such as screen shots”,
rather than taking everything off a phone. In conclusion —and this gives kudos to the Government—they said that
“the intentions of parliamentarians to change culture via the legislation do seem to be bearing fruit”,
which is very good news. So, since the evidence shows that it is working, it is not difficult to suggest that what was enacted through that Act should be mirrored exactly in this.
I move to Amendment 106, so ably spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. This is personal for me. I have known Stella Creasy since before she acquired a family, during the troubles and strife of the years that went by before she was blessed with two children. To have an individual who has never met you decide to use an anonymous profile to make complaints about you on the basis that he does not like some of her views, specifically on misogyny and the behaviour of some men, and say that on that basis you are an unfit mother, is simply staggering. It is also staggering that the police decided to take this seriously; they finally admitted that that was wrong and, in doing so, said that the officer had been spoken to and that it was a time for reflection and some learning. My own view is that he should have been given a complete and utter bollocking and should probably have been asked to leave the service, or at least put on probation. That is wholly unacceptable.
So it is wrong that this can happen in the first place. When it happens, if the police decide to take the complaint seriously, having not investigated it, and pass it on to social services, social services are in a sense obliged to put on your record that an investigation is taking place on the basis of the complaint, regardless of whether it has any merit. Despite the fact that Stella’s persecutor was found to be malicious and sentenced, it remains on the record. Waltham Forest says that it can and will do nothing about getting rid of it. Perversely, it says that it will keep it on the record because she is a safeguarding risk to her children, as people in future might try to cause her harm through them. I fail to understand that logic. I do not know what the barriers to entry are to gain employment in Waltham Forest, but I suggest they might be elevated somewhat if that is the degree of logic applied in a situation such as this.
So I implore the Government to look at this seriously. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, said, they should sit down and talk with interested parties to understand how this happened and try to work out how to prevent it in future, or how to develop very clear guidance to enable authorities to which complaints might be made to go through a decision tree, to analyse the veracity and probity of such allegations, thinking very carefully about the implications of actions they might take without having fully thought them through.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I will make three brief observations. First, I warmly commend Amendment 115. The law needs to balance very carefully the rights of the defendant and those of the victim. This is an admirable compromise, restricted to professional people, and I hope that it is a good example of the way that Parliament can move the law along to accord with present times.
Secondly, in relation to Amendment 102, consistency is critical. One must remember that the police will have to operate this, and it will be hard work for them as the law is made more and more complicated. Having slight differences between systems makes their life impossible. We need only to look at experience with search warrants and the terrible mess that was made of those to realise why it is essential to have consistency.
The third point relates to Amendment 78. There has been a lot of controversy as to whether victims of rape should have an advocate in court to represent them. As I understand the amendment, it goes nowhere near that; it is merely for advice. It seems to me that an awful lot of the difficulties that occur in rape cases could be solved by the victim having someone who is independent of the prosecution to talk to, because the prosecution cannot go to the extent of the help the victim needs. I am sure that, in the end, this would increase significantly confidence in the criminal justice system. The problem is cost; maybe the Government, with appropriate legislation, should try it in a series of pilots to see how it is best run, rather than rolling out nationwide.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I will make a very brief point, following on from that made by my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
There is a group of victims who are particularly vulnerable: those with impairments in mental capacity, who may have difficulty in expressing and explaining what has happened to them and are vulnerable to misinterpretation of anything they say—they are in particular need of advocates who understand their needs.
Many years ago, I was asked by Gwent Police to assist them in a prosecution in relation to people with profound mental incapacity who had been abused and raped. It was very difficult to pull the evidence together, and it was a very steep learning curve to see how difficult it is to let the veracity of what they were trying to tell one be heard and come through. I hope the Government will recognise that there is a group in the population who are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and to sexual abuse by the very nature of having learning difficulties and impairments, and of course that also includes young people with autism—we know how vulnerable they are to influence, and to coercion into a situation that they believe.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, in this group, I will speak only to Amendments 78 and 79, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Hamwee. They call for free independent legal advocates and free independent legal advice for victims of rape, and I support the principle behind them. I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that they do not necessarily talk about advocacy in court, although Amendment 78 does talk about free independent legal advocates.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said that the amendments will not affect our adversarial system; nor will they affect it adversely. However, I hope that they will, if adopted, have an effect by ensuring that the interests and voices of victims are considered and heard throughout the criminal justice system, and—certainly for the purposes of these amendments—more comprehensively in rape cases, and that will be wholly beneficial.
These amendments lie at the heart of what this Bill is all about, which is to bring about a transformation in the way we look after the victims of crime. We have moved, but far too slowly. When I practised in the criminal courts a long time ago now—and this is not intended to be an exercise in reminiscence—as both prosecutor and defender, we were almost encouraged to take pride in the structure of criminal cases as a contest between the state—the Crown—represented by the prosecution’s lawyers, and the defendant, represented by independent barristers and solicitors, generally paid for by the state. The adversarial system was all. The victim, usually called the complainant—or in financial cases, the loser—was universally treated as no more than a witness, liable to be harshly cross-examined almost without restriction, and deserving of no extra consideration on account of the ordeal suffered as a result of the crime.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for so admirably speaking to Amendments 78 and 79—I will not cover them again—and to all noble Lords who have spoken. I want to focus my contribution initially on Amendment 106, which I have also signed. I have talked to Stella Creasy both about her own experience and about mine.
I had two incidents with my stalker-harasser. The first was at the beginning of the 2005 election, when, coming out of a Sky studio, I was told that my local newspaper wanted to speak to me about the fact that I was under investigation by Special Branch for electoral fraud—which was the first I had heard of it. It transpired that the person who was then identified as my stalker had reported me to Special Branch for falsifying my nomination papers and had then issued a press release for the weekly deadline of my local newspaper—which rather left me in a difficult position to discuss it.
A few hours later, my agent and I sat with two officers from Special Branch, who were extremely helpful. They were clearly more senior than the police officer that Stella encountered, because they were very clear that this was malicious. Worse than that, it was an intent to waste police time and money on an investigation that had no cause. They had briefly examined the allegation about why my nomination papers were false and deemed that this was malicious too. As a result, the whole problem went away, other than a severe talking-to to the person who had made the complaint.
Three years on—I think I mentioned this in one of the earlier sessions—one of the letters to the newspapers about me alleged that I was not fulfilling my role as a foster parent correctly by being a candidate. They had also reported me to social services. At that point, it became extremely helpful for the social worker, whom we knew quite well, to be able to ring Special Branch and say, “There is a malicious campaign going on,” and the whole thing just stopped. Is that not what should happen in every single case where it is clearly malicious?
I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, about Waltham Forest. It seems to me that they have lost sight of the actual case here. While it is important that both Stella Creasy and her children are appropriately protected, to do so following a malicious complaint in the terms of that complaint seems to me to be completely and utterly wrong.
From these Benches, we support all the other amendments that have been laid, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for introducing amendments on third-party materials and therapy and counselling data. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her Amendments 78 and 79. As my noble friend Lord Marks outlined, this is absolutely at the heart of giving victims justice during a process and after a process. They are, perhaps, very detailed amendments— I am very aware of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, about the police needing a balance, but there is a way through that. At the moment, the balance is entirely against the rights of the victim, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond in a positive way.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, with this group of amendments we arrive at a particularly sensitive and emotive set of issues, as noble Lords have so movingly described. I shall do my best to provide responses to each of the amendments in as constructive and informative a way as I can.
I start by addressing Amendment 101, in the name of my noble friend Lady Morgan and spoken to by my noble friend Lady Bertin. The amendment seeks to revise the Government’s new Clauses 44A to 44F, which place a duty on authorised persons, including the police, to request victim information only when it is necessary and proportionate in pursuit of a reasonable line of enquiry. It would instead require agreement before the police could request victim information.
To pick up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, when we were developing this legislation we wanted to consider very carefully the desirability of aligning the provisions around requests for victim information and the extraction of information from digital devices. Where possible, we have ensured consistency between those provisions.
The new victim information clauses in this Bill do not grant new powers to authorised persons; instead, they place safeguards around requests for third-party material. This is unlike the powers governing the extraction of material from devices in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, which give new statutory powers to authorised persons to request a device and extract information from it on the basis of agreement.
My noble friend’s amendment is based on the principle of victim agreement, but there is a key point we need to remember here. Unlike the information contained on a personal device, the victim does not own the material held by a third party, and therefore cannot agree to its disclosure. That does not mean that the victim’s views are immaterial, and I will come on to that, but the decision to release this information instead lies with the third party. The third party, of course, must be able to fulfil their own obligations under the Data Protection Act 2018, which governs the processing of personal data by competent authorities.
When considering digital information, it is likely that information held on a device could be accessible via other sources: that is, messages between a victim and suspect could be accessible from the suspect’s device. That is unlikely to be the case for third-party material. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to mandate that a victim agree to a request before the third party can disclose the material, because that may prevent the police accessing vital information relevant to the case.
Furthermore, a suspect’s right to a fair trial is already enshrined in law as part of the Human Rights Act 1998, which new measures must not contravene. This amendment could prevent authorised persons accessing information they need to support a reasonable line of inquiry, whether it points towards or away from a suspect. Investigators should always work to balance the public interest in obtaining the material against the consequential impact on the victim’s privacy.
Of course we recognise that it is best practice for investigators to work with and consult victims, so that their views and objections can be sought and recorded. That is why we have supported police in doing so in the draft statutory code of practice that we have published alongside the Bill.
Amendment 106 seeks to revise current data protection legislation, so that victims of malicious complaints involving third parties can prevent the processing, and subsequently request the deletion, of personal data gathered during a safeguarding investigation where the complaint was not upheld.
It is of course right that people are able to flag genuinely held concerns about children whom they believe to be vulnerable. It is also right that social services fulfil their duty to treat each safeguarding case seriously and to make inquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer harm. However, equally, malicious reporting and false claims made to children’s social care are completely unacceptable. They not only cause harm and distress to those subject to the false claims but divert crucial time and resources from front-line services and their ability to undertake investigations into cases where there are genuine safe- guarding concerns.
Current data protection legislation sets out that data controllers must respond to any request from a data subject, including requests for erasure, and then must consider the full circumstances of a request—including the context in which the data was provided—before refusing. Where a data subject is dissatisfied with the response to their request, the current rights of appeal allow a data subject to contest a refusal and, ultimately, raise a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
I assure my noble friend that, as part of its decision-making process, the ICO will take into consideration circumstances where a malicious claim has been made that may or may not amount to criminal conduct. Where a complaint to the ICO is upheld, the ICO can tell the organisation to assist with resolving the complaint, such as providing information or correcting any inaccuracies. The ICO can make recommendations to the organisation about how it can improve its information rights practices, and can take regulatory action in the most serious cases.
I hope that the process I have set out reassures my noble friend, and the Committee, that the current data protection legislation provides adequate protection. Therefore, in our view, additional provision is not needed.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Can the noble Earl clarify that he is saying that it is up to the victim to take the action?
Earl Howe (Con)
The law is there to enable them to do that. However, where they have an advocate, that person can act on their behalf. I recognise what the noble Baroness is implying in that question. All this is an extremely stressful and traumatic process for the individual involved.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
May I pick up on the Minister’s response to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton? The whole problem in this group is about the onus that is continually placed on the victim. It would be really helpful for the victim and those supporting them if there were an ability to short-cut some of that access. It would be enormously helpful if the Minister could go back and perhaps seek advice from the ICO about whether there are exceptional circumstances like that, because it is such a burden.
Earl Howe (Con)
I will be very happy to do that because I fully recognise the seriousness of the issue, and in particular the appalling events that Stella Creasy had to endure.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
The noble Earl has laid out, in his usual exemplary way, the way that the system is meant to work and the way it is designed. I suggest that the acid test would be to go to the officials concerned in Waltham Forest and ask them to describe, without leading the witness, exactly how they see what the noble Earl has just described—how they understand it—and how they therefore see what they can and should do. I suspect the results would be some distance away from what the noble Earl has just described, and therein lies the problem. It is fine to have a system, a process and a code that are meant to work, but if they are not working, which they clearly were not in this case, to put the onus on the individual victim to try to rectify that does not seem like justice, and neither does it seem sensible or proportionate.
Earl Howe
I have heard the strength of feeling on this, and I will be more than happy to take the issues raised back to my colleagues and officials in the department. I will be happy to write to noble Lords about this, and I would also be happy to arrange for my noble friend and interested Peers to meet me, or my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, to discuss the issues that have arisen.
I turn to Amendment 103, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the distinct needs and experiences of children are reflected in the code of practice that the noble Lord mentions, and that is why we have included specific guidance in the draft code for handling victim information requests for children. I agree with the noble Lord that it is essential to make sure that the final code reflects best practice in this area, and that is why my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy has instructed officials to review the list of statutory consultees for this code of practice.
I turn next to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which seek to require the development of proposals for schemes to give victims of rape access to free independent legal advice and representation. I agree that it is extremely important that victims are confident in their rights and are aware of those rights, particularly when preparing for trial and when requests for their personal information are made; I found much that I could agree with much of the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Marks.
We wanted to ensure that our understanding of this issue is as comprehensive as possible and, to that end, the Government asked the Law Commission to consider the merits of independent legal advice for victims as part of its comprehensive review into the use of evidence in sexual offence prosecutions. The consultation closed in September last year, and we expect the final report to be delivered in the autumn of this year. To avoid making changes at this stage that could pre-empt the outcome of the Law Commission’s review, and to ensure that we are considering all the evidence as a whole, we will consider the Law Commission’s report and respond in due course. There is no reason why the tenor of this debate should not form part of the Government’s deliberations once we have the Law Commission’s report in our hands.
Perhaps I could add something around the therapeutic support issue. Victims of rape should not be told that they cannot access the therapeutic support that they need to heal from the trauma that they have endured. The Crown Prosecution Service pre-trial therapy guidance is absolutely clear that therapy should not be delayed for any reason connected with a criminal investigation or prosecution. The guidance sets out clearly that it is for the victim to make decisions about therapy with their therapist and that criminal justice practitioners should play no role in the decision-making process.
In the rape review action plan, we recognised that victims of rape frequently experience intrusive requests for personal information. To improve that situation, we have taken a number of actions, including legislating through the Bill to introduce a statutory code for the police to ensure that requests for victim information are made only when necessary, proportionate and relevant to a reasonable line of inquiry. The police must also provide full information to the victim on what information has been requested, why it has been requested and how it will be used. A draft code of practice has been published. When it is finalised, it will be statutory, and police will have a duty to have regard to the code when making requests. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I ask whether the code will, in fact, introduce what the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, called a privilege against requests made for records of therapeutic interventions. That is one of the problems: therapy is deterred by the fear of a future request for notes to be disclosed. That is a very serious issue.
Earl Howe (Con)
I recognise the seriousness of the issue. I have no advice in my brief on that, but I will be happy to write to the noble Lord on that point.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, it is exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said. He put it so succinctly, more so than I did—I would go on, because I am so passionate about this.
I have admiration for the noble Earl. What worries me in all this legislation is that it is so simple to say, but when it is enacted on a traumatised rape victim, it is not as simple as joining the dots. I am up for having further conversations, but this is for the professionals. While we can stand here and say this, I am still going through the criminal justice system, and believe you me: I could write another book on how it does not do a service to victims—and I am in the position that I am in, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton; it does not follow.
For rape victims, it is really hard-hitting when they are going to a SARC centre to be forensically examined, and they are talking to individual people. While we want to have trust and faith in our police officers, the police are so not like what we will have in statutory guidance. Also, what do we class as reasonable? Everybody within our criminal justice system has a different definition. It should not be for the victim to think, “What is reasonable?”, when they just want to do what is best.
I really want this to work, but I wish we could be cautious and understand that the people we are talking about are traumatised. They may have been raped not once or twice: it could have been in their home. Everything is intrusive, and it is down to the victim to have a voice to go forward. I wish we could get that in the guidance and the legislation, because it is their lives that we are speaking about and it is their lives that we need to put back on a level playing field.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I will also come in on this. I have huge respect for the noble Earl, and I have huge respect for the police, but I am afraid I cannot accept the idea that all 43 police forces and all chief constables will look at, understand and know the code of conduct, and that this will somehow be better than a judge saying that something is right or wrong when it comes to releasing therapeutic records. I would certainly like to meet him and others about this, ahead of Report.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am the first to agree that a code of practice takes us only a certain distance. We also need to ensure that there is proper training for police and others. We had a short debate about this earlier in the week, and I hope I gave some useful information to noble Lords on that front. I am, of course, very happy to speak to my noble friends about this—as I am sure my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy will be, once he gets better. It is not a simple matter, and I did not intend to suggest that it is.
On the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Bertin, as I have already said, it is vital that victims of crime can access the justice system and get the support they need without fear that their privacy will be violated. I am aware of concerns that deeply private information about victims, including notes from counselling sessions, have sometimes been used inappropriately to discredit victims—in particular, victims of rape and serious sexual offences—seeking justice through the criminal justice system. This can, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, pointed out a minute ago, prevent victims from accessing the support they need in the first instance. That should not be the case, and I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the topic through the amendment.
My noble friend’s amendment seeks to put in place a judicial barrier for disclosure of counselling records and, with some exceptions, to create a requirement for the court not to grant access to this material where the disclosure was made in confidence by the victim to a person providing support services in a professional capacity.
Through the Bill, we are placing a new statutory duty on the police, as I have said, to request victims’ information from a third party only where necessary and proportionate in pursuit of a reasonable line of inquiry. Police must also provide information to the victim on what information has been requested, why, and how it will be used.
As I have outlined, the Government have asked the Law Commission to examine the trial process in sexual offence prosecutions and consider the law, guidance and practice relating to the use of evidence. This review will include consideration of whether a court direction should be required before accessing third-party material such as counselling records, and consideration of international examples where this system is in place.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I have not spoken in this group so far, because I agreed with everything said by the proposers and did not want to take up the Committee’s time, but, in the light of what I have just heard—in general, but also specifically about counselling notes— I feel moved to. A general obligation on necessity and proportionality is not going to cut it, I am afraid, because counselling and therapeutic notes are special. Just as legal advice is special, and subject to special protection in the courtroom, there is no reason why we cannot act to make such notes special too.
I appreciate that the noble Earl is heroically stepping into another’s brief, no doubt at short notice, but I think that it is for the department to reflect on the quality of thinking so far. Waiting for the Law Commission will take too long. There are already too many women who have not come forward to report their rapes because of the well-publicised problem with counselling notes. They are being counselled by public authorities to choose between counselling or taking their criminal case forward—this is totally unacceptable.
My goodness, the irony of relying on general principles in the Human Rights Act is perhaps the richest I have heard in a long time, given some of the positions that senior members of the Government are taking on that Act and the ECHR. I hope the noble Earl will reflect on these answers or urge others responsible to reflect.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, having tasked the Law Commission, as we have, with preparing a full-scale set of recommendations in this area, it would be unthinkable for us to pre-empt its report. I am afraid I must disagree with the noble Baroness. I realise how emotive and stressful an area this is for anyone who is intimately involved in it day to day, but that is how we have to proceed.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I want to make a technical point about the Law Commission review, which I have full respect for. As I understand it, the commission will not be looking into pre-charge situations, so the amendment would still stand as that subject is not being tackled by the Law Commission. I reiterate that I just do not buy the idea that police officers all around the country are necessarily going to have the right training to enact the responsibilities that we are putting on them. We really will be pursuing this, I am afraid.
Earl Howe (Con)
I hear what my noble friend has said. I was able to give what I hoped was helpful information in our debate on Monday about police training, but it is by no means an overnight process, as I am the first to acknowledge. Still, work is under way, and it is surely an important ingredient in the mix.
We think that the Law Commission is best placed to conduct a holistic review of the existing system and to make recommendations for improvement where necessary, and the Government are most reluctant to make changes at this stage that could pre-empt the outcome of its review. However, we can all look forward to closely reviewing and responding to its findings and recommendations when they are published later in the year.
Before I turn to Amendment 173, I shall address the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about victims with limited mental capacity. There are general points in the code about enhanced rights if the victim’s quality of evidence is likely to be affected because of a mental disorder. They may be supported by a registered intermediary if a mental disorder affects their ability to communicate. Some communications under the code might be done with a nominated family spokesperson if the victim’s mental impairment means that they are unable to communicate or lack the capacity to do so.
The Law Commission is looking at the impact of rape myths on people with disabilities or mental health conditions and how the current legislation and practice of the use of intermediaries is working in respect of complainants in sexual offence cases with disabilities and disorders.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I did a report on registered intermediaries. Again, I mean no disrespect to the Minister, because this is a very passionate area that we are speaking about, but we have a shortage of registered intermediaries, and they are the ones who train the police to get the best evidence.
I am concerned about people with autism or special needs, and even victims who have nothing apart from their trauma. My concern is that there is a shortage of registered intermediaries, and the reason is that they were not getting paid to do the job. I ask the Minister to write to me to see where we are on that position. While he has given a copy-and-paste response, in a sense, it does not help to fix the problem for people with special needs.
I have met a couple of victims of rape who were disabled. They thought they were raped because they were disabled, but it has never left me that when they went through the court trial they found that those people were on the web and looking at disabled people. It was not because that victim was disabled. So I am concerned. The Minister does not have to answer now, but I ask him to write to me about where we are on registered intermediaries after that report six or seven years ago.
Earl Howe (Con)
I would be happy to write to my noble friend.
Amendment 173 seeks to extend Clause 24 to the whole of the UK. At the moment these measures apply to England and Wales, on the basis that policing is a devolved matter. This aligns with the territorial extent of the majority of measures within the Bill. We have also taken the decision to limit the scope to England and Wales as, following engagement with the devolved Governments, it is clear that there is no appetite at present for these provisions to extend further.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I assume the noble Earl is asking me to withdraw my amendment.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The noble Earl will be able to report with some veracity to his noble friend, who we hope will be back with us next week, that there is a complete degree of unity across the Committee about the need for action on all these amendments.
I thank the noble Earl for the fact that there has been some movement; I think that at least two meetings will flow from this group of amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, in place of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for her introduction and the suggestion that we should meet to discuss Amendment 106 and take that discussion forward together.
On Amendment 106, we have talked about my honourable friend Stella Creasy, who I have known since she was about 16 or 17 years old, but the briefing we got told us of many other examples of people who had been harassed. As one anonymous case said:
“Out of the blue Z received a call from their local police sharing details of a complaint made about the treatment of her children. The anonymously submitted complaint made a series of false claims accusing Z of neglect and abuse ranging from failing to feed or clothe their children correctly or take them to the dentist and GP. Social services were able to confirm that Z’s children attended school, the dentist and were registered with their local GP. Despite a lengthy investigation Z is no further in understanding who made this complaint, and their children’s record remains”.
She feels wretched about that fact. Of course, that carries forward to what happens to those children. Every time that mother has to fill in a form or a job application in public services of some sort, the fact that the report exists on the record is material.
Many noble Lords hold positions. I am a non-executive director of the Whittington Hospital and have had to go through the usual CRB checks to hold that position. If this was me, I would have to have declared that. That is what happened to Stella Creasy and all these other women who have been harassed and about whom vexatious complaints have been made. It is not just that this is unfair and a continuation of harassment; it has a material effect on those people and their children. We need to find a remedy for this issue.
I turn to the other amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for her introduction and for the way in which she talked to her amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, made her usual powerful and informed contribution. The words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, were very wise. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, champions some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, was perfectly correct in saying that the effects of Amendments 78 and 79 in my name would be only beneficial, not just for the victims of rape but for all the authorities and for their conduct in dealing with these victims.
The question is: can we wait another couple of years for the Law Commission to report and for the Government to consider it and take it forward? I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, had to say. This issue may not fall within the scope of what the Law Commission is considering. We all need to know that, so that the discussions we might have with the Minister can be resolved in a spirit of information. I praise the noble Earl who has had to stand in for dealing with all these issues in his normal informed and courteous manner.
Finally, Amendment 115 on not delaying therapy is vital. As my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said, the idea that you have to choose between therapy and justice is so abhorrent that we cannot wait another couple of years to be able to sort that out.
I thank the noble Earl. I look forward to the meetings and conversations we will have between now and Report, when I suspect we will return to many of these issues. I withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Parental alienation in criminal domestic abuse casesIn section 1 of the Children Act 1989, after subsection (7) insert—“(8) Anyone involved in the case who is also a victim (of criminal conduct) within section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (meaning of “victim”) cannot be considered by the family court as a potential perpetrator of parental alienation.””Member’s explanatory statement
This clause would seek to ensure that victims under this Bill could not be disadvantaged by considerations of parental alienation in the family court.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I have recovered my calm and my optimism that we may get some more positive noises from the Government in the next group.
This large group could easily have been degrouped because it covers two fairly distinct areas. This is a very long Bill with a lot of amendments, so maybe keeping this as one group was an attempt to assist the business managers. I hope that the Committee will bear with me in separating the two principal issues covered by this long list of amendments.
Amendments 84 to 100 are about what is called Jade’s law. There are other concerns about the family court and the way in which its process has been and is being used abusively against victims within the definition in the current Bill. Amendments 82, 110, 111 and 117 refer to this.
I turn first to Jade’s law. The Committee will remember that last October the Government amended this Bill in the other place to include new Clause 16. This is what is being called Jade’s law. The intention is to ensure that a parent who kills a partner or an ex-partner with whom they have children will automatically have their parental responsibility suspended upon sentencing. The purpose is not to burden family members already in a state of some trauma with having to apply subsequently to the family court of their own volition to ask for the parental rights of the killer to be removed. Parental rights could be suspended as part of the sentencing process to take away that additional procedural burden. It is often bereaved grandparents and close family members who are in that devastating situation.
Jade’s law is named for Jade Ward, who was murdered by her former partner in 2021, with her four children sleeping in another room. Jade’s family campaigned for a change in the law after Jade’s murderer was able to continue to take part in decisions relating to the children. There are other case studies too.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to sign all the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in this group. I will not go through the detail of them, but I want to make a couple of comments about Jade’s law and parental alienation to set in context why all the amendments are necessary. They certainly try to remedy the poor behaviour of ex-partners especially, but not only those, who are offenders through the criminal courts system. As we have heard through the passage of the Bill, we are talking about the most manipulative and vindictive people, who will continue to do everything they can to persecute their ex-partner or, I am afraid, sometimes their current partner.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, referred to the report from the Ministry of Justice’s harm panel published in 2020. It found evidence that through the family court system abusers were exercising
“continued control through repeat litigation and the threat of repeat litigation”.
Its recommendations outline comprehensive changes to the system to stop this happening using a whole series of mechanisms.
Among other things, the panel recommended that the basic design principles for private law children’s proceedings should be set out in the way it described and which I will not go into. Much more importantly, it seems to be safety focused and trauma aware. The problem with the offenders we are talking about is that those children are already traumatised.
Although the report was principally about children, it talks about parents in private law cases as well. One problem faced in family courts is the increasing number of litigants in person. It is not even a counsel representing one of the parents; it is the estranged partner, who may have a criminal record for their behaviour, cross-examining their ex and other witnesses. That is just not appropriate. I know the law has changed on that, but that is the context in which the report was written.
The Minister referred in a previous group to the importance of training, and indeed we have had amendments on that. Recommendation 11.11 by the harm panel echoed amendments that your Lordships’ House has seen in recent years, on training in the family justice system to cover a
“cultural change programme to introduce and embed reforms”.
It then goes through a whole string of items which I will not mention, but it specifically mentions the problems of parental alienation.
Prior to that report, it was very difficult to get the family courts even to accept that there was such a thing as parental alienation—the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has nodded at me. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 certainly made some improvements, but unfortunately the reason for these amendments is that there are too many holes in the current system that mean that victims going through private family law proceedings can be inappropriately assessed by experts, with some inappropriately concluding that victims’ allegations, including those made by children, are evidence that the victim parent is “alienating” the other.
The victim parent often cannot get the family court to consider the previous criminal behaviour of their former partner or even a caution—I suppose that technically counts as criminal. The point is that—and we have debated this a lot in your Lordships’ House—the family court rightly prides itself on being a stand-alone court system, but in this instance the behaviour that was found through the criminal system is now replicated in the family court system; it is not everywhere but it happens. Family courts need to recognise that and take it into account.
There is recognition now of what is called the “parental alienation trap” in academic research both here and in America. Basically, it means that victims are accused of alienation. Not only does that compound the trauma from the abuse but that trauma is then used as evidence that the mother or child—and it usually is a mother—is disordered and therefore an alienator. That is a trap that you cannot get out of in a court, because whatever you do is wrong.
A further problem is that some parents who are calling their former partners disordered can now get specialist advisers who believe in parental alienation. One bit of evidence from the Victims’ Commissioner for London was a quote from a victim of the family courts:
“The therapist recommended a 90 day plan for my son to spend time with his Dad with no contact with me. She wrote in her report that there was a need to ‘sever the bond between mother and child’. The ‘experts’ then had free rein granted by the judge to force me and my son through privately paid therapy every week at £150 per hour. The therapists and social worker told me if I didn’t, they wouldn’t give me my son back. They wanted to take him away at the end of 90 days and give full custody to my ex but my ex refused as he said ‘I had learnt my lesson and he had a life and didn’t want my son all the time’. I was one of the lucky ones. I had to fight this case for over 2.5 years and it cost me a total of just under £900,000”.
People who have access to resources are using their money to manipulate the family court system even more.
It is also extraordinary that it is possible for those on bail or awaiting trial for domestic or child sexual abuse offences to have unsupervised contact with their children. Amendment 111 would prevent this. For similar reasons, victims of domestic abuse need protecting from disclosure of their personal and private medical records, as we discussed in the previous group. I will not repeat the arguments, but they are as strong here, particularly where the litigant in person will see those details in all their glory.
While we welcome the Government’s amendment to Clause 16 in the Commons to take account of Jade’s law, it does not go far enough to protect children, particularly children who have been abused by a parent—unbelievably, they retain the right to parental responsibility above the safeguarding of a child. Amendments 84 to 100 on Jade’s law also cover the issue that happened with Jane Clough, who was murdered by her ex-partner. I had the privilege through the stalking law inquiry in 2011-12 to meet Jane’s parents, John and Penny Clough. Ever since their daughter’s murder, they have campaigned tirelessly for legislation to protect victims and their children from their violent and murdering partners and ex-partners.
It is really important that these lacunae in the family court system are closed. We need to make sure that children, whom the family courts stand there to protect, are the absolute priority and that every bit of evidence from the criminal court system or other systems, through repeated litigation through the family courts, is taken into account.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I support all these amendments. As Victims’ Commissioner, I have been in contact with many victims who have experienced criminal offending and are going through the family courts. I have raised concerns about how, as I hear from victims of domestic abuse in particular, the family courts can be a highly traumatising environment. Anecdotally, from someone who has worked in family law, I hear that you have only to go into the family courts to see how private they are. You cannot even walk freely. The barristers take over and you go before the judges. It is very clinical at an emotional time.
I was pleased when this was acknowledged by the Government, which resulted in the harms panel report, as has been discussed. I was also pleased that the Government legislated through the Domestic Abuse Act, in which I was heavily involved, to prevent perpetrators of domestic abuse cross-examining their victim in family court proceedings. However, we still have issues within the family courts for victims of abuse. As has been said, parental alienation has been increasingly argued in the family courts and even on social media when you speak out about it. It is interesting that we are talking about it in this Chamber to protect those victims. I am aware of cases where it has been used by an abuser to discredit their victim in child custody hearings. I was also shocked to discover that so-called experts in these cases are not always qualified or regulated to provide such opinions, and yet weight is frequently given to the evidence in court.
As we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, abusers will often try to paint the abused parent as unfit in other ways, sometimes relying on medical records which detail evidence of the mental effects of trauma that they have caused. In fact, I would like to see that put down to coercive control by the abuser, rather than the victim having problems. We have to back up these claims for mental instability. It cannot be right that an abuser can go into a family court and use it as a tool of abuse. Therefore, I am wholly supportive of the measures to reduce the opportunity for an abuser to make false claims about their victim, and which seek to ensure that only qualified experts give evidence which is considered by the family courts making these difficult decisions.
I urge the Government to support Amendments 110 and 117. Although it is relatively rare, thankfully, we know that children die at the hands of an abusive parent during unsupervised contact, where abuse is a factor in the marriage breakdown. Research conducted by Women’s Aid considered the deaths of 19 children in such circumstances in a 10-year period—even one such death is too many and no children should be at risk in this way.
I urge the Government to support Amendment 111, which seeks to prohibit unsupervised contact for a parent awaiting trial, or on bail for domestic abuse, sexual violence or child abuse-related offences. The Government first proposed legislating to create Jade’s law after campaigning by the family of Jade Ward, who was killed by her former partner. This law seeks to, in effect, remove the parental rights of someone who kills their child’s other parent—a move I welcome. However, it does raise concerns about what it means for women who kill an abusive partner. Are we really saying that they should automatically lose their parental rights, as well as being imprisoned? I am in favour of measures which seek to mitigate the effect of Jade’s law in such circumstances being included in legislation. I therefore ask the Government to support Amendment 89.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation, but also with an open mind because I want some clarity on one or two of the amendments. In general, the group of amendments we are discussing seem eminently sensible in terms of safe- guarding, but I seek some clarification. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, can give me some help, because her explanation was very well made, detailed and useful, and explained the two different groups.
My concern is specifically with Amendment 82, which says, in effect, that anyone who is a victim of criminal conduct within Section 1
“cannot be considered by the family court as a potential perpetrator of parental alienation”.
It seems an extraordinary thing to put into law. To say that somebody can never be considered by the family court to be a potential perpetrator of anything would seem to go against the spirit of open inquiry; for example, the possibility that even if one is a victim, one might well indulge in something unsavoury.
In the previous group, we heard a huge amount about the damage that can be caused by false allegations. We must always consider the possibility that false allegations are used to alienate one parent against another; this has become known as “parental alienation”. I am rather sympathetic to the concern raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, about medicalisation —I particularly do not like quack medicalisation—and I am glad to hear that many noble Lords are worried about the fact that so many people who call themselves experts are not necessarily experts, which is something I have been arguing for quite some time across a range of issues, so all that is good.
None the less, Amendment 82 uses the term “parental alienation”, and I want to know how this amendment will help, because if anyone is using, for example, falsifications that are aimed at removing one parent from a child’s life, even if that parent was previously guilty of a crime, we have to be careful, do we not?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Yes, I said the other day in speaking to my amendments, I hope everyone accepts, that more women are the victims of domestic violence, but it is also the case that it can work both ways. I would like each allegation to be carefully examined by the courts; that is all. It needs to be that way, because we should have the aspiration that both parents should work to restructure the family in a healthy manner after separation, even after the massive disruption of domestic abuse. In the spirit of saying that I want people who commit certain crimes to become rehabilitated and to become responsible citizens, I do not want something that is so blanket as Amendment 82.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
The argument that the noble Baroness is expanding on now would be a case where a couple had separated and there may have been some domestic abuse or domestic violence. She is saying that they should both have the opportunity to try and get together and work things out together for the sake of the children. I do not believe there is anybody in your Lordships’ House who would disagree with that sentiment, but that is not what this amendment is trying to do. It is saying that, when the charge of parental alienation is used, it is almost demonstrating—simply by using the terminology and everything that goes with it—that the battle by one party still continues against the victim. Therein lies the problem. The noble Baroness’s latter principle is absolutely fine, but that is not the way that the people who bring forward claims of parental alienation behave in the court system.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My only final point is to say that the term “parental alienation” has become problematic on both sides. It seems to me that one side can use the term “parental alienation” in the way that has been described—I have made the point that the term is used in the amendment—and another side can basically say that anyone who uses the term “parental alienation” does not understand the problems of victims of domestic violence, which is usually the accusation, as is that they are on the side of men’s rights campaigners. I am not saying any of that. I want some clarification on one amendment only of this very big group, because it is unhelpful to put it in the law.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I will briefly respond to the noble Baroness. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for her constructive engagement and for everything she has said. I will respond on that specific amendment. I understand where she is coming from.
Perhaps I did not put it very well, but what I was trying to articulate before is that I fully accept, as a fact of life, that marital breakdown will, sadly, sometimes —maybe even often—create a rancour that can be passed on to the children. The children can be caught in the middle, and they may feel that they are pulled in two directions, or perhaps in one direction more than the other; it does not matter. That is a fact of life. It is a matter of evidence and fact that is not, in my view, a matter for medical experts, but a matter for the judge to deal with and cope with—I think the noble Baroness is slightly sympathetic to that point.
In many cases, it will be about encouraging the parties, whatever their pain, to reflect on their actions in the interests of the child. However, it does not require the kinds of sums of money and the sorts of diagnoses that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was talking about. It has to be said again that we are often talking about some very wealthy men; it need not be, but it is usually men. These are some very wealthy individuals who pay some very expensive, slightly dodgy—and if the noble Lord, Lord Russell, can use the “B” word, I can use “dodgy”—experts, whose expertise I would query, but whose greed I would not.
I can always reflect on drafting; that is what Committee is about. Here, when we talk about being
“considered … as a potential perpetrator of parental alienation”—
as opposed to simply saying bad things to their kids about the other party—we are talking about this syndrome. That is what I was trying to reflect. As for the fact that they should not be diagnosed or considered for diagnosis for 90 days for this syndrome, frankly, if they are a victim of abuse, it is almost inevitable that they are going to have some rancour or anger towards the other partner, unless they are a saint. Judges are well capable of considering that and working out what to do on the facts.
It is really about attempting to separate facts from expert evidence. These are hard facts that judges can deal with, with other court reports. This so-called “alienation expertise”, that some of us believe has become a bit of a racket, is being weaponised against victims. If there is something in the clarity of the drafting that can be improved, that is the great benefit of Committee, but I am trying to respond with the intention behind my amendment. I am very grateful for the opportunity to do that, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, having started to grow old in the family courts, I feel that I ought to address some of these amendments, some of which I would like to support and some of which I would like to qualify.
I begin by clearing up one particular point, which was possibly a slip by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. There is no question now of unrepresented litigants being allowed to cross-examine mothers, particularly in contested cases involving domestic abuse allegations. It simply is not tolerated. No judge would tolerate it and we all know how to deal with it when it arises.
Turning to the individual amendments, as quickly as I can, and dealing first with Amendment 82 relating to parental alienation, I am worried by the proposal to restrict the family court’s approach to cases involving allegations of so-called parental alienation by what would amount to a statutory exclusion of evidence. There are two main grounds for concern that I suggest. First, the amendment would restrict the scope of what the court might want or need to consider. Secondly, and ironically, it might tend to elevate the significance of the concept of parental alienation. Allegations of alienation, whether justified or not, have become part of the weaponry of high-conflict parental disputes. The concept of parental alienation is controversial, and, indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, the idea that there is a syndrome is largely discredited. That in itself may be one reason why it should not find its way, in any way, into a statute.
I was not going to refer to what was recently said by the President of the Family Division, but in view of what I have heard, I will say that in an important recent decision, in 2023, the President of the Family Division said:
“Family judges have, for some time, regarded the label of ‘parental alienation’, and the suggestion that there may be a diagnosable syndrome of that name, as being unhelpful. What is important, as with domestic abuse, is the particular behaviour that is found to have taken place within the individual family before the court, and the impact that that behaviour may have had on the relationship of a child with either or both of his/her parents. In this regard, the identification of ‘alienating behaviour’ should be the court's focus, rather than any quest to determine whether the label ‘parental alienation’ can be applied”.
It is often said that the family court has to take a holistic view of the child’s welfare. It has to look not only at what happened in the past but at what might be possible in the future. Cases of this type have a particular complexity. The signs of parental alienation are, frankly, not difficult to identify. In my experience, Cafcass is well equipped to do that. The causes are more difficult to understand. Cases in which one parent tries to turn the child against the other parent, consciously or unconsciously seeking to punish the other parent, present differing degrees of alienation and varying motivations.
These cases are not easy to resolve. They require an understanding of the family dynamics, and an assessment of the impact of what has happened and of the harm to the child concerned. The evidential picture is not always clear-cut. Indeed, there are some cases in which there may quite well have been some level of domestic abuse by one parent, but the alleged parental alienation is wholly unrelated to it; or the persistent hostility revealed is quite out of proportion to the type of abuse that has been experienced. The Children Act and the practice direction governing cases in which abuse has been established fundamentally require the court’s assessment of harm, or risk of harm, from all sources. Those are the vital considerations.
Amendment 82 would insert the label “parental alienation” into primary legislation. It could artificially restrict—and, indeed, distort—the proper analysis of parental behaviour and attitudes in their context, and could restrict the careful handling that such cases sometimes require. I doubt that would be helpful. Indeed, it could well be unhelpful.
I turn now to Amendment 84 and others that wish to introduce the use of Section 91(14) orders. For the uninitiated, Section 91(14) orders restrict further applications to the court without leave of the court. It is a valuable power. Although Section 91(14) orders are not strictly speaking barring orders, as sometimes described, they provide a necessary protective filter to ensure that inappropriate applications will not be allowed to proceed.
In reality, a Section 91(14) order may or may not be necessary in any individual case of this type—that is to say, a case involving the application of Jade’s law. However, in these extreme cases, if there is any possibility of an inappropriate application by the convicted offender, such an order would be justified. Indeed, under current guidance there does not always have to be a risk of repeated applications, but rather the risk of any application without merit.
In the situation covered by the Bill, when, unfortunately, one parent has killed the other and the victim’s family or foster carers have stepped in to care for the child or children, they should be shielded from the prospect and distress of further court proceedings. However, in that context, and slightly tangentially, I will just qualify one observation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, when she referred to parental rights. One of the great improvements brought about by the Children Act 1989 was to remove the concept of parental rights. What is being restricted here is the exercise of parental responsibility.
My only reservation about the Section 91(14) amendments relates to the question of who should be responsible for making such orders and when they should be made. From experience, I emphasise that the orders require careful, case-specific drafting. It is therefore always necessary, when making such an order, to specify its duration, which is not dealt with by Section 91 itself. That may require consideration of the age and circumstances of the child and, in these situations, the position of the surviving adults. I rather assume that those proposing these amendments would wish the order usually to run until the youngest child reaches 18 years of age, but I suggest that should be made clear, either in the statute or in the order.
However, I add that these are not orders of which most Crown Courts will have had any experience. At the sentencing stage in the Crown Court, there might not be the material on which to craft an appropriate order. Accordingly, while I do not in any way wish to oppose the principle of the amendments relating to the use of Section 91(14), I suggest that under the existing scheme of the Bill it would be better to leave any mandatory imposition of a Section 91 order to the required review hearing in the family court, for which the Bill provides in new Section 10B.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard, Amendment 82, the first in this group, is designed to prevent a parental alienation argument, usually relating to contact but sometimes to residence as well, being used by perpetrators of domestic violence or child sexual abuse to harass their victims through repeated applications to the family court.
The Government need no reminding of the background, because it was the Government who commissioned the panel on the risk of harm in 2020, to which my noble friend Lady Brinton referred. That was responsible for a significant change of thinking in this area. The assumption that ensuring that children should always continue contact with both parents unless the circumstances were exceptional had dominated courts’ thinking for many years and was given some statutory force, though not in absolute terms, by Section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989. However, the panel found that there was a pervasive culture of disbelieving victims of domestic abuse, compounded by a pattern of abusive ex-partners abusing the courts’ processes by applications to the court, and effectively of the courts ordering contact, in particular in favour of abusive parents, against the wishes of the victim—the other parent.
Allegations of parental alienation—I accept that the term became something of a term of art, perhaps unjustifiably—are frequently made by abusive parents, and they still are, generally seeking contact but also residence. My noble friend Lady Brinton has given a detailed account of why the parental alienation issue has represented a significant failure of the family courts in recent years. The process involves the abusive parent claiming that the resident parent is opposing contact in an effort to alienate the child from the non-resident parent; essentially, it is the bad-mouthing allegation taken to extremes, in a way that is wholly unjustifiable. I will not repeat the persuasive account of the issue that my noble friend Lady Brinton has given. However, in these cases with which we are concerned, the victim’s allegations are generally true. We need to remember that the children may be put at risk by unwanted contact with their parent’s abuser.
Summarising the position in 2020, the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, wrote in the ministerial foreword to the panel’s report:
“The Panel found that too often, adversarial court proceedings retraumatised victims. Allegations of domestic abuse were too readily disbelieved or dismissed, alongside poor risk assessments and siloed working. The report also identified a view amongst many respondents that courts often placed an undue emphasis on ensuring children had contact with both parents”.
In its recommendations, the panel recommended a series of principles, which included:
“The court and those working within the system will be alert to those seeking to use … processes in an abusive or controlling way. Such behaviour will be actively identified and stopped”.
However, the issue persists.
Amendment 82 is directed at preventing victims being treated as responsible for parental alienation if they oppose applications made by perpetrators of violence against them to the courts. The amendment, as framed, would prevent a victim of domestic violence being considered as responsible for parental alienation.
The Committee may accept that the amendment as it stands is too absolute. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, pointed out, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, the amendment as drawn purports to prevent a court reaching a conclusion of fact, which it ought to be entitled to reach in a case where the evidence supports that finding. Nevertheless, I suggest that, in the view of the evidence that the panel and many other experts have considered, the direction of travel of the amendment is right. The interventions of my noble friend Lady Brinton and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in response to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, made it clear what the point and intention of this amendment are. If it needs redrafting, that could be dealt with between now and Report. The aim is to prevent perpetrators of domestic abuse continuing that abuse by transferring it to the court, abusing the court process with unwarranted accusations against their victims of turning the abusive parent against the victim.
Amendment 111 would reflect in the Bill a principle implicit in the findings of the panel: that in domestic abuse cases the court should disapply the Section 1(2A) presumption that parental involvement of both parents is generally in the interests of a child or furthers a child’s welfare. Furthermore, by the amendment, unsupervised contact should not be ordered in a case where the parent concerned is a defendant or a potential defendant in a case of domestic abuse, child abuse or a sexual offence. The level of supervision specified involves the presence of an approved third party at all times during contact, to ensure the physical safety and emotional well-being of the child, but the court would be left to determine the precise nature and location of the supervised contact permitted. I suggest that that represents a relatively minimal level of safeguarding. I accept entirely the caution expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, as to the difficulty sometimes of arranging supervised contact. However, that difficulty needs to be weighed against the danger of exposing children to unnecessary risk, and I suggest that the amendment provides a reasonable balance.
Amendment 110 would ensure that anyone carrying out psychological assessment of a person as a victim for family proceedings would be suitably qualified by being regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council. I accept again the point that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, made, that often the perpetrator needs psychological assessment as well. Whether the qualification for making psychological assessments should be as is suggested—that is, regulation by the Health and Care Professions Council—is a matter for discussion. However, suitable qualification is always important.
Amendment 117 would protect victims from orders to disclose medical records to proven or alleged perpetrators of domestic abuse against them, unless the circumstances were exceptional. We have been through much of the detail of that and the principles behind it in relation to group one, and I suggest that the amendment is important in just the same way as the amendment in group one.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I open by agreeing with the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that the overall path of this group of amendments is consistent with the harm panel’s recommendations.
In debating the group, I can see that there may be drafting improvements to be done. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for the points he made regarding the drafting of particular amendments.
I remind noble Lords that I sit as a family magistrate in London, and have been one for about 10 years. About 80% of the work that we deal with in our practice is private law, and so very much the types of cases that we are considering in this group of amendments.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for the way she divided this group into two—Jade’s law and then the amendments that focus on using the family court to perpetrate or perpetuate abuse, which is almost always abuse of the woman.
I will not go through the amendments individually, because they have been fairly widely debated, but I will make some particular points, the first of which is on Amendment 82, which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, questioned and spoke to. The point she made was about the medicalisation of parental alienation, and I think she argued that the courts should decide.
Some noble Lords in the Committee will have taken part, about three years ago, in the Second Reading of the Domestic Abuse Bill, as it was then, when the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, spoke passionately about parental alienation. She absolutely believes that parental alienation is real, and that she experienced it with her own sons. In my experience of when domestic abuse allegations are made, which is fairly frequent, it is not an unusual scenario where the woman is making accusations of domestic abuse against the man and the man is applying for a child arrangements order to restart contact with his children, and he is making allegations of parental alienation. When that happens at magistrates’ level, we kick it upstairs.
We know it is a complex area, where, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, there has been recent advice from the president on this matter, and we know that, particularly when there are wealthy individuals involved, there will be any number of experts who are brought into the court to try to resolve cases. We see these allegations a lot at my level, and we try, if possible, to resolve them there, but if they are persisted with, we will put them up to district judge or circuit judge level.
I want to reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said about the Crown Courts putting in place protection orders to prohibit repeated applications and that this should be a decision for the family court. It is something that is routinely done in the family court, when you see persistent applicants who are abusing the process, and I argue that it is usually evident when we see it and they are orders that are regularly put in place.
The other point that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, made, was on Amendment 89, which I support. He questioned the degree of drafting in the amendment. The point I would make is that while there may well be shortcomings in the drafting, the direction of travel is clear and consistent with the rest of the amendments in the group. That may well be something that this side of the House would want to persist with at later stages of the Bill, depending on how the Minister replies to this debate.
In summary, family courts present some of the most difficult cases that I deal with. You see more tears in a family court than in any other court structure. I had a meeting this morning with a group representing fathers. This is an unusual group: you do not see them that much, and not much lobbying material has been sent to me regarding this or the Bill as a whole. The group that came to see me this morning was called Dads Unlimited, and its particular interest is in male suicide and male self-harm. The point that it was making to me—I must admit that it had some pretty persuasive data—was that, when men are involved in the family court system and making applications to court, they hide their mental vulnerabilities. They do not go to see their GP, and they do not want to talk about it, because they believe that it will be used against them when they are making their applications to court to restart contact with their children.
This is a difficult issue, and I think everybody understands that. Nevertheless, these amendments are trying to codify and build in protections to reduce abuse within family courts as far as possible, and I support them.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for tabling this group of amendments, which take us deep into the heart of the family court and its proceedings. The noble Baroness speaks compellingly and with great passion on these matters. I think she would agree with me that family court proceedings involve some of the most sensitive and difficult decisions that any court has to make, resulting as they do in often profound consequences for parents, children and whole families.
All the amendments in this group have noble aims. They seek to protect vulnerable children and victims of domestic abuse, and that is an agenda that I and the Government strongly support. I shall address each in turn, but I need to start by airing what I see as a difficulty running through these amendments: in one way or another, a number of them seek to curtail the family court’s discretion to take individual decisions on a case-specific basis on what is in the best interests of the children involved. With enormous respect to the noble Baroness, whose experience is much wider than mine, we need to be a bit careful here. The paramountcy principle, enshrined originally in the Children Act, provides the bedrock of all family court decisions. It is a principle that I firmly believe we must protect and uphold.
I start with Amendment 89. As the noble Baroness explained, it seeks to exempt from the provisions of Clause 16 victims of domestic abuse who then kill their abuser; this is Jade’s law, as she mentioned. None of us can have anything but the deepest sympathy for people who find themselves dealing with these extremely difficult and challenging situations. That is why my response on this amendment is that the Bill already allows for this protection. Clause 16 gives a clear route to protect victims of domestic abuse who have killed their abuser. It allows the Crown Court not to suspend parental responsibility in cases of voluntary manslaughter where it would not be in the interests of justice to do so. Our intention in including this exemption is that it could be used in situations where a victim of domestic abuse kills their abuser after a campaign of abuse. I hope the noble Baroness will find that assurance helpful.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt, and I understand the drift of what the noble Earl is saying, but all I was suggesting was that, although I fully understand the desirability in many cases of having Section 91(14) orders—and suggest that in these extreme cases they should be the norm—it should not be done in the Crown Court but should be part of the mandatory requirements at the review hearing that will follow shortly afterwards in the family court. It should, at the very least, be something in the statute that the reviewing family court should be required to consider.
Earl Howe (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for those comments and will ensure that they are fed back to my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, and the department as a whole.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I take the opportunity of this conversation to request that, when the noble Earl feeds back to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, he emphasises that the concern here was not the Crown Court versus the family court and disrespect for any court’s expertise; it was for families being dragged into another process, possibly without legal aid, and going through the trauma of that procedure when they have just lost a loved one to murder by the spouse or partner. If, somehow or other, the Government could consider—the noble Earl dropped some breadcrumbs when he spoke of the duties of local authorities—a way to relieve the burden on the families who have to spend money and go through further trauma, that would be very welcome.
Earl Howe
I take the point about burdens placed on families at exactly the point they should not be, and I will feed that in.
Amendments 85 and 96 seek the automatic suspension of parental responsibility in cases where a parent has been convicted of sexual offences
“against the child, or a child in the family”.
I understand the motivations behind the amendments, but there are good reasons for limiting Clause 16 to instances of murder and manslaughter. Where one parent has killed the other, the children involved will, in many cases, have no one left to exercise parental responsibility apart from the perpetrator. It is absolutely right that, in those circumstances, those caring for the children are spared the burden of commencing family proceedings to restrict the offender’s parental responsibility.
Where a parent has committed another serious offence, the situation is very different. The other parent will, in most cases, be able to exercise their own parental responsibility and, if required, apply to the family court to restrict the offender’s parental responsibility. Legal aid is available for these applications.
There is a further point here. There may, and almost certainly will, be many cases in which an offender is not seeking to abuse anyone, or even to exercise their parental responsibility, and the children and family involved therefore have no interest in going through court proceedings to see their parental responsibility formally restricted. In those scenarios, it is unlikely to be in the best interests of the child and their family to be drawn into court proceedings that would inevitably be triggered by the automatic suspension, and the further distress that this will cause. Again, these amendments have a worthy aim but there is already a clear legal route for these restrictions to be put in place, and I hope that provides some reassurance.
Amendment 110 seeks to ensure that only experts regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council can undertake psychological assessments in family court cases. As the noble Baroness knows, the instruction of an expert within the framework of Section 13 is a matter for judicial discretion. There are, however, clear rules governing the use of experts in the family court. Practice direction 25B covers the role of experts in the family court, and an annexe outlines the 11 standards that experts must comply with. Where an expert’s profession is not regulated, it details the alternate obligations to ensure compliance with the appropriate professional standards.
I have already mentioned the Family Justice Council’s draft guidance on responding to allegations of alienating behaviour. The guidance notes that only experts regulated by the HCPC should give evidence in cases where alienating behaviours are alleged. Despite the measures already in place, and the upcoming guidance, it is clear that concerns exist. Officials are considering what else can be done in this area. I am mindful that we are dealing with an existing system of judicial discretion, so I am keen that any additional action does not disrupt the safeguards already in place but addresses the legitimate concerns that have been raised.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said on this topic. I hope she is reassured that we are taking seriously the issue of unregulated experts and seeking to resolve this matter through the appropriate route.
Amendment 111 seeks to remove the presumption of parental involvement in domestic abuse cases and to prohibit unsupervised contact between any person and a child where they are awaiting trial, are under police investigation, are on bail, or are going through criminal proceedings for domestic abuse, sexual violence or a child abuse-related offence. I recognise how important the issue of parental involvement is. However, the existing legislation, namely the Children Act 1989, provides sufficient safeguards to address these concerns. Section 1(6) of that Act, first, requires courts to consider whether a parent can be involved in the child’s life in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm. The presumption of parental involvement applies only if that test is met. The presumption, where it does apply, is also rebuttable where there is evidence that the involvement will not further a child’s welfare. The court must treat the child’s welfare as its paramount concern.
In addition, practice direction 12J clearly sets out the factors that the court should consider when deciding whether to make an order for a parent to have involvement with a child. The court must be satisfied that the physical and emotional safety of the child and the parent can be secured before, during and after any contact.
I appreciate the aims of this amendment, and the noble Baroness will be aware that the Government are currently reviewing how the courts apply the review of the presumption of parental involvement, which will be published in due course. However, as there is already a clear legislative route for the court to determine if parental involvement should be prevented to protect the child. I therefore believe the proposed amendment is unnecessary.
Next, I will address Amendment 117, which seeks to prevent the family court from ordering a victim of domestic abuse to disclose their medical records to their abuser, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The Family Procedure Rules give the court the power to control the disclosure of evidence. Rule 22 provides that the court may give directions about the type and nature of the evidence it can order, alongside outlining the nature of the evidence required to reach a decision. The court will also decide how any evidence should be placed before the court. Rule 4.1(3)(b) gives the court the power to make an order for disclosure and inspection, including the disclosure of documents, as it thinks fit.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am so grateful to the Committee for the time we have spent on this lengthy but, I hope everyone will agree, important group of amendments.
I will not thank everyone or summarise their contributions because that would not assist the Committee at this late hour, given the groups that need to follow today, but I reserve particular thanks for the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the Minister. In Committee we benefit the most from detailed scrutiny of Bills and amendments, and their comments, particularly about drafting issues and the need to refine some of the ideas and amendments, were very helpful; they will allow me and those I am working with to reflect and improve amendments in areas where it is thought they should still be pursued.
I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, with his lifetime of expertise in the family courts, for the generous humility that he brought to the debate, given that I am not at all an expert while he is a very distinguished expert in the field. On the issue of psychological assessments of suspects, defendants and offenders being just as important as those of victims, I completely agree—but one was limited, as one always is, by the scope of the Bill.
I listened with great care to the points on Amendment 82 from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I think the Committee understands our concern, and there may be something we can do to address that concern without naming the syndrome that we know has been discredited. I am thinking about how people are treated rather than trying to interfere with any court’s finding of fact, so I was grateful for that. I am still concerned about unsupervised contact with children by the kind of offenders we are talking about. We will have to return to that, along with some of the other concerns here. I made the point that respecting the expertise of the family court is without question, but we have to protect victims in particularly dire circumstances from being dragged from one court to another if that can at all be avoided.
It is always a pleasure to face the Minister across the Chamber. He is drafted in like a Marvel superhero by the Government because he is one of their finest advocates. It is a particular delight to be charged with attempted breaches of Article 6 or any other article of the convention, and to be reminded of the importance of not ousting the jurisdiction of the courts. If only the noble Earl could have a word with the Home Office about those values, I would be incredibly grateful. With that, I thank the Committee again and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Wednesday 7th February 2024
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 31-IV(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (6 Feb 2024)
Lord Garnier
“Compensation for victims of fraud and other economic crimes(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a review of victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences.(2) The purpose of the review under subsection (1) is to identify how victims of such economic crimes could be better compensated without such victims needing to pursue civil action.(3) The Secretary of State must provide for a public consultation on the review.(4) In this section “victims of economic crime” includes United Kingdom and overseas victims of complex corruption cases where the harm caused by the offending is not easily quantifiable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires a review to explore how domestic and overseas victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences could be better compensated without the need for civil proceedings to recover their losses or compensation.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is grouped with an amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Unfortunately, she cannot be here, so noble Lords will have to deal with me, and I hope I will not detain the Committee very long. I should declare an interest in that I am a barrister in private practice and some of the work that I do involves fraud, bribery and money laundering offences; at least, some of the clients I represent sometimes become involved in that sort of thing. Sometimes, I act for the Serious Fraud Office in prosecuting and dealing with those accused or thought to have been guilty of such things.
The new clause set out in Amendment 112 is designed to require a review to explore how domestic and overseas victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences could be better compensated without the need for civil proceedings to recover their losses or compensation. The terms of the new clause are set out on the amendment paper, so I shall not read it out: it is there for those interested to see.
Just before Christmas last year, in December 2023, a company called Entain entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Crown Prosecution Service in response to allegations, which it admitted, that part of Entain had failed to prevent bribery in, most often, Turkey, over a seven-year period. The deferred prosecution agreement that Entain, formerly Ladbrokes, agreed to contained terms which included that it should pay a penalty and a disgorgement of profits of £585 million, plus a charitable donation of £20 million. Prior to that, in the decade or so before the Entain case, multinational companies were fined more than £1.5 billion after investigations by the Serious Fraud Office into corruption abroad, but only 1.4% of those fines, about £20 million, was used to compensate victim countries, according to research by the law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain and, in particular, due to the hard work of Mr Sam Tate, a partner of that firm, who, with others in the firm, has made a particular study of this pattern. It seems to me that companies that are convicted in this country of offences which have an effect overseas should be required to compensate their victims overseas—we need to change that.
Much of the corruption involved in these cases has occurred in African countries that are already suffering terrible economic hardship from food and energy crises and from inflation. They are in dire need of economic support to repair the damage caused by corruption. Our own Government have been vocal in their support for compensating foreign state victims of corruption, but the action taken to compensate them tells a different story and, if I may say so, leaves us open to charges of hypocrisy.
Most corruption cases brought before the English courts involve foreign jurisdictions. Therefore, this country is stepping in as the world’s policeman and prosecuting crimes that take place in other countries but keeping all the fines for the Treasury here in the United Kingdom. That is important because corruption causes insidious damage to the poor and the not so poor, particularly in emerging markets. The United Nations has said that it impedes international trade and investment, undermines sustainable development, threatens democracy and deprives citizens of vital public resources. The African Union estimated that in 2015, 25% of the continent’s gross domestic product was lost to corruption. Every company convicted of overseas corruption in this jurisdiction should, I suggest, be ordered to compensate the communities they have harmed; that would be both just and effective. Compensation should come through investment in programmes targeted at decreasing corruption and benefiting local communities by, for example, building and resourcing more schools or hospitals.
At first glance, English law encourages compensation. It is required to take precedence over all other financial sanctions—so far, so good—but as with many noble ambitions, problems lurk in the detail. Compensation is ordered in criminal cases only where the loss is straightforward to assess, even though the trial judge is usually of High Court or senior Crown Court level—that is to say, judges who deal with complex issues every day. Let me give the Committee a couple of examples.
In October 2022, Glencore, the international mining and minerals extraction company, pleaded guilty to widespread corruption in the oil markets of several African states. I interpose here to say that in that case, now long over, I represented the applicant state seeking compensation. Glencore pleaded guilty and was ordered to pay £281 million in penalties and further orders, but not a single penny has been ordered to go back to the communities where the corruption happened, because it was held that compensation would be too complicated to quantify and the overseas state applying for compensation had no legal standing in the case. You could say that I was very lucky to be allowed to speak at all during the proceedings, because the statute says that the people who have the legal standing to make an application to deal with compensation are the prosecutor and the defendant company, and I was not representing either of them. None the less, the judge was kind enough and polite enough to let me advance my submissions to him. He rejected them because the statute prevented his acceding to my application.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. I have the second amendment in this group, Amendment 116. The amendments are connected by the word “compensation”, but they are actually about very different issues. Mine is a probing amendment to discuss how the current court-ordered compensation scheme could be improved. I thank the London Victims’ Commissioner and Victim Support for their very helpful briefings.
We know that crime can have a significant emotional and financial impact on victims, and research shows that many victims value compensation as a tangible form of redress. Court-ordered compensation is financial compensation that a judge or a magistrate orders must be paid to a victim by a convicted offender, and the money owed is retrieved by the Courts Service on behalf of the victim. The worries are that the system of payment and enforcement of court-ordered compensation is causing unnecessary distress and frustration, because too often the compensation is paid in very small instalments, over a long period, or, even worse, not at all.
The Ministry of Justice’s paper, Punishment and Reform: Effective Community Sentences, which was published in 2012, sets out that:
“Compensation orders are an essential mechanism for offenders to put right at least some of the harm they have caused. They require offenders to make financial reparation directly to their victims, to compensate for the loss, damage or injury they have caused”.
The problem is the slow payments and poor enforcement. The system of payment and enforcement is adding unnecessary distress and frustration to victims’ experience of the criminal justice system. The piecemeal nature of payments also acts as a constant reminder to the victim of the crime. This point was recognised by the Ministry of Justice, in a 2014 publication, which stated that
“the current scheme of receiving compensation can be distressing for victims because it prolongs their relationship with the offender and can prevent them from moving on from the experience”.
HMCTS has a number of powers at its disposal to collect payments from offenders, including taking money directly from their earnings or benefits, issuing warrants to seize and sell goods belonging to an offender, or, ultimately, bringing an offender back before the courts. Despite this range of powers, collection rates remained low for a number of years. In reality, many compensation orders are never paid, with victims asked by the court to write off the debt owed by the offender.
To put that in context, in quarter 1 2023, the total value of financial impositions outstanding in courts in England and Wales was £1.47 billion, up 3% on the previous quarter and 4% on the previous year. The amount of outstanding financial impositions has more than doubled since quarter 1 2015. However, we recognise that a change in policy regarding the collection of financial impositions is partially behind the cumulative increase, as unpaid accounts are no longer routinely closed, and therefore more outstanding impositions are carried over. The latest available data shows that, 18 months after being imposed, only 53% of victim compensation was paid to victims. Slightly more recent data shows that, after 12 months, only 40% has been paid, with only a quarter of compensation paid to victims within three months.
I move on to an example of good practice in the Netherlands. In 2011, the Government of the Netherlands introduced the advanced compensation scheme as part of the Act for the Improvement of Victims in Criminal Procedure. Under the scheme, the state pays the victim the full amount—up to a maximum of €5,000—of compensation awarded by the court if the offender fails to pay within eight months. The state subsequently recovers the amount due from the offender. Originally, the scheme covered only victims of violent and sexual offences, but in 2016 it was extended to cover the victims of any crime.
Victim Support’s research has shown that many victims are very distressed. One victim of crime said:
“I still have not received any compensation after a year and a half”.
Another said that
“you have to keep going and be persistent with any claims for compensation that you feel you deserve. Why should you be a victim twice?”
My amendment sets out a possible mechanism to replicate the Netherlands scheme, because we need to find some balance. The whole point of this entire Bill is to smooth the journey for victims. This final part—compensation awarded by the court, recognising that they have been a victim and providing them with some redress—is not working for our victims. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister. Any suggestions he may have, even if he does not think this is right, would be gratefully welcomed.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 112. My noble and learned friend’s proposal is an excellent one and I urge the Government to address it promptly and seriously.
Companies and persons convicted of matters affecting those overseas, particularly overseas companies and the countries themselves, should be liable to compensation. It is important that it does not just feed more corruption, but the concept is plainly right. It will put this country in a good place in the world and show leadership on a really important topic, because there is far too much corruption around the world and too many countries turn a blind eye to it.
I urge the Government to take this amendment very seriously. I hope they will have come up with a concrete proposal to endorse it by Report. I commend it to the Committee.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I support the probing amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which is an opportunity for the Government to look at court order compensation.
The compensation for victims when they leave a court is not the amount they receive and it takes many years. I will not repeat what the noble Baroness has said—it is on my sheet as well—but, for the victims I meet, compensation causes further problems and trauma. It gets worse if victims apply for criminal injuries compensation, because the court order compensation is deducted from any award that is made. This is fine where the court order compensation is paid, but, if not, the victim is left worse off as a result. I agree that we should look at how the Netherlands pays up front.
I know that there is no money tree but, to make it smooth for victims, instead of being for the offender to hide once again and use as a tool in financial cases for coercive control, I hope the Government will review this court order compensation scheme. I know from speaking to judges that they know that, when they award this, the offender will pay it in dribs and drabs. Now is the time for a good review of this.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly address both amendments.
On the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, I completely agree with the need for a review and the points made by the noble and learned Lord. His speech dealt largely with corruption, but the amendment deals with bribery and money laundering, which gives rise to significant hardship in countries where it can bite. The weakness of our system is that there is no real provision for proper compensation or properly assessing compensation—even in domestic cases, let alone international ones—where there is a conviction but the degree of loss has not been properly investigated. Noble Lords will no doubt have a great deal of sympathy with the noble and learned Lord, who was allowed to address the judge out of consideration and kindness but had his submissions rejected because there was no legal standing.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for educating me on these two matters. I was not familiar with the issue in our civil courts. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, made a succinct moral point; I thank him and the noble and learned Lord for educating me. If UK plc wants to maintain its position as a leading centre for resolving international disputes between countries and companies, there is a strong moral case for at least reviewing the way in which compensation may be awarded. As the noble and learned Lord said, his amendment is probing and we support it in the sense in which it was moved.
In relation to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, supported by the noble Baroness Newlove, again I was not aware of the scheme in the Netherlands. However, as a magistrate, I am required to consider compensation for every case I hear, and compensation will take priority over other impositions of the court, such as fines, victim surcharge or costs, or anything like that. When I do so, I am of course extremely aware that I am often dealing with offenders who are on benefits, and even if they are not on benefits, they are often not particularly well paid. It is a fact, which I am not surprised about, that the compensation comes over a long period and often not at all. I take the point that the noble Baroness made about this being a constant reminder to the victim of the offence, and I am aware that sometimes victims are asked to write off the outstanding money which is just not arriving.
The way in which the Netherlands is proceeding is interesting; I do not know whether there has been an estimate about how much money that would cost. It is an interesting idea and I do not know how fully the Minister, when he comes to respond, will be able to talk about the money side of things. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about reminding victims of the original offence—and we are here talking about the victims Bill and trying to ameliorate their concerns—was well made and deserves a full answer.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for raising this issue in Amendment 112. Fraud and other economic crimes have a profound impact on their victims, which is why this Government have been very clear about their commitment to tackle such crimes and to support victims.
The measures in the Bill are designed to improve the experiences of all victims of crime, including economic crimes. One way it seeks to do so is by improving the oversight of service providers’ delivery of all victims’ code entitlements. For victims of fraud in particular, under the victims’ code, all victims who have suffered harm, including economic harm, as a direct result of a crime are entitled to information about compensation and, where eligible, to be told how to claim it. The Government take the compensation of victims of economic crime very seriously, as it is crucial for limiting the harms of these soulless crimes. We are taking active steps to improve reimbursement and compensation routes for victims to ensure that, whenever possible, funds are taken from criminals and returned to victims.
Victims’ interests continue to be a priority issue for the UK. New powers introduced by Part 4 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act allow applications for stolen crypto assets or funds to be released to victims at any stage of civil forfeiture proceedings. Work is ongoing to implement these reforms in order to ameliorate the negative impacts of criminal conduct, including economic crime.
In cases where there are overseas victims, as the noble and learned Lord mentioned, the Serious Fraud Office, the Crown Prosecution Service and National Crime Agency compensation principles have committed law enforcement bodies to ensuring that compensation for overseas victims of economic crime is considered in every relevant case, and that the available legal mechanisms are used whenever appropriate to secure it. His Majesty’s Government are also fully committed to identifying potential victims and utilising suitable means to return money and/or compensate victims in line with international provisions, per the Government’s transparent framework for asset returns.
As a signatory to the UN’s Convention against Corruption, the UK places great importance on the recovery and return of the proceeds of corruption to those affected by bribery, embezzlement of public funds, money laundering, trading in influence and other abuses of official functions. The UK is obligated to return funds where the conditions for mandatory return are met. However, it also exercises its discretion to return funds in appropriate cases when it is not otherwise mandated to do so.
On the point raised about UK courts being able to award compensation, this requires a co-ordinated, multilateral approach on how to find resolutions for victims. The fraud strategy sets out ambitions to drive global action on tackling fraud. We are developing stronger partnerships with our allies to raise the profile of this transnational threat, improve our understanding of how it manifests globally, share best practice and lead a co-ordinated, multinational response. This engagement will build towards a global fraud summit in early 2024, where key partners will come together to spearhead a co-ordinated diplomatic and law enforcement approach to tackling global fraud.
Measures in the Criminal Justice Bill, which is progressing through the other place, also considers victims’ interests. Further changes are being made to the confiscation regime, under the Proceeds of Crime Act, to enable swifter resolution of proceedings and improve enforcement planning, allowing victims to be compensated earlier and more fully. I am aware that this does not fully address many of the excellent ideas raised by the noble and learned Lord, which were supported by my noble friend, Lord Sandhurst, and I would suggest a meeting to investigate them further, if that was acceptable.
As I have set out, extensive work is already being undertaken to strengthen the rights of victims through legislative vehicles which are still undergoing implementation. I therefore do not believe it is appropriate for a legislatively required review to be introduced at this time.
On Amendment 116, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the Government are clear that it is extremely important that victims are aware of their rights, particularly when interacting with criminal proceedings. The current victims’ code sets out in plain language entitlements for victims of crime, including being provided with information about compensation. I hope it is helpful if I provide some information about criminal compensation orders. Criminal courts in England and Wales are, by law, required to consider compensation in all cases involving personal injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence. Where the court chooses not to impose such an order, it must provide reasons. In determining whether to make a compensation order, and the amount to be paid under such an order, the court must consider the financial circumstances of the offender—as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby—to strike a balance between seeking reparation and not imposing debts that are unrealistic or unenforceable. In line with the sentencing guidelines issued by the independent Sentencing Council, if the victim does not want compensation, this should be made known to the court and respected. However, it is right that the decision whether to award compensation and the amount of any award is a matter for the court. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and his point about the victim’s right to have a court hear their view on compensation, I think that is an interesting idea to investigate, and it would be good to have a meeting.
In addition to compensation orders, the statutory Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 exists to compensate victims who suffer a serious physical or mental injury as the direct result of a violent crime, including physical and sexual assault and domestic violence. Payments under the government-funded scheme can never fully compensate for the injuries suffered but are a recognition of public sympathy.
On expenses and property, victims already have an entitlement under the current victims’ code right 10 to be paid expenses. Victims can claim expenses from the Crown Prosecution Service if they have to attend court to give evidence, including, for example, for travel, childcare and loss of earnings. Right 10 in the current code also sets out that the police should return any property taken as evidence as soon as it is no longer required. The Government do not currently have plans for victims to be paid compensation from central funds. That is because compensation orders are paid directly from the offender, requiring them to make reparation to the victim for any loss, personal injury or damage caused by the offence. The decision whether to make a compensation order in a particular case is a matter for the court, and it has a range of powers for the recovery and enforcement of financial impositions. With the permission of the noble Baroness, I would like to write to give further detail on what actions the Government are taking to improve the enforcement of such compensation orders.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, of course I will beg leave in a moment or two to withdraw my amendment. I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his ability, at very short notice, to deal very elegantly with what I would describe as a long hop. The short point is one I made earlier on—that only 1.4% of the value of fines raised in this country has found its way back, under the mechanisms that he refers to, to victims’ estates. That is not enough. That said, I thank him for his offer of a meeting, which I would certainly like to take up, if I may. I thank my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for his support. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his very thorough response to my suggestions in Amendment 112, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his kind remarks.
The reason why I metaphorically doffed my hat at the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, a moment ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Marks, accused me of being the pioneer of deferred prosecution agreements, is because, yes, as a matter of policy, as a Government Minister at the time, I suppose I was responsible for it. I take some pride in it. However, I could not have achieved it without the co-operation of the senior judiciary. From memory, the noble and learned Lord was president of the Queen’s Bench at the time when the late, much-lamented Lord Judge was the Lord Chief Justice. The two of them, with other members of the senior judiciary, dealt with it impeccably as a matter of legal process. They were not in the least bit interested in the politics—neither was I, actually. We were all interested in trying to make the DPA system work. Thanks to cross-party support in the other place and throughout government, and support from the senior judiciary, the deferred prosecution agreement system came in through statute. I am very grateful to all those who helped with that.
I am in danger of going to the church by way of the moon. This is quite an important subject. It needs thought and proper development. Some ideas need to be tested to destruction, but some need to be given a chance—perhaps through a meeting with my noble friend on the Front Bench and others at the Ministry of Justice—to see which parts of this idea are worth germinating. In the light of all that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Sandhurst
“Duty to inform victims and families of the unduly lenient sentencing schemeAfter section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, insert—“36A Duty to inform victims and families of the unduly lenient sentencing scheme(1) The Secretary of State must nominate a government department to inform victims and their families of their rights set out in section 36 (reviews of sentencing).(2) The information provided under subsection (1) must include the type of sentence and the time limit for application, and advise that applications must be made to the Attorney General.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that victims are aware of the Unduly Lenient Sentencing scheme which presently has a strict 28-day timeframe in which to apply, there being no power to extend the time.
Lord Sandhurst
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 113 and 114. Amendment 113 seeks to impose a duty to inform victims and families of the right to refer an unduly lenient sentence. Amendment 114 seeks to extend the time, in exceptional circumstances, for such a reference. I begin by declaring my interest as a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
Currently, the position is that victims have a strict 28-day time limit from the day of passing sentence to make an application under the scheme. The right is simply to have the case considered by the law officers within the Attorney-General’s Office. It is that office which decides whether to take it to the Court of Appeal as an unduly lenient sentence.
The victim, or family, if they are to make use of this, must know in good time of: first, the right to refer; secondly, the time limit for doing so; thirdly, the date when the sentence will be passed, which they have to know in advance; and, fourthly, the sentence itself, if the victim was not present, for whatever reason. At this point, I refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who signed this amendment, and who had hoped to be here but has had to leave. As she said very succinctly to me, there is no point in having an unduly lenient sentence regime if victims do not know about it. That is where we are.
Importantly in this context, the 28-day limit is not open to extension, even in special or exceptional circumstances. That is the point of my second amendment. I am informed by Claire Waxman, the Victims’ Commissioner for London, that victims do not always attend sentencing, and often do not receive communication of the fact that they can refer a matter as an unduly lenient sentence or that they have to do so promptly. Of course, offenders can appeal their sentence outside the 28-day time limit, which is on paper there, if they show good cause. There is a statutory exception for them.
However, the revised victims’ code now includes an obligation for witness care units to highlight the scheme to victims, at the same time as informing them of the sentence in their case. That might be a good thing, but it does not go far enough, because witness care units engage only with victims who are witnesses in the court case. This will not apply to a proportion of victims, including bereaved family members. There is no organisation which currently has the responsibility for informing those victims.
In the debate on earlier amendments about training and so on, when I addressed this Committee the other day, I showed that many victims are unaware of the code, unaware of its contents and not kept abreast of their rights. Someone has got to grip this point as well, and make victims aware of their right to refer to the Attorney-General their dissatisfaction with a sentence. They especially have to be informed of the 28-day time limit. They have to know when sentence will be passed and, if not present, what was said.
Let me give a rather stark example of an unfairness that has happened. Alex Belfield received a five and a half-year prison sentence for a campaign of stalking various employees of the BBC. Claire Waxman personally referred that sentence to the Attorney-General’s Office. She considered it to be unduly lenient. A response was received several weeks later that explained that the case had been referred back to the CPS, which had requested the matter to be relisted in the Crown Court under the slip rule. The judge had looked at it again; he agreed that he had erred in his approach to sentencing, but he declined to change it; so that sentence stood. The CPS explained that the time limit for referral to the Court of Appeal had, however, now passed. So the Attorney-General’s Office could not refer this case under the ULS scheme, despite the initial reference having been made in time. It had been made in time to the CPS, but it had not referred it on because the CPS had taken the slip rule route. A possibly—and I do not say it was—lenient sentence, therefore, which might have been referred, stood.
The witness care unit, as I said, does not address non-witnesses. Others also might have reasons for being late. The information for victims given on the CPS website does make reference to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but it is in there among a lot of other information. It still requires a victim to be proactive, to know that there might be something worth looking for, to think about it, and then to know where to look. That is not really a very satisfactory state of affairs. Something must be done. Making reference to a scheme in materials is very different to actually informing a victim. The witness care unit does not reach all victims, as I have explained. More must be done.
As for the power to extend time, it should be only in exceptional circumstances. I do not ask for anything different, so it is not going to create an open-ended time limit for appeal. The Attorney-General’s Office is the office that decides whether to take it to the Court of Appeal, so it acts as a filter. It will filter out at once all silly and unreasonable applications. If the amendment is granted, the discretion to consider reasons for lateness—whether they are exceptional and so on—remains with the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is not going to start wading through large numbers of late references. The statutory guidance produced alongside such legislation could provide guidance on what circumstances might be treated as exceptional. Properly managed, therefore, there will not be unfair uncertainty for convicted prisoners who think they got a sentence of a particular length and suddenly are caught by surprise five years later.
Currently, offenders have 28 days to appeal their own sentence, but they have a right to apply to extend that time limit, which in the right circumstances may be granted, in order to appeal. This amendment, therefore, seeks to give some level of parity between the rights of the victim and the rights of the convicted defendant. I commend these amendments; information of rights is essential and power to extend time is only fair. There should be a measure of parity between victims and convicted defendants. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I signed this amendment, and it is a rerun for me, as I had similar amendments in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Most of the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has put forward responded to what the Minister said from the Dispatch Box during the passage of that Bill. These two amendments have been tightened to focus on the real areas of concern. One is not just to inform victims, but also their families; the second is to ensure that the time limit in exceptional circumstances could be extended.
Prior to laying previous amendments, I met Tracey Hanson, whose son Josh Hanson was murdered in 2015. After her son’s killer was sentenced in 2019, no agency made her aware that she was able to appeal the sentence under the ULS scheme. It was only when she approached Claire Waxman, the London Victims’ Commissioner, on the 28th day following the sentencing, that she was made aware of the scheme. Nobody in the system connected with the case contacted her. She was family, obviously not the victim. She submitted her application to the Attorney-General’s Office on the 28th day—that same day—at 8.40 pm. However, this was rejected because it was outside of court hours. At the time, there was no mention of office hours or court hours within the victims’ code or on the Government’s website. Tracey has campaigned for reforms to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, asking for the 28-day time limit to be given flexibility in certain circumstances, such as when the victim or their family is not informed of the scheme. She asked that the scheme be referenced in the judge’s sentencing remarks.
It is worth noting, though, that this still requires statutory responsibility for an agency to communicate those remarks to the victim. Can the Minister respond again—it was not him before; it was his predecessor—to see how we can smooth the journey for victims and families as they go through the judicial process? This particular case is really egregious in having an inflexible time limit for victims and families and yet a flexible one for convicted offenders.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to take much time. I understand, and indeed sympathise with, the thrust of the remarks of my noble friend and the intention behind his amendment. I am sure it is a good idea for people to know about the unduly lenient sentence scheme, particularly if they are victims. In my experience as a law officer who had to deal with these when I was in office, there did not seem to be any lack of knowledge among the people affected by what they thought were unduly lenient sentences, and we had plenty of applications to us in the law officers’ department to consider them. I say in brackets that, as often as not, not every crime or offence qualifies to come within the scheme. A degree of education needs to be made available in order that the public should realise that not every offence that they read about in the newspapers comes within the unduly lenient sentence scheme.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Part of the object of the amendments is to ensure that the scheme is published and explained. That is one of the reasons why there is a reference to making sure that, in the judge’s sentencing, he or she refers to the scheme, and then victims and families can be provided with information as they leave the court, or it can be sent to them if they are not there.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I cannot quite see the wording that the noble Baroness refers to, but I am not sure I think it a good idea for a judge, having promulgated a sentence, then to say, “If anyone doesn’t think I’ve given them enough, perhaps you’d like to complain”. The judge must make his or her own mind up, based on the information in front of them, and do justice in that particular case. If the prosecutor, a witness, the victim or a member of the public wishes to say that that is unduly lenient, they can write to the law officers and see what their consideration of the matter is.
I agree with publicity and with educating everybody about what the system is about. However, I do not agree with encouraging everybody to run to their Member of Parliament, the newspapers or the law officers because they wish the sentence had been different. That way leads to disappointment, quite apart from a bureaucratic mess in the law officers’ department—which is a very small department.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I raise an issue with regard to the time limit. It is not from the wording of the amendment, which I support, but the wording in the victims’ code. At the moment it says that, first:
“The Attorney General must consider the matter as soon as possible”.
What does that mean? Secondly, it says that they must do so
“no later than the 28th calendar day after the sentence was imposed … in business hours and”—
I emphasise this—
“with sufficient time for consideration”.
How can the victim know how long the Attorney-General needs before the 28 days runs out? It is a hard cut-off, but with something rather woolly leading up to it. The victims’ code could do with a little revision to make it quite clear, in addition to the points that my noble friend has made and the very tough example that she gave, just how this would operate. I would not know, to meet that condition, how long before the end of the 28 days I should get a note through the Attorney-General’s door.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I support the principle put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, that there should be proper information provided to victims. This should be proper in the widest sense, so that they fully understand; we do not want disappointment and secondary victimisation. The whole question of time limits and extending them is not a suitable matter for debate at this hour of the night. What is important is the principle.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I have noticed the time as well, and the points that I was going to raise have already been made. I will talk about how it feels, as a victim in a murder trial, to hear, after sentencing, all these professionals say that the offenders, who have been found guilty and sentenced, will now appeal their convictions and sentences. But nothing goes in, and the clock is ticking.
When we are looking at extending times and providing information, we are talking about an area that we all know about to a degree, but the victim does not understand unduly lenient sentencing. It is actually the media that leads the way. I think we need to look at this again. We now have flexible working hours, so who is going to pick up the inbox if nobody is in until the next day? We need to be more creative in how we do this. To tell the victim, such as Tracey Hanson, that they are out of time is not a fair and level playing field. If the offender has a legal advocate to do all the paperwork, and does not have to lift a finger, maybe we need a legal advocate to help the victim understand. We can say that people should go on the website and read this, that and the other, but they are traumatised and still trying to get their heads around what they have just listened to in court.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for the previous explosion from my phone—I was just making sure that you are all paying attention.
This is one of those groups—we have already had a couple of such occasions during this Committee—where you look at it and think, goodness me, why is that not happening already? Why is that not being done, when it is so obvious that it should happen? Like in many of the other cases, it comes down to the question of whose responsibility it is to make sure that the victim is properly informed, and their family properly supported, to know what is going on. It would be great if the Minister could tell us what the answer to that question is, as it is kind of at the heart of everything we have been discussing so far. I look forward to hearing the answer.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for Amendment 113, in relation to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. It seeks to ensure victims and their families are given the necessary information about the scheme and, where this does not happen, provide for an extension of the relevant deadline. I understand the distress that victims may feel if they believe that the sentence given to an offender is not sufficient. The unduly lenient sentence scheme provides a way to ensure that victims, their families and members of the public can request for sentences for certain serious crimes to be challenged, by asking the Attorney-General to consider making an application to the Court of Appeal for a sentence to be reviewed.
Amendment 114 seeks to allow extension of the time limits for applications under the scheme, which must currently be made within 28 days of sentencing. However, the scheme has a fixed time limit to reflect the importance of finality in sentencing for both the victim and the offender. Although we will keep this this limit under consideration, there are no current plans to remove the certainty of this absolute time limit. The 28-day time limit reflects similar constraints on defendants appealing against conviction or sentence; it is important for both victims and offenders that we avoid ongoing uncertainty about the sentence to be served.
Amendment 113 puts forward a duty to inform victims and families of the scheme. It might reassure my noble friend to know that the current victims’ code is already clear that victims should be informed about the scheme by the police’s witness care units at the same time as they are told about the sentence; this is expected to be done within six days of sentencing. It may also help if I explain that “witness care unit” is the generic name for a police-led function that provides information and support to victims, as well as witnesses, in cases progressing through the criminal justice system. Under the victims’ code, the witness care unit is responsible for providing services to victims who are not witnesses in the trial, as well as those who are.
For example, under right 9 in the code, all victims are entitled to be told at the end of the case the outcome, including a brief summary of reasons for the decision where available. This also includes telling victims about the ULS scheme when they are told the sentence in the case, which is in paragraph 9.6 of the code. It is heartening to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that the scheme is well used, despite examples of where it has not worked being given by others in this short debate.
In answer to the noble Lady Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton, as part of the CPS’s bereaved family scheme, the CPS and the trial advocate will meet the family at the court following the sentence to explain it and answer any questions. The scheme will be highlighted in appropriate cases as part of this.
My noble friend Lord Sandhurst raised an unfortunate case in which consideration under the slip rule means that 28 days had elapsed. In general, the law officers and the Attorney-General’s Office endeavour to review any sentence referred to them, the only exception being those where there is insufficient time to do so; for example, if it is received late in the day, the statutory time limit runs out. In those cases where the slip rule applies, CPS guidance instructs prosecutors to apply for the sentence to be corrected under the slip rule quickly and within the 28-day period for the ULS scheme. This means that, if the application is unsuccessful, the Attorney-General is not time-barred from being able to make an application under the ULS scheme within the 28-day period.
Where there seems to be broad consensus in this debate is on the need to do better on informing victims and their families about their rights under the scheme. This has been brought up by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Hamwee and Lady Newlove. I am open to discussing further with noble Lords how best to ensure that victims are better informed of the scheme and its deadline, but I respectfully ask that my noble friend withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, would it be possible for the Minister to find out whether the police keep records of the notification of the witness unit and, if the records are kept, what the statistics reveal? This is really an argument about whether we have the right mechanism, rather than the principle. Obviously, the Minister cannot do that this evening, but if the Ministry of Justice or the Home Office could find out, that would alleviate the problem.
Lord Roborough (Con)
The noble and learned Lord makes a very sensible request, and I will do my best to write to him.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to various noble Lords for their support, the points that they have made, and, if I may say so, the very sensible suggestion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, about collecting data.
If I may comment on my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier’s observations, they show that good information is necessary. It is absolutely essential. He says that these are simple and reasonable obligations; in which case, they must be explained to everybody. The guidance should set it out, and it should say simple things such as: “The Attorney-General has only 28 days in which to lodge a reference. If you are minded to complain about the sentence, you must do so straight away so that the Attorney-General has time to consider it properly; otherwise, I am afraid that there is no prospect of a reference being made”—something to that effect.
As for the extension of time, I hear what is said. It will be only in exceptional cases, and it will be the Attorney-General who decides. I just do not see what the problem is. If it is there and remains because the Government do not change it, it is really important that proper information is given.
I am grateful for the answers given by my noble friend Lord Roborough, standing in on short notice and dealing with these rather tricky little points. In the circumstances, having heard what has been said, I will withdraw my amendment. But I really do hope that something can be done, administratively at the very least; that we can receive proper assurances that victims and particularly those who are not witnesses, such as the bereaved and so on, really are told properly; and that a log is kept showing that they have been told—when and where and in what terms. I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Wills
“(a) occurs or occurred in England and Wales,”
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 119A to 119C in my name have been drafted to allow the independent public advocate to act for the victims of incidents, or series of events, that might have occurred before the passage of the Bill. As currently drafted, the Bill does not permit this.
Underpinning my original conception of the independent public advocate in my two Private Members’ Bills that were the genesis of this part of the Bill was the belief in the need for greater support and agency for those who had been failed by the state—which is meant to serve them—in what the Bill describes as “major incidents”. This is particularly the case when the full extent of such an incident may be revealed only over a period of time. In these circumstances, it is perverse to exclude from such support, which is outlined in the Bill the sub-postmasters whose lives were wrecked by the Horizon scandal, for example, or those whose lives were devastated by contaminated blood transfusions in the 1970s and 1980s, or by nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s. These are all catastrophic events that have, in some cases, become apparent only over quite a long period of time.
The victims need the support of the independent public advocate as they continue to search for justice and to right the wrongs that were done to them. These amendments will rectify this problem with the Bill’s current drafting. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I have a very short amendment—wholly unrelated to what has just been put forward—and I thank those in the Whips’ Office for suggesting that it remain in this group, and not, as I had proposed, move to a later group, which would be reached much later this evening. It does not really matter which group it is in, because it does not really affect anything else. It is a simple, short point in relation to the co-operation between Governments within the union and, therefore, has to do with devolution.
Clause 33 sets out the functions of the advocate who is to be appointed in respect of a major incident. None of the functions in this clause is a reserved matter, so under the Government of Wales Act, the Senedd has the powers to appoint. Therefore, in any particular incident, the Senedd could make provision so that it could appoint its own advocates. I do not believe a different view is taken by the Government in London.
It may also be the case that Welsh Ministers can appoint a non-statutory inquiry following a major incident in Wales, but that is not the kind of point to go into at this hour. The only power that the Senedd could not make provision for is for an advocate appointed under the Act to automatically secure interested person status in a statutory inquiry—those powers are reserved as they are part of the justice powers. Of course, a public advocate appointed by the Welsh Ministers would be free to apply for interested person status, and would probably get it—so I do not think it makes any practical difference. As I understand it, this point has caused the Senedd’s consent to the legislative consent memorandum to be qualified and reserved until this matter is resolved.
There are four short points to make. First, it seems sensible that the Welsh Government are involved as part of the scheme if there is a major incident in Wales. That would avoid any possibility of duplication. Secondly, it is important that the Welsh Government have a say in the person appointed. The advocate must have knowledge of Wales as well as the necessary ability to do everything in Welsh as well as English, since in Wales, English and Welsh have equal status.
Thirdly, significantly, it would be a further step in underpinning by statute co-operation between the Governments as part of the normal exercise of shared functions within a union. Fourthly, the Minister provided the greatest possible help in achieving something similar in relation to mission statements in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, as provided for now in Section 2 of that Act. This seems to be yet another step that can be taken to put in place a strong statutory framework for co-operation to ensure that there is no duplication and there is good working co-operation.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 119A to 119C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wills.
I suggest that the usual basis for avoiding retrospective legislation does not apply in this case. Generally speaking, we take the view that it is wrong for new legislation to have retrospective effect. That is because, if an individual behaves in accordance with the law as it is at a given time, it is regarded as wrong for the law subsequently to be changed—I believe this is a correct analysis—in such a way as to change the legal framework in which that person legitimately operated at the time when they acted as they did. However, that principle cannot be relevant in the treatment of victims of major incidents and the provision of advocacy services to such victims. It is not as if there is anything in the Bill that could affect the behaviour of victims or indeed the behaviour of others in respect of major incidents, regardless of whether or not those others may have been culpable in some way for the occurrence of the incident.
There is a safeguard in the Bill against stale incidents becoming the subject of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, simply because they are past and could be a long way past, but the meaning of a “major incident” includes the definition in Clause 28(2)(c), which says that a
“‘major incident’ means an incident that … is declared in writing by the Secretary of State to be a major incident for the purposes of this Part”.
For that reason, the Secretary of State could take the view that, if an incident were so stale that it ought not to be the subject of a major incident determination, he or she simply would not make one.
The other point I wish to make is that the noble Lord’s Amendment 119C shows the importance of the possibility of making the legislation retrospective. It talks about a single event or a series of linked events over time. In the case of a series of linked events, it may be the last event that gives rise to the need to call it a major incident but all previous events need to be taken into account as well. Therefore, the amendment shows how important the Wills amendments could be—if I can put it in that way.
I will speak briefly to Amendment 120 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which he has not addressed because no doubt he is going to wind up. I will not be winding up on behalf of these Benches as a result. His amendment concerns the possibility of declaring a major incident when only a small number of individuals are killed, injured or suffer major harm. To us, it is important that that amendment is permitted.
I take as an example—it is one that I simply thought of—the terrorist attack on Fishmongers’ Hall by Usman Khan in November 2019, when two people were killed and three more injured. In the words of the BBC a little while later, that incident
“touched the lives of so many”.
One knows that the incident must have touched the lives in a very serious way of those who intervened, those who witnessed the offences on London Bridge, and those who attended the Fishmongers’ Hall rehabilitation conference which led to such disastrous consequences. All were, in a sense, victims of the attack. All may have suffered, if not serious harm, at least some psychological harm. All may have needed some support. That need could be helped by the provision of advocacy services, advice or representation of some sort. The amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Ponsonby, taken together, would secure that that would be possible, even in the case of past events.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, on the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, in some of the issues he raised—infected blood or sodium valproate—people raised the alarm and were not listened to over decades; it can take a long time for the enormity and scale of a tragedy to come to light. That is a defining theme for many of the issues that could potentially be looked at by the IPA. I fully support those amendments.
On Amendment 120, a concern about the way the IPA has been set up is the point about major incidents. It will kick in when there is a major incident, such as Hillsborough or Grenfell. In such an instance, there is a very good chance there will be a public inquiry; I think the public would demand it. There has always been a concern about incidents that perhaps do not meet that bar: there will not be a public inquiry but something appalling has happened and, as in the nature of this amendment, it reveals a systemic failure and it may be repeated. It would need the support of the IPA. Looking at the make-up of this role, I think we should be very careful not to overlook those incidents in our desire to talk only about major incidents.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for moving his Amendment 119A and speaking to his other two amendments, and for the various examples he gave of the reason for the independent public advocate. Of course, there will be more substantial groups on this later, which we will not get to tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, explained very clearly why the issue of retrospectivity should not apply in the types of cases we are talking about.
I thank the noble Lord for doing that. However, I do not thank him for speaking to Amendment 120 because he chose my example. I have not been able to think of another one while I have been sitting here. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, reiterated, there are occasionally incidents where there is a huge amount of public interest and concern. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, made the point that many lives are touched by incidents such as Fishmongers Hall even though fewer people were killed. It is about giving discretion so that the Secretary of State “may” declare that an independent public advocate would be suitable for this case.
We will have much wider debates about the roles of the IPA. I pay tribute to my noble friend for the many years of work he has done on this. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for bringing forward the amendments in this group. All but one relate to the important issue of the definition of a major incident and its scope. I will address them in turn.
First, I will respond to Amendments 119A, 119B and 119C from the noble Lord, Lord Wills. These amendments seek to expand the scope of the independent public advocate scheme to include an event or series of linked events which have occurred prior to this section coming into force. In practical terms, as he has made clear, they would introduce a retrospective element to the scheme, allowing the Secretary of State to declare historic events as major incidents and to appoint an advocate accordingly. The noble Lord has brought this important issue to the Government’s attention. It is right that we should debate it.
At the outset, I need to state the Government’s position. Incidents which occur wholly—I emphasise “wholly”—before this part is commenced are not in the scope of this scheme. I recognise that the tragic events of the past and the experiences of those impacted by them have clearly highlighted the need for the independent public advocate. I do not mean to suggest otherwise. However, the IPA is designed as a forward-looking initiative to assist victims in the immediate aftermath of a major incident when there are investigations, inquests and inquiries into what happened. The scheme is intended as a way of providing support at an early stage. Given this, the Government believe that there would be limited additional benefit in appointing an advocate to support victims of incidents where the official processes are at an advanced stage or may have already concluded.
As the Bill stands, I can confirm that the definition of a major incident already covers either a single-time incident, or a series of linked incidents. It does not allow for the advocate to support the families of those who died or individuals who were seriously harmed by any linked incidents which occurred prior to the Bill’s commencement. Having said that, I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that recent events have shown that it can take time for events and their circumstances to become clear. There may be instances where these events do not occur during the same time period. I was grateful for the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on that theme.
I understand the importance of getting right the definition of a major incident. I have therefore asked my officials to consider it further. If it would be helpful, I would be happy to continue engaging with the noble Lord about this so that we can return to it on Report.
I turn to Amendment 120 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which seeks to expand the definition of a major incident and therefore the IPA scheme. The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to declare a major incident in circumstances that do not meet the threshold of a significant number of deaths or those suffering serious harm but attract a significant public interest.
It is important for me to make it clear that the impetus for establishing a public advocate has been the experience of victims following past disasters that were exceptional, presented unique challenges and involved multiple organs of the state, which victims found difficult to navigate or have their voices heard by. The Government believe that it is important that the scope of this scheme is controlled and is clearly focused on assisting victims of major incidents which are, by their nature, rare. This amendment would set a possible expectation that the IPA might be appointed to support victims who have been involved in smaller-scale incidents, especially those where there are very few injuries or fatalities, which is not the policy intention.
There is a further and possibly helpful point that I can make. Arguably, the Secretary of State already has a broad discretion in the Bill to declare a major incident and to interpret the term “significant”. For those reasons, the Government, at this time, do not believe that this change is necessary. The public interest will also be one of the considerations that the Secretary of State will have in mind when making their decision, and more detail on this will be included in the policy statement.
Lastly, proposed new subsection (2B)(a) of this amendment seems to imply that blame or liability must have been found prior to this power being exercised. If the Secretary of State were to act quickly, they may risk prejudicing any subsequent investigation, which would not serve the interests of victims.
I am afraid that the amendment runs counter to the Government’s policy intention, but I hope that it is helpful that I have pointed out that potential element of discretion that is built into the wording in the Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will understand why we cannot support the amendment.
Lastly, I turn to Amendment 126 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, which would require the Secretary of State to obtain the concurrence, or in other words the agreement, of Welsh Ministers before appointing an advocate in respect of a major incident occurring in Wales. The purpose of the independent public advocate scheme is to support victims of major incidents. This Government agree that these functions fall within the devolved competence of the Welsh Senedd, with the exception of the amendments to the Coroners and Justice Act, which Clause 34 provides for.
The Ministry of Justice has engaged with officials in the Welsh Government during the development of this policy. It is clear that there is great benefit to having a single scheme that covers England and Wales to provide consistency of service. Our discussions with the Welsh Government are ongoing, as we seek a legislative consent Motion for these measures. Ministers in the UK Government will write to Welsh Ministers shortly, setting out a proposal for their role with regard to declaring a major incident which occurs wholly in Wales, and the subsequent appointment of an advocate in respect of that major incident.
I hope that that reassures the noble and learned Lord that this is a live issue that is very much on the radar of my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy. He is very much aware of the devolution implications, and we are actively working to find a solution. The Government will bring forward any necessary amendments on Report, and I am happy to return to this topic at that time.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in this short discussion and to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his remarks, and particularly for his cogent justifications for these amendments in terms of retrospection, which were an extremely valuable contribution to the debate. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, and to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, for their support too.
I am also extremely grateful to the Minister for his open mind on this issue, if I may take it that far—or at least a willingness to continue discussion on what is quite a crucial question. I am very happy to do that, and I shall withdraw the amendment shortly.
I just want to say a few words about the Minister’s comments. He stressed the word “wholly”—major incidents that happened wholly in the past. That is a very important word, because it means when the incident no longer has any impact on the victim. In most cases—to think of the bereaved or those who suffered, not necessarily directly but indirectly, as in the examples from both the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby—such incidents are by definition not wholly in the past. The postmasters’ suffering is not wholly in past, even though the damage was done in the past. Similarly, for the victims of blood transfusions and their relatives, and the victims of nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s, these are ongoing traumas. They are the people who need the support of the independent public advocate.
I am, as I say, very happy to carry on this discussion in the hope that we can find some sort of resolution. A large number of people are still grievously affected by these major incidents, and I hope that this rare legislative opportunity to help them can be seized. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton
“Victims of major incidents: registration of deathThe Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a relative to provide information in the connection with the registration of the death of a person who was a victim of a major incident, even if an investigation is conducted under Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.”Member's explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment concerning the need for a qualified informant such as a relative of the deceased to be permitted to provide information to register the death after a major incident.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, in many ways, my Amendment 121 continues the discussion about the victims of major incidents; in fact, I think we have a suite of amendments that talk about the issues that surround those who have been involved in major incidents, whether they were quite some time ago, as my noble friend Lord Wills said, or more recently.
I refer to the work of my honourable friend Emma Lewell-Buck, as she raised this issue in the Commons. This is a probing amendment, because it is important that we start this discussion, and I think that everybody is aware that the issues of registering deaths are not uncomplicated. When she raised this in the Commons, the Government said that they
“intend to launch a full public consultation on the role of the bereaved in death registration following an inquest, including those impacted by a major disaster”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/23; col. 138.]
In the Commons, the Minister told my honourable friend that it was no longer possible to accept her amendment
“due to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which will digitalise death registration”.
I report that, because my honourable friend said that her amendment would
“give the Secretary of State the power to modify any provisions, which would enable the clause to be shifted to a digital state in future”,—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/23; col. 122.]
and the Minister at the time said that the Government were incredibly sympathetic to the purpose.
I will relate the reason why this is important. My honourable friend has been campaigning for this change for some time on behalf of her former constituents Chloe Ann Rutherford and Liam Thomas Allen-Curry, who were murdered in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack. She explained in her speech, which is on record, that in 2022, after sitting through the public inquiry and listening to every agonising detail of what their children went through, Chloe and Liam’s parents were told that they would be denied that right to register their children’s deaths due to outdated legislation that states that, where deaths require an inquest or an inquiry, death registration is to be done solely by the registrar. All that those devoted parents wanted was to be part of the final official act for their precious children, but they were denied that.
After meeting the Minister, they were given assurances that he would look urgently at whether and how those changes could be made. Emma Lewell-Buck said:
“With each change of Minister”—
of course, that has been a feature of some ministries in this Government—
“the promises continued, yet nothing has changed”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/23; col. 122.]
In February 2023, the bereaved families attended yet another meeting with Ministers, at which they felt they were treated with contempt, patronised and insulted, and that it was clear that they been misled by the Government for nearly a year, because despite it being entirely possible to change the law, the Government simply did not seem to want to do so.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment. The Manchester Arena terror atrocity in 2017 chilled every parent in the country. When you watch your children head off to a concert or a party, excited and happy, you are never at ease until they are safely home. I have met many victims from this concert, and I have to say that it saddens me every time I hear about it. What happened that night is every parent’s worst nightmare and our hearts go out to them. We can only imagine their grief, which is still there today, and it is a loss from which they will never recover.
All of us in this Committee will want to be sure that these parents have all the support they need—this is what the Bill is all about. It is therefore deeply upsetting to hear that, after these parents sat through what must have been a harrowing public inquiry, they were then told that the registration of their children’s deaths would be done not by them but by a local authority official. This is bureaucracy at its most cold. The treatment of bereaved families by the state will always have a profound impact on their recovery. For those parents, being able to register their children’s death was, for them, an important step in their grieving process and it should be their right, as the parents, to have that facility.
It would appear that under the Home Office’s Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and the Ministry of Justice’s Coroners and Justice Act 2009, it is standard practice for a registrar to register deaths involving an inquest or inquiry. I understand that, if a person dies in usual circumstances, such as due to a health condition, a close relative can personally register their death. I did that in September for my mother, so I know that it is important. However, I am told that if they die in a major incident, it falls to the registrar. I also acknowledge that not all relatives want to register the death of a loved one, as in most cases, an interim death certificate is given soon after the incident for funeral arrangements —something I know about personally as well—but I want to see families being given a choice.
Having been to see so many Ministers is an insult: not just that they have been told “Yes, yes, yes” and then something else has been done, but every time they speak to a different Minister, it drains them. That they are having to explain, as parents who have lost children in the most horrendous way, beggars belief. What I am asking the Government and the Minister—all that is being asked for in this amendment—is that they be given that choice: that an extra space be found in the toolbar for the certificate, so that when a close family member wishes to be noted on the certificate, this can be achieved, without interfering with the coroner’s findings.
I understand that, sadly, it is too late for the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing, but I feel sure it will bring some solace to them that they have achieved something for future victims and can actually say “Goodnight” to the children they have lost.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I wish briefly to add my support to this amendment. It seems to me that there is no good reason why the amendment should not be passed. We have heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Thornton, about the emotional effect of suffering deaths of relatives in major incidents. It is quite clear that the emotional impact is severe. It is also quite clear that some alleviation, some relief, may be found in the process of registering the death. Why on earth should a relative not be able to register the death if they so choose? For that reason, I can see no reason to resist this amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is intended to establish a regulation-making power to allow a qualified informant, typically a relative or close friend, to provide information to register a death where the death is the result of a major incident. I thank the noble Baroness for this intervention on such an important and complex issue. I also pay tribute to the Member for South Shields and the right honourable Member for Garston and Halewood for their commitment and determination in championing this cause on behalf of the families bereaved by the Manchester Arena attacks. I also extend my deepest condolences to the families who lost loved ones in that terrible incident.
The Government are committed to ensuring that bereaved people remain at the heart of the inquest process and are able fully to participate in it. Bereavement is never easy, but it is inconceivably difficult to lose a loved one in circumstances which, by definition, are unexpected and traumatic, so we fully understand the importance for bereaved families of having a role in the registration of their loved one’s death following an inquest. For them, as for all who are bereaved, this could be a vital part of the grieving process. In this regard, I agree with many of the comments from my noble friend Lady Newlove.
However, it is also our responsibility to uphold the integrity of the inquest process. While all deaths must be registered, not all deaths will be investigated by a coroner. Deaths which are subject to a coronial investigation and include an inquest cannot be registered until the inquest has concluded. That is because in such cases the inquest is where all the facts including the personal details of the deceased and the cause of death are established. The legislation requires the registrar to register the death following the receipt of a certificate from the coroner. The registrar has the sole responsibility to register all deaths.
The amendment does not disapply the registrar’s statutory duties in this regard and would exist alongside those requirements. So, while I fully understand and sympathise with the intent behind it, it is unclear what the statutory purpose of the relative’s provision of information and the status of that information would be.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I believe that there are a number of good reasons why we will not accept this amendment. We must be mindful that an amendment of this kind could inadvertently undermine the integrity of the inquest process, in particular where the bereaved family is not in agreement with the coroner’s conclusion at the inquest. Furthermore, the amendment is limited to those bereaved by a major incident. The distress of losing a loved one in this way is unimaginably difficult. However, I do not believe that it is right that we legislate for this now, knowing that there would be many who would not be able to utilise the new provision.
While I am sympathetic to the purpose behind the noble Baroness’s amendment, the Government cannot support it for the reasons I have given. That said, we are very aware of the sensitivities surrounding this issue and it is important that we identify the most appropriate way forward. In doing so, we must also take into account the practical implications of other legislation, such as the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill—referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton—also currently before this House, which will enable implementation of remote delivery of registration processes in the near future.
For these reasons, I can confirm that—as my ministerial colleague the Minister for Prisons, Parole and Probation announced in the other place—the Government will undertake a full public consultation, as soon as practicable, on the role of the bereaved in death registration following an inquest. This will enable us to gather a wide range of views on potential ways forward. I hope that the noble Baroness will welcome my reiteration of this commitment, even if it goes no further as she has asked, and that, together with the Members who continue to champion this issue in the other place, she will work with the Government as we seek a solution to this sensitive and complex issue.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that answer. If I understood him correctly, his key point was that there is concern that the registration process might be compromised, but he did not say how. I do not understand how that could be. There is no question that the death must be registered, and bereaved families know that that cannot happen until the inquest has been completed, even if it takes years, as it sometimes does. I do not understand how that process would be compromised under these circumstances. I would be reassured if I thought that the consultation the Government are initiating will ask that question and work out how to solve that problem.
Lord Roborough (Con)
It might help the noble Baroness if I wrote with a fuller explanation of how it could compromise that process.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
That would be useful to the Committee, because then the legal eagles behind me and on other Benches could look at it and see whether it holds water. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove—whom I thank for her support—and I are not convinced. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Tuesday 13th February 2024
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 31-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (9 Feb 2024)
Baroness Thornton
“Code for victims of major incidents(1) The Secretary of State must issue a code of practice as to the services to be provided to victims of major incidents by persons having functions relating to—(a) victims of major incidents, or(b) official inquiries and investigations following a major incident.(2) In this Part, the “code for victims of major incidents” means the code of practice issued under this section.(3) The code for victims of major incidents must make provision for services which reflect the principles that victims should—(a) be provided with information to help them understand the investigatory process following the major incident of which they are a victim;(b) be able to access services which support them (including, where appropriate, specialist services);(c) have the opportunity to make their views heard in the investigatory process following the major incident of which they are a victim;(d) be able to challenge decisions which have a direct impact on them.(7) The code for victims of major incidents may make different provision for different purposes, including different provision for—(a) victims of different descriptions;(b) persons who have different functions of a kind mentioned in subsection (1).”
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 122, I shall also speak to Amendment 123. I thank Justice and Inquest for the briefings they have given us about this issue. I hope the noble and learned Lord the Minister will be back with us at some point as the Bill proceeds, although the duo who have taken his place are doing a great job.
These amendments follow on from our debate at the end of the proceedings last week about victims of major incidents and how they should be treated. The amendments are about the fact that bereaved people and survivors in inquests and inquiries will have suffered serious harm but do not receive the same recognition from the Government as victims of crime, so are not entitled to the minimum level of support and services. Instead they are often expected to navigate complex legal processes, with little recognition of the harm they have suffered or the trauma they have faced.
Under Clause 2, the victims’ code in the criminal justice context would reflect the principles that victims
“(a) should be provided with information … (b) should be able to access services which support them … (c) should have the opportunity to make their views heard … (d) should be able to challenge decisions which have a direct impact on them”.
Applying these principles to the victims of major incidents and interested persons at inquests would have a significant, practical and symbolic benefit, consistent with the Government’s pledge to place victims at the heart of their response to public tragedies.
Extending the provisions of the victims’ code could be achieved by introducing a requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to issue a separate victims’ code relating specifically to victims in the context of inquests and inquiries. Such a code could be guided by the same principles and have the same weight and legal status as its criminal justice counterpart. Before drafting the code, the Secretary of State should be required to consult the survivors of major incidents and the bereaved. Further consultations should be required before any changes were made to the victims’ code or its provisions relating to victims in the inquests and inquiries context.
The Government could be invited to suggest their own way of achieving the proper support for victims of major incidents. These are probing amendments about the best way forward, and this may not be it. Inquest contends that
“affording victims of major incidents and Interested Persons entitlements under the Victims Code would represent a recognition of their status as victims of significant, and often wrongful, harm who should be treated in a manner that is dignified and promotes participation”.
I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for tabling these important amendments creating a code for victims of major incidents and the processes by which it should be laid before Parliament. At Second Reading, a number of noble Lords raised the problem in the Bill that faces victims who are not victims of a type of crime listed in Schedule 1 and relating only to the first part of the Bill. It is self-evident that the victims of major incidents are not all covered by crime, or sometimes criminality may not be evident for a long period after the incident. However, the consequences of these incidents are often life-changing and require the same sort of support that victims of serious crimes do.
It would be iniquitous if the victims of aircraft accidents, flooding disasters, stadium collapses and many others were not able to access the support of the relevant services via an advocate and agencies that they need. That is why amendments debated last week, as well as those today, make strong arguments for provision. The advocates also need to know what rights these victims have in major non-criminal incidents and which services to refer them to.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, there is obvious scope for confusion on the part of—I try not to use the word “victim”, because I do not want to cause confusion—people who are caught up in incidents which may or may not be criminal. We could be in danger of causing resentment among people who are caught up in non-criminal incidents because what is available to them is insufficient. That is thrown into clarity when looked at against the victims’ code. The legislation needs something like the amendment and clarity on the part of everyone who is operating as to what applies. Points were made throughout many of the previous debate about the need for signposting, and I see that very much in the context which the noble Baronesses have referred to.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support both amendments. I shall refer to a different group; the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned several incidents that would cause the amendments to kick in. However, there is another category, and that is victims of state wrongdoing. For example, the “spy cops” scandal shows what goes wrong when a police unit goes rogue and the state compounds the abuse of power by doing all it can to minimise and cover up. Those cover-ups leave victims powerless and alone and are the reason we need this victims’ code to apply to them as well.
There are famous cases such as Hillsborough and the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. There is also a long history of Met police officers—those of us who were on the London Assembly or the London police authorities saw this many times—being accused of crimes and allowed quietly to retire early.
There is the emerging scandal of sexual and domestic abuse being systematically ignored within the police service when the accusations are directed at police officers by women who are their partners or even fellow officers. We heard this week of examples in Devon, with officers accused but still promoted to units specialising in domestic violence. These are not one-offs or rotten apples; this is a systemic failure to protect women and ensure that they get justice. The victims’ code would help to redress that.
Many such victims have to crowdfund if they are to have any hope of engaging with the legal process to find justice. I have worked with many victims seeking justice through inquests and public inquiries, and it is a very disorienting process for them. I very much hope that these two amendments will encompass that group: those who are victims of state wrongdoing.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, these are probing amendments, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, explained, and they would substantially increase the range of the Bill in relation to major incidents. That is all to the good. Part 1 of the Bill, as we know, is concerned with victims of criminal conduct and, because of the provisions concerning the new code, is relatively comprehensive. However, Part 2, in connection with victims of major incidents, is not.
Part 2 as presently drafted is concerned entirely with advocates for victims of major incidents. The introduction of the scheme for the appointment of standing advocates and other advocates is a welcome reform, but there are many other areas where victims of major incidents need more support than they currently receive. My noble friend Lady Brinton gave a number of examples. We heard of a further example last Wednesday: the argument about permitting victims’ relatives to register the death of those victims. That is an important issue—one which has received far too little attention before—but is only one of a very large number of issues facing victims of incidents that the Bill simply does not cover.
There are issues concerning the operation and impact of the coronial system more generally, for example, or the availability, establishment, conduct and reporting of public inquiries, as well as representation at those inquiries. There is also the implementation of recommendations of inquiries and investigations, and the monitoring of that implementation; the provision of information to victims and their families; the provision of practical and financial support to victims after major incidents; comprehensive signposting, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Hamwee; and ensuring that at times of disaster there is a dedicated support system available to victims and their families.
Much of this has been called for by Victim Support and others over some years. The Government’s response has been helpful in providing for local resilience forums. These work well in some areas, but the evidence we have seen shows that they work far less well in others. Victim Support and other charities of course do a great deal to co-ordinate and supply support services, but they are charities and limited by funding restraints in what they can do.
Victim Support recommended in 2020 that local resilience forums should be under a duty to produce civil contingency plans to a minimum standard. I suggest that a new, separate code for victims of major incidents would be a sensible and practical way to achieve a number of worthwhile ends. Primarily, it would set out the services and responses that victims of major incidents would be entitled to expect from public authorities and others. Secondly, it would give victims comprehensive information on how to access the services they need. Thirdly, it would enable local resilience forums to understand what services they needed to provide and so ensure more comparability across the piece. Fourthly, it would establish a standard of good practice, to enable local resilience forums and all responders to know what is needed and expected. A feature of the code I would applaud is that it could be regularly updated to reflect best practice to ensure that unnecessary shortcomings in some areas could be addressed.
These are, as we have said, probing amendments and it is not for now to attempt to draft what should go into such a code. What is needed is a commitment to devote resources to drafting such a code, thinking carefully about it and to consulting on what is needed, with a view to such a code being ultimately incorporated in statute in the same way as we seek to incorporate the victims’ code in this Bill.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for Amendment 122. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to prepare and issue a new code of practice for victims of major incidents. I will focus my response on the content of Amendment 122, as Amendment 123 is consequential on the former. While I understand the intentions of the amendments, I do not believe they are necessary, because existing codes and related commitments are already in place to achieve their aims.
First, the purpose of establishing an independent public advocate is exactly as the noble Baroness has outlined. It is to ensure that victims understand the processes and actions of public authorities and how their views may be taken into account; to provide information concerning other sources of support and advice; and to communicate with public authorities on behalf of victims in relation to the incident, especially in situations where the victims have raised concerns. Through the advocate’s ability to act as a conduit between victims and the Government, victims will have the opportunity to make their views known and have their voices heard to effect change in real time.
Secondly, it is likely that in most circumstances in which a major incident is declared and an advocate is appointed the victims will have been a victim of a crime. In such instances, they are already covered under the victims’ code, which sets out the services and support that victims of crime can expect to receive from criminal justice agencies. An additional code for victims of a major incident may therefore be duplicative, and as such may be counterproductive.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton, Lady Brinton, Lady Hamwee and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, have argued powerfully that non-criminal major incidents may need to be addressed. Victims of non-criminal major incidents will have an advocate appointed to help them access support services, navigate the processes—
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I wonder whether the code would cover the Hillsborough situation. It seems that the definition the noble Lord has just given would not cover that situation—one in which people may think that a crime was committed but nobody has ever been charged with a crime, and there were definitely a very large number of victims.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. The other point he has raised about the type of—if I can call it this— “victimhood” completely ignores the experience of the victim, the journey they have to make, and the services, which are so vital to the victims’ code. How can he explain that victims of major incidents that are not deemed to be a crime at the time would be able access those services in the same way? They are no less victims.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I understand the points made by both noble Baronesses. I have had extensive dialogue with the department on this point today and I will try to give the best answers I can. We can follow up further beyond that.
As cases of non-criminal major incidents do not go through the criminal justice system, the measures in the Bill and code are not appropriate for this cohort. If a major incident subsequently becomes criminal, victims will be entitled to services under the code. The majority of measures under the code help those going through the criminal justice system, so would not be appropriate for those who are not.
In relation to support services under the code and broadening access, expanding these to those incidents where no crime has been committed could impact access to support services designed for victims of crime, but that does not prevent separate provision designed to meet the needs of those who have experienced a major incident.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am really sorry to intervene again and am very grateful to the noble Lord. The amendment does not say that it is the same victims’ code as under Part 1 of the Bill; this is a different victims’ code. Can he explain to your Lordships’ Committee why a separate code, often with references to different services and agencies, would impact on the other one?
Lord Roborough (Con)
As I have already said, I believe that most victims will be victims of crime; most major incidents will involve criminal behaviour of some description, or a criminal investigation. We believe it is a subset, but nevertheless a very important subset, of victims who need to have their needs addressed. We completely agree with that.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
The Minister has accepted that there is a subset and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has demonstrated, it is a very important subset of victims who are not victims of crime but of tragic accidents or incidents. I am not sure that his answers so far and his speech so far have taken in the real difference, which is that victims of crime are involved in process that leads to—and is at least partially resolved by—a criminal trial, where there is to be such a trial, or a criminal investigation where it does not lead to a trial.
The Minister has accepted that the existing victims’ code is directed to that set of circumstances. Victims of a tragedy that is a major incident which does not involve crime—or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, pointed out, may or may not involve crime but does not lead to a criminal process—have a whole different set of needs that arise from tragedy rather than crime. I cannot understand from the Minister’s answers why a separate victims’ code is inappropriate in those circumstances. There may, of course, be areas of overlap but why is there no separate code to deal with this very real issue?
The additional point is that I would suggest—and the Minister has not suggested otherwise—that all of this cannot be addressed simply by the provision of an independent public advocate, however worthy that is, and it is.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
While the Minister is still sitting down, I agree with everything that has just been said but also the victims I was talking about—the victims of state wrongdoing—have not been treated as victims of crime so they would come under the original code, except they have not had access to all the information, and so on. It is worth understanding that the current code is not enough. Plus, I am “Jones of Moulsecoomb”, not “Jones of Whitchurch”—no offence.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for a much more eloquent summing up of what I was trying to say than I was capable of doing.
The Government acknowledge that there is a subset of victims of major incidents where a crime does not occur who are not being addressed because the victims’ code addresses principally the victims of major incidents where crime does occur. The Government believe that the independent public advocate will be a significant step forward in helping all victims of major incidents to have their needs met during this very difficult time.
The Government’s view is that the charter and the proposed code for victims of major incidents bear many similarities and it may be duplicative to implement both. The Government are also not convinced at this time of the necessity of placing these codes and charters which aim to change culture on a statutory footing, but we are happy to consult all Ministers, given the strength of feeling about how best to address the needs of victims of major incidents where crime is not involved. As I say, we have had dialogue today on exactly this matter and I am conscious that I am not giving noble Lords a very good answer but I think it is best if we agree to consult on that, if that is acceptable.
In answer to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, about cases where the victims’ code is not followed and where, potentially, victims are victims of state actions or some other incident, the victims can direct complaints to the organisation itself. It will have internal complaints-handling processes in place; I accept that in this particular instance that may not be much use. But if they feel that their complaint has not been resolved, they can escalate it to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, who will investigate further.
Through the Bill, we are making it easier for complaints to go to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman where the complaint relates to the complainant’s experience as a victim of crime. It may also be open to victims to challenge a failure to deliver the entitlement set out in the code by way of judicial review. This will depend on the circumstances and standard public law principles will apply. As the most senior governance—
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I apologise for intervening again, but this is Committee and I am trying to understand. I am grateful to the Minister for outlining possible alternative routes, but he is suggesting two, three or four possible routes that a victim of a major incident, who may never have had any encounter with any of the services and agencies, has to know and understand. It is very complex. Is the Minister happy to meet between Committee and Report to discuss this? I do not want to detain the Committee with a couple of possible examples, but, thinking about other major incidents, I already have examples I would like to put to the Minister and his officials to try to understand how the system he is proposing would work. At the moment, it seems more of a muddle than the current system.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am of course happy to commit to meeting to discuss this matter, but we are not leaving the victims defenceless in this situation: they will have an independent public advocate, who will help to guide them through all these processes. But I completely agree that we should meet and consult further on this matter.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, during the debate on the victims’ code, we discussed the problem that victims are often advised not to undergo any counselling or therapy because that might damage how their evidence is characterised by the defendant’s counsel. I have no idea whether this issue has arisen in connection with major, possibly non-criminal incidents, but I can see that this could become something that makes its way into people’s thinking: “Don’t go for therapy because you might have to give evidence to a public inquiry, and how would that be perceived?” I just throw that in as another consideration. There may be similar points, not about what victims should do but about things they should not.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for throwing that in. The Minister will know that this is a discursive process and this is a probing amendment. Although we will press him on all the different things, I am grateful for the commitment to talk and to continue the dialogue about how we deal with this particular group in the code. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wills
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments addresses the appointments, functions and processes for the independent public advocate in different ways. They are all designed to secure the greater independence and effectiveness of the advocate.
Given that it has been almost seven years since the creation of an independent public advocate featured in the 2017 Queen’s Speech, Amendment 123A simply removes any further possibility for the Government to unnecessarily delay the implementation of this post. Amendment 123B ensures that Parliament fulfils its function of scrutiny in respect of the appointment of the independent public advocate. Sadly, as many of your Lordships will be well aware, Ministers cannot always be relied upon to act benignly when scrutiny of their Government’s actions is involved. It is therefore crucial that they be held to account by Parliament in these matters and that Parliament retains a role in the appointment of the independent public advocate.
As the Minister will be aware, the Treasury Select Committee, the Public Accounts Select Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee already fulfil this function of approval for some key public appointments, and for good reason. That good reason must surely apply in the case of the independent public advocate. It must be essential that the public and those who need the services of the independent public advocate can have complete faith in the integrity and independence of the advocate, and a parliamentary confirmatory hearing will help to secure that.
Amendment 123C provides an alternative route for the appointment of the independent public advocate and a trigger mechanism for the retrospective appointment of the advocate. Clearly, this would become applicable only in the event that the Secretary of State decided not to appoint an independent public advocate. I am aware of the Government’s concerns about fettering the freedom of the Secretary of State’s action over the appointment of an advocate and the scope of their powers. In that context, I stress that this amendment creates no statutory fetter on the Secretary of State’s freedom of action. However, it does entrench a parliamentary role for the operation of this position and provides an additional safeguard for the interests of victims.
I spoke on the previous day in Committee about the need for retrospection. As I said then, it seems perverse to exclude from the support of the advocate those to whom the original damage was caused before the passage of the Bill but who have still to secure justice for it and who still suffer the consequence of it, such as those postmasters whose lives were wrecked by the Horizon scandal, and those whose lives were devastated by the transfusion of contaminated blood in the 1970s and 1980s or by nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s. This amendment provides a trigger mechanism for such an appointment of the independent public advocate, as it were in retrospection. I envisage that it might come into effect, for example, when the relevant Select Committee had investigated a particular “major incident”, in the language of the Bill, and concluded that victims still suffering the consequences would benefit from the assistance of the independent public advocate. Again, I stress that this would not impose a statutory fetter on the Secretary of State, but it might spur them on to action if they had not already taken it. However, the amendment would require the Secretary of State to justify their decision to Parliament and render them subject to scrutiny of their decision to reject such a recommendation. I hope that the Government might recognise that it is in the interests of victims that any decisions by the Secretary of State in this area should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. After all, we remain a parliamentary democracy—despite some recent attempts to subvert it.
Amendment 124A is perhaps the most important of this group of amendments that I have tabled, because it entrenches the timely achievement of transparency as a key task of the independent public advocate. The amendment avoids being overly prescriptive about what powers the independent public advocate might require to establish an effective fact-finding inquiry to secure timely transparency for the victims, the bereaved and the wider public, because obviously the circumstances of every major incident will be different. However, this might well include placing the advocate in the position of data controllers, so they would be enabled to see all the relevant documentation and report on it without necessarily being able, under data protection regulations, to publish all the data.
In his letter to Peers, the Minister—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy—set out the reasons for the Government resisting such powers, and they are worth quoting, because to me they exemplify many of the problems with the Government’s approach. He said that
“a new and competing investigative body would be disruptive, duplicative and risk undermining or prejudicing other investigations which are seeking to establish the truth or assign liability”.
I am afraid these assertions are not borne out by evidence. The role need not compete with other investigations under the terms of this amendment. If the Secretary of State believes that such power would not be in the public interest, nothing in this amendment would force them to grant it. It remains at the Secretary of State’s discretion. However, this amendment forces the Secretary of State to justify such a decision, in respect of the fact that they made it with regard to timeliness, cost, transparency, and the emotional and financial interests of the victims.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 124A and first to 133ZA, which recommends the review that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, just talked about—a review of the way in which the IPA is working once the office is up and running. I am not always a fan of reviews in legislation, but in this instance it does seem to make sense, given that this is such a ground-breaking role.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, has already made clear, it is a position that has taken a long time to get off the ground. It is fair to say that officials have grappled with the role and what it will look like in practice. Having originally proposed a panel that would be activated in the event of a disaster, the Government have now agreed on a single standing advocate. This is welcome news. As my noble friend the Minister knows, I think the IPA may need the power to compel evidence, so I firmly agree with Amendment 124A, which would allow the Secretary of State to grant the IPA the ability to establish a fact-finding inquiry, with the right to see all relevant documentation.
The noble Lord, Lord Wills, has done this brilliantly, so I will just quickly add that this is central to the role of the IPA given the dissembling that lies at the heart of pretty much every disaster, as institutions still seek to protect themselves over and above those who have been wronged. I completely agree with the noble Lord’s point that such a power would not put the IPA in competition with others but would be a cost-effective triage. He makes an interesting point about the difference and the fact that perhaps we have not had a repeat of the Hillsborough Independent Panel inquiry. One reason for that comes from victims themselves, which we saw with Lucy Letby: we must have a statutory public inquiry, because that is the only way we can compel witnesses and evidence. As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, has said, we go down the road of these very expensive public inquiries when perhaps, with the powers that he suggests only being switched on by the Secretary of State in the right instance, we could avoid some of that.
To mention them again, although the sub-postmasters are not a group of people I have worked with personally, I watched the programme along with everybody else. I cannot help thinking about that moment when they all said, “Oh, I thought I was the only one. I wrote and they all said that I was the only one”. At that point, there were 200 or 300 of them. If the IPA had existed, could they have gone to the IPA and said, “We’ve formed this group of 300 of us and this has happened to us”? If the IPA had the power to write to the Post Office and say, “Can you please tell me how many complaints you have had about the Horizon system?”, could so much pain and damage have been stopped? The IPA would have had the power to get that answer in a way that they did not because, as usual, the dissembling meant that they could not get to the information.
Along with the noble Lord, Lord Wills, I realise that the Government think otherwise about the power to compel evidence, despite the views of victims, survivors and families—who are all in favour of such a power. For now, I accept that we shall have to agree to disagree, but I will come back to Amendment 133ZA. I hope we might agree that what we have just been talking about all shows just how complex this new role is. It will take some time to work out exactly how the IPA can do its work. Therefore, in this instance a review is a very good idea because we should not underestimate what an important role this is. If you had relatives at Hillsborough, lived in Grenfell Tower, were infected with HIV or hepatitis, or were a sub-postmaster, and had the IPA existed at that point, the IPA was your one chance, the only person in the system entirely there for you.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendments that call for proper support for this new role. It should not need to be spelled out that the IPA will need a budget. I happen to think that he or she should have a budget and discretion as to how best to spend it. I am a little alarmed by Clause 31, which provides that the Secretary of State “may pay” reasonable costs and, quite separately, “may make provision” for secretarial or other support. Should the latter be distinguished from reasonable costs incurred in connection with the exercise of their functions? I think not.
I am particularly prompted to mention this because I learned the other day that the newly appointed—after a period of 22 months—independent anti-slavery commissioner is having her budget reduced on a yearly basis throughout the term of her appointment, by 5% a year over the three years. I know that the two jobs are different positions, but that indicates strongly—and it is very much accepted by people in the sector, including the new commissioner—that the Government are downgrading that role. Do the Government agree on the importance of creating champions, if I may call them that, just to give them a collective noun? They have to make the job possible.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Wills, has explained, of the amendments in this group, Amendments 123A to 123D, 124B, 126A and 126B would perform a number of functions. They would inject urgency into the appointment of the standing advocate; they would give a Select Committee of the House of Commons a prominent role in the selection and appointment of the standing advocate; they would clarify the standing advocate’s role if other advocates were appointed as well; and they would provide that the appointment of additional advocates was to cover for unavailability or to provide additional assistance to the standing advocate. All those amendments would strengthen the statutory requirements and give the standing advocate role more significance and the standing advocate more personal responsibility for the performance of that role.
On Amendment 124A, I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on the need for urgency in establishing inquiries, and agree with all the observations he—and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson—made about the delays inherent in the present system. The difficulty I see with the amendment as drafted—I would appreciate some clarity on this from the Minister—is the following:
“The standing advocate may request from the Secretary of State all the relevant powers to establish a fact-finding inquiry, including those to see and report on all relevant documentation.”
That would give the standing advocate the power to establish a fact-finding inquiry. My concern is that I am not convinced that establishing a fact-finding inquiry is the role of the standing advocate as envisaged by the Bill. I invite the Minister to explain how he sees the role of the advocate in inquiries and to consider, certainly between now and Report, how the role of arbiter or inquiry establisher is compatible with the role of representing and supporting victims. Is there another route—the noble Lord, Lord Wills, might also be keen to be involved in this discussion—to establishing an independent, quicker, more effective way of producing inquiries that does not involve the standing advocate, but that also does not involve the length and delay of a full-blown public inquiry in every case?
I also invite clarity from the Minister on how he sees the standing advocate’s role of providing support at inquiries. That is plainly envisaged by Clause 33, but Clause 33(5) permits advocates to support victims’ representatives; it does not deal with acting as victims’ representatives. Clause 33(7) would prevent a person representing victims if the person concerned was under 18—that is perhaps uncontroversial—or if, in so doing, they would be carrying out a legal activity. A legal activity is as defined in Section 12(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007.
It is unclear that representing a victim at an inquiry is a legal activity. Paraphrasing, or at least truncating, the meaning of Section 12(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007, a legal activity is exercising the right of audience, which is not a phrase normally used in representation at an inquiry; the conduct of litigation, which plainly an inquiry is not; offering advice, assistance or representation in connection with the application of the law; or legal dispute resolution. I do not regard any of those activities as equivalent to representing a victim or more than one victim at a public inquiry. I would be interested to know, therefore, how the Government see that role.
I turn now to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, about the right to see all relevant documents. It seems to me that, whatever the role of the standing advocate, the right to see all relevant documents is central, as is the right to insist on calling for particular witnesses to be cross-examined.
It follows that, with the amendments as phrased, there is a right to make a request to the Secretary of State and the right to a reasoned and timely response to that request, when it concerns seeing documents and calling witnesses. This is a modest, probably overmodest, approach. It seems to me that the standing advocate ought to have an absolutely clear right to call witnesses or to have them called by the inquiry if it is independent, as I suggest it probably should be, so that they can be cross-examined by or on behalf of all parties.
Amendment 133ZA would require a review of the operation of the standing advocate scheme and the appointment of additional advocates six months after passing the Act. I quite agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, that such a review is important because this is a complex and new mechanism. I suggest that six months after passing the Act may be too soon, because it is unclear how many major incidents would be declared in the first six months, and it is certainly unclear how long it would take to see how the system was working in practice. I think we would be looking at a period of at least two years or thereabouts before we have an effective review. However, I agree that a review of what is, in essence, a new system should be incorporated into the statutory scheme.
Finally, Amendment 128A, to which I have added my name, is the amendment on which my noble friend Lady Hamwee spoke. It seeks proper secretarial support and other resourcing for the standing advocate. The first point is that appropriate support is essential to enable the advocate’s role to be performed effectively. An advocate without a proper budget quite simply cannot do the job, but there is a further, very important point about independence. It is crucial that this advocate scheme acts independently. Without statutorily guaranteed resourcing, an appointed advocate would be dependent on the Secretary of State for the resources needed to carry out the job which they are charged to perform. That is entirely unsuitable.
There are amendments about the termination of advocates’ appointments, and the spirit of independence being threatened by the present drafting of the Bill, which we will come to in a later group, whereby the Secretary of State can remove an advocate for reasons that seem appropriate to him or her. We are all for the independence of advocates, but their role needs clarification and a review would be helpful.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on pursuing this matter over many years. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, has been at his side for most, if not all, of those years. My noble friend introduced this group comprehensively, so I will not go through the amendments in detail.
In essence, the first part of this group of amendments injects a greater urgency into the whole process, specifies roles and contexts of roles, and strengthens and increases the significance of those roles. As was self-evident, my noble friend is frustrated by the failure to actually implement this new role.
My noble friend went on to speak at some length about Amendment 124A, which would give the standing advocate powers to establish a fact-finding hearing. In talking about the necessity of that, he said that this was one of the most important amendments in the group. The figures he gave for the costs and delays in the various inquiries that we have had over the last couple of decades were very stark. I was not aware of the contrast between the way that the Hillsborough inquiry was conducted and the others that he mentioned.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Wills, so ably explained, this group of amendments covers a number of issues: the appointment of the standing advocate, the function of the standing advocate, the appointment of additional advocates, and a review of the scheme’s effectiveness.
I will deal first with the noble Lord’s Amendment 123A, which would set a duty on the Secretary of State to appoint a standing advocate within one month of Royal Assent. The Government entirely share the noble Lord’s desire for the standing advocate to be in place as soon as possible once the Bill becomes law. However, we have a few concerns about the proposed amendment.
First, Part 2 of the Bill will be commenced by regulations made by the Secretary of State. That is the appropriate commencement mechanism for this type of provision. Secondly, it has always been our intention to run a fair and open competition for the office. Obviously, there is due process involved in that, which necessarily occupies a certain amount of time. Thirdly, as I hope the noble Lord will appreciate, the Government will want to carry out all relevant due diligence prior to making the appointment, and this process will also take a little time.
If the Government were to proceed as the noble Lord suggested, it would necessitate a direct appointment by Ministers. Of course, that is theoretically possible, but such appointments are normally used to address a short-term need and are typically for posts that last 12 to 18 months or something of that sort. This point also relates to the noble Lord’s other amendments on the appointment process, which would require the Secretary of State to obtain the approval of a relevant Select Committee and to hold a Motion for resolution before making the appointment, or to give an Oral Statement if it is refused.
It may help if I outline the Government’s current intentions for the recruitment process. Given the nature of the role and the tireless efforts and campaigning of so many people—not least the noble Lord, but also other parliamentarians, Bishop James Jones and, in particular, the Hillsborough victims and their families—for the establishment of the IPA, it is of the utmost importance that we get this right. On that basis, the Government intend to recruit the standing advocate through the public appointments process.
To remind noble Lords, theprocess is operated under the Governance Code on Public Appointments and is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The scheme will ensure that the competition for the role is fair, open and transparent. It will provide the opportunity for anyone with the appropriate skills and experience to apply and help to ensure that we will have as a diverse a range of candidates as possible to choose from.
I would also like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that the public appointments process already provides the opportunity for the appropriate Select Committee to interview a proposed candidate. If it would be helpful, I am open to discussing this point further with the noble Lord. Indeed, it is within the discretion of Select Committees to encourage potential candidates to apply. They can also hold a statutory officeholder to account once in post, as the noble Lord well knows. Additionally, we have also taken the step of ensuring, within this legislation, that the IPA will be subject to the scrutiny of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which adds a further layer of accountability. Taken together with the pre-appointment scrutiny that the public appointments process already affords Select Committees, it is the Government’s belief that no changes to the process are required at this time.
I now turn to Amendments 123D and 124B. These add a specific mention so that the clauses apply only when additional advocates are appointed. I do not think these amendments are necessary; the legislation as drafted already covers the point the noble Lord is trying to make. Ultimately, the clauses in question are intended to allow the standing advocate to provide a leadership function to any additional advocates appointed alongside them. Where no additional advocates are appointed, the leadership function would not be needed or executed. These amendments are therefore not necessary.
Amendment 124A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, seeks to grant the standing advocate the right to request all the relevant powers to establish an inquiry; to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to answer any requests from the standing advocate within two weeks; to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to make an Oral Statement to the other place should they refuse any request; and to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to demonstrate that they have had regard to various factors while considering the public interest. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, asked me to clarify the Government’s policy intention in this area. The Government have always been clear that the purpose of the IPA scheme is to support victims of major incidents, rather than undertaking their own independent investigations. Our position remains unchanged. This amendment would run counter to the policy intention.
The noble Lord, Lord Wills, quoted the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy in explaining the rationale for the Government’s approach. Briefly, the Government are of this view because they believe that giving the IPA investigatory powers could conflict with the work of other investigative authorities and risks duplicating or undermining them. I acknowledge all that the noble Lord said about the intended effect of his amendment. I am sure that he will know that, in recognition of the desire here and in the other place to see the IPA having a greater role in reviews, the Government announced additional functions for the standing advocate. The standing advocate’s functions, as set out in Clause 29, give it the ability to advise the Government on the most appropriate form of review mechanism in relation to a major incident and what the scope of that review should be. It will also have a vital role in relaying the views of victims in relation to this decision. The Government believe that this is the most appropriate form of involvement for an advocate to add value, without duplicating or undermining other processes.
While I obviously regret that the noble Lord and the Government are not at one on this issue, I hope he will welcome the shift that the Government have made. I did not close my ears to what he said; I also listened carefully to my noble friend Lady Sanderson. I would of course be happy to discuss this further with him and my noble friend in the coming weeks, as I know would my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy. For now, I hope that the noble Lord will not feel the need to move the amendment.
My noble friend Lady Sanderson asked me what engagement has taken place with victims in shaping the role of the advocate. I can tell her that, since March, we have written to victims and given them an inbox, and we are happy to keep those conversations going while operationalisation continues. We have also met the representatives of the Grenfell and Hillsborough families. Further to that, we wrote to the victims of Hillsborough, Grenfell and Manchester at each stage of the Bill where amendments were being made, and very much welcomed their engagement.
On the question of whether, if Horizon occurred today, the victims could write to the IPA and ask it to look into the matter, the advocate would be able to ask questions of public authorities, such as the Post Office, and could advise the Government if it became aware of a developing situation. However, it could not currently represent Horizon victims, because this would be retrospective. If an IPA had been in place at the time that that scandal emerged, then they could have spoken to it.
On the question of whether the advocate could support victims at inquiries, at statutory inquiries the chair is able to make provision for legal representation for core participants. The advocate would not represent victims in a legal capacity at either inquests or inquiries.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about—
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I am sorry to intervene on the noble Earl. I may be an amendment or two later than the point in the speech which I address, but is he sure that Horizon would count as a major incident, bearing in mind the definition of major incident in Clause 28(2), where a major incident
“means an incident that … occurs in England or Wales after this section comes into force, … causes the death of, or serious harm to, a significant number of individuals, and … is declared … by the Secretary of State to be a major incident for the purposes of this Part”?
I can see that Horizon caused serious financial harm, but is that the harm envisaged? I am not sure that it is. Would the Secretary of State be entitled to declare a major incident in the Horizon circumstances?
Earl Howe (Con)
I think we have already debated the latitude that the Secretary of State enjoys in interpreting the word “significant” when we debated the previous group of amendments. The noble Lord has asked a very fair question; I perhaps should not have rushed into an answer to the question I was given on Horizon in particular. It might be wise if, rather than go further at the Dispatch Box, I wrote to the noble Lord about the Horizon case specifically.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the IPA’s secretarial and admin support; that was also touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. We will be coming to that in the fourth group of amendments, so if they will allow, we can defer the point to that debate, which my noble friend Lord Roborough will be responding to.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken to this group of amendments. I think everyone, with the exception of the Minister, has spoken broadly in support of them. As always, I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his extremely courteous and open response to quite a weighty volume of amendments which covered quite a lot of ground.
On the basic question of further engagement with Ministers and officials, I would be delighted. I am extremely grateful for the offer, and I hope we can arrange something in the very near future, in good time before Report, to deal with some of these questions. Quite a lot of them are details of drafting, and I may well have misunderstood the intent of the drafting. It may be that some further clarification is needed. These are details in the drafting of the amendments, and I am very grateful to move forward on them. The review question, dealt with in Amendment 133ZA, is similarly complex, and I am glad that, when we spoke a few days ago, the Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, seemed to welcome the principle. It would be good if we could clarify that and bolt it down to something practical that will work.
Amendment 124A is on the crucial question of fact-finding and transparency. I think the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to it as a modest amendment. If I had any hope of the Government accepting something more radical, I would have been far less modest, but I do not, I am afraid. The Minister’s response confirmed my worries about this. He repeated what has always been the Government’s position: that the role of the advocate is essentially a pastoral one—that advising the Secretary of State, as the Minister just described, is really only a baby step away from what is essentially a pastoral role. That really is not sufficient. Merely reiterating the Government’s purpose does not justify the purpose; it only shows that, for some reason I really do not understand—I really do not understand it, because I can see no practical benefit of it at all, to anybody—the Government are resistant to giving the public advocate further powers.
It is not a question of defensiveness over a particular issue. As the Minister said, the Bill is not retrospective at the moment, although I welcome his indication that he may be able to introduce that element of retrospection. I am frankly baffled. Timeliness is so important for victims who are suffering unimaginable trauma and grief, and all of whom, in their different ways, are seeking closure, because they fail to understand what has happened to their loved ones, out of a clear blue sky, and are given no explanation for why what happened has happened. As the magisterial report on Hillsborough by Bishop James, the former Bishop of Liverpool, shows, these delays allow those in power to construct false narratives about what happened. We saw that graphically at Hillsborough, when the Sun newspaper and the former Prime Minister told lies about football fans who lost their lives because of the negligence of the police.
Earl Howe (Con)
I meant to respond to the very pertinent points the noble Lord made on the cost and duration of public inquiries. He is, of course, quite right. This is a matter of concern. It is not for a trivial reason that your Lordships’ House is looking at this very issue in one of its special committees at the moment. However, one of the advantages, as we see it, of the IPA will be that he will be able to recommend to the Secretary of State a non-statutory route to inquiring or looking into incidents. I am sure that his or her voice in making such a recommendation will, for entirely the reasons that the noble Lord cites, be a very powerful lever in the process.
Lord Wills (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister; he pre-empted me, as he could see where I was going to go next with this. He is quite right that the Inquiries Act 2005 is increasingly widely recognised as clunky and in need of revision, but that is not for now. That is inevitably going to be a lengthy process, and certainly for another Parliament, but we have this Bill in front of us.
Giving the public advocate power to advise the Secretary of State has no teeth at all. We know how Ministers take advice: sometimes they do and sometimes they do not. In the meantime, the victims, for whom this Bill is intended, go on suffering. While the Secretary of State decides and deliberates and moves on, is sacked, reshuffled and all the rest of it, the victims go on suffering the agony of not knowing what has happened to their loved ones, while over and again those in power use taxpayers’ money to construct false narratives. There is no end in sight to that in this Bill.
We have the opportunity to give real power to the independent public advocate, speaking on behalf of victims who have been left abandoned, over and again, for years and decades. The person who is meant to represent them “may” be given the power to advise the Secretary of State, who can then do what he or she likes, with no accountability—nothing. I urge the Government to look again at this.
Notwithstanding the obvious problems with public inquiries, here is a chance to do something. We have the model. The Hillsborough Independent Panel, which was set up by a Labour Government and championed by a Conservative Home Secretary and Prime Minister in the right honourable Theresa May MP, with cross-party support, is universally accepted as a model of how these things can operate. Yet the Government persist in rejecting the possibility for the independent public advocate to set up something like that in future.
Why? We know that it can save money. We know that it can produce a timely explanation of what happened, which is of incalculable benefit to victims. Yet the Government go on resisting it. Timeliness, cost benefits and transparency; what is not to love about those virtues? Yet the Government resist it. As I say, I am baffled. We will return to these issues on Report. I am grateful to everyone, and particularly to the Minister, for his approach to all this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton
“(2A) When carrying out its functions under subsection (2)(a) in relation to a specific major incident, the standing advocate must seek, and relay to the Secretary of State, the views of victims of that incident concerning—(a) the type of review or inquiry held into the incident, and(b) their treatment by public authorities in response to the major incident.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the standing advocate to communicate the views of the victims of a major incident to the Secretary of State.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 124 I will speak to Amendments 125 and 128 in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. We are now, of course, continuing our discussion about major incidents and the role of the advocate.
The reason for Amendment 124 is that the press release introducing the standing advocate position states that the role will
“give victims a voice when decisions are made about the type of review or inquiry to be held into a disaster”.
However, there is no requirement in the Bill for the standing advocate to directly consider the views of victims of a major incident when advising the Secretary of State. The Bill provides for an individual other than the standing advocate to be appointed as the advocate in respect of a major incident. In these circumstances in particular, it is not clear from the Bill how and whether the views of victims will be communicated to either the standing advocate or the Secretary of State. That is the situation that Amendment 124 seeks to rectify. It would require the standing advocate to communicate directly to the Secretary of State the views of victims in relation to the type of review or inquiry to be held into the incident and their treatment by public authorities.
I turn now to Amendment 125. The Government have said that the appointment of advocates for individual major incidents will allow for expert insight from, for instance, community leaders who hold the confidence of victims. There is no requirement to consider the views of the community affected by the incident when deciding whether and who to appoint as a specialist advocate in relation to a specific incident. We appreciate that the need for rapid deployment of an advocate following a major incident—which noble Lords have been talking about already—may make it difficult to seek the views of victims before appointing an advocate in respect of that incident. However, once an advocate has been appointed, the Secretary of State should seek the views of victims as to whether to appoint an additional specialist advocate and who to appoint. This is what Amendment 125 in the name of my noble friend seeks to do.
Amendment 128 would require the Secretary of State to consider the views of the victims of an incident before making a decision to terminate the appointment of an advocate appointed in respect of that incident.
This suite of amendments strengthens the role of victims, which is what we are seeking to do in this Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for laying these amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for introducing them. After the last group, we continue to delve into the role of standing advocates. Once again, the lack of a victims’ code for those major incidents not deemed to be criminal, or not obviously criminal, means that the voice of the victim may not be heard.
One would hope that any standing advocate would seek and relay to the Secretary of State the views of the victims, but it is not evident from the Bill as published exactly how that would happen. These amendments create the golden thread that ensures that a standing advocate must do that, and that the Secretary of State, before they terminate the appointment of an advocate, must consider the views of the victims of a major incident. For example, there might be a conflict of interest with a future Government who are unhappy about the direction in which a standing advocate is going. The standing advocate might think that what the victims are saying goes beyond what the Government had hoped, and there might be a push to remove the standing advocate. Under this amendment, the standing advocate would be able to produce the evidence brought to him or her from the victims to say why the matter should be taken seriously. At the moment, there is no such structure to do that.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I have been happy to sit and listen as we went through the rest of the Bill, but I totally support these amendments. To not have to listen to the victim’s voice beggars belief. The whole point of having an advocate for a major incident is so that the views can be heard. I agree that, by not asking the victim’s point of view, this feels very much like lip service and an insult to the victims who are going through a horrific trauma. Are we not going to learn anything from Hillsborough, Grenfell and the Manchester Arena? This will even add fuel to the fire. I totally agree with everything that has been said. It is very important that the voices of victims are heard, right through this, when reporting to the Secretary of State.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly—the Minister will be relieved to hear—to support these amendments. What is important about them is that they would put on a statutory basis that the views of the victims will be communicated to the Secretary of State. As I have already said at some length, we need to do more and give more teeth to the powers of the independent public advocate, but this is a good step forward. I hope that the Government can accept these amendments, which really are not contentious.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this group concerns the obtaining of the views of victims by the standing advocate and their being taken into account, or relayed to the Secretary of State so that they can be taken into account. The central point was that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. If victims of major incidents are to be given a voice and that voice is to be heard, they need, under this scheme, the standing advocate to be that voice—a voice that co-ordinates and articulates the victims’ response. It will often be a joint or combined voice and the stronger for that.
Under Amendment 124, the type of review or inquiry held would be the subject of the views that must be obtained and relayed. It is a matter on which the views of victims are strongly held. They are often views that are in conflict with the views of the Government. That is a central point about independence.
The next point under this amendment is their views on
“their treatment by public authorities in response to the major incident”.
Again, this is an area of not invariable but regular conflict between victims and government. The questions that arise are, “Was enough done to avoid the incident?”, “Was what was done done in time?”, and “Were sufficient resources devoted to relief and recovery after the incident?”. All those are crucial issues on which the voice of victims needs to be independently heard and taken into account.
Amendment 125 concerns the appointment of additional advocates and says the Secretary of State must seek victims’ views on whether to appoint additional advocates and whom to appoint. Again, that is a requirement that is plainly right, because the identity of the advocate and the appointment of additional advocates matter to victims, who are extremely concerned to know that the investigation and any inquiries are going to be properly carried out.
Finally, the views of the victims to be taken into account include the views that they express before the termination of an appointment of an advocate. Again, that is self-evidently right. We have in a later group an amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, removing the right of the Secretary of State to remove the standing advocate on such grounds as he thinks appropriate. I put my name to that. That is an important amendment that we will address when it comes, but it goes hand in hand with this amendment because the purpose of both reflects the reality that inquiries into major incidents may cast light on failings of government or organs of government that may cause the Government embarrassment.
One of the chief virtues of the independent public advocate system proposed in this Bill is precisely its independence of government. It is therefore essential that an advocate appointed to represent victims’ interests should be clear and free to carry out those functions fearlessly. If that involves criticism of government or individual Ministers, those criticisms should be made and investigated. The views of victims on the termination of an advocate’s appointment will therefore be central to that process. They should be central to any consideration of the termination of an advocate’s employment. That should not be left to the Secretary of State without regard to the views of victims.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for these amendments, which bring us to an important dimension of any major disaster or incident: the need to give families a voice in decisions about the support they receive. I have a great deal of sympathy with the aims of these amendments. I will take them in turn.
Amendment 124 would require the standing advocate to obtain the views of victims of major incidents regarding any review or inquiry held into the incident and their treatment by public authorities, and then communicate those views to the Secretary of State. Let me say immediately that there is no disagreement here between the noble Baroness and the Government as regards the desired outcome. We agree that an important function of the standing advocate will be to champion victims’ voices to the Government and facilitate better engagement between them and government in the aftermath of a major incident. We agree that part of this involves the standing advocate understanding the views of victims and relaying them to the Secretary of State.
It is the Government’s intention that through Clause 29(2)(a) the advocate will communicate the views of victims of a major incident to the Secretary of State. This could include their views regarding any government-initiated review or inquiry into the major incident and their treatment by public authorities. This will provide victims with agency in the process, which is vital. It is therefore a matter of the best way to deliver this policy. The Government’s position is that it is best achieved without the Bill being overly prescriptive, and with Clause 29(2)(a) providing the foundation. A particular advantage of this approach is that the standing advocate would be able to advise on the full range of review mechanisms, including non-statutory inquiries—as I said a while ago to the noble Lord, Lord Wills—which by their nature cannot be specified in legislation. These are valuable options and can be very successful. The Hillsborough Independent Panel has already been mentioned as a good example.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 125 would require the Secretary of State to consider the views of victims before making the appointment of additional advocates. The intention behind the appointment of additional advocates has always been to prevent a single advocate being overwhelmed, or to ensure where necessary the specialist knowledge needed to provide swift and tailored support to victims. One of the key functions of the standing advocate, as outlined in Clause 29, will be to advise the Secretary of State as to the interests of victims, and the Government would consider this to include advice on whether additional advocates are needed and who may be suitable to appoint. This advice could include the views of victims which they had gathered.
Furthermore, as the Secretary of State has already committed, we will publish a policy statement that will give additional detail about the factors the Secretary of State will consider when appointing additional advocates, including the needs of victims. We believe this to be a better and more flexible approach to ensure that additional advocates can be deployed swiftly when needed. I am concerned that if we were to proceed as the noble Lord suggests with this amendment, a consultation process with the victims would be required prior to any further advocates being appointed. A consultation has the potential to unduly delay the appointment of further advocates and reduce the agility of this scheme to react to the developing situation. Furthermore, the last thing that we would wish to impose on victims during their grief is an additional bureaucratic consultation process.
I come lastly to the noble Lord’s similar Amendment 128, which says that the Secretary of State must consider the views of victims before an advocate’s appointment is terminated. There are a few scenarios in which we imagine that the Secretary of State will use his or her discretion to determine the appointment of an advocate using this power. I will speak to this in more detail in response to the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in a later grouping. However, I believe it would be helpful to briefly summarise those scenarios.
First, should additional advocates be appointed, it is right that the Secretary of State has the ability to scale down the number of advocates should the need no longer exist when the peak of activity is over. Secondly, the Government have always been clear that we will prioritise rapid appointment of an advocate following a major incident to ensure that victims are supported from an early stage. However, it may be necessary, following a greater understanding of the developing needs of the victims, or conversely the capacity of an advocate, to substitute one advocate for another. Thirdly, this power may be used to replace an advocate who does not command the confidence of the victims. I hope that those explanations are helpful to reassure the noble Baroness as to the intent behind this provision.
Lastly, as with the noble Baroness’s Amendment 125, I am concerned that, should the Secretary of State be required to carry out a consultation process with the victims, that would severely cut across the ability of the scheme to be flexible and adapt quickly to changing demands.
I believe that victim agency—if I may use that word again—is important, and that has come through strongly during the passage of the Bill, not least in another place. While the amendments serve as a reminder of that principle, I do not believe they are necessary.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Newlove, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my noble friend Lord Wills for their support for this small group of amendments. The Minister is right that we have no disagreement about the outcomes we wish to see at the end of this. Our concern is that giving a voice to victims in major incidents is so important that it needs to be explicitly mentioned in the Bill.
I accept that Clause 29(2)(a) does go some way, but it does not actually say that the job of the special advocate is that they have to talk to the victims. I listened to hear whether the Minister would say something about guidance or statutory instruments that might say that, because obviously that would help us with this issue. Certainly, a policy statement would be very welcome.
The question of the confidence that victims or the Secretary of State would or would not have in the special advocate is one of great sensitivity. It could be that the special advocate was giving the Government a very hard time and they may not be enjoying that, and we need to make sure that that person is protected by the statute under those circumstances. However, we have made some progress in opening up this discussion, which I know we are going to follow through in the next group of amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, a good deal has been said about this amendment already in one way or another before I have got to my feet to introduce it.
Perhas I might begin with a bit of a preamble. I think I can take it as common ground across the Committee that the advocate appointed in respect of major incidents must be independent—that is, independent of the Secretary of State. The phrase “independent public advocate” has been used several times today from the Benches opposite, and I think the Minister used the expression “IPA”. Although he did not actually express the word “independent” as such, IPA means “independent public advocate”, so I take that as an indication that “independent” is agreed as a proper and necessary qualification of the advocate that we are talking about.
I think I am right in saying that it is a curious feature that “independent” does not actually appear in any of the clauses in this part, but it does appear in the contents. When the list of contents comes to Clause 33, it refers to “an independent public advocate”, so there is some basis in the text of the Bill for using that expression. That is why I think I can take it as secure common ground for what I am about to say that independence is a necessary qualification for the advocate.
My amendment seeks to address the phrase
“on such grounds as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”
in Clause 31(2) referring to the termination of the appointment of the advocate. As I read the clause, it seems to open the ability of the Secretary of State to terminate the appointment very widely indeed. With my amendment I am seeking to limit the grounds, in the interests of clarity, to situations where the advocate is either unfit or unable to fulfil the functions of the advocate.
I cannot claim much originality for the amendment because it derives from a report on the Bill that was published on 18 January this year by the Constitution Committee, of which I was then a member. The committee suggested that the independence of the advocate might be better protected if the words in my amendment were to be substituted. The committee refers by way of an example to their use with regard to similar appointments, particularly the appointment of a Victims’ Commissioner, under the now repealed Section 48 of the Domestic Violence, Crimes and Victims Act 2004, where that phrase was used. That particular provision has been repealed. I am not quite sure where it is now, although I am sure it exists somewhere, but the fact it was there gives some precedent for the phraseology that I am putting forward in my amendment.
To come back to the principle itself, the principle that the advocate must be independent if he or she is to perform the functions set out in Clauses 33 and 35 lies at the heart of what my amendment is all about. It is also true of Amendment 129 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. I refer the Committee to the phrase that he includes in that amendment, which is
“must be independent with respect to its functioning and decision-making processes, and discharge of its statutory duties”.
Although I did not add my name to the noble Lord’s amendment, I offer it my full support because it strikes at the very point that I am seeking to make and it has the great merit of introducing the word “independent” into this part of the Bill for the first time, which takes the matter a significant step forward.
The point is that the role of the advocates that the Bill is referring to in Part 2 is to represent the interests of the people who need them, not those of the Secretary of State. Clause 33(3), for example, states that an advocate appointed in respect of a major incident may provide such support to victims of the incident in relation to an investigation by a public authority
“as the advocate considers appropriate”.
Clause 33(4) provides that such support may include
“helping victims understand the actions of public authorities … communicating with public authorities”
on their behalf, and
“assisting victims to access documents or other information in relation to an investigation, inquest or inquiry”.
The point was made earlier that, if the advocate is to engage in encouraging and assisting victims to access documents, independence is rather important to be able to carry out that function to its proper degree.
Then there is the reporting function in Clause 35. Reference is made here to the advocate’s opinions as to the treatment of victims in the course of an investigation, inquest or inquiry, and
“such matters as the advocate considers relevant”
to the major incident. I submit it is essential, if the advocate is to fulfil the functions set out in these clauses, that he or she should be free to exercise his or her own judgment without looking over his or her shoulder to see whether the Secretary of State likes or approves of what they are doing. There is a risk of a conflict of interest if the appointment is terminable on whatever grounds the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
I listened with some care to what the noble Earl said at the end of the last group for a hint as to what the objection to my amendment might be. He suggested that the Secretary of State may wish to limit the number of advocates or, for some other reason, move the appointments around, and so on. There is nothing sinister in this, it is simply a matter of proper organisation of the resources. I take that point, but it seems to me that the phrase in the clause is so wide that it opens the door to the accusation that it is actually at risk of undermining the independence of the advocate. It is an invitation, or it leaves it open to the Secretary of State, to terminate the appointment simply because the Secretary of State is dissatisfied or objects in some way to what the advocate is doing. That is the very last thing one would want if the advocate is to be truly independent.
Of course, I do not suggest that the formula I have put forward is the last word on this matter. It may be that the phraseology to which I draw attention could be limited in some way to remove the objection to which my amendment is primarily addressed. But I think I have said enough to enable the Minister to understand the point I am making. I hope he will give careful consideration to amending Clause 31(2), if not in the way I have suggested, at least in some other way to limit the breadth of the phraseology. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak first to the two amendments in my name. Amendment 29 states:
“During their appointment, an advocate may sit within the Ministry of Justice for administrative purposes, but must be independent with respect to its functioning and decision-making processes, and discharge of its statutory duties”.
The purpose of this probing amendment is to seek clarification of the function and operational independence of the advocate.
Amendment 132 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to issue guidance to advocates appointed in respect of major incidents and give this power instead to the standing advocate. It states:
“The standing advocate may issue guidance as to the matters to which other advocates appointed in respect of a major incident must have regard to in exercising their functions”.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, spoke to his Amendment 127. In a sense, there is an overlapping theme between this short group and the previous one and, indeed, other matters that have been discussed in Committee. That overall theme is bolstering the independence of the public advocate. I take the noble and learned Lord’s point regarding Amendment 129—I must admit I had not really appreciated it—that this is the first time “independent” appears in this part of the Bill. That is another example of bolstering the independence of the public advocate and the role itself.
In a previous group, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, spoke about putting the financial support for the IPA in the Bill. That too is a way of bolstering support, giving the advocate independence from the Secretary of State, so that the IPA is not constantly looking over his shoulder in terms of what the Secretary of State’s views might be. I too take the Minister’s point, made at the end of the previous group, that there may be practical reasons why the Secretary of State wants to move public advocates around. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, there is nothing sinister about that. Nevertheless, this suite of amendments is all about bolstering the independence of the IPA and trying to integrate the victims’ views into the process as far as is practicable. As was said when we debated the importance of review in the previous group, the way in which this new position is managed and the roles taken on may evolve over time.
I am hoping to hear from the Minister that the Government are sympathetic to the overall thrust of the amendments on independence of operation and making sure that victims’ views are represented at every opportunity as this role evolves.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. There can be no disputing that independence is key, and it would be very sensible if the Bill was slightly amended to refer to the independent standing advocate, or something of that kind. Independence not being in dispute, the issue is how to safeguard it. Normally, independence is achieved by three things: the first is a process of appointment, which we have already discussed; the second is the provision of resources—again, that has been raised but I am not sure whether it has been entirely dealt with; the third, and most critical, is removal. It seems to me that that is what this amendment is concerned with.
There are two ways of removing to ensure independence: one is to specify the grounds in the Bill, while the other is to derive an independent process. One or the other will work. There are all kinds of processes, such as an independent parliamentary process or an independent tribunal. But bearing in mind the uniqueness of this post, it may be best to look at specifying in the Bill the grounds for removal. That is a matter for discussion and debate.
I do not wish to add anything about Amendment 129, save to support it, but I would add one observation on Amendment 132. It is critical to show that everything is open, and that if the standing advocate is to issue guidance, such guidance is made public. We do not want, in this area, questions relating to what is going on without the victims having full confidence.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I shall be relatively brief on this short group of amendments. I stated my support for the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in advance, in principle, during debate on the third group. I apologise for mentioning his amendment before he had had an opportunity to speak to it. However, his reasoning was a development of the reasoning that I then expressed. I reiterate his point: for an independent advocate system to work, the advocate must be independent. I take the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that if “independent” has only appeared, or might only appear, by virtue of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that is wrong. We have all called it independent because the independent public advocacy scheme is a term that has been frequently used. The word “independent” ought to appear in the Bill specifically, and the independent standing advocate could be called exactly that to make the point clear.
That means that such an advocate must be able to advance the victims’ interests without a concern that they are liable to be removed by the Secretary of State without very good reason. For such reasons
“as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”,
which is the wording used in the Bill, is just not good enough. Nothing less than the formulation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, of them being
“unfit or unable to fulfil their functions”
will do as a justification for removal.
I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. This could also be achieved by a process for termination, not simply by the grounds for termination. Those are not necessarily alternatives; we could have both approaches. I suggest that the Government ought to consider whether the process should not be strengthened. To make the point I have made before, the Bill is shot through with the difficulty that the interests of the victims may conflict with the interests of the Secretary of State. That important conflict of interest can be resolved only by removing power from the Secretary of State.
I turn to Amendment 129 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which proposes that office facilities may be afforded by the Ministry of Justice, provided that they do not compromise the functional independence of the standing advocate. That is another point on independence. It is plainly administratively convenient and may be necessary that the Ministry of Justice provides the office facilities, but that does not mean that the bodies are not completely separate, and they must be.
Amendment 128A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, to which I have added my name, was moved into the second group, but Amendment 129 remained in this group although they are on similar subjects. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, would answer on Amendment 128A. The point I made was that proper secretarial support and resources are crucial for the standing advocate if the system is to work. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, made the point about resourcing in general terms but made it very powerfully. Appropriate support is essential for the role to be properly done, as are statutory guarantees of adequate resourcing.
Amendment 132 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, deals with guidance to other appointed advocates on what matters they should consider in relation to a major incident. It is not right that such guidance should come from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State may have interests in diverting attention to some aspects of a major incident against the interests of considering others. Guidance should come from the standing advocate who has, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, put it earlier, a leadership role. That is the proper source of such guidance and not the Secretary of State, who has a political interest that may be opposed to the interests of the victims. I suggest that the Bill’s formulation on this is simply quite wrong in principle.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his amendment. This group of amendments concerns the independence of the advocate, and therefore I will discuss them together.
First, the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, seeks to limit the discretion of the Secretary of State as to the grounds on which an advocate’s appointment in respect of a major incident may be terminated. I believe it will be helpful if I explain the rationale behind the current provisions in the Bill. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be reassured that this power will be used carefully.
There are a number of scenarios in which we envisage the Secretary of State exercising their discretion to terminate the appointment of an advocate. First, for the scheme to be as agile as possible, it is important that we can adapt the resource required to support victims. No major incident is the same, and the processes that follow can often take years to conclude. During this time, there will likely be peaks of activity when it may be prudent to increase the number of advocates actively supporting victims. Following these peaks, it is only right that the Secretary of State has the ability to scale back the scheme to be proportionate. This power enables the Secretary of State to do that effectively.
Secondly, we have always stressed the importance of being able to deploy an advocate as quickly as possible following a major incident. It may be appropriate, following a greater understanding of the developing needs of the victims, to substitute one advocate for another who may be better suited by virtue of their skills or expertise. The Government believe that having this flexibility is important. This amendment would diminish the Secretary of State’s ability to ensure that victims have the best possible representation.
Thirdly, as we have heard throughout the various debates on this part of the Bill, it has been highlighted that victims must have confidence in the advocates for them to be effective. The Government therefore anticipate another use for this power: to remove advocates who may not command the confidence of victims, as touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in the debate on the previous group, or stand down any advocates towards the end of official processes because victims no longer want or need support from the advocate.
To go a little further, the reasons why the Secretary of State may terminate an advocate’s appointment could also include a lack of capacity, misbehaviour or a failure to exercise their functions in accordance with their terms of appointment. These terms of appointment, including the potential grounds for termination, will be published. The views and needs of victims are incredibly important. A strong emphasis will be placed on the support needs of the victims, and decisions on the termination of an advocate will always be made with these in mind. Therefore, while I understand and recognise the intent of the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, the Government believe it is necessary for the Secretary of State to have a wider discretion in this area.
I completely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that independence is critical. We believe that the Bill protects that. However, there was a constructive suggestion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that “independent” be added to the definition of the advocate in the Bill. I will take that away to the department.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Wills, would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to provide the advocate with
“secretarial and all other support necessary for them to exercise their functions effectively”.
While he is not in his place, I would like to answer the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on this point. The advocates will be supported by a permanent secretariat, and the Ministry of Justice has already allocated funding for this. Clause 31 provides for an effective system of support for the independent public advocate by making provisions for a secretariat and remuneration. Work is already under way to provide the advocates with this secretariat and to ensure appropriate separation between them and the Ministry of Justice.
I will take the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in turn. The first seeks to make it clear in the Bill that advocates will sit within the Ministry of Justice for administrative purposes but be operationally independent. While I support the intention and spirit behind this amendment, the Government do not believe that this is necessary as this is already our intention for how this new statutory office will operate. Furthermore, the wording of this amendment may not best achieve its goal. It is generally not helpful to refer to government departments by name in legislation, due to any potential machinery of government changes.
The Government are committed to the operational independence of the standing advocate and any advocates appointed in respect of a major incident. The Government took steps to bolster the advocate’s independence earlier in this Bill’s passage by empowering them to report independently and at their own discretion. The legislation is also clear that the advocates will make decisions and utilise their experience to provide support to victims of a major incident in a manner they deem appropriate.
The other amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, seeks to transfer the power to issue guidance to advocates appointed in respect of a major incident from the Secretary of State to the standing advocate. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to the operational independence of the standing advocate and any advocates appointed in respect of a major incident. They will be empowered to take decisions and utilise their experience in a manner that the advocates deem appropriate. However, given the nature of major incidents and the unpredictability of the future, we believe that the Secretary of State’s ability to issue guidance is crucial to future-proof the scheme. The Government are mindful that guidance issued by the Secretary of State should not have any effect on the independence of advocates, which is why Clause 38 specifically prevents this guidance being directed at any specific advocate or incident.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for stressing several times in his reply the Government’s commitment to the independence of the advocate; that is extremely important.
The problem is that that is not expressed clearly enough on the face of the Bill. It is curious, as I pointed out at the beginning, that it appears in the contents but not the text of any of the clauses. That is curious and suggests that something should be done in the wording to clarify the matter further to avoid the impression, which Clause 31(2)(a) gives, that the Secretary of State can dismiss the advocate for any reason.
It is possible to develop my amendment a little further—I am speaking off the cuff—to say that the Secretary of State may terminate the appointment for “administrative reasons” or “having regard to the views of victims” or “because the advocate is unfit”, and so on. The point is that one could spell out in this clause a little more clearly what ability the Secretary of State has to terminate the function without undermining the independence of the advocate.
To some extent, one is talking about the confidence the advocate has in exercising what could be quite demanding functions. In the interests of victims, they could be pressing the Secretary of State to do things that may be awkward, embarrassing, expensive, and so forth. It is very important to get this clarified in a way that achieves the commitment the Minister has very helpfully been stressing in his reply to me. I hope we can come back to this. If there is a possibility of discussing this with the Minister and the Bill team, I would very much welcome that. I hope we can pursue it further that way.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I reassure the noble and learned Lord that we would like to discuss this further.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I am most grateful to the Minister for that. For the time being, I will withdraw the amendment and we can progress the matter further in discussion.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“(6) Where the advocate provides support to victims under the age of 18, the advocate must conduct or refer to a needs assessment of such persons to determine whether they have capacity to consent to provision of direct support from the advocate, or whether it would be more appropriate to provide indirect support via other persons assessed to represent their best interests.(6A) Before providing indirect support detailed in subsection (3), an advocate must —(a) ascertain the views of the victim under 18 on who is best placed to represent their interests, and(b) have regard to any views so ascertained.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that a child’s capacity to make decisions for themselves is taken into account when determining whether the Independent Public Advocate engages directly with them or not. Where it is more appropriate to engage with a representative on a child’s behalf, a child’s views and preferences on who is best place must be taken into account.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I put my name to this amendment. It was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who is unable to be with us.
Amendment 130 seeks to ensure that a child’s capacity to make decisions for themselves is taken into account when determining whether or not the independent public advocate engages directly with them. Where it is more appropriate to engage with a representative on a child’s behalf, a child’s views and preferences on who is best placed for that should be taken into account.
The amendment follows the Children’s Commissioner’s advice for children’s eligibility for direct communication with their IPA, and from criminal justice agencies when making a victim information request. It should follow legal precedent, which means taking into account a child’s capacity and competence to take decisions. The commissioner suggests that the Bill should also establish processes for when it may not be appropriate for a parent to receive communication on behalf of their child.
Children must have agency when engaging with the criminal justice system, including around victim information requests and when engaging with the independent public advocate. This includes giving competent children the ability to indicate who they would like to receive communications from, including opting for direct communication, where this is judged to be safe and appropriate. This process should be consistently embedded as part of a thorough multiagency needs assessment of the child at the earliest opportunity.
I would like to add a different perspective to my amendment regarding my role as a family magistrate. We have, in recent years, moved further towards hearing directly from children when they are involved in particular family cases. We hear children’s views on which parent they should reside with, or whether they should be taken away from their parents. During my time in the family court system, which has been about 10 years, there has been greater trust in hearing directly from the children themselves. We should be very cautious about underestimating what they want to say to the court.
I have had direct and extremely moving experience of children wanting to have their say. They have had their say and they are absolutely clear that their views will be taken into account. However, their views will not necessarily be determinative; that is a decision for the court itself. I add that as an extra perspective on this amendment. The underlying purpose of the amendment is to make sure that the child victims’ views are properly taken into account. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his introduction to this important amendment. I have to say that I was somewhat shocked when I first read the Bill. In Clause 33(6), it says:
“Where the advocate provides support to victims under the age of 18, the advocate may do so only by providing support to such persons as the advocate considers represent those victims”.
As a teacher, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who submitted this amendment, understands the vital issue of whether a child or young person—as a victim of a major incident—can have capacity to consent to the provision of direct support. To expect an advocate to make a decision, by passing it on to someone else to represent them, even if it is a parent—it may not always a parent, for reasons I will come to—without checking the child’s capacity or their interests and understanding is just plain wrong.
The example I want to highlight—I have chosen another non-criminal one, deliberately—is the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004. Many children and young people were separated by the tsunami from their families, with no knowledge of who lived, died or who had been injured, and that included a number of British children. We know, from accounts at the time, that older siblings had to take on the care of and responsibility for the younger ones and for making contact and communicating with the British consul.
I cite this example because the issue of capacity and consent in those early days was vital, but in the longer term it would have been really helpful for those children and young people in their recovery to have been party to sensitive discussions about what had happened. There was mention in an earlier grouping about how one registers the death, and in this example there might have been important differential cultural practices in handling deaths and children might be the ones who can talk about what they want and what their family practice is without, for example, a British consul having to make that decision. I think one of the worst things an advocate or a Government could do would be just to impose someone to represent their interests without gaging their capacity first.
However, this does not just happen in criminal courts, and I am really grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for citing the family court approach at the moment. We know that family courts often have to consider Gillick competency when hearing from children and young people about their own future. It is also commonplace in children’s social care and education and, above all, in health and about treatment. The CQC has a very helpful guide on the internet called Brief Guide: Capacity and Competence to Consent in Under 18s that sets out exactly what professionals need to consider. I am not suggesting that the CQC briefing or the rules that it uses should be adopted in whole, because issues about treatment are very different where somebody is acting as an advocate or having some parental responsibility. But large sectors of our public system—whether it is health, education or the courts—already use, and are trained to use, competency and consent. They understand when it needs to move to the area that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned, where a voice is heard but a decision is not necessarily made on the child’s view. Clause 33(6) cuts that out completely, which seems to be totally extraordinary.
I look forward to hearing from the Minister on why it was there and whether there would be some possibility of negotiating something that reflects the actual practice in our courts and education and health systems for children at the moment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for introducing this amendment, which relates to an advocate’s support of the victims of major incidents who are under the age of 18. The noble Lord’s amendment would require the advocate to conduct, or refer to, a needs assessment of a victim under the age of 18, to establish whether they have the capacity to consent to receiving support directly from the advocate. Where it was deemed that a child did not have capacity, it would require the advocate to ascertain and have regard to the views of the child as to who best represents their interests before providing indirect support through a representative.
I understand and sympathise with the spirit of this amendment and emphasise that the Government recognise the inherent vulnerability of children in the aftermath of a major incident. Children should not have to bear the burden of navigating complex post-incident processes alone. In the aftermath of a major incident, victims and families will be dealing with grief and injuries and navigating post-disaster processes. This can be a difficult time, and we reasonably expect that child victims will have a parent or guardian who can facilitate their access to independent public advocate support and communicate their views on their behalf. If, in rare circumstances such as those cited by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, a parent or guardian is not suitable for this, the Bill gives the ability for an advocate to provide support to someone they consider represents the victims. The advocate will ensure that they listen attentively to the views of child victims through their representative and offer the support they need.
It is well established that child protection agencies within the local authorities have designated post-incident procedures and are well experienced in providing specialist and tailored support services for children. Therefore, it would be duplicative and inappropriate for the advocate to conduct needs assessments as they will not be specialised to carry out such functions, which could cause safeguarding concerns.
The noble Lord’s suggestion of a needs assessment is interesting and has merit in its attempts to give children greater agency. However, the Government do not believe that the advocate would be best placed to undertake this assessment. Furthermore, the Government do not believe that the answer to the issue at hand would be for the advocate directly to support children. The Bill sets out measures to allow children to be supported by a person that the advocate considers represents a child. In most circumstances, this will be a parent or guardian. However, we have not been prescriptive on who that person must be to allow additional flexibility. In rarer cases, it is already open to the advocate to better understand the needs of child victims in considering who represents them.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. He said two things that concern me. First, the amendment says:
“the advocate must conduct or refer to a needs assessment”,
which is what would happen through the CQC system I mentioned earlier, so it is not entirely dependent, as he implied in his response at the Dispatch Box, on the advocate themselves having to conduct that process and decision. The Minister may be coming on to this —in which case I apologise for raising it—but my main concern is Clause 33(6). I hope he is going to explain why it does not even talk about making decisions of capacity; it just says that the special advocate has the right to provide support as they decide. There is no reference to checking capacity or consent at all.
Lord Roborough (Con)
The noble Baroness obviously makes a good point, and this is a complex and sensitive area. We are to some extent relying on the competence that we clearly expect to see from independent public advocates to make the right decisions in what will be varied situations. We think it would be more appropriate and flexible to address this in guidance.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. As she persuasively said, there are many other areas where public bodies take children’s views into account. She went through them—health, education, social services and the rest—and I gave my own particular example. The gist of the noble Lord’s argument was that it is not for the IPAs to undertake this role, that there are other ways of making these assessments and that how that happens in practice would be addressed in guidance. I will consider that answer and see whether we want to take this further, because we are trying to make victims—in this case child victims—as explicitly supported in the Bill as possible. I will consider whether a further amendment is appropriate.
My central point is that, in my experience, agencies over the last 40 years, let us say—the time of my adulthood—have consistently underestimated the capacity of children to engage in difficult issues. This needs to be handled sensitively, it needs to be managed and it needs to be clear that it is the adults who are making the decisions, but listening to children in a direct way is a good thing to do, both for the children and for the adults making the decisions, and that is what these amendments seek to achieve. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Monday 26th February 2024
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 31-VI Sixth marshalled list for Committee - (22 Feb 2024)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“Major incidents: duty of candour(1) In discharging their duties in relation to a major incident, public authorities and public servants and officials must at all times act within their powers—(a) in the public interest, and(b) with transparency, candour and frankness.(2) If a major incident results in a court proceeding, official inquiry or investigation, public authorities and public servants and officials have a duty to assist—(a) relating to their own activities, or(b) where their acts or omissions may be relevant.(3) In discharging the duty under subsection (2), public authorities and public servants and officials must—(a) act with proper expedition,(b) act with transparency, candour and frankness,(c) act without favour to their own position,(d) make full disclosure of relevant documents, material and facts,(e) set out their position on the relevant matters at the outset of the proceedings, inquiry or investigation, and(f) provide further information and clarification as ordered by a court or inquiry.(4) In discharging their duty under subsection (2), public authorities and public servants and officials must have regard to the pleadings, allegations, terms of reference and parameters of the relevant proceedings, inquiry or investigation but may not be limited by them, in particular where they hold information which might change the ambit of the said proceedings, inquiry or investigation.(5) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) must—(a) be read subject to existing laws relating to privacy, data protection and national security, and(b) apply in a qualified way with respect to private law and non-public functions as set out in subsection (6), and(c) not be limited by any issue of insurance indemnity.(6) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) will be enforceable by application to the relevant court or inquiry chairperson by any person affected by the alleged breach, or the court or inquiry may act of its own motion. (7) Where there are no extant court or inquiry proceedings, the duties may be enforced by judicial review proceedings in the High Court.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require public authorities, public servants and officials to act in the public interest and with transparency, candour and frankness when carrying out their duties in relation to major incidents.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, there is an urgent need to introduce the duty of candour for those operating across public services such as policing, health, social care and housing. A duty of candour would place a legal requirement on organisations to approach public scrutiny—including inquiries and inquests into state-related deaths—in a candid and transparent manner. The duty would enable public servants and others delivering state services to carry out their roles diligently, while empowering them to flag dangerous practices that risk lives.
By requiring openness and transparency, a statutory duty of candour would assist in creating a culture of change in how state bodies approach inquests and inquiries. It would give confidence to those individual members of an organisation who want to fully assist proceedings, inquiries and investigations but who may experience pressure from their colleagues not to do so. A statutory duty of candour would compel co-operation with proceedings, inquiries and investigations, thereby dismantling the culture of colleague protection in, for example, the police service.
The NHS currently has a duty of candour whereby there is no liability for breaches. The need for sanctions on a duty of candour was recently evidenced by the inquiry into deaths in Essex mental health services. Before the inquiry was converted into a statutory inquiry, the then chair had said that she could not effectively do her job and that only 30% of the named staff had agreed to attend evidence sessions—a key element of the duty of candour as put forward in the amendment, which would apply to all public authorities.
A duty of candour needs to apply to all public authorities to ensure an effective end to evasive and obstructive practices following contentious deaths. State-related deaths, particularly major incidents such as the Hillsborough tragedy or the Grenfell Tower fire, commonly involve many different public agencies, from local authorities to health services. Without ensuring a duty of candour that applies to all involved in relevant investigations, institutional defensiveness and delays will continue, and the fundamental purpose of such investigations—to prevent future deaths—will continue to be undermined. The original version of the duty, put forward in the Criminal Justice Bill, applies only to police officers. Do the Government agree that it is important that this is fixed, whether in this Bill or a future criminal justice Bill?
Institutional defensiveness has been found to be a pervasive issue in inquests and public inquiries. It causes additional suffering to bereaved persons, creates undue delay to inquests and inquiries, undermines public trust and confidence in the police and undermines the fundamental purpose of inquests and inquiries—to understand what has happened and prevent recurrence. Establishing a statutory duty of candour would go some way to addressing these issues.
In her 2017 review of deaths and serious incidents in custody, Dame Elish Angiolini concluded:
“It is clear that the default position whenever there are deaths or a serious incident involving the police, tends to be one of defensiveness on the part of state bodies”.
Additionally, the chair of the statutory Anthony Grainger inquiry, His Honour Judge Teague KC, concluded that it was his
“firm view that an unduly reticent, at times secretive attitude prevailed within Greater Manchester Police’s Tactical Firearms Unit throughout the period covered by the inquiry”.
Compelling co-operation with a statutory duty of candour would enable inquests and inquiries to fulfil their function of reaching the truth to make pertinent recommendations which addressed what went wrong, and to identify learning for the future.
Failure to make full disclosure and to act with transparency can also lead to lengthy delays as the investigation or inquiry grapples with identifying and resolving issues in the dispute at a cost to public funds and public safety. A statutory duty of candour would significantly enhance the participation of bereaved people and survivors, by ensuring that a public body’s position was clear from the outset, limiting the possibility of evasiveness. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment to which I have added my name. I declare my interest as co-chair of the national police ethics committee.
Before turning to the amendment, I follow other noble Lords by recording the deep gratitude of both myself and many in the Church for the wisdom and friendship of Lord Cormack. On behalf of both the party he served and the Church he loved, over so many decades, Patrick wonderfully embodied that concept of “critical friend” which is so vital to the functioning of all institutions. We were all better for his wisdom and friendship, and we all learned much from his challenges. He may not have been subject to a duty of candour, but that never stopped him from being very candid in expressing his views. We will miss his contributions, here and elsewhere greatly.
The former Bishop of Liverpool advocated for a duty of candour in his report on the Hillsborough disaster, The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power. That title tells its story. His report was produced over six years ago; a duty of candour was finally contained in the College of Policing’s Code of Practice for Ethical Policing in the last two months, for which I and many others are deeply grateful.
The amendment would require public authorities, public servants and officials to undertake a duty of candour. By placing a general duty of this nature on a statutory footing, the participation of bereaved people and survivors in the justice system would be enhanced. Inquest describes an
“endemic culture of delay, denial and institutional defensiveness from public authorities and private corporations that bear responsibility for the health and safety of the public”.
We do not always get it right in the Church, either.
As Bishop of Manchester, it fell to me to help lead my city and diocese in their response to one of the worst terrorist incidents on UK soil in recent years. I believe that we responded well—so well that we have been able to help other cities around the world that have faced similar tragedies since. However, when it came to learning lessons—discovering what had gone less well—we found ourselves hampered by the natural reluctance of public bodies to share their failings. This is not about finding guilty parties to blame; it is about learning from the events that happen.
A duty of candour would help to move the emphasis away from reputation management in the wake of crises, towards supporting victims, their families and survivors. I was delighted to learn that we now have such a duty in the code for policing, but it seems to me that exactly the same arguments apply to the other services involved in seeking to forestall or respond to major incidents. I contend that it is not enough for just the College of Policing to introduce this duty, although that is indeed a welcome step; we need a more general duty that extends to a far wider range of public bodies.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have signed the amendment and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester.
The 2013 Francis report set out the failings of the Mid Staffordshire hospital trust, explaining exactly why there needed to be a duty of candour. It said:
“This was primarily caused by a serious failure on the part of a provider Trust Board. It did not listen sufficiently to its patients and staff or ensure the correction of deficiencies brought to the Trust’s attention. Above all, it failed to tackle an insidious negative culture involving a tolerance of poor standards and a disengagement from managerial and leadership responsibilities. This failure was in part the consequence of allowing a focus on reaching national access targets, achieving financial balance and seeking foundation trust status to be at the cost of delivering acceptable standards of care”.
That could apply to many of the issues that we have debated in this part of the Bill on major incidents. Regulation 20—the duty of candour brought in across the NHS in 2015—was defined as
“the volunteering of all relevant information to persons who have, or may have, been harmed by the provision of services, whether or not the information has been requested, and whether or not a complaint or a report about that provision has been made”.
I will refer to that duty of candour in today’s debate on a later amendment.
The CQC points out that we must remember that there are two types of duty of candour—the statutory and the professional—both of which
“have similar aims—to make sure that those providing care are open and transparent with the people using their services, whether or not something has gone wrong”.
The implementation of the duty of candour covering the NHS applies to all healthcare providers, registered medical practitioners, nurses and other registered health professionals where there is a “belief or suspicion” that any treatment or care provided by them or their trust
“has caused death or serious injury”.
It is important for the NHS that it is for people who are registered, as it is with the police. If we ask to broaden it, and we do, we need to think carefully about who it should cover, because these people must be accountable—probably through registration.
Although it is a decade since the duty of candour was introduced, serious incidents, including death and injury, have continued in the NHS. Responsible hospital trusts and providers, as well as the individual regulated healthcare professionals, all know that they will be held accountable to this standard. As was described by the two previous speakers, it is a no-fault system which overcomes the old problem that saying sorry implies legal responsibility. It sets out a standard for declaring that there is a problem as soon as someone—anyone—is aware, and, where used correctly, it reduces the agony of victims and their families facing the block of institutional silence. Where it is not used, the CQC will inspect and consider why.
I support the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that the duty of candour should cover public authorities, public servants and officials at major incidents, and they should follow it. Just think if the NHS had used the duty of candour for victims and families of the infected blood scandal, or if the police had used it in relation to Hillsborough instead of blaming the fans, or if it had been used by the council and other bodies involved in the fire at Grenfell Tower. However, just as importantly, the duty of candour changes organisations so that, where possible, they think before the event, which can also prevent major incidents. Staff put the safety of people first in all that they do. It will not prevent all major incidents, but it can either reduce or stop the consequences of a potential disaster and make the aftermath much easier to live with.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and all noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment, which would place a statutory duty of candour on all public authorities, public servants and officials in relation to a major incident. This is, if I may say so, a modified version of the Public Authority (Accountability) Bill that was previously put forward, which is known as the Hillsborough law, so the underlying question here is: should we have in statute, in one form or another, a Hillsborough law?
There is much common ground between us. At no point are transparency and candour more important than in the aftermath of a major incident. As the Government said in their Statement of 6 December in response to Bishop James’s 2017 report, it is of the highest importance to combat
“unforgivable forms of institutional obstruction and obfuscation”
and the “inexcusable … defensiveness” of public bodies in “their own self-interest”. We agree with Bishop James, and indeed with the speakers today, that what is needed is a change of culture. The question is: what is the best and most effective route to bring about that change?
In essence, for the reasons already set out in the Government’s Hillsborough Statement on 6 December and the debate that day in your Lordships’ House, the Government do not believe that this amendment, applying to officials across the whole public sector, would be an appropriate or effective way to prevent a repeat of the failings that occurred in the aftermath of Hillsborough. First, as a general point, a central feature of a case such as Hillsborough, and other similar cases, is the imbalance of power between the authorities on the one hand and the bereaved on the other. The creation of the independent public advocate for a major incident—who will no doubt pursue the victims’ interests with terrier-like determination, I hope—will go a long way towards rebalancing that previous imbalance of power and securing equality of arms. I suggest that the institution of the IPA is in itself a lasting tribute to the Hillsborough families who have campaigned to ensure that no other families ever have to suffer in the same way.
In addition, still on the equality of arms point, the Government have removed the legal aid means test for exceptional case funding for inquests and will consult on expanding legal aid for inquests where an IPA is appointed or terrorist offences are involved. Cabinet Office guidance will reaffirm the expectation that legal expenditure by public authorities should not be excessive and should be published. Again, those matters should go a long way towards rebalancing the position between the various parties.
The second point, which I think the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Manchester was, in a sense, already making, is that the Government have already tackled directly the central failure in the aftermath of Hillsborough, which was a failure by the police. As noble Lords will be aware, in 2020 the Government introduced a statutory duty of co-operation for individual police officers to ensure that they participate openly and professionally with investigations, inquiries and other formal proceedings. A failure to co-operate is a breach of the standards of professional behaviour and could result in disciplinary sanctions, including dismissal.
In the Criminal Justice Bill that was introduced in November 2023, which I hope will be before your Lordships’ House before too long, the Government are placing a statutory duty on the College of Policing to issue a code of practice relating to ethical policing. In advance of that, as has been mentioned, the Code of Practice for Ethical Policing, was laid in Parliament on 6 December under existing powers alongside the Government’s response to Bishop James’s report. That code, directed at chief constables, includes a duty to ensure candour and openness in the forces that they lead, to ensure that everyone in policing is clear what is expected of them and to provide confidence to the public that the highest standards will be met. That will be monitored, and chief constables will be monitored, by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services and by local police and crime commissioners.
A further area of concern, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to, relates to the NHS. One notes the Francis report of some years ago, and there are continuing concerns, for example, around events at the Countess of Chester Hospital that are the subject of a statutory inquiry by Lady Justice Thirlwall. There is already a duty of candour on the NHS under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 that covers everybody who is registered with the Care Quality Commission. The Government are reviewing that provision to see whether it is working properly. There may be details to discuss around exactly who it should cover and collaboration with the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council to ensure that the professional standards march in line with the statutory standards—that may be a matter for investigation—but, in principle, in the NHS, those duties already exist.
The same is also true, in effect, for statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005, backed by criminal penalties. It refers to court proceedings, where full disclosure is required of all litigants under well-established principles, and a duty of candour is expected by public authorities, notably in judicial review. For inquests, coroners have powers under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to obtain documents, administer oaths and question witnesses. There is a Ministry of Justice protocol that was specifically revised following Bishop James’s report, which requires government departments and lawyers to approach inquests with openness, honesty and full disclosure. A range of matters is already covered, so that leaves non-statutory inquiries, which the chairperson can request are converted into statutory inquiries in the event of obfuscation or non-cooperation. The Government feel that, in effect, the ground is already sufficiently covered in a very targeted way.
As for public servants working in central government, the Government have already reaffirmed their commitment to ensuring openness and transparency, as set out by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister when signing the Hillsborough Charter on 6 December 2023. The commitments in the charter are reflected in the existing framework of obligations and codes that apply to all those who work in government, such as the Civil Service Code, the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers and the Ministerial Code, to which we can add that public appointees to the boards of UK public bodies are subject to the Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies, which, in turn, incorporates the Nolan principles. Those matters, in the Government’s view, reveal a quite comprehensive coverage of the issue that we are discussing.
The Government also consider that the amendment in its present form would be practically unworkable, applying as it does directly to all public officials who may be involved in the context of a major incident. It would apparently require maybe dozens of officials, junior as well as senior, to come to individual and autonomous views on whether, for example, a particular document was in scope, or irrelevant, or privileged or covered by national security or whatever. That could easily give rise to many difficult and conflicting views, making the whole process almost impossible to manage and drawing civil servants into conflict with each other and their employers.
For those essential reasons, the Government do not feel that this is an appropriate way forward. The speakers in this debate did not raise the Post Office, which in some ways colours a lot of the background to this. On that point, I can say that the proposed legislation on the Post Office is clearly being driven by some very serious incidents of prosecutorial misconduct in breach of existing rules. We do not need new rules; they did not follow the old rules.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
It is good to see the Minister back in his place; we are pleased to have him back and I am very grateful for his comments. He mentioned the Post Office. I spoke about the importance of culture and making sure that things do not happen. While he is absolutely right on the legal side, there is an issue about the personal duty of candour that changes behaviour. Does he recognise that?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Yes, the Government recognise that up to a point. What we are discussing is the right way to get there. The Government are not convinced that this statutory amendment is the right way, but there are other ways of doing it, through our codes and the provisions that we have for the NHS, the police and now the Hillsborough charter—the matters that have been mentioned.
I cannot go into specific detail on the Post Office, because we do not know what has happened, but the duty on a prosecutor to follow the codes that they must follow is a duty on that individual. I will not go any further than to make that comment.
Finally, in the spring, the Government hope to publish their response to a report by the Law Commission on reforming the common-law criminal offence of misconduct in a public office. We have to await that response to see whether it bears on the issues that we are discussing. With those points made, the Government recognise the sensitivity of and differing views on this matter. The Lord Chancellor’s Oral Statement on 6 December said, very explicitly, that we will keep it under review. While legislation alone and the Government’s view cannot ensure a culture of openness, honesty and candour, we do not rule out bringing forward legislation at some future point if we are persuaded that it is needed. The matter is still under reflection, from that point of view.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, summed it up, really: while this is a probing amendment, it is about changing the culture and behaviour of organisations. I was talking to my noble friend Lady Thornton during this debate. She sits on an NHS trust and was saying that a culture is embedded in the way that the NHS practises its procedures now, which has come from it having a duty of candour for the last 10 or 11 years. The Minister made other points about addressing the same issues, so it is not as though one set of responses precludes another, such as the duty of candour.
Of course, I am pleased that the Lord Chancellor has said that he will keep an open mind on this and keep the matter under review. I acknowledge the Minister’s points about creating the independent advocate role, the review of legal aid and individual professional standards, which are being looked at, but none of them precludes also having a duty of candour. That was the point made by all who spoke in support of the amendment. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for his response and beg leave to withdraw Amendment 133.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I too have signed Amendment 133A, which is a probing amendment and states that the Secretary of State will be acting on behalf of the United Kingdom Government when they establish the body to administer the compensation scheme for victims of the infected blood scandal.
Amendment 133B stipulates that payments made under Clause 40 must be fully funded by the Treasury. In anticipation of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, Amendment 134 is intended to probe how and when compensation payments will be made to victims of the infected blood scandal.
I acknowledge the letter that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, sent to us—and the constructive meetings we have had—advising that there may be future amendments coming forward on Report. For now, I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I start by recognising that one of the people who wanted to speak to this amendment is not in his place. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, told me he was going to speak, and his death over the weekend leaves a large gap, not just in Parliament but for the victims of the infected blood scandal and their families, whom he supported.
He said in the Commons on 13 November 1989:
“No one can give back to these victims the hope of a normal life that was once theirs. No one can remove the uncertainty with which they and their families live from day to day—the uncertainty of when the bell will toll. If any group of people live in the shadow of death, they do. It is no wonder that their story has been described as the most tragic in the history of the NHS ... I hope that we shall have a full and good answer from the Minister, but whatever he says, unless he agrees to our request, the campaign will go on and we shall not go away.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/11/89; cols. 153-55.]
Patrick, we shall go on. May you rest in peace.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his letter, and for the meeting we had to discuss this amendment and Clause 40. I hope he will have better news for your Lordships’ House today. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on Amendments 133A and 133B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which talk about payments for the infected blood scheme being arranged on behalf of the UK Government and paid from the UK Treasury. It is right—this scandal has been going on for approaching 50 years, since long before devolution, and therefore it is inappropriate for Scotland and Wales to have to foot the bill for something that is clearly the responsibility of the UK Government.
Clause 40 of the Bill was an amendment laid by Dame Diana Johnson MP in the Commons and it won cross-party support in a vote. It requires the Government to establish a body to administer the compensation scheme for victims of the infected blood scandal. The clause is the original wording of the Infected Blood Inquiry’s second interim report, recommendation 13, and incorporates recommendations 3 and 4.
My probing Amendment 134 was also laid in the Commons, but, unfortunately, there was no time to debate it. It would ensure that an interim compensation payment of £100,000 is made in respect of deaths not yet recognised—specifically ensuring that, where an infected victim died, either as a child or as an adult without a partner or child, their bereaved parents would receive the compensation payment. Where an infected victim has died and there is no bereaved partner but there is a bereaved child or children, including adopted children, the compensation should be paid to the bereaved child or children, split equally. Where an infected victim has died and there is no bereaved partner, child or parent, but there is a bereaved sibling or siblings, they should receive the compensation payment.
It should be noted that the wording is the original wording of recommendation 12 of the Infected Blood Inquiry’s second interim report. It is also very helpful that both the Welsh and Scottish Governments have written to the UK Government to support the compensation in advance of the inquiry reporting in May. On 18 December last year, the Paymaster General, John Glen, made a statement raising expectations, but unfortunately provided no information on when a compensation body would be established, let alone when interim payments in respect of unrecognised deaths might be made.
Both Clause 40 and this amendment are only the latest attempts to move government—not just this Government but many Governments of differing political parties—into sorting out and paying the compensation that is due to these groups of people, whose lives over the last four decades have been severely affected or destroyed by acts of the NHS, and therefore also by the Government, which used infected blood to treat haemophiliac patients through factor 8, as well as for those receiving whole blood transfusions.
The numbers are grim. Just under 5,000 people with haemophilia and other bleeding disorders were infected with HIV and hepatitis through the use of contaminated clotting factors. Some unknowingly infected their partners. Since then, 3,000 have died. Of the 1,243 infected with HIV, fewer than 250 are still alive. Many thousands who had full blood transfusions in the 1980s and 1990s were infected with hepatitis. Some people may not even know that they were infected as the result of a transfusion.
I thank all the victims and family members who have written to me. I cannot do them and all the different campaigning groups justice in the short time today. They have been victimised time and again by the NHS and by Governments fighting them and all other victims over the years—sometimes, I am afraid, with lies and prevarication. I pay particular tribute to two indomitable women who are still campaigning after 30-plus years. Colette Wintle and Carol Grayson were part of a small group that in 2007 sued four pharma companies—Bayer, Baxter, Alpha and Armour—in the US, who had used contaminated blood from prisoners to make factor 8, which the NHS bought and used without any warning to patients and their families. The American judge acknowledged that the pharma companies had used infected blood but disallowed the case on a technicality, saying that the duty of care for patients in the UK lay with the NHS and therefore the UK Government. But the Government did nothing.
An independent and privately funded Archer inquiry, which reported in 2009, was followed by Theresa May setting up the full public inquiry, chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff. He has issued two interim reports, with the final report due in May this year. In the middle of all of that, Sir Robert Francis also completed a report on the structure of compensation, which was published in March 2022, with which Sir Brian agrees and which he has built into the recommendations of his second interim report. That report, published last year, is an extraordinary read. No Minister or official can ignore the clear language and recommendations, evidenced by witnesses to the inquiry, that show decades of government and NHS wilfully ignoring their responsibilities and lying to victims and their families.
The Government have also recently announced that Sir Jonathan Montgomery, as the chair of the group of clinical, legal and social care experts, will give the Government “technical advice on compensation”. Unfortunately, this has not helped their relationship with the victims. First, there is concern that this group will also slow down any process of compensation, and secondly, the chair, Sir Jonathan Montgomery, a well-respected ethicist, has links with Bayer, one of the four pharma companies that sold infected blood to the NHS.
Disappointingly, Ministers have recently said in Oral Questions that they will not start until the Government have considered Sir Brian’s final report. We know that it usually takes at least six months for the Government to formally respond to an inquiry report when it is published, so can the Minister tell us whether they will now change this and move swiftly to make the compensation happen, as Sir Brian recommends?
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not having been in the Chamber at Second Reading.
Thousands of people have died because of Governments’ and officials’ lies and obfuscation about the contaminated blood scandal. This Government, and every Government for the past 40 years, should be ashamed. Perhaps this Government should be more ashamed than all because, when we finally got the long campaigned for and long literally begged for public inquiry—I praise Theresa May for initiating that inquiry—the chair, Sir Brian, said in terms what the compensation should be and that it should be paid swiftly. Unbelievably, the Government are still prevaricating. I hope they are not hoping to limp on to the next election. We need to do better to stop obfuscation and delay, and make the amends that can be made, although nothing will ever make up for what has happened. My noble friend Lady Brinton’s speech was extraordinary and laid this out far better than I can. We can never bring back the 3,000 who have died and those who are dying every single day while this is delayed, nor undo the suffering experienced by this 40-year agonising wait for justice.
I declare an interest. My nephew Nicholas Hirsch, one of my sister’s twin boys, was a haemophiliac and contracted hepatitis C. He died aged 35, leaving a 10 month-old baby daughter. Every family that has lost a loved one is in the same position. Those who are still living need to live to see justice, and the families of those who have died need to see justice. The time being taken is obscene, inordinate and cruel. The rubbish being pumped out by the Government about waiting for the final bit of the inquiry is intolerable. Sir Brian, the brilliant chair of the inquiry, has made it crystal clear that there is no need and no time to wait. Quite frankly, we should not need a TV series and public outrage to be the motivation for the Government to do the right thing.
I have been trying over the years to get redress on the issue. I remember going with Lynne Kelly, head of Haemophilia Wales, to meet Chris Wormald, Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health, to show him the proof of obfuscation and lies. He lied to us there and then, and then he lied in writing—a lie for which he later apologised in writing, and which I submitted in evidence to the inquiry. It was shameful how many lies were told by officials to victims, as well as to the parents and families of those who were contaminated. The very least the Government can do is to act, right now, before any more victims die.
Before I sit down, I want to pay tribute to all the campaigners, fighters and families who have sought justice. In particular, I thank the Labour MP Dame Diana Johnson, who has been chair of the APPG and fought so hard on this, as well as Jason Evans from the campaign organisation Factor 8.
It is important to be clear beyond doubt and lay responsibility where it lies: at the Government’s door. These amendments make it clear that the Government are responsible for fully funding payments, that they should set up the body that will administrate this on their behalf, and that they must put on the record how and when this will happen, and stop prevaricating that they need to wait for the final report. For decency, for honour and for compassion, I ask the Government to please do the right thing and do it now.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)
My Lords, before I begin, I too pay tribute to the late Lord Cormack. He was a consummate parliamentarian, but he was also my friend, and he taught me so much when I arrived in the House. Equally, he gave terrific support on disability issues; on every occasion, he was very supportive.
I support Amendment 134, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I declare an interest, as my first husband, Graham, had haemophilia and received infected blood products. As a result, he contracted both hepatitis C and HIV. We learned of this only after we had become engaged. Graham died 30 years ago, on 19 December 1993, aged 32. We had been married for only six years.
I apologise that my health prevented me speaking at Second Reading. As I was directly affected by the infected blood scandal and gave evidence to the inquiry, I hope your Lordships will forgive this late intervention.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, addresses a matter of profound importance to the thousands of us infected or affected by the shameful events that devastated the lives of so many. Your Lordships will remember that, in July 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May ordered a fully funded independent inquiry into how contaminated blood transfusions infected thousands of people with hepatitis C and HIV. She also allocated £75 million to be available for interim payments to victims still living and bereaved families. Yet only two months ago, some seven years on, the distinguished chair of the inquiry, Sir Brian Langstaff, expressed his frustration with delays in setting up a compensation scheme. He said:
“The Inquiry’s final recommendations on compensation were published in April 2023. My principal recommendation remains that a compensation scheme should be set up with urgency”.
The Government accept the “moral case for compensation”, but these words are meaningless if actioning the inquiry’s recommendations is further delayed.
It was in 1987 that Graham, then my fiancé, and his younger brother Anthony were first told that they had HIV from factor 8 clotting agents. Anthony was first to die, leaving a widow and a one year-old daughter. Graham endured five years of misery, a barrage of associated illnesses, including pneumocystis pneumonia, epilepsy and intermittent blindness. He died 18 months after his brother. It must have been unbearable for him to watch what he knew was in store for him, but his courage took my breath away.
I count myself lucky. I eventually found a way to move on, enough to lead a good, purposeful life after Graham died, but the memory and the flashbacks do not fade. Thousands of other affected families have not been as fortunate, with the personal cost of the past ever present and haunting. Many wives of infected men lost their childbearing years. Parents and countless partners gave up jobs to care for loved ones at a time when HIV/AIDS was stigmatising and isolating. There have been over 3,000 deaths to date, with an average of one more every four days.
The Government have rightly accepted more responsibility for their part in the tragedy, but they have procrastinated in establishing a compensation scheme. Not content with the guidance given by Sir Robert Francis, who was specifically appointed to make recommendations for compensation, the Cabinet Office has now appointed Sir Jonathan Montgomery to chair a group of experts to decide who gets what. Not surprisingly, the infected blood community is concerned, given Sir Jonathan’s past links with two bodies implicated in the scandal, and unhappy about yet a further delay.
According to the chair of the Haemophilia Society,
“it has caused huge anger and upset in the community. We certainly haven’t been consulted and neither have any other members of the community as far as I am aware. This is now the third knight to be asked for his opinion on it. First, Sir Robert Francis. Then Sir Brian made his recommendations in his interim report. They are now asking for a third time. It feels like they want to keep asking the same questions until they get an answer they like”.
I hope the Minister will tell us how this latest “body of experts” on compensation will involve members of the infected blood community, whose lived experience makes them experts too. The need for such involvement is a consistent theme of Sir Robert’s report if trust is to be restored. So, in the spirit of transparency, will the Minister let your Lordships have sight of the membership and terms of reference of this new expert group? Can he also give an approximate timeline of when compensation will be paid? As the Government insist on waiting for the final inquiry report to be published on 20 May, will the Minister at least assure this House then that a compensation scheme will be ready to go live afterwards?
Every year, on the anniversary of my late husband’s death, I visit St Botolph’s church in the City of London. It has a remembrance book with the names of hundreds of haemophiliacs who have died from infected blood products. Each year, I see pages of new entries. Surely this example alone should galvanise the Government into compensating those still living as soon as humanly possible. Each delay means countless more deaths without the comfort of knowing that justice has been served for the infected victims, and their affected partners and children.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I express my strongest possible support for all the amendments in this group. I congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Campbell, on their powerful speeches. As president of the Haemophilia Society for many years, I have met many of the victims infected in this appalling blood scandal. Many have died before any compensation was paid to them at all. Many others soldier on with the support of their families.
We have all been moved by the Post Office scandal, but in my view far too little has been heard of the very different but equally devastating suffering of the people given infected blood, many of whom were already suffering from a serious condition. As we know, their health-wise suffering was different from that of the Post Office staff. The great thing about these amendments is that they provide clear deadlines and clear government responsibilities.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, I too speak in support of Amendment 134. I have to apologise, for I am afraid I was unable to attend Second Reading. I speak on this amendment as someone who has spent a good deal of time in the last couple of years chairing one of the expert advisory groups for the infected blood inquiry, looking at public health and administration. As a result, like some other Members of this House, I spent a day at the inquiry giving evidence. That day made a huge impression on me, as I know it will have done on others. It made a huge impression not least because there was an audience of dozens of victims, who had suffered grievously for years and decades. They have shown immense courage, determination and resilience in the face of what the chair, Sir Brian Langstaff, has rightly said were serious failings over decades that
“led to catastrophic loss of life and compounded suffering”.
As chairman of an expert advisory group, it was not for me to draw those wide conclusions but I was able to see from the evidence—and draw my own conclusions—that during that period there had been multiple breaches of the Nolan principles and the conventions that preceded them, and multiple breaches, I am sad to say, of the Civil Service Code. In other words, the state let these people down time and again, and the state should now provide restitution without any further delay.
There is one other reason why I am supporting this amendment: because I feel that not to do so would make me complicit in what now seems to be the way in which the state, in all its forms, responds to failings such as this. We delay accepting responsibility for as long as we can. We defend the indefensible. We place the reputation and interests of institutions and the system above the interests of the people who have been harmed. We set up inquiries, which inevitably delay action. I am not in any way criticising the way in which Sir Brian has led the infected blood inquiry; it has been exemplary, and he has done a fantastic job. We then design unnecessarily complex systems for claiming compensation. We do not do this once; we do all that time and again. It happened with Windrush, Grenfell, the Post Office and, probably most heinously of all, the infected blood inquiry.
We have reached a stage where these responses themselves are a breach of the Nolan principles of public life. Let me remind the Committee that these principles include integrity, accountability, openness and leadership. This amendment seeks to change the responses and rebuild the public’s trust in the way in which we govern. It needs to be done quickly, because the inquiry report will come out in May, and it will receive phenomenal attention. It will either further undermine the public’s faith in government or, if we take this action now, perhaps people will believe that we are changing things through action and not through words.
Lord Owen (Ind SD)
My Lords, 1975 was a long time ago. I am getting on in age now, and I wondered if I would ever see the day when the decision I announced to the House of Commons with money attached—that we would go for self-sufficiency in blood products—would be honoured, at least in a way so that some of the relatives of the many people whose lives have been lost would feel some sense of satisfaction. I could make a very long speech on all those who have fought this fight with honour, dignity and integrity. They belong to all political parties; it very soon became a cross-party campaign.
I also want to make a few things clear. We knew about this earlier than 1975. A very remarkable book, The Gift Relationship by Professor Titmuss, identified the problem of the blood coming into our country from places in which there were absolutely no safeguards and very few questions you could ask about somebody’s past health. At that time, we had no way of finding out whether blood was infected with hepatitis, for example. We had to ask a simple question as a method of trying to find out whether a blood donor was suitable: we would ask if they had ever been yellow—ie, had their liver ever been affected so that they were jaundiced and, as likely as not, had been infected with hepatitis. It was as crude as that.
I want to make it clear that, through the years in which blood products which doctors knew might be infected were being used, they had an agonising choice. They had to explain the risks to the patients. Sometimes there were children who were not able to understand it, so the issue was put to the parents, who had to juggle these very difficult and complex medical facts. The paediatricians and haematologists had to do their best to explain the risks to them, without really knowing.
When I first began to look at this question, I wondered whether we could get away with having a complete ban on blood products. It soon became clear that, if we did that, we would not be able to give blood products that might well not be contaminated to a very substantial number of patients. Let us remember what the situation is. Eventually, we got a product that parents could inject at home. That meant that, if a child had fallen and was bound to bleed into their knee, arm or elsewhere, they could give the injection straightaway and the child would likely not suffer any serious damage—but that was actually one of the worst products to give. These choices were being made against this background of a lack of knowledge—but nothing explains the refusal of successive Governments to pay compensation to those affected. Nothing explains the delay, which meant that, when AIDS came, we still had no blood of our own—we were not self-sufficient with blood very likely not to be contaminated, although even then we could not be absolutely sure that it would not be contaminated.
What I would have said would have been much stronger, more vehement and angrier if not for the circulation of a letter from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, to us about this debate. I have known him in many different guises, and I know him to be a man of honour. Frankly, when I read this letter, I do not need any more assurances that there will not be any unnecessary delays. I believe his words are carefully chosen, and I think he understands, like many people from his own party and people who have been responsible for healthcare, that there can be no more ducking and weaving, and no more appeals from the Chancellor to delay it for another year or anything like that. This time, we have to honour it—and we have to do it this year.
The report will be available on 20 May, and everybody will be able to read it. Judging by the day’s evidence I gave, I think that it will be a searching and honourable report. Given the device in the House of Commons of attaching it to the Bill—of course this was a device—and now given the Government responding to this device by trying not to dismiss it but to make it more precise and effective, that battle seems to be over. We can be sure that this year—in a matter of months—payments will be made. I hope that can be made clear from the Front Bench. Nobody comes out of this with a lot of distinction, but I only say: let us read the report. I suspect a lot of people will feel very ashamed.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, the Committee listened with great interest to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and the honourable part he played in this tragic situation. I was a Minister of Health much later, between 1995 and 1997, and I had to struggle with problems with the Treasury and getting reasonable compensation for the victims—the infected and the affected—as he said. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising this issue today so that we could have a debate of this kind. It is necessary, and we should keep pressing.
I was appalled by the Statement by John Glen before Christmas in the other place. It was one of the emptiest Statements I have heard from a Minister in that situation. It was as though the Government were just going through the motions of giving a Statement because they had committed themselves to doing so, without having anything at all to say, which is extremely disappointing. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Howe for having much more sensible and positive things to say in his letters so far. We hope he can follow those up.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee that I was not available to speak at Second Reading. I had not intended to speak and will not delay the Committee long, but I add my plea to my noble friend the Minister that this is finally resolved. The speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the examples given by the noble Baronesses, Lady Featherstone and Lady Campbell, should speak for themselves. As a tribute to Lord Cormack, who campaigned on this issue for so many years, it would be fitting if my noble friend could give us concrete reassurance from the Front Bench that this injustice will, finally, be properly remedied.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, this group of probing amendments, which have the aim of ensuring decent and necessary payments to all those bereaved in this disastrous scandal, has given the Committee the chance to consider the appalling plight of the victims of the infected blood scandal.
We welcome Clause 40, in particular Clause 40(3)(a), which says that:
“In exercising its functions, the body must … have regard to the need of applicants for speed of provision, simplicity of process, accessibility, involvement, proactive support, fairness and efficiency”.
It is only to be hoped that the Government live up to the promise of that clause in future, because they have signally failed to do so in the past.
If this Bill has taught us anything, it is that all victims of crime, major incidents and appalling and deeply shocking medical errors such as this, as well as other administrative disasters such as the Post Office Horizon scandal, have so many needs that resemble each other. We need early admissions of responsibility and culpability. We need government and administrative bodies to face facts. We need to ensure that victims have early access to the services and support they need and that such services and support are in practice provided in full and in good time.
Of course, one of the tragic aspects of this scandal is that the need for speed is particularly severe. It is worth reminding ourselves that, since Sir Brian Langstaff’s interim report of April 2023, more than 70 victims have died. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, gave evidence to that inquiry, as did the noble Lord, Lord Owen. Both spoke eloquently of its conduct, and it is worth remembering the conclusion of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, that the state let people down and should accept responsibility. He spoke of defending the indefensible, and the noble Lord, Lord Horam, echoed his words. Delaying compensation is denying responsibility. As all noble Lords who have spoken have said, there is no reason at all to wait any longer—certainly not until the Government have digested at length the contents of Sir Brian’s final report. Any such delay would be a travesty of Sir Brian’s principal call, which was for urgency.
Sir Robert Francis’s recommendations, in his report in June 2022, on the way that compensation should be handled, along with Sir Brian’s report, now need urgent implementation. It is to be hoped that the work of the expert panel—established under the chairmanship of Jonathan Montgomery, who is the chair of Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, which was not a mile away from involvement in the crisis—does not delay or water down the recommendations of the two reports. It is right to say that the campaigners are deeply concerned, as the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, stressed.
In opening the debate, my noble friend Lady Brinton and the noble Lord, Lord Owen, pointed out the strength and determination of this very long campaign. We mourn Lord Cormack, whose involvement in the campaign was also extensive and long lasting.
The noble Lord, Lord Owen, spoke of the difficulties facing doctors, and the lack of political will needed to ensure self-sufficiency in blood products in this country. We can only hope that the noble Lord’s optimism in expecting the Government now to react quickly and finally, following the report due in May from Sir Brian Langstaff, is justified. My noble friend Lady Featherstone and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, added their accounts of personal tragedy, and thereby movingly added to the demand for urgency.
We know that the Horizon case led to definitive action only following ITV’s television drama. It should not be the same with the infected blood scandal, but we understand that ITV has commissioned Peter Moffat to write such a drama, so perhaps public opinion will come to the rescue once again. The burden of my speech, and the speeches of all noble Lords who have spoken today, is that this should not be necessary in a civilised and compassionate democracy.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in arriving, as we now have, at Part 3 of the Bill, I should like to begin by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken so powerfully and movingly on a set of events which many regard as constituting the worst disaster in the history of the National Health Service. The story of those who received infected blood as part of their NHS care and treatment is one of unimaginable suffering and terrible tragedy over more than four decades. It is a story that is still not yet over. The victims’ suffering has been made even worse by an absence of full justice for those individuals and, alongside that, a failure to reach—as far as may be possible—a sense of closure.
The official public inquiry currently under way, under the chairmanship of Sir Brian Langstaff, is the start of delivering the justice that is needed. The inquiry has been informed by the expert work of Sir Robert Francis, and Sir Brian has so far published two interim reports on his findings, with his final report due on 20 May. Meanwhile, in the other place, Clause 40—as it is now—was added to the Bill to speed up the delivery process.
The Government accept the will of Parliament that arrangements should be put in place to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that the victims receive justice as quickly and efficiently as possible. Therefore, my desire—and, I trust, that of all noble Lords—is to see the Bill added to the statute book as soon as is reasonably practicable. The Government are well aware that every passing season sees more suffering, death and bereavement. We are therefore eager to avoid more needless delay.
Ministers have already taken action and given a number of undertakings. First, we have promised that within 25 sitting days of Sir Brian Langstaff’s final report being published, we will make a Statement to Parliament setting out the Government’s response. The period of 25 days is not a target but a deadline. We will issue our response as soon as we possibly can.
Secondly, in response to a recommendation from Sir Brian, we have made interim payments amounting to £440 million to infected individuals or bereaved partners registered with existing infected blood support schemes.
Thirdly, in readiness for Sir Brian’s final report, we have appointed Sir Jonathan Montgomery to chair an expert group whose remit is to advise the Government on some of the legal and technical aspects of delivering compensation. I realise that some have questioned Sir Jonathan’s appointment because of his former connection with Bayer. Noble Lords may wish to note that Sir Jonathan ceased to be a member of the Bayer bioethics council on 31 October 2023. The council was an independent advisory group which had no role in the day-to-day operations of the company. It has had no executive power in the operational business of Bayer.
I emphasise that nothing in the work of the expert group is intended to cut across the conclusions of the inquiry or the advice of Sir Robert Francis—quite the opposite, actually. The expert group is there to enable Ministers to understand certain technical issues and thus enable decisions to be taken more quickly.
On the amendment passed by the House of Commons, which we are now considering, noble Lords will understand that the provisions of any Bill need to be legally coherent and should not cut across the integrity of the statute book. There are two principal defects with Clause 40: first, its coverage does not extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. The Government are clear that infected blood is a UK-wide issue. For that very reason, the infected blood inquiry was set up on a UK-wide basis. In March 2021, we announced uplifts to achieve broad financial parity across the UK’s infected blood support schemes, increasing annual payments to beneficiaries across the country as a whole. Maintaining a commitment to parity across the UK is extremely important.
We also need to agree on a set of arrangements that are workable and, above all, work for victims. It is therefore essential for the UK Government to engage with all the devolved Administrations with those aims in view. That is what we are now doing. My right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office met counterparts from the Welsh Government, Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Executive earlier this month to discuss this matter; those discussions will continue.
The second principal defect of Clause 40 is that in proposing the establishment of an arm’s-length body, as Sir Brian recommended, it does not also propose any specific functions for that body. The Government’s intention, therefore, is to bring forward an amendment on Report which will correct these two deficiencies and add further standard provisions to ensure a more complete legal framework when setting up an ALB. I plan to engage with noble Lords in advance of Report to discuss the content of the government amendment once it has been drafted.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
The Minister mentioned that there will be government amendments on Report to address the deficiencies in Clause 40 that he has identified. Does he envisage having the opportunity, between now and Report, to prepare amendments to address some of the other legal impediments—for example, to widening the cohorts—that he has identified? That could accelerate clarification and speed up the process.
Earl Howe (Con)
I anticipate using every opportunity available to engage with noble Lords on not only what the amendments will comprise but what we intend to do thereafter. As the noble Lord will appreciate, there is a wealth of regulations in this space. I venture to say that quite a lot of the detail of the arrangements will be contained in regulations, which will be laid as soon as possible. To the extent that I can go into detail on what those regulations will contain, I shall be happy to do so, but I hope that the noble Lord will understand that I am not in a position to do so today.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister. He referred to the payment of £100,000 to a lot of people in 2022, but is he aware that the whole point of Amendment 134 is to fill the gaps for all the people who did not receive an interim payment? When he referred to speeding up their response to the Langstaff inquiry, that was a verbal commitment, as I understand it. The point is that these people need an urgent payment of £100,000; as I understand it, they have not received any compensation, so it is urgent. We are talking about something that happened 50-odd years ago. The idea that we still need more time cannot be right, so I hope that the Minister can reassure us that absolutely everything will be done to get a payment of £100,000 out to the groups of people who have not yet received compensation—immediately and within a month of the passing of the future Act, as the amendment says.
Earl Howe (Con)
I perfectly understand the noble Baroness’s strength of feeling on this long-standing scandal. It may be of some reassurance to her if I repeat the words of my honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office in the other place, who said in December:
“The victims of the infected blood scandal deserve justice and recognition. Their voice must be heard, and it is our duty to honour not only those still living and campaigning but those who have passed without recognition”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/12/23; col. 1147.]
I met the Minister for the Cabinet Office to discuss these matters. My right honourable friend assured me that this is indeed his highest priority, and I undertake to the Committee that I will continue to work closely with him ahead of the next stage of the Bill.
I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to the debate and for highlighting so compellingly the issues that bear upon this appalling human tragedy. Ministers will reflect carefully on all that has been said. I hope my response has provided the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, with enough by way of assurance—although I wish I could reassure them even further—about the Government’s intended course of action to enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and for the other amendments in the group not to be moved when they are reached.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, I would like to ask him a couple of questions. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Marks, who asked exactly the question I wanted to know about: what is going to happen between Committee and Report?
In other instances, it has been quite speedy to set up a shadow body—after all, the Government now know how to do it. Is there any capacity to start setting up a shadow body that will be ready to go?
We do not yet know the timetabling for the Report days, but clearly Members of the Committee are going to need to see the Government’s amendments in enough time, particularly—to pick up the point raised just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—to try to address the deficiencies if those who are not currently included remain so.
Earl Howe (Con)
On the noble Baroness’s latter point, I hope to have extensive discussions with noble Lords about the Government’s amendments and their intended and literal effect.
On setting up a shadow body, I myself asked that very question. There are some issues here. I am advised that it would not save any time. There are still a number of decisions to be made on the government response to infected blood, and clearly we cannot pre-empt those decisions by establishing an arm’s-length body without clarity on what its precise functions or role would be. As I have said, our intention is to table amendments on Report that will correct the defects in Clause 40 and have the desired effect of speeding up the implementation of the Government’s response to the inquiry.
However, I will take that point away to make sure that there really is no advantage in not having a shadow body. The Government have done that before in other circumstances and it is worth thoroughly exploring as an option. I think I will be told that any idea of a shadow body would need to be considered alongside its interaction with the passage of the legislation and the Government’s response to the recommendations of the second interim report, and indeed the report as a whole, but I hope the noble Baroness will be content to leave that question with me.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an important debate. In fact, I go further: it has been a historic debate, because in a relatively short debate we have had the noble Baronesses, Lady Featherstone and Lady Campbell, who spoke about very close relatives who have been affected by this tragedy; we have had the two noble Lords, Lord Bichard and Lord Owen, who gave evidence to the inquiry; and the noble Lord, Lord Owen, in his speech, went back the furthest, if I can put it like that, to 1975. There are Members who have spoken in this short debate who have tracked this issue for the many decades that it has lingered.
Nobody is questioning the best intentions of the noble Earl, Lord Howe; he has been involved in this issue in a number of ways over many years. My amendments are essentially probing amendments, and I acknowledge the letter that the noble Earl has sent to us. We will not press the amendment, but I was going to ask the same questions as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about process. The Government have said they will table amendments on Report, and the Minister said there will be an opportunity for noble Lords to see the amendments before then and to discuss them, but we may want to table amendments to his amendment and we will want to make sure we have ample time to do that. I know the noble Earl understands that point, but I repeat it from these Benches as well.
Baroness Brinton
“Victims of the Horizon system: timetable for compensation payments(1) Within seven days of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a timetable for making payments in respect of schemes or other arrangements to—(a) compensate persons affected by the Horizon system;(b) compensate persons in respect of other matters identified in High Court judgments given in proceedings relating to the Horizon system.(2) In considering a timetable under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must have regard to the importance of speed and fairness to victims of the Horizon system.(3) In this section “the Horizon system” means previous versions of the computer system known as Horizon (and sometimes referred to as Legacy Horizon, Horizon Online or HNG-X) used by Post Office Limited.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a timetable for the payment of compensation to victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 135 some weeks ago, after there seemed to be some difference in timing for the compensation scheme for those sub-postmasters who were accused of stealing, prosecuted and convicted, lost their jobs and their homes, were made bankrupt, lost future employment and, worse, lost their relationships; some were so distressed that they took their own lives. This House has debated this issue a lot, and I will not go through the detail, even of the compensation schemes, because I believe that they are familiar to many people in your Lordships’ Committee, unlike the previous group.
On Saturday the Times reported that more than 250 of the affected sub-postmasters have already died. Like the infected blood compensation scheme that we discussed in the debate on the last group, time really is of the essence. The amendment says that within seven days of this Bill passing,
“the Secretary of State must publish a timetable for making payments in respect of schemes or other arrangements”,
both for those affected by the Horizon scheme and in relation to
“other matters identified in High Court judgments”
about the Horizon scheme. It emphasises that speed and fairness must be priorities, echoing the points the Prime Minister made last month. The amendment also refers to the scope of the Horizon scheme, including its predecessors and successors.
It is important to state that the High Court was absolutely clear that any prosecution that relied on Horizon is unsound. It was worrying that on 9 January this year the chief executive of Post Office Ltd—or POL—wrote an email that was published last week, stating that POL believed that around 360 sub-postmasters were probably guilty; that is, in POL’s view, the prosecution was not totally reliant on Horizon. I am afraid that this letter shows that the culture inside POL has not changed, and that is truly shocking.
The evidence to the public inquiry demonstrated that POL’s approach to investigation and prosecution was unfair and inappropriate, because POL was the victim, the investigator and the prosecutor. It often denied postmasters access to information that they needed for their defence, which is against our court rules.
Last week the press reported that POL has now instigated an “independent investigation” by retired police officers into the behaviour and actions of POL investigators. Can the Minister assure your Lordships that it will be a truly accountable and independent investigation whose results will be fully published, unlike POL’s behaviour with Second Sight, which it commissioned to investigate the sub-postmasters and Horizon? It was then gagged and sacked when it uncovered the truth. While it is good that these prosecution powers will not be used again, can the Minister confirm that this group of victims—the 360 who the chief executive of POL says are probably guilty—will still be fully eligible for compensation in line with others?
On the compensation schemes, yesterday’s Sunday Times reported that some former postmasters are still waiting to hear from POL about their claim. There is a simplified form now, 14 pages long, with 100 supplementary questions that remain—as on the previous form—absolutely impenetrable. They make clear that POL fails to believe certain claims about hardship, personal injury, harassment and mental health. Some are being asked for specific documents going back over two decades. I am not sure that I could put my hands on my P60 from two decades ago.
The guidance clearly states that POL is supposed to accept some claims, even when it does not have the exact detail. I quote from the guidance:
“Where the postmaster is unable to satisfy the burden of proof in relation to their claim, their claim may nonetheless be accepted in whole or in part if the Scheme considers it to be fair in all the circumstances”.
But POL is not telling the postmasters what is fair. Once again, it is using its powers to hobble these victims.
I will not go into the detail of the three schemes. We understand why they are different and we debated them in some depth when, on 16 January, the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill went through all stages for quick enactment. My concern is that, despite promises from the Dispatch Box in both Houses that the scheme would be simpler and accept a wider range of damages, including the elements I just outlined, unfortunately, in the hands of POL once again, the exact opposite seems to be happening.
I do not seek to open personal cases in Committee, but there are enough postmasters now saying that POL is offering them only a very small fraction of the actual losses suffered by them as compensation. Some, including Alan Bates, have said that they have been offered a sixth of their claim. This is outrageous. Can the Minister say whether the Government have oversight of these issues and how they can be resolved?
At the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill Second Reading, I mentioned a scheme that Dan Neidle, who runs Tax Policy Associates, thought would be most fair. He is an expert in compensation and taxation, and he made two or three points that have not been picked up in the compensation schemes as they are currently being run.
First, all applicants should receive a grant for legal advice. This is particularly vital when complex forms have to be completed and official data needs to be found. He also thought that there should be a large fixed amount when it is confirmed that they are a victim of the scheme, whether convicted or not. That would remove the current shameful divide between different types of cases for those convicted and those imprisoned. He thought that figure should be considerably higher than £100,000, but that is entirely up to the compensation scheme and the Government to agree.
There should also be—this is part of the fog from POL—an amount that reflects their loss of earnings from the day they could no longer work, the loss of the home and any subsequent loss accruing from that, their pensions and any amounts relating to specific damage above and beyond that outlined in previous areas. I mention this because it is exactly the sort of detail that sub-postmasters need to see laid out in a very clear form, which they are still struggling to find.
Last week, I asked a question of another Minister following either a Statement, an Oral Question or a PNQ. I note that, on page 93 of the Green Book for the 2023Autumn Statement—and in the chart on page 84—it says:
“Post Office Compensation Schemes, Corporate Entities … The government will legislate in the Autumn Finance Bill 2023 to exempt from Corporation Tax compensation payments made under the Historical Shortfall Scheme, Group Litigation Order schemes, Suspension Remuneration Review or Post Office Process Review Scheme. The legislation will align the taxation of onward payments of compensation to that of individual recipients”.
It is interesting that we have had, just before Christmas, regulations relating to taxation for both the Horizon scheme and the infected blood scheme in one set, so the Government can put the two together if they so choose to do. However, I cannot find anywhere in the Green Book the £1 billion that the Government say they have set to one side to pay for the compensation. It is not visible in the Treasury elements or BIS bits. Can the Minister show me where it is? I am not expecting him to do so this afternoon, but this is the second time I have asked about this and had no answer. I want to know where in the government books it is being held and whether the whole £1 billion is being held.
Over the past two weeks, the Independent has been gathering reports on one of the two predecessor programmes to Horizon, known as Capture. In 2003, June Tooby discovered that she was being sued by POL for £50,000 in a case that dated back to 1994 and bears many similarities to the Horizon scheme. She was not alone; other sub-postmasters from that era were also sued and bankrupted by POL. Sadly, June has now died. Can the Minister say whether sub-postmasters prosecuted as a result of the Capture scheme will also be covered by the Horizon scheme? It is a predecessor, after all, and we know that sub-postmasters were asking Ministers as early as 1997 about problems with the IT systems that were the predecessors to Horizon.
Finally, can the Minister please resolve the issue around the timings of the completion of the compensation scheme, as currently outlined? On 10 January, the Prime Minister said in Prime Minister’s Questions that the sub-postmasters will be cleared and compensated swiftly. On the same day, Kevin Hollinrake MP said at the Dispatch Box that all compensation should be paid by August, barring those where a few details are not completed. However, on 28 January, the Secretary of State, Kemi Badenoch, said on the BBC that the deadline of August was not a priority and that getting governance sorted out at the Post Office was more important. I do not want to get into the arguments that she and Henry Staunton have been having over the past few days but this urge to get the compensation sorted remains an absolute priority for the victims. Can the Minister say who is right? Equally importantly, will the Government unblock the logjam inside the Post Office over what is a fair claim, which was the other key element of the announcements made at the beginning of the year?
I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I was pleased to put my name and that of my noble friend to this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has given us a comprehensive introduction to this issue. Given that this is an issue of current discussion across the country, there is not much point in me going into detail on the rights and wrongs, as well as the injustices, that we all know the Horizon scandal involved. It is shocking; it is a scandal that we should all be aware of and seek to remedy as quickly as we can.
This amendment and the one before show that this Bill is important because of its inclusiveness—I look to the commissioner—and it is not the first time I have said that in this discussion. It is very important that, in the course of the Bill, we recognise the different sorts of victims that there are in terms of the way the state has behaved, the major catastrophes that people suffer, and the issues of the courts and our justice system. That is all to the good because we will, I hope, end up with an Act that will really serve victims in all of those areas well.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her amendment, which, as she explained, would require the Government to publish a timeline for the payment of interim payments for victims of the Horizon scandal. As she knows, the amendment takes us back to a subject that the House has discussed several times in recent weeks. In all parts of your Lordships’ House, there is a strong desire to see justice for the victims of the Horizon scandal—in particular, to see them receive prompt financial redress. The Government share that desire.
The effects of the scandal on some postmasters have been, to put it at its mildest, truly awful. Some of them have lost their livelihoods, their homes or their health—or even all three. Others have faced serious financial impacts. The noble Baroness’s question is therefore extremely pertinent.
For reasons of history, there are three separate compensation arrangements in place; I hope that the Committee will allow me to put them on the record. One is for people who have had convictions for criminal offences overturned. A second, which is delivered by the Department for Business and Trade rather than the Post Office, is to top up the compensation settlement for unconvicted postmasters made at the end of the original so-called GLO High Court case, which exposed the scandal. The third—the Horizon Shortfall Scheme or HSS—is for postmasters who were neither in the GLO group nor convicted.
In two of the streams, we have recently announced fixed offers of settlement: £600,000 for those with overturned convictions and £75,000 for the GLO group. These fixed offers allow postmasters to receive substantial compensation without delay or hassle. Of course, those with larger claims will not generally want to accept these sums. They will instead, quite rightly, have their compensation individually assessed. For both groups, substantial interim payments are made promptly. Further payments are available to those facing hardship while their full claims are being assessed. We have undertaken to make first offers within 40 working days of receiving a completed application for the GLO scheme.
The HSS is already well advanced. All 2,417 of the people who applied by the original scheme deadline have had initial offers. More than 2,000 of them have accepted settlements and been paid. Late claims are still coming in—some stimulated by the ITV drama, in fact—and are being dealt with promptly.
However, two crucial drivers of the pace of compensation are not controlled by either government or the Post Office. First, the overturning of convictions has, of course, been in the hands of the courts, and it has been frustratingly slow. We believe that more than 900 people may have been wrongly convicted in this scandal, but, to date, only 97 of them have had their conviction overturned. The process has been not only slow but uncertain. In too many cases, the evidence has been lost or destroyed over time, and many postmasters have understandably lost all faith in authority and cannot face the prospect of yet another court case to clear their name.
That is why, on 10 January, the Government announced that they will be introducing legislation to overturn all the convictions resulting from this scandal. We recognise that this is an unprecedented step, but it is necessary if justice is to be done. I can tell noble Lords that, this afternoon, my honourable friend in another place has made a Statement about that legislation. We hope to introduce this legislation within a few weeks. I am sure that it will be widely supported across the House and in the other place, and that it will therefore be able to progress quickly. We hope to see it become law before the summer, with prompt compensation to follow.
That takes me to the second area where we do not have control of the timescale: postmasters and their lawyers need time to formulate claims and gather evidence, with some needing specialist reports from medical or forensic accounting experts. Setting arbitrary deadlines for the submission of claims would, I suggest, be deeply unfair to postmasters, and we therefore should not do it.
That is why the House recently and enthusiastically passed the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill, which implemented the Williams inquiry’s recommendation to remove the arbitrary deadline of 7 August 2024 to complete the GLO compensation scheme. It remains the Government’s goal to complete that scheme by August, but if postmasters need longer, that is fine.
The Government are determined to see financial redress delivered as quickly as possible for all postmasters, including those whose convictions will be overturned by the forthcoming Bill. However, setting a fixed timetable would entail rushing postmasters into major decisions about their claims and the offers they receive. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness agrees that we should not do that, and will therefore feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The noble Baroness asked me a number of detailed questions. If she will allow me, I will write to her as fully as possible in response to her particular questions about legal advice, the Green Book, the logjam of claims and a number of others.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. As ever, it was thoughtful and very helpful.
I laid the amendment principally because it seemed to me that there were two issues. The first was about everything being done, where possible, by August, which seemed encouraging but clearly is not going to be hit in many cases. The detail that I gave to the Committee in the speech is what worries me more: there seems to be a chasm between Post Office Ltd and the postmasters about what is eligible in damage. I do not think it is just about whether people can get access to information, because of this proviso. I will be grateful for any letter, but would the Minister be prepared to meet between Committee and Report to discuss the detail? The most urgent thing, from their perspective, would be a grant for legal advice, given the complexity of applying. If that can be speeded up in any way, shape or form, that would be enormously helpful.
I suspect I will bring something back on Report, though probably not the same thing at all. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“Review: National Oversight Mechanism(1) The Secretary of State must launch a review into the merits of introducing an independent National Oversight Mechanism responsible for collating, analysing and addressing recommendations arising from the post death processes of investigations, inquests, public inquiries and official reviews following a major incident.(2) The review under subsection (1) must be launched within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report summarising the findings of the review under subsection (1) within 18 months of the day on which this Act is passed.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this is a probing amendment to enable debate on the concept of a new national oversight mechanism. The amendment proposes:
“The Secretary of State must launch a review into the merits of introducing an independent National Oversight Mechanism responsible for collating, analysing and addressing recommendations arising from the post death processes of investigations, inquests, public inquiries and official reviews following a major incident”.
With regard to public inquiries, there is no legal mechanism to require consideration, action or reasoned rejection of a recommendation made in the course of a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. In other words, recommendations made by a statutory public inquiry or a non-statutory inquiry have no legal force on the Government, public authorities, corporations or anyone else.
With regard to coroners’ prevention of future death reports, a large proportion of public bodies that receive recommendations fail to respond, and analysis using the Preventable Deaths Tracker developed by researchers at the University of Oxford found that only 33% of all PFDs issued by coroners had expected responses published, with 29% of responses overdue. Further, the researchers found that response rates to PFDs examined in 25 of their studies ranged only from approximately 10% to 60%, with no study resulting in a 100% response rate.
The Grenfell fire is a shocking example of this accountability gap. In 2009, the Lakanal House fire killed six people in a 14-storey tower block in Camberwell. Following the inquest into their deaths, the coroner, Frances Kirkham, made recommendations to the Secretary of State, the Mayor of London, the London Borough of Southwark and London Fire Brigade. These included making crucial improvements to building regulations, control room and incident command system training, awareness of the risk posed by cladding fire, and guidance on high-rise residential evacuation. In 2017, the Grenfell Tower fire killed 72 people in a 24-storey tower block in North Kensington. The Grenfell Tower inquiry exposed the fact that many of the Lakanal House recommendations were not implemented before the fire. Implementation was not considered to be urgent and was instead included in a medium to long-term programme of work.
During the inquiry, Dame Melanie Dawes, the former Permanent Secretary at the Department of Housing, Communities and Local Government, told the inquiry that
“there was no tracking recommendation put in place, something that I think was really important and there should have been”.
The lack of a mechanism was described as a gap in the Civil Service that
“could have happened in any department”.
The department itself stated that it missed the opportunity to look beyond recommendations and consider the widespread use of non-compliant materials on high-rise buildings and the associated risk of fire. That is just one example.
To address this accountability gap, the lobbying group Inquest, through me, is calling for the Government to establish a national oversight mechanism, which would be an independent public body responsible for collating, analysing and following up on recommendations arising from four post-death processes: investigations, such as those carried out by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, the Independent Office for Police Conduct or serious incident reviews; inquests; public inquiries; and official reviews into deaths, such as the Angiolini review into deaths and serious incidents in police custody. Inquest has put forward a mechanism by which this could be achieved, through the collation, analysis and follow-up of the data.
This amendment calls for a review into the processes and merits of creating such a mechanism. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and hope that he will commit to undertaking such a review. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am really grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for raising this issue and laying this amendment. I declare my interest as the vice-chair of the All-Party Fire Safety and Rescue Group so his comments about the Lakanal House and Grenfell Tower fires really chime with me. From these Benches, my noble friends Lady Pinnock and Lord Stunell have both raised these issues repeatedly.
It is really important to remember that one of the big lessons that I hope we will now begin to learn from Grenfell Tower and the many other fires before it rests in Dame Judith Hackitt’s report on the construction industry and Grenfell Tower. She talked about the importance of the “golden thread” through every part of the construction. The same is true when things go wrong and it seems to me that a national oversight mechanism is exactly the golden thread that we need to ensure that we do not have to time and again relearn the lessons of disasters after they have happened. From these Benches, we support the amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for this amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for speaking in support. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into whether to establish an independent national oversight mechanism to collate, analyse and address recommendations from investigations, inquests, public inquiries and official reviews following deaths after a major incident.
In 2014, the House of Lords Select Committee published a post legislative scrutiny report on the Inquiries Act 2005. In their response, the Government agreed with the principle that bodies should set out their plans for implementing recommendations directed at them. When an inquiry’s recommendations are directed at the Government, it is the responsibility of the lead department to determine how best to progress and implement the recommendations. An official review would follow the same principles.
Parliament has a crucial role in scrutinising the activities of government departments. Select Committees, in particular, hold individual departments to account, including in their response to recommendations made by statutory and non-statutory inquiries and reviews. The Government remain of the view that Parliament already has the ability to hold government departments to account on their response to and implementation of recommendations and that Parliament is best placed to carry out this function.
Noble Lords will also be aware of the Statutory Inquiries Committee that was set up by the Lords Select Committee very recently. It has been appointed to consider the efficacy of the law and practice relating to statutory inquiries under the Inquiries Act 2005. It may be well placed to consider the merits of an independent national oversight mechanism for statutory inquiries.
Turning to inquests, a coroner has a statutory duty to make a report to prevent future deaths if action should be taken to prevent or reduce the risk of future deaths. Recipients of PFD reports must respond to the coroner within 56 days of receipt, setting out what actions will be taken, or explaining any not taken. The Government in their response to the Justice Committee’s 2021 report committed to consider the merits of a recommendation to establish a national mechanism to ensure that actions highlighted in PFD reports which could contribute to public safety and prevent future deaths are implemented. The Justice Committee is currently undertaking a follow-up inquiry into the coroners service and will revisit this issue; the Government are due to give evidence shortly.
In response to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and backed up by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, recipients of PFD reports, as I say, must respond to the coroner within 56 days. However, it is not the coroner’s role to review whether—and if so what—actions should be taken in response to a report. This would be inconsistent with their status as independent judicial officers.
The Government in their response to the Justice Committee’s 2021 report committed to consider the recommendation to establish a mechanism to ensure that actions in PFD reports which could contribute to public safety and prevent future deaths are implemented. The Justice Committee’s follow-up inquiry into the coroners service will revisit issues around PFD reports on preventing death and improving public safety.
While I understand the intent to ensure that the merits of setting a national oversight mechanism are considered, it is likely this would duplicate ongoing parliamentary inquiries into these matters. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this very brief debate. I want to pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the golden thread of establishing a mechanism to ensure that any findings which come out of either public inquiries or coroners’ reports are tracked through and implemented.
I quoted a civil servant as saying that the established mechanisms have not worked, and the example I gave was of the cladding on Grenfell Tower. The Minister spoke about considering whether to establish a mechanism for reviewing PFD reports and coroners’ reports. When will that review be complete and does the noble Lord believe that that review will adequately establish some sort of overall mechanism for dealing with coroners’ recommendations?
To circle back a bit to the public inquiries point, the Minister said that Parliament is best placed to carry out the functions of public inquiries and look at recommendations. I have to say that I really cannot think of Parliament looking at cladding issues. There needs to be a more systematic way of dealing with these matters to ensure that there is that golden thread that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, talked about, so we have some comfort that these processes are being properly reviewed and implemented. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Burnett of Maldon
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who is abroad at the moment, I move this amendment and will speak to the others in this group, save for Amendments 146A, 174 and 175 which stand in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Clause 44 enables the Secretary of State to refer a decision of the Parole Board to release what is known as a top-tier prisoner for a judicial decision either to affirm or to quash a decision of the Parole Board. Top-tier prisoners are those who have committed the most serious offences. The Bill identifies the Upper Tribunal as the court to which referrals will be made, save in cases where there is sensitive material, in which case the court is the High Court.
The principal amendment in this group, which would amend Clause 44, is to propose that all referrals go to the High Court; in particular, a
“Divisional Court of the King’s Bench Division”.
The other amendments that we propose make necessary changes elsewhere. The reason for proposing these amendments is to ensure that the judicial decision is made by a court whose members are well equipped by experience to make the necessary assessment of risk.
The background is that the cases will necessarily involve serious offending and be referred by the Secretary of State because of at least an unease about the decision of the Parole Board. That Parole Board will be made up of individuals with considerable experience in evaluating risk in the context of criminal offending. Any review or reconsideration should be conducted by a court that comprises judges with similar such experience. None of the chambers of the Upper Tribunal currently has members with that necessary experience, but the High Court does.
A Divisional Court of the King’s Bench Division deals with criminal cases in the High Court. It is almost always composed of judges who sit in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal; that is, a Lord or Lady Justice and a High Court judge. Those judges have extensive criminal experience; in particular, when dealing with sentencing, either at first instance as trial judges or on appeal. They are used to making decisions which require them to evaluate risk and, in particular, whether an offender is a dangerous offender, which leads to a suite of different sentencing options. In those circumstances, they are well suited to the task which the Bill will empower the Secretary of State to require a court to undertake.
The Bill itself envisages that the High Court will perform this role in some cases. This amendment suggests that it would be more effective, and deliver the outcome that the Bill seeks, were the High Court always to be the destination for these referrals. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I agree with every word uttered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon. I am sure that the same words, or words to similar effect, would have fallen from the lips of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. They echo the sentiments of a number of those who have briefed noble Lords on these issues relating to the Parole Board.
I will be brief. There is one overriding principle, which is that the Parole Board should be, in effect, an independent, quasi-judicial body. A number of concerns have been expressed about the prospect of the Secretary of State having the power to refer decisions of the Parole Board to another body. One reason for the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, to which I will turn shortly, is that concern.
The idea that this jurisdiction to consider referrals by the Secretary of State should be a matter for the Upper Tribunal, which is not a body involved with the prison system at all—it has, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, no relevant chamber—and is not concerned with the sentencing, treatment or release of offenders, is an odd one. That decision should plainly be, we would suggest, the decision of a court used to dealing with criminal justice and with the sentencing and imprisonment of offenders. Loosely stipulating that it should be the High Court, without the division named, or the Upper Tribunal is wrong.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendments moved and spoken to in this group by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I spoke on this matter at Second Reading and agreed with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said in his speech then.
The Committee may know that, along with others, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, I have put my name to later amendments that question the changes proposed by the Government to the Parole Board. In my view, those changes attack pretty fundamentally the independence of that board and allow the Secretary of State to interfere in these matters to an extent that affects the separation of powers. As a rule, I argue that it is never a good idea, however tempting for Governments, for the Executive to interfere with matters that should be the role of the judiciary. Taken as a whole, these changes are unnecessary and overcomplex, and will prove to be extremely costly.
Today, we are discussing the amendments so well put by the noble and learned Lord, who speaks with such huge authority; I am pleased to support them. They argue that the Upper Tribunal is entirely the wrong body to hear these cases. The Government would be well advised, with respect, to listen to him, and to remind themselves of the powerful speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, at Second Reading. It is not often that this House is privileged to have the support of the last two Lord Chief Justices on a matter that they are profoundly expert in. I ask the Minister, who is always very reasonable, to think very carefully about how powerful the case that has been made this afternoon is.
Of course, I strongly agree with the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on the necessity of a report from the Secretary of State on the implementation of these proposals, which I consider to be pretty disturbing on the whole. I ask the Minister, when he replies, to consider carefully where these amendments are coming from.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I will speak with the leave of the Committee and with many apologies; I was delayed in a committee. Amendment 143A is a probing amendment to seek to understand whether the Secretary of State will issue guidance on these matters, and if so, what that guidance will include. The Prison Reform Trust is particularly concerned about this, being aware that an overturned release decision would be likely to undermine public confidence in the parole system and so on. I am sure that the Minister will want all the actors in the sector to understand how these arrangements are intended to work and how they can be scrutinised.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we also support this group of amendments. I want to reiterate the points made by my noble friend Lord Bach. You could not have had two more eminent Members of this Committee to table these amendments. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett and Lord Thomas, are familiar with these types of decisions. I do not think I can add to the weight of the arguments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett.
The only point I will make is about process. If the Minister says that he wants to think about this—I do not know what he is going to say—then it would be very helpful to know his thoughts before Report. From what I have heard of the argument, it seems that the Government have an uphill battle trying to defend the current position. If the Government are minded to think about this again, we really need to know what that is before Report.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, would mean that parole referrals under the new power in the Bill would be sent to the Divisional Court of the King’s Bench Division, which is part of the High Court, instead of the Upper Tribunal, which is currently used for most cases—although not for national security cases.
Noble Lords know that the Bill introduces a new power to allow the Secretary of State to refer a top-tier case—that is a case where the index offence was murder, rape, causing or allowing the death of a child, or serious terrorism—for a second check by an independent court if the Parole Board has directed release. The question is which court that should be. Noble Lords may recall that at one stage it was suggested—I think by a Select Committee—that it should be the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. The Government consulted the Judicial Office in June 2023. The result of that consultation was that a preference was expressed for the Upper Tribunal to hear those cases. The Upper Tribunal has wide-ranging powers under Section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, facilitated by the Upper Tribunal rules, which essentially gives it the same powers as the High Court. It has experience of hearing oral evidence. The Government’s view, in the light of the consultation with the Judicial Office, was that the Upper Tribunal was the appropriate court.
None the less, the Government feel that it is obviously desirable to sort this issue out in a sensible way and I am very happy to consider it further. I am even happier to say that the Government’s reflections will be shared before Report, so that everybody can consider their position. There should not be any particular controversy on this kind of point; it is a rather specialised point, if I may put it like that.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and spoken to on her behalf by noble Lord, Lord Marks. The Government entirely agree with her that the processes ahead of us and how we are going to manage it should be very fully understood by all actors. I will briefly explain how the Government see things at the moment. First, the procedural elements of the new process may require amendments to the Parole Board rules and the tribunal rules—or the rules of whatever court we determine. That must be scrutinised by Parliament and go through a period of consultation. There will have to be a period of training of judges. We know that the referral process will need to be transparent and speedy. Work is currently in train as to how far this will be operationalised from the point of view, first, of maintaining public confidence and, secondly, on what basis the Secretary of State refers things to the relevant court—to use a neutral phrase for the time being.
Currently, the Government are working through exactly how the relevant tests would be applied. The Government propose to publish their policy on how the legislation will be applied, outlining how cases will be selected for referral and ensuring that prisoners, and importantly victims, are fully informed of who will be in scope. I envisage a transparent and open process by which the details of the new regime are sorted out.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Could I follow that up before the Minister goes on to the next point? Does he anticipate that there will be consultation with the sector—it is a very big sector of course—on the various points that he has quite rightly referred to? That would go down rather better and be much more useful than producing a policy in its final form and saying, “Here we are”. A draft policy or ideas for consultation would be welcomed.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I hear what the noble Baroness says, and it sounds entirely reasonable. I cannot, at the Dispatch Box, go any further than I have already gone, but the point is well made.
On that basis, I hope the Committee will be satisfied that the Government intend to be fully transparent and work co-operatively with the development of this new process.
Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)
I thank the Minister for his response. It is a delight to see him back in his place. I also thank those who spoke in support of the amendment put down by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, with my support.
I was intrigued by the Minister’s reference to consultation with the Judicial Office last June. I was, of course, in post as Lord Chief Justice then. For administrative purposes, the Judicial Office is the alter ego, as it were, of the Lord Chief Justice. It may well be—I put it no more pointedly than this—that Homer may have nodded in June, because I had thought that the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, which is supported by me and elsewhere, was not controversial. If there has been a mix-up in communication historically on that, I apologise, wearing my previous hat. I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that the Government will be prepared to consider this matter further. I am of course entirely at the Minister’s disposal to discuss any proposals that may commend themselves to the Government to be brought forward on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton
“Licence conditions for serial and serious harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements(1) A condition of the release and licence of serial and serious harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators must be included in the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements.(2) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.(3) In section 325 (arrangements for assessing etc risk posed by certain offenders)—(a) in subsection (1), after ““relevant sexual or violent offender” has the meaning given by section 327;” insert ““relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” has the meaning given in section 327ZA;”;(b) after subsection (2)(a) insert—“(aza) relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrators,”.(4) After section 327 (Section 325: interpretation) insert—“327ZA Interpretation of relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator (1) For the purposes of section 325, a person (“P”) is a “relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” if P has been convicted of a specified offence or an associate offence and meets either the condition in subsection (2)(a) or the condition in subsection (2)(b).(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the conditions are—(a) P is a relevant serial offender; or(b) a risk of serious harm assessment has identified P as presenting a high or very high risk of serious harm.(3) An offence is a “specified offence” for the purposes of this section if it is a specified domestic abuse offence or a specified stalking offence.(4) In this section—“relevant serial offender” means a person convicted on more than one occasion for the same specified offence, or a person convicted of more than one specified offence;“specified domestic abuse offence” means an offence where it is alleged that the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse within the meaning defined in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;“specified stalking offence” means an offence contrary to section 2A or section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.(5) Within 12 months of the day on which the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 is passed the Secretary of State must commission a review into the operation of the provisions of this section.””
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to move Amendment 148A and speak to Amendment 148B. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their support in this suite of amendments, both of which deal with stalking. They insert two new clauses into the Bill, and they are part of the whole suite of amendments on this.
I will be brief because my noble friend Lady Royall is in the Committee today, and she has been tireless over the years in championing this cause and using every opportunity to find remedies to deal with this pernicious crime, almost always perpetrated by men on women, wrecking lives, sometimes with fatal consequences. These two amendments, and the group following this concerning MAPPS in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, seek to bring further coherence to law enforcement, record sharing and protection for these victims.
If only the police could see stalking for what it truly is—often a stepping stone on the route to murder—perhaps they would take it more seriously. At present, I am afraid they do not—certainly, it is patchy—and stalking victims are dismissed too easily and too often. They are told, “It’s just online. It will die down. Change your number. Delete your social media accounts. It’s just a lovers’ tiff”.
I will give just one example and then sit down. When the Derbyshire police accepted that they failed Gracie Spinks—who was murdered after reporting her stalker to the police—and when they apologised to her family and promised that lessons would be learned, I could almost feel the weariness of victims, their families, the campaigners and the Victims’ Commissioner in saying, “How often do we have to be told that lessons can be learned when they haven’t been?” That is what these amendments and the ones we have already discussed are about: they seek to make a change. I beg to move.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I was happy to put my name to these to these two amendments, and I am equally happy that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, is here. She will go into some current and fairly shocking detail about some recent examples of stalking that show that it is as pernicious and present as ever.
Both of these amendments are proposed in the clear and distinctly uncomfortable knowledge that I think all parties acknowledge: we have some way to go, to put it mildly, before we can say, with any degree of truth, that we have the measure of the huge and insidious problem that is stalking. These amendments propose some changes to MAPPA, including perpetrators in MAPPA, as a condition of potential release and licence, and the creation of a register to make perpetrators subject to notification requirements as a condition of release. The important common theme to both these amendments is the requirement for the Secretary of State to commission reviews to look at the issues and challenges around stalking in a comprehensive and informed manner.
But what is repeatedly and continuously frustrating is that we have proper on-the-ground evidence of approaches to stalking that are proving to be effective. In particular, there is the multi-agency stalking intervention programme—MASIP—which has marked a significant advance in our ability to anticipate, identify and tackle the complex issue of stalking. The MASIP model, thankfully funded by the Home Office, has pioneered this approach in London, Cheshire and Hampshire, and it works. Early evidence is compelling and extremely positive. So one just asks oneself: why is it not possible to do this more widely? The approach co-ordinates activity around both the victim and the perpetrator, and it incorporates an essential pathway to address the fixation and obsession in perpetrators that might be contributing to their stalking offending. The final evaluation proves that it works, so why is it so difficult, first, to acknowledge best practice when it is staring one in the face and, secondly, to implement it more widely?
One frustrating thing—here I refer to an article in today’s newspaper—is some news about the Government’s end-of-custody supervised licence programme, which was introduced in the autumn to relieve some of the huge pressure on our overcrowded jails, enabling perpetrators to be released earlier than their recommended sentence. It was put in as a temporary scheme, but it has apparently now been extended indefinitely. That does not mean for ever; it just means that the Government have given no indication of how long they intend to continue to allow this degree of leniency, the sole reason for which is the huge pressure on our prisons.
The Government rather inelegantly call this the problem of demand and supply in the prison population. If you were to try to explain that terminology to victims, they would find it slightly difficult to understand why supply-side economics should govern the early release of some perpetrators, particularly of domestic abuse and stalking, in many cases without the victims knowing what is going on.
We will make concerted progress only when we acknowledge the complexity of stalking and finally design a proactive and joined-up approach that is implemented consistently across all jurisdictions and agency boundaries and effectively identifies, outlaws and penalises any evidence of the unfairness and madness of what we are allowing today—effectively, a postcode lottery for victims.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have signed Amendments 148A and 148B in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her introduction and look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. The first amendment sets out an important addition to the arrangements for Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, or MAPPA. We will hear about the detail of these amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, but I want to add that, throughout this Bill and its predecessors in your Lordships’ House, including the Domestic Abuse Bill and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, we have repeatedly asked for more protection for people who have been victims of serial domestic abuse and, in particular, stalking.
Laura Richards’s ground-breaking work over many years in developing the dashboard profiling and documenting the most serious repeat offenders has changed the way in which specialist police teams view these perpetrators, but—I hesitate to say this for probably the third Bill running—MAPPA are still not applied consistently across police forces. One of the aims of these amendments is to make sure that happens. As we have heard, repeat perpetrators are far too often allowed to commit further crimes, including murder. Shockingly, a couple of years ago police research found that one in 12 domestic rapists was raping outside the home. A violent and controlling man leaving a partner does not mean that the violence ends. Many have extensive histories of abusing multiple women.
Amendment 148A sets out the licence conditions for serial and serious harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators, saying that anyone so identified should be part of a MAPPA. Proposed new subsection (4) sets out the definition of a relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator. Similarly, the other amendment says that we must have an effective register. Non-domestic stalkers always seem to be left off. I always raise this problem in your Lordships’ House; there is an assumption that stalking is carried out only by a current partner or an ex-partner—or somebody who would like to be a partner and is therefore regarded as domestic—but about 40% of stalking cases have nothing to do with that at all. As we see from many stories in the papers day after day, these days people such as celebrities face massive amounts of stalking and do not get protection. Often, when people are arrested, it appears that they have stalked others as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, made passing reference to the Gracie Spinks case. Derbyshire police and the police force that investigated its failings have learned from that, but we need consistency. I will give one recent example from Laura Richards. Last month a victim, Sadie, had been back in contact with her about her living hell over seven years. She is terrified that her ex will kill her children. In 2018 he was arrested for battery of her eight year-old daughter and an assault on her while she was holding her other daughter. He was convicted in 2019 and received a suspended sentence and restraining order. The police did not arrest him for stalking or coercive control. They told her that, because she had moved away, they would not arrest him for stalking and they would amend the restraining order to a lifelong RO. He has repeatedly breached it. As we discussed on earlier amendments, he then started family court proceedings.
I will not go on, except to say that she has had to flee three more times, and each time has hit problems with the new police force. There has been no consistency. He has a history of abusing others—exactly the point I made about police research finding that one in 12 domestic rapists rapes outside the home. This woman has no solution nearby to stop him continuing to behave in this way and mess up her life and those of her children. We need MAPPA to work effectively. These amendments are the first step in that direction.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendments 148A and 148B. I am late to participate in this Bill, for which I apologise, but, as has been said, I am not late to debates on the insidious crime of stalking—a gateway to rape, serious harm and murder in slow motion. I have read the excellent exchanges on earlier amendments to this Bill on stalking.
Stalkers must be put before the courts, and sentences must reflect the seriousness of the crime. When stalkers are released from prison, given the nature of their obsessive and fixated behaviour, stringent measures must be placed on them to close down all opportunities to reoffend. As part of this, they must be automatically managed by MAPPA and included on ViSOR, soon to be MAPPS, so that their information can be shared and accessed nationally.
In the past I have often cited the horrific case of Zoe Dronfield. Jason Smith almost succeeded in murdering her in her home in 2014. He is up again before the Parole Board for release this year. Zoe is terrified for herself and her children. Smith was not rehabilitated 10 years prior to her attack after the horrific abuse of an ex who was a serving West Midlands police officer. He went on to abuse other women until he targeted Zoe. Currently, Zoe knows very little about the release plan. Smith has never admitted trying to kill Zoe, so how can he be deemed safe for release? She does not know whether she is marked at high risk, whether he is still vengeful towards her or whether he will be tagged. No measures have been put in place for her, and she feels like a sitting duck.
How can this be right? He must be added to ViSOR and managed by MAPPA, and every opportunity for his reoffending against Zoe, her children and future women must be closed down. Many stalkers change their name by deed poll. He must not be allowed to do that either. Positive obligations must be placed on him, including not to change his name. I would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that this case will be looked at so that Zoe does not have to live in fear.
In January there were two horrific cases of stalking by two vengeful men. Thirty year-old Bryce Hodgson was shot by armed officers in Southwark after he broke into the intended victim’s home. He was armed with crossbows, a knife, a hatchet and a sword and was wearing body armour. There was no doubt that he was there to kill the victim, and most likely others if they got in his way—people who might have been trying to protect her. He had already threatened the police. As soon as I heard about this case, I wondered about his background. No one wakes up one day and starts behaving like this in the third decade of life. From everything I have learned about male violence towards women and children, I believed that he would have a history.
Sure enough, it came to light that he was a convicted stalker. He had been convicted of stalking a woman last June and was subject to a five-year restraining order. Croydon Magistrates’ Court heard last year how Hodgson had entered the victim’s bedroom without consent, sent text messages demanding that she open her door to him and described his vivid sexual fantasies to her. He pleaded guilty, but was spared a custodial sentence with a 16-week suspended prison sentence; he was ordered to undergo 12 months of supervision and carry out 120 hours of community service.
He was the most dangerous type of stalker—a predatory stalker with sexual fantasies that he was acting on when he broke into the victim’s bedroom. He was one of the rare few who are arrested and charged but, rather than put him before the court for a Section 4A stalking offence for putting the victim in fear of her life, and despite his being one of the most dangerous types of stalker, the CPS put him before a magistrates’ court on a Section 2A stalking charge. Notwithstanding the wrong charge, he clearly should have been put on a register.
In another case, on 31 January a woman and her two children were attacked by Abdul Ezedi near Clapham Common. He threw a corrosive alkaline substance at the woman, who we now know was in a relationship with the suspect. She was there with her daughters; she suffered what are likely to be life-changing injuries. Five police officers were injured as they responded, as were four members of the public. This attack was targeted, pre-planned and premeditated. Ezedi stalked the victim and intended to cause her maximum distress, pain and suffering when he threw that corrosive substance at her and her two girls. He then picked up the three year-old girl and tried to kill her.
There is always a history. In 2018, Ezedi was convicted of one charge of sexual assault and one of exposure, before being granted asylum in 2020. He received a nine-week jail term, suspended for two years, for this sexual assault and, for the exposure, 36-weeks’ imprisonment to be served consecutively—which was also suspended for two years. Why was he not included on ViSOR? This has been repeatedly raised following countless horrific murders, including those of Jane Clough, Shana Grice, Hollie Gazzard, Alice Ruggles, Janet Scott, Laura Mortimer and her 11 year-old daughter Ella Dalby, and Cheryl Gabriel-Hooper, whose 14 year-old daughter was present when Andrew Hooper shot her mother dead. Hooper had a history of abusing and stalking his ex; he broke into her house in the middle of the night wearing gloves and armed with a knife. He pleaded guilty to affray and received a suspended sentence—this was stalking. Cheryl also reported him to the police for coercively controlling and stalking her and her daughter. The abuse escalated when she finally left him for good.
Separation is the highest risk time for a woman fleeing a coercive controller and stalker. We know from research and analysis of domestic homicides that if a stalker makes a threat—which Hooper did—one in two stalkers acts on that threat; that is 50%. These are the most dangerous of perpetrators, and yet his violent history was not joined up by the police. He should have been on a register, which would mean that they had to check on the perpetrator’s history.
Laura Mortimer and her 11 year-old daughter, Ella Dalby, were stabbed to death in my home city of Gloucester, on 28 May 2018, by Christopher Boon. He had a history of assaulting a previous partner and her mother, in front of two children. He received a suspended sentence for this very serious offence. Boon was a fantasist who was £28,000 in debt, and he coerced Laura into putting her income into his bank account. She reported him to the police. She was too scared to pursue a prosecution but she did ask about his history, using Clare’s law. She was told that it could not be shared, and she was sent away. Days before the murders, Laura learnt that Boon was cheating on her and she told him to leave the house. He escalated his behaviour and stabbed Laura 18 times and her 11 year-old daughter 24 times. Women are not told about these dangerous and violent men’s histories even when they report serious violence and abuse at their hands.
A new database, MAPPS, is being developed, which will replace ViSOR, and we have MAPPA, the public protection panels which police, prison and probation officers, and other agencies attend. Stalkers must be proactively identified, assessed and managed by MAPPA. Stalking experts must attend MAPPA meetings to ensure that these dangerous men are diagnosed, assessed and managed. The same tactics must be applied to serial and dangerous domestic violence perpetrators and stalkers as to organised criminals and sex offenders. Early identification, assessment and management are vital to cut off opportunities for them to cause harm, and to ensure that they face the consequences of their actions.
Currently, the law relies on victims to report the individual crimes, and the police do not flag and tag serial and high-risk perpetrators. Instead, they focus on the victims—and this does not happen with any other crime. Police must index and share information with victims about serial abusers. Each police force must proactively identify 10 to 20 serial and dangerous domestic abusers, ensure that their information is included on the local police intelligence database, and refer cases to MAPPA. Convicted stalkers must be placed on ViSOR. The postcode lottery mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, must end.
I hope the Minister does not refer to guidance, which is so often a response to questions about stalking. I hope we are not told that more lessons need to be learned; too many women have been murdered. We know what needs to be done. We do not need guidance, we need action.
The extraordinary Laura Richards, who has done more than anyone else in the world to try to protect women and their children from stalkers, started a petition to include serial domestic abusers and stalkers on ViSOR and be managed by MAPPA. Some 274,698 people have now signed this petition, including victims, bereaved families and professionals. I ask the Minister: when will the Government act?
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments, and I am so glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is back where she belongs, speaking on a topic that she is so passionate about.
Laura Richards has been mentioned by many speakers, and social media has a good way of reacting: I have her on Instagram as we are speaking, to give me some pointers, even though she is in California. Laura Richards is the expert on all this, and her patience to fight for victims over the years is commendable. She said she knows there is going to be change and she keeps doing it for victims—I admire this lady.
In the year ending March 2022, only 1.4% of reports to police about stalking ended with the stalker being convicted. That says a lot about how seriously stalking is taken by the very agencies that are supposed to protect victims. Most stalkers never see the inside of a prison cell; instead, they receive fines or community or suspended sentences, as has previously been spoken about. Really, for me, it is about listening to the human side of all these cases, and that is what we must never forget. It is not just about lessons learned or guidance. These are not items we pick up from supermarket shelves; these are human lives—people who have been brutally murdered, after several years of absolute hell, by someone who has done it on more than one occasion.
I really want to understand why the Government will not look at this register seriously. I spoke in the Domestic Abuse Bill when that came through. This has to be the end of it all. Instead of guidance, we must have proper risk management of stalkers and domestic abusers because, at the moment, it is virtually non-existent for convicted, or unconvicted, men who pose such a huge risk to women and children—now more than ever, we need to make sure that they feel safe and listened to. These are psychopathic people who do horrendous crimes to humans, and families have to pick up the pieces.
I am concerned about Zoe Dronfield, and I have picked up on certain things that my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, has mentioned. I will take that offline, because I sympathise with not having any control. As somebody who is still going through the criminal justice and parole system, I am very interested in the next stage of the Bill, which is about parole, and what it does and does not do. The victim has no control, or right to know what the offender is doing. We cannot find out what is going on, but the offender knows exactly where the victim is, because of exclusion zones and everything else. I do not speak for anyone else but as a victim who is watching out, for my three daughters, for offenders who are going to be released. When we are talking about stalking laws, this is important, because having no control more or less means that the victim has to shape their life around safety, whereas the system should protect victims more than ever.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her amendment relating to Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, and all noble Lords who have contributed to this heartfelt debate. These are horrific offences, taken with the utmost gravity by the Government.
Amendment 148A seeks to include relevant domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators on licence within the remit of management under Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements—MAPPA. That would create a legal requirement on the police and the Prison and Probation Service to assess and manage the risks posed by individuals whose offending has taken place in the context of domestic abuse or stalking, and who either have more than one conviction of this nature or are assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm.
Amendment 148B seeks to make amendments to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, imposing on domestic abuse and stalking offenders the same requirements that apply to registered sex offenders. This would require the offender to report personal information to the police, including where they are living, their bank account details and passport details.
The Government agree that robust management of perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalking is crucial to help keep the public safe. We completely agree with the spirit of these amendments; however, we believe the objectives can already be met through current provision and policy.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Why does the Minister think we tabled these amendments?
Lord Roborough (Con)
I think I understand the point of the amendments, which is the belief that stalking and domestic abuse deserve to be treated the same way as terror and murder offences. I hope the explanation I have given shows that these offences, on a discretionary basis, can be treated with the same seriousness under MAPPA 2 and MAPPA 3. The Government have described an ongoing process of trying to improve the implementation of it.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the detail he has gone into. I am not making fun of him; I am genuinely wondering if he thinks it is all going in the right direction and fast enough. If so, we would not have needed to put the amendments down. We have tabled them because things are not moving fast enough.
Most of the examples my noble friend Lady Royall gave were not current, though some of them were. It is, therefore, perfectly all right to discuss them because they are a long time past and they show the failures of our systems to deal with and recognise stalking and the problems it poses. The reason we have tabled the amendments is because the systems we have at the moment are clearly not working and are very patchy. As my noble friend Lady Royall said, guidance does not always serve, and it does not serve in these circumstances.
I thank everyone who has spoken in the debate. It was very well informed. I think the Minister may have underestimated our determination on the matter. We may return to it at a later stage in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“Report to Parliament on including MAPPS as a condition of release and licence for certain offences(1) The Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament on the Government’s progress in designing and creating new Multi-Agency Public Protection System [MAPPS] for prisoners subject to notification requirements and licence conditions under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024.(2) The report under subsection (1) must be published within twelve months of the day on which this Act is passed.(3) The report must include a timetable for the planned implementation of MAPPS.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 148C. I want to speak more widely than the previous group and briefly recount my experience as a magistrate. It so happens that the last two stalking cases I dealt with were of women stalking men. I have also dealt with recent cases where MAPPA—as it was called—was relevant to the bail decisions which we were making. The reason I want to speak more widely than the previous group is because, in my experience, the MAPPA system is also used for tracking and being aware of people with mental health difficulties who are perceived as dangerous. These are not stalkers but people who may well be dangerous because of their mental condition.
In fact, the last case that I dealt with—which was probably a couple of years ago now—was of a young man with a gun obsession, but who had clear mental health problems. It was going to fall to MAPPA to make sure he was properly protected—which I suppose is the right way of describing it—because he was likely to be released into the community. In that case, I quizzed the relevant offices about MAPPA, as it then was, and what was likely to be put in place for that young man. It was absolutely clear that there were a number of agencies involved. The key was multiagency working. As a court, we needed confidence that people would indeed be able to work across the agencies to try and keep proper tabs on the young man, to make sure he did not go off the rails again—if I can put it like that.
How are the types of cases dealt with by MAPPS and MAPPA recorded? They are not all stalking-related and domestic abuse-related cases; they go wider than that. They include a lot of agencies: not just police and probation, but also housing, local authority and health agencies. The whole point of that system is essentially to provide support for people who are potential offenders, to try and stop them from reoffending. How are the types of cases dealt with by MAPPA tracked? Is the Minister confident that the tracking of those releases means that the response can be properly tailored for the individuals whom they are dealing with? It is certainly my experience that very often, when things go wrong, it is because the agencies are not working together properly. This is a repeated theme of what I have seen when cases come before me in the magistrates’ court.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I would like to put my name to this amendment, because it is a continuation of the theme around stalking which we have repeatedly returned to in the Bill, as indeed we went on at length about in the Domestic Abuse Act.
In listening to the reply of the Minister to the last group of amendments, I was trying to imagine what a robust list would look like. I was somewhat puzzled as to how it would really have any effect at all. I was also pondering the term “discretionary management”, given that if only 1.4% of stalking cases actually end up in a successful prosecution, it is quite easy for the advisers who are writing the Minister’s brief to talk about percentage increases in performance. If one knows anything about mathematics, it is relatively easy to get rather spell-binding percentage increases in performance by starting from an exceedingly low base—a base of 1.4% of stalkers being successfully prosecuted, I am not a fan of percentages in a situation like this.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, effective multiagency co-operation is clearly not working at the moment. This amendment gives the Government the opportunity to provide the single most important thing to make multiagency co-operation work: clear, outstanding, determined and consistent leadership. Leadership which transcends politics and different Ministers being responsible for the same area as the ministerial merry-go-round continues is incredibly important. The attempts by MAPPA to create an effective multiagency co-operation environment are so far not compelling. This amendment is an invitation for the Government to sit down and reflect on the lessons of what has not been and is not working as we would wish it, to create something more fit for purpose, and—in a non-political environment—to create a form of new MAPPS which is nothing to do with politics.
If the Great British electorate—of course, we are not allowed to participate—decide on a change of His Majesty’s Government at some point in the next 12 months, I hope that the department can come up with a form of multiagency co-operation which an incoming Government, should they be of a different political persuasion, would be positive about and could run with and make effective, rather than starting the clock all over again and losing valuable time. During this time, goodness only knows how many more victims will fall to the pursuit of stalkers, many of whom have been operating and stalking for many years, and many of whom are known all too well to the victims, but whom various multiagency authorities seem to be wilfully blind to.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have also signed Amendment 148C and thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for introducing it, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his very eloquent contribution just now.
I too return to the Minister’s remarks at the end of the previous group, because it will help with this amendment. Part of the problem is that those of us who raise these issues about multiagency protection have assumed the corporate knowledge of the House about the previous six days and of all the amendments we have debated—in particular, those relating to domestic abuse and stalking. I fear that is not the case. One of the reasons we need this report is to ensure that Ministers and officials absolutely see what is happening in the data and bring it to Parliament to be held to account for it.
When I gave an example of a live case, I used the term “restraining order”. In his response to me, the Minister talked about a “stalking protection order”. They are completely different tools. An SPO is given by the police as a sort of special caution. It identifies the crime and says to the offender—there may not even be an offender at that point—that they have to mend their ways. A restraining order is given by the courts—it can happen at various levels of the courts—and is much more serious.
Most stalkers who are on restraining orders now will have been through the earlier processes, including, I am afraid, a number of stalking protection orders. While they may be a useful tool for the one stalker who is obsessed with one person but can get over it, the group of people that we are talking about in the MAPPA arrangements are completely and utterly different. They are extremely obsessed and manipulative people, who are physically dangerous in some cases, and certainly through coercive control. Not only are they a danger to the person for whom a restraining order may have been given but, in all the examples I gave in my speech on the previous group, they are known to be likely to offend with other people and to move around the country to get out of trouble and get away from the police force taking notice of them.
Given that we are talking about the most serious level of offences, whether it is domestic abuse or stalking, we need a consistent system across the country. Amendment 148C, through the report, would hold the Government—whatever Government, of whatever colour—to account, forcing them to produce data to show that they understand the difference. Until that happens, there will be Members of your Lordships’ House who will return, Bill after Bill, with horror stories of murders, attacks and everything else, but nothing will have changed.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not having contributed to debates on the Bill as it has gone through its various stages. I spoke to my Front-Bench colleagues and the others who have added their names to this amendment, and I want to bring my experience as the independent chair of the Nottingham Community Safety Partnership, as laid out in the register of members’ interests, by speaking briefly to this amendment.
I welcome the Government’s intention to move from MAPPA to MAPPS and all the various comments I have read that have been made throughout the passage of the Bill about the importance of change. However, the reality is that, whether it is called MAPPA, MAPPS or something else, without the sort of change that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and others have mentioned, nothing will change.
I am sick of having domestic homicide reviews. They say exactly the same thing, time after time. It is not a lack of desire or care on the part of the people involved; the system simply does not work. We have a situation where people do not share data because they do not think that they are allowed to—even though everyone says, “Oh, that’s ridiculous. Of course they’re allowed to”. The Minister of the Crown has to get hold of this; he needs to tell people to share the data in order to save lives—because they do not do so.
I am sorry to keep going on about this, but I am sick of reading about the same problem occurring, time after time: information is not being shared and people say that they did not know about this or that it was supposed to have happened. Again, it is not the dedication of the people that is in question—they all care and want to do good—but we need to know what is happening that does not allow it to take place.
The Minister has to get a grip of this. It does not matter whether it is called MAPPS or something else; without a change, nothing will improve. I know that that is the intention of the Government—of course their intention is not to make it worse—but what are we going to do about it?
I will tell the Committee about another problem. At times, the meetings are packed—absolutely rammed—with people representing, for hours, different parts of the system. What I say is that everybody is responsible but nobody is responsible. I repeat that: everybody is responsible because everybody cares, but nobody is responsible. The question is: who holds the ring? Who is the person accountable for ensuring that something is done and delivered, whether it is a review of a domestic homicide or prisoners coming out and being subject to the MARAC or MAPPS, as it will be called?
My final point is that the delivery of this from an office—I do not mean that disrespectfully—to a house or street is absolutely crucial, and yet nobody has done anything. I will give the Committee an instance. The Government have recruited new police officers—I am not making a political point—and so we have new front-line police officers, who are often very young and very willing, with the desire to do well. When they go to a prisoner out on licence or to a domestic incident, many of them go in blind, because they are young and inexperienced and have no idea what to do. They try to assess whether there is a threat to life, but, as we know, often with domestic homicides there is no immediate, obvious threat to life. That is the nature of domestic violence and, unfortunately, sometimes of domestic homicides; the offenders do not wear a sign saying, “I am going to kill someone”. The police officer goes there, as a 999 response officer, and deals with the immediate emergency as he or she sees it. Realising that there is no immediate threat to life, as far as they are aware, the police officer leaves.
Sometimes, the information that that has happened is not passed on. Sometimes, the police officer is rung again—“Come back, there is a problem”—and they go back but there is nothing going on. It is not as though somebody is running around with a gun, ready to shoot. If that does not change, it will not make a shred of difference whether you call it “MAPPS”, “super-MAPPS”, “extra-MAPPS”, or “brilliant-MAPPS”.
The Government want to make a difference, so they have to do something about the mechanism by which everybody is responsible but nobody is responsible, about what happens with the front-line delivery, and about the sharing of data and information. That is patchwork at best. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, say that the report has to address those problems. But the Minister does not need a report in 12 months; he could get on the phone or get a meeting now and ask why it is that the law allows you to share data but you are not.
My question to the Minister is this. When people say that they cannot share data in MARACs, or whatever else, are they right? Are they in a situation where they can do that? I think that they are wrong; I think that they can share that information. As a start to what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby asked, why does the Minister not write to every single MARAC in the country and say, “Notwithstanding the Victims and Prisoners Bill that is going through Parliament, the existing law allows you to share information. Don’t worry, you will not be prosecuted or get in trouble for doing that”. They do not believe that—we may all say that that is ridiculous but that is the reality. What I want is for the Government to address on the ground the reality of what is happening. The Minister needs to get involved and do that. The Government want it to improve, as of course we all do, but that change is needed for an improvement to happen.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, might like to know that, in evidence that the Justice and Home Affairs Committee took recently on community sentences, we came across various NGOs that were stuck because they were frightened of sharing information. It held up the system; it completely stopped things working as they should and could have.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is important. As someone who knows first-hand what it is like to gather information and then find out that the Home Office wants to gather information about red flags, I have to say it is amazing that all that information is shared for the Home Secretary to look at on a murder case.
I agree with the passionate assertion by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that data sharing is important. In a domestic homicide review, the families already know the information and have complained about it, but the Government have to wait for this review to come out with “lessons learned”. That is further insulting to the victims’ families and indeed to the victims, and it beggars belief that we have not moved on.
I want to tell my noble friend about data sharing. I attended a MARAC a few years ago as Victims’ Commissioner—not every MARAC is fantastic, I have to say—and what concerned me was that when a police officer gave evidence that the prisoner had been released, his offender manager, who was at that same table, was concerned because the last thing she knew was that he was still meant to be in prison. She had to leave the room to double-check, because he should not have been released. Unfortunately, I did not manage to find out the result, but the police and offender management had to try to establish whether the prisoner had even been released. That shows how important it is for data to be shared for the protection of victims. People need to understand what can be shared so they can find out whether a prisoner is even in their cell.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his amendment regarding the Multi Agency Public Protection System, MAPPS. I understand that the debate has not really been very much to do with MAPPS, but I will first address the amendment, which does address it. Amendment 148C would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a report on progress of the development of MAPPS for prisoners subject to notification requirements and licence conditions under the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, within 12 months of Royal Assent.
It may be helpful if I provide some explanation of MAPPS. This will answer some of those questions, but I have better answers at the end. MAPPS is a Home Office IT project, currently jointly funded with the Ministry of Justice, to enable the improved management of dangerous offenders, including violent and sex offenders, under Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, or MAPPA. It is intended to replace the current case management system, the ViSOR database, which has been the main IT tool used by the police, probation and prison services since 2005.
The current database, ViSOR, while stable, is now almost 20 years old. The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice began work on MAPPS in 2020 to enable criminal justice agencies to share information in real time and improve their risk assessments and the management of all MAPPA nominals. That can include domestic abuse perpetrators and stalkers, as referenced in Amendments 148A and 148B.
I am sure we all agree that it is essential that police and other MAPPA agencies have the tools they need to manage the risk posed by serious offenders, and MAPPS will do just that. The new functionality will include greater capacity; a more intuitive system with push notifications; and increased mobility. MAPPS, as a new and modern system, will be more responsive to agency needs, and adaptable to any new notification requirements.
As noble Lords would expect for a project so important to public safety, we are being diligent in our approach to MAPPS development. MAPPS is a custom product, being built to meet the bespoke needs of police, prison and probation officers as well as other MAPPA authorities. While third-party contractors are used, given other discussions on the Bill, I am sure that noble Lords will want to note that Fujitsu is not involved in MAPPS development and never has been.
We welcome the interest in the MAPPS programme and, while the work is ongoing, the Government will of course further update Parliament on its development and implementation. Given that MAPPS is already being designed specifically to meet the needs of those agencies involved in the management of all MAPPA offenders, in conjunction with those very agencies, I do not consider that the proposed report would say anything more than has already been mentioned, and it is therefore unnecessary.
I turn to the debate that we have had in Committee. MAPPA deals only with convicted offenders under four categories, but much of the debate has been about information sharing in a way that is not consistent with that use of it. In answer to numerous noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Brinton—on data sharing, the PCSC Act put beyond doubt the authority of agencies to share relevant information for the purposes of assessing and managing an offender’s risk, and to enable agencies and individuals who do not have a duty to co-operate to share information where they can contribute to the assessment and management of an offender’s risk. These measures clarified existing arrangements and will ensure that agencies understand how any sharing of information for the purposes of MAPPA management interacts with the obligations contained in the data protection legislation.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, we are bringing coercive individuals under the management of MAPPA but it is potentially under the lower categories 2 and 3, as I mentioned in the previous debate. There have been numerous questions. I am sure I have not answered them all and I will write to noble Lords.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, gives the Minister of the Crown the opportunity to jolt the system to tell people dealing with prisoners under licence or with potential domestic homicide incidents—within these multi-agency arrangements, whatever they are called or are going to be called—“You can share information in a way that you don’t believe you currently can”. If the Minister does that, it will save lives.
As I said, I am sick of reading domestic homicide reviews where people are killed and then, time after time, it turns out that it might have been avoided if information had been shared, but the people involved did not think they could do so. Why does the Minister not say to them in some way—in writing or from the Dispatch Box, using his powers as a Minister—that they can? That would make an immediate difference.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments, and for his comments earlier. Everyone in this Committee has the same interests at heart. We are all trying to achieve the same thing. I think I have read out a form of words that explains how data sharing is possible at the moment, but I take the point that there is the possibility of acting considerably more vigorously on this. I will take that back to the department. His words have not gone unnoticed.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, that is a very helpful comment from the Minister—I apologise for not having intervened previously in the Bill—but, in other things that I have done over the last few years, there have been three separate areas of activity where the belief of professionals is that they cannot share the data despite the clear legislation, and despite the fact that a threat to life trumps most data protection legislation. It needs a bit more than the Minister saying, “I hear what has been said and we take it very seriously”. There has to be action to make those legal rights and that legal possibility absolutely clear.
Lord Roborough (Con)
The noble Lord makes a good point. Hardly a piece of legislation goes through this House where there is not a data protection aspect. That creates confusion and it is up to the Government to bring clarity, particularly in this area. I thank him for that interjection.
I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a useful debate because it has been focused on the effectiveness of MAPPA, soon to be MAPPS.
As the Minister said, MAPPS deals only with convicted offenders. However, in the previous group he spoke at length about domestic abuse protection orders and stalking protection orders. Those are not criminal convictions so the people involved would not get on to the system in the first place.
From my own experience as a magistrate, from the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, as someone who is currently involved with the criminal justice system, and from the experience of my noble friend Lord Coaker, who is on the Nottingham Community Safety Partnership, we are all looking at the same problem from different perspectives, but it is about one thing: data sharing and being able to monitor that data.
The Minister is addressing the Committee as a Minister of the Crown. He has authority and can follow this through. The same message has come from everyone who has spoken in this short debate: it is about data sharing. I look forward to the Minister using his authority to make sure that that message is rammed home to those people who sit on those committees. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Brinton
“Duty of Crown Court to issue a restraining order for child sexual offences (1) A condition of the release on licence of child sexual offenders must include the issuance of a restraining order preventing any contact with the victim.(2) After section 244ZC of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 insert—“244ZD Release on license of certain child sexual offenders(1) A restraining order (as defined in section 359 of the Sentencing Act 2020) preventing any contact with the victim must be in place until further order at the point of release from custody under license conditions for those convicted of certain child sexual offences.(2) For the purposes of this section, “child sexual offences” means those offences defined as in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 sections 5 to 29, and sections 47 to 51.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires a restraining order to be a condition of release for those convicted of child sexual offences.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, we now turn to the perpetrators of child sexual abuse. I have tabled Amendment 148D, which imposes a duty on the Crown Court to issue a restraining order for child sexual offences for a perpetrator released on licence for certain child sexual offences. There is a strong reason why victims of child sexual abuse should be given this protection: they are among the most vulnerable, particularly when the abuse occurs within the family. Although there is respite for victims when the offender is in prison and while subject to licence conditions—provided that these have been properly set—the real problem is that robust licence conditions are often not in place; worse, even where they are, the victim is left unprepared once they expire.
Sexual harm prevention orders do not automatically include protection for the original victims of the crime; the onus is on the original victims to apply for a restraining order against the offender after they have been released—that is extraordinary. This not only creates enormous stress and fear but costs the Government more money through new hearings that must take place, not to mention the additional CPS and court resources that are needed. A restraining order placed at the time of release will save time and money, while affording the victim lifetime safety. It also sends strong messages to the offender that they will face criminal charges and up to five years’ prison time if the restraining order is breached.
Sexual abuse of any kind is dreadful, but child sexual abuse is particularly heinous. As the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse evidenced, the victims’ lives are affected for decades. It destroys trust and lives; the fear of their abuser returning to their lives is very real.
One such case is Emily Victoria, whose father was sentenced to 14 years in prison for sexually abusing her—his daughter—and a foster child. On release under licence, conditions were put in place to prevent him from entering certain areas where the children, now adults, lived and frequented—these conditions were necessary for their safety. However, when his sentence was completed, the offender was no longer subject to any licence conditions, meaning he is legally able to contact, in person or digitally, the children—who are now adults—that he abused for their entire childhoods. They live in daily fear for their lives and live in hiding, subjected to ongoing trauma because the power has been given back to the offender.
Emily Victoria said:
“My dad horrifically abused me for the first 18 years of my life. I am now 33 and I have spent more of my life under his control than not. He has always been a violent man and pled guilty to many cases of child sexual abuse to myself and another.
His sentence came to an end on 21 November 2023. I am appalled that he has been given the right to contact me in person or otherwise. I live in fear that he’ll be waiting for me in the shadows of my home. There have been times when my home has been broken into and things have been moved around.
Right now, as a result of a prime-time documentary I presented which was aired on Channel 4, more children have come forward to say he sexually abused them. This can trigger a violent response with me as a target.
I am suggesting we impose a Lifetime Restraining Order at the time of release on license to prevent abusers of Child Sexual Abuse from ever getting in contact with their victims directly or indirectly. My dad tried to get in contact via a family member and it’s absolutely terrifying. I should not have to carry the burden of his mistakes for my whole life.
Nor should I have to go to trial/court to request a restraining order. The option to have a phone that directly calls the police because I’m in danger is enough. The restraining order for life sends a strong message of consequences to the offender that they will face criminal charges and up to an additional 5 years in prison.
I go to sleep at night worried about the safety of my child and myself – and I’m strong. For those victims whose offenders come out after just a couple of years and receive less chance of rehabilitation, it’s paramount we give the victims as much protection as possible.
True freedom for victims of child sexual abuse is in the hands of our Ministry of Justice and can be given to victims with a lifetime RO”.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I do not need to add much to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, because she has explained exactly why this is an important matter. I was slightly astonished when I read the amendment that this was the case and that this was something that we would need to remedy, so I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for this amendment, which, as she explained, would require the Crown Court to automatically impose a restraining order on anyone convicted of a child sex offence; that would apply regardless of the type or length of sentence passed. There is no need for me to underline the horror of child sex offences and the lifelong harm that is inflicted on the victims. I therefore have a great deal of sympathy with the intent behind the amendment to do even more to try to minimise the impact of that harm, as well as protect the community from any further offending.
Restraining orders are a discretionary power available to judges to impose in cases where there is a need to protect people from harassment or conduct that causes fear of violence. The current regime allows for such orders to be imposed where there is sufficient evidence on conviction, post conviction or post acquittal. At present, applications for restraining orders are considered by the Crown Prosecution Service on a case-by-case basis, recognising that there is a need to keep a victim safe and take their views into account. Actions prohibited by the restraining order, such as going to certain locations or contacting the victim, may be a breach of the order which is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years. Variation or discharge of the restraining order must be undertaken by the court.
When dealing with child sex offences, the court has a range of sentencing options available that may include life sentences. The vast majority of offenders who are released are subject to licence conditions that could include conditions to protect the victim, such as prohibiting contact. Breaching the terms of any licence condition can result in an offender being recalled to prison.
Offenders are also subject to notification requirements, commonly known as the sex offender register, where individuals convicted or cautioned for a sexual offence must provide certain details to police, including address, national insurance number and bank account details. Furthermore, they will also be managed under Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, or MAPPA, for the duration of those requirements that, in many cases, will be for life.
Other measures to protect victims are also available. The sexual harm prevention order, or SHPO, can be made in relation to a person who has been convicted of a broad range of sexual offences, committed either in the UK or overseas. No application is necessary at the point of sentence, but courts may consider it in appropriate cases. Otherwise, applications can be made by the police, or other agencies, in preparation for the offender’s release on licence.
The prohibitions imposed by the order can be wide-ranging, such as limiting forms of employment that may involve contact with children or restrictions on internet access. The orders may be for a fixed period not exceeding five years but are renewable. More than 5,000 SHPOs were imposed in the year 2022-23, which shows that the courts are using the tools and powers available.
While I support the well-meaning intention of the amendment, I do not believe it is necessary, because there is a wide-ranging and effective set of measures to monitor and control offenders. I also suggest that the point at which these additional measures would be needed are when someone’s licence comes to an end; until then, conditions such as non-contact and exclusion can be in place on the licence. So it would be better to take decisions on the controls necessary at the conclusion of the licensing period, rather than attempt to predict them at the point of sentencing.
Requiring the Crown Court to automatically issue a restraining order as a condition of release in every case caught by this amendment would constrain the court’s discretion not to issue an order where it was not needed or desired. From a practical perspective, a mandatory restraining order imposed on an offender at the point of sentence, which could be many years before the end of the sentence, would be a duplication of some of the other controls I have already set out and it could create practical difficulties down the line, especially where the sentence is very long.
We also must remember the voice of the victim, which plays an important part in decision-making. Where an offender has received a custodial sentence of 12 months for violent or sexual offences, which of course include sexual offences against children, victims will be automatically referred to the victim contact scheme. Where the victim is a child, a parent or guardian may join the scheme on their behalf. If they choose to join the scheme, a victim liaison officer will inform them when the offender is going to be released and help them to request licence conditions that will apply upon the offender’s release, such as prohibitions on contacting the victim or entering an exclusion zone.
In conclusion, I hope I have adequately explained the wide-ranging provisions already available to safeguard victims, which we should allow the courts to impose as they see fit, according to the circumstances of a given case. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness agrees and feels able to withdraw the amendment. In saying that, I make it clear, as I often do, that I am happy to talk to her after Committee to explore these matters further.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to the Minister and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I am very grateful for his explanation of the system, but my difficulty with his response is that it does not make sure that the victim does not have to be proactive to go back to the court and make a statement, if they are very clear.
I hear what the Minister says about a sentence of more than 12 months, and I may return on Report with a slightly different amendment. This is a particular problem for victims of child sexual abuse of those who are discovered to have abused others and who present other issues. It is not just a one-off case that we are trying to resolve. In the meantime, I withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley
“Change in gender recorded in relevant police register(1) A condition of the release on licence of perpetrators of criminal conduct of a sexual nature is that criminal justice bodies must take all reasonable steps to identify and record any change of legal gender by such perpetrators at the point at which they are released on licence.(2) Criminal justice bodies must ensure the sexual offences register and police database record accurate name and birth sex information for perpetrators of criminal conduct of a sexual nature at the point at which the perpetrator is released on licence.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I dedicate this speech to Lord Cormack because, the last time I spoke to him, we discussed this very issue. I make no claim that he would agree with me; it is just that, as was his wont, he was very supportive of me tabling this amendment. I acknowledge that he did not agree with me on many things but he was still a great Peer.
Amendment 148E looks at identity changes and recording on registers. On the front page of Scottish newspapers over the weekend was the story of Marc Sherland, the head of the Robert Burns World Federation, who has been unmasked as a convicted sex offender who abused two boys in the past. He exploited a legal loophole that meant that Douglas Hammond, which was his name when he committed earlier offences, could change his name to get the job. Chillingly, his role at the federation allowed him access to children.
Thankfully, instances of sexual offenders changing their name to escape their past are being tackled, not least by the efforts of campaigners for Della’s law, named after six year-old Della Wright, who was raped by a man who had legally changed his name five times. I am glad that the Government have endorsed amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill that will block offenders from, for example, using deed poll to obtain a new identity.
I particularly congratulate the honourable Labour MP Ruth Jones, whose Private Member’s Bill, the Community and Suspended Sentences (Notification of Details) Bill, passed its Second Reading in the other place only on Friday, 23 February. I congratulate the Government on signalling their support for that Bill. It is designed to tackle the hundreds of sex offenders across the UK who slip off the radar because they lawfully change their names and then apply for fresh identity documents, allowing them to escape the authorities and their past and, potentially, to secure jobs working with children.
Now, you might say that, because of the Private Member’s Bill that I just mentioned and the Government’s support for it, which deal with my worries, there is really no need for my amendment. However, we are told that the Bill will mean that all offenders will have to notify their probation officers and others about any name changes, online aliases or changes in contact details when, actually, perhaps not all offenders are covered by this. My amendment probes another loophole that seems to have gone beneath the radar. I hope that the Minister will address this—I do not necessarily mean this evening, but before we get to Report.
The new arrangements that I have discussed are about not allowing sex offenders simply to change their identity to escape their past crimes. Offenders will not simply be able to change their identity on official documents. This is true for everyone, except for when a little-known exemption applies. It relates to a sensitive applications clause that applies to those who have changed their identity not simply via deed poll but via transitioning gender. This sensitivity clause can be utilised by convicted male sex offenders who change gender after committing a crime, once they are incarcerated.
I discovered this loophole from a bizarre tale that ended up being rather personal to me. Ceri-Lee Galvin is now a delightful 25 year-old mum who is training to be a paramedic, but she had a traumatic, hellish childhood. From the age of eight, she was sexually abused and raped by her own father, Clive Bundy. This horrendous ordeal went on for eight years until, eventually, in 2016, Bundy was arrested and sent to prison for 15 years. Having served only half of his sentence, Bundy was released on licence less than a year ago.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this seemingly early release—I think it was unseemly that Bundy was released so early—one would think, after his release had been agreed, that at least Clive Bundy would be in clear sight of the relevant criminal justice agencies for protection and safeguarding. But there is a catch. Two years prior to Clive Bundy’s release, he declared himself a woman and changed his name to—wait for it—Claire Fox. For those of you who know me only as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, my name is Claire Fox, so I noticed when I heard this story.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, started her speech by talking about sex offenders changing their names frequently, and there is no doubt that this happens. I will come on to explain why I think that there is help in that. However, her amendment seems to be intending to strengthen identification of individuals on licence who have a different gender assignment from that given at birth. It implies a perceived need to know that person’s birth gender, legal gender and legal identity, and that they are relevant to the prevention of a sex crime. This is, as I think the noble Baroness is aware, highly contentious and a sensitive topic, with implications for the equality, dignity and fair treatment of transgender people.
His Majesty’s Prison Service estimates that there are approximately 2.9 transgender prisoners per 1,000 in custody. There were 281 prisoners living or presenting in a gender identity different from their birth sex as of 31 March last year. At the same time, the number of prisoners with a gender recognition certificate was only 13. HMPPS already has robust arrangements in place for identifying individuals who have undergone gender change at the point of entry to custody. That is because there are already rules inside prisons for making sure that there are no risks to the prison population—or indeed to those who have changed their gender, who sometimes are attacked as well.
Nevertheless, even if an individual somehow managed to slip through the net, establishing it would require staff checking the legal gender of every person convicted of a sex event who was released from prison—effectively trying to prove that they do not have a GRC by asking the gender recognition panel. Proposed new subsection 2 of the noble Baroness’s amendment is about the database recording absolutely everybody who has committed a sexual offence in their gender at birth. Data published on 31 December last year shows there were 14,152 people serving a sentence in prison for a sex offence. I wonder whether the Minister cares to hazard a guess at how much time would be spent if HMPPS and the GRC trawled through that lot. HMPPS is required to accurately record a person’s legal gender upon entry to custody, and the policy states that, where legal gender has not been confirmed, efforts to establish legal gender must be recorded separately when different—so both are still recorded.
Furthermore, I remember that during the course of the then Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in 2021, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on behalf of the Government, said:
“There are no other instances across government where there is a mandatory requirement to record both a person’s sex as registered at birth as well as their acquired gender, if that is applicable. The Office for Statistics Regulation is clear that it is for each department to decide when and how it collects data, including data on both sex and gender.
We have already stated that we do not plan to require biological sex to be recorded across the criminal justice system in our response to a recent petition calling for the biological sex of violent and sexual offenders to be so recorded”.—[Official Report, 22/11/21; col. 724.]
Given that, and given the protections that the Prison Service must follow through with every transgender prisoner, I wonder if there is actually a real reason for the need for this amendment. I appreciate the tale that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, gave us from the individual, but I am not sure that what she requires in this amendment would actually help the victim in this case.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I echo the worry of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about this, partly exactly because it may not solve the victim’s problem that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, outlined in proposing this amendment. We have also talked a lot about the unevenness of the criminal justice system’s data collection and everything else; I wonder how on earth it would do this, to solve what is probably a very small problem—but a challenge, absolutely—and whether there may be another way of resolving it. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for explaining the background to her amendment. It would require by law that the criminal justice agencies—the police, prisons and probation—identify and record any change of gender identity by a sex offender as a condition of their release on licence. It would also require the police to record the offender’s name and birth sex as a condition of their release on licence.
It may help if I outline the measures we already have in place, which I think address the spirit of this amendment. Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 requires sex offenders who have been convicted of an offence in Schedule 3 to that Act to notify the police of their personal details annually and whenever they change. Those details include information such as names, including aliases, and addresses. They also include details of activity such as foreign travel and residence in a household with children.
Sex offenders subject to the notification requirements in Part 2 of the 2003 Act are managed under the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements. MAPPA is a statutory arrangement, through which the responsible authority—the police, prisons and probation—work together and with other agencies to discharge a statutory duty to co-operate, to assess and manage the risk posed by registered sex offenders and others living in the community.
In February 2023, the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service created a presumption that all transgender female prisoners, whether they have a gender recognition certificate or not, would not be held in the general women’s prison estate. The Prison Service is able to verify, with the gender recognition panel, whether an offender has a gender recognition certificate. Any difference between an offender’s birth sex and assumed gender will therefore be recorded and made known to the probation and police services through their co-operation under MAPPA.
The MAPPA responsible authorities use the VISOR database to share information about registered sex offenders. VISOR enables the recording of sex, gender identity and gender presentation. An offender’s legal sex will be changed on VISOR only if they have provided a GRC to the police, probation or prison service. However, MAPPA agencies are still able to have regard to an offender’s change of gender where it is necessary to manage their risk, or prevent or detect crime.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the responses I have received. I will take what the Minister has said, and look at it myself, and maybe we can both clarify whether we have missed anything. I do not want to delay us too long now. I will say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, that if the wording of this amendment will not correctly pick up the problem I have identified, I would be happy to take their advice on how to improve it.
I think that a genuine loophole does exist, however. I was a bit concerned when the response seemed to be to suggest that there would be a lot of work involved in solving a small problem. I have listened to such passionate speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton, about threats to women and girls, from stalking in particular, and about the importance of child protection and so on; I would have thought that they would have grabbed any opportunity to close down a loophole on safeguarding. I hope they will work with me.
The loophole in general of sex offenders changing identity has been identified by the Labour MP and backed by the Government. I have simply drawn attention to a loophole within that loophole that was being closed. I have used particularly the examples of DBS checks. They are very important; I have always thought that the Government went slightly over the top with DBS checks for people volunteering with the Brownies or what have you in the past but, if you are going to have them, you need to be able to rely on them. When the Minister gave his assurances, I did not feel they would capture the DBS point. That is what I have tried to do in the amendment. It will be improved; I will be back on Report. In the meantime, I withdraw the amendment—and I am glad that people appreciated the spirit of it.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Tuesday 12th March 2024
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 31-VII Seventh marshalled list for Committee - (8 Mar 2024)
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
“(ba) after subsection (3), insert—“(3A) Where—(a) the prisoner has been released on licence under this Chapter,(b) the qualifying period has expired, and(c) if his case has been considered for termination previously by the Parole Board and a period of at least twelve months has expired since the disposal of that application,the prisoner may make an application to the Parole Board under this subsection.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with two others in my name to Clause 48, would allow a prisoner whose licence has not been terminated by the Parole Board three years after their first release to make an application annually to the Parole Board for termination.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, the subject of IPPs is so well known to you all, and indeed to many outside this House, that it is unnecessary to speak at any length about it, save for one remark and one set of common grounds.
When the Minister said that this Bill was about victims, he was in every sense right. In some senses, those who received the sentence of IPP are in fact victims, as I will endeavour to explain by reference to what I think are four areas of common ground, which I think ought to guide what I wish to say.
The first area of common ground is that the 2003 Act which implemented these was a mistake and should never have been enacted. There is now no dispute about that. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for the candour, statesmanship and exemplary conduct he has shown—which so few do—in admitting error. He is to be warmly commended for that, and my only regret is that he is not here in person for him to hear what we all feel.
The second point of common ground is that the operation and the effect of the IPP system has been a stain on the administration of justice in England and Wales. Again, I do not think that is disputed.
Thirdly, the outcome of imposing sentences of IPP has been problematic in very many ways, and a particular problem has been the effect on the mental health of those who received this form of sentence, particularly those in the initial period from 2005 to 2008.
The fourth area of common ground is the old phrase, “Something must be done!” The real question is: what should be done? These problems have to be addressed; we cannot leave them unaddressed.
In the groups of amendments to be considered this afternoon, the real issue relates to that fourth point of common ground: what is to be done? One should begin by welcoming the leadership shown by the Lord Chancellor—this Lord Chancellor, I underline—in the Bill. He has accepted that there are problems and that they need to be addressed. We have to recognise that he is in some senses constrained by circumstances and by events which may happen later in the year. However, I very much hope that in the course of this debate we can achieve more under his leadership, which has been outstanding in this respect, and see what we can do to try either to solve the problems now or at least to make certain that the basis is there for their solution in the future.
Having said I would say very little by way of introduction, I may have spoken for too long; I now turn to the amendments in the first group. These are amendments to Clause 48 and there are four sets of them. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, for their support by co-signing these amendments, which all relate to the provisions for release on licence.
I am not sure how well appreciated it is that the licence period after release from an IPP is one of the most draconian aspects of the sentence. After release, the offender is on licence and subject to licence conditions—and, most importantly, subject to recall if they breach them—for an indefinite period presently, unless the Parole Board decides to release or reduce the licence period. At present, it cannot do so until 10 years have elapsed. It is that 10-year period which this clause seeks to address. At the moment, all cases are referred to the Parole Board for consideration—but 10 years is a very long time.
One of the things that is clear on the evidence—and it is always important to proceed on the evidence—is that the indeterminate nature of IPP sentences has created many very serious mental health issues and these are exacerbated by the licence period. It is very difficult for someone who has been in custody for such an indeterminate period, not knowing when they are going to released, to maintain his or her mental stability—and then being subject to 10 years on licence is almost impossible.
So we must warmly welcome the basis of this recall in reducing that period from 10 years to three years, because then the Parole Board can look at the licence period and decide whether it should be terminated then and there. If it is not terminated and if the person is successful and remains on licence, out of custody, for two years, there is a sunset or automatic termination. So, before I turn to the amendments, I think it is right to say that this is a huge achievement and, on almost everyone’s behalf, I thank the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for doing this.
My amendments make changes to this new regime which are minor but important. I hope they are of a kind about which there will be little dispute—because, if there are disputes about these, I dread to think where we shall get to when we go down the list. Four areas are covered by these amendments. The first of these sets of amendments are Amendments 149, 150 and 151, which try to set out a more flexible and just way of terminating the licence period if it is not terminated at the three-year point.
I do not want to go into the technicalities of this too much, because this is typically awful sentencing legislation—most sentencing legislation is awful, as is shown by the fact that the Sentencing Code is about this thick—and I do not think a debate on the language is a good way for us to spend our time. But, in essence, this provides that, if the Parole Board does not at the three-year period terminate the licence, we have to address whether it is right that the person has to wait to have their licence terminated by spending two years without the risk of having their licence revoked and returning to prison.
The essence of this amendment is accepting the mental health problems that this form of imprisonment has caused and for which ultimately the state is responsible, as a result of the enactment of this legislation. This amendment seeks to restore a right of annual review. This would give the Parole Board the opportunity each year to look at the position of the individual and see whether, in all the circumstances, we can terminate.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I have the privilege of rising on behalf of my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who is incredibly disappointed not to be here. He has a long-standing and unbreakable prior commitment. I know that he would want me to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for the kindness that he displayed and for his crystal-clear description of these amendments and of the injustices and technicalities that they address, which any lay person could understand. I am very grateful, as I know my noble friend would be. I share in the tribute to my noble friend. The fact that the former Home Secretary has asked the former director of Liberty to speak on his behalf is perhaps testament to the character of my noble friend.
My noble friend supports all the amendments in this group, most of which belong, at least in initiation, to the noble and learned Lord. He also signed Amendment 156 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, because of this concern that no period should be increased by the Secretary of State.
For my own part, speaking for myself at this moment and not for my noble friend, of the two approaches—taking the power to alter entirely or leaving it as one only to reduce—I rather agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. He has done so well in the explanation that I need say little more, other than that I also remember today our friend, his noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, for whom righting this wrong, this stain on our justice system, was also incredibly important. Too many people in public life are happy to forget and ignore the mistakes of last week, let alone of two decades ago, but, if this is the House of Elders in our parliamentary system, such as it is, this is exactly the Committee to be embracing the amendments put so brilliantly just now by the noble and learned Lord.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his comments and endorse everything that he said, particularly about the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who we all wish was here today. I will address one or two of the pragmatic issues. The amendments in this group all relate to IPP licences, and I support them all. They are intended to affect the applications of licences to be fairer and speedier, so that we can release or re-release IPPs as fast and as safely as possible into the community.
Clause 48 currently removes the element of annual review in favour of one-off review every three years. However, if the Parole Board decides not to terminate the licence of this point, Amendments 149 and 150 restore the right—removed by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act—to an annual review by the Parole Board. The Prison Reform Trust comments that having a sunset clause of a further two years might just constitute a high bar for some prisoners, and that the Parole Board should be able to terminate the licence after one year, otherwise licences could drag on for years, as before.
The circumstances described in Amendment 152 are probably quite rare, but it is worth ensuring that a person would not have to suffer if they had been recalled but the Secretary of State had revoked the recall, presumably because there had been an error of some kind and they should not have been recalled. The prisoner should not be penalised because of an error not of their making.
Amendment 153 continues in a similar vein, but this time gives the Parole Board the ability to maintain the sunset clause. However, in this case, it is slightly more complicated. Firstly, the Secretary of State can recall if they conclude on reasonable grounds that the prisoner has deliberately revoked the terms of their licence and the safety of the public would be at risk. The Parole Board can overturn the Secretary of State’s decision to recall a prisoner if on subsequent review, and if it is privy to more information than the Secretary of State, it subsequently concludes that the prisoner is not putting the public at risk.
Amendment 157 ensures that the Government use their wide-ranging powers to change the qualifying period using only secondary legislation and that they can revise it only downwards. If they want to revise it upwards, it will have to be done with primary legislation. This is within the spirit of the Bill today. This amendment ensures that a future Government would not be tempted to use this power to make the situation worse for IPP prisoners, not better.
All in all, this suite of amendments is sensible and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, pragmatic. It is offered in a spirit of helpfulness. I sincerely hope that the Minister will see this and maybe feel that it is appropriate to introduce government amendments to this effect.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise possibly as an elder, owing to my advanced age; but perhaps not. I would like to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. As he said, there is almost nothing left to say about these prisoners. It is an injustice. I hope that the Government are considering accepting some of these amendments. We cannot say that we have a justice system if we have an innate injustice like this.
I support the tributes to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, but also to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, with whom I have almost nothing in common; we have a very tetchy relationship but, on this, I think he is being superlative in working for the rights of IPP prisoners.
As Greens, we believe that prison is overused as a tool of justice. Far too many people are imprisoned when there are much more effective ways of rehabilitation or stopping reoffending. I can understand the anger of people who say that we should lock up serial rapists and murderers and throw away the key. I do understand that anger; but, in this instance, we have, for example, a 17 year-old who steals a bike, or people who grab other people’s mobile phones. This is clearly an injustice; I find it difficult to believe that anybody listening to this would not agree.
The lawyer and campaigner Peter Stefanovic put out an online video about this. It has had 14 million views. A petition to force the Government to debate this again got easily 10,000 signatures. There is massive public support for sorting out this issue. I know that the Government care very much about the will of the British public. The word that came through for me in some of the responses to the video was “cruel”. The sentencing and continued imprisonment of IPP prisoners has just been cruel. Please, let us see some progress on this Bill, then we can all take the Ministers out for a cup of tea.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for moving his amendment. I have tabled Amendment 156; it may be convenient to speak to it now. Before doing so, I have some general points to make about the whole issue of IPP, which I will not repeat in detail later.
I am grateful for all the work that my noble friend Lord Moylan has done along with the Prison Reform Trust and UNGRIPP. In 2017, as a result of a debate initiated by the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood—I am grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti —I decided to take a very close look at our penal system. I soon found that I needed to widen my interest to the whole of the criminal justice system because there is so much is wrong with it. One obvious example is joint enterprise murder, but that is for another day.
Let no one think that I am some sort of soft, bleeding heart, out-of-touch do-gooder. I am not. I believe in firm discipline, with all that that implies. But—I repeat, but—no more disciplinary sanctions should be applied, including incarceration, than are needed to have the desired, legitimate effects of protecting the public by incapacitation, and providing retribution, deterrence and rehabilitation. The current IPP regime clearly fails this test on all counts. I will not rehearse the heart-rending histories that we have all heard about. They are not in dispute.
I also accept that some prisoners on an IPP sentence may not be releasable any time soon even under a resentencing scheme. However, keeping prisoners incarcerated unnecessarily costs £44,000 per annum per prisoner and wastes resources. We know we have a terrible prison system because the Chief Inspector of Prisons tell us that is so. In his 2023 report, he said that inspectors have run out of superlatives to describe how poor the purposeful activity component of prison life is, or words to that effect. No wonder IPP prisoners find it so hard to demonstrate any progress with rehabilitation.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments. I support of all the IPP amendments debated now and later this evening. First, I express my sincere regret for being unable to speak at Second Reading, as this is a subject, as colleagues know, that is very dear to me and of great interest to me and I have raised several times in your Lordships’ House.
I had the humbling experience of meeting and listening to former IPP prisoners, who had served from five to ten years more than their minimum sentence, and family members of prisoners who have served more than 15 years over tariff. I have to tell the Committee that it was a heart-breaking occasion, knowing that there was no end to their injustice in sight, no hope for the thousands of prisoners and family members who are treated so inhumanely, not enough courses to help them to apply for a review and not enough opportunities within the justice system to even give them a review.
As has been mentioned, IPPs were abolished over a decade ago, so how on earth can it be that so many people—almost 3,000 of them—are still living through this never-ending nightmare? I agree with the Justice Select Committee and the UN special rapporteur on torture that resentencing represents the only way forward for resolving the IPP scandal and for justice at long last to be done.
Importantly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, mentioned, we must not forget the psychological effects of IPPs on prisoners and families alike, as the Justice Committee’s report so vividly highlighted and has been further demonstrated by the high number of suicides that we have tragically seen. Likewise, the UN special rapporteur, Dr Alice Jill Edwards, describes IPPs as “psychological torture” and says it is
“tragic that so many mental health challenges appear to have been caused—or at least aggravated—by the uncertainty of indeterminate sentences”.
I agree with that. This is a miscarriage of justice on an industrial scale. It may not presently have the profile of the Post Office scandal, but nevertheless it is a cruel injustice that has gone on for far too long.
I understand—as, again, has just been mentioned—that both Front Benches have previously been resistant to resentencing on the grounds of public safety. Of course, in an election year no one wants to look soft on crime. However, to quote Dr Edwards:
“It is the responsibility of the UK government to protect public safety, but citing this as the reason not to review IPP sentences is misleading. The UK, like any society with a strong rule of law, has measures to protect the community after prisoners are released. Locking people up and ‘throwing away the keys’ is not a legal or moral solution”
to this terrible problem. I agree, but if either Front Bench is still in need of more political cover to do the right thing, I suggest that Amendment 167C in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which we will come to soon, fits the bill. That amendment would delay resentencing until the chief inspector was satisfied that the Probation Service could adequately protect the public following any resentencing exercise. The long- overdue release and justice for IPP prisoners should not be blocked over the excuse that the Probation Service cannot cope, but Amendment 167C might be the compromise needed to unlock that puzzle—a pathway out of this political impasse. I sincerely hope it is.
I urge the Committee to summon the post-war spirit of 1945 and back Amendment 167C from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. I know that IPP prisoners and their families are watching us here, hoping but also fearing what might be coming round the corner. Our Parliament must strike up the courage to act and correct the injustices that we can all see if we just open our eyes.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, I too support this array of amendments on IPP, both the current amendments and the ones that will follow. As the Committee will know, I am a regular visitor—twice a month—to prisons across the UK, and I will visit another one tomorrow morning. On a regular basis—two a month—I meet many incarcerated men and sometimes women, and many who have left prison over the last 10 years, and I have found relentless IPP tragedies around every corner.
I shall refer to one story from a meeting in December, when a man came up to me and said that he had been released from an IPP sentence 14 years ago but was recalled back to prison in September after he forgot to inform his then probation officer that he had gone on holiday with his wife in August for two weeks to Spain. This is just sheer stupidity, let alone the fact that this system is organising to persecute people compared with recognising their renewal. In his case, and not just because I have now met him twice, he does not deserve the taxpayer to spend nearly £50,000 for an extended period to make sure that he is further detained and punished.
I hope the Minister will gather up all his strength and either accept this array of amendments in one gulp or go back to the Lord Chancellor and determine to bring back an effective set of government amendments that will allow us to end this appalling stain of injustice and unfairness. Another man I met eight years ago from a prison in Kent had been recalled three times. From an initial sentence of seven years, he had done over 24. The persecution of this man’s mental abilities was blatantly obvious; he was no risk to anyone. I can tell noble Lords that since we campaigned for his release, and he has been released, he is an honourable citizen paying his taxes. That is how we should treat many of these men—they are largely men—to see that they are given the opportunity to prove their new life.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I wonder whether I could detain the Committee for one minute on Amendments 156 and 157. The background to this is my time as chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, when, with my noble friend Lord Blencathra, we drew attention to the creeping growth in the power of the Executive at the expense of the legislature in our reports Government by Diktat and Democracy Denied?. Therefore, when amendments present changes to be effected or not effected by secondary legislation, my ears prick up.
First, we have to recognise that there has to be secondary legislation. The SLSC looks at between 600 and 800 regulations per year. To think that those can be put through by primary legislation is fanciful. The Government’s system would be completely gummed up, so something has to be done.
Secondly, we all know that the system for scrutinising secondary legislation is weak, to say the least. There is no chance to amend, even if the House were to agree that one particular provision in a regulation was inadequate or wrong; it is all or nothing. There is no room for ping- pong or other things we see in primary legislation. All those things are important. This House has decided to stand in the way of secondary legislation only six times since 1968. The last time, in 2015, led to a full-scale constitutional crisis, the Strathclyde review, et cetera.
With great respect to my noble friend Lord Attlee, it seems that Amendment 156 would lock us into the structure we currently have. He says that a criminal justice Bill will be along in no time at all; maybe, but we would be locked into the structure we have because the Secretary of State has no power at all. By contrast, Amendment 157, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, would give the Secretary of State some powers, but only to loosen, not to tighten. It seems to me that, in so far as we are seeking a balance between the Executive and the legislature, between moving too quickly and not moving at all, Amendment 157 is to be preferred, and I hope the Committee would not accept Amendment 156.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting and relatively short debate. We have four groups of amendments covering IPP sentences, and this first group is perhaps the easiest and most benign to agree with. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that we in the Opposition have no problem with this group. I acknowledge the interesting point that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, just made regarding the differences between Amendments 156 and 157. Nevertheless, we have no problem agreeing with the generality of amendments in this group. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his crystal-clear description, quoting my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, when he introduced the amendments.
We agree with the general thrust of these amendments and, if it comes to it at a later stage, will support any amendments that may be pushed further. I would like to do the Minister’s job and say what the problems might be. I acknowledge that, with a reducing cohort of IPP prisoners in prison, you are dealing with very difficult and potentially dangerous people. As this number reduces, the problem gets greater. I think that is a fair point to make. It is a point the Minister usually makes, but I want to make it from this side of the Chamber.
We will come to more ambitious proposals in subsequent groups, but here we are just dealing with various amendments to licence conditions and fairly imaginative ways of reducing them overall. We support them in the generality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will first briefly recap some basic points that apply equally to the second and fourth groups of amendments that we will come to.
First, this Government recognise the highly regrettable history of this particular sentence. The Lord Chancellor himself has described IPP sentences as
“a stain on our justice system”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/23; col. 592.]
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, rightly said, the question is what should be done. I will briefly summarise, to encapsulate our debate, what the Government think should be done.
The Government are making some very determined efforts to mitigate the situation of IPP offenders who are still subject to a sentence that was abolished in 2012. To bring noble Lords up to date, there were originally approximately 8,100 people subject to these sentences. Of those people, as of last December 1,227 had never been released, 1,625 had been released and later recalled, and there were still about 3,000 on licence in the community. Currently, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out, an offender cannot apply to the Parole Board to have their licence terminated until 10 years after first release.
Taking the released and then recalled population first, this is a challenge because that population is slowly rising. The major statutory change in Clause 48 will reduce the qualifying period before the offender becomes eligible for licence termination from 10 years to three years from first release, with a presumption of termination after three years and an automatic termination two years thereafter—provided that the offender can pass two years in the community without further recall. That is, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, a huge change and a major achievement for the Government to be proposing. It should substantially mitigate the problem of prisoners being released and then recalled, which we will come to in more detail as this debate continues.
Regarding the second cohort—perhaps the first, depending on your point of view—of those who have never been released, most of these people have come up before the Parole Board, which is responsible for deciding on their release. In many cases, this has happened many times and the Parole Board has decided that it is not safe to release them as the risk to the public is too great. What is the Government’s approach to that problem? Spurred on by the 2022 report of the JSC, to which I pay tribute, the Government are developing a robust, coherent and detailed action plan in consultation with relevant stakeholders, including the families, with the aim that each prisoner has a tailored sentence plan, appropriate support and clear objectives to work towards eventual release.
This last cohort is difficult, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has just pointed out because, aside from having committed very serious offences, many suffer from trauma, mental health issues, substance issues and so on. However, the Government are determined to see this cohort further reduced and to get rid of the idea that there is no hope. In the Government’s view, no one has given up on the IPP prisoners who have never been released. They have to be worked on. That is a hard task, but one that the Government—any Government—should take on.
For example, the number of those released has been reducing over the last two years at roughly 200 per year. There are now 200 of these prisoners in open conditions who are being prepared for further release. It is not as if nothing is going on or as if things are just vegetating and no one cares. The Government are very focused on doing something about this most difficult cohort. That is the overall framework, which I hope your Lordships will view, despite the difficulties of the past, as something of a new beginning for the future.
With that background, I turn to Amendments 149 to 151 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. The effect of these would be that, if the Parole Board refused to terminate the licence at the new three-year point, the offender would have the right to apply annually to the Parole Board for a licence determination. As the Government understand it, the offender would be in the community rather than waiting out the two-year period, which results in the automatic termination of the licence. The offender would be able to apply to the Parole Board for termination after one year.
The Government recognise that released offenders in many cases need better support and have accepted all the recommendations to that effect in the recent report of the Chief Inspector of Probation on the recalls of IPP prisoners. However, the Government are not at present persuaded of the need for Amendments 149 to 151, on the following basis. If the offender has applied and the Parole Board, after three years, does not terminate the licence at that point, it does not seem to the Government unreasonable to expect the offender to spend two years in the community with the incentive of the certainty of licence termination at the end of that period. This amendment would enable the offender to make an interim application at the end of year four. That would impose further resource costs on the Probation Service and Parole Board because reports have to be prepared, hearings have to be convened and so forth. It would necessarily take the Parole Board several months to process that application.
We have come back several times in this debate to the pressures on the Parole Board and the time these applications take. It appears to the Government that, even if you could apply after year four rather than waiting until the end of year five, there is probably only a marginal gain for the offender. The Government are not at the moment persuaded on these amendments, although the Government continue to be in listening mode on this part of the Bill, as on every other part of the Bill.
Amendments 152 and 153, also moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, address what one could call in shorthand “questionable recalls”. I think there are two sorts of recall that we should be thinking about. The amendments suggest the possibility of the Parole Board disregarding a recall for the purpose of calculating the two-year period. Perhaps I may first clarify what is considered to be the existing position. If a recall is based on a fundamental mistake of fact—for example, the probation officer thinks that the offender has missed an appointment but the offender is in hospital because of a road accident the previous day—the Lord Chancellor considers that he already has the power in such a clear case to treat the recall as a nullity, as never having happened. That is a relatively clear case and I respectfully suggest that Amendment 152 is unnecessary.
The situation envisaged by Amendment 153 is effectively a challenge to the judgment call made by the probation officer about the recall. Technically it is a decision by the Secretary of State, but in practice of course it depends on the report by the probation officer. Amendment 153 would require the validity of that recall—the “appropriateness” of that recall, to use the word in the amendment—to be considered by the Parole Board and treated as a nullity if the board then considers that the recall decision was not appropriate. Although the Government understand the thinking behind the amendment, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation found, in both 2020 and much more recently in 2023, that in practice HMPPS recall decisions are very largely appropriate.
At present, the Parole Board does not have any power to adjudicate on the appropriateness of the recall; its task is to decide on the issue of public protection and whether the offender is safe to release. For that purpose, the Parole Board will typically have much wider and more detailed information than was available to the individual probation officer faced with the recall decision. Amendment 153 would, however, turn the Parole Board process into an appeal from the recall decision and require the Parole Board, in effect, to second-guess what it would have done had it been the probation officer with the information then available to the probation officer.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I should like to better understand this part of the argument. When the noble and learned Lord said he is satisfied that in most cases recall is appropriate, did he mean recall in general or recall in IPP cases in particular? Secondly, when he was discussing the difference between decisions on executive recall on the one hand and dangerousness and public protection on the other, did he not think that there was a relationship between the two? When one is considering dangerousness, one might have a rather different view of what is required in relation to public protection if one or more recalls were inappropriate because they were for non-criminal, minor conduct that at no point presented a danger to the public?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for those questions. As to whether I was speaking of IPP specifically, I cannot off the top of my head recall whether the 2020 work was specifically in relation to IPP, but certainly the 2023 work, which is the most recent and the most valuable and which I highly recommend everyone to read, was specifically in relation to IPP when the Government were considering what to do following the JSC report when concern was expressed that recalls might be being made inappropriately. That inspector’s report took a sample of recalls, studied them very carefully; it was thought that a small number were questionable but that the vast majority were appropriate on the basis of the information that the probation officer had at the time.
Up to a point, the circumstances of the recall are part of a general picture of the dangerousness of the offender—I accept that. But the real point is that, when the Parole Board comes to consider public protection, it will have much more information, very often much more up-to-date and fuller, than the information that was before the probation officer at the time, who might well have to take a decision in an emergency on very limited information, but because of the risk, as they see it, to public protection. So it is very difficult, in the Government’s view, to give the Parole Board power to go all the way back and say, “This was inappropriate”. However, having said that, I would like to come back to the question of recall when we get to Amendments 154 and 168, to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. It is a question of executive re-release on recall, which might be another way of approaching that problem. So that is the Government’s position.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister telling us that it is inconceivable that the Government would want to increase the licence period?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I do not know that one would use the word “inconceivable”. The Government do not see any prospect of that happening at the moment.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has participated in this debate. It has proved useful: first, it is very important to set the scene, and I deliberately did not say a great deal. However, it is right to say that we owe a huge debt of gratitude to the Prison Reform Trust, to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to the late Lord Brown and the late Lord Judge, who campaigned fiercely on this, and to Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who fortunately is still alive and who has campaigned tirelessly. I just find a sense of deep disappointment—a matter to which I will return at a later stage—at the reluctance to be bold.
We have focused on four little points, and even on reducing the answer was not very strong. It is absurd—and I use that word advisedly—to think any Government would want to take the licence period back up. I very much hope that that amendment can in due course be agreed.
The problem really relates to the way in which the licence period operates. We need to discuss that further to see what the conditions are, and we shall come to that in due course, and to ensure that we bring the licence period to as satisfactory a termination as possible, bearing in mind—as the Minister fails to recognise—that the state has a very substantial degree of responsibility for the mental health problems that have been caused. When you talk of one year or two years, making someone stick to conditions which may not be entirely appropriate for a period of two years is a substantial burden, which can be mitigated by going to one year. But I am glad that the Government have an open mind. We shall see how open it is when we discuss the matter further.
Lord Carter of Haslemere
“(4I) the prisoner’s licence will be considered to have remained in force for the purposes of subsection (4H)(c) if—(a) the prisoner has been recalled within that period,(b) the Secretary of State has released P again on licence in accordance with his powers under section 32(5B), and(c) the Secretary of State orders that the licence should be considered to have remained in force during the period of recall.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would enable a person whom the Secretary of State has deemed suitable for executive release to benefit from the qualifying period as if the recall had not occurred, but only if Secretary of State considers this appropriate in all the circumstances.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 154 in my name and to Amendment 168 at the same time, as they sit together in this grouping. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust, and I thank it for its significant input and support for these amendments. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who, unfortunately, as we have heard, cannot be with us today, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, for adding their support to my two amendments by adding their names.
I shall deal first with Amendment 168, since Amendment 154 is consequential on it. Amendment 168 is about executive release—that is to say, release by the Secretary of State following a recall to prison. At present, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Secretary of State has a power to release a determinate sentence prisoner on licence at any time after the prisoner has been returned to prison. He must not do so unless satisfied that it is not necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should remain in prison. Amendment 168 addresses a lacuna, which arises in the case of IPP prisoners who are recalled to prison, since the Secretary of State has no executive power to release them, even if it is obviously safe to do so.
Why does this lacuna need correcting? Let us look at the facts. There are, as the Minister has said, 1,625 IPP prisoners who are in prison following a recall. The Justice Committee, in its third report, said that the reasons for recalling IPP prisoners vary, and it was often not because the IPP prisoner had committed any further offence but because of a minor or technical breach of licence conditions. For example, the lack of availability of approved premises, believe it or not, or other suitable accommodation, was sometimes a reason for recall, even though it might, unreasonably in the circumstances, have been a condition of a licence.
Once the IPP prisoner has been recalled, they become subject to the usual parole process to secure their release. This can take months or even years. The Justice Committee found that, between 2015 and 2021, the average number of months spent in prison by an IPP prisoner following recall and prior to re-release was 18 months—the equivalent of three years on a traditional fixed-term sentence. I believe that the average time has now increased, as I think that the Minister said, and that period in prison following a recall has risen to on average 28 months before re-release. That is a wholly disproportionate additional period to serve if the recall was for a minor or technical breach of licence conditions, or if it is apparent that the prisoner is safe to release at an earlier stage.
The Justice Committee recommended the use of executive release for IPP prisoners in such cases, as is possible for determinate sentence prisoners. In their response, the Government stated that they would not accept the recommendation because it
“falls to the Parole Board to determine whether the … release test is met”.
But that fails to explain why determinate sentence prisoners can be executively released when they, too, are otherwise subject to a Parole Board review.
Amendment 168 is therefore about ensuring that like cases are treated alike, when there is no good reason for treating them differently. It provides that the Secretary of State should have a power of executive release at any time following the recall of an IPP prisoner, if the Secretary of State considers that it is not necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should remain in prison. That will ensure consistency with the position of determinate sentence prisoners, while ensuring that public safety is not put at risk. There is no logical reason to treat IPP prisoners differently.
Amendment 154 is consequential on Amendment 168 because, if the IPP prisoner is executively released by the Secretary of State following an unnecessary recall, the IPP prisoner should obviously have the period unnecessarily spent in prison disregarded for the purpose of calculating the new sunset clause for IPP licences. However, as a safeguard, the amendment proposes that the Secretary of State should have the power in each case to determine whether this is appropriate. This will depend on an assessment of various factors, such as the degree to which the recall was unnecessary and whether the prisoner is safe to release.
In concluding on the two amendments, I can do no better than to refer to the truly tragic recent case of Matthew Price, who last year took his own life while on licence from an IPP sentence. I am sure that the whole Committee will join me in expressing the deepest condolences to Mr Price’s family. The coroner said that:
“Matthew’s mental well-being had been adversely affected over a significant period of time by the continuing impact of serving an”
IPP sentence, because of anxiety about the ever-present potential for recall to prison. The shocking thing is that Mr Price had been on licence for nearly 10 years. That demonstrates the devastating mental impact that an IPP sentence has. On 22 February this year, the coroner issued a so-called regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, in which he stated that there was
“a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken”
urgently. My amendments would not be enough to remove that risk completely, but they would help by providing another avenue of release from a recall while, crucially, ensuring the safety of the public. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept them, and I beg to move.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to rise in support of my old boss, the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere—one of the finest government lawyers I had the pleasure of working for and learning from in the late 1990s. He served Governments of both persuasions with such distinction that he went on to become the first ever counsel to No. 10, such was his expertise in these and other matters. It is wonderful to see him deploy those skills, including in the devastating way in which he has just argued for his two amendments in this group.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for mentioning the release test which is the subject of Amendment 161 in my name. Before I speak to it, I offer a word of sympathy and support to my noble and learned friend the Minister. He probably feels a little under pressure today. I hope that it is not so, because we are all on the same side with this. We recognise the compassion, seriousness and commitment that he has brought to this subject during his time serving in His Majesty’s Government.
Amendment 161 is also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. It also has the support of the Bar Council, the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody and others. Although the amendment is in my name, it is not actually my amendment. It was drafted by the late and much-lamented Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. As all of us recall, he burned with a passion on this topic and felt it very strongly. We miss him very much in these debates.
Briefly summarised, the effect of the amendment would be to change the burden of proof in the Parole Board’s release test specifically for IPP prisoners. The current test is as set out in Section 28 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, as amended. The board must not direct the release of the prisoner unless
“the Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined”.
In effect, the prisoner has to satisfy the Parole Board that he or she is no longer a threat to the public. This is a high test and a high bar. The amendment would change that to create an assumption that the prisoner will be released unless the Parole Board is satisfied
“that it remains necessary and proportionate for the protection of the public … that they should continue to be confined”.
This is a subtle shift.
In fact, one of the objections I have heard to this amendment from advocates for IPPs is that it is not going to change things enough and that, in practice, the Parole Board will continue to apply tests of practical judgment to the question. However, I think it will have an effect, even if it is a small effect—the noble Baroness used the word “nudge”—in nudging the Parole Board in a certain direction, by making it clear what the will of Parliament is in relation to these prisoners, in particular, in the special circumstances that obtain.
I will deal with the question that was also raised about the relevance of the word “proportionate”, which the late Lord Brown introduced into the amendment. What does “necessary and proportionate” mean? Does it not include an element of vagueness that might somehow dilute the effect of the amendment? I do not think so. I think the word “proportionate” is meant to convey to the Parole Board that it should look at means of ensuring the safety of the public other than confinement in prison when it comes to consider these cases. That might include enhanced supervision in the community by way of tags or other devices, quite commonly used, that help to ensure that a released prisoner on licence remains broadly safe and not a threat to the public.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My recollection is that there is a section in the original 2012 legislation that would shift the burden of proof in the way that he describes. I remember the difficulty I had in persuading my then Prime Minister to enable me to put the abolition of IPPs into the legislation at all: I had to settle with him that we would put this into the legislation but not, for the time being, enact the change in the burden of proof. Could what my noble friend is seeking to achieve be delivered now by the straightforward provision of bringing that long-dormant 2012 section into effect?
Lord Moylan (Con)
I am somewhat crushed by the fact that the noble Lord is able to bring before your Lordships’ House a point he recalls, after 14 years, simply from memory but which I had to spend a large part of this afternoon looking up so that I could get the wording correct, and which I was about to turn to imminently. Because I was about to say that this amendment is not in any sense radical: it simply builds on a power that the Secretary of State already has, and makes it a duty.
My noble friend is referring—I am sure he recalls this better than I do—to Section 128 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which was, indeed, his legislation. That section gives the Secretary of State the power, by statutory instrument, to amend the Parole Board’s release test for IPP prisoners, not excluding the manner in which this amendment would oblige the Secretary of State or the Government to change the current provisions.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, had to say and I know that if my noble friend Lord McNally were in his place, he would say that when he, as a junior Minister, and the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, were at the Department of Justice, they were of the view that it would be a matter of a short time only until Section 128 would be implemented. It is a matter of great disappointment to my noble friend that it has taken until now—and indeed not yet—for that section to be implemented reversing the burden of proof.
Lord Moylan (Con)
I am very grateful. Again, my speech is being shredded in advance by points that I was about to make. Really, we are making it extremely easy for my noble and learned friend the Minister to agree with us. What we can all agree on, as a matter of fact, is that Section 128 of LASPO has not been implemented, 14 years on. It is for that reason that this amendment is being brought forward, leaving the Government with no choice but to oblige them, in effect, to deal with IPP prisoners in the manner that my noble friend has indicated was always the hope and intention.
In fact, I was going to make reference at this point to a remark made by my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke at an earlier stage when we were discussing IPP prisoners: he said that nobody at the time—in 2012—believed that there would still be IPP prisoners in confinement 14 years later. It is this point that I am trying to address. Very simply, this is a very small shift in a power that already exists for the Government. It is therefore, in effect, a very modest amendment and one that I hope both my noble and learned friend the Minister and the Opposition Front Bench will feel able to support.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 159 and 160 in this group, which the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has asked me to introduce on his behalf, and in support of Amendment 161, which was spoken to so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, a moment ago. I join others in expressing great regret that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, cannot be here to speak to his own amendments. It was very good of him to suggest that I might take his place in the case of these two amendment, but I am conscious of the fact that I cannot match the contribution that he would have made had he been here. Along with others, I have admired the way in which, with commendable candour, as has been said, he has faced up to the enormous and wholly unforeseen problems that the IPP regime has created. He has done his very best to bring his profound understanding of our prison and parole systems to bear in the search for solutions to the problems, and the amendments in his name are the product of that endeavour. His contribution in person will be very much missed.
I come from a quite different background. When I served for seven years as Lord Justice General in Scotland, I visited all the prisons but one in that country and attended several meetings of its Parole Board. I did this because under the regime that was then in force one of my responsibilities was to advise the Secretary of State for Scotland when it would be in the interests of justice for prisoners who were serving a mandatory or discretionary life sentence to be referred to the Parole Board with a view to them being released on licence. In each of these cases, I was presented with files, often very substantial, that recorded the prisoner’s progress through various stages in the prison system. I felt that I had to visit the prisons, each of which had its own characteristics, in order to understand what I was dealing with. I also wanted to meet and speak to some of the prisoners who were there, whose names were never released to me, and on one occasion joined them sitting at a table, in their case almost for the first time in many years, to eat lunch with them using a knife and fork.
I admired the way the Parole Board went about its work, equipped, of course, with very substantial files. It was borne in on me how much attention was paid to what was in those files, how crucial it was that the files should be accurate, fair and complete and how much effort had to be put in by those who were reading the files and relying on them in order to understand the picture that they presented. I join the noble and learned Lord the Minister in expressing appreciation of the work done by the Parole Board in these cases, particularly the IPP cases, where the burden on it is so heavy.
We did not have IPP prisoners in Scotland when I was there and never have had, so I can only guess at the scale of the problems that all those who have to administer that system must face. However, there was, in my time, a very well-organised and properly funded training for freedom programme, which all life-sentence prisoners who had reached the appropriate stage would undergo.
Care was taken to see that those prisoners understood the plan and how their sentence was to be progressed; that played its own part in the eventual success of the plan that they were working to. Of course, I am speaking of how things were in Scotland 30 years ago. The pressures on the prison system, both there and here, are very much greater now, while the IPP system is in a class of its own. However, it gives a hint of background to the way the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was going when he proposed these amendments.
One further word of background: I, along with others, look back to the powerful and sustained contributions made on this problem from these Benches over many years by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Lloyd of Berwick and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, who was very much involved in the measures that eventually led to the changes brought about by LASPO. He went right back to the very beginning. From the very start, when I first came into the House, he was making strong speeches in favour of the need to change the system. We can recall much more recently the contributions by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. I felt I owed it to them to contribute tonight because they are no longer able to be with us.
Amendment 159 seeks to place the Government’s existing action plan on a statutory basis and strengthen its effect by giving it a purpose that is set out in the statute. That purpose will be to ensure the effective rehabilitation and progression of persons serving these sentences. The Minister was kind enough to present to us, in his reply on the previous group, the overall framework that has now been developed in order, as I understand it, to improve on the existing plan. I hope that he will forgive me for saying what I am going to say—it is really a criticism of the plan that I think he is departing from—but it may indicate the way that the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, is going as to how the existing plan ought to be improved. It may also assist in the development of the plan that is currently being worked on.
Amendment 159 sets out the position in a good deal of detail but the structure of the amendment can be summarised briefly in just a few words. First, in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause, it sets out in five propositions what the revised action plan must seek to do. In subsection (4), it sets out what the plan must include if it is to deliver that purpose. It then goes on to provide how that purpose is to be delivered. The Lord Chancellor must allocate sufficient resources and appoint a board to oversee the delivery of the plan, then the board must provide the Lord Chancellor with a report at the end of each financial year, which will be laid before Parliament.
As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, sees it, the present plan, although an improvement on the previous one, suffers from a basic and fundamental weakness: it has no stated purpose. It does not state what the outcomes for those serving these sentences are to be. They have not been given a forward plan that would allow for some hope and enable the sentence to be progressed, nor is it said how the process is to be monitored or evaluated. Although the prisoner’s case is to be subject to review every six months, these basic weaknesses remain; that enhances the sense of hopelessness, as has been mentioned in the earlier stages of these debates.
According to the figures I have been given—I will deal with them briefly—the quarterly number of releases has remained static at between 50 and 59 over the past three years. Re-releases have been declining while the number of IPP recalls has been increasing. The lack of any real progress shows that something must be done, although I accept the point that has been made: the more the number of IPP prisoners remaining in custody decreases, the greater the problems that one must face to consider them suitable for release. I absolutely understand that and am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, appreciates it very well.
Of course, there are no easy answers and regard must always be paid to the protection of the public from serious harm, but we owe it to these unfortunate people to do more. There is an urgent need to review their needs and to provide each individual with a forward plan as to how their sentence is to be progressed, and that plan should be updated regularly. A whole range of issues needs to be covered, as referred to in subsections (3)(b) and (4)(b) of the proposed new clause. That really is the key. Their physical and mental health needs to be attended to and they need to be provided with daily and weekly activities including exercise, work and education, designed to develop their suitability for release. Their skills for everyday living in the community need to be developed too—such simple things as eating with a knife and fork at a table. So much more could be done with a stated purpose and a structured plan. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve.
Amendment 160 provides for the setting up of an independent scrutiny panel. The function of the panel would be to ensure that Ministers and officials give priority attention to the IPP prisoners and scrutinise each prisoner’s progress through his or her IPP action plan.
Finally, I very much welcome and strongly support Amendment 161 from the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. It deals head on with the unfairness which is such a stain on the justice system. Although those serving life sentences have for the most part been convicted of a more serious crime, it is the IPP prisoners—often initially with a very short period to serve as a tariff—who have to prove their lack of risk to be released. In their case, the burden of proof was reversed, while life sentence prisoners can expect to be released when their tariff has been served, unless the Secretary of State can show that they still present a risk to the public. We have seen what this has led to. It is surely now time for it to be changed, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has been urging. That was what the noble and learned Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood argued for so vigorously whenever he could. He would certainly have done that again this evening, had he been here. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Minister can see his way to accepting this amendment.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I support every single amendment in this group, particularly the “two strikes” part of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I am sure we have all had letters from individuals who are languishing in prison under the “two strikes” rule. For the sake of brevity, I will just talk about Amendments 165 and 166 in my name.
Amendment 165 comes from a concern at the lack of fulfilment of aftercare obligations for prisoners who have been transferred to a secure hospital and subsequently returned to prison. It amends Section 117 in Part 8 of the Mental Health Act. We are talking about approximately 400 people who will, arguably, need additional help to cope with their return to prison life and subsequent reintegration into the community. It will help clarify and highlight the existing Section 117 entitlement to aftercare for prisoners who have been transferred from secure hospital to prison and remain either in prison or out on licence in the community. These individuals can be defined as those who are entitled to Section 117 aftercare. Sometimes this does not happen and individuals either in prison or out in the community do not receive the aftercare they need or are entitled to. Clearly, this entitlement is and should be reflected in their release plan and will increase their chances of a successful transition into the community, reducing the risk of recall.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to be in the Chamber for the entirety of the Second Reading, although I heard most of it. I will speak first to Amendment 164, which is in my name and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who sadly is not in his place this evening.
As we have heard from many noble Lords’ contributions, serving and recalled IPP prisoners need practical help and support. The purpose of this new clause would be to give effect to some of that practical help and support, which they clearly need. As we all know and have heard several times from noble Lords, these prisoners are often so over-tariff that they have lost any hope of ever being released. They therefore need to develop internal, as well as external, means of support in the build-up to a parole hearing, as well as on release and in transition into the community.
The IPP mentor and advocate scheme would assist prisoners in formulating a detailed release plan with the help of an independent, suitably qualified individual. At the parole hearing, the mentor would provide practical support to the prisoner to assist them in making a clear and articulate contribution to the proceedings, although the new clause is perfectly clear that they would not provide legal advice or make legal submissions. On release, the formulated release plan would assist former IPP prisoners to make a smoother transition into the community and act as a blueprint for successful reintegration.
The organisations that are willing and able to help offenders with resettlement in the community are often not well-known to IPP prisoners, and localised, relevant resources would be signposted to the prisoner by this scheme. While in prison, the IPP prisoner could, with the help of the IPP mentor and advocate, establish communication with organisations relevant to their risk management profile and assist them with proposed resettlement needs. On release, of course, the IPP mentors and advocates would help them to implement their release plan and provide practical support, making further recommendations relating to their specific needs to strengthen their prospects of a successful reintegration into the community. The cost of such a scheme would be modest. Moreover, it would reduce pressure on the prison population, which is at capacity, and prevent recalls to prison.
As we know, there are many ad hoc mentoring schemes in which prisoners are assigned to a mentor to help them during their prison sentence or when they get out on licence. These can help with particular risk factors and provide general support and guidance. It is very important to recognise that IPP prisoners suffer from all these same issues. Whatever the reasons that took them into prison and got them incarcerated, they still need this help and support. One particular and distinct need relates to the fact that many of them—as has been said—have lost faith in the justice system. It is therefore important to ensure that they are given access, on a voluntary basis, to a mentor and advocate who can support them with the steps needed to ensure they are prepared for life in the community.
The scheme could, of course, be subject to a pilot in the first instance and would recruit suitably qualified individuals. These might be, for example, retired probation officers, members of an independent monitoring board, retired members of the Parole Board, or other suitably qualified individuals who have knowledge of the criminal justice system. Following the successful pilot, the scheme would then build up to, perhaps, 50 mentors and advocates working on a part-time or full-time basis.
While it is anticipated that the scheme will be centrally commissioned, there may be innovative ways to fund it using cross-budget resources. Clearly, the better resourced the scheme, the more effective it will be. It is anticipated—these are not my calculations but those of people who have a much clearer understanding of the situation and the likely costs—that the fully rolled-out scheme, employing up to 50 full-time or part-time mentors, would cost less than £3 million a year for a period of three years.
There are still 1,200 IPP prisoners who have never been released, and more than that on recall. Given that it costs the taxpayer £44,000 or £45,000 per annum—my figure is £44,000, but it may be that others know better and it is £45,000—to keep one prisoner in custody, if the scheme were to free up 67 places in the prison estate each year it would pay for itself. How much better it would be if these IPP prisoners were given this extra support, given the particular injustice that they have endured.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and I was delighted to be able to co-sign her amendment. It is also a pleasure to witness a debate in the Chamber this evening which has brought us together in unity, both of purpose and of experience. All of us, in our different ways, have had different experiences of the prison system, the courts system and of prisoners, and yet we have all reached the same conclusions, the starkest of which was presented to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, in the first group of amendments, when he observed, entirely correctly, that there is a reluctance to be bold. I would convert his observation—if I can do so while looking at a former Lord Chief Justice—into an injunction: we must no longer be timid, we must be bold.
I have absolutely no doubt that my noble friend the Minister and all his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, and in particular the estimable current Lord Chancellor, are entirely well motivated in what they wish to see in relation to IPPs and indeed to other pretty appalling aspects of our prison system. However, having a benign intention, walking quietly and saying nice things is really not enough; the reluctance to be bold must be got rid of, because we need action. We need it for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, highlighted of the very sad case of the man on licence who took his own life.
I was very pleased indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was able to lead on the group of amendments we are now discussing, because if ever a speech fulfilled the promise made at a maiden speech, it was his. I am very grateful to him, because we constantly need prodding and reminding that IPP prisoners are not a subject to be spoken of once every six months, with sympathy and wringing hands. They are a living, constant problem, and indeed, as the late Lord Brown, said, what has been done to them is a stain on our justice system. We should all be very grateful, as I think a number of us have already indicated, to the late Lord Brown for the work that he did.
We should also be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who is absent, for his change in attitude and his admission that he got it so badly wrong when he was Home Secretary in the early part of the Tony Blair Government. It is not difficult to salute him, because you can tell when you talk to him and listen to him that his change of heart is indeed sincere. So, if he can be bold in doing that, please will the Government be bold and get on and do what is right?
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, I have spent quite a considerable time visiting prisons. I have probably said this before, and I can never remember the precise figure, but I think I have been to about 75 prisons, young offender institutions and secure training units in England and Wales—I have not been to a prison in Scotland or in Northern Ireland. It was abundantly clear, whenever I went to an adult male prison in which there were prisoners serving IPPs, from both looking at, talking to and interacting with them but also with the governing staff, that the most impossible group to manage were the IPP prisoners. They were literally hopeless. They had no future—no boundary and no observable, touchable limit to the torture that they were going through. That is why we must be bold, that is why we cannot allow this to go on, and that is why all these amendments, in every group, deserve the support of this House and the support of the Government.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My noble friend is of course talking to an audience in this Chamber which agrees with every word he is most eloquently saying, and it is obvious that the Government should press on. The one thing he has not spoken of is the reason that Prime Ministers and Governments will not, and what it was that drove liberal-minded, sensible people such as Tony Blair and David Cameron to defend this IPP system. It is, straightforwardly, fear of public opinion, fear of the media—in particular of the tabloid press, but the whole of the media. The one thing even the most liberal Prime Minister, and certainly those who surround him in 10 Downing Street, is convinced of is that they must never be seen to be “soft on crime”. The only pressure that ever comes from No. 10 in response to some highly publicised crime is for longer sentences to be imposed for whatever criminal offence has currently come into fashion. In an election year, that is even more likely to apply and to be our principal problem today.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend. I will have to check tomorrow morning the Hansard report of where I had got to in my speech; I have a suspicion I was in the middle of a sentence in which I was just about to say exactly what my noble friend said—but I am grateful to him, because he was able to say it so much more eloquently than I would have done.
We are in the position with criminal justice and sentencing that we were in the first decade of the 20th century with Dreadnought building. If the Germans have five, we must have six. If we have six, they must have 10. If they have 10, we must have 15, and so on —and guess what? You get 1914.
Here, we are dealing with adult, mature politicians who take instructions from editors and proprietors. Yet, if they bothered to ask the public—and occasionally the press do ask the public—they would find that the public are not nearly as keen on longer sentences or on IPPs as they might think. Had they been braver and bolder—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, would have us be—perhaps we would not have arrived at where we are.
I regret that I have spoken for far too long in Committee, but over the last 25 years this issue has really annoyed me. I am so grateful to the Prison Reform Trust, of which I too am a trustee, for its assistance in trying to restrain my enthusiasm and, at times, my anger about this subject and for providing me with the information and the assistance which I hope have to some extent informed this debate. There is not a single amendment on the Order Paper this evening which does not deserve the gravest consideration of this Committee and the urgent action of this Government.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it was a real privilege to witness that exchange and I think we are getting to the heart of why we are all here and are so passionate about this. I have a couple of short clarifications, because at this point by the time I get to my amendment on re-sentencing there really will be nothing else to say; I am rewriting my speech rapidly every time everyone speaks.
When I first heard about the indefinite sentences that were associated with IPPs—when they first came out in that arms race to prove how tough we could be on law on order—I was horrified. I was delighted when the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, abolished them; I thought that was it, because I was not in Parliament and not following. I went into prisons as part of work I was doing with an educational project called Debating Matters Beyond Bars which encouraged prisoners to debate and could not believe it when I discovered that, despite the sentences being abolished, there were still IPP prisoners.
In fact, I told the prisoners in my own characteristic way that they were wrong and that IPPs had been abolished and could not still exist. So I was determined once I got in here to at least discover what on earth had gone wrong. I cannot bear it, now we are tackling the issue, that, even though the sentences have been abolished, they will still exist when we have finished dealing with this Bill. It seems abhorrent.
I wanted particularly to back up the mentoring proposals from the noble Baroness, Lady Blower. If you talk to any families of IPP prisoners, or IPP prisoners themselves, they know that they have been destroyed and damaged by this sentencing regime. They are not gung-ho about it. They do not just say, “Release us, we’ll be fine”. What they would really gain from is mentoring. It is the kind of creative solution that would help us support the re-sentencing amendments. This is the kind of support that people will need.
It was hard not to shed a tear at the very moving speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, who said that many of the people whose mental health was suffering had been destroyed by IPPs. But we should also note that it could well be that their mental health is not permanently damaged by the ongoing psychological uncertainty, anxiety, torture and so on. We need a combination of the mentoring scheme and a recognition of the fact that the sentencing is, to be crude, literally driving people mad—and the sanest person would go mad. You do not necessarily need medication; you need compassionate, grown-up intervention and support. In that sense, I support all the amendments in this group and all the others, but I really think that, for want of a better phrase, we have to be the grown-ups in the room now and try and sort this out.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I particularly support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, although I support all of them. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for remembering Lord Lloyd of Berwick in this debate. I recall him very well, indefatigably picking up this baton.
Many of us were alarmed when prisoners were added to victims in this Bill, but this amendment is absolutely with the grain of the first part of the Bill. We talked about ISVAs, IDVAs, child trafficking and guardians, and I recently heard about victim navigators who work as supporters and mentors to victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. We are all accepting the notion that, in slightly different ways, the criminal justice system does not do well by its victims—as has been said, IPP prisoners are victims—and that this needs addressing with a range of support measures. It is very much the direction of travel and I hope that this notion can be pursued.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I support this group of amendments and it is a pleasure to follow noble Lords and benefit from their considerable wisdom—I am in awe of the learning and wisdom on display this evening. I do not want to repeat a lot of what has been said, so I will keep my speech very short.
I have one or two reflections on Amendments 165 and 166, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester has added her name. She is a regular visitor to prisons across the country and supports the network of chaplains in our prisons who have direct evidence in relation to the mental health of prisoners.
As others have said, we know that many IPP prisoners are stuck in the system and that appropriate psychiatric care in the community is not in place to manage their high-support needs. IPP prisoners suffer greater mental distress and disorders than the wider prison population and, in many cases, it can be said that the sentence itself is the cause of the distress. It disrupts relationships and inspires hopelessness, anxiety, despair and alienation.
I welcome the changes proposed through this Bill, but, for the sake of the prisoners in question and the wider community, we need to ensure that they are getting the appropriate aftercare that they are entitled to and that it is extended in the way proposed in Amendment 166.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I am not a lawyer but I do have some experience of visiting prisons, thanks to the Koestler Trust, which takes art into prisons. I was quite a close friend of the late, much- lamented and learned Lord Brown, so I feel quite strongly about what I have heard. I have been very moved by this discussion and the toing and froing between quite considerable legal minds.
What I took from my time visiting prisons was that essential ingredient of hope. The arts sometimes gave hope but, of course, there were instances, which we have been hearing about with IPP, where hope had been vanquished. I want to make only one simple point. No greater tribute could be paid to the late Lord Brown than that the Government acknowledge the point he made, and that other noble Lords are making, and come to some arrangement to bring to a close this system, which is not only iniquitous but almost cruel. People need to know at the end of the day that there is some chance of once again leading a normal life.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, on the first group of amendments my noble and learned friend the Minister said that there was a cohort of IPP prisoners who had never been released and he suggested that it was because they did not meet the tests of the Parole Board. My concern is that the prison system has not been able to offer the rehabilitation necessary for these prisoners to demonstrate that they could safely be released. That is why I strongly support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan.
I also have strong support for the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, particularly because it refers to prisoners whom the Secretary of State would release if he was able to but cannot. There must be a great cost to keeping those prisoners in prison who are there because the Secretary of State does not have the power to release them.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this too has been a wide-ranging debate and more wide-ranging than that on the first group. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken because there are a number of amendments in this group, all of which push in the right direction. They are helping the Government to do what they say that they want to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, moved Amendment 154, which is consequential on Amendment 168. That addresses what he called a lacuna and creates a power that mirrors the powers that the Secretary of State has to release prisoners serving a fixed-term licence. This is a very practical way of proceeding, and we support his amendment. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, in her characteristic way, asked why, if the Executive have the authority to recall, they cannot be given the authority to release—a very succinct way of summing up the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in his Amendment 161, is effectively reversing the burden of proof for IPP prisoners. He described it as a nudge to the Parole Board and discussed how significant that nudge would be, but it is a welcome nudge, none the less. It has the historic credentials of being supported originally by Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. It is a welcome amendment.
We then had the very interesting intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, reflecting on the 2012 LASPO Act and that the provision was already in that Act and had just not been enacted by the Government. I remember the 2012 Act and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, taking it through the House as part of the coalition Government. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to those points because it would be very difficult not to acknowledge the power of the arguments that have been put forward by noble Lords on Amendment 161.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, spoke to Amendments 159 and 160. He made interesting points about the independent scrutiny panel and other ways of pushing this in the same direction. We would support those amendments as well.
Perhaps the most moving speech was given by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, when she read the email from the man who eventually killed himself. That amendment was about aftercare. As she said, we have damaged these people and we owe it to them to give them the extra support.
It was in that spirit that my noble friend Lady Blower, on her Amendment 164, spoke powerfully in favour of independent mentors, a pilot scheme and extra support in various ways. She was very powerfully supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Hamwee. This seems to be a very practical way of supporting people. We have heard that the level of recall is increasing. This should be a mechanism of getting recall down, with people who are coming out of custody less likely to be recalled if they are properly supported.
This has been a wide-ranging debate. There have been a lot of practical suggestions and amendments. We want to encourage all of them, to get out of this Bill a package of measures to protect the public as appropriate and to move away from this sentencing regime, which has been so unfortunate for the last decade.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, the Government agree entirely that our joint objective is to arrive at a package of measures that sufficiently protects the public while dealing with the problems of this existing sentencing regime. That is our overall objective.
My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier invited us to be bold. I suggest that the Government are already being bold in reducing the licence period to three years in circumstances where even the JSC recommended five years. We have already gone further than that very distinguished committee suggested. I do not think that anyone could accuse the present Lord Chancellor of a lack of determination or hard work. To continue the analogy used by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier of us plodding through treacle, we are really trying to find sensible answers to very difficult questions.
In addition, on the general point of hope and certainty and the very tragic case of Matthew, who committed suicide after he had been in the community for 10 years, as I said earlier these government amendments deal with that point. The “three plus two years” have an automatic determination that gives hope and certainty. That is a very large step forward. It is not a total answer to the problem, but I invite noble Lords to take account of the substantial progress that we are making.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
I pay tribute to my noble and learned friend and his colleagues in the department, including the present Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, who I suspect would privately agree with everyone who has spoken so far on these amendments. As the Government are to be congratulated on the very bold and significant steps that they have taken, as the Minister quite rightly says, and as, to my amazement, we have not had any widespread public reaction to it or even any awareness of it, is there a chance that he could sneak one or two further changes through in the concluding stages of this Bill? I am sorry to talk in such Dog and Duck terms, but that is the political judgment that we all are seeking to make. Everybody wants to get rid of the worst evils of the old IPP sentence.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham for inviting us to foregather at the Dog and Duck and consider what more can be done. I venture to suggest—hint is too weak a word—that there are things that we can still do. We may not be able to go as far as some of the amendments; in a moment, I will explain why the Government do not yet feel able—to my great personal regret—to accept the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Moylan. I will come to that in a moment. Let us look at what we think might be done and might be achievable.
I will take first Amendments 154 and 168, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere. We have touched on the problem of recalls. We have noted that the Government are trying to reduce the delays in the Parole Board in dealing with recalls, which is one of the major problems. These amendments propose that the Secretary of State should have the power of executive re-release, which applies to fixed, determinate sentences. That is a power which in that context—forgive the jargon —is now referred to as a risk-assessed recall review, which is, in effect, a process for executive re-release. While the Secretary of State must have overriding regard to the need for public protection, the Government can see force in the amendments proposed by the noble Lord.
As I said earlier, those amendments might achieve by a different route the result of the amendments earlier proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, in order to deal with the problem of inappropriate or other circumstances in which it would be right to exercise an executive power to re-release. If I may say it between ourselves—all this feels within the family, as it were, but of course we are talking to the entire outside world—a particular problem that arises from time to time is where the offender in the community is arrested for a new offence; he is then recalled and the police do not prosecute. What happens then? That is a classic practical problem that the power of an executive re-release might address; I make no promises or commitments, but the Government wish to engage further on this aspect as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and supported by other noble Lords, and will give further consideration to it prior to Report. That is that.
Amendment 158, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in relation to prisoners imprisoned under the so-called “two strikes” legislation under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, is a bit more complicated. As I understand it, although that legislation was abolished in 2005, similar legislation was reintroduced in 2012 and is now to be found in Section 283 of the Sentencing Act 2020, which provides for a life sentence for a second listed offence, the listed offences in question being set out in Schedule 15 to that Act. In terms of sentences of prisoners who are under some sort of two-strike legislation, we are dealing not just with the old 2005 cohort but with others as well. How we deal with those prisoners and in particular what would justify differential treatment of the various kinds of life prisoners we have seems to the Government an important and large question. The Government’s present view is that this problem is somewhat outside the scope of the Bill. That is not to say that we should not continue to consider it. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, should be congratulated on raising the issue and putting it further on the radar, and there would be no objection to continuing a dialogue on it, but in the context of the present Bill, it may be too far to go to deal with anything other than IPP. We will have to see, but, at the moment, the Government are not persuaded that that could come within the scope of the Bill.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Unlike other prisoners, they may have been up before the Parole Board many times, but this is long after their tariff has ended and the sentence originally given was handed out to them. That is quite a distinction from other prisoners. The suggestion that they are a particularly difficult group to manage because they keep going before the Parole Board slightly misses why they have become a difficult or different group. The main thing is that they would have been released if they were any other group of prisoners, yet they have to go to the Parole Board to say that they are safe and risk-free maybe five or six years after their tariff has ended. That is why people see the burden of proof being in the direction it is in. They also have to fulfil a range of courses and so on, which people are not convinced will even indicate that they are safe anyway, but we will get on to that. To the suggestion that we do not understand why anyone is raising this, it is because the set of circumstances for these prisoners is very different. That is why we are all here talking about it.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I entirely understand the point that the noble Baroness is making, which effectively encapsulates the problem that we are up against: how do we protect the safety of the public on the one hand and, on the other, deal with the outstanding problem? I think the Government’s point is that to make it easier to release those prisoners who are potentially most likely to cause harm is counterintuitive and unacceptable from the point of view of public safety.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I did not suggest that they were more likely to cause harm. The argument is whether we accept that they are deemed dangerous and therefore cannot be let out through the Parole Board, because what deems them dangerous is a set of hoops that they have to go through and that do not necessarily indicate that they are dangerous. That is one of the difficulties with this. It is doublethink and double-talk.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, as I have tried to say, the whole purpose of the action plan is to create a framework in which this cohort, properly managed, could progress to safe release, with sentence plans, psychological support, support from psychology services and other support towards a safe release. That is a better route than tinkering with the release test. I will not say it is exactly a legal quibble, but it is a bit of a legalism to be fiddling with the release test.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
The problem is that the Parole Board is made up of real-life men and women with a very heavy responsibility. There is an underlying fear about the consequences of ever releasing somebody who then goes on to commit some terrible crime. The reality is that they contemplate the appalling reaction that they would get in the media, the public inquiry that would condemn them and the destruction of their reputation if they ever moved to let out somebody who did something terrible. Ministers share the same reserve when it comes to undoing this.
The proposal to alter the burden of proof was designed to give a little encouragement, a little more courage and a little help to people in getting over that fear of the recriminations if they ever made a mistake. It would be an explanation that the Parole Board could give if it had let somebody out. Then, it could detain only those where it was satisfied that it could see that there was a risk from the person being released. That would make a great change to the numbers being released. At this stage, in the interests of justice, the risk to the public is one that we should contemplate as not as severe as everybody fears.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I see the force of the points being made by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke. I respectfully suggest that the fear of the media is not the driving force in the case of this Lord Chancellor or, if I may say so, his Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State currently at the Dispatch Box. We are looking at the real question of public safety.
If I may ask it rhetorically, who speaks for Pauline Quinn? Admittedly, that was not an IPP case. Pauline Quinn was aged 73, was disabled and could not protect herself. She was brutally murdered by a convicted killer released on licence. I respectfully suggest that these risks are very difficult for any responsible Government to take, irrespective of what the media might say.
This raises another point. At the moment the Government are not convinced that this would make a significant difference, because the Parole Board, even under the revised test suggested by my noble friend Lord Moylan, would still have to be satisfied on the issue of the protection of the public. It is perfectly likely that one is simply raising false hopes. It does not change the process that the Parole Board has to go through to look at these very difficult individuals, who are very much at risk of harm and very difficult to manage in the community.
If you read the 2023 report from the Chief Inspector of Probation, you see how difficult it is to manage these individuals—those who have already been released, not the unreleased cohort. This is a very difficult area. At the moment the Government are not persuaded rightly or wrongly that it is a correct approach to make it easier to release dangerous people. That is the Government’s position, and I have explained it as best I can.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I want to ask the noble and learned Lord about the word “proportionate”. Is there an objection to that word? It is key, because it enables you, in judging safety, to take into account the responsibility of the state for what we have done to these people.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The Government’s position, frankly, is that the word “proportionate” causes more difficulties than it solves. It suggests that the test should be some sort of balance between the risk that this prisoner may present to the public and some sort of fairness or other consideration of the particular interests of that prisoner. The whole thrust of the Bill—it is not just the clauses that we are dealing with at the moment but Clauses 41 and 42—is to say that the public protection test is a public protection test: that is the only criterion. So the Government do not, I am afraid, accept that “proportionate” is a useful or necessary addition to this clause.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
Should I wind up on this group?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I just need to finish. Noble Lords come at me from all directions, which is perfectly fine, but I need to finish the group.
I turn next to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, with the idea of mentors. I can see the point she is making, the strength of the argument and all those things, but it might be that this amendment overlooks what we have at the moment: the probation officer manager in the prison, who is responsible for that prisoner; the key worker in the prison, who is also responsible for that prisoner; and the community offender manager, who will look after that prisoner in the community. In addition, we already have in the prison all kinds of other support services, including the chaplains mentioned a moment ago by the right reverend Prelate.
The Government are hesitating about the wisdom of introducing yet another person into this already comprehensive structure—or what the Government believe is a comprehensive structure—by way of a statutory provision for mentors. That is not to say that there could not be better organisation of voluntary agencies or, despite what I have said, some other route to consider whether there are ways of strengthening the support of prisoners on some non-statutory basis. However, in view of the present arrangements for the prison offender manager, the key worker and the community offender manager via the Probation Service, the Government are not yet persuaded that mentors would be a proper statutory route to go down. I am sorry I could not get closer to what the noble Baroness is driving at. I very much thank her for her suggestions. I am sure that her intervention puts the question on the radar and advances the debate, but that is the Government’s position.
Amendments 165 and 166, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, are directed at clarifying entitlements to aftercare and related issues. It is perfectly true that Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 provides that those who are entitled to that support should receive it, and the protection of mental health through the action plan is part of the action plan. There are further measures in that regard through the progression panels and the use of the psychology services.
People in prison are entitled to exactly the same range of health service care arrangements as people in the community, and there is a national partnership agreement with health and social care in England. I hope I am not seen as doing less than justice to these amendments, but the bottom line on this is that, through the action plan and other measures, there are wide-ranging efforts to support mental health aftercare and the mental health of prisoners. The Government are not yet persuaded that a statutory amendment to the Mental Health Act is required to advance that cause. On this, as in other contexts on this Bill, the Government are, of course, still in listening mode but, at the moment at least, we are unpersuaded that this is a proper way forward.
I hope that I have dealt, if not necessarily to noble Lords’ satisfaction, as best I can with the points made. I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this constructive, powerful and moving debate, on all sides. Some heartfelt comments have been made. I could not begin to summarise them without detracting from their force. I thank all your Lordships for this.
I have written down some positive points, including some phrases shared by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, all on the same side. One was “unity of purpose”. That is encouraging. I think I even heard the Minister say “within this family”, which is a lovely phrase to use in debating something as emotive as this.
We have a unique opportunity. These occasions to make a difference for this cohort of prisoners, who have been treated so unfairly, do not come up very often. I urge the Minister to keep an open mind on everything that has been said and on these amendments, all of which would improve the position of IPP prisoners. I am very grateful to him, and encouraged by his reaction to my amendments. I urge him to have that same openness of spirit and to be bold for the sake of this group of prisoners, who have been treated so unfairly over the years. That injustice is continuing. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Monday 25th March 2024
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 31-VIII Eighth marshalled list for Committee - (21 Mar 2024)
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I speak having taken some advice from the Clerks—I am grateful to them. The first two items in this group are notices of my intention to oppose Clauses 53 and 54. We debated the amendments in both clauses in our previous Committee sitting on 12 March and the Minister, whom I have spoken to this afternoon before coming to Committee, gave certain undertakings following that debate about discussing further the issues raised with his fellow Minister, who sits by his side, and with the Ministry of Justice. In all the circumstances, I will not press the stand part notices in my name on either Clause 53 or Clause 54. That is why I have got to my feet at this stage.
Baroness Lawlor
“Parole Board proceedings: enabling public scrutiny(1) The Secretary of State has a statutory duty to improve the openness and transparency of the work of the Parole Board and to facilitate a greater public understanding of its statutory framework, procedures and proceedings.(2) The Secretary of State must exercise their powers under section 239(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, to require that Parole Board hearings should normally be open to the public unless there are exceptional circumstances for not doing so, as outlined in subsection (5).(3) The Secretary of State has the power to formally direct the Chair of the Parole Board to make arrangements for all Parole Board hearings to be heard in public, as set out in Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022 (SI 2022/717).(4) The Chair of the Parole Board may exercise their right to decline this request and direction from the Secretary of State and must outline their reasons for so doing in writing to the Secretary of State, within 28 days of a written direction being lodged with the Parole Board.(5) Such reasons in respect of subsection (4) must be evidence-based and include—(a) where the Chair of the Parole Board believes that such a request and direction would, on the balance of probability and based on evidential information, indicate that the integrity of evidence presented to the Parole Board may be compromised and prevent a true and accurate assessment of the prisoner’s risk being provided by witnesses;(b) that the presence of strong and valid objections from participants, including victims, their families or legal representatives, could jeopardise the cooperation of witnesses, should the hearing be in public; or(c) that to hold a meeting in public might create an unacceptable risk of mental or physical harm to any of the participants.(6) The Secretary of State must formally consider any representations from the Chair of the Parole Board in a timely manner and if they choose to disregard the advice of the Chair of the Parole Board, they must outline their reasons within 28 days of receipt of such advice, taking into account all available evidence, including that provided by law enforcement, victims, their families or legal and other representatives.(7) The Secretary of State must, in exercising their powers, balance the need for openness, transparency and maintaining public faith in the efficacy of the criminal justice system with a commitment to the operational independence of the Parole Board and its members’ deliberations, and with an obligation to reduce recidivism and support rehabilitation and the prisoner’s ability to resettle in the community upon release from a custodial sentence.(8) This section applies only to offences as relevant to public protection decisions and outlined in Schedule 18B Parts 1 and 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.(9) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, and annually thereafter, publish an assessment of the efficacy of the policy of open Parole Board hearings and its impact upon openness, accountability, transparency and public support and whether it meets the interests of the justice test.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to consolidate the statutory instrument laid before Parliament on 30 June 2022 (SI 2022/717) to improve openness, accountability and transparency and public trust in the Parole Board by giving the Secretary of State powers to direct the Board to work to a presumption that such meetings should be routinely open to the public, with exceptions; whilst also safeguarding the Board’s independence and the requirement to ensure rehabilitation and resettlement of those prisoners likely to be released from a custodial sentence.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support and move this amendment for my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, who is absent attending the Inter-Parliamentary Union’s 148th assembly in Geneva. He had hoped to move his amendment on 12 March, but Committee proceedings were concluded before he was able to do so.
Amendment 171A seeks to establish the presumption that Parole Board hearings would be open to the public—with exceptions, of course. It seeks, more generally, to improve public faith and trust in the criminal justice system. This is both a probing and permissive amendment, and a natural progression to and consolidation of the reforms undertaken by Ministers over the last six years arising from the public disquiet over the proposed release of serial rapist John Worboys in 2018. That resulted in a review of the parole system and a public consultation published in 2022, and a finding in the High Court in March 2018 that the Parole Board’s Rule 25—a blanket ban on transparency and details of the board’s deliberations—was unlawful.
The Government have moved to address the very serious failings identified by the Worboys case, by allowing summaries of Parole Board decisions to be provided to victims and other interested parties, and to provide for a reconsideration mechanism, introduced in 2019, which allows a prisoner and/or the Secretary of State for Justice to seek reconsideration of a number of decisions taken by the board within 21 days. Victims may now also seek a judicial review on the grounds that decisions are procedurally unfair or irrational.
Significantly, the Parole Board’s 2019 Rule 15 was amended by secondary legislation in 2022 to enable public hearings to be facilitated on request to the chair of the Parole Board, in the “interests of justice”. This test is already used by the Mental Health Tribunal. This amendment is cautious, circumspect, and with caveats in its proposed new subsections (5) and (7). It presumes no absolute right to open the Parole Board hearings to the most serious cases, but presents a balance between the interests of the victim, prisoners and the wider criminal justice system, and imposes a statutory duty on Ministers to take note of the importance of rehabilitation, reducing recidivism, fairness and due process.
Finally, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will articulate the Government’s current thinking on, and rationale for, limited reform envisaged in this matter. I urge that they allow for public hearings to become the default position, and I look forward to his reply.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, at the request of my noble friend Lord Marks, I will speak to his amendment in this group, which is Amendment 171B about the hearing timeframes for the Parole Board to have some flexibility in this matter. I apologise; I would have said, in relation to the two stand part notices, that there were a number of questions that I asked of the noble Earl. I know it has been only a short period of time—I am sure they are on their way—but I just wanted to remind him. I am sure that his smile tells me that there are going to be satisfactory replies shortly.
I come back to Amendment 171B. The current rules are that the release of prisoners serving a life sentence is determined by the Parole Board on or after they have served their minimum tariff. The first parole review to consider a prisoner for release will usually begin six months prior to their tariff expiry and, if a prisoner is not released at their on-tariff review, they will have a further post-tariff review at least every two years. The Parole Board process is lengthy and can take upwards of six months for the whole process to be dealt with. Their victims are asked whether they wish to submit a personal statement; although the Parole Board does not have direct contact with victims, the victim liaison officer will contact them about submitting a personal statement. We know that there has recently been an opportunity for victims to appear and observe some Parole Board hearings as part of the latest pilot.
For victims and family members, going through the Parole Board process can be a highly traumatic experience, forcing them to relive the original offence and the impact it has on them. While victims and families welcome having a voice in the process through being able to submit an impact statement, many feel trapped and unable to move on when their offender is repeatedly coming up for parole, even when it is clear that the circumstances have not changed.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment so admirably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord German, to which I have put my name. I do not wish to add anything—as he has made all the points that I would have made—other than to emphasise that it would give the Parole Board discretion to decide when to have a review. It would minimise the revictimization of the victims and would also be cost-effective.
I am aware that Article 5.4 of the European Convention on Human Rights says that reviews must be at reasonable intervals. I think a limit of two years was set, but, in domestic cases, the courts have declined to be prescriptive about what a reasonable interval is. It is important to recognise that these are fact-specific cases and therefore it is important to reinforce the discretion given to the Parole Board. I support this amendment.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a short and interesting debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, introduced the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. On this side of the House, we will listen to the Minister’s response very carefully. I agreed with the sentiments that she expressed to the extent that the Parole Board should be cautious and fair, and that there needs to be a balance between victims, the process and the prisoners.
The point where I depart from her—which is really the substance of her amendment—is that it should be by default that parole hearings are conducted in public. I am not sure that I would go as far as that but, nevertheless, I agreed with a lot the points that she made. As I said, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
I move on to Amendment 171B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord German. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, summed up the points succinctly: that giving the Parole Board discretion is desirable. Each case is different and, if the Parole Board has more discretion, it can reduce the potential impact on victims—I understood that point. It can also reduce the number of repeated applications, which have a cost to the public purse, where there may be no real change in circumstances. If one were to give the Parole Board more discretion, it might reduce that impact on victims. Again, this is an interesting amendment, and I look forward to listening to the Minister’s response.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in their respective absences, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and my noble friend Lord Jackson for their amendments, which have been so ably spoken to by my noble friend Lady Lawlor and the noble Lord, Lord German.
I will turn first to Amendment 174A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson. This would create a presumption for parole hearings to be conducted in public and a power for the Secretary of State, in effect, to direct a public hearing, contrary to any opposing view from the chair of the Parole Board.
The provision for public parole hearings was introduced by the Government in 2022 in amendments to the Parole Board Rules statutory instrument. This allows any hearing to be conducted in public if the chair of the Parole Board decides that it is in the interests of justice to do so. Prior to this, the rules required that all hearings be held in private.
Hearings are private by default, but applications for public hearings can be made by anyone directly to the Parole Board. The criteria used by the chair to decide applications have been published by the Parole Board on its website. The individual decisions are also published. Since the provisions were introduced in 2022, three public hearings have been held and a further five have been agreed by the Parole Board, which will be heard in the coming months.
The provisions are operating as intended, because the rule changes were made with the understanding that most hearings would continue to be held in private and only a small number of public hearings would be held. This amendment would, in effect, reverse that position, so that all hearings were public by default and a private hearing would take place only with the agreement of the Secretary of State in response to any representations made by the chair of the board.
The amendment also proposes that the Secretary of State should be the person to decide whether a hearing takes place in public. I am afraid I must push back on that idea. Noble Lords will be aware that the board is a quasi-judicial body which makes court-like judicial decisions. As part of its consideration of case, the board will decide whether an oral hearing is necessary or whether a case can be completed on the papers alone. If, having decided that a hearing is necessary, the board is then responsible for the arrangements, conduct and management of that hearing.
It would be out of step with the rest of the process if we gave the Secretary of State a power, in effect, to force the board to hold a public hearing against its wishes. As the body responsible for the hearing, the Government believe that it is right that the board has the final decision on whether the hearing should be public or private.
I hope the Committee will accept that not all cases will be suitable to be heard in public; for example, because of particularly sensitive evidence or the concerns of the victims. It is vital that the risk assessment is not compromised, and witnesses are able to provide full and frank evidence to the board.
The current provisions in the Parole Board Rules mean that the board and the Secretary of State have to consider these issues only in response to an application. The amendment would require them to consider the merits and contact the victims in every single hearing—more than 8,000 cases a year. It would be an enormous administrative burden with very little obvious benefit to the parole system or to the individuals affected by it.
In conclusion, I recognise the disappointment and frustration that may be caused when a public hearing application is rejected, especially where the victim is the applicant. Public hearings are a comparatively new element of the parole system. The Government are committed to improving further the openness and transparency of parole. However, we submit that a complete reversal of the current approach is not merited at this time. On this basis, I hope that Amendment 171A can be withdrawn.
I turn to Amendment 171B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord German. This seeks to allow the Parole Board to direct the period of time which should elapse before a subsequent application to be considered for release can be made. As things stand, under the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, the Secretary of State has ultimate responsibility for referring a prisoner’s case to the Parole Board within two years of the previous review.
This amendment would transfer this responsibility to the board and allow them to set the interval between reviews of anywhere between 12 months and five years. The current system already provides for flexibility in the time set for the prisoner’s next parole review. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service—HMPPS—considers a range of factors in deciding when to refer the prisoner to the Parole Board on behalf of the Secretary of State. Reasons must be given for the length of the interval between reviews. These include the Parole Board’s reasons for declining to direct the prisoner’s release at the conclusion of the last review and the interventions required to allow them to progress.
Giving responsibility for setting the period between parole reviews to the Parole Board could potentially result in hearings being set too soon, before interventions have been able to take effect, increasing the number of adjournments and causing further distress for victims. This is not to say that the board does not play an important role. Its insights provide valuable information for HMPPS staff, but HMPPS is best placed to make these decisions.
There is then the question of what the period between hearings ought to be. This amendment aims to increase the maximum interval from two to five years. I fully understand why this is being proposed, but it might be helpful if I outline why it would not be lawful; the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, has already referred to this. Where indeterminate sentence prisoners have served their tariff—that is the minimum term set by the judge at sentencing—they are then eligible for a parole hearing. Unless the Parole Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined, they will remain in prison. If they are not released, my advice is that subsequent reviews must be conducted speedily and at reasonable intervals to satisfy the requirement of Article 5(4) of the convention. I note and take on board the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, in this connection.
I appreciate the motivations at play here. Parole reviews can be difficult for victims. I sympathise with the desire for a longer interval between reviews. I stress to the Committee that the Government always consider victims where the parole system is concerned. I hope we have demonstrated this principle in other measures we have taken. We understand the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord German, that, in essence, greater transparency of the parole system is inextricably linked to the involvement of victims.
Since October 2022, victims have been able to observe Parole Board hearings, as part of a testing phase currently running in the south-west. The testing has now progressed to include the Greater Manchester probation region. During the hearings, victims are supported by a Probation Service victim representative, who discusses the parole process with them. Their VLO will ensure that, if appropriate, they are signposted to relevant support following the hearing.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his very thoughtful reply. I should like to reflect, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Jackson, on the very important points that he makes about the sensitivity and the costs, as well as the practicality and the question of time, along with the fact that the Government are working towards greater openness of the Parole Board proceedings. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Jackson, I shall withdraw the amendment, and give further reflection to what my noble friend says.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I put my name to this clause stand part notice, which was originally in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. He, alas, cannot be here this afternoon as he is on parliamentary business abroad, and he has asked me to open this short debate. I do not think that the Committee will be that surprised to hear me say that what I am about to say owes much to the noble Lord.
Clauses 55 and 56 prohibit a prisoner serving a whole-life tariff from entering into a marriage or civil partnership with another person, without the written permission of the Secretary of State, to be granted only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances. At Second Reading, on 18 December, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, referred to
“a recent case in which surviving families of the victim of a most serious murder were openly mocked by the convicted offender, who trumpeted his right to marry, causing distress to many”.—[Official Report, 18/12/23; col. 2056.]
It is my view, and I suspect the view of many on the Committee, that it is deeply unsatisfactory to legislate on the basis of one such incident, however upsetting it was for the victim’s family, as it undoubtedly must have been. That point was made at Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. Is this one incident, serious though it was, the only basis for seeking to legislate in this context?
Beyond that, there is a question of principle. However repellent their crimes, whole-life prisoners are allowed to eat, exercise, read books, watch television and send and receive letters, so why are they to be denied the basic right to marry a consenting adult? I say “basic right” because Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights states:
“Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry”.
What the state cannot do, consistent with human rights, is impose restrictions so extreme that they impair the very essence of the right to marry. That is the test stated in the consistent case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which considered how this applies to prisoners, in particular in the case of Frasik v Poland in 2010. The court stated in its judgment that an effective bar on any exercise of a prisoner’s right to marry is a breach of Article 12. The court added:
“Imprisonment deprives a person of his liberty and … of some civil rights and privileges”.
The authorities are, of course, permitted to impose restrictions on civil rights to protect the security of the prison regime, but:
“This does not, however, mean that persons in detention cannot, or can only very exceptionally, exercise their right to marry”.
The court added that the state cannot prevent a prisoner enjoying the right to marry because of the authorities’ views as to what
“might be acceptable to or what might offend public opinion”.
That is the basis, it seems, of Clauses 55 and 56. It is very doubtful whether these clauses are wise in any event. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby made the important point at Second Reading that if we are to lock people up for very lengthy periods, perhaps the whole of their lives, we must surely give them some positive purpose in life: some hope, some encouragement to maintain relationships with the outside world, not just for their own self-respect or mental health but because it will help those who have to manage the prison regime and prevent the inevitable frustrations of long-term prisoners erupting in violence against prison officers or other prisoners.
Clauses 55 and 56 have, in my view, no sensible justification. They are objectionable in principle and they will impede good management of the prison system. They seem to have more to do with populism than with any sensible policy. I submit that if these clauses become law, this is an example of bad legislation that an experienced Parliament such as this should not pass. I invite the Minister, when he replies to this debate, to say that the Government will think again about this issue and, I hope, come to the conclusion that it is not worthy of this important Bill.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to both stand part notices. The first question I asked myself way back before Second Reading, and I still need to ask myself, is why on earth the Government put these two clauses in the Bill. They do not seem to do anything to make the prison regime any better or to make the work that goes on in supporting people in prison any easier. In fact, they appear to be cruel in a variety of ways.
The Secretary of State being able to approve a marriage or civil partnership only based on exceptional circumstances, even if you felt there was a rationale or a reason, is surely the wrong way around. Surely, the Secretary of State should be able to deny them only if there are exceptional circumstances. This measure will apply regardless of the way in which anybody in future seeks a partnership or marriage.
It worries me, as I am sure it does many others in this Committee, how much placing people in prison for their lives will add to—or detract from—what happens inside the prison. It is going beyond punishment. Whatever anybody feels about what happens in a prison establishment, providing some hope for the future of their lives, understanding how their lives work and making sure they feel a sense of purpose in remaining alive is part of the job of the state, which must retain that ability.
These clauses, once again, chip away at those fundamental human rights, disapplying human rights to a specific cohort of people. The universality of human rights in this circumstance is doubly important because, of course, the state is totally responsible for whatever rights and purposes prisoners have. It has to manage them. It is precisely in custodial institutions such as prisons that human rights protections are most vital, because the individuals are under the control of the state.
It would appear, as in the Illegal Migration Act and the safety of Rwanda Bill, that we are beginning to see a testing period for making controversial changes to our human rights framework. It seems to me and those on these Benches that this particular measure is offensive to that spirit of how the state should manage the lives of people in this circumstance. If there were to be a case for saying that somebody cannot get married or have a civil partnership, that is surely by exception rather than by practice.
It appears to me that these clauses do not really fit into this Bill, because of that sense of things being done in the wrong direction. More than anything else, I seek to understand from the Government why they have put this in place. If it is because of a single case, as we have just heard, to write law on the basis of a single case is surely not the correct way to go about it.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I wondered why this was in the Bill; it is because this is a victims Bill. My honourable friend Jess Phillips MP is familiar with victims of the crimes of Bellfield, so I looked at what she had to say about this issue. She is a great champion for victims of crime. What she said was quite interesting. She was reflecting on what had been said by Sarah Champion MP, who had put a point reflecting what my noble friend Lord Bach has just said.
Jess Phillips said:
“I truly appreciate my hon. Friend’s fundamental point: everybody hopes for rehabilitation. With this, the only case we have to debate is that of Levi Bellfield, as mentioned. Having worked with some of his direct victims and the families of those victims, while I do not disagree that we sometimes chase headlines and make bad legislation in doing so, with his case I am not sure, from previous behaviour, that I would categorise it as rehabilitation. I would categorise it as behaviour to get headlines. The desire in Levi Bellfield’s case, as has been put to me by many of his victims, is that these schemes keep him constantly in the media, and that is incredibly painful for them. There is a bit from both sides of the argument in this debate: trying to stop the headlines and allowing rehabilitation”.—[Official Report, Commons, Victims and Prisoners Bill Committee, 11/7/23; col. 480.]
My noble friend Lord Bach raises some very important questions about the legality of this proposal. It is important that the Government explain why only one case has led to this being in the Bill.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments in this short debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for setting out his intention to oppose that Clauses 55 and 56 stand part of the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his comments in support of that.
It is important that the Committee examines the rationale behind these clauses. Clauses 55 and 56 will prohibit prisoners in England and Wales who are subject to a whole-life order from marrying or forming a civil partnership while in prison or another place of detention. The Secretary of State may grant an exemption in truly exceptional circumstances. A whole-life order is the most severe punishment in the criminal law of England and Wales. It is reserved for exceptionally serious offences, such as serial or child murders which involve a substantial degree of premeditation or sexual or sadistic conduct. Unlike other life sentences, offenders subject to a whole-life order can expect never to be released. Their tariff will never expire and they will not be considered for parole at any point.
As the law stands, a prison governor cannot reject a prisoner’s application to marry or form a civil partnership unless the ceremony creates a security risk for the prison. This includes whole-life prisoners. Those subject to whole-life orders can expect never to be released. As they are not working towards life on the outside and the prospect of being able to enjoy married life, any rehabilitative effect of a potential marriage is likely to be significantly reduced. Being married or in a civil partnership does not have any practical impact on an individual’s ability to maintain a relationship with a prisoner. Prisoners are not entitled to conjugal visits and rights to access fertility treatment do not require the prisoner to be married to or in a civil partnership with their partner. Neither do spouses, civil partners or their children have any additional right to visits, telephone calls or video calls. Whole-life prisoners can therefore benefit from supportive relationships while in custody in the same way as other prisoners. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord German, this is not cruel—they can maintain relationships.
While the right is protected under Article 12 of the ECHR, the convention allows states to impose restrictions in a proportionate way for a legitimate purpose. In line with the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights in Draper v the United Kingdom, we consider that a restriction on whole-life prisoners’ right to marry can be justified on the basis of public interest. The public set great store by our response to the most heinous crimes. The current position undermines confidence in our criminal justice system and its ability to deliver justice and protect the public. These clauses allow the Secretary of State to make exemptions on a case-by-case basis in exceptional circumstances. Any discretion available to a Secretary of State would itself be exercised compatibly with ECHR obligations.
We have taken a proportionate approach in applying these measures to only a small cohort of offenders who are already singled out in our domestic framework due to the exceptionally serious nature of their offences. As of December 2023, there were only 67 whole-life prisoners in England and Wales, representing less than 0.1% of the total prison population—less than one in 1,000.
To answer the question from all noble Lords, this is not about a single case. While it was a particular case that brought this issue to the Government’s attention, this is not about any individual; it is a broader point of principle. The justice system must be able to deal appropriately with the worst offenders, to drive up public confidence in the justice system. We consider that these measures are justified on the basis of that public interest. This is not just due to the distress that such an event may cause to the families of victims, whose lives these prisoners have cut short in heinous ways, but, more fundamentally, because of the real risk of damage to public confidence in the criminal justice system if it cannot deal appropriately with the most serious offenders. The Government are resolved that this is an appropriate measure. I therefore propose that Clauses 55 and 56 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Bach (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response, and the noble Lord, Lord German, for his support in this matter.
I have two points for the Minister, if I may. Is it really considered proportionate as an answer to Article 12 to say that these measures would be allowed only in exceptional circumstances? That seems not very proportionate at all. Secondly, I personally do not see the relevance, when we are talking about a matter of principle such as this, of what percentage of prisoners are in this category. It does not matter what percentage are. If it is right, it is right, and if it is wrong, it is wrong. In my view, it is a matter of some principle that this should not be imposed upon people who have done absolutely terrible things and are paying the price for it. This is a step too far and, as I say, not worthy of Parliament. Having said that, I am not going to take this matter any further today.
“Data collection in relation to children of prisonersThe Secretary of State must collect and publish annual data identifying—(a) how many prisoners are the primary carers of a child,(b) how many children have a primary carer who is a prisoner, and(c) the ages of those children.”
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, tabled this amendment, to which I am very pleased to add my name in support and to move it today in this final stage of Committee on the Bill. In his absence, I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Lord for his commitment to the families of prisoners. This is also an issue which I know my right reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury cares deeply about, as well.
This amendment was selected for Report stage in the other place but not discussed. Introduced by Harriet Harman, it is an important progress chaser to the Government’s response to the 2019 report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which she then chaired. This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to collect and publish annual data, identifying how many prisoners are primary carers of a child or children, how many children have a primary carer in prison, and the ages of those children. Its inclusion would be highly appropriate for this Bill, which focuses on both victims and prisoners.
When a parent is committed to custody, their child should not also receive a sentence; they should not be punished or overlooked as a result of their parent’s crime. When a primary carer, or indeed any parent, is removed from the home, children and other family members are deprived of a provider of care and income. Often a shadow world of shame and stigma begins, which can haunt them throughout life and put them at risk of getting caught up in the criminal justice system themselves. If we are to prevent offending and anti-social behaviour then we need to be serious about looking upstream to support those at risk. This includes children with a parent in prison.
Charities working with prisoners’ families, such as Children Heard and Seen and the Prison Advice and Care Trust, have repeatedly highlighted the gap in our understanding of the scale of parental imprisonment. I commend to noble Lords two short films released by both those charities that show the heartbreaking realities of this issue and the impact on a child when their parent is sent to prison. It also shows the remarkable work done by both charities alongside families.
The 2019 Joint Committee report highlighted the
“complete lack of reliable quantitative data on the number of mothers in prison”
and
“the number of children whose mothers are in prison”.
It argued that
“without improved data collection, collation and publication”
it is both
“impossible to fully understand the scale and nature of this issue and to properly address it”.
It continued:
“Mandatory data collection and publication must be urgently prioritised by the Ministry of Justice”.
A few months before that was published, Crest Advisory’s report on the children of prisoners found that
“during a parent’s journey through the criminal justice system there are numerous points which children of prisoners could be identified—on arrest, at sentencing, on entry to prison, and under probation supervision. But at the moment, at no point does the system ask: ‘If this is a parent in custody, where is their child?’”
The point of doing this would be to ensure the welfare of the children and to establish whether help is needed for the family or friends now caring for them. As that report said:
“Instead it is left up to the offender or the parent left behind to seek help—something which we know is problematic because of stigma and fear about children being taken into care”.
That is echoed again and again by the charity Children Heard and Seen, which does such fantastic work with children with a parent in prison, including a ground-breaking initiative across the Thames Valley region.
Rightly, the Government broadened their response to the Joint Committee to all primary carers, not just mothers. Many men are also in this position—albeit with a very different proportion of the male prison population compared with the female estate. Again, we are hampered by the lack of reliable data. However, the Farmer review on women in the criminal justice system, the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and many others highlight that relatively more women than men report being parents and, likely, primary carers.
The Government’s position in 2019 was that their aim was to establish more accurate metrics to measure the number of prisoners with primary carer responsibilities. However, they also acknowledged that gathering information about dependent children is a sensitive matter and committed to exploring the most accurate way to collect and then collate and publish that data,
“provided an accurate method can be found to estimate it, and provided it can be done in a way that protects the rights of vulnerable individuals”.
Given the significant body of evidence showing that the children of prisoners are at risk of markedly worse outcomes in areas such as mental health, underachievement at school and becoming offenders themselves, we should, at the very least, know how many children there are and their age and stage of childhood. The amendment is limited to quantitative data collection, given the inherent problems of collecting identifiers in such a delicate and sensitive area and given that a key aim at this stage is to progress-chase the Government on behalf of these particularly neglected children. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for her introduction and Harriet Harman for her amendment in another place; even though it did not progress, it was very important. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, cannot be in his place today, because his report, which pre-dates the Select Committee report in the Commons—it was published in 2017 and was called The Importance of Strengthening Prisoners’ Family Ties to Prevent Reoffending and Reduce Intergenerational Crime—sparked a lot of this work.
That report emphasised throughout that data was needed on prisoners, their families and their children, particularly the age of the children, because that then enables the right sorts of services to be available inside a prison to support those family links that are so important. The noble Lord is so right that data is critical for ensuring that we—that is, the court system, prison, probation and other services, including Parliament and civil society—understand the impact on both prisoners and their children.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, because I could not possibly better her introduction to this amendment. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and I were very pleased to put our names to it. I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that you cannot create robust policy if you do not have the data. She has helpfully illustrated to the House that it can be done and that, therefore, it should be done.
When I first saw these amendments—I have said this several times in the course of this Bill—I could not quite believe that it was not already happening, but it is not happening. I ask the Minister to seriously consider that this needs to be done for those children.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I do not pretend to be an expert on prisons, as some noble Lords are who have put forward this amendment. However, I also wanted to speak briefly to it, and for the very same reason, which is that I just could not believe that we did not collect the numbers on children who have a parent or a primary carer in custody. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, put down a Written Question and that the Government said that they do use a figure, which is 200,000. But that is from a survey from 2009—a pretty long time ago—and that is very different from the 312,000 figure that Crest Advisory has claimed.
We should say that the Government recognise that this is a problem. In that same Written Answer, the Government said they had made changes to the basic custody screening tool. In other words, this means that, when people go into prison, they are asked how many children they have back home. We know that they will not always say, not least because they will be worried about children being taken into care, and again, the Government recognise this. So in that Written Answer they talked about using a linked data programme called BOLD. They said the results should be published this spring and that that should be able to give us a better estimate. So can my noble friend the Minister explain, not necessarily today but perhaps in writing, how this programme works in practice and whether it will provide a permanent solution to the problem, as this amendment would do? If it will not, I ask the Government to consider making this change. Otherwise, as others have said, we will be letting down a group of very vulnerable children.
Finally, the Government’s own statutory guidance, Keeping Children Safe in Education, says that children and young people will be impacted by having a parent or relative in prison. I am a little confused as to how, on the one hand, in guidance we can state that we know this is a problem and that children will be affected, but on the other we can say that we do not know how many children are affected because we do not gather the numbers. How can we provide the support if we do not know how many children there are or where they are?
Lord Roborough (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Farmer for tabling this amendment and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for moving it. It would require the Secretary of State to collect data centrally about prisoners who are primary carers of children and the numbers of dependent children who have a primary carer in prison, and to publish the data annually, including the ages of the children. My noble friend, who is not in his place today, knows that the Government fully support the intention behind this amendment. The Government echo the right reverend Prelate in paying tribute to his work and ongoing contribution towards this issue.
Understanding the personal circumstances of those in custody, including responsibilities for dependent children, is essential if we are to provide effective support for those prisoners to help them maintain contact with those children. Strengthening family ties is an integral aspect of the work of HM Prison and Probation Service. We recognise the importance of maintaining a prisoner’s relationship with family, friends and their wider community, particularly where the best interest of the child is served through maintaining a strong relationship with their parent. Prisons across England and Wales offer a range of services to maintain family relationships, including social visits, family days, secure video calling and Storybook Mums and Dads, an award-winning, charity-led initiative that enables parents in prison to record bedtime stories for their children.
In answer to the right reverend Prelate’s comments on supporting children impacted by parental imprisonment, ministerial responsibility for supporting children who might be vulnerable due to parental incarceration sits with the Department for Education in England and the Welsh Government, and the Ministry of Justice is actively committed to joined-up working across government to better understand the nature of this issue. The Female Offender Strategy, published in 2018, encouraged a partnership-focused approach to addressing the needs of both imprisoned mothers and children affected by maternal imprisonment. We published the female offender strategy delivery plan in January 2023, with a progress report, the Farmer Review for Women, in 2019. Outstanding commitments from the Farmer review are being taken forward under the delivery plan.
Understanding how many children are impacted by parental imprisonment is just as important, because having a parent in prison is a recognised adverse childhood experience that can impact a child’s mental health and lead some to feel they are being judged for the actions of their parents. From the perspective of the criminal justice system and echoing the number that has been mentioned a couple of times in this debate, evidence has shown that over 60% of boys who had a father in prison went on to offend themselves. Therefore, identifying and supporting those individuals at an early stage has the potential to divert them away from the criminal justice system, preventing future victims of crime.
While we are fully supportive of the amendment’s intention, we do not believe that legislation as proposed here is necessary. Our prison strategy White Paper. published in 2021, outlined our intention to address this issue through engagement with other government departments, and to commission updated research to improve our collective understanding of the overall number of children affected by parental imprisonment.
As my noble friend mentioned, we are delivering this commitment through our Better Outcomes through Linked Data project, known as BOLD. It is an almost £20 million cross-government shared outcomes fund that will link data to enable better evidence and more joined-up cross-government services. Through BOLD, we will be publishing a report that will estimate the number of children with parents in prison. We expect findings from the project to be published by spring 2024. This should provide some of the critical data that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, called for. We are working to collect and improve data. We have previously made changes to the internal management—
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Why are the Government aiming to have an estimate? We need to know the actual number of these children.
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention and appreciate that this debate has focused very much on the wish of many noble Lords to have very accurate data. I am very aware that BOLD will be an estimate. We expect it to be a reasonably accurate estimate, which will be very good information for forming policy. The extent to which more detailed data could be required in future we will keep under review. If it is helpful, I can offer a further meeting on that outside this Committee.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
The issue that I raised about young carers was in the legislation—not just in the Children and Families Act 2014 but the Care Act 2014 —because Edward Timpson, the Education Minister at the time, felt that it was so important that there was some mechanism to join up all the different departments. Why are the Government now saying that it is no longer necessary for this to be in legislation and absolutely clear?
Lord Roborough (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I am afraid I do not have a detailed answer and propose to write to her, if that is acceptable.
The basic custody screening tool ensures that we identify prisoners with primary care responsibilities on entry into prison. That means that we can access this information centrally. While we recognise that the self-declared nature of the information collected through the basic custody screening tool means that it is—as many noble Lords have mentioned—fraught with concerns of prisoners about how much information they are willing to give and so brings with it certain levels of inaccuracy. Our intention is that this data will be reflected in the BOLD publication. I hope that, in the circumstances, the right reverend Prelate will agree that this amendment is not necessary and will withdraw it.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
I thank the Minister and all other noble Lords who have spoken. I am interested in his answer, because in one way he is saying, “Yes, we need this and recognise this”, but in another is saying “But we do not actually need this amendment”. I look forward to hearing more on that. As has been pointed out, the basic custody screening tool is very basic, and many parents do not want to declare on entry to prison that they have children. I will be watching with interest the BOLD programme and what comes out of that.
It is really important that the progress the Government are making in this area is now put on public record. It is nearly five years since the Joint Committee published its report. Also, I stress that it has been important to touch on family relationships and prisoners having those family relationships, but I do not want to lose sight of the fact that this is about the child. Not all children want to have contact with the parent who is in prison. So we need to be looking through the eyes of the child here.
As has been said, when children are given support, through charities such as Children Heard and Seen, we know that the results are remarkable. If, as the noble Lord says, education and other people are going to have this data, we need the data in the first place. That is where we need to start.
Many remain very concerned about these children who are invisible and that we are not able to support them, but I will not delay the Committee any longer now. I will take the comments back to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer; we will discuss it together and look at how to proceed on Report. Given all that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Tuesday 16th April 2024
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 57-I(b) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (16 Apr 2024)
19:47 - Division on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 185 / Noes: 192 - Amendment 3 disagreed.
19:59 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 176 / Noes: 197 - Amendment 5 disagreed.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, this will be a mercifully brief group and I will speak primarily to Amendment 1 in my name, which has the great virtue of complete and utter simplicity. It was an attempt to get His Majesty’s Government to recognise that children are different from adults and have different needs and requirements. I am glad to say that in the discussions we have been having, particularly between the Children’s Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner and the Minister and his team, we have made significant progress in recognising in various places in the Bill that children have particular needs and are a particular group that needs to be thought of in a particular way. The reason behind that is simply the need to recognise children’s unique and special characteristics.
I suspect that, like many of us, one has been to meetings where different charities and others that help children have brought parliamentarians together to listen to the experience of victims. It is pretty searing to hear directly from victims who have suffered a whole variety of terrible things happening to them, but particularly searing is listening to children who have experienced this. Some of us who have been working in this area were privileged to listen to some of those children, who very bravely spoke about their experiences, some of which were truly shocking. In one instance we not only had a victim talking powerfully but immediately after that we had the victim’s mother talking about the effect that it had had on her child and her family. In this instance, it was made even more ghastly by the fact that the perpetrator of her daughter was actually one of her grandfathers. It was almost unimaginable.
The needs of children who have gone through that sort of trauma are very specific. However well intended it may be to say that we will allow children to have access to what are essentially adult services, those services may be very good at treating adults but children are definitely different. Done well with individuals, psychologists and trained people who really know how to deal with children sensitively, the outcomes can be hugely better than well-intended interventions by people who, frankly, are not qualified to do so. I am hoping to hear from the Minister at the Dispatch Box on not only the amendments that the Government have brought in but, more broadly, the Government’s intention to try to do everything they can for children. On that basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I tried to add my name to this amendment but in fact I was on holiday, staying with my daughter in Spain. The suggestion that I sent put me on to Amendment 2 instead of Amendment 1, but I strongly support Amendment 1.
I was for many years a family judge and President of the Family Division. I spent a great and uncomfortable part of my time hearing about the sexual abuse of children, very seldom from the children, though occasionally, but otherwise from the doctors—the paediatricians and psychiatrists—on the trauma suffered by children. Since I left being a judge, on a number of occasions I have met those adults who cannot forget, 20, 30 or 40 years later, what hit them sometime around the age of eight, 12 or 14. The trauma is shocking; it may be short, medium or, for many, long. Those who live with it are never quite the same.
We therefore have to look at what we do for children in the Bill, and this is the purpose of the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has put down. I support it for those reasons, given my own experience over 35 years in different parts of being a judge, where I lived that at second hand. I have to tell the House that judges obviously do not cry in court—except one, once—but I sat in my room sometimes in floods of tears from hearing what happened to these children. I strongly support this amendment.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I too have added my name to Amendment 1. The great thing about following my noble friend Lord Russell is that I need to say very little. The beauty of this is its simplicity. We have talked about this again and again, and I thank the Ministers for their hard work and the very collegiate attitude we have had. People have come to an agreement and the Government have given a lot. However, it is so beautifully simple to change “a person” to “any adult or child”. There is a lot of talk about how, if you start doing that, where do you stop? But “any adult or child” is perfect.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, we discussed this in Committee. Since then, a decision of the Court of Appeal comprehensively rejected the rather eccentric argument that a child is not a person. In fact, reading that judgment, it is quite clear that there was never any doubt that a child is a person. The Oxford English Dictionary definition, which was quoted, defines a person as:
“An individual human being; a man, woman, or child”.
The purist would say that this amendment is unnecessary, but I suggest thinking about it a little more deeply, and that the arguments we have heard in support of the amendment, which makes it clear that children are individually and separately covered by the Bill, should ultimately carry the day.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, as we begin Report, from these Liberal Democrat Benches I thank the Minister and his fellow Ministers for talking to noble Lords in the short time between Committee and the commencement of Report. We understand that this has been difficult during the Easter Recess, but it has been extremely helpful to hear the Government say where they are and are not prepared to make some progress on closing the gap between themselves and others across this House on this important Bill.
This group, as has already been outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and other noble Lords, relates to the importance of ensuring that child victims are recognised as having different needs and services available to them under the victims’ code and this Bill. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, echoes that made in Committee specifically changing the definition of victim to “any adult or child”.
Amendment 21 and others tabled by the Minister choose a different definition:
“victims who are under the age of 18 or who have protected characteristics”.
I am grateful to the Minister for that addition because, as somebody with a protected characteristic—in my case, a disability—it makes it clear that age alone does not cover some of the particular vulnerabilities faced by those with protected characteristics. In this case I am thinking of those over the age of 18 with an intellectual disability, who may need a heightened level of support under the code. However, there is a broader point that we welcome from these Benches. Under the terms of the Equality Act 2010, those with protected characteristics have enhanced rights in relation to crimes against them, because of their protected characteristics. We welcome that. Can the Minister explain why the government amendments are phrased the way they are and why the Government are therefore still resisting the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell?
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I spoke extensively on including such a provision on children in the Bill because of the information I received from children’s charities, which explained to us the importance of including it. It is vital for them in their work, and I trust what they say. The Minister has been extremely helpful in moving this forward. Having children at the forefront, as I said, is vital, and I hope the Government will accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his extensive consultation with me and colleagues on my side of the House, and with many other noble Lords who have taken an active interest in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, very adequately set out his amendment. It is not a matter for me, but my understanding is that he is unlikely to push it to a vote. If he were to do so, we would not support it, as I have explained to the noble Lord. Having said that, I acknowledge that there has been wide consultation and the Government are moving their own amendments in this group. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of his amendments.
I will briefly touch on the personal testimony of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about her life as a family judge. I will also touch on what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said about the meetings he went to with the victims, which I also attended. But I want to say something a little bit different. Of course, it was extremely upsetting, but I have to say that I was absolutely amazed by the resilience of the victims we spoke to and their keenness to help other child victims who still come forward today. I found that extremely admirable.
This is the first group, and we will be moving on to more contentious issues in subsequent groups. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for moving his amendment, and those who have spoken in support of it. In particular, I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for her sobering words. I also salute the courage of the children who have participated in discussions about the progress of the Bill. I say to them: you have achieved quite a lot by participating in this discussion.
As I hope to explain to the House, the Government are absolutely clear that victims who are children have particular experiences of criminality that are different from the adult experience. They have different needs from adult victims and they therefore require a different approach. That, as I hope to explain, is fully recognised.
That said, the amendment in itself is not one the Government can support, for the simple reason that children are already included as victims under Part 1 of the Bill. The Government’s view is that that is manifestly clear, as a matter of legal drafting, across the statute book. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has just pointed out, “person” includes “child” and that is beyond argument. That is the customary usage across the whole statute book, and the Government are not persuaded that we need to make an exception in this case.
On the technical matter of legal drafting, as I have just emphasised, children are in a very special position when it comes to the victims’ code. That is why the current code sets out specific provisions for child victims and others who are considered vulnerable or intimidated. Those are known at the moment as enhanced rights. That is also why we have committed—and I therefore recommit the Government—to ensuring that the new victims’ code, which will go out to consultation as soon as we have Royal Assent, fully addresses the needs of child victims in particular. We shall seek views on the proposals regarding children in that public consultation.
I come to the government amendments in this group. In particular, we have listened carefully to the arguments for greater assurances as to the Government’s intentions, which is why we are proposing government Amendment 21, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which will ensure that the Secretary of State must consider whether different provision is required in the code as a result of the particular needs of children, now defined as those under the age of 18, and those with protected characteristics, when the new code is prepared and during any future revisions to the code. Although this group is about children, I entirely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about other vulnerable persons, who are also covered by Amendment 21. That is a perfectly fair point, and one that the Government have well in mind.
The Government are delighted to have worked constructively with the Children’s Commissioner to consider how the victims’ code can better reflect the distinct needs and experiences of child victims. I am pleased that the noble Baroness expressed personally to me the other day her strong support for this amendment and her personal appreciation of the Government’s work in this area.
To move on through the Bill, in addition, Clause 11 requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance for agencies delivering code awareness and compliance duties, which will specifically include guidance on how sensitively and effectively to gather information on children. Clause 13 states that commissioners under the duty to collaborate must consider the specific needs of children when preparing their joint needs assessments and local strategy. Clause 15 requires the same when issuing guidance on support roles. I hope noble Lords might accept that we now have, in the Bill itself and prospectively in the revised code, very full provision for children.
The word “children” is a slightly colloquial term—it can mean a number of things to different people—so, for absolute clarity, we have tabled amendments to change the references to “children” in Clauses 11, 13 and 15 to
“individuals who are under the age of 18”
to make it clear that there is a very clear legal cut-off for the special requirements of children, which is those under the age of 18. Those are Amendments 54, 63 and 74.
Finally, I add also that we have heard the concerns about young victims not always being able to engage with the code or understand the sometimes overcomplicated documents that the Government produce. On behalf of the Government, I commit to developing an accessible version of the new code—a “child-friendly” version, if I may refer to it colloquially—which we also intend to consult on post Royal Assent, as we recognise that we can do more to improve the accessibility of these provisions for children themselves.
All that said, I think I have already explained that the Government do not, for what I must confess is a somewhat technical reason, but a real reason none the less, support the proposal to change the drafting as suggested in Amendment 1. But I hope that I have sufficiently explained the supreme importance of children, and the Government’s recognition of that importance.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. What a change of atmosphere in the Chamber from the business that we had earlier on this afternoon—long may it continue. I pay tribute to the Minister and his colleagues for the amount of time and effort that they have put into this issue. While this amendment may not be perfect in the legal sense, its sheer simplicity has helped to galvanise the debate to make it clear how important it is that children are identified clearly as a group. It has achieved its purpose in that sense.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, talked about meeting those child victims and how struck he was by their resilience. The moment he said that, I reflected on it, and I asked myself why they were so resilient. In large part the reason why they were so resilient is, first, down to the individuals themselves but, secondly, due to the fact that all the victims who spoke to us had had the benefit of working with highly specialised help in the major children’s charities. That had helped them to emerge from the unspeakable traumas that they had experienced, to the extent that they could stand up in front of a group of probably slightly intimidating parliamentarians and they were able to speak clearly, without undue emotion and with great clarity and force, about their experience and how important it was for us to understand what we need to do as parliamentarians in this Bill to enable as many other victims as possible to benefit from the support that they had received. That was the key message that I got from that.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide bereaved victims of homicide abroad with the same support given to victims of homicide within the UK in recognition of the distress they experience and which is exacerbated by having to deal with the criminal justice systems of foreign jurisdictions.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 2, I shall speak also to other amendments in the group.
Amendment 2 deals with the victims of a homicide that has taken place outside the United Kingdom. I am very glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, behind me, as this amendment was in her name in Committee and, but for a slip of the pen, she would be the person standing here speaking, rather than me. However, because we wanted to get this amendment down, it has my name on it, so she will speak in due course about this, very knowledgeably indeed.
In essence, this amendment seeks to ensure that victims of homicide outside the United Kingdom are guaranteed to receive adequate support and are provided for adequately in the victims’ code. At the moment, no single UK agency has an overarching view of the end-to-end experience of victims of homicide abroad. Families fall through the gaps between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Ministry of Justice, the jurisdiction of the crime and our own police. I am aware that the Government are likely to argue that expanding the remit of the code will bring cost and place greater pressure on services, but we would suggest that the cost is relatively minimal. We are looking at between 60 and 80 cases in total per annum, and the number of cases has been going down year on year. That is less than 0.01% of the total number of victims in the UK.
There is a precedent for giving victims of crime abroad access to criminal injuries compensation. Since 2015, if a victim is killed by a terrorist, the family has a legal right to claim compensation. We can see no apparent rationale for differentiating between victims of terrorism and other victims of homicide. To those bereaved families, murder is murder.
We feel strongly that the FCDO must be included as an agency with accountability under the code. The joint memorandum between the Foreign Office, the MoJ and the police, which is currently a document that does not have legal status, must be incorporated within the code. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve.
Three successive and very distinguished Victims’ Commissioners have all been very strongly in favour of this amendment, and remain so. I am talking about the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, who unfortunately cannot be with us today, as well as Dame Vera Baird and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. If three Victims’ Commissioners, who, in total, have been arguing the case for this for the past 16 or 17 years, are still arguing for it and still feel passionately that it is something that needs to be addressed, that has a certain force. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say at the Dispatch Box.
By mistake, we put down Amendment 3 and Amendment 6, which the Public Bill Office discovered this morning were identical—better late than never. I will speak to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on anti-social behaviour and trying to ensure that victims of persistent anti-social behaviour are recognised as victims and provided with their own victims’ code rights. The evidence is that anti-social behaviour is quite frequently, in relative terms, trivialised by criminal justice agencies. We have had evidence from a great many different people about the devastating impact that that can have. Time and again, we also hear that victims are told that they have to put up with it: “If you can’t take the heat, why don’t you think about moving house?” That is not an adequate way of telling a somewhat traumatised victim of anti-social behaviour that that is the best that can be done for them. Effectively, it means that they have to help themselves.
This amendment would ensure that a victim who meets the anti-social behaviour case review threshold is referred to victim support services and receives the help they need. I know the Minister is well aware of the scale of the problem and that work is being done at the moment to try to achieve a resolution, but I commend this amendment as part of the debate to try to move this forward and see whether we can get something done. Again, I look forward to his comments on this.
I will speak briefly to Amendment 8 on child criminal exploitation, as others will cover it. Creating a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation would create a degree of understanding across agencies and professions that at the moment is not clear. If you asked a variety of people what child criminal exploitation was, you would get slightly different answers. In the interests of children, we feel that that is simply wrong. We need complete clarity on what it is and how it should be dealt with, and that is not the case at the moment. There is some way to go to make this happen. I look forward to hearing the contributions of others to this debate, but for now I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful for the way that my noble friend Lord Russell introduced these amendments. I will speak to Amendment 2, which I tabled in Committee. I am also grateful to the Minister for having arranged a meeting for me, the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Brinton, and others with officials from his department, and for the positive conversation that took place.
I remind the House that there is more than one murder a week abroad, involving different countries, languages and legal systems, and very different circumstances. The report from the All-Party Group on Deaths Abroad, Consular Services and Assistance showed that there is a lack of consistency in contact and communication with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. It highlights that there are protocols but that these inconsistencies seem to override them. There are particular inconsistencies about reporting a death and methods of communication. Staff rotation in the FCDO means that people are sometimes repeating their story time and again, which results in secondary victimisation, as they are retraumatised by having to repeat the same story to different people. In some countries, legal processes are very rapid and there are huge language barriers. Sometimes people have been given a list of lawyers with no details about their ability to speak English or even their specialisation, and have found themselves referred to a legal team who do not know much about homicide. In one case I came across, they knew about conveyancing property, which was completely inappropriate.
After all that, there is a real problem with repatriation of the body, which can be very expensive. Some people have had to resort to crowdfunding because there is no assistance. The other problem that families face when they come back to this country is that, if there have been difficulties with the body or it has been disposed of abroad somehow, they then have to prove that the death has happened and the veracity of whatever processes went on.
I am most grateful to the charity Murdered Abroad for an extensive briefing, which I will not go through because this is Report. It is very keen to work with the FCDO. It has a great deal of experience and could be involved in training and drawing up clear protocols. It could provide the resource, which would not be expensed to the FCDO; in fact, it would probably be cost-effective because it would avoid duplication of work that is going on. It could ensure good communication skills and the language and translation that need to occur. One problem with having a small team in the FCDO is that staff change and move on and collective memory, which is really important, is lost.
I am grateful to the Minister for communicating that he does not intend to accept this amendment, but I hope that in reply he will take forward that officials need clear protocols, with good education, liaison and learning from experience, rather than simply to be responding to cases as they come in from all over the world to embassies or consulates. Sometimes they come to somebody quite junior who happens to be on duty that day. The whole thing could be better streamlined and support should be given when they come back to this country.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 2 and would have liked to put my name to Amendment 8. I do not need to say much about Amendment 2 because it has been extremely well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I support everything they have said.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has not yet spoken to Amendment 8, but a very good example of this, and of slavery, is children who are called “county lines”. We regularly get situations around the country of children, largely in housing estates and often from families with very little money, who become carriers of drugs. Because the cities and big towns are inundated with drugs, they carry them, for money, to small towns and villages. Only relatively recently has the National Crime Agency appreciated that these are children who are exploited and, very often, victims of modern slavery, rather than children who are committing offences and to be put before the magistrates’ court, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will understand very well. Of course, county lines is not the only situation in which children are exploited. This is a worthy point to make and I very much support it.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble colleagues and friends around the House who have spoken about such an important area: victims murdered abroad. I also thank my noble and learned friend the Minister and his officials for meeting me and other Peers, as was highlighted, to discuss this amendment and how we might find a way forward. I am grateful to the officials who have worked with my office to see whether there is scope for compromise.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendments 5 and 8, to which I have added my name. One of the things that has changed hugely over my adult lifetime is an understanding of just how lifelong traumatising events that take place in childhood are. For that reason, we need to be very clear and careful when working with children.
In the current legislation, there are the things on the statute book that refer, in different places, to child criminal exploitation, but the definitions given there are not consistent. In the previous debate, the Minister very wisely spoke about the need to have materials that are clearly understandable by children, but we need to be equally clear about when a child falls under the terms of this Bill as somebody who ought to receive support because they are a victim of child criminal exploitation. At the moment, the conflicting definitions in other bits of legislation do not give us that clearly enough. Therefore, I urge your Lordships to support the amendments, which will give us a clear definition that will help to support children. Even if just one or two children fall through the net as a result of not having a clear definition, their lives would be scarred worse than they would be otherwise—and for ever.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 7 in this group and have also signed Amendments 3 to 5 and 8. I will refer to Amendment 7 and then briefly cover the others.
My Amendment 7 is similar to the one I tabled in Committee. I thank the Minister for arranging for Restitute CIC, which is championing the amendment, and me to have a meeting with his officials, and for his recent letter to me. I am disappointed that the Government are not going further by producing their own amendment, but I hope that there will be recognition soon that family members who relive the experience of their loved ones, as they help them to recover, may actually be victims themselves. Many have had mental health support themselves and have had to give up work. Often, other family relationships have been fractured, and the lives of all involved have been completely and utterly changed. I am disappointed by the lack of progress and feel that this is something that will keep coming back to bother Ministers as more Bills come down the line in the criminal justice area.
We have heard some very moving contributions on Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on homicide abroad; a similar amendment was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in Committee. I also thank the Minister for his extremely helpful meeting. We really need to support this amendment because the sort of service that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, described, which was set up specifically for one particular tragedy, is absolutely vital. We heard from officials that, in theory, the arrangements are in place through co-ordinators to make sure that those links are made. But in practice, without formal guidance for every single department that victims will come to, there are far too many holes and victims’ families are absolutely not getting the help that they need. I hope that the Minister will consider that in future.
On Amendments 5 and 8 on child criminal exploitation, I remind your Lordships’ House that Home Office data from 2023 sets out that more than 7,000 referrals relating to children have been made to the national referral mechanism, the framework for identifying potential victims of modern slavery and criminal exploitation. That was an increase of 45% since 2011. The most common reason for referral was criminal exploitation. However, the problem is that the lack of a legal definition means that there is no effective data collection across the UK; there is a patchwork of data, which includes just the tip of the iceberg. A statutory definition of CCE is essential in ensuring a consistent understanding of and response to child criminal exploitation across the country by all agencies and sectors. Crucially, the experts think that will help to identify exploited children more quickly.
I turn now to anti-social behaviour. We have not heard yet from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, but the very moving speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, in Committee set out the reality of the devastating consequences of repeated and escalating anti-social behaviour. I will not repeat what has already been said today in your Lordships’ House, but we on these Benches will support the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, if he wishes to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I will first address Amendment 2, which was so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I picked up from the debate on Amendment 2 the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about the lack of appropriateness of existing protocols and how they have been designed for a specific situation, whereas in fact murders abroad happen in a huge variety of situations, for all the reasons that she outlined. I think what the noble Baroness was really asking the Minister was that he undertakes to encourage the Foreign Office and other affected government departments to better devise protocols to deal with these situations. I think that was the meat of the argument we heard regarding Amendment 2.
Amendment 3, which is in my name and which has also been spoken to by other signatories to it, is the anti-social behaviour amendment. I too remember the very poignant speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, in Committee. Again, I know that the Minister is sympathetic to this, but there needs to be a step change on the Government’s behalf in acknowledging the cumulative effect of anti-social behaviour, both criminal and non-criminal, and how this can be cumulatively assessed to make sure that the appropriate services are utilised for the victims of anti-social behaviour.
There was a particular question which I did not get an answer to, about the use of callouts by the police of non-criminal anti-social behaviours and whether those callouts, which are recorded by the police, can be used in prosecutions to try to build a picture when assessing a particular case which is brought to court. I made the point to the Minister that this approach is used in domestic abuse cases, as well as in family law cases, as I regularly see. I just say to the Minister that this could be used, first, to increase the likelihood of getting convictions but also to demonstrate that the country and the police are taking this behaviour very seriously, doing something and putting in specific measures to try to crack down on anti-social behaviour—and I have to say that I will seek the opinion of the House on Amendment 3 in due course.
Amendments 5 and 8 deal with child criminal exploitation; Amendment 8 is the definition of child criminal exploitation. A number of noble Lords made the point about the variability of definitions in different parts of government. The particular example I have here is that there is a working definition in the Home Office, in the Working Together guidance, a separate definition in the national referral mechanism, and there are other definitions in other parts of government. The point which a number of noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate have made is that, if there is a single definition, it will make the working response more effective. In addition, there is the point which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made, which is that it will make data collection more effective as well.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, apologies; I have a migraine and I think the medication has messed with my head. I meant to talk also to Amendments 3 and 6.
Although, again, I appreciate all the informal meetings and the meetings with my office, I still wish to make a point about the impact of anti-social behaviour. It is generally accepted that victims of persistent anti-social behaviour can suffer enormous anguish and harm. Indeed, that is the rhetoric that we hear, but people really do not grasp and do not see what is underneath. I say this because I have met many victims who are unable, sadly, to live in their own home: parents who tell me their teenage children have had to leave the family home sooner than otherwise to escape distress, and grandparents who are no longer able to look after grandchildren in their own home as they fear for their well-being. This is first hand from the very people who suffer on a daily basis. The intolerable strain this behaviour can have on personal relationships, the adverse effect it can have on children’s behaviour in school, the terrible difficulties for adults coping with this stress while holding down employment—all this is due to the trauma caused by persistent anti-social behaviour.
One of the recurring messages I hear from these victims is that they feel they are going through this nightmare entirely alone. All too often, police officers, housing officers and local government officials who are dealing with their complaints fail to recognise the level of harm being caused. In many cases, these officials even fail to acknowledge that the victims are being wronged. Some police officers are all too quick to tell the victim that it must be six of one and half a dozen of the other, no doubt in an attempt to avoid investigating the complaints. Let me tell noble Lords that that statement can have a devastating effect on the victim.
Yet, as was acknowledged by the Minister and officials when we met last week, the vast majority of these victims are victims of crime. As such, under the victims’ code, they are entitled to receive support from victims’ services. Yet I know that all too often, victims are not advised of this, nor is any referral made. Why not? Because the police do not want to tackle the issue through criminal action against the perpetrators. A victim’s entitlement to support does not depend on a decision by a police officer on what action, if any, they plan to take against the perpetrators. Once the action of the perpetrator reaches the criminal threshold, the victims’ code entitlements are automatically activated.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, seeks to plug this gap. I recognise that there are many other ways in which we can achieve this objective. It is hugely reassuring that this amendment has prompted a discussion between Ministers and officials in the MoJ and the Home Office. I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s response to these discussions and hope that the measures which he sets out today provide reassurance, not only to this House but to the many victims of anti-social behaviour across this country, who have suffered alone and are sitting in silence as we speak about this behaviour today.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this part of the debate, where we are discussing extending the definition of “victim” and providing mechanisms for dealing with four different areas: anti-social behaviour; child criminal exploitation; victims abroad; and carers of victims of serious sexual and violent crime. I thank noble Lords for their thanks and reciprocate to everyone in the House, on all sides, who has collaborated with the Government generally on trying to move this Bill forward.
It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, that the Government lack sympathy for the various points that have been made—quite the contrary. For various reasons, some technical, some substantive, the Government do not feel that the statutory amendments in this group are the right way to go in changing the statute, as distinct from other means of addressing the issue.
I will deal first with anti-social behaviour, and pick up some of the most moving remarks that the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has just made, The Government have listened very carefully to these concerns. The impact of persistent anti-social behaviour, and the need to deal with it, is very firmly on the Government’s radar. However, the first point to make is that which the noble Baroness has just made: almost all cases of persistent anti-social behaviour of the kind that are causing real damage are already criminal conduct. In a most moving letter to me of 4 April, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, made exactly the same point, saying that this is already a crime, and so people are already entitled to the protection and services available under the code. The question is how we do this in practice. How do we join the dots, if I may put it like that, and overcome the widespread fallacy that because the police have not done anything one is no longer a victim? The police not having done anything does not mean that victim services should not be available. That is the practical problem that we are facing.
At the moment, the Government are not persuaded that this amendment would solve the practical problem. It has one significant disadvantage—possibly an inadvertent disadvantage—in that it would extend the code to non-criminal behaviour that falls within the context of anti-social behaviour. With cases of loud music and so forth, which really is a nuisance, such lesser kinds of anti-social behaviour would benefit from the victims’ code. In the Government’s view, that is not a good or desirable result, because it would mean extending victim services, which are already very stretched, away from the really serious problems and difficulties that victims are facing to lower levels of anti-social behaviour. That is perhaps an unintended consequence but not one that the Government particularly want to encourage via this amendment. Therefore, the amendment is too widely drawn.
To step back, rather than going down the route of this amendment the Government propose, in line with other improvements to the code in other areas, to update the anti-social guidance where necessary to ensure that, when a crime is identified, victims are informed of their entitlements under the victims’ code. The Government’s intention is to explore and consult on how best to make clear in the new victims’ code that its entitlements apply to persistent anti-social behaviour where the criminal threshold is met and that police are required to refer people to support services regardless of whether there is sufficient evidence to charge or whether they are going to pursue any particular action. If we get the code right on this point, it will help victims and service providers to recognise that failing to refer these victims to support services could be a breach of the new duty—which we will discuss in the next group—to act in accordance with the code.
On top of that, the code’s compliance mechanisms, at Clauses 6 to 11, will shine a light where non-compliance issues are found to be systemic. That will enable robust additional tools and steps to be brought to bear when agencies fall short. As we will explain in the next session, the Victims’ Commissioner will play a very central role in overseeing this new code, and be consulted on all its aspects and on ensuring that we join the dots and that this problem finally is tackled.
In addition, the Criminal Justice Bill, currently making its way through the other place, particularly in Clause 81, addresses some of the existing concerns and processes to tackle, among other things, persistent anti-social behaviour, including promoting awareness of the review process and setting out more consistently what local policing bodies have to do, so that victims can expect a more consistent service.
Rather than going down one particular way of dealing with this problem, which is the subject in the amendment, and which may have unintended and too wide consequences, the Government’s position is to tackle this through the code. We will continue, of course, to engage with the Victims’ Commissioner and seek her views on our work in this area. She is particularly well placed to help the code, the Government, the local police forces and so forth develop proper mechanisms for joining up these dots.
There are parts of the country where this is working quite well, so let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Because of the way in which the assessments will be made, and because of the oversight that is envisaged in the structure of the Bill, there will be ways of bringing the less well-performing police forces and local services up to the level of those that do it properly. That will ensure that victims know how to access these services.
Let us not forget that there is a wider anti-social behaviour action plan, which goes hand in hand with this. There has been £160 million of new funding to tackle anti-social behaviour. With these various routes and approaches, and determination to tackle the area, that is the Government’s position. We respectfully suggest that it is a more positive, sensible, broadly based and effective way of doing it than this amendment, well-intentioned though it is. That is the Government’s position on anti-social behaviour.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I was trying to make the point that the noble and learned Lord has started to make: there are lots of different agencies involved, and they do not collect the same, consistent data. Something on the face of the Bill would ensure that the data was consistent and would help everybody.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Again, that is going a little bit further than either the amendment or the Bill as it stands, because the collecting of data in this area is a very complicated task, and we know that collecting data in general is quite tricky. What I am saying is that I am not entirely convinced at the moment by the argument put forward by the noble Baroness. In all respects, the Government consider that the amendment would not really take things further. Extending the definition of a victim is unnecessary because the issue is already covered.
I should say a word about the county lines problem. A full county lines programme has been in operation now for some years. The figures I have are that we have had 16,000 arrests and 9,000 safeguarding referrals. The Government are working very hard on dealing with the county lines problem, and there is special support through the county lines programme for children involved in that. It is clearly a difficult area, but it is not that nobody is tackling it. Would the amendment take the issue forward particularly in the county lines situation? I respectfully suggest that that is doubtful. So that is the Government’s position on child criminal exploitation.
On homicides of British nationals abroad, again the Government are entirely sympathetic to the various points that have been made. On a point of detail, since we are talking about what the victims’ code should cover, if the perpetrator of the murder is another British national, then that can be an offence triable in this country and it would trigger the application of the victims’ code. But most of these cases will be where the perpetrator is not a British national, and it seems reasonably clear that, where the offence or murder or homicide is in Ecuador or Peru or South Africa or wherever it is, large parts of the victims’ code by their nature will not be applicable. The various rights to information, the various rights about prosecution decisions and the right to make a personal statement would all, by the nature of the situation, not apply. From a quick look at the victims’ code, rights 1 to 3 and 6 to 11, for example, just would not apply. I think that leaves, essentially, right 4, which is the right to victims services. At the moment, the support available is provided by the Homicide Service, which in the United Kingdom is provided by Victim Support, a most excellent organisation, to which the Foreign Office can refer victims.
So there is already, by proxy, support for victims of homicide abroad, but I think that the complaint is that it is not sufficient. Hearing that complaint, the Government, as we develop the new victims’ code, will review the information provided for bereaved families of victims of homicide abroad so we can be clear what the entitlements of families are. The NPCC, the FCDO and the MoJ have committed to working together to explore separate guidance, to be referenced within the code, specifying the roles and responsibilities of each department and their services. That would act as a public commitment on how they will work together to support bereaved families and, I think, provide the consistent protocol—to use the words that were being used some moments ago—to assist families in this very difficult position.
Finally, in relation to the amendment regarding carers—
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. In the plan he has just outlined of the three departments working together, does he envisage establishing a checklist that FCDO staff in every embassy and consulate will have that will mean they will prospectively know about interpreters and appropriate lawyers who could be pulled in, in the event of there being a homicide in that jurisdiction, so that some of the problems that have arisen to date would be avoided by each consulate and embassy being adequately prepared? Will the education behind that become mandatory guidance, so we would know that, in practice, a clear system had been set up? I would be grateful if he clarified that, because simply the three departments working together here might not influence what happens on the ground elsewhere, learning from the experience of other places.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I do not think I can, at the Dispatch Box this evening, commit the Government to proposing such a checklist in that detail, because the details will have to be worked out. However, the Government hear what the noble Baroness says and it is an obvious matter to consider. That is as far as I can go this evening.
Finally, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will forgive me if I take the question of carers a little bit shortly. The central problem with the amendment is the extension of the code and the rather blurred boundaries that might lead to quite a lot of extra resource demands, extra entitlements and so forth, so the Government are not persuaded that we should go as far as that. However, this point is correctly raised as a social and quasi-legal issue, and I can commit that the Government are already working with the Children’s Commissioner specifically on children’s needs and looking afresh at the needs of vulnerable adults ahead of public consultation on the code. I can commit to considering the experience and needs of parents and carers as they support particular victims through the criminal justice system. As to whether that requires further provision, I can commit to carefully considering how the accompanying statutory guidance might best set out how criminal justice bodies can effectively engage with the very important group that the noble Baroness identifies, who are so key to the support of their loved one, the direct victim, but I think that is as far as I can go on this group.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for summing up so comprehensively —in fact, going over the new Report stage time limit, for which I am grateful. The issues we are talking about, in particular murder abroad, anti-social behaviour and the definition of child criminal exploitation, are long standing and not new; they come back again and again. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said, in a situation such as in 2015, after the incident in Tunisia, the Government decided that they were going to do something about it, got their act together in short order and demonstrated what is possible if they really put their mind to something. In a sense, that is what we are challenging the Government to do, in separate ways, on each of these issues.
On anti-social behaviour, the Minister talked about joining the dots and getting the code right. He admitted that it is not as joined up as it should be. The problem that I think many of us have with the way the Government are responding to some of these issues is that they keep returning to saying what different agencies and individuals should be doing, but they seem very afraid to say what they must be doing. The common theme in all these areas is that we are challenging the Government. Indeed, what are a Government elected to do—albeit not by noble Lords, because we are not allowed to vote—if not to make things happen? That is really what we are looking for. In the case of anti-social behaviour, if the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, decides to test the opinion of the House I would fully endorse that.
On child criminal exploitation, the updated guidance is fine. The key, as ever, is consistency, and at the moment there is a lack of consistency. The Minister said, and I am quoting, that it should be “in the heads” of front-line practitioners. The fact is that it is not in their heads in the same way for all the key front-line practitioners. That is the complexity. The challenge for the Government is to try to get a degree of consistency in the way child criminal exploitation is understood and dealt with, which is clearly not the case at the moment, so there is more to be done.
I thank my noble friend Lady Finlay very much for what she said about homicides abroad. I take the point about what happens if the perpetrator is not a UK national but, again, if the Government really wanted to put their mind to this, I am sure they could find a way. We are talking about such a small group—60 to 80 individuals per annum. It is not beyond the wit of man, let alone a Government, to focus and try to find a way of ameliorating a situation that has been festering for years and really does need to be dealt with. We also have more to do on carers.
I reiterate that the challenge for the Government is that we are looking for guidance from them as to what must be happening, not simply what should be happening. That has been the case for the last 15 years, and what should be happening is not happening in so many areas. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(e) where the person has experienced anti-social behaviour, as defined by section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and the conditions necessary for an ASB case review under section 104 of that Act have been met.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would include victims of long-term anti-social behaviour in the statutory definition of a victim.
“(e) where the person is a child who is a victim of child criminal exploitation.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the victims’ code issued under Clause 2 is directed at persons exercising functions of a public nature relating to victims or any aspect of the criminal justice system.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to the relevant government amendments on the victims’ code and compliance, I will summarise the ways in which the Government have strengthened the code and the framework in which the various duties under the code arise.
There are essentially seven points to make quickly. There is a new statutory duty on agencies to act in accordance with the code and a statutory duty to have a complaints procedure. The amendments set out what is now required instead of what “should” happen. There is a duty on Ministers to review the code, and to publish an annual report on compliance and lay that before Parliament. There is a power to issue non-compliance notices, a most important enforcement mechanism. There is significant strengthening of the role of the Victims’ Commissioner, who is empowered to keep under review compliance with the code; has a right to be consulted on all the regulations and guidance, and the code itself; and will also be part of the ministerial task force to enforce the code and the statutory guidance under Clause 11. Those are the various amendments which I will move, but I summarise them as a package so that people can see the whole package as an important strengthening of the code. I hope we have arrived at a very considered position in relation to the status of this code.
I will go through the amendments in turn. Government Amendment 31 would place a statutory duty on relevant agencies to provide services in accordance with the victims’ code unless there is a good reason not to. This duty does not give agencies licence in any way to ignore the code. It allows for a bit of operational discretion to cope with circumstances where the agency is, for whatever reason, short of resources or cannot quite meet the timescale or whatever, but it places that statutory duty firmly on the agencies. In addition, Amendment 31 places a duty on relevant agencies to have complaints procedures for non-compliance with their duty to provide services in accordance with the code. That is a duty that has been elevated from the code into the statute, to demonstrate that complaints must be taken seriously and victims should receive the level of service they are entitled to and deserve. Government Amendments 33, 38, 40, 42, 98 and 99 are consequential on that.
There is a short amendment, Amendment 9, that makes it clear that the victims’ code is applicable only to
“persons exercising functions of a public nature”.
That is a small tidying-up amendment and is, I hope, not controversial.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I have proposed Amendment 16 to ensure that all victims have the same right to have a CPS or police decision reviewed. At present, the criminal justice system does not allow the same right for all victims. This anomaly, which the Government seem to want to retain, has arisen because of the inherited EU legislation that we have adopted. It could be put right if my amendment is accepted. We have discussed amendments on how to strengthen the Bill in relation to victims of anti-social behaviour and child sexual exploitation. This amendment seeks to help those types of victims and victims of other horrific crimes such as gang rapes—in other words, crimes committed by multiple perpetrators.
At present, a review can be requested only if there are no perpetrators. In cases where some perpetrators are charged, or even one perpetrator is charged, and others are not, a victim cannot then go and ask why the other perpetrators are not being charged. It is not about opening up new cases; it is about reviewing the decisions that have been made. We know that the police and CPS make mistakes. There have been cases where there have been no charges at all and, when a review has taken place, charges have been brought forward.
One argument used against the amendment is that it could delay justice for the perpetrators who have been charged; but surely, at that point, it could be explained to the victim that, if they go for review, it may delay the process. At least the victim can then make an informed choice. They may decide that, actually, they do not want to have a review.
Including the amendment in the Bill would not only help victims to have the same right to review but would make sure that the police and CPS were not cutting corners. At present, the system works in favour of the CPS and the police rather than the victims. In cases where there are multiple perpetrators, they can choose to charge some perpetrators or just one, fully knowing that their decision cannot be challenged. That is exactly what happened in a case on the helpline of the charity that I run: the Muslim Women’s Network, in which I declare my interest as the CEO. In that case, where a woman was gang-raped, only one person was charged; the other perpetrators were not. She was shocked, and she tried to get a review, but was unable to get one. That resulted in more trauma and the case was then dropped.
Charging one person involves far less work than charging several perpetrators. I am not suggesting that police are cutting corners in every case, but it is plausible to suggest that this may, and does, happen some of the time.
We know also that racism exists in the criminal justice system, and there is plenty of data showing that minority-ethnic victims are treated less favourably in the system. The loophole that currently exists in the right to review could lead to further inequalities. The amendment would therefore also help to reduce the misuse of police and CPS power.
I thank the Minister for meeting me online last week and discussing this in more detail. I know that he understands the concerns. One suggestion has been that, in exceptional circumstances, in the cases that I have described, there could be a right to review, but, unless that is written down somewhere, it simply will not happen. If it can be included in the code of practice, the term “exceptional circumstances” will need to be defined. I hope that I can persuade the Minister to change his mind and accept my amendment.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly on several amendments. On Amendment 16, on which the noble Baroness has just spoken, it is hard in principle to disagree with her. Clearly there is an anomaly here that needs to be dealt with. The way that it is working at the moment is inconsistent and not as clear as it could be. I do not think I need to say any more than that. I echo her wish that the Minister and the Bill team will reflect on this and find a way of clarifying the situation and improving the lot of those victims. One can hardly imagine what it must be like to be a victim of the type that the noble Baroness described and to find that, having been violated by a whole series of perpetrators, they have absolutely no idea why one is singled out and the others are left out. I entirely endorse and support that amendment.
On Amendments 46 and 47, about publishing code compliance, we have made—I thank the Minister for this—significant progress in this area, so I do not need to talk any further about that.
I will speak a little bit about Amendment 58, on training, which is in my name with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Clause 6 of the Bill says that criminal justice bodies must
“take reasonable steps to promote awareness of the victims’ code”
to victims, but what it fails to mandate is that professionals within those bodies receive any form of training. In our view, the Bill should ensure that all organisations that come within the victims’ code not only understand it but are capable of delivering the rights that the victims’ code embodies.
There is a clear evidence base for training and a widespread lack of awareness of victims’ rights. In Committee, the Minister said:
“The noble Lords are quite right that there is an obvious need for more training”,
but he also said:
“The Government hesitate to have a national training framework because so much will depend on the local situation”.—[Official Report, 5/2/24; cols. 1467-68.]
I understand that point of view but I am not sure I entirely agree with it.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Minister for all the conversations and meetings we have had with his officials and other Peers. In Committee I expressed my concerns about provisions in the Bill, so I am speaking in support of Amendments 46 and 47 but, having listened to the Minister, I am delighted that we have resolved this issue.
The provisions in the Bill relating to delivering code compliance are important because they must be strong enough to give effect to the level of change that we require. I have always maintained that the success of this Bill will depend on whether future victims receive their code entitlements. I am delighted that the Government have listened to our concerns and reviewed their proposals. The government amendments tabled last week are an important step in the right direction. Statutory non-compliance notices, coupled with statutory changes to ensure that future Victims’ Commissioners are able to provide rigorous scrutiny of compliance data, are important and I welcome them.
Naturally, I want to see the Government go further. It is important that details on how the Government’s compliance regime will operate are set out clearly in statutory guidance. I also want to see trigger points for non-compliance enforcement to be set out clearly. I am delighted that there will be transparency as the minutes of the task force meeting will be made public.
Of course, setting out a compliance regime is one thing but making it happen is another. I do not underestimate the challenges in building a dataset that provides us with a comprehensive understanding of exactly what is happening and what is not. Importantly, we also need to understand how well services and entitlements are being delivered. While these provisions are a step in the right direction, we still have a long way to go before we can say that all victims are getting the support they deserve.
We must not confine ourselves to compliance monitoring. We need to tackle the culture of our criminal justice system when it comes to victims. Earlier the Minister referred to training, which certainly has an important part to play, but we need to go further to understand why the victims’ code is of secondary importance in the eyes of so many practitioners.
Defendants have statutory rights; victims do not. The victims’ code was described to me by a government lawyer as “persuasive guidance”, but at times I, along with many victims, would question just how persuasive it actually is. I make no secret of the fact that I would like to see victims’ rights elevated to statutory rights as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in Amendment 23. I also support Amendment 16 from the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir. It is important that every victim has a right to review when there are multiple defendants in the dock. As somebody who has personally experienced that, it is so important for the victim to have that individual right to make sure they get answers and an understanding of what is going on.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is pretty much an understatement to say that it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner. She and my noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon are very special Members of your Lordships’ House, if I may say so, for their extraordinary superpower and ability to turn experiences that no one should have to endure into a subsequent lifetime of public service, for which I think we are all very grateful.
I will take my lead from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. I do not think it is a secret that my many amendments in this group were tabled with her blessing and that of the London Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman. I am also grateful to a number of victims’ groups and NGOs for their support of these amendments.
This is Report, not Committee, and we have had a long day, so I do not want to trouble noble Lords for too long, but I am grateful to the Minister and his team. Petty France may have shown Marsham Street that it is possible to engage just a little—half a loaf is better than no bread. Of course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and I are going to disagree about the extent to which government amendments to this part of the Bill are a huge step in the right direction, but they are a step. I thank him and his team, including those who are not in your Lordships’ Chamber. This is the way, perhaps, that we ought to try to do legislation.
The motive behind my many amendments was to try to put victims’ rights on a proper statutory footing and to make them equivalent to suspects’ and defendants’ rights. Divide and rule is a really bad thing, and for decades Governments of both persuasions have sometimes been able to be in an arms race where victims’ rights are set against defendants’ rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, put it so eloquently yesterday at Questions, if you treat a suspect badly and delay justice, that is justice denied. The same is true for victims, and for some years now we have told victims that they have rights and a code, but those rights have been totally unenforceable and that is not fair. That false expectation has caused enormous trauma and concern.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for moving things on just a little, but I hope that a future Government of any persuasion will go further still. I hope I am not dishonouring the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and letting her down in saying that. I can say thank you for what has been achieved but still be more ambitious for change.
The justice department has, I think, had the biggest cuts of any department in recent years. To deliver rights for victims takes resources and investment. Sometimes with suspects’ and defendants’ rights, you can deliver something by holding back, but when it is victims’ rights you really need to invest in the different entrances—in the staff of any criminal justice agency who will be there and so on. I am so grateful and do not want to seem churlish, because this is something, but I hope that it is the building block for further reforms so that we can have a level playing field.
Finally, I remind noble Lords that suspects’ rights came from a Conservative piece of human rights legislation: the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Given that both parties often compete for the law and order agenda—forgive me, I should say all parties—it seems odd to me, as a human rights campaigner of many years, that we would entrench and codify suspects’ and defendants’ rights in a way that we have yet to do for victims.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I start by referring to Amendment 16 from the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir. I will not repeat the points she made but she emailed me just prior to us starting this evening’s debates on Report. I am interested that she notes that this is a loophole caused by us exiting the EU. I have immense sympathy with the amendment. If it is a clear anomaly caused by us exiting the EU, I remember considerable debate on the retained EU law Bill about what to do when things were discovered. Ministers said on more than one occasion that in the EU withdrawal Act there is something called the correcting power, and that that can be used to correct any anomalies, providing they are not the Government’s whim because they have changed their policy on something. I do not know the detail because I have not seen where the loophole has come from, but it seems to me, on the amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, has described, that if this is caused by our leaving the EU then there is a remedy of legislation. Perhaps the Ministry of Justice will take that away and look at it, and the Minister will write. It can be done quite simply in most cases by regulation, which is why the retained EU law Bill took such a long time to wind its way through Parliament—I worked on a lot of those amendments. It seems that if the Minister has sympathy with this, there is an easy remedy.
My own Amendment 34 seeks to ensure that each criminal justice body makes arrangements to provide adequate training regarding violence against women and girls for all personnel supporting them. The hour is late, so I will not say very much, other than that there is already a substantial amount of training in other areas but the guidance on what that training should be and how it should happen is not the same. The Domestic Abuse Act statutory guidance is clear, and at paragraph 225 provides that:
“Public agencies should invest in awareness raising, specialist training and systems … to ensure that victims receive effective and safe responses”.
Unfortunately, that is not the same in the code of practice; it is not as strong. My Amendment 34 attempts to strengthen that.
I am mindful of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I know that he has spoken, but his amendment is slightly broader than mine and, if he chooses to divide the House on it next week when we return, I think our Benches will be happy to support him.
I end by reflecting on the debate we have had on the Minister’s amendments and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. It seems to have been the prime debate that we have had since the start of this victims Bill about its function and practice. I echo the thanks from all around the House for the steps that the Government have taken to strengthen it. I am still with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that it is not quite there, but I will take any change at all.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, there is great consensus across the House to say thank you to the Minister and his team for the steps that have taken us forward. I went through all these amendments to look at what they contained. They reminded me of the debates that we had in Committee about the things we wanted to see strengthened in the Bill. We should be pleased that we have made such progress. The Minister has done a great service to the victims’ code and compliance. I am also with my noble friend, in that it is a good start but we would like to go further. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, echoed that.
We would be very pleased on these Benches to support the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, in her amendment. I have been in the House for 26 years and have been in a similar position as a Back-Bencher on something I really cared about and thought should happen. It is possible that we may have a solution from the Liberal Democrat Benches, and that would be great, but there is always another Bill coming down the track. I can say from these Benches with some certainty that, if there is another Bill coming down the track and the noble Baroness goes for it again, we will support her. It sometimes takes a little while but, quite often, if you have an issue that you care about—I think this is a really important issue—you will get there. But perhaps the Minister will say yes to the noble Baroness —let us hope so.
The second issue is in the amendments about training, both of which are very important. We will certainly support the noble Lord, Lord Russell, in his amendment at the appropriate time, when it is dealt with. This is a very good example of how the House works best when we continue to talk to each other about all the things that we want to see happen. It is amazing how often you start a Bill and the Government Benches and the Bill team think that the Bill they have is perfect—of course they do—and should not be changed, but the iterative process of discussion and debate we go through in this House does improve legislation. This is a good example of that.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for the sincerity with which their various points have been made. I will briefly reply to the amendments not proposed by the Government. Unfortunately, while understanding all the points that have been made, the Government are not in a position to accept the amendments as they are. Although noble Lords have been kind enough to say that this is good progress and to express their thanks, I make it absolutely clear that I work with my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk, and he is the boss, and my right honourable friend Minister Argar was responsible for this Bill in the other place. Although it is very kind of noble Lords to make compliments to me, they should please bear in mind that I am part of a wider team, supported by an excellent staff.
We are not in competition with Marsham Street—or at least, we do not see it that way—but under the present Lord Chancellor, progress on this Bill has reflected the current ethos of the Ministry of Justice. I fully welcome and support the plea from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for more financial resources for the Ministry of Justice; that would be wonderful. But we work with what we have and, of course, some of those constraints have provoked the Government’s inability to go quite as far as others would like.
Amendments 23 and 122, from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would place the victims’ code in a schedule to the Bill and make related changes. I hope I have reassured her on our strengthened approach, and that compliance with the code is not optional. It may have been seen as optional in the past, but this is quite a change. As an alternative to Amendment 32, which would promote enforcement through the courts, we have a different non-compliance notification process which I hope will be equally effective. We are very reluctant as a Government to go down a court-based route because that can take up more resources and be less effective and more counter-productive than other routes.
We are very much in favour of the other routes that we have developed, I hope comprehensively, in the Bill, including the need to have clear compliance procedures, bolstering the accountability framework to make sure that there is appropriate recourse and, in particular, relying heavily on the independent scrutiny of the Victims’ Commissioner. So those various mechanisms collectively should give us a good framework; let us give them a good try and see, as noble Lords have suggested. At some point we may need to go further, but this is a good start, is it not? That question is rhetorical, so noble Lords do not have to answer.
Amendments 24, 26, 27, 29 and 30 concern consulting the Victims’ Commissioner. We have effectively covered the same ground in the Government’s amendments, and I do not think I need say any more about that. We have not gone down the route of putting all this through the affirmative procedure. I am not entirely persuaded that the affirmative procedure is as good as it might be, in that you can only say yes or no, et cetera. But the procedures we have for bringing the code into force, reviewing it, issuing it and consulting on it are all good and should work quite well. I hope that, in the light of that, there is no need to pursue those amendments.
Similarly, Amendments 55, 68 and 69—the latter being one of the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool—concern consulting various commissioners and “by and for” services on the duty to collaborate. I am very grateful to all the commissioners who have collaborated with us on developing these measures. We will publish draft guidance on this part of the Bill, but the Government’s position is that the overall framework we have for consultation and publishing guidance is already sufficient and appropriate.
Of course, the department will continue to engage with all national commissioners. I am particularly grateful for the support of the Victims’ Commissioner. I mentioned earlier the Children’s Commissioner, and I work very closely with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. They are all making a very significant contribution to a better system. Of course, we will continue to engage with a whole range of providers, including the “by and for” organisations. It is very much in the Government’s interests to consult and engage as widely as possible, so there is no reason not to.
Amendments 46 and 47 would require code compliance data to be shared with the Victims’ Commissioner. We have put forward a number of amendments to make the central role of the Victims’ Commissioner clear. I hope these are sufficient to place the Victims’ Commissioner at the heart and centre of the system, remembering that they already have existing and separate powers to issue reports and recommendations, and, under this Bill, the agencies have to respond to them.
This brings me to the important subject of code training in Amendments 34 and 58 from the noble Lord, Lord Russell. He is rightly concerned about this and has emphasised it throughout. I do not at all hide behind this fact, but if you believe in devolution—and we have 43 different police forces, different local authorities and 43 police and crime commissioners—you have to accept a certain degree of difference in the way those authorities operate. That is inherent in any devolved system. None the less, it is of fundamental importance that front-line staff are adequately trained to support victims of all crimes. That is why I can and do commit to using the statutory guidance to be issued under Clause 11 to set a clear expectation that agencies should have adequate training on the code so that staff know what the code is, can inform victims of their entitlements under it and do their job in a way that complies with it.
The Government are of the view that legislation is not the right place for such matters, given the level of operational detail required and the diverse requirements of the various organisations delivering the code. However, we appreciate that there needs to be a mechanism to ensure that training not only exists but is effective. I believe we can achieve the right balance by committing to prescribing in the regulations that bodies must collect and share information on the training they have in place to ensure that the code is delivered effectively as part of the delivery assessments within the compliance framework.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
The Minister mentioned that he works very closely with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. Given what I said about her experience that, for training, the statutory guidance which is part of the Domestic Abuse Act is very inconsistent, despite being statutory guidance, will he undertake to go back to her and explore in more detail what she has experienced since the Act was passed and see whether any lessons can be learned that can be applied immediately to this Bill?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am quite happy to accept the noble Lord’s invitation to have a conversation with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner to explore her experience and see whether it is transferable to what we are discussing here.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I hesitated to intervene in this debate, but with the leave of the House I will add a thought for the Minister. Keeping training up to date is important because the understanding of the issues is developing quite dramatically. Nobody would have identified the acronym VAWG not that long ago and our understanding of what comprises violence against women and girls, for instance, is developing very fast.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as always, made a very pertinent point: we must have up-to-date training. Both learning and knowledge in this area are developing very quickly. That is quite a challenge for the authorities, but we should meet it— I fully accept that. Of course, under the compliance framework, there are powers to issue non-compliance notices and to understand why agencies are falling down. Almost certainly, a lack of training will be an explanatory factor in underperformance, so that will be overseen by Ministers, the criminal justice agencies and the Victims’ Commissioner.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments of subsection (3) of Clause 2 clarify the principles that must underpin the victims’ code issued under that clause.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments of subsection (3) of Clause 2 clarify the principles that must underpin the victims’ code issued under that clause.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments of subsection (3) of Clause 2 clarify the principles that must underpin the victims’ code issued under that clause.
Baroness Coussins
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 13 is in my name. I remind the House about my various interests in relation to languages and linguists.
In Committee, I proposed four amendments in relation to language services, but I accepted the Minister’s argument, in relation to three of them anyway, that they concerned operational detail rather than matters of principle and were therefore more appropriate for guidance or regulations in the future than for putting in the Bill. However, the fourth of my amendments in Committee and the subject of the amendment I have tabled this evening is in a different category altogether. I feel very strongly that it is a matter of principle, which is why I have brought it back at this stage. It is the principle that, where interpreting and translation services are needed by victims, as they have a right to expect under the victims’ code, those interpreters and translators should be qualified and professional.
I am very grateful indeed to the Minister and his officials for meeting me twice and for giving careful, serious attention to the points I made in Committee about the importance of this issue. I understand that there is a reluctance on the part of the Government to add new points to the Bill. I had thought that by getting this issue into the Bill itself, it would be given more weight and less wriggle room. However, I also understand that the intention now is that the status of the code itself will be effectively upgraded and more binding than it is at present.
We have heard this evening about the very welcome government amendments about, for example, a statutory duty on relevant bodies to provide services in accordance with the revised code and a duty of compliance on relevant public bodies. Therefore, in the light of all that, I can see that my fears of non-compliance with anything short of what is actually in the Bill could fall away because of this elevated status.
I have been very encouraged by what has been suggested to me by the Minister as a positive alternative to my amendment. I assume that he will be sharing with the House what he has already been generous enough to share with me, which is a significant strengthening of the wording of the relevant parts of the victims’ code in relation to interpreting and translation services. I have consulted with the Chartered Institute of Linguists, the National Register of Public Service Interpreters, and the Bell Foundation, and all these organisations also regard the proposed draft revisions to the code as a very welcome step in the right direction.
I suppose I should not say any more about what is proposed myself, as I am sure that the Minister will want to do that. Suffice it to say that the two key words “professional” and “qualified” make a decisive appearance in the proposed revisions. If the Minister confirms this tonight, I will regard it as a positive outcome that delivers on my objective and shows that the Government have taken my point seriously, and I thank the Minister most sincerely for his engagement and his willingness to get this right.
I hope that these changes, if they come to fruition, will mean that we will no longer see services resorting to drafting in the court usher, the hospital porter who happens to speak Polish, the neighbour’s teenage son because he is doing Spanish at school or the man who runs the Chinese restaurant up the road. These are all real examples that have been brought to my attention. I hope that, if we are looking instead at what should be there, which is to do with professional, qualified interpreters and translators, all that will be a thing of the past.
In closing, I caution the Minister and his department to be aware that there will be very close monitoring of these aspects of the revised victims’ code to assess compliance. It is well worth reflecting that the use of professional, qualified interpreters and translators is not just right and proper for the victims, who need their services; it cuts both ways, also enabling those responsible for the administration of justice and the quality of justice to understand better what has happened and what needs to be done about it. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and, for the moment, I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches we pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for her absolute and consistent determination that we should be reminded about the need for professionally qualified interpreters. We had a good debate in Committee on her previous amendments. I will not repeat what I said then. I have torn up what I was going to say because I will be very interested to know what the Minister is going to say. I hope that the noble Baroness gets some very good news.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who has pursued this matter doggedly. We have all received emails updating us on the discussions. I too look forward to what the Minister says. We all have our own horror stories of inappropriate translation and interpretation. I am sure that the Minister has from his career, too; it is a feature of life in courts and the wider criminal justice system. Nevertheless, I will listen with anticipation to what the Minister has to say.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, talking of experiences, my abiding memory is of a case in the county court where the interpreter opened the proceedings by telling the judge that he was deaf. Matters deteriorated from there.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, very much for her Amendment 13. The Government recognise that victims must be confident that the criminal justice process will be accessible to them so that they can participate effectively, regardless of their first language. We think that details of the specialist support services are better in the code, but I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her constructive engagement on this issue.
As she is aware, we have been drafting strengthening content for right 1 of the victims’ code, which is the right to understand and be understood, ahead of publicly consulting after this Bill has received Royal Assent. This strengthened wording makes it clear that victims are entitled to access interpreting and translation services from qualified professionals. “Qualified” and “professionals” are the decisive words that the noble Baroness referred to. I hope that I have reassured her that we have heard and considered her arguments carefully and are committed to addressing their intent through the victims’ code. On that basis, I invite her not to press her amendment.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, all I can do is once again thank the Minister and, indeed, all noble Lords who have supported my amendment throughout the process of this Bill and all who have spoken this evening in support. I thank the Bill team as well as the Minister, because they have all been extremely helpful in our discussions. I look forward to the public consultation on a revised, strengthened victims’ code, and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments of subsection (3) of Clause 2 clarify the principles that must underpin the victims’ code issued under that clause.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments of subsection (3) of Clause 2 clarify the principles that must underpin the victims’ code issued under that clause.
Baroness Fox of Buckley
“(e) should be able to secure access to support from an individual of the same sex as registered at birth and women-only support service provision should be confined to those registered women at birth.”
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 17 and 18. It is interesting listening to the discussion that we have had this evening, because many people that I speak to, particularly women, assume that the consultation on the victims’ code or discussions on enhancing victims’ rights will mean better support for female victims, particularly in relation to service provision. All that Amendment 17 seeks to do is to clarify what I am sure is the intention of the Bill, which is to be supportive of, for example, single-sex provision for women and the appropriate service provision that can be given, and to ensure that we know what we are talking about.
It might appear that getting a commitment that police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities will all work together to commission support services for, for example, victims of domestic abuse or sexual abuse, ensuring that they can access the services that they need, and lots of discussion about services by women and for women, would be clear enough. However, as I explained in Committee and in a much-appreciated and helpful meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and officials— I back up what others have said about how it was refreshing to have a Minister, or someone from the team, who is prepared to talk to us quite openly—having heard from the charity Sex Matters, all is not as it seems. I fear that, if the Government do not address this by sorting out the language and clarifying matters, their aspiration to enhance female victims’ rights will suffer because of confusion over the law and over the definition of sex.
“By women and for women” might seem a straightforward proposition until we ask, “What is a woman?” In 2024, that has become a contentious question. Over recent years, we have lost clarity over what we mean by the categories “men” and “women”, and that can undermine women’s services. This has happened due to the insistence from some quarters—often very powerful quarters—that women’s services must be trans inclusive by including men who identify as women in what should be women-only provision.
For example, the terms of references for Avon and Somerset Police women’s independent advisory group—to use just one example—state: “In this group we use ‘women’ as a term that is inclusive of the legally protected characteristic of female sex and gender identity as well as gender expression and those who are perceived and treated as women and those who identify as women”. This is such an expansive, non-material, confusing definition of women.
The amendment is simply trying to ensure that, where the victims’ code talks about services for women or makes any assumption that there will be services for women victims, we use the clear category of “sex as registered at birth”, rather than that ever-expansive term in which women—as in biological natal women—are merely a subcategory of this newly expanded definition of women.
Sometimes we are told that, unless trans women are treated as women, it would be in breach of Schedule 3 to the Equality Act. The Government need to clarify the law in this regard because, in fact and in law, a service can be female-only as a matter of policy. Apart from anything else, the Equality Act requires public authorities to have due regard to meeting the specific needs of women.
Another misunderstood factor is that even when a person has acquired a different gender under the Gender Recognition Act, that does not affect the status of the person as a man or a woman in relation to the Equality Act. Indeed, it would be helpful if the Government could give clear guidance to people applying for GRCs that this change in documentation does not give them the right to access services or spaces set aside for the opposite sex. Such clear guidance would also be helpful for service providers and commissioners, and in relation to how people read the victims’ code.
I want to illustrate the negative impact of these kinds of confusions on women victims seeking help by citing a worrying but brilliant piece of investigative journalism. Children of Transitioners has collated evidence that there is no women-only service provision in Bristol. This mirrors exactly the situation in Brighton that I described in some detail in Committee. I have detailed examples from Bristol, but I appreciate that the House will not bear with me so I will not go through them. Needless to say, if you are a woman who has been raped or sexually assaulted or suffers domestic abuse and reports it to police officers in Bristol, they will suggest to these distraught women—these victims—where they can get further support. They may well be sent to “by women and for women” provision, which those police officers feel are safe spaces. It is just that when you actually look at the provision in Bristol, you will find consistently that women-only services are also accessible to and welcome trans women. Trans women are men who identify as women and should be provided with services as appropriate, but not in women-only services. So this provision is not actually women only; it is mixed sex.
I was struck by the fact that, when the integrated care board of Bristol lists a range of “by women and for women” organisations, an example it gives is Womankind. Noble Lords would think that, with a title like that, the clue would be in the name. Womankind calls itself a service for women and girls. Online, it displays lovely suffragette colours. What is not to like? Actually, in correspondence with Womankind, another story emerges. Womankind says that it is for women and for
“those who identify as such in a significant way, including those who experience discrimination as … for instance, trans women … and non-binary”.
Womankind confirmed, after the investigation was done, that there is not one abuse support service in Bristol for natal women victims alone. Its advice for those unhappy with the situation was to “try London”, which seems extraordinary.
I use these examples because I know from replies from the Dispatch Box and at the meeting that there is very much a feeling that this is not a problem that the Government have detected when meeting service providers and commissioners. It is important to dig beneath the language of saying, “There is provision available; what’s the problem?”. It depends on who you ask. Bristol Women’s Voice—an organisation that claims to represent women’s voices to the council and to the police—does not see a problem, so in that sense if the Government were talking to that organisation they would think that there is no problem. But Bristol Women’s Voice does not think there is a problem because it also has a policy of trans-plus inclusion in relation to its definition of what a woman is.
It would also be naive not to look at the evidence about layers of public bodies and local authorities being lobbied and influenced by ideologically driven NGOs such as Stonewall, which has been much in the news of late. Ministers also tell us that it is up to service providers to choose the most appropriate services. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, heard from the evidence from Helen Joyce and Maya Forstater in the Sex Matters report, Women’s Services: a Sector Silenced, that many of those who provide women-only services often self-censor to placate funders and to avoid being investigated, ostracised, disciplined or maligned as bigots, all of which are career-threatening.
In case you think this is all hyperbole and question what I am talking about, there is a very similar pattern here to those whistleblowing medics at the Tavistock Clinic whose stories of malpractice have now so vividly been exposed in the Cass review as true. They were maligned for raising them. It is to the credit of Victoria Atkins that her excellent Statement in the other place drew this out. Credit is also due to Wes Streeting from the Opposition, who also accepted that the Cass review was an important step forward. Kemi Badenoch made the point:
“Had those who warned that gender services in the NHS had been hijacked by ideologues been listened to instead of gagged, children would not have been harmed and the Cass review would not have been required”.
So, although I am making a fuss, I want to say to the Government that maybe they should listen to the warnings from whistleblowers in the women’s services sector who are explaining that we are denying women victims single-sex provision, causing great harm and trauma for vulnerable women who might self-exclude and might well not even seek support if services to which they are referred may include men identifying as women.
I will say something very quickly about Amendment 18, because I discussed it fully in Committee. This is an attempt to use the victims’ code to tackle a loophole whereby, if incarcerated or registered sex offenders change their gender, even just by a self-declaration, they are afforded enhanced privacy protection that allows their new identity to disappear from view in terms of criminal justice and normal safeguarding procedures and before criminal justice bodies. Through the sensitivity applications route, a sex offender who changes their gender identity can conceal their past identity and sex for the purpose of, for example, disclosure and barring services—DBS—checking processes. This means that a sex offender’s past name and identity are not displayed on any DBS certificates; they can have their self-declared gender identity instead.
In Committee, I explained that the reason I knew about this loophole was due to the story of Clive Bundy. He was imprisoned for 15 years in 2016 for sexually abusing his own daughter, Ceri-Lee Galvin, throughout her childhood, but was released half way through his sentence. Clive Bundy changed his gender before his early release and became a self-identifying woman, named Claire Fox. This is what drew my attention to this particular case.
This amendment tackles the anomaly that, due to Bundy’s enhanced privacy rights in relation to his gender change, Ceri-Lee, his victim and his daughter, had no right to know that he had been released as a woman called Claire. After his release, Clive Bundy, also known as Claire Fox, went to live in the same town as his daughter and her daughter. As Claire Fox, he could apply for jobs or to be a volunteer locally and work with children, including potentially his own granddaughter and no one would know. Any DBS check would not show up red flags and the family would not be forewarned. Amendment 18 wants the Government to look at whether they can do something about this loophole.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for tabling Amendment 17, which seeks to ensure that victims are able to access support from someone of the same sex, as registered at birth, and that women-only support service provision is confined to those registered as women at birth. I also want to thank the noble Baroness and Maya Forstater and Helen Joyce from Sex Matters for their time in discussing these matters with me yesterday, ahead of this debate.
From the outset, let me be clear that this Government recognise the importance of a victim feeling confident that they can ask for particular things, such as someone of a particular sex to make them feel comfortable and help them best engage with support. We also recognise that single-sex services can and should be provided in some circumstances. That is why we have written to providers who receive funding from our rape and sexual abuse support fund to make clear our expectation that they should take reasonable steps to provide spaces which exclude service users who are not biologically female or male, where that has been requested by a victim and where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, in line with the Equality Act 2010.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
At this late hour, I will read what has been said in Hansard and write with any clarifications, if that is okay with the Minister. It is important to acknowledge that this is not a straightforward issue, because of the ideological context in which it is occurring. I hope that noble Lords will read the Cass review and details of the brilliant discussion on it yesterday in the other place, and see that this is not simply a technical matter. That needs to be taken into account.
I also register my great disappointment that noble Lords from the Opposition parties had nothing to say in relation to single-sex provision for women victims. However late it is and however unpopular I am, I just think it is a shame. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Tuesday 23rd April 2024
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 57-II(Rev)(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Revised Marshalled List) - (23 Apr 2024)
16:59 - Division on Amendment 19 - Ayes: 82 / Noes: 211 - Amendment 19 disagreed.
17:35 - Division on Amendment 57 - Ayes: 200 / Noes: 192 - Amendment 57 agreed.
17:46 - Division on Amendment 58 - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 192 - Amendment 58 agreed.
18:54 - Division on Amendment 77 - Ayes: 168 / Noes: 177 - Amendment 77 disagreed.
19:53 - Division on Amendment 80 - Ayes: 144 / Noes: 154 - Amendment 80 disagreed.
Baroness Brinton
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) must make provision for a person to be able to obtain free of charge, on request, a transcript of the court’s summing up and sentencing remarks from a trial in which—(a) the person was a victim of a crime, and(b) that crime is tried in a court where the hearing is recorded.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment will provide all victims with a right to free transcripts of the sentencing remarks and the judge’s summing up where the trial takes place in a court where the hearing is recorded.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 19 in my name was originally proposed by my honourable friend Sarah Olney MP in another place. It highlights a scandalous failure towards victims, especially in the most serious crimes such as rape, serious sexual assault and stalking. It is completely unacceptable in this day and age that victims are forced to pay thousands of pounds to access a transcript of their own case while defendants can access them as part of their basic rights.
Let me quote:
“Accessing transcripts from proceedings in serious criminal cases is not only a fundamental right of victims but is also essential for maintaining transparency and accountability within the justice system”.
These are not my words, or Sarah Olney MP’s words; they are the words of the Government’s own Minister, Mike Freer.
In order to recover and cope, victims and family members need to be able to understand the reason a verdict has been reached, or the reason a certain sentence was imposed. Without this, many are left traumatised and are unable to move on with their lives. We have heard from many victims, saying they are constantly advised by the police and prosecutors not to attend a trial after they have given their evidence and, worse, not to attend sentencing hearings. Letters from the witness care unit literally capitalised the word “NOT” in “You are NOT required to attend”. Furthermore, videolinks to observe trials are rarely offered or facilitated for victims or bereaved families.
Unfortunately, the Government have cited the cost of court transcripts delivered through contracts with private, profit-making companies, and these prices can be prohibitive. With that, we agree. While the average sentencing remarks may only be £45 to £60, according to the Government, many complex cases can be significantly higher just for these comments—up to £200. The judge’s summing up can be higher still and we have heard of figures of over £500.
We are very grateful to the Government, and to the Minister particularly, for the meetings we had since Committee. We note that there is a pilot proposed. While the pilot proposed by the Government is welcome for these victims, it simply does not go far enough. It would, for example, not support the mother whose partner attempted to murder her and who is unable to move on. The pilot is very narrow in scope, running only for one year, only applying to victims of rape and serious sexual offences, and only giving access to sentencing remarks. Furthermore, we are not quite sure that the Government are clear on what they are hoping the pilot will achieve or demonstrate. We have discussed, with the Minister, the issue about data, and that remains an issue.
Ministers have suggested that transcripts are expensive to produce manually and the technology to automate the process is either expensive or not yet up to the standard. We do understand this point from the Government. This is why my amendment has been tabled, following discussion in Committee. Automation of the process at this stage would be needed only if the cost of producing transcripts was beyond the reach of government. In limiting this amendment to only sentencing remarks and summing up, we believe the cost, while prohibitive to many victims individually, is able to be taken on by the Government to provide open justice.
In conversations, the Government have questioned whether sentencing remarks really present a barrier. We know that they do, and I will give two very brief examples in a minute. Ministers have, on at least two occasions, said victims can go to a Crown Court and listen to the relevant audio recordings from the trial but may not record it themselves or transcribe it. This is wholly impractical, unknown among professionals, and we have never seen it happen once in practice. Having spoken with members of the judiciary, they were unaware that the practice even existed. The victims we are aware of who have tried to access this have all been denied.
The Minister has also previously stated that, in certain cases, a copy of the sentencing remarks can be made available to the public free of charge at the judge’s discretion. If this is true, members of the judiciary whom we have talked to are also unaware of this. We are certainly aware of some cases where they have been refused.
Here are two very brief cases. Juliana Terlizzi was quoted thousands of pounds for a transcript of her trail, and said:
“The trial was a culmination of almost two years I had fought to bring a dangerous, prolific sexual predator to justice. I was shocked to find out that I had to pay over £7,000 to get the transcript and I knew I couldn’t afford that”.
Rowan, whose daughter went through a gruelling court experience said:
“My daughter remains traumatised by her two days on the witness stand where she was character assassinated by the defence barrister.”
To prove the defence acted outside their own code of conduct, the family needed a copy of the court transcript and was quoted £22,000. This puts justice beyond the reach of victims.
There are other victims as well whom I have met and talked to: Charlotte, David, Victoria, Lily and Rosie. Those are not all their real names, because some of them are too scared to have their names mentioned. I particularly thank Claire Waxman and her team at the London Victims’ Commissioner’s office.
I have also signed some other amendments in this group and will be very brief. I have signed Amendments 57 and 59 on collaboration and adding stalking to the duty to collaborate. I have also added my name to Amendment 66 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on supporting a parliamentary report, once every three years, setting out the position regarding stalking. Importantly, I have also signed the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester’s Amendment 70, about the Secretary of State including statutory guidance on sustainable, multi-year contracts. One of the big problems we have with victim services at the moment is that there is nothing in the medium term, let alone long-term planning.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, a number of the amendments in this group are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Thornton.
Addressing first Amendment 19, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has spoken to, we agree with every word she said about the importance of this amendment. Access to transcripts for victims seems basic, given that this is a victims Bill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, eloquently set out her case. Unfortunately, if she is to press this question to a Division, we will abstain. I regret that position, but it is a reality of the costs involved implicit within the amendment. I know that the Minister is going to acknowledge the desirability of court transcripts; I know that judges acknowledge that as well. There needs to be a technical fix for this, which will take a certain amount of investment and redrafting of existing contracts. But it is eminently achievable and I hope that the Minister will explain how the Government propose to achieve this end.
Moving on to Amendment 57, which is in my noble friend’s name, this proposed new clause would place a duty on specified public authorities to co-operate with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses. The Government have previously agreed that it was vital for bodies to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. However, the Government Minister, Mr Argar, previously stated that the Government chose not to add the duty to the Bill as they
“have not seen any evidence that there have been problems with a lack of co-operation in practice and therefore feel that the additional duty is unnecessary”.—[Official Report, Commons, Victims and Prisoners Bill Committee, 29/6/23; col. 258.]
They concluded that it was neither “necessary or proportionate” to alter the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner in this way.
The proposed clause would allow the commissioner to request a specific public authority to co-operate with them in any way they considered necessary for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the victims’ code. It also places a duty on the specified public authority to comply with that request. The clause would increase the powers and authority of the Victims’ Commissioner, in line with those of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who is the most recent commissioner to be granted that power. These powers are essential for commissioners to drive forward change, and to hold agencies and national government to account for their role in responding to domestic abuse. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to grant the Victims’ Commissioner the same authority. I know that the Minister has moved in a number of ways on this issue, and I will listen very carefully to what he says when considering how to proceed with this amendment.
Amendment 61 is in my name. It seeks to ensure that consideration of children’s support needs is built into the heart of the Bill. We require that authorities must provide evidence in the published strategy of how they are meeting victims’ and survivors’ needs under the duty to collaborate. The needs of children are distinct from those of adults. It is vital that this legislation directs named authorities to explicitly consider this when delivering victim support services. They must be held accountable.
The support that children and young people require after experiencing abuse or exploitation is specialised in nature. It demands services and practitioners that understand their specific needs and requirements. We must support authorities to get it right for children. In order for the duty to collaborate model to be successful, the Bill must direct attention to and seek consultation with those who are best placed to understand the needs of children affected by abuse and exploitation.
I remember attending various meetings with other noble Lords taking part in this Report stage about the very specialist support that children need and the ambition to arrange things so that children have to tell their story only once. That is a difficult ambition to achieve and it works only when different authorities integrate their support, with people who understand children’s particular vulnerabilities. This amendment seeks to address that issue.
Amendments 72 and 73 are in my name. They state that the Secretary of State must issue guidance about specified victim support roles in England, but that Welsh Ministers should issue guidance in Wales. I tabled the amendment on behalf of the Welsh Government. The same amendment was tabled during similar stages in the other place. The Government have tabled Amendment 75, because previously there was no requirement in the guidance for the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers. The government amendment is an improvement to the Bill—we acknowledge that—because it will require the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers about the guidance to be issued under Clause 15. Nevertheless, I will listen with interest to the Minister’s response to Amendments 72 and 73, although I acknowledge that Amendment 75 has gone part way to meeting the requests in the amendments in my name. I will certainly not be pressing my amendments to a vote.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, this is quite a large group and I will speak briefly on the amendments I have my name to or on which I have something to say.
The first amendment in the group, from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is on free transcripts. What I would ask the Government—I think the answer will be yes—is whether they agree in principle that this is and should be a right of victims: a proportionate right, without exorbitant costs and without needing pages and pages of transcripts. Do they agree that it is a fundamental right for victims to have the essence of what is said in a trial that involves them or their perpetrator, to understand the deliberations and the verdict that the judge and jury have come to, in a form and manner that is helpful to them and that they can use? In the same way that prisoners or perpetrators who have been found guilty go to appeal, the right that they have to access transcripts—quite rightly—is completely disproportionate when compared with the current right of victims to get almost any proceedings from the trials that concern them.
I think we are looking and hoping for an acceptance by the Government that the principle is right, understandable and correct; we are trying to find a practical way of achieving a form for that right to be exercised in a proportionate way for victims. While the RASSO model is a good start, it is clearly quite limited in extent. I will listen very carefully to what the Minister says in reply, and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will come to her own conclusions about what she decides to do.
Amendment 57, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is about the duty to collaborate. The Minister may recall that, last week, we spoke about the fact that, if there is not a duty to collaborate, certain agencies will take it upon themselves to interpret statutory guidance in a way that is convenient to them, rather than in a way that is aligned to the requirements of the relevant commissioner.
In particular, I mention the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, Nicole Jacobs. I was able to catch up with Nicole yesterday afternoon—I suspect it was not very long after she ran into the Minister—and we had a discussion. The content of the discussion was that, even if you have statutory guidance that says one should be collaborating, the fact is that some agencies will take that on board in the spirit it is intended and will collaborate, while others will say that they understand in theory that it is very important and should be done but will decide that they have other things that are more important, or that they do not have the time, money or resources to respond. That makes the role of a commissioner extraordinarily difficult.
Data is king. Knowing what is going on is fundamental to interpreting what is and is not working. If you do not have systematic, reliable data from every part of the country, it is very difficult to do one’s job and give sensible advice to the Government. It is hard, frankly, to look victims in the face and say, “We are doing everything we can for you”. Despite the fact that statutory guidance is written down, some agencies are deciding for themselves whether or not to comply. This is clearly unsatisfactory.
I asked the Domestic Abuse Commissioner what she would change, with the benefit of hindsight, about the way in which this was encapsulated in the Domestic Abuse Act and the guidance. She said that it is ultimately about accountability in so many areas; it is about who is ultimately responsible and who will be held to account if something which should be happening is not. At the moment, that is quite unclear. Having 43 different police forces, with police and crime commissioners on top, makes it rather difficult. The commissioner’s instinct was that perhaps one should hold police and crime commissioners’ feet to the fire and make them primarily responsible for ensuring that all the agencies in their jurisdiction take the statutory guidance seriously and comply. If they did not comply, some very awkward questions should then be asked of the police and crime commissioner to find out why.
Another thing that would be helpful is something that we have started to do in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. We have a table which lists each department and ranks them by the egregiousness and inadequacies of their Explanatory Memoranda and the idiocy of their impact assessments. We are hoping that this will concentrate minds because, once again, data is king. It is extraordinarily important that one is able to measure what is going on.
I will listen carefully to what the Minister says on this and to the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. From the well-intended evidence about what we hoped and thought was going to happen in the Domestic Abuse Act, we have a chance to learn from what we thought was going to work well and which is not working so well and to try to do it better this time.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I am so sorry; I thought that the noble Lord had finished.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
Nearly—soon, I devoutly hope, but I have more to talk about, sorry. My Amendment 59 is about the inclusion of stalking within the scope of the duty to collaborate. Alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, I had the privilege of speaking at a conference of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust this morning, because this week is National Stalking Awareness Week. I say on the record that we are extremely grateful that the Home Office issued some new guidance yesterday on the creation of stalking protection orders, which has significantly changed the game. Previously, one had to reach the level of criminality for a stalking protection order to be put in place, but it is now at the level of a civil offence, which is a great improvement that we are extremely grateful for. But I can only emphasise again how important it is that stalking is included. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust made a freedom of information request to every police force about what they were doing on stalking, and only seven had a dedicated stalking officer in place, while 12 of them admitted to having none at all. You have to concentrate on this really hard to make people realise that they have to take it seriously.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester will, I am sure, speak to his amendments, so I will not go on about them, other than to say that I broadly support them. I will listen carefully to the arguments he puts forward and to the Minister’s reply. I understand that any plea that involves pounds and pence does not go down terribly well with His Majesty’s Government at the moment, but I will listen carefully to what they have to say.
Lastly, Amendments 62 and 71 are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, who is unable to be here. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, will speak to those later—I see her nodding, so I do not need to go on at length about them. They are part of our campaign, working with the children’s coalition, to better support children through the provision of services and of advocacy for children, both of which are incredibly important.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 60, 64 and 70, which echo amendments on support services for victims that I tabled in Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for his responses at that stage and for his kindness in meeting me and representatives of Refuge and Women’s Aid in the interim. In light of those conversations, it is not my intention to press any of these amendments to a Division today. However, I hope that, in this debate and in the Minister’s response to it, we can clarify a little further how His Majesty’s Government will seek to ensure that victims across the country have access to quality support services provided by organisations that hold their confidence and understand their specific circumstances. As we are now on Report, I will not repeat the detailed arguments of Committee, but I think their force still stands.
Amendment 60 places a duty on the Secretary of State to define in statutory guidance
“the full breadth of specialist community-based support domestic abuse services”.
This would ensure that victims receive quality support that meets their needs, and that they are made aware of the variety of community-based support available to them. Victims seek various forms of support, which might include advocacy, outreach, floating support, formal counselling or being part of a support group. All of these have a vital role to play. The guidance could cover the holistic support intersectional advocacy that is often provided by what we call “by and for” services —these are particularly helpful for black and minoritised women—as well as those providing specialist advocacy to deaf and disabled people and LGBT+ victims.
The implementation of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 demonstrates why a clear and precise definition is now critical. Under Part 4 of that Act, a statutory duty was placed on local authorities to fund domestic abuse support in safe accommodation. We found that organisations with a much wider remit than domestic abuse, and often services that had no expertise at all, because they are eligible for refuge funding under the duty, have now moved into that area, entering a sector previously run by specialists who really understood the service users.
What we find when local commissioning bodies rely too much on non-specialist organisations—which can be for financial reasons, or because they are easier to get hold of or to deal with—the result is that victims, particularly those from minority backgrounds or specialised contexts, receive much poorer support, yet these are, of course, often among the most vulnerable in our society. The amendment would simply ensure that commissioning bodies have to pay attention to their needs. Although I am not pushing it to a Division, my question to the Minister is: in the absence of placing a duty on the Secretary of State in the Bill, what assurances can he offer us today that the Government will place appropriate pressure on local commissioning bodies to procure the full range of specialist services from specialist organisations that such victims need?
Amendment 64 would require the Secretary of State to address the funding gaps identified by joint strategic needs assessments and support local authorities, integrated care boards and police and crime commissioners to deliver their duties under the duty to collaborate. The amendment has been framed so as to avoid requiring the Secretary of State to go outside the normal spending review processes, which I hope will give some assurances that this is not about trying to break the bank.
Without sufficient funding, it will not be possible for local commissioners to have regard to their joint assessments when producing strategies and providing services. The gaps in service provision that will likely be identified are already known, and there simply is not the funding available to plug them. Ultimately, the scale of the funding shortfall facing local commissioners —and in turn those specialist services—means that the Government do have a role to play.
Although the Ministry of Justice has committed to increasing funding for victim and witness support services to £147 million per year until 2024-25, this funding is not ring-fenced to domestic abuse services. Of course, existing commitments are simply insufficient to meet the demand around the country. Women’s Aid has found that a minimum of £427 million a year is really needed to fund specialist domestic abuse services in England: £238 million for community-based services and £189 million for refuges. Moreover, specialist services are now feeling the effects of this concerning rise in local authorities issuing Section 114 notices. This is a crisis that will only get worse.
However, I welcome the Minister’s statement in Committee that a ministerially led national oversight forum will be set up to scrutinise the local strategies. This could be the vehicle to identify systemic shortfalls in service provision, and hence to put pressure on commissioning bodies to plug the gaps. It could also provide the evidence to justify more adequate funding settlements, with specific requirements to include specialist community-based services. I would therefore be grateful if he could say a little more about how the ministerial-led forum he has promised will function.
Finally, Amendment 70 would require the Secretary of State to include advice on sustainable, multi-year contracts with statutory guidance. I know that the Government are already committed in principle to multi-year contracts in the victims funding strategy. The problem is that in practice, this is not happening. Refuge monitors all commissioning opportunities nationally, and half of commissioning opportunities are for less than three years. There is no enforceability mechanism for the victims’ funding strategy, and in the absence of that, short-term contracts are prevalent across the specialist domestic abuse sector. Such contracts make recruitment and retention of staff more difficult as services cannot offer fixed-term contracts. That leaves survivors forced to find alternative sources of ongoing support at critical points in their recovery and prevents services being able to take root properly in local communities. This is why I feel that a statutory requirement is necessary.
This amendment is a change from the one I proposed in Committee, where I sought to put the requirement into the Bill. I am glad that the Minister acknowledges the problem and would be grateful if, in responding, he could set out what further action the Government will take to ensure that longer-term contracts for specialist service providers become the norm and not the exception.
Finally, I support other amendments in this group, in particular Amendment 79 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, but will leave my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester to speak to that.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly again in relation to the provision of transcripts covered by Amendment 19. I fully understand the point and the force of the amendment and wish to emphasise a point that perhaps the noble Baroness did not. She is not, in fact, talking about transcripts of the whole trial or transcripts of sections of evidence. I could not help suspecting that the costly examples she gave were of much lengthier transcripts than transcripts of the summing-up and sentencing remarks about which she seeks to make provision under this amendment.
To that extent, the noble Baroness may well have undermined her own case, because I suspect that transcripts of the sentencing remarks and summing up are much cheaper, but I cannot give expert evidence on that. Particularly important to some victims is the transcript of the sentencing remarks, because that gives the victim, and those who may advise or support them or provide them with therapy and counselling, an appreciation of what the judge assessed to have been the culpability of the offender and the impact on the victim.
As far as it concerns the provision of a transcript of the summing up and sentencing remarks, I support this amendment. This is subject to the caveat I mentioned at an earlier stage: in the case of sexual offences the distribution of transcripts needs to be subject to safeguards, because otherwise they can and do fall into the wrong hands. From time to time, I have been asked to authorise the distribution of a transcript, and a lot of thought has to go into who can and cannot see them and what happens to them once provided. If they get into the wrong hands, it will do the victim, among others, a great disservice.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 57. Why would I not, since it is a duty to collaborate and co-operate? We like a lot of “C”s in this Bill. I also support what has been said about transcripts. It is so important to have the sentencing remarks, so that further down the line you have the time to read them and digest them. I have some sympathy and understanding of what it feels like.
This amendment is so important to future Victims’ Commissioners. In Committee, I told noble Lords that it was time we gave the Victims’ Commissioner the tools to do the job that Parliament intended. I am not on the state pension yet, but this amendment would mark the coming of age of the role of Victims’ Commissioner. It would require criminal justice agencies listed under the victims’ code to co-operate with commissioners not as a favour or because they happen to get on with them but because they have a statutory duty to do so. This is how it should be.
When I met my noble and learned friend the Minister to discuss this amendment, he told me that commissioners had very different roles, and that the authority given to one commissioner should not automatically be given to others. I do not disagree but—I say this with the greatest respect to him—that is not why I back this amendment. All commissioners rely on the co-operation of government departments and agencies to deliver an outcome. They do not, as a rule, have executive powers invested in them. Whatever the differences in their remits, whether it be victims, domestic abuse, children or modern slavery, the underlying requirement to work collaboratively with key stakeholders remains the same. All commissioners are dependent on the co-operation of others if they are to effect change.
My office was asked to provide examples of where agencies have not co-operated in the past. We duly provided this information. I do not intend to share our examples today, but I believe they made the case for the change that we are calling for. To allay any concerns, we recognise that sometimes data might simply not be available or that there may be very good reasons for not sharing it with us. However, the reasons for withholding information are not always explained to us, and we do not always get the impression that agencies have considered whether they hold other sources of data that might be helpful as a substitute.
In conclusion, when asking my team members for other examples, I was concerned to be told that they generally do not ask for information as they know that it will not be shared with them. That cannot be right. If further Victims’ Commissioners are to be part of the solution in driving change and improvement, they need the support and co-operation of criminal justice colleagues. I await to hear what the Minister will say, but I am tempted to support the amendment if it is put to a vote.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 79, in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, would ensure that migrant victim-survivors of domestic abuse subject to the “no recourse to public funds” condition would be fully entitled to services covered by the victims’ code. I return to this amendment because of the unsatisfactory ministerial response to it in Committee, which simply repeated what was said in the House of Commons—which I had already challenged—and which tried to reassure us that the amendment was not necessary. However, on-the-ground organisations—notably Southall Black Sisters, to which I pay great tribute for its indefatigable work in this area—and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner see it as very necessary. Moreover, in February, the UN special rapporteur on VAWG recommended scrapping the NRPF condition altogether for this group.
In Committee, I asked for an explanation as to why the Government have still not implemented a long-term solution for this group, despite three years of pilots—now extended to 2025—which have been subject to both an official and unofficial evaluation, that clearly demonstrated where reform is needed, and despite strong pressure not just from the sector but from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner herself. The pilot was set up because the Government said that they needed more evidence. While that need was disputed at the time, surely now they have sufficient evidence to put in place the long-term solution that is needed. Once again, I ask: why have they not done so?
I hope that the Minister will not try to argue that the reforms to what was the destitute domestic violence concession—now the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession—spelled out in his letter to me and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, constitute such a solution. While these reforms extend the concession’s protection to partners of worker and student visa holders, they do not also extend eligibility for settlement under the domestic violence indefinite leave to remain.
Southall Black Sisters dismisses this reform as a red herring. In a letter to the Home Secretary, written along with over 50 other organisations, it makes clear:
“We oppose this so-called ‘extension’ because it creates a cliff edge at the end of three months for those who are unable to pursue any settlement route. They are usually expected to leave the country, which will discourage many victim-survivors from coming forward for fear of deportation, rendering the extension ineffective”.
It is also concerned that
“creating a separate route which is a watered-down version of the DDVC and DVILR model”—
the value of which, it is worth pointing out, is recognised internationally—
“will create confusion for victim-survivors and professionals, putting victim-survivors at risk of not making informed decisions about their rights”.
That is all the more true, given the near total destruction of legal aid and the lack of adequate funding for specialist services that could provide advice.
Here, I express my support for Amendment 60, in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, as specialist community-based domestic abuse services, particularly “by and for” organisations, are a vital element of the domestic abuse victim-survivors infrastructure.
Returning to the question about “no recourse to public funds”, the DAC has commented that the revised scheme
“doesn’t even scratch the surface of what is truly needed to support migrant victims and survivors of domestic abuse. The time-limited support of the MVDAC, and its separation from the DVILR provides no clear pathway for migrant survivors to regularise their status”.
She explained that we know that the two schemes
“work best when they work together”.
Far from providing the long-term solution that she and others have been calling for, she fears that this reform
“is little more than a 3-month sticking-plaster and will discourage migrant survivors from coming forward”.
She calls instead for
“thoughtful investment to ensure that all migrant survivors have access to public funds, specialist domestic abuse support, and a route to regularise their status. Anything short of this simply won’t be enough”.
In view of these criticisms of the reforms outlined in the Minister’s letter, from both specialist front-line organisations and the DAC, can he please address their concerns in his response? Will he provide an explanation as to why there is still no long-term solution to ensure the adequate protection of migrant victim survivors of domestic abuse?
Finally, if the only real objection to the amendment is that it is not necessary, what harm would there be in simply accepting it, to show that the Government are at least listening to some of the concerns of front-line organisations and the DAC?
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 60 and 64 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, to which I have added my name. I declare my interests as set out in the register. The charity that I run operates a specialist domestic abuse service. I want to use my charity as an example of why these amendments are needed.
Muslim Women’s Network operates a national specialist helpline. It runs other projects in addition, but because it is not solely a domestic abuse service it has been excluded from stakeholder meetings by decision-makers, and also excluded from funding. For this reason, it is important to define the full breadth of specialist community-based domestic abuse services, which can then be used to hold decision-makers to account if they are excluded from being consulted, or when it comes to applying for funding. It can be quite short-sighted if organisations have that intersectional experience of cases. They also hold important data.
There is a huge funding gap, which has been mentioned. Barriers are put in the way particularly of small, specialist minority-ethnic organisations. We have seen this more in recent years under the current Government. As an example, there are very high thresholds to make grant applications. Thresholds can be so high that they exclude minority groups from putting in funding applications unless they form a coalition, which can be burdensome for a small organisation. The other problem this poses is that, if they form a coalition and there is a lead partner that gets a large chunk of money, most of that money goes out to the other partners in the coalition. That organisation then goes to, say, the charitable foundation sector to try to obtain funding and is told, “You’ve gone over the income threshold; you can’t apply for the funding because you have plenty of money coming in”. It is not considered that most of that money is going back out—this poses another barrier for small, specialist organisations.
These types of issues need to be considered to effectively commission relevant victim support services. I support the other amendments in this group, of course.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 19 from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, principally because it is a good idea in principle that victims should have the reasons why the sentence has been decided. You could argue that the summing up can be a very long process and has to account for all the evidence that is offered; I can therefore understand why the costs might mount for the summing up, but I cannot understand why the costs would mount for the sentencing.
It seems vital for the victim to understand why a sentence was given. There has not always been a reasoned decision as to why a sentence was given, but they are provided more often now, not least because the suspect has the right to appeal their sentence, and they need to understand—as does any appellate court—the reason why a sentence was awarded.
I would have thought, although I have been quietly informed otherwise by a noble and learned neighbour, that all judgments, and the reasons for the sentence, would be written down. Apparently, they are more often ex tempore. That seems a little dangerous to me, but I am not in a position to argue. Apparently, there are times when sentences, and the reasons for them, are written down and published—and there must be times when they are transcribed for appeals et cetera—so, if they are available, that is not an extra cost.
In any case, I would have thought that judgments need to be recorded. If they are recorded, why can they not be shared, certainly for the victims’ reasons? I understand that there might have to be a cut-off point—perhaps for the seriousness of the sentence given, which may be imprisonment compared with a more summary offence—but I cannot quite understand why the sentencing decisions cannot be shared with the victims. It might well be that they do not want to be in court when the sentence is announced, or that they are not available to be in court. Quite often, nobody knows the time at which the sentencing decision will be made: nobody knows exactly when the hearing will finish, when the jury will decide its findings or when the judge will be available to deliver the sentencing judgment.
I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and if she decides to divide the House I will certainly support it. I realise that the Opposition have decided not to, but I am a little surprised.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, from listening to this debate, I am struck again and again by how so much of what we are saying was said in this House during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill. We need to listen to and be aware of that. I hope the Minister will reflect on that.
I agree with much of what has been said this afternoon. I will briefly add my voice in support of Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which I have added my name. I simply echo her frustration that we are no further forward in securing a long-term solution for migrant victim survivors of domestic abuse who are subject to the no recourse to public funds condition. I raised this during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill. As has been said, we were told then that the Government needed more evidence before implementing policy change, and here we are three years later, with so much evidence produced, both officially and unofficially, about the need for reform but a reluctance from the Government to make the much-needed change. I simply hope that the Minister might answer the very valid questions raised by the noble Baroness, especially on the inadequacy of the reform to the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I fully support my noble friend Lady Brinton’s Amendment 19 and her passionate and common-sense contribution, which I hope the Minister will consider. I will speak on Amendments 62 and 71, to which I have put my name.
Child abuse and exploitation affects hundreds of thousands of children across this country each year. Sadly, any child, in any place, can be a victim of abuse. Children are also disproportionately impacted by abuse. The Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse found that children are the victims of 40% of sexual offences. Being a victim of abuse has a devastating effect on children, with the impacts often staying with them for the rest of their lives. Yes, childhood lasts a lifetime.
Despite this, we are leaving our most vulnerable children without access to essential child-specific victim support services and child-specific victim support roles. It is key that, when commissioners decide what services and roles to commission to support victims, they must pay attention and due regard to the need for child-specific victim support services and roles to meet the need in their local area.
That is why I put my name to Amendments 62 and 71. These amendments would strengthen the duty to collaborate in the Bill and have a huge impact for children who have experienced the most horrific crimes. Child-specific victim support services play a crucial role in helping a child to start to recover from abuse and trauma, giving children a space to work through their trauma and offering mental health and counselling services.
However, support services are hugely underfunded and undervalued, and children are facing a postcode lottery in accessing them. Recent research by the Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse found that across England and Wales there are only 468 services providing support to victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. This is despite an estimated half a million children suffering from some form of sexual abuse every year. Barnardo’s, which offers child sexual exploitation services—I declare an interest as its vice-president—has found that an additional 1,900 child independent domestic violence advisers and almost 500 child independent sexual violence advisers are needed across England and Wales to support the number of identified child victims of domestic and sexual abuse.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this group but, having heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I want to add my 100% support for what she has just said. As a family judge for something like 35 years, I tried cases of sexual abuse against children. I also happened to do a report on the diocese of Chichester, and I met adult members of that group who had suffered serious sexual abuse. It lasts a lifetime, as the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said. I particularly realised it when I met these young men who had suffered abuse from clergy, I am sad to say—one of whom went to prison and one of whom died before. It lasted years and years. Everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, is entirely right, and I support it tremendously.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I was surprised when there seemed to be a hiatus—I had not allowed for his need to draw a breath. He mentioned his conversation this morning with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. I am not surprised to hear what she said. I recall that, before the Bill even arrived in this House, she was making her views about a duty to collaborate very clear and well known.
I simply wanted to support my noble friend in her amendment on transcripts. I have to say that sitting through most of the Committee and Second Reading of this Bill has really made me reflect on how victims can be treated as almost peripheral to a trial, because inevitably there is a focus on the defendant. It is inevitable because the court is determining guilt or—I was going to say innocence—not guilt. It would never have occurred to me that the availability of a transcript might depend on whether it has to be available to the defendant.
As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, this is quite a narrow amendment. The Minister was very clear about the constraints and difficulties. As well as being narrow, this amendment would reduce costs, which we were talking about at the previous stage. It is important that we pursue this.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and Amendments 62 and 71, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. In this, as ever, I must declare my interest as a state secondary school teacher.
The great thing about following the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is that it is like somebody doing your homework for you. All the way through this stage of the Bill, we have talked about children as being separate victims, and we got the “Uncle Tom Cobley and all” reason back—in that, if you have to mention one, you have to mention all in this. I think we have to be specific. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and I went to the Lighthouse child house and saw its model. We saw how, when victims are treated specifically, we can get higher levels of prosecution, better health for them in future and save money in the outcome. Why would you not do that?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I first bring forth the Government’s Amendment 75, which requires that Welsh Ministers be consulted on any guidance on victim support roles under Clause 15, so far as the content relates to devolved matters. Victim support roles may operate across criminal justice settings and include devolved health and local authority responsibilities. It is therefore right and entirely in line with the devolution settlement that Welsh Ministers are properly and fully consulted and that the Welsh context is properly reflected in the resulting guidance that will flow from that. I warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his Amendments 72 and 73, which relate to this matter. It is the Government’s view that government Amendment 75 covers that ground and that it is no longer necessary for the noble Lord to press his amendment in this respect.
Amendment 61 is about consultation with providers who are under a duty to collaborate. It would create a mandatory requirement for relevant authorities to consult those providing support to child victims during the formulation of their strategy under Clause 13. We have just heard moving contributions on children. As I said last week during the debate, the Government have been clear throughout Part 1 that the distinct needs of children should indeed be taken into account. That is reflected in particular in Clauses 13(4) and 15(5), which specifically relate to children, now defined as individuals under the age of 18. Those clauses, among other things, require the commissioners to make reasonable efforts to obtain the views of relevant victims, which will expressly include children. The guidance will underpin that duty and set out best practice for consulting child victims and those who provide services to such victims.
We have fully discussed children. I do not think I need repeat anything that I have already said. The position of children is very widely recognised. Therefore, in the Government’s view, Amendment 61 is overtaken by the provisions that already exist in the Bill and what has already been said on behalf of the Government in this respect.
I come to Amendment 79 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, which relates to support for victims with no recourse to public funds. I thank her for tabling that amendment. The code is clear that victims are entitled to access services, including support services, under the code regardless of their resident status. As has been mentioned, there is also access to funding and support through the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession. That mechanism was expanded last February to give victims who are here as the partner of a worker or student a short period of lawful status, financial stability and support while they consider their future options. That is a major extension of the concession that was first introduced in 2012.
Of course, the Government have heard the concerns raised about the need for a longer-term solution in this matter. Basically, two points arise. First, this is not that easy to address in the context of the wider immigration system and immigration policy. We cannot ignore the fact that there is a risk of creating a route that is attractive to some who seek to shortcut or abuse the immigration system, rather than the genuine victims of domestic abuse whom we all seek to support. That has to be worked through. However, if I may speak frankly, while the Government will of course continue to support this important matter, which has been raised many times in recent years, resources are not unlimited and this must now take its place in the next spending review. No doubt the Government will then come to a view as to how resources are allocated.
In the meantime, there is support under the migrant victims of domestic abuse concession. There is also the support for the migrant victim scheme, which provides wraparound support, including accommodation, subsistence and counselling to victims with no recourse to public funds. As I understand it, that has supported over 1,200 victims since April 2021. I would like to go further towards the noble Baroness and others who have supported this amendment, but I hope that what I have been able to say will at least persuade her not to press it further.
I come now to Amendments 60, 64, 66 and 67, which variously relate to guidance defining specialist community-based services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence and so on, as well as the funding gap, a requirement that sufficient funding is provided annually to the relevant authorities to commission the relevant victim support services, and the establishment of cross-government “by and for” funding services. It is quite a large group, but your Lordships will have the general picture.
First, I very much thank the right reverend Prelate and others for their engagement on these amendments, along with representatives from the sector. Of course, the duty to collaborate under the Bill will need to have regard to the joint needs assessments, and the local strategies, which will be published, should include evidence of how the relevant authorities have carried out their needs assessments, as well as how those assessments have informed commissioning decisions.
I can commit that noble Lords will see in the draft guidance, shortly to be available, that it will set a clear expectation for local commissioners to share both a self-contained joint needs assessment document and joint strategies with the Ministry of Justice to enable the Government to bring together local intelligence on need. I very much hope and expect that this will provide the national framework for addressing the problems raised in this debate.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group, and particularly the Minister for his response. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for his clarification of which parts of the court process are concerned. I was quoting both the judge’s summing up and judgment as well as the bigger costs for a wider trial transcript. I was trying to make the point that it can be asked for now but it is entirely at the judge’s discretion whether it happens and therein lies the problem, which is why we find ourselves here.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his help. He said: why can sentencing not be shared? I think that is one of the key points here.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his explanation but the difference between my amendment and the pilot is that the pilot remains at the judge’s discretion, which means that it becomes very difficult to collect any data on the efficacy of allowing victims to have these decisions at the point of judgment.
I was very moved by the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, relating to Amendment 57 —which I did not comment on earlier—and if the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, wishes to test the opinion of the House, these Benches will support her.
I believe that victims need to see progress in this area. I recognise that my amendment is not what they really want but it would be a step forward and, on that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bellamy
“(8A) The victims’ code may make different provision for different areas.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is a drafting change to reflect current practice not to treat provision for different areas as provision for different purposes.
“(8A) In considering whether to exercise the power in subsection (8)(a), the Secretary of State must have regard to the particular needs of victims who are under the age of 18 or who have protected characteristics within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State, when considering whether to make different provision in the victims’ code for victims of different descriptions, to have regard to the particular needs of victims who are under the age of 18 or who have protected characteristics.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of Clauses 5 to 10.
Lord Bellamy
“(b) the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, and(c) the Welsh Ministers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment of Clause 4, page 4, line 22, requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner and the Welsh Ministers when preparing or revising the victims’ code.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my amendment of Clause 3, page 3, line 28, requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner and the Welsh Ministers when preparing or revising the victims’ code.
Lord Bellamy
“(A1) Where the victims’ code makes provision about a service to be provided to victims by a person, the person must provide the service in accordance with the code unless the person has good reasons not to. (A2) Any person who is subject to the duty in subsection (A1) and is not an individual must ensure that procedures are in place by which other persons may complain about an alleged failure to comply with the duty.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires persons specified in the victims’ code to provide services in accordance with it, unless they have good reasons not to, and to have procedures for dealing with complaints.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
Lord Bach
“(4A) Regulations under subsection (2) must require information about compliance with the victims’ code to be linked to a consistent victim identifier that is used across the agencies of the criminal justice system.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow for the creation of a unique identifier for victims in the criminal justice system which would be linked to information on compliance to the victims’ code.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 35 would require information on compliance with the victims’ code to be linked to a consistent victim identifier. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for supporting this amendment. Members may recall the helpful discussion on this issue in Committee. I am grateful to colleagues and to the Minister for their engagement on this topic.
I have been moved to reintroduce this amendment because I remain convinced that, without this change, the Government’s ambition to harness the Bill to put victims at the heart of the justice system and increase accountability may well fail; it is that serious. I thank Natalie Byrom, whose article in the Financial Times in January 2024 kicked off this important debate.
I begin by being extremely clear about what is being proposed. Put simply, this amendment contemplates the creation of a unique identifier allocated to victims at the point at which they first report a crime to the police, to which all subsequent crime numbers and case updates can be linked. Compliance with the measures in the victims’ code must also be recorded against this identifier. Information about the victim’s demographic and protected characteristics can also be added to the victim identifier, provided that the victim consents to provide this. In the absence of the introduction of this identifier, it will continue to be impossible to routinely link information on victims’ code compliance to the demographic characteristics of victims or criminal justice outcomes. This makes it impossible to tell what measures are working and for whom. Information will remain partial, piecemeal and costly to collect.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to support this, with a slightly heavy heart. It has the virtue of common sense, which I feel might not necessarily chime terribly well with the Front Bench; it seems eminently sensible. I realise that the Minister often talks about the need to join the dots, and I think this is a textbook example of a challenge of trying to join up a great many dots that are all over the place at the moment.
I recognise that the Front Bench is not going to stand up and say, “What a wonderful idea; we will do it immediately”. At the very least, if there is an acknowledgement of the fact that we have a problem—and I think we all agree that the status quo at the moment, as far as victims are concerned, is a long way from where we would wish it to be—it behoves the Government to think about putting together a properly resourced project to look at this systematically, across all the different agencies, and at least analyse the scale and complexity of the problem and perhaps come up with a range of two or three possible solutions, with the pros and cons of each, the costs and the time they would take to implement. We would then, at least, have a better handle on how we might deal with this problem, which we all acknowledge is a problem.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is important to acknowledge that we need to improve the kind of data collection that we have. This is a really good idea, and I would like it to be pursued. I have an amendment later on consistency of data. One of the things I felt when I was looking at the issues was that, too often, victims are not counted properly. We know that there is a range of ways to produce crime statistics: discussions about victims can be very emotive and subjective. The more accurate information we have and the more rationally collected it is—a point was made about common sense—the better it is for society, so that it cannot be turned into a political football. We would know exactly what was going on, so that the right kind of research and resources could be allocated. I would like to hear from the Minister some ideas about at least being open to this and experimenting with it. It is eminently worth exploring further, and I would like to hear a positive response.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I spoke in Committee on this issue, and I continue to offer our support from these Benches. I will not repeat the detail of what I said, but through the passage of the Children and Families Act we had to make sure that there was specific identifying data to link up children who were having to access services in more than one department. That picks up very much on a point made by the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord Russell, about the complexity of data.
There has been a really good period between Committee and Report in which the Minister and other Ministers have made themselves available for discussing lots of these amendments, but the main problem is that we do not have a lot of data about victims. We have plenty of data about crime, but we just do not understand victims’ experience through data. One of the side benefits of the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is that having that unique identifying number will create automatic access to make assessments, while protecting GDPR. I have spoken about that on other Bills, but it is important. I hope that this Government and any future Government will assess this as a key part of better services for victims, because we will better know and understand who they are.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this amendment. As he said, we had a helpful discussion on this proposal in Committee. The unique identifier for victims is a good idea and may well solve a lot of problems. As he said, why not harness this Bill to do it?
I will briefly repeat a point I made in Committee. I strongly suspect that this is a more difficult problem than it might seem on the surface, given that there are different computing systems in different parts of the system and different ways of collating data. It is a problem. I am well aware of the shortcomings of data retention within the wider criminal justice system. When I sit in a magistrates’ court, I see the PNC for offenders; very often, they will have multiple dates of birth and names. One only hopes that one is dealing with the same individual as recorded on the police national computer. There is a single identifier for the offender, but there may be a fair number of errors in there as well.
Nevertheless, it is a good idea. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, said that it has the virtue of common sense; I almost thought he was going to say that it has the vice of common sense. It needs to be considered carefully. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, we want to hear that the Government are taking this seriously and that there is a programme in place to look at this seriously and try to help victims through this mechanism.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his amendment, which seeks to introduce a consistent victim identifier for the collection and sharing of code compliance information.
The Government agree that data is a vital tool to help better understand victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system and whether and how they are receiving the relevant entitlements under the victims’ code. That is precisely why the Bill also introduces duties on criminal justice agencies to collect, share and jointly review code compliance information.
In addition, to respond to the questions and comments of many noble Lords, our existing Better Outcomes through Linked Data, or BOLD, programme is already exploring linking system data about victims’ interactions to improve our understanding of victims’ experiences. The BOLD programme is funded by HM Treasury’s shared outcomes fund from 2021 to 2024; it is a long-term project conducted by the Ministry of Justice to improve our understanding of victims’ experiences. BOLD has just received an extra year’s funding to continue exploring data and data linking until March 2025. It has been created to demonstrate how people with complex needs can be better supported by linking and improving the government data held on them in a safe and secure way.
The Ministry of Justice is leading on a victims’ pilot that seeks to share and link data to help improve outcomes for victims. We hope that it will unlock insights into supporting victims of crime, such as understanding their end-to-end journeys and experiences, the effectiveness of victim services and the factors behind victim attrition rates at different stages of the criminal justice system. This is a proof-of-concept research project, and findings on the BOLD victims’ pilot will be published in 2024 and 2025. The pilot has initially focused on exploring what data is available in both criminal justice system agencies and victim services, particularly at a local level through partnership with Synergy Essex, a partnership of rape and sexual abuse centres in Essex.
The pilot work is a necessary precursor to data linking, and this essential precursor work should be completed first. As BOLD shares findings and as the duties in the Bill begin to be operationalised by bodies, the emergent picture will inform future innovation on how data can be used to improve the victim experience. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, I say that this demonstrates the Government acknowledging and addressing the issue.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for his response. I also thank noble Lords around the House who have been sympathetic to the amendment that I moved.
Because it is such common sense, this will happen in time. The sooner it happens, the better for victims and the justice system. I am realistic, so I understand that there are complications, as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said, that will have to be worked through before we get to the stage—which I hope will happen sooner rather than later—where something like this comes into being.
For the moment, I am delighted to hear that the Government understand the problem and are working hard to solve it. There is a real issue as to whether the BOLD development is the answer to the issue that I have tried to raise today. I ask the Government to look very carefully at whether that is a better alternative to the proposal I made today. It seems to me that it would not be sensible to divide the House on the issue, however much I might be tempted to do so, because there is more work to be done. However, I go away with the feeling that the Government are sympathetic to the idea that this whole system should be very much simplified. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner before making regulations under Clause 6.
“Arrangements for collection of victims’ feedback(1) This section applies where the Secretary of State has made arrangements with a person for the collection by the person of information which—(a) relates to the characteristics or experiences of users of services provided by a relevant criminal justice body in a police area, and (b) is collected for the purposes of assessing whether and how those services are provided in accordance with the duty in section 5(A1).(2) The Secretary of State and the Attorney General may by a joint direction require the body to provide specified information to the person for the purposes of enabling or assisting the performance of the arrangements.(3) A relevant criminal justice body which is directed to provide information under this section must provide it—(a) in such form and manner as may be specified, and(b) at such times or within such periods as may be specified.(4) In this section—“relevant criminal justice body” means a criminal justice body falling within paragraphs (a), (b) or (e) of the definition of “criminal justice body” in section 6(6);“specified” means specified in the direction.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause, to be inserted after Clause 6, requires certain criminal justice bodies to cooperate with persons with whom the Secretary of State has made arrangements for the collection of feedback from victims, if directed to do so.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner before making regulations under Clause 7.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner before making regulations under Clause 8.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner before making regulations under Clause 9.
Lord Bellamy
“(A1) The Secretary of State and the Attorney General, acting jointly, must—(a) keep under review the code compliance of the persons mentioned in subsection (1), and(b) annually, prepare and publish a report about the code compliance of those persons in the period to which the report relates.(A2) If the Secretary of State and the Attorney General agree that the code compliance of a person mentioned in subsection (1) is unsatisfactory they may—(a) if the person is the chief officer of police for a police area, give the elected local policing body for the area a notice setting out their reasons for being of that view;(b) in any other case, give the person a notice setting out their reasons for being of that view.(A3) If the Secretary of State and the Attorney General give a notice under subsection (A2) they must—(a) if the notice is given under paragraph (a) of that subsection, send a copy of the notice to the chief officer of police to whom the notice relates, and(b) in any case, publish the notice in such form and manner as they consider appropriate.(A4) The Secretary of State and the Attorney General must consult the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses before—(a) publishing a report under subsection (A1)(b);(b) giving a notice under subsection (A2).(A5) The Secretary of State must publish such compliance information as the Secretary of State considers will enable members of the public to assess the code compliance of the persons mentioned in subsection (1) in the period to which the information relates.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Secretary of State and the Attorney General joint functions in relation to reviewing compliance with the victims’ code by police forces and other criminal justice bodies. The Secretary of State must also publish certain information in relation to the code compliance of such bodies.
“(1) The persons are—”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 10, page 8, line 26.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 10, page 8, line 26.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my new Clause to be inserted after Clause 6.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
“(3A) The first report under paragraph (b) of subsection (A1) may relate to any 12 month period that includes the day on which that paragraph comes into force.(3B) Subsequent reports must relate to the 12 month period immediately following the 12 month period to which the previous report relates.(3C) The Secretary of State must lay each report before Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 10, page 8, line 26.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 10, page 8, line 26.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 10, page 8, line 26.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment replaces a reference to “children” with a reference to under-18s.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Victims’ Commissioner before issuing guidance under Clause 11 on raising awareness of, and reviewing compliance with, the victims’ code.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“Duty to co-operate with Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses(1) The Commissioner may request a specified public authority to co-operate with the Commissioner in any way that the Commissioner considers necessary for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the victims’ code.(2) A specified public authority must, so far as reasonably practicable, comply with a request made to it under this section.(3) In this section “specified public authority” means any of the following—(a) a criminal justice body, as defined by section 6(6);(b) the Parole Board;(c) an elected local policing body;(d) the British Transport Police Force;(e) the Ministry of Defence Police.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to—(a) add a public authority as a specified public authority for the purposes of this section;(b) remove a public authority added by virtue of subsection (4)(a);(c) vary any description of a public authority.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would create a duty for specified public authorities to collaborate with the Victims and Witnesses Commissioner.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thornton, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 57.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
“Training: support for victims(1) The Secretary of State must publish and implement, in consultation with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, a strategy for providing mandatory training on the contents and application of the victims’ code for relevant staff of the following organisations—(a) the police,(b) the Crown Prosecution Service,(c) probation services,(d) the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office,(e) health and social services,(f) victim support services, (g) maintained and independent schools and colleges of further education, and(h) such other bodies as the Secretary of State deems appropriate.(2) The strategy under subsection (1) must be reviewed and updated every three years.”Member's explanatory statement
To ensure justice agencies responsible for giving effect to the Victims Code are properly trained and familiar with its provisions and deliver it effectively.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, we debated this amendment on the first day on Report last week. It is to do with training. All of the discussions that I have had in the intervening time with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, with the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and with others, demonstrated the overwhelming importance of training, and the lack of training being a common theme, again and again, when things go wrong for victims. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces a reference to “children” with a reference to under-18s.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces a reference to “children” with a reference to under-18s.
“(8) The Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers before issuing guidance under this section, so far as the guidance relates to a matter provision about which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult the Welsh Ministers about guidance to be issued under Clause 15, so far as it relates to a matter provision about which would be in the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru.
Lord Bellamy
“Disclosures by victims that cannot be precluded by agreement(1) A provision in an agreement is void in so far as it purports to preclude the making of a disclosure falling within subsection (2).(2) A disclosure falls within this subsection if it is a disclosure of information that is made by a victim or a person who reasonably believes they are a victim—(a) to any person who has law enforcement functions, for the purpose of those functions being exercised in relation to relevant conduct;(b) to a qualified lawyer, for the purpose of seeking legal advice about relevant conduct;(c) to any individual who is entitled to practise a regulated profession, for the purpose of obtaining professional support in relation to relevant conduct;(d) to any individual who provides a service to support victims, for the purpose of obtaining support from that service in relation to relevant conduct;(e) to a regulator of a regulated profession for the purpose of co-operating with the regulator in relation to relevant conduct;(f) to a person who is authorised to receive information on behalf of a person mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e) for the purpose mentioned in that paragraph;(g) to a child, parent or partner of the person making the disclosure, for the purpose of obtaining support in relation to relevant conduct.(3) But a provision in an agreement is not void by virtue of subsection (1) so far as it purports to preclude a disclosure made for the primary purpose of releasing the information into the public domain.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section—(a) to add, remove or modify a description of disclosure in relation to which subsection (1) applies (“a permitted disclosure”);(b) to extend the application of subsection (1) to a provision in an agreement which purports to impose an obligation or liability in connection with a permitted disclosure.(5) But regulations under subsection (4)(a) must not make any provision which would apply subsection (1) in relation to a disclosure—(a) made by a person other than a victim or a person who reasonably believes they are a victim, or(b) that does not relate to relevant conduct.(6) In this section—“entitled to practise” , in relation to a regulated profession, is to be read in accordance with section 19(2) of the Professional Qualifications Act 2022; “law enforcement functions” means functions for the purposes of the investigation or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties;“partner” : a person is a “partner” of another person if they are married to each other, in a civil partnership with each other or in an intimate personal relationship with each other which is of significant duration;“qualified lawyer” means a person who is an authorised person in relation to a reserved legal activity for the purposes of the Legal Services Act 2007; “regulated profession” and“regulator” have the same meanings as in the Professional Qualifications Act 2022 (see section 19 of that Act);“relevant conduct” means conduct by virtue of which the person making the disclosure is or reasonably believes they are a victim (see section 1(1) and (2)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause, to be inserted after Clause 15, would make a provision of an agreement void if it purports to preclude a victim from making certain types of disclosure, unless the disclosure was made in order to release the information into the public domain.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 76 has been tabled to clarify that victims of crime can get the support they need without fear of legal action under confidentiality clauses, also known as non-disclosure agreements or NDAs. NDAs can and do serve a valid purpose to protect commercially sensitive information and deliver a clean break where parties seek closure on an issue, but they have been misused to make victims fear repercussions if they seek access to justice or support services. Reporting a crime to the police is already protected under common law, but the legal position is not as clear as it could be. The Government wish to avoid a situation where NDAs might be used to prevent victims telling support services and close family about criminal conduct that has happened to them.
I am therefore pleased to bring forward this amendment, which makes it clear in primary legislation that confidentiality clauses cannot be legally enforced to the extent that they prevent victims reporting a crime or accessing confidential advice and much-needed support. It sets out who a victim can make disclosures to and for what purposes, which includes the police, regulatory bodies, lawyers, support services, and a victim’s partner, parent, or child. However, to protect legitimate uses of NDAs, subsection (3) of the proposed new clause makes it clear that disclosure to those permitted third parties must not be for the primary purpose of releasing information into the public domain, because we want to avoid a situation where somebody, for example, uses a lawyer to front up the disclosure of confidential information when that is not justified.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in my name: Amendments 87, 88, 89 and 94. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy for his time and for the Government’s thought on these amendments, which, as he rightly pointed out, concern the disclosure of therapy notes. I am sure he probably questioned his life choices when he saw me and other colleagues popping into his Zoom calls quite a bit over the Easter Recess. I am absolutely delighted that he has indicated that the Government will accept these amendments. It has been a long, hard- fought campaign by a formidable team of campaigners from Rape Crisis, the Centre for Women’s Justice, the End Violence Against Women Coalition and Rights of Women. I thank the Government for listening.
I believe this will make a material difference to the confidence and well-being of victims of rape, and I hope that over time it will also help reduce the attrition rate in the justice system, which, at 62%, we can all agree is far too high. These amendments are a proportionate compromise. Again, I want to praise the Government. They thought long and hard about getting these amendments right. They do not jeopardise the right to a fair trial, which is crucial, but they correct a significant wrong when it comes to routine intrusion into victims’ therapy notes.
I will be very brief because we are on Report, but just to set the context of why these amendments are needed, when a rape victim reports the offence to the police, they are often put in the impossible position of being forced to choose between pursuing justice or seeking counselling due to the likelihood of their private records and counselling notes being accessed by the police. We know that more than one-third of rape cases had those notes accessed. Very often, victims choose not to seek counselling and those who continue with therapy ahead of a trial are often told that they must not talk about what happened to them. How ridiculous is that? You need to talk about the rape, the thing that happened to you, in order to get over it. Both scenarios leave many victims without vital support at a time when it is needed most. The reality is that the notes that counsellors take in those sessions are to inform their next session. It is not an evidence-collecting process, so very often those notes are not very useful and are often thrown out of court if they get into a courtroom situation. They are not useful, but they are incredibly damaging. Also, justice and proper support should never cancel each other out.
I am very grateful that my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy has set out the detail, so I will not repeat it in a too-drawn-out way. Essentially, the important point of this amendment is that it raises the threshold at which the police and other bodies are able to request counselling notes during an investigation. In order to request such notes, the police will have to show that they have been able to rebut the presumption that counselling records are not necessary and proportionate to a law enforcement purpose and that they consider that the counselling records are likely to be of “substantial probative value”, which is a higher threshold than “necessary and proportionate”, which we have at the moment. To ensure that this new threshold of substantial probative value is properly understood, because we know that, with 43 police forces around the country, it could easily be misunderstood or not adhered to, the Government should provide clear guidance in the code of practice, working with other relevant partners such as the CPS, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Attorney-General.
Finally, a very important part of these amendments is requiring the Secretary of State to publish a review of how these measures are working and being adhered to three years after the provisions come into force. We all know that post-legislative scrutiny of these difficult areas of law and of how the measures are working in practice is crucial. Taken together, the new threshold and the guidance will enhance the work of transformative programs such Operation Soteria and are another step in the right direction of dismantling the criminal justice system’s focus on victims’ credibility rather than the actions of the suspect.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 87A, 88A and 158, which, as the Minister has already said, discuss additional protections for victims of rape who are subject to requests for third-party material. I thank my noble friend Lady Finn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their support for these amendments, which I know are also supported by my noble friend Lady Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner, and across the House as well. I am sorry that I was not able to speak to them myself in person—I am very grateful to those who did —in Committee due to a family emergency.
The Government argue that their amendment covering these issues sets out clearly in law that the police should request third-party materials only if they are necessary and proportionate to a reasonable line of inquiry. However, these amendments do no more than reinforce existing legal provisions that are already not adhered to. No additional safeguards or protections are being offered. This will do nothing to change policing culture around excessive requests because it will merely reaffirm what already exists in law rather than encouraging operational change. I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say. Although I do not necessarily intend formally to move these amendments this evening, I am concerned to hear that the third-party material we are talking about is not going to be treated as sensitively as mobile phone data because the material we are talking about could be medical material, school information or even social services records. It may be created by a third party, but it is all sensitive data about the victim of a rape or a serious sexual assault. I think it is a mistake not to have entertained more the protections that we are talking about in these amendments.
Just last week, the Home Office published its report of a case file review of police requests for third-party material in rape cases. The findings are truly shocking, and I encourage anybody who does not believe this is an issue to read that report in full. I think we should consider the findings regarding each of the tests that the police are supposed to apply when making requests for this material. First, is it necessary? In the review of 342 third-party material requests, only 176 requests had a recorded rationale, leaving 49% of requests without an explanation for the necessity of that request. Is the request proportionate? The report found that nearly two-thirds of requests did not contain any parameters, such as a timeframe, to limit the amount of information about the victim being requested. Is the request following a reasonable line of inquiry? Nearly one-quarter of rationales given for the third-party material request were generic or not specific to the case. If the reasoning for making a third-party material request is speculative, it is unlikely to be necessary to make the request in pursuit of a line of inquiry.
We know there is a problem, but there is also a solution. As we have already heard, there is a well-developed framework within the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. That framework applies to requests for digital data held on phones, and it sets out that requests for victims’ digital data must receive the consent of victims. If consent is not received, this must not lead to the termination of the police investigation. One of the most serious aspects of this is that where the victim does not give consent, that is almost used as a reason to drop the investigation, which is devastating for the victim concerned. In that Act, there are strong safeguards offering key protections for vulnerable victims. That is what these amendments seek to do: to amend the wording in the Bill to mirror that in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act.
Anecdotal evidence from victim advocates indicates that, since that Act was introduced, they have seen fewer requests, as well as requests being more appropriate in scope, because of that framework. I do not understand why the Government will not adopt that framework for third-party material requests. It does not make any sense to have two different regimes. Often, this material is sought in tandem. It would be better for victims, and for the police, for there to be one regime.
Victims of crime should not be forced to choose between their own privacy and their right to justice. I hope the Government will look favourably on these amendments, if not now, then in the future.
I want briefly to pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lady Bertin for Amendments 87, 88, 89 and 94. She is absolutely right that victims and survivors of sexual violence should never have to choose between seeking justice and accessing therapy and support. I thank all those across the House who have supported her in making that case, and my noble friend the Minister for listening.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I am using IT in this speech—trying to get trendy, as my daughters tell me to do. My apologies, as I have sausage fingers with arthritis.
First, I would like to speak to Amendment 85. In April 2018, I published a report highlighting the discrepancies between the treatment of those victims whose perpetrator was serving a sentence in prison and those whose perpetrator had been detained under the Mental Health Act. I pressed the Government for change. Dame Vera Baird, who followed me, also took up the cudgels on behalf of this too-often overlooked group of victims. Our argument was that the grief and trauma caused by serious violence and sexual crime was no less if the perpetrator was in a hospital rather than a prison. They all deserve support. They all deserve to have their voices heard.
When I returned to the office last October, there remained unfinished business. Victims of patients detained in hospitals still could not submit a victim’s personal statement to the tribunal when discharge was being considered. Neither could they attend the hearing to present. I am therefore delighted that, on this occasion, the Government and my noble friend the Minister have listened and acted. I welcome the government amendment, which will ensure that, at long last, there will be parity of treatment for this group of victims. I again thank the Minister and his team for bringing this about. I feel sure that it will be welcomed across the House.
I support of Amendments 87A and 88A, which would, if adopted, increase protections for victims of rape who are subject to requests for third-party material. Before turning to those amendments, I thank the Government for their thoughtful consideration of amendments tabled in Committee by my noble friend Lady Bertin. These sought to provide additional protections for victims around notes of therapy, measures which I truly support. I am delighted that the Government have agreed to change the legal threshold for this material, and I hope that they may be persuaded to provide greater protections around other forms of third-party material.
I turn now to Amendments 87A and 88A. The Government argue that their own amendment to the Bill will stop demands for personal and private information from rape complainants but, as they stated in Committee, their clauses do nothing more than consolidate the current legal framework—a framework which has not been followed. How can things change? The Home Office report to which my noble friend Lady Morgan already referred found that, in almost a quarter of these cases, credibility was specifically cited as the reason for requesting third-party material. While credibility can sometimes form a reasonable line of inquiry in investigations, it is most often used in rape investigations. That is because, in rape cases, it is the victim who is being investigated to see if they are believable or credible, not the accused. In no other crime type is the credibility of the victim so scrutinised. Victims must be properly protected from these intrusive demands, as they have been by the Government’s measures in the PCSC Act, which successfully curbed the ambiguous practice of digital download from complainants’ phones—the digital strip-search, as it was known. The Government could, as it did there, introduce a new regime that empowers and protects victims, but instead they are merely reiterating the current framework and hoping that guidance will elicit change. It will not. The officers making the requests referred to in the Home Office report were operating under the existing framework —the same framework that the government clauses will consolidate in this Bill.
The Government point to the defendant’s right to a fair trial as the reason why Amendments 87A and 88A cannot be adopted. But there are other legal mechanisms available to the police and prosecution to obtain this material if the complainant does not agree to access, so the right to a fair trial is not impacted. Additionally, these amendments would provide consistency with the framework around digital material. This consistency is good for the police, and it is so good for the victims.
I urge support for Amendment 87A and 88A, which, along with the Government’s own measure on digital material, and now on notes of therapy, make a significant difference to the victims of this horrendous crime. I also support Amendments 77 and 78, which both seek to provide rape victims with legal advocacy when their right to privacy is engaged by the system. The Government have promised on numerous occasions to explore this option, but they have yet to do so in a meaningful way. It is being considered as a recommendation to the Government by the Law Commission, precisely because of the huge invasions of privacy that victims experience if they report a rape. I urge noble Lords to support these measures.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 96. I thank those noble Lords who added their names to this amendment: the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Brinton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester.
The Government’s aim in this Bill is to improve victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system and their access to support, yet the Bill provides no protection for victims with insecure immigration status who have been the subject of serious crime. If these victims provide information for the police, the Bill as its stands allows their personal details to be passed to the immigration authorities. Amendment 96 tackles this problem. This is important because migrant victims are more vulnerable to experiencing serious crime and less likely to receive redress. In particular, we need Amendment 96 so that migrant victims are protected under the Bill from crimes such as violence against women and girls and modern slavery. The amendment is explicit that the personal data of a victim of a crime of domestic abuse, harassment, modern slavery, a sexual offence or other offences specified in regulations by the Secretary of State must not be used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of the individual.
The amendment also ensures that, before issuing any guidance under this amendment, the Secretary of State must consult the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner or other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. The amendment is thus well protected in statute.
Immigrants are particularly vulnerable to serious crime, including violence against women and girls and modern slavery. Abusers use their control over the victim’s immigration status and their right to live and work in the UK to threaten and trap these victims in abuse or exploitative working conditions.
We have a wealth of evidence that, for victims with insecure immigration status, the fear of data sharing between the police and immigration services constitutes one of the most severe barriers to accessing the criminal justice system. Research by the Latin American Women’s Rights Service and the Step Up Migrant Women campaign found that fully 62% of migrant women had specifically been threatened about their immigration status if they reported abuse. These are not empty threats. For example, the Police Service of Northern Ireland was reporting 29 victims and witnesses of crime to the Home Office every day; that amounts to nearly 10,000 people in a year.
To date, the Government have rejected the firewall proposal. They prefer to try to combine enforcement of immigration control and the protection of victims. I, along with the organisations working in this field, do not accept the Government’s proposal as workable. The Justice Committee recommended the introduction of a complete firewall, as proposed here, and, along with the EHRC, called for the immediate end of data sharing between the police and the Home Office for immigration enforcement purposes.
This is urgent. We know from the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s office that all police forces in England and Wales share victims’ data with immigration enforcement staff. The absence of a firewall significantly harms not only victims of crime but the public interest, as crimes of course are not reported and therefore remain unpunished. Other countries have recognised the importance of building trust with migrants in order to solve more crimes and prevent and address serious crimes.
I did not fully understand the introductory remarks by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, but I hope that on reflection he will feel that a firewall in this field is justified and could support this amendment or introduce a similar government one in its stead.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I offer some brief words in support of Amendment 96. Like the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, I was very disappointed with the response in Committee, which simply rehashed old arguments that I had already challenged. I have two practical questions. First, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, promised the long-awaited code of practice for parliamentary scrutiny by the spring. It may not feel very spring-like, but spring is passing and there is still no sight of it. Surely it should have been made available in time to inform our debate today. The Minister said it would hopefully be this spring, but he did not sound very sure. Can he give us a firm assurance that it will be made available this spring?
Secondly, whereas I had been told in a Written Answer that the also long-awaited protocol would be published in early 2024, all that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, could say in Committee was that it would be launched “later this year”. How much later? Why the delay?
Finally, I never received an answer to my much more fundamental question: how do the Government square their intransigent position on the firewall supported by the DAC, various parliamentary committees and all organisations on the ground with repeated ministerial assurances that domestic abuse victims/survivors must be treated as victims first and foremost, regardless of immigration status? As it stands, it is a case not of safety before status, as called for by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, but of status before safety.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendments to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, has spoken. This was an issue that I came across only when preparing for Second Reading. I do not want to repeat her arguments, and I could not make them as well or as thoroughly as she has, but I was shocked to discover the problems that have arisen in connection with counselling and advice. I also support the firewall amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. We have been here before many times, have we not?
Last week the previous Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, speaking to the committee reviewing the Modern Slavery Act, raised the interesting position of one law enforcement sector withholding information from, or not sharing information with, another law enforcement sector. She came to her conclusion, but I did not read her as having reached it entirely easily. I reached the conclusion that there should be a firewall for the reason put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher: imbalance of power—that is what it is about—between a victim and somebody to whom material is made available for abuse. These are very vulnerable victims. I have circled words such as “later this year” and so on, which the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned. I will not repeat them, but it would be good to make some progress on this issue.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, my honourable friend Layla Moran laid an amendment about the ending of non-disclosure agreements that prevent victims disclosing information to the police or other services, including confidential support services, ensuring that they cannot be legally enforced. She has campaigned on this issue for some considerable time. She and I both thank the Minister for the progress in Amendment 76, which is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. It certainly will help some victims access the support they need, but we on these Benches regret that this is not enough to fully give victims their voice back. We still need a complete ban on the use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of sexual misconduct, harassment and bullying to ensure that no victim is ever silenced. We will campaign on this in future but appreciate the step forward that has been made in this Bill.
I have signed Amendments 87, 88, 89 and 94 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. I also thank the Minister for the meetings, his Amendment 76 and what he said in introduction—I agree with the response by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, talked about third-party data requests, and again it was a privilege to be involved in those meetings. I thank her for her comments and her remaining concerns. She is absolutely right that it does not take us further forward enough.
Finally, I signed Amendment 96 from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on the immigration firewall. My noble friend Lady Hamwee was absolutely right: we have been here before. I was just thinking about amendments during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill, the safety of Rwanda Bill and, I suspect, the Nationality and Borders Bill before that—yet we are not making progress. It is very unfortunate that the Government have gone backwards since the Modern Slavery Act in the protection of these particular victims. I know that across the House we will continue to push for ensuring that the loophole is closed.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is really a pleasure to respond to this group from these Benches, because there is real progress. It is important to record thanks to everybody who has made this progress happen. I very much welcome the clarification that the Minister has made in Amendment 76. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is quite right, though, that this is a first step. Indeed, today a useful brief was sent to me and possibly other noble Lords from the Bar Council, which makes the point that the issue of non-disclosure agreements is ripe for legislative change. The Bar Council welcomes the Government’s intention to implement legislative reform and recognises that some NDAs are abusive in nature. NDAs cannot cover criminal acts, and under existing common-law protections many are already unenforceable, but those who are asked to sign them are not always aware of the relevant legal principles. When you have the Bar Council and everybody else on your side, you know that this is an important first step.
On the Government’s amendments, I welcome Amendment 85, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, welcomed it. I thank the Minister and his team for listening and for bringing forward this amendment, which was aired in Committee very powerfully indeed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Watkins and Lady Newlove. Then, of course, there is a suite of amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. I was very pleased to be able to support these in Committee. These Benches are absolutely in favour of them; they have the support of the whole House. I know from the very long time ago when I was a Minister how much work goes into getting to this place. I congratulate the noble Baroness and say how much we are in favour of these amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, is absolutely right to be disappointed about the Government not accepting Amendments 87A and 88A. It is probably clear that we have not come to the end of this. The noble Baroness is quite right in nodding to say, “We have definitely not come to the end of this discussion about what needs to happen to support victims with requests for dealing with digital and other information, and providing the right kind of safeguards for them”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is right, and she has our Benches’ support for her amendment. If there were to be a Division on this then it would be next week. Between now and then we need to look at what the Minister has said to see if we can push him a bit further than he has gone, and then maybe we could avoid that, but the noble Baroness needs to know that she has these Benches’ support, and probably that of the Liberal Democrats, if we need to take the issue further. All in all, we have made great progress.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I shall answer a couple of questions and make one clarification. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who said, “Come on now, when are the code and the protocol going to be available?” I am afraid that, at this point, I cannot advance matters further other than to say, according to my instructions, that the code will be available for parliamentary scrutiny this spring—I know that is not as precise as anyone would like—and that the protocol will be launched later this year. These matters are under the control of the Home Office, and we had a discussion earlier about the relationship between 102 Petty France and Marsham Street. That is as far as I can go at the moment, and I apologise to the noble Baroness that I cannot be more precise.
I am prepared, as always, to have a further exchange of views on Amendment 96. I am not sure we can take it much further but we are always ready to listen, since throughout the Bill we are dealing with the problem of striking a balance between effective immigration control and victim support, and unfortunately there are always trade-offs to be made.
To respond to my noble friend Lady Morgan about requests for relevant information, new Section 44A(6) requires that the request is proportionate. The authorised person must be satisfied that there is no other means of obtaining the information or, if there are such means, that they are not practicable. The decision to release the information ultimately lies with the third party, and that third party has their own obligation under the Data Protection Act and their own duties of confidentiality owed to the person concerned. Again, I respectfully suggest that, bearing in mind my noble friend Lady Bertin’s amendments, the balance between fair-trial rights and victim protection is effectively drawn in the result that we have arrived at. It is not perfect, I know, but it seems to be a practical solution to a very difficult problem.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I hope the Minister will forgive me for interrupting him, but I want to thank him for suggesting that we might meet to discuss Amendment 96 before we come back next week. Obviously, I would be delighted to have a discussion about that.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am always happy to meet, but we might not get much further.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I just wanted to put on record that we have agreed that we will meet, and I welcome that.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“Free independent legal advocates for rape victims(1) The Secretary of State must develop proposals for a scheme to give victims of rape access to free, independent legal advocates available in every police force area in England and Wales.(2) For the purposes of this section “independent legal advocate for rape victims” means a person who is a qualified solicitor, with experience working with vulnerable people, who provides appropriate legal advice and representation to individuals who are victims of criminal conduct which constitutes rape.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to develop proposals for the provision of free legal advocates for rape victims in every police force.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to this briefly, although we regard it as fundamentally important. Amendment 77 would require the Secretary of State to develop proposals for the provision of free legal advocates for rape victims in every police force. Amendment 78, which we regard as part of the same package, would require the Secretary of State to develop proposals for the provision of free independent legal advice for rape victims. A lack of resource cannot and should not be a reason for not getting legal advice, and it should not depend on a postcode lottery either. This is a similar point to those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, on Amendments 87A and 88A. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames wanted to speak to these two amendments but is unable to be here today, for which he apologises.
In Committee, the Government’s position, which was entirely sympathetic in principle—the noble Earl is rarely unsympathetic—was that the Law Commission is going to consider this in any event, so we should wait for it to do so before pressing the matter further. However, my noble friend says that that is not good enough. There is no reason for a further report before proceeding with the provision of free legal representation and advice for rape victims. If we wait for the Law Commission then there will have to be a further consultation, but that is not necessary—Liberal Democrats do not say that consultations are not necessary lightly—and then there has to be the process of producing a report and then, finally, a Bill. All in all, that is a long delay on an issue on which the principle is uncomplicated and, in any event, conceded. We support these two amendments.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and, in her absence, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for Amendments 77 and 78, which, as we have heard, seek to require the development of proposals for schemes to give victims of rape access to free independent legal advice and representation.
I agree that it is extremely important that victims are aware of their rights and confident in those rights, particularly when preparing for trial and when requests for their personal information are made. While it would be novel to provide access to free legal advice and representation for just one type of crime, we recognise that, if there is one category of people who are especially vulnerable, it is victims of rape and sexual offences. We also recognise that victims of these crimes are more likely to receive requests for sensitive personal information as part of an investigation, and that there are calls for independent legal advice to help victims with that situation as well.
That is why the Bill tackles the problem in a different way, by introducing measures designed to minimise requests for information, as my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy explained in the previous group of amendments. Through the Bill we are placing a new statutory duty on the police to request third-party material relating to victims only when necessary, proportionate and relevant to a reasonable line of inquiry. Following the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Bertin, which the Government have accepted, there will also be a requirement that the Requests for Victim Information code of practice must state that the police and other law enforcement agencies should start an investigation with the presumption that requests for counselling notes are not necessary or proportionate.
My noble friend’s amendments also mandate that counselling notes can be requested by police only if they are likely to have “substantial probative value” to a reasonable line of inquiry. This higher threshold will ensure that police are not routinely requesting counselling notes and that the privacy of these victims is respected.
As I have said, we do not want to create a hierarchy of support by granting government-funded legal advice to victims of just one type of crime. Alongside that, there are some complex and sensitive considerations regarding the introduction of independent legal advice for such victims. In particular, we have to be mindful of the role of the victim as a witness in proceedings and avoid anything that might have an unintended impact on the defendant’s right to a fair trial. This concern emerged very explicitly from the pilot scheme run in the north of England. I direct that point particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Marks; we need to take account of the findings from that pilot, which expressed those concerns. A subsidiary but still important point is to consider the potential impact on timeliness as a result of another process being inserted into the system. That was another concern that arose in the pilot.
These are all far-reaching considerations which, I suggest, require expert input before any statutory measures are considered. The Law Commission’s review will consider all these factors, including—the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, may like to note—the impact of existing schemes in other jurisdictions. When it publishes its report later this year, its findings and recommendations on independent legal advice will provide us with the robust evidence base that we will need should we wish to go forward and develop the sort of policy proposals that the amendment points us towards. Therefore, it is right for us to wait for those findings.
There is a further point of principle which I ought to flag: it really is not appropriate to place a duty on the Secretary of State in primary legislation to develop policy, especially without any specification of what such proposals should entail and who is responsible for implementing them once they have been developed. Once again, it is much better that we await the Law Commission’s recommendations.
I know how important this issue is to noble Lords opposite, but I hope that I have given the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, sufficient pause as regards his original intention to divide the House. There are some good reasons why the amendments should not be pressed, which I hope I have been able persuade him of. I therefore very much hope that he will withdraw Amendment 77 and not move Amendment 78.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I am not convinced by the noble Earl. When he opened, he acknowledged that this is an especially vulnerable group and that some cases have a case for novel funding arrangements. He talked about the possibility of unintended consequences of unfair trials—a comment about the pilot funding scheme. In other jurisdictions, such as the family court, there is funding for victims of domestic abuse. If a woman—and normally it is a woman—is a victim or potential victim of domestic abuse, there is funding available in that case as well. Given that this is such a vulnerable group, and since this is an issue of great importance to many Members of this House, I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 77.
Baroness Chakrabarti
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the presumption of custody for children of offenders of child sexual abuse, requiring a Crown Court to make a prohibited steps order protecting the children of an offender on sentencing.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, we are now in the family court because in the real world and in a joined-up justice system, victims are being dealt with not just in the criminal justice system but in the family system.
I have Amendments 80, 83, 84, 91 and 92 in this group. I will try to deal with them as succinctly as possible given the hour and what noble Lords across the House have had to endure in the last 24 hours. I am dealing with three issues. The first relates to Clause 16, the so-called Jade’s law. I will speak to that in a moment. That is covered in Amendments 80, 84—which is consequential on Amendment 80—and 83, which is distinct, but I am led to believe that the usual channels have agreed that Amendments 80, 83 and 84 will be treated as a package. I will wait for someone opposite to jump up and tell me if I am wrong about that.
Amendment 91 deals with “cowboy experts”—I am trying to be as succinct as I can—that is, unregulated experts giving opinions and getting paid. These unregulated opinions and expertise lead to considerable injustice in the family court, including people having to spend a lot of money and people losing responsibility for or contact with their children. Amendment 92 would ensure that those suspected of or charged with domestic abuse, sexual violence and child abuse are not permitted unsupervised access to their children.
Jade’s law is Clause 16, on which the Government are to be commended. Amendments 80, 83 and 84 attempt to tighten up loopholes in Jade’s law, and they are supported by the family of Jade Ward. On account of the time, I will not recount the details of that case. Noble Lords will know that, in its current form as proposed by the Government, Clause 16 places a parent convicted of the murder or manslaughter of the other parent under a prohibited steps order. This is so that we do not have the murderer or manslaughterer effectively controlling the family from behind bars. The Government are to be commended on responding to the campaign and taking up that issue, but we think there is a loophole in that there are sex offenders—not just murderers and manslaughterers—who are attempting the same coercive control, by way of the family courts, from behind bars.
Amendments 80 and 83 would extend Jade’s law and are supported by the family of Jade Ward, whose campaign originally led to Clause 16. We would extend the provisions of Clause 16 to those convicted of a sex offence against a child in the family.
I am aware that, in response to an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill in the other place from my right honourable friend Harriet Harman, the Government have announced that they want to do something and give a concession in our direction in relation to those who rape a child under 13. With huge respect to the Government, that is not enough, because there are very serious sex offences that are not rape and there are very vulnerable children who are just over 13. A child is a child—not least for the purposes of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, if one can still talk about such instruments in Parliament—until they are 18, and certainly there are very serious sex offences that are not rape. So we wish to go further in the ambit of Clause 16, which is Jade’s law.
We also have Amendment 83. This deals with the exception to Jade’s law, as rightly constructed by the Government in the principal amendment. Understandably, and very sensibly in my view, the Government have created, from subsection (5) onwards, an exception to the prohibition in relation to the murderer or the manslaughterer, normally but not always a woman, who is a victim of domestic abuse that led to the murder or manslaughter.
We seek to include domestic abuse, as defined in legislation. At the moment there is an exemption where the offender is convicted of manslaughter and it appears to the Crown Court that this would not be in the interests of justice. We say “the interests of justice” is too vague a concept and they have to be a victim of domestic abuse, as determined by the 2021 Act. “The interests of justice” is too vague a concept to ensure proper protection for all those we seek to protect.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to these four amendments. I feel quite strongly about Amendment 80 in particular, although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that they are in fact a package. I was, as I have said many times, a family judge and I tried a great many sexual abuse cases. I spoke earlier about the trauma of sexual abuse lasting right through adulthood. But I ask your Lordships: can you think of anything worse than a child being raped by a parent? It is the destruction of trust in a whole part of the family, where one member creates a situation in which the child is abused. I have to say that they can be abused in two orifices, not just one—and I have heard all too many cases of both.
Sexual abuse seems to be an issue that is almost as important as murder, because the parent is lost to that child for the rest of the child’s life, but the parent retains, under Section 2 of the Children Act 1989, parental responsibility for the whole of the child’s childhood up to 18—I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, would prefer us to refer to “those who are under the age of 18”.
It is such a serious matter that I commend the Government—I really congratulate them—on Clause 16. It is splendid, but it needs this one extra bit. The clause needs to recognise the intense seriousness and the unbelievable trauma for a child. I heard the case of one child, a little girl of the age of four, who was so sexualised by her father that she became a danger. It was not a case between parents, but a care case in which no foster parent who was a man could possibly care for the child. A single woman had to be found to care for that child and teach her to live a normal life. I remember that case always; it really shocked me.
Amendments 83 and 92 deal with the impact of domestic abuse. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, in a case where a mother, or occasionally a father, has been so traumatised by domestic abuse that he or she—mainly she—kills the other parent who has committed it, it would not necessarily be right to deny them parental responsibility.
In relation to Amendment 91, I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I have had the experience of listening to experts say that one parent was unfit, and I am glad to say that I just did not believe them. However, some of them are quite persuasive and have the most extraordinary proposals. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has talked about parental alienation. There was a certain period in which that was rather popular, but it is dangerous. There are parents who alienate children from the other parent, but it is not a syndrome; it is a fact of life, and it is a very unattractive way in which one parent treats the other. It should not be given the status of some sort of medical condition. There is nothing medical about it; it is just abhorrent.
I also support Amendment 92, but what really matters for me is Amendment 80. We should add sexual abuse to the otherwise admirable Clause 16.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments. They are underpinned by a simple principle: the best interests of the child. They seek to prevent the subversion of the family court, so that it cannot be used by abusers to extend their influence and control over victims; and to ensure that, as far as possible, children are protected from abuse and trauma.
Whether directly or indirectly, children are victims of domestic abuse in a household. Tragically, they are sometimes victims of abuse at the hands of their own parents. In such circumstances, the normal assumption that their best interests are served through contact with their parent must be reconsidered. This is why we seek to extend Jade’s law so that not just offenders who are convicted of murdering a partner but those convicted of sexually abusing a child in the family will automatically have their parental responsibility suspended on sentencing, rather than placing the burden on the family to go through family court proceedings after the criminal conviction.
It is why we seek to prohibit unsupervised contact for a parent who has perpetrated domestic abuse, sexual violence or child abuse. Too often, “best interests” has been determined as almost synonymous with increased parental contact. In most cases, that may be true, but we need to make sure that the law works when it is not. Sadly, contact does not correlate to care. Unsupervised contact with someone accused of abuse is a serious risk to the well-being and safety of a child.
Other amendments in this group seek to limit the ability of domestic abusers to carry on their abuse by subverting our justice system and using court procedures to harass and control their victims. The proceedings of our courts must be fair, and we must not let them be used as a tool of abuse. To that end, we must also make sure that any expert advice is properly regulated. This was discussed in some detail during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act. The sorry truth is that we continue to see allegations of so-called parental alienation used routinely by abusers and the so-called experts they produce in the courts to try and discredit children’s testimony and avoid the charges they face. Victims are even encouraged not to disclose domestic abuse as it will only see them cast as unco-operative. This is a deeply alarming situation which poses a real risk for victims and children.
The UN Human Rights Council report Custody, Violence Against Women and Violence Against Children recommends that states legislate to prohibit the use of parental alienation or related pseudo-concepts in family law cases, and the use of so-called experts in parental alienation and related pseudo-concepts. In an early 2023 case involving a regulated psychologist, the President of the Family Division held that it was at Parliament’s discretion whether a tighter regime should be imposed. We should exercise that discretion.
My sense from Committee was that the principles behind the various amendments in this group are widely supported across the House and the differences are largely down to practicalities. It is precisely because of the practicalities that these amendments are needed. Without them the psychological, practical and financial burdens placed on families trying to recover from abuse is very heavy. I shall give just one example. A mother in Cardiff had to spend £30,000 on court costs to remove parental rights from her ex-husband, who was a convicted child sex abuser, to protect her daughter. This is sadly not untypical. In another case I have been told about, a father was found to have used abusive behaviour towards his children and rape their mother. The mother’s court costs were £50,000. Eventually, the father was ordered to pay, but the very prospect of such high sums risks putting children’s safety at an unjust price.
Victims of domestic abuse must be able to have faith that any abuse endured will not be manipulated against them in court. These amendments are firmly in line with the Government’s ambitions for the Bill. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept them.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendments 80 and 84. These amendments would extend the provision of Jade’s law in the Bill, which relates to murder and manslaughter cases, and would deprive a convicted offender of parental responsibility. The amendments would extend the provisions to sexual offences against children in the family. A powerful case has been made for this extension. It was recently approved, as has been said, in another Bill before the Commons. The examples provided in the briefing material fully justify this amendment.
If I may be pedantic for a moment, I will point out that in the explanatory statement attached to Amendment 80 there is an incorrect reference to removal of “the presumption of custody”. There is no such presumption, and the concept of custody has not existed since the Children Act 1989, although it persists in soap operas, to the irritation of family lawyers.
This amendment would prohibit the exercise of parental responsibility by convicted offenders in cases of child sexual abuse. Allowing sexual offenders to continue to exercise parental responsibility would be wholly inappropriate. Amendments 80 and 84 are well suited to the structure of the Bill, which provides for an order to be made by the Crown Court and then automatically reviewed by the family court when there is perhaps a fuller picture of the family circumstances and a fuller picture of wider implications.
In many ways, cases of sexual offending are more difficult because, sadly, in cases of murder and manslaughter, both parents are not alive. When both parents are still alive, and when there is the possibility that the offender is not in custody—or not for very long —serious thought needs to be given, after the automatic order in the Crown Court, by the family court. That is why I suggest that these amendments are well suited to the structure of the Bill.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendments 80, 83, 91 and 92, and I support Amendment 84 as well, although I have not signed it. I will not repeat everyone else’s comments, but I support virtually all of them—though I might take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on a couple of minor details about why amendments have been laid.
I will make one point about Amendment 91 that nobody else has made. The very helpful briefing that we received from the Association of Clinical Psychologists and the Law Society Gazette this week set out the technical anomaly that exists with regulated psychologists. The position of the regulator, the Health and Care Professions Council, is that it wrote to the director of workforce at the Department of Health and Social Care to highlight risks presented by unregulated psychologists, including in relation to the provision of expert evidence. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that it was writing in a broader way than just for the courts.
In the landmark case of Re C, the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, determined that the courts could not prohibit the appointment of an unregulated person who called themselves a psychologist as a psychological expert because there is no regulation of the term “psychologist”. The way round this would be to take this amendment, to make it absolutely clear. However, there are slightly broader issues that the Government now need to look at, not just from the courts but the wider health system, to make sure that those who are bound by the HCPC are the ones who are regulated to work in these areas—nobody else should be permitted to do so.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, although this has been a relatively short debate, it has been quite comprehensive. All noble Lords have spoken with brevity about these sensitive issues.
I will highlight two points. First, I pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about how any order made by the Crown Court should automatically be reviewed by the family court. That was a useful addition to the amendment, although I suspect my noble friend may be pressing the amendments as they are. Nevertheless, I thought it was an insightful point.
My other point about Amendment 91, on psychologists and people with professional expertise, is that the problems extend beyond experts. In family courts, I see McKenzie friends who clearly have their own agendas, and it is an issue with which one has to deal—but that is a tangent to the main points in these amendments. If my noble friend chooses to press her amendment, we will of course support her.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, we have before us various amendments that deal essentially with family justice. I will deal first with Amendment 91, which proposes that only experts regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council undertake certain psychological assessments. The Government entirely appreciate the aim of this amendment—something needs to be done. This problem probably extends to healthcare generally. In the Ministry of Justice, we have been in discussion with the Department of Health about the term “psychologist”, what it means, whether one should regulate it and so forth. The Government’s position is that only psychologists who are regulated should be undertaking psychological assessments in the family court.
The short point is that this is going to be better dealt with under the Family Procedure Rules than in primary legislation. In particular, in this Bill, for reasons of scope, you can deal with it only in relation to victims of criminal conduct. We need an across-the-board solution, worked out through the Family Procedure Rule Committee, to implement changes that would ensure that, where a psychologist undertakes any psychological assessment in private law children proceedings, they are suitably regulated and that that broader work encapsulates any other problems that arise in relation to unregulated experts. The position of the Lord Chancellor is that this matter should be undertaken now by the Family Procedure Rule Committee—which operates in very close collaboration with practitioners, judges and all those involved in the family law scene—to implement changes, rather than it being done through this primary legislation.
Lord Meston (CB)
I fully understand the point that the Minister is making. Can he indicate whether this problem has now been referred to the relevant Family Procedure Rule Committee? If it has, I would hope that it would get urgent and speedy consideration. If it has not, when will it be?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
There have been preliminary discussions with the committee but it has not formally started work. I cannot give the noble Lord a precise date, but I can say that there is a reserve power under Section 78A of the Courts Act 2003 which entitles the Lord Chancellor to require the Family Procedure Rule Committee to consider the point. In the Government’s submission, that is the way that this should be dealt with, rather than in this necessarily narrow Bill.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
It would be extremely regrettable if the Family Procedure Rule Committee were to refuse to embark on this exercise, particularly in the light of the comments made in the House today and in the other place. It is clearly something that should be done. That is as far as I can reasonably go at the Dispatch Box. That is essentially our position on Amendment 91: let us take it down the route of the Family Procedure Rule Committee.
Amendment 83 brings us to Jade’s law and Clause 16. This is where one parent murders the other. It is a very specific situation, because you have got only one parent left. In all other situations that we are discussing, you have two parents. Amendment 83 concerns where the parent who has committed the murder is a victim of domestic abuse. That is the purpose of this. The Government’s position—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Meston, came quite close to saying the same thing—is that this is effectively already dealt with in the existing Clause 16. It does not suspend parental responsibility for an offender convicted of voluntary manslaughter where it would not be in the interests of justice to do so.
We are talking here about a Sally Challen-type case, if I may use that expression. The “interest of justice” test is one with which Crown Court judges are familiar in the context of sentencing guidelines. Engaging the test is a matter for judicial discretion, but certainly in those cases where the victim has lashed out after years of abuse, they are very likely to fall within this exception, and that is why we have provided for voluntary manslaughter.
It does not seem to the Government that we need any more formal provision in the existing Clause 16 to take account of the situation where the murderer has suffered domestic abuse, because that is already implicit in the clause. If it were the case that, for some reason, Clause 16 was nonetheless to bite, it does, as has been pointed out, provide a pathway for review by the family court. The family court is not going to take away parental responsibility from a mother who has lashed out, if I may use that expression. The Government’s view is we do not need Amendment 83: it is already fairly well covered. I take these points quite shortly because I think it is important to keep this debate fairly short.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I hope noble Lords will forgive me for forgetting courtesy in my brevity. I failed to mention the various supporters, some of whom have identified themselves: my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Helic, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. As always, I am also grateful for their expertise—including correcting an error in the explanatory note—and the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Meston.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Minister for understanding the problem with unregulated experts. He alluded to a potentially broader, and quite possibly effective, solution by way of procedure rules and, under pressure from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said that it would be extraordinary if this did not happen. I will hold my fire until Report and have great hope—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Then I have no hope. But I will take comfort from the Minister’s comments, because that would be a better, rounder solution in relation to proceedings and it could be broader than just victims. I would prefer that outcome. I hope the Government as a whole will look at unregulated psychologists more generally, in relation not just to proceedings but the public more generally. I take comfort from that and am grateful for it.
On Amendment 83, the current provision for the Jade’s law exemption is vague. If we are trying to deal with domestic abuse, let us call it what it is—it is defined in statute.
On the presumption of parental involvement, the logic of the idea that convicted sex offenders should be presumptively allowed parental involvement escapes me. Jade’s law should be extended. The Minister is almost with me. He wants to act in another Bill, but the clock is ticking for this Parliament and we have a Bill right here on Report in which we could protect children from sex offences, including very serious sex offences that are just short of rape, for reasons which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, put more graphically and with greater expertise. We should take this opportunity to act. I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 80.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the extent of the restrictions placed on an offender with respect to a child by a prohibited steps order made under new section 10A of the Children Act 1989.
“(za) making the order is prohibited by section 29(3) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002,” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means that the Crown Court must not make a prohibited steps order under new section 10A of the Children Act 1989 with respect to a child who is the subject of a placement order under section 21 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
Lord Bellamy
“Victim representations to mental health tribunals(1) Chapter 2 of Part 3 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (victims’ rights to make representations and receive information) is amended as follows.(2) In section 37(8)(c)(i), for “that area” substitute “that local probation board”.(3) After section 37 insert—“37ZA Victim impact statements where restriction order made(1) This section applies if, in a case where section 37 applies, an application or reference mentioned in subsection (5) of that section is made to the First-tier Tribunal or the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales.(2) The relevant probation body—(a) must take all reasonable steps to ascertain whether a person who appears to the body to be the victim of the offence or to act for the victim of the offence wishes to provide a victim impact statement to the body, and(b) if the person provides such a statement, must forward it to the tribunal.(3) Where a victim impact statement has been forwarded to the tribunal under subsection (2), the tribunal must—(a) allow the person who made the statement to request permission to read the statement to the tribunal at a relevant hearing, and(b) grant such permission unless the tribunal considers that there are good reasons not to.(4) The tribunal may have regard to the statement when determining a matter specified in section 36(5)(a) or (b) (but must not have regard to it for any other purpose).(5) In this section—“relevant hearing” means any hearing held by the tribunal before making a decision which disposes of proceedings on the application or reference mentioned in subsection (1);“the relevant probation body” has the meaning given in section 37(8);“victim impact statement” means a statement about the way in which, and degree to which, the offence has affected and (as the case may be) continues to affect the victim or any other person.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for victims of certain serious offences, where the offender is subject to a hospital order with a restriction order, to provide a "victim impact statement" to a tribunal which is considering certain matters in relation to the discharge of the offender.
Lord Bellamy
“(za) in subsection (1)(c), for “section 32” substitute “section 2 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, including the extent to which the duty in section 5(A1) of that Act (duty to provide services in accordance with the code) is being complied with”;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Victims’ Commissioner to keep under review compliance with the victims’ code (see my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27).
Baroness Bertin
“(3A) A counselling information request may be made only if the authorised person has reason to believe that the information sought is likely to have substantial probative value to a reasonable line of enquiry which is being pursued, or is to be pursued, by the authorised person or another authorised person.(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), a “counselling information request” means a victim information request to a person who provides counselling services of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires an authorised person to believe that the information sought by a counselling information request is likely to have substantial probative value.
Baroness Bertin
“(10) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3B) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations defining the counselling services in relation to which my amendment of Clause 24, page 22, line 38 applies to be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
Baroness Bertin
“(1A) The code must in particular—(a) provide that an authorised person must, when considering whether they are satisfied as required by paragraph (c) of section 44A(3) in relation to a counselling information request, start from the presumption that the request is not necessary and proportionate to achieve a purpose in that paragraph, and(b) set out the steps that must be taken by an authorised person when deciding whether that presumption is rebutted.(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), a “counselling information request” has the meaning given by section 44A(3B).”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the code of practice issued under new section 44D of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 to provide for authorised persons to presume that counselling information requests are not necessary and proportionate and to take certain steps when considering making such requests.
Earl Howe
“Child victims of domestic abuse(1) The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 is amended as follows.(2) After section 49 insert—“Notifying schools etc if child is suspected victim of domestic abuse
49A Arrangements to notify schools etc(1) A chief officer of police of a police force maintained for a police area must ensure that arrangements are in place to secure the objective in subsection (2).(2) The objective is that, if a member of the force has reasonable grounds to believe that a child who resides in the police area may be a victim of domestic abuse, any relevant educational establishment is notified as soon as is reasonably practicable except in such circumstances as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) For the purposes of this section, each of the following is a relevant educational establishment in relation to a child—(a) a school at which the child is a registered pupil;(b) if the child is not a registered pupil at a school—(i) if the child is receiving education at only one educational establishment, that establishment;(ii) if the child is receiving education at more than one educational establishment, such one or more of those establishments as is determined in accordance with the arrangements in place under subsection (1) for the police area in which the child resides.(4) In this section—“child” means a person under the age of 18 years;“educational establishment” means—(a) a school in England or Wales;(b) an institution within the further education sector, within the meaning given by section 91(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;(c) in relation to England, a 16 to 19 Academy, within the meaning given by section 1B of the Academies Act 2010;“registered pupil” , in relation to a school, has the meaning given by section 434 of the Education Act 1996;“school” has the meaning given by section 4 of the Education Act 1996. 49B Power to extend section 49A to childcare providers
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend section 49A so that the objective in subsection (2) of that section applies in relation to childcare providers, or childcare providers of particular descriptions, as it applies in relation to relevant educational establishments.(2) In this section—“childcare” —(a) in relation to England, has the meaning given by section 18 of the Childcare Act 2006;(b) in relation to Wales, means anything that amounts to child minding or day care for children for the purposes of Part 2 of the Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010 (nawm 1) (see section 19(2) to (5) of that Measure);“childcare provider” means—(a) in relation to England, a person who provides childcare—(i) in respect of which the person is registered under Part 3 of the Childcare Act 2006,(ii) in respect of which the person would, but for section 34(2) or 53(2) of that Act, be required to be registered under Chapter 2 or 3 of Part 3 of that Act, or(iii) in respect of which the person would, but for section 63(3) of that Act, be able to be registered under Chapter 4 of Part 3 of that Act;(b) in relation to Wales, a person who provides childcare in respect of which the person is registered under Part 2 of the Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010.”(3) In the italic heading before section 50, for “and orders” substitute “, orders and notification arrangements”.(4) In section 56 (interpretation of Part 3), in subsection (4), after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) section 3 (children as victims of domestic abuse).”(5) In section 87 (regulations), in subsection (6), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) regulations under section 49B,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires police chiefs to ensure that arrangements are in place for relevant schools and colleges to be notified if a member of the force has reasonable grounds to believe that a child who resides in the police area may be a victim of domestic abuse.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy. Government Amendment 90 would require the police to notify schools as soon as possible when they have reasonable grounds to believe that a child in their police force area may be a victim of domestic abuse. That means that all children who may be a victim of domestic abuse will receive the necessary support and relevant safeguarding interventions.
Domestic abuse is an abhorrent and sometimes fatal crime, yet it is far too common. It is high volume, high harm and high cost. We fully recognise the devasting impact that it can have on children and young people, which is why we are determined to protect and support better the victims of abuse, including children, and bring perpetrators to justice. The landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 acknowledged, for the first time, the appalling damage that domestic abuse can inflict on children and young people and recognised the damage caused to children who see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse.
Recognising children as victims of domestic abuse in their own right is a very important step. It helps to ensure that children themselves remain visible in the multi-agency response to domestic abuse. This government amendment will help us take this work one step further. It will legislate that each chief officer of police across England and Wales must ensure that arrangements are in place to notify schools when they have reasonable grounds to believe that a child may be a victim of domestic abuse.
This amendment places the notification scheme, widely known as Operation Encompass, on a statutory footing. It is already in operation across all 43 police forces in England and Wales on a voluntary basis. By enshrining the scheme in law, we can ensure that it is consistently applied across all forces. This will help improve early intervention and enable the most vulnerable children to be safeguarded from the harms of domestic abuse.
This Government are committed to supporting child victims and protecting them from domestic abuse. The amendment will be key in our efforts to do so. I therefore hope that the House will welcome it, and I beg to move.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 90, which provides for the relaying of information to schools. Schools need accurate and prompt information about what is going on. They need to know, and understand, what is happening, or what is suspected. Therefore, I welcome the amendment. It is almost as important as the information going the other way—that is to say, schools relay information to local authorities and, where appropriate, to the police.
I am afraid to say that there are a few cases I have come across where schools, or individual members of school staff, have been reluctant to get involved in child abuse cases, or where there is suspected child abuse. Albeit this amendment provides for the information to pass the other way—from the authorities to the school—if it serves to do anything it may well encourage the passing of information in both directions.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, we also welcome Amendment 90. I want to add one other issue though. It is very much a one-way system, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has announced, and I ask whether the noble Earl will write to me, the noble Lord, and any noble Lords who speak in this group, to report on the Government’s progress on the recommendations that they have accepted following the independent inquiry into child sex abuse. Recommendation 13 is about the need for mandatory reporting, and the Government said, over a year ago, that there would be a full public consultation beginning with a publication of a call for evidence. I have seen neither, but, more importantly, I want to know when we can—perhaps through this Bill—have something going the other way, as the noble Lord so rightly pointed out.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I have a genuine question. Of course, I support the amendment, but the wording here is
“if a member of the force has reasonable grounds to believe that a child who resides in the police area may be a victim of domestic abuse”.
If there is a situation where one of the parents calls the police, and there is what is called a “call-out”, that will be recorded, and that sort of information is made available to courts in particular circumstances. But would the child be seen as a potential victim of domestic abuse because the parents have made that telephone call because of a dispute between the parents?
Nevertheless, I support the duty to notify, but I wonder whether the Minister can answer that specific question.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in support of this amendment. I will deal, just briefly, with the points raised.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, a child is considered to have suffered the effects of domestic abuse even if they have not been the direct recipient of that abuse. That is why I made it clear in my opening remarks that it is as much about children who see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse as it is about a child who themselves have been on the receiving end of such abuse. It is all encompassing in that sense.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as I understand it the position at the moment is that the statutory safeguarding guidance, Keeping Children Safe in Education, outlines that all schools and colleges must have regard to their legal duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. However, as far as the noble Baroness’s specific question is concerned, I shall need to write to let her and other noble Lords know exactly how far we have reached in the process she outlined. I am afraid I do not have that information with me today.
Baroness Fox of Buckley
“Collection of data on victims of crimeThe Secretary of State must issue guidance for relevant bodies including police and crime commissioners in respect of data collection to ensure that sex registered at birth is recorded for both victims and perpetrators of crime.”
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Amendment 93 simply but crucially calls on the Secretary of State to
“issue guidance for relevant bodies”,
such as the police and police and crime commissioners,
“in respect of data collection to ensure that sex registered at birth is recorded for both victims and perpetrators”.
Just to note, the heading in the amendment is rather misleading when it says:
“Collection of data on victims of crime”.
Actually, the main confusion lies with the perpetrators, which obviously has an impact on the victims.
For the policies and proposals in the Bill to be effective, which we all want, many of them will rely on evidence. That means criminological research and official crime data, such as recorded crime and victim surveys, which will enable stakeholders, policymakers and researchers to analyse patterns in both victimisation and offending, and will allow interventions and services to be developed and resources to be targeted effectively.
As I pointed out in Committee, criminal justice data needs to be accurate, credible and consistent. However, data on a person’s sex is now not accurate, credible or consistent because agencies in the criminal justice system do not distinguish between sex, gender identity or self-declared sex. I will not repeat the detailed evidence collected by freedom of information requests that I cited in Committee, but police forces increasingly differ from area to area, recording crime statistics variously, some by biological sex but others by some other concept based on ever-fluid and subjective ideas about gender identity, which is often recorded as if it were sex.
The guidance I ask for in this amendment would clarify that gender should not be used as a synonym for sex, as it leads to confusion and conflation. In turn, this conflation of sex and gender compromises official statistics in terms of trustworthiness, quality, and value for policy and for public understanding. The guidance should untangle the vast array of muddled recording practices around government records, such as passports, driving licences, NHS numbers, et cetera, all of which can be changed, but no amount of documentation changing affects the need for a consistently applied legal identity that is fixed and unchanging from birth to death, registered with the state and necessary for the state to fulfil its responsibilities to citizens—no more so than in criminal justice. That is why data based on sex registered at birth is so important, as it is a fundamental demographic variable, reflecting the reality of sex-based differences between men and women.
Those compiling the guidance might look at other identifiers. For example, in the debate on my Amendment 18 on the previous day on Report, I discussed the problems of identity confusion in relation to safeguarding checks. Keep Prisons Single Sex has made an interesting recommendation relating to the mandatory use of national insurance numbers for DBS checks in relation to identity changes. National insurance numbers remain constant throughout an individual’s life. They are unique to each individual. They do not change and they are unchangeable—even, for example, when an individual obtains legal recognition of acquired gender. So even if someone is issued a GRC, the individual’s new details are listed against their existing national insurance number, which is unchanged and retained until 50 years after the individual’s death. It seems that the state does understand the importance of accurately recording and knowing who a citizen is, and their natal sex, when it comes to collecting taxes. Such seriousness is necessary in other policy areas.
We can see the dangers of confusion if we look at what the Cass review has to say about data in relation to NHS numbers; I am grateful to Sex Matters for its briefing on this issue. NHS numbers are the unique national patient identifier in the UK’s health and social care system, and are vital for clinical safety, record management and, of course, clinical research. However, it has been policy for some time that GP surgeries can change a patient’s recorded sex on their medical records at any time, without requiring diagnosis or any form of gender reassignment treatment, and request a new NHS number. Public Health England tells GPs that medical information on the person’s record must be gender neutralised and transferred to a newly created medical record.
The Cass review found that many children seen by GIDS had changed NHS numbers before they had been seen by specialists, and some were “living in stealth”—that is attending school in the opposite sex. The Cass review draws attention to the dangers this poses, which is helpfully analogous to the problems I am raising and that we face in the lack of clarity on crime data. Dr Cass raises
“concerns about children and young people’s NHS numbers being changed inconsistently, as there is no specific guidance for GPs”.
The review highlighted changing NHS numbers putting children and young people “at risk”—for example,
“young people attending hospital after self-harm not being identifiable as … on a child protection order”,
And, from a research perspective, creating difficulties in identifying
“long-term outcomes for a patient population for whom the evidence base is weak”.
In criminal justice, inconsistent data collection, due to the conflation between sex and gender, can similarly compromise safeguarding and especially distort research—as a consequence, potentially distorting the way the public access facts in relation to crime. Take the differing offending patterns between males and females. Males commit the large majority of offences per se, and some offence categories are only or very rarely committed by females, such as sexual offences or violent crime in particular. That means that even if only a small number of natal males who identify as females are recorded as women, this skews the female sex-offending statistics in a misleading way.
This amendment proposes that the Government use guidance to bring clarity to the situation. This is of democratic importance and seems an important part of the Bill, which means more accountability to and about victims and accountability to the public about the victims and perpetrators of crime. The truth is that the practices of criminal justice agencies recording self-declared sex as actual sex were introduced by public authorities without proper democratic debate, behind the backs of the public, depriving the public of clarity about what is measured in crime data. That then seeps over into misleading the public about precisely who commits crime when it arrives in the public sphere, via the media, for example.
I warmly welcome the manifesto for police and crime commissioners published by campaign groups Fair Cop and Keep Prisons Single Sex, and one section seems especially pertinent to finish with. It says that police and crime commissioners’
“Press releases and communication with the public must be written in accurate and accessible language. Suspects, and other persons of interest, must be described in a way that the public can clearly and quickly understand. Sex registered at birth is always information that must be shared with the public”
and not concealed. Beyond this official crime agency language and media reporting, police-collected data must not be allowed to erase measurable facts and objective reality.
I hope that this amendment will receive support across the House as a modest contribution to clearing up these confusions. I am hoping the Overton window has shifted of late, by the way. How welcome it was to hear Labour shadow Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood acknowledge that she agrees with JK Rowling that
“biological sex is real and is immutable”.
As well, I welcome her comments on the dangers of justice by hashtag and free speech. This amendment simply seeks to ensure that criminal justice data also recognises the immutable nature of sex. I hope the Labour Party will back me in relation to this. I am grateful as well to the Government and the Minister, who has organised for officials to discuss these issues with Kate Coleman from KPSS before Third Reading. It is in everyone’s interest that crime data is accurate, credible and consistent. At present, it is not. I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for her Amendment 93, which requires guidance to be issued on data collection of sex registered at birth for victims and perpetrators of crime. I recognise the noble Baroness’s commitment to this topic, and I believe the House will return to the subject tomorrow. Many of the points I will make were made last week while discussing the noble Baroness’s other amendment that sought to require data to be collected. I therefore apologise for any repetition.
The Government recognise that accurate data and statistics on biological sex are important to good research and effective policy. For this reason, the Home Office issued guidance in April 2021 in the annual data requirement that sex should be recorded in its legal sense, what is on either an individual’s birth certificate or their gender recognition certificate. Gender identity should also be recorded separately if that differs from that. For consistency, this is based on classifications used in the 2021 census for England and Wales.
Since implementing this guidance, the Government have commissioned an independent review of the recording of sex by public bodies, which will report at the end of August 2024. The Home Office will consider this new guidance once it is available in deciding whether changes are needed to the recording of the sex of victims and perpetrators dealt with by the police.
However, we recognise that there are concerns in this area, and the department has committed to meet groups such as Keep Prisons Single Sex to hear their concerns. Legislation is not required for guidance to be issued on this area. We will continue to work with stakeholders and await the outcome of the review for whether further guidance is needed in this area. I respectfully ask that the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, when I was at school, there used to be a tactic called sending people to Coventry, in which you were ignored as a sign of contempt. I am disappointed a second time that the Opposition Benches do not think it worth engaging on the issue, regardless of whether they want to engage with the individual who is putting forward the issue. I am very glad to hear the Minister’s words that the Government are taking this seriously. I genuinely hope that Opposition parties will take this seriously as well, because there is a problem. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Bach, talk earlier about the importance of accurate and consistent data and simplifying data. He made a good point, and I backed him up on it. I was rather hoping that this side of the House—the Labour Benches—might see that through and at least make some positive comments in relation to my amendment.
I will, of course, withdraw the amendment, but I do not withdraw the importance of the issue. I hope that the detail that will be brought by somebody who has got a detailed knowledge of this—Kate Coleman—to the meeting will help any guidance that might emerge in August and also ensure that we no longer carry on showing the public confused data and hoping that they can work their way through it. It is a democratic question, and I hope that, in future, democrats will take it more seriously than perhaps we have seen tonight. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Tuesday 30th April 2024
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 57-III(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (29 Apr 2024)
15:33 - Division on Amendment 96 - Ayes: 214 / Noes: 208 - Amendment 96 agreed.
15:56 - Division on Amendment 101 - Ayes: 222 / Noes: 222 -
17:26 - Division on Amendment 113 - Ayes: 238 / Noes: 217 - Amendment 113 agreed.
18:05 - Division on Amendment 119AA - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 209 -
19:39 - Division on Amendment 119HA - Ayes: 67 / Noes: 175 - Amendment 119HA disagreed.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes
“Review of requests for counselling information relating to victims(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report about the operation in the review period of Chapter 3A of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (requests for information relating to victims) (inserted by section 24 of this Act) in relation to counselling information requests.(2) The Secretary of State may discharge the duty in subsection (1) by arranging for another person to prepare a report about those matters.(3) As soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of the review period, the Secretary of State must—(a) arrange for the report prepared under subsection (1) (or under arrangements under subsection (2)) to be published, and(b) lay the report before Parliament.(4) In this section—“counselling information request” has the meaning given by section 44A(3B) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022;“review period” means the period of three years beginning with the day on which section 24 comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a report about the operation of Chapter 3A of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, inserted by section 24 of this Act, in relation to counselling information requests to be prepared, published and laid before Parliament.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes
“Victims’ rights in relation to data(1) The UK GDPR is amended as follows.(2) In Article 21 (right to object), after paragraph 1, insert—“1A. The data subject shall have the right to object on grounds relating to his or her particular situation, at any time to processing of personal data concerning him or her, or a third party where that party is a child for whom they have parental responsibility, which is based on points (a) to (f) of Article 6(1), including profiling based on those provisions, if exceptional circumstances apply.1B. The exceptional circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1A are—(a) that the processing of the data was connected to, or reliant upon, conduct which could reasonably be suspected to constitute a criminal offence, or(b) that the processing of the data was connected to, or reliant upon, conduct which could reasonably be considered as being intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress to the data subject or another living individual.1C. The Secretary of State may by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure prescribe other exceptional circumstances where the right to object mentioned in paragraph 1A applies.” (3) In Article 17 (right to erasure (“right to be forgotten”)), after paragraph 1(c), insert—“(ca) the data subject objects to the processing pursuant to Article 21(1A).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow victims of third party harassment to request the deletion of any personal data which was gathered or held as part of activity which could be considered criminal conduct. The aim of this amendment is to prevent third party reporting from causing ongoing distress to victims.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry that due to a family matter I could not be in the House for the Committee stage of this Bill to move the similar amendment tabled earlier. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Finn for speaking to that amendment. This amendment was tabled in the House of Commons by Stella Creasy MP based on her experience as a victim of harassment, but it is not unique to her situation. I am grateful, and I know she is too, for the continuing support for this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and my noble friend Lady Finn, and for the engagement we have had with the Opposition Front Bench. I am also very grateful to Ministers and officials who have engaged with us in recent weeks on the issues raised by this amendment.
To recap briefly, just to put the amendment in context, if an individual makes a malicious complaint about someone to the police, the police can act to remove that record, but malicious reporting to other organisations, whether social services or an employer, as part of a campaign of stalking and harassment, does not carry the same safeguard. As a result, data is retained on individuals who have been targeted maliciously, whether that be workplace harassment, stalking or some other malicious behaviour. Such harassment, stalking or malicious behaviour might well include allegations about the parenting capacity of the victim, but it often takes other forms.
Many victims find that even if the person targeting them has been convicted, their harassment continues because such records remain in existence. This is because current data protection rules mean that records such as this cannot always be deleted. The retention of this data has long-lasting consequences for all individuals involved. In fact, having to repeatedly disclose the existence of the complaint, even if it has been proven to be part of a campaign of stalking or harassment, is in many ways a repetition of that harassment.
I think that where we are now, after that engagement with Ministers and officials, is that there is now a recognition by the Government that reporting by a third party can be used to perpetuate harassment or as part of a stalking campaign, and also that victims should be better supported to have those reports deleted. I understand that the Government’s concern has been to strike a balance between the right to erasure of data held as a result of malicious conduct or intent and the need of organisations to retain data that could become relevant in some future safeguarding context, particularly involving children.
That is why the proposed new clause before the House seeks to enable the deletion of data where a clear threshold is met to show that the report was the result of malice and its retention would continue the harassment. I think all those involved in the discussions, including the Government, agree that the threshold would certainly be reached in the case of a criminal conviction. Many of us also believe that the threshold is reached in the case of a civil order, where such an order is applied for by the police or made by the court, and where a breach of that order is in itself a criminal offence. It is important that we do not put victims off having such orders applied for in order to stop the harassment or stalking behaviour.
It is also important that the burden of getting the data deleted is not placed back on the victim of the stalking and harassment. Careful amendments to statutory guidance and the victims’ code would also be very welcome to ensure that in the right circumstances there is a presumption for the removal of data and the relevant authorities are given clear guidance on how to treat victim applications where malicious reporting is involved.
Having said all that, I shall now listen carefully to the rest of this debate, particularly to what to my noble and learned friend the Minister has to say in reply to these points. This is an important issue that we can do something about in the Bill to support victims of this malicious behaviour, and I hope that the House, Ministers and the Government will take the opportunity to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I was happy to add my name to this amendment, to which several of us spoke at Second Reading and in Committee. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and Stella Creasy MP for the dogged way in which they have pursued this issue. I give the Government and the Bill team credit for being worn down to the extent that a degree of accord, and indeed a recognition of this particular form of invasive behaviour, have been reached.
There is a lot in the press at the moment about a phenomenon known as sextortion. I would almost call what we are talking about in the amendment a form of domestic terrorism. It is somebody making a completely unfounded allegation about, in this case, somebody else’s fitness to be a parent of small children in order to, in a sense, force a situation in which an investigation has to take place. Even though the investigation finds that there is absolutely no basis in the allegation, the allegation remains on that individual’s record, and that individual is compelled to reveal that allegation in a variety of situations in which they are required to provide due diligence. In each case they have to explain that it was malicious and the result of harassment. That is what we are trying to avoid.
I too am looking forward to what the Minister will say in response. I hope that at Third Reading there will be an amendment that we can all agree with. Your Lordships will be aware that, as Stella Creasy was surprised to find out, we in your Lordships’ House are able to table an amendment at Third Reading. We very much hope that will not be necessary, because we are sure the government amendment will meet what is required. To that extent, the sooner we are able to see the wording of the government amendment and have a further dialogue about it if necessary, so that we are all on the same page at Third Reading, the better. I thank the Minister and the Bill team for being so accommodating.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I spoke in Committee on behalf of my noble friend Lady Morgan and I support her amendment today. I commend the tenacity of Stella Creasy, my noble friend and other noble Lords in engaging with various government departments, and I thank my noble friends the Ministers for engaging with her and Stella over some of the more complex issues involved.
I appreciate that this is not completely straightforward, but the fact that it is difficult to reach a conclusion should not prevent us tabling the amendment and getting it right. While it is disappointing that we do not yet have a government amendment to scrutinise, I thank my noble and learned friend the Minister for agreeing to table an amendment that we hope will cover all the areas of concern at Third Reading.
It is hard to overemphasise the toll that malicious complaints take on individuals, their mental health and their family life. I take a real case of someone who suddenly, out of the blue, received a call from the local police sharing details of a complaint made about the treatment of her children. Despite the false claims being robustly rebutted—her children had attended school, were taken to the dentist and were registered with their local GP, despite allegations to the contrary—this mark remains on her record and that of her children. She describes it as feeling like “the sword of Damocles hanging over my head”. It is a constant worry. It is simply not right that many victims find that, even if the person targeting them has been convicted, their harassment continues because such records remain. The retention of this data has lasting consequences for all individuals involved.
I am not going to repeat all the arguments but will quickly emphasise three points. First, limiting this amendment to victims of crime where the data is linked to that crime would ensure that it does not become open to abuse, but stalking and harassment involve many actions by perpetrators, so it is important that the drafting of these amendments should not be too narrow. Secondly, while there needs to be a clear threshold to show that the retention of data will continue the harassment, the removal of data should not be confined to criminal convictions. My noble friend Lady Morgan has made the case for the various thresholds very clearly.
Finally, if an individual makes a malicious complaint about someone to the police, the police can act to remove that record. If chief constables have clear guidance that covers the removal of malicious allegations, it should surely be possible to have similar guidance for malicious reporting to other organisations. I am very grateful that my noble friend the Minister has agreed to explore this further.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it was an honour to sign this amendment and to join in some of the meetings with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and colleagues and Stella Creasy. Other colleagues have already explained the progress that has been made. We are hoping to hear from the Minister shortly, but I just want to say that, should the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, decide to call a vote, we on these Benches will support her. If she does not, we look forward to seeing an amendment at Third Reading.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am only going to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. I think she has shown huge patience and persistence. I am not surprised, because my honourable friend Stella Creasy has those qualities too. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, should the Minister not satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, we on these Benches are ready to support her in a Division.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that any message could have been conveyed more loudly and more convincingly than the one I have just received. I thank my noble friend Lady Morgan for this amendment and thank the other speakers on this topic.
As your Lordships have heard, the amendment seeks to revise current data protection legislation so that victims of malicious complaints involving third parties can prevent the processing—and subsequently request the deletion—of personal data from that complaint. The issue has been raised previously in the other place and discussed in your Lordships’ House in Committee. As my noble friend Lady Morgan has just said, the Government indeed recognise that complaints of this kind can be used to perpetuate harassment and that victims should be better supported.
In addition, as my noble friend also pointed out, we have to strike a balance between the processes for erasure and removal of all traces of such complaints and harassment on the one hand and the need to have regard to safeguarding concerns on the other. The issue is how we strike the balance. The Government’s present view is that the amendment as drafted is not one that we can accept because it is too wide and poses some operational and safeguarding issues. However, we have heard the concerns and, although we cannot accept the amendment today, I commit the Government to bringing forward an amendment at Third Reading to address these concerns.
To explain a little, if I may, we have to triangulate several different aspects: the nature of the harassment concerned, the provisions and procedures of the GDPR, the child safeguarding issues that are the concern of the Department for Education, the different procedures for various criminal and civil orders, the relevant police procedures and a number of other considerations, so it is not entirely straightforward. However, although it is not ideal to bring forward an amendment at Third Reading, this is a complex area and we should take the time to find an appropriate solution.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy very much for that wording. I also thank all those who have spoken in this short but perfectly formed, deeply efficient and extremely tenacious debate for their support, which has been much appreciated. Perhaps I might say that this has also been an instructive lesson to Members from the House of Commons as to how we get things done here in this Chamber.
We need to see the wording and I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for saying that. We will of course engage with his officials. I am also deeply grateful to my noble friend Lady Barran for her engagement already. I am very grateful that the Government now see the need to update the law to take into account this very real situation. Any amendment needs to be clear that the process of applying for deletion must be accessible to victims of malicious complaint. The threshold, as we have heard, is not just criminal convictions but, potentially, other orders so that we do not create a perverse incentive for victims not to have certain orders sought on their behalf. I also appreciate that any amendment obviously needs to safeguard protection and rights for children.
On this basis, we will see whether the government amendment goes far enough when we see it before Third Reading—I hope we see it well in advance of that—and, if not, I reserve the right to table our own to continue the debate. I am grateful for the support. I will even take it to a vote at Third Reading if we feel that the Government’s amendment is not fit for purpose. But, for the purposes of today, I will withdraw Amendment 95.
Baroness Meacher
“Victims of specified offences: data-sharing for immigration purposes(1) The personal data of a victim of a crime mentioned in subsection (3), which is processed for the purpose of that person requesting or receiving support or assistance related to the crime, must not be used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.(2) The personal data of a witness to crime mentioned in subsection (3), which is processed for the purpose of that person giving information or evidence to assist the investigation or prosecution of the crime, must not be used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.(3) The crimes referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are—(a) domestic abuse as defined by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;(b) an offence under any of sections 2, 2A, 4 or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A (1) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001;(c) an offence under any of sections 1, 2 or 4 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015;(d) an offence under Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; (e) such other offences as specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(4) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 does not apply to personal data processed for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2).(5) For the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State must publish guidance about the effect of subsections (1) and (2) to—(a) persons who are victims of or witnesses to the crimes in subsection (3),(b) persons from whom support or assistance may be requested or received by a victim of crime in the United Kingdom,(c) persons providing support to, or conducting investigations or prosecutions with the support of, witnesses of crime in the United Kingdom,(d) persons exercising any function of the Secretary of State in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality, and(e) persons exercising any function conferred by or by virtue of the Immigration Acts on an immigration officer.(6) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise any guidance issued under this section.(7) Before issuing or revising guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner,(b) the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses,(c) the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, and(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(8) Subsection (7) does not apply in relation to any revisions of the guidance issued under this section if the Secretary of State considers the proposed revisions of the guidance are insubstantial.(9) A person exercising public functions to whom guidance issued under this section relates must have regard to it in the exercise of those functions.(10) For the purposes of this section—“consent” means a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the individual’s wishes by which the individual, by a statement, signifies agreement to the processing of the personal data.“immigration” means the exercise of any functions of the Secretary of State and of immigration officers under the Immigration Acts within the meaning of section 61 of the UK Borders Act 2007.“support or assistance” includes the provision of accommodation, banking services, education, employment, financial or social assistance, healthcare and policing services and any function of a court or prosecuting authority.“victim”, in relation to a crime, means the particular person who appears to have been affected by the crime, and their dependent, where that dependent is also affected by the crime.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to ensure that the personal data of a victim of a crime is not used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I intend to press this amendment to a vote, so I need to explain it. We have already debated it but, very briefly, the amendment seeks to protect migrants who help the police by preventing their personal details being used by the immigration authorities. With that, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27 and Clause 18, page 17, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
“(ii) in subsection (3)(a), for “required to do anything under the code issued under section 32” substitute “who is subject to the duty in section 5(A1) of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (duty to provide services in accordance with victims’ code)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 5, page 4, line 27.
Baroness Brinton
“Duty to inform victims and families of the unduly lenient sentencing schemeAfter section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, insert—“36A Duty to inform victims and families of the unduly lenient sentencing scheme(1) The Secretary of State must nominate a government department to inform victims and their families of their rights set out in section 36 (reviews of sentencing).(2) The information provided under subsection (1) must include the type of sentence and the time limit for application, and advise that applications must be made to the Attorney General.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that victims are aware of the Unduly Lenient Sentencing scheme which presently has a strict 28-day timeframe in which to apply, there being no power to extend the time.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to lay Amendments 100 and 101 for your Lordships’ consideration. As we had a considerable debate on them in Committee, I propose to outline only the briefest reasons why I have re-laid these amendments originally laid by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst.
The whole object of the Bill is to give victims some rights that would at least go some way towards matching the rights for offenders and other participants in the criminal justice system. At present, the permissions for a victim to argue and challenge a sentence for being unduly lenient are completely different from those of everybody else involved in the system. For example, offenders can exceed a 28-day timeframe by exceptionality—all they and their counsel have to do is demonstrate that there really are exceptional circumstances. But, for victims, there is no such exception at all, even if they were not informed by the police or the courts about the sentence itself but were left completely in the dark.
We know from the many stories that were retold in Committee that there is a real sense of injustice. One victim had received notification of the sentence on the 28th day by which she had to apply for a challenge. It was delivered to the Attorney-General’s office, and nobody was there, even though it was within the timeframe. Because it was not opened, she was not permitted to challenge the sentence.
I am very grateful to the Minister for the discussion we have had, and I look forward to hearing him speak from the Dispatch Box. What we seek through these two amendments is to make sure that victims have the right, as everybody else in the criminal justice system does, to say, “Please will the Attorney-General reconsider this sentence for this crime, because we believe that it is unduly lenient?” I beg to move.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I am happy to add my name to these two amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. There is no need to speak at length about them; it is essentially about trying to ensure that victims have equality of rights, in this case with prospective prisoners. At the moment, frankly, they are disadvantaged and are put through a series of hoops—if, indeed, they can find out what in theory they are entitled to. I shall say no more than that I entirely support everything the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has said, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, we had a very full debate on this issue in Committee. From these Benches, we are deeply committed to these two amendments. This is a victims’ Bill, and it seems to me that we really need to be doing things to support victims, which is what these two relatively modest amendments do. If the noble Baroness decides to test the opinion of the House, we will support her.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 100 and 101 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, seek to extend the current time limit for applications under the unduly lenient sentence scheme, which currently must be made within 28 days of sentencing and require a nominated government department to inform victims and families of the scheme, including the relevant time limits.
Having a fixed time limit reflects the importance of finality in sentencing for both victim and offender. While we will keep this limit under consideration, there are no current plans to remove the certainty of an absolute time limit for victims and offenders alike. However, the Government recognise that there is uncertainty over how far in advance of the time limit expiring a victim must ask for a sentence to be reviewed, given the fact that the Attorney-General must refer the case to the Court of Appeal within that fixed time limit. We also recognise that the number of requests made to the law officers and therefore the number of sentences they consider has increased in recent years, due in part to increased awareness of the scheme.
The Government are therefore tabling an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill which will amend the time limit in the unduly lenient sentencing scheme so that, where a request is made to the Attorney-General in the last 14 days of the 28-day limit, the Attorney-General will have 14 days from receipt to consider the request and, if appropriate, make an application to the Court of Appeal for a sentence to be reviewed. This will benefit victims as it will ensure that the Attorney-General will be able to consider requests that are made up until the end of the 28-day period.
As for informing victims about the scheme and the time limits, as I said in Committee, the victims’ code is already clear that victims should be informed about the scheme by the police’s witness care units at the same time as they are told about the sentence. This is expected to be done within six days of sentencing. However, I can go further and commit that when revising the victims’ code, the Government will look at the information about the scheme that is provided to make sure that it is as clear as possible. I hope this reassures the noble Baroness that action is being taken to address the issues she raised very eloquently in Committee and again today. Consequently, I respectfully ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to all speakers, especially for their brevity. I particularly thank the Minister for outlining details of how the Government are considering changing this, but we are seeking parity of rights between offenders and victims here. Offenders can still appeal outside 28 days in exceptional circumstances, those exceptional circumstances being judged by the Attorney-General. That is not on offer at the moment. There are not going to be floods of victims applying via these amendments if they have concerns about the finality of sentencing, but for a few victims of very serious crimes, this would provide a small amount of discretion. We heard examples that show how rigid the current system is. Under these amendments, the Attorney-General could easily decide, as they do at the moment for offenders, if there are genuine exceptional circumstances. It is true that the 14-day proposals assist the Attorney-General’s office and the CPS; however, the fundamental injustice remains. Victims, and only victims, still have only 28 days to apply. On these grounds, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Brinton
“Unduly lenient sentences: time limitIn paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, at end insert “, subject to paragraph 1A. (1A) The time limit of 28 days shall be extended in exceptional circumstances, which may include but not be limited to a failure of the relevant body to inform the victim and families of their rights under section 36 (reviews of sentencing).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow for the 28-day timeframe to be extended in exceptional circumstances, and prompt criminal justice agencies to meet their obligation to inform the victim and families of their rights and the tight time limit.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, with apologies to the House, it was Amendment 101 that I meant to divide on. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, there being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order 55, which provides that no proposal to amend a Bill in the form in which it is before the House shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such amendment, I declare the amendment disagreed to.
Lord Garnier
“Compensation for victims of fraud and other economic crimes(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a review of victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences.(2) The purpose of the review under subsection (1) is to identify how victims of such economic crimes could be better compensated without such victims needing to pursue civil action.(3) The Secretary of State must provide for a public consultation on the review.(4) In this section “victims of economic crime” includes United Kingdom and overseas victims of complex corruption cases where the harm caused by the offending is not easily quantifiable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires a review to explore how domestic and overseas victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences could be better compensated without the need for civil proceedings to recover their losses or compensation.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I wonder whether I can achieve such a satisfactory result at the end of my little outing.
For my noble friends on the Front Bench, listening to me speaking about this subject, which includes the proposed new clause in my Amendment 101A, it must seem as though they are listening to a cracked record—but for me it is like banging my head against a brick wall. For both of us, it will be nice when it stops.
In brief, my proposed new clause intends to require
“a review to explore how domestic and overseas victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences could be better compensated without the need for civil proceedings to recover their losses or compensation”.
I will hardly speak at all about the reasons behind the amendment and the good sense for it, because I already did so in Committee and trailed it, more or less verbatim, prior to that at Second Reading in December. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I will not say it a third time. However, what I will say a third time is a matter of formality relevant to the amendment: I declare my interest as a member of the Bar who practises in the field of economic crime.
I thank my noble friend Lord Roborough on the Front Bench, who very kindly arranged for me and Sam Tate—the partner of Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, RPC, the London law firm, who has studied this question with me and others—to meet him last week, along with a number of his officials. We had a very useful and friendly discussion, as one would expect. The conclusion was that there would need to be—guess what?—further discussions before the Government would be prepared to do very much.
I fully understand, and I fully understood then, the difficulties in which the Minister found himself in having the discretion to move this thing forward, but I think we both understand that this needs to be dealt with. It is a matter of morality and good law, and it has nothing whatever to do with party politics. This is not an area of political discord but just a matter of common sense and getting it done.
Essentially, I am trying to make it possible for the victims of fraud and other economic offences that impact on people overseas to be compensated by our English courts. The headline points are these. According to research done by Sam Tate and others at RPC, approximately £1.5 billion has been paid by corporates in fines and disgorgements of profits in the United Kingdom in relation to international corruption cases over the last 10 years, but only 1.4% of that money—about £20 million —has been paid to overseas state victims in compensation.
As I said, I will not repeat what I said at Second Reading and in Committee about the complications that may follow with trying to arrange for compensation to overseas victims to be implemented. It is not an utterly easy thing to do but, equally, it is not utterly difficult. It just requires effort, political will and drive. I hope that the meeting I had with my noble friend the Minister last week and the brevity of my remarks today will encourage the Government to just use a bit of oomph to get this thing going.
If the public listened to what I am saying now— I quite appreciate that they do not—they would realise that it is mad that we prosecute people here for things they did overseas but we do not compensate the victims who are overseas. There are hospitals and schools to be built, and other infrastructure and good causes to benefit from the compensation that ought to be paid.
I will leave it there, because I know that my noble friend the Minister would like to say some very encouraging things about what the Government are going to do, very shortly and certainly before the election, to ensure that this programme is moved forward. I have a draft letter, which I will send to the chairman of the Sentencing Council and which my noble friend has seen; he has heard all my arguments many times before. I just hope that, this third time, I will be able to persuade him to move a little more than an inch towards that milepost that I can see not very far away. I beg to move.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for raising this issue in Amendment 101A and for taking the time to meet me the other day to discuss this important issue further. As he is well aware, cases linked to foreign bribery are inherently complex, and the suggestion and detail that he has provided are being given careful consideration by my officials. Given the range of departmental interests engaged, His Majesty’s Government need to give it the consideration it is owed and welcome further conversations once they have digested my noble and learned friend’s points further. I will briefly lay out the Government’s position, which I did not cover fully in Committee.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for his response. I take on board precisely what he has said. This is complicated but it is not as complicated as he perhaps has been led to believe. It is easy to say that it is all too difficult, put it into the “too difficult” box and leave it. I simply urge my noble friend the Minister to move it just a bit into the “let’s have a look at it quite seriously” box. There is an awful lot of good that we can do, both for the victims of such overseas criminal activity and for our reputation as an honest place in which to do business and from which to do business.
I have troubled the House about this subject quite enough during this Bill, so will draw my remarks to an end by asking the leave of the House to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Wills
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, I shall combine my remarks on Amendment 102 with those on Amendments 103, 105 and 106.
Amendments 102, 103 and 105 seek to remove an unfair and irrational restriction on the role of the independent public advocate. I spoke in Committee at some length about how my original conception of this position in my Private Member’s Bill was driven by the pressing need for greater support and agency for those have been failed by the state and by public authorities in major incidents. Those who can avail themselves of the services of the advocate must include those for whom harm continues after a major incident, even though the major incident occurred before the passage of the Act.
Can there really be any serious justification for excluding, for example, the victims of contaminated blood transfusions and the postmasters whose lives were wrecked and continue to be wrecked by the Horizon scandal—people still struggling with the consequences of those failures by the state and by public authorities, even though the failures occurred before now?
I would be grateful if, in his response, the Minister would address this question directly: what justification is there to restrict the role of the advocate to exclude those such as the victims of contaminated blood transfusions? These amendments would rectify this specific problem in the current draft of the Bill.
In asking the Minister to respond to that question, I should perhaps have preceded my remarks by thanking him for the great generosity of time that he has given me, with his officials—to whom I am also extremely grateful—in discussing all the elements of this part of the Bill. He has gone over and above the call of duty. That I am one of many speakers thanking him for that shows the extent of this House’s debt to him and his officials in the progress of the Bill.
Amendment 106 is a relatively minor amendment but, after two Private Member’s Bills, it occurred to me that we perhaps should be more careful about how we define those who might benefit from the services of the of an independent public advocate. What constitutes a “close family member” in the modern world? Fifty or 100 years ago, the answer would have been common sense, but it is not any more. Living arrangements and relationships are much more various than they ever used to be. “Close” and “family” are, in effects, often disputable terms, and the current draft of the Bill is perhaps purposefully vague. For example, who will decide whether a parent estranged from their partner and who is no longer responsible for the upbringing of a child victim counts as a close family member? What happens if the person in question disputes any exclusion from the services of the advocate? If we at all can, we should try to head off such arguments beforehand, because they would only compound the grief and trauma suffered by many in the aftermath of a major incident.
This amendment seeks to avoid that, although it is, in essence, probing. If the Government have a better formulation, I would be happy to consider it, but it seeks to do so by introducing the specific definitions that have been derived from the intestacy provisions.
Amendment 106A tries to ensure that the post is implemented with proper timeliness. In Committee, I pointed out that it has been nearly seven years since the creation of an independent public advocate featured in the 2017 Queen’s Speech. The amendment seeks to remove any further possibility that the Government will unnecessarily delay the implementation of this post. In his response in Committee, the Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, rightly pointed out the need to observe due process in public appointments, so the amendment has been tweaked to take better account of that than my previous one.
In doing so, I had regard to the Governance Code on Public Appointments. Among other things, the code says that appointments should be completed
“within three months of a competition closing”.
In 2019, the Commissioner for Public Appointments found that the Ministry of Justice, where ministerial responsibility for the independent public advocate will reside, completed only 18% of appointments within that three-month target. Only the Home Office and BEIS had worse figures. To show that these figures are achievable, that compares to 100% of appointments by His Majesty’s Treasury and 76.7% by NHSI. Of course, the Ministry of Justice’s performance might have been transformed in the last five years but, in any event, the six-month period stipulated in this amendment should be ample time for the department to appoint the first independent public advocate, if it fulfils its duties in the way that the Commissioner for Public Appointments expects. If the Minister disagrees, I would be grateful if he could explain in detail why. This amendment is simply a lever to ensure compliance with the code of governance.
I now turn briefly to Amendment 110ZA. I spoke to this in Committee; I have tabled it again because, as it stands, the Bill still appears to permit the Secretary of State to appoint the independent public advocate but deprive them of the means to exercise their functions. I cannot believe that that is what the Government intend, but in any event this amendment will prevent any such travestying of the position.
Finally in this group, I come to Amendment 119AA; this amendment is intended to replace Amendment 108 in the Marshalled List. I spoke at some length in Committee, again, about the need to provide for some version of the Hillsborough Independent Panel to be accommodated in this Bill. This amendment attempts to do just that. I do not intend to rehearse again all of the arguments I made in Committee, but I remind the Minister of the advantages of such a provision, in terms of saving the taxpayer potentially hundreds of millions of pounds over the lifetime of a Parliament, and helping victims and the bereaved towards a more timely closure of their grief and trauma. The prolonged processes embedded, for example, in public inquiries only increase their suffering. I should be grateful if the Minister could indicate in his response whether the Government truly understand the crucial imperative of timeliness in fact-finding after a major incident, and how important that is for victims and the bereaved. How can it be acceptable to make them wait year after year, sometimes decade after decade, to find out what happened to their loved ones, and to understand why they have suffered such loss? Such delays only compound grief and trauma. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I return to speak very briefly to Amendment 109B, to deal with the position of Wales. In Committee, I introduced an amendment to require the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor, when appointing an independent advocate, to secure the consent of the Welsh Ministers. This is an area where it is common ground that there is devolution. I am grateful to say that the Government have agreed that there should be consultation, but they refuse to agree consent.
I put this down initially because one of the ways to make a union strong is to have a proper dialogue. Now, there are some areas where consultation has to be required by statute. Normally, one would expect that in areas where there is an overlap in competence, there would be consultation, but it is right we put a statutory duty in to that effect. However, it seems to me wholly extraordinary—and I am pretty certain it has nothing to do with the Ministry of Justice— that they refuse to agree to the consent of the Welsh Ministers.
Now, noble Lords will all know that, when looking for a lawyer, there is normally quite a good choice. In my experience, having been involved on a number of occasions, you can normally have a discussion about A or B, and you agree on C. It seems to me totally extraordinary, if we are to live in a union that works, that the Government in Westminster have to say, “No, those people in Cardiff just have to be consulted; we don’t have to get their consent”. Is this any way to run a union? The answer is obviously not, and I am sure that this does not come from the Ministry of Justice—in this Bill, the Lord Chancellor and the Minister have been most sensible in what they have put forward. But I deplore that bit of the Government that simply cannot understand that going through the courtesy of discussing things and obtaining consent is the better way to run a union.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as someone who lives in Wales. I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd for the way he introduced this amendment, which, as I understand it, actually reflects the proper constitutional provision. This is, by common ground, a devolved area. The Senedd has competence to legislate for the creation and appointment of an independent advocate for victims of major incidents in Wales. The UK and Welsh Governments agree that is the case, so the Senedd could make provision for Wales. I note the Welsh Government also believe that their Ministers would be able to appoint a non-statutory advocate following an incident in Wales under general executive powers.
As it stands, therefore, we are legislating for a situation in which rival advocates could possibly be appointed at the same time. This may not seem a likely eventuality, but it would be easily prevented by this amendment. The only element of this part of the Bill in which the Senedd could not make provision with regard to Wales is that an advocate for victims appointed under the Bill would automatically secure interested person status in a relevant inquest under Clause 34, but an advocate for victims appointed by Welsh Ministers could still be given interested person status by a senior coroner if they consider them to have sufficient interest.
Clearly, it seems sensible for this legislation to cover both England and Wales, and so for the Welsh Government to be part of the scheme, but it is similarly sensible that the legislation reflects devolution, and enables Welsh Ministers to ensure that the advocate has knowledge in Wales and the necessary ability to do everything in Welsh. I remind the House that there is equal status between the two languages—in Wales, both English and Welsh are spoken—and the systems in Wales sometimes operate quite differently from systems in England.
The Secretary of State acting unilaterally in an area of devolved competence would not seem appropriate, and we need to avoid friction to strengthen the union. This is an opinion only and I am not speaking on behalf of Welsh Government at all, but the Counsel General expressed in the Senedd on 13 December that
“there needs to be specific account in terms of the role of Welsh Government and what would happen within Welsh situations were there to be a tragic event”.
I therefore hope that the amendment will be accepted and will require the consent of Welsh Ministers to be agreed, not simply a consultation. The problem with the consultation is that there is a real risk it could be tokenistic.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, Clause 28 does not apply to Scotland, which can have its own legislation to deal with this matter, but I am very much in favour of the amendment. I have gone over the ground of seeking consent many times in different situations, but in this one, where we are dealing with the choice of advocates, the choice matters very much indeed. I would have thought that there is great sense in the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that this is an area where the consent of Welsh Ministers is not only appropriate but required.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I have not taken part in earlier discussions on this Bill for reasons outside my control, but it would be strange for me not to get on my feet to reinforce the points that have been so well made by noble Lords. This is an important matter as far as Wales is concerned. There needs to be clarity and co-operation, and that has to be on a proper basis. I suggest that these amendments would help facilitate that.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, while we support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Wills, in view of the explanations he gave for them in Committee and today I shall not add to what he said on them, except for Amendment 119AA, to which I will turn. I should also add that we thoroughly support the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. We should all be mindful of his question, “Is this any way to run a union?” No, it is not, because there is a certain tactlessness, which is offensive and should be reversed, about the way the London Government sometimes regard devolution.
I will say a word or two about Amendment 104, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, although he has not yet spoken to it. I intervened on the principle of that amendment in Committee because it seemed to me then, as it does now, that the number of people killed or seriously injured in an incident is not and should not be the determining factor in whether it is a major incident. In Committee there was discussion about whether the Horizon scandal could be classified as a major incident because of the number of deaths and the serious harm that was caused, even though that harm may be psychological or emotional, and we questioned that. We also considered the Fishmongers’ Hall attack in which the significant number threshold was plainly not met, but the effect on the wider public of that event was traumatic, deep and widespread, I suggest, certainly enough to enable it to be properly classified as a major incident.
Since Committee, the noble Lord has narrowed his amendment significantly. It now seeks to permit the Secretary of State to classify as a major incident any incident where the circumstances indicate systemic failings of a public body and that such circumstances might recur, even where the significant number threshold is not met. I should have thought that the Government could have accepted and should accept that amendment. I will be very interested to hear whether the Minister considers that it is acceptable or whether he has some alternative; and, if not, why he considers that the number of dead and injured is a necessary condition for the appointment of public advocates.
Amendments 109 and 110 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, concern considering the views of the victims before appointing an additional advocate and before terminating the appointment of advocates. Those amendments go some way, although a limited way, to ensuring the independence of advocates. That independence is an essential cornerstone of the scheme: independent advocates having the ability, the willingness and, indeed, the obligation to tell the truth as they see it, to argue for the truth as they see it and to criticise where they see the need. Otherwise, there is a danger that this scheme could prove a route to whitewashing the blunders of public bodies, which is something we all wish to avoid.
As to Amendment 119AA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, on which we expect he may wish to divide the House, the decision on whether to hold an inquiry into a major incident lies at the heart of the scheme. I suggest that he has made a powerful case that the power to establish an alternative fact-finding inquiry is important, for all the reasons he has given. It is also self-evident that any fact-finding inquiry can be effective only with access to all the relevant evidence, which is set out in his amendment. The very fact that the Government are resisting this amendment suggests a lack of self-confidence to ensure a thorough and independent scrutiny of major incidents, and that is why we shall support the noble Lord, Lord Wills, if he divides the House.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments is concerned with the scope and role of the independent advocate. I open by paying tribute to the work that my noble friend Lord Wills has done on this role for many years now through a number of Private Members’ Bills. If he chooses to test the opinion of the House on his Amendment 119AA, we will support it.
I shall speak briefly to the amendments in my name in this group. Amendment 104 would enable the Secretary of State to designate incidents causing serious harm or death to a small number of individuals as major incidents where there was a significant public interest in doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, gave the example of Fishmongers’ Hall, where there were few fatalities but nevertheless it was a serious incident that had a national impact. The noble Lord and I will listen with interest to the Government’s response to Amendment 104.
Amendment 107 would require the standing advocate to communicate the views of the victims of a major incident to the Secretary of State. Amendment 109 would require the Secretary of State to consider the views of victims of a major incident on whether to appoint an additional advocate and who to appoint. Amendment 110 would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to consider the views of the victims of a major incident before terminating the appointment of an advocate appointed in relation to that major incident.
Amendment 111 would require the Secretary of State to make guidance under Clause 38 publicly available. Amendment 112 would require the Secretary of State to consult the standing advocate before issuing, revising or withdrawing guidance in relation to matters to which advocates appointed in respect of major incidents must have regard. I look forward to the Minister’s response to all those amendments, none of which I intend to press—they are essentially probing amendments.
I shall comment briefly on the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, about the situation in Wales. I listened with interest to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said on the matter. I am not a lawyer, as I have said many times in this House, but the word used in the amendment is “concurrence”, not “consent”. I do not know whether that is a substantial difference but the whole of that mini-debate referred to the word “consent”, not the word used in the amendment. Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord made an interesting and substantial point, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
In conclusion, if my noble friend chooses to press Amendment 119AA, we will support him.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, first I shall speak to the amendments tabled in my name, on behalf of the Government, which address the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about the relationship between the Secretary of State and the Welsh Government. Government Amendments 103A and 109A will require the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before declaring a major incident that occurs in Wales and before appointing an advocate in respect of that incident. I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, has tabled Amendment 109B, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and other noble Lords have supported it.
The scheme here is being administered and funded by the UK Government. The Government’s position is therefore that the right level of involvement for Welsh Ministers is to be consulted by the Secretary of State before decisions are made, rather than requiring consent or concurrence, as Amendment 109B suggests. The Government believe it would not be proportionate for the UK Government to require the consent of Welsh Ministers, thereby in effect giving them a veto over those decisions. The Government must be able to act quickly following a disaster. I believe these amendments prioritise both speed and operability while respecting aspects of this policy that cover devolved areas.
For the avoidance of doubt, I add that, as far as the Ministry of Justice is concerned, we have perfectly good relations with the Counsel General for Wales, and we are in regular touch with Welsh Ministers on matters of mutual interest. For myself, I do not anticipate any difficulties arising from the sensible amendments proposed by the Government. Given that the Government have tabled these amendments, and having regard to the points I have just outlined, I hope the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. I shall be moving the amendments in my name in this regard.
Government Amendment 110A is a technical amendment, clarifying the grounds on which the Secretary of State may omit from reports material that, in the Secretary of State’s view, would prejudice an investigation, inquest or inquiry. This is an important amendment to ensure that materials relating to national security or those that might prejudice a subsequent investigation or criminal trial, for example, are protected. In the Government’s view, the amendments preserve the necessary balance between protecting that integrity and giving reassurance that the independent public advocate’s reports will not be unduly affected. It is a sensible precaution to take.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Government for the review. My own view is that while I would also like there to be some of the powers mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, it is a position that will evolve over time. It is really important to have that review and right to recognise where the Government have moved, and I thank them for it.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. That is the Government’s position on Amendments 102 and 105.
Amendment 103, which is in the same group, would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the emotional and financial interests of victims when deciding whether to declare a major incident. The Government’s view is that the definition of harm in the Bill already includes emotional harm, as in Clause 28(3). It is unlikely that financial harm would occur in isolation, without the other kinds of harms mentioned in the Bill. Certainly, harm is a major factor when the Secretary of State considers whether to declare a major incident, so the Government’s position is that Amendment 103 is not necessary.
Amendment 106 touches on the close family member point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. The question is how these days you define a close family member. The Government do not believe that the face of the Bill is the appropriate place to address that concern. In modern society, there is effectively no set structure for a family and the Government need flexibility to capture those who need support. In the Government’s view, the approach is best left to guidance and the discretion of the IPA concerned to provide that flexibility. Of course, the input of the noble Lord and others when we draft the guidance on what kind of indications should be given in it will be very valuable, rather than having it set out in advance in the technical structure of the Bill.
We then come to Amendments 107, 109 and 110, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and Amendments 106A and 110ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. These require the appointment of a standing advocate within six months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State to consider the views of victims and the provision of support so that the independent advocate will have all the support necessary.
As far as the period of six months to appoint is concerned, of course the Government share the noble Lord’s desire for the standing advocate to be in place as soon as possible once the Bill becomes law. But there has to be a fair and open competition for the office. As I hope the noble Lord will appreciate, the Government will want to carry out all relevant due diligence prior to the appointment. That process will take some time. In addition, I can confirm that the standing advocate will be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny by the Justice Select Committee to ensure that the most appropriate candidate is appointed to the post. For those reasons, the Government do not feel that any change to the process is required at this time. In particular, the six-month period would be unduly restricting considering the importance of the decision and the processes that have to be gone through, including parliamentary scrutiny. It would be far too tight.
As far as taking into account the views of victims as part of the appointment-making process is concerned, the Government certainly share this goal. When the functions of the standing advocate come to be undertaken, as outlined in Clause 29, the advocate will advise the Secretary of State on the interests of victims, whether additional advocates are needed and whether to terminate et cetera. The Government are quite satisfied that the views of victims will, in the normal course, be gathered and fully considered on this topic.
It does not seem right to the Government that a formal consultation with the victims would be correct before these steps are taken, because that would have the potential to unduly delay matters. The general scheme of this part of the Bill is that the ground is already covered. There is no reason to suppose that victims will not be fully included in the various decisions that come to be made. The Secretary of State has committed to publishing a policy statement and I will ensure that this covers the factors the Secretary of State will consider when making these decisions. This includes the participation of victims.
As far as secretarial and other support is concerned, the advocates will be supported by a permanent secretariat. The Ministry of Justice has already allocated funding for this. Clause 31 provides an effective system of support for the IPA by making provision for a secretariat and remuneration. Work is already under way to provide for this secretariat and provide for the appropriate separation between the day-to-day functions of the ministry and this independent operation.
That essentially leaves Amendment 119AA, on which it has been indicated that the House’s opinion may be tested. It requires that, “within six months” of a major incident, the Secretary of State must announce whether he intends to establish an inquiry or similar fact-finding review and provide the reasons for his decision to Parliament. If he decides to establish a non-statutory inquiry, the person appointed must be given data-compelling powers.
Lord Wills (Lab)
I am extremely grateful, as always, to the Minister for that thorough response to all my points. We made a little progress in Committee, for which I am grateful, as I am for the little progress we have made today. I am grateful to the Minister for the open way he has engaged with all these serious points. He will not be surprised that I am disappointed that we have not made further progress on some of the key points.
On the question of what the Minister regards as retrospectivity and the linked incidents, I had hoped I had made it clear that this is not a retrospective look at incidents that have finished—historic incidents that have no relevance to the present. The amendment refers specifically to continuing harm, which is what matters. It is not the incident itself that is significant but the consequences of the incident and the examination of the failures of the state and public authorities, which should have protected the victims but, for whatever reason, did not and let down the bereaved, who suffered grievous losses—that is the point. It is not retrospective. I of course understand the points about the sensitivity of retrospective legislation and all the rest of it—but this is not that.
It is really important—and I hope the Government will reflect on this—that we bear in mind that what this whole part addresses is an attempt to redress the deep imbalance of power between victims and the bereaved, on the one hand, and on the other the state and public authorities that failed them so grievously. That is the whole point of this, and we have seen it over and over again.
On the question of timeliness—and that is the point of the fact-finding inquiry—this is absolutely crucial, for so many different reasons. I remind your Lordships’ House of the points made in the very potent report from Bishop James on the lessons from Hillsborough. He made the point that, unless you get to the truth quickly, it creates a period of time in which the authorities that are in the frame can establish a false narrative, which is precisely what the police did at Hillsborough—and that is precisely what the Hillsborough Independent Panel was designed to try to get to the bottom of, as it did. It started the process by which those Hillsborough families finally got some form of justice for their decades- long struggle.
I am really baffled as to why the Government, when they have such a good example of a new process that actually worked for the bereaved, and worked in a way that one public inquiry, a de facto public inquiry, with all the scrutiny and the coroners’ inquests, did not. They all failed, for different reasons, and it was only the fact-finding inquiry that got somewhere towards the truth and got something like justice for those families.
I do not know why the Government want to put to one side a successful example, which was actually delivered under a Conservative Government. This is not a party issue: this was set up by a Labour Government and delivered under a Conservative Government. I am baffled—but I take comfort from the fact that the Minister has accepted the need for a review and left the door open, I hope intentionally, to addressing some of these points in future. I am still worried about the problem of the fact-finding inquiry, and for that reason I am minded to test the opinion of the House, when we reach that amendment. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 102.
Lord Bellamy
“(2A) Before declaring an incident that occurs in Wales to be a major incident, the Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the Welsh Ministers before declaring an incident that occurs in Wales to be a major incident.
Lord Bellamy
“(1A) Before appointing an advocate in respect of a major incident that occurs in Wales, the Secretary of State must consult the Welsh Ministers.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult the Welsh Ministers before appointing an advocate in respect of a major incident that occurs in Wales.
Lord Bellamy
(g) prejudice—(i) the investigation or prosecution of an offence,(ii) an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005,(iii) an inquest under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, or (iv) any other investigation or inquiry by a person exercising functions of a public nature.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to omit material from a report to be published under Clause 36 where the Secretary of State considers that publication of that material would prejudice certain investigations, inquiries or inquests.
Baroness Thornton
“Major incidents: duty of candour(1) In discharging their duties in relation to a major incident, public authorities and public servants and officials must at all times act within their powers—(a) in the public interest, and(b) with transparency, candour and frankness.(2) If a major incident results in a court proceeding, official inquiry or investigation, public authorities and public servants and officials have a duty to assist—(a) relating to their own activities, or(b) where their acts or omissions may be relevant.(3) In discharging the duty under subsection (2), public authorities and public servants and officials must—(a) act with proper expedition,(b) act with transparency, candour and frankness,(c) act without favour to their own position,(d) make full disclosure of relevant documents, material and facts,(e) set out their position on the relevant matters at the outset of the proceedings, inquiry or investigation, and(f) provide further information and clarification as ordered by a court or inquiry.(4) In discharging their duty under subsection (2), public authorities and public servants and officials must have regard to the pleadings, allegations, terms of reference and parameters of the relevant proceedings, inquiry or investigation but may not be limited by them, in particular where they hold information which might change the ambit of the said proceedings, inquiry or investigation.(5) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) must—(a) be read subject to existing laws relating to privacy, data protection and national security, and(b) apply in a qualified way with respect to private law and non-public functions as set out in subsection (6), and(c) not be limited by any issue of insurance indemnity.(6) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) will be enforceable by application to the relevant court or inquiry chairperson by any person affected by the alleged breach, or the court or inquiry may act of its own motion.(7) Where there are no extant court or inquiry proceedings, the duties may be enforced by judicial review proceedings in the High Court.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require public authorities, public servants and officials to act in the public interest and with transparency, candour and frankness when carrying out their duties in relation to major incidents.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 113 on the duty of candour in place of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester.
I took the time to read the reasons why the Minister did not want us to proceed with this in Committee. I remind the noble Earl that we agreed about the duty of candour in 2014 when we put it on the statute book, in, I suspect, the very large Bill of the now noble Lord, Lord Lansley, on the reorganisation of the NHS, or one that followed shortly after. The whole House agreed that the duty of candour was an important matter within the NHS, and it has become part of the culture of our NHS. I should perhaps declare an interest as a non-executive director of the Whittington Hospital and part of its governance structure.
This amendment seeks to extend that duty to all public organisations—I thank Inquest and others for their briefings—to cover those operating across all public services. This has been Labour policy for some considerable time. Inquest believes, as we do, that there is an urgent need to introduce a duty of candour for those operating across all public services. A duty of candour would place a legal requirement on organisations to approach public scrutiny, including inquiries and inquests into state-related deaths, in a candid and transparent manner. We are talking about major incidents here, so this is very important. This duty would enable public servants and others delivering state services to carry out their role diligently, while empowering them to flag dangerous practices that risk lives.
In Committee, the Minister said that he thought this could
“give rise to many difficult and conflicting views, making the whole process almost impossible to manage and drawing civil servants into conflict with each other and their employers”.—[Official Report, 26/2/24; col. 819.]
It seems to me that a duty of candour does exactly the opposite: it actually allows for a transparent discussion about what might have gone wrong.
I am not going to go into any more detail, because we had a very good discussion about this in Committee. However, Justice’s report When Things Go Wrong found that
“In both inquests and inquiries, lack of candour and institutional defensiveness on the part of State and corporate interested persons and core participants are invariably cited as a cause of further suffering and a barrier to accountability”.
If noble Lords think back to Hillsborough and other inquiries, how true that statement is. That is why this is important.
Bishpop James Jones concluded that South Yorkshire Police’s
“repeated failure to fully and unequivocally accept the findings of independent inquiries and reviews has undoubtedly caused pain to the bereaved families”.
That is the point of this amendment. Failure to make full disclosure and to act with transparency can lead to lengthy delays in investigations and inquiries, and actually make things so much worse for the victims involved. A statutory duty of candour would significantly enhance the participation of bereaved people and survivors by ensuring that a public body’s position was clear from the outset, limiting, we hope, the possibility of evasiveness. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. My right reverend friend the Bishop of Manchester is also a strong supporter of this amendment, which he has signed, and he regrets that he cannot be in his place today to speak to it himself.
As we have heard, six years ago, the former Bishop of Liverpool published his report on the Hillsborough disaster, The Patronising Disposition of Unaccountable Power. This report recommended the introduction of a duty of candour for the police, which was adopted in the College of Policing’s Code of Practice for Ethical Policing only earlier this year. I am glad that issuing a code of practice for ethical policing will become a statutory duty under the Criminal Justice Bill, but this is just one body. A duty of candour needs to apply to all public authorities. More often than not, crises, scandals and disasters which require an inquiry involve multiple, overlapping public agencies, all of which need to be under the same compulsory responsibility to act with transparency for that inquiry to be fully effective.
A duty of candour would challenge the instinct of institutions to focus primarily on reputation management in the wake of crises. This instinct leads only to more suffering and delay for affected persons. There is also a more pervasive effect whereby institutions are unwilling to be candid about their failures, so it is extremely difficult to learn from past mistakes. I do not believe that a duty would solve every problem, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I have also signed Amendment 113. I will not repeat everything that I said in Committee, but the experience of the duty of candour in the NHS has been a very useful example. As we have heard, it is a professional responsibility to be open and honest with patients and families when something has gone wrong. It also allows people to say sorry. Even in the NHS, the lawyers still do not want people to say sorry, but it is really important. Above all, where the duty of candour works well, it has changed the culture and values of the organisation.
I make that point because this is not just about after the event. Having a duty of candour can completely change the delivery of the service. It makes everybody who works in it—and, in the NHS, those who are regulated—behave and think differently. In exceptional examples, it will avoid disasters, which is important. That is why I support Amendment 113. It clearly does not work perfectly, because we are hearing stories of things that have gone badly wrong in hospitals, but I suspect that some of those would not have come out if the duty of candour were not in place. That is what I mean about a change of culture.
I will not say much more. Now is absolutely the time to expand the duty of candour beyond the NHS. I agree with everything that the right reverend Prelate said about making sure that it applies to all public bodies and to public servants, because this is also about the behaviour of senior individuals. If the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, wishes to test the opinion of the House, these Benches will support him.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for Amendment 113. As she explained, it seeks to place a statutory duty of candour on all public authorities, public servants and officials after a major incident has been declared in writing by the Secretary of State.
The Government wholeheartedly agree that it is of the highest importance that we combat unforgivable forms of institutional obstruction and obfuscation. It is exactly for that reason that the Deputy Prime Minister signed the Hillsborough charter on behalf of the Government, which specifically addresses placing the public interest above one’s own reputation and approaching all forms of public scrutiny, including public inquiries and inquests, with candour and in an open, honest and transparent way. We want the charter to become part of the culture of what it means to be a public servant in Britain. The Deputy Prime Minister wrote to all departments to ensure that everyone who works in government is aware of the Hillsborough charter and what it means for the way that they work. Information on the charter has already been added to the Government’s propriety and ethics training and will shortly form part of the induction that all new civil servants are expected to take.
We are determined that the charter and its principles should be embedded into public life, and we are encouraging other public bodies and local authorities to follow our example by doing the same—a number of them have done so.
When it comes to statutory duties of candour, which have been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and others, the Government have taken strong and decisive actions in policing and in health and social care. However, different parts of the public sector have different roles and circumstances. This amendment seeks to capture everyone under one umbrella. While I recognise the good intention behind it, I do not believe—and nor do the Government—that in practice, it would be as effective or as proportionate a measure.
That is not to say that there is nothing in place already to bind other public servants. On the contrary, a very clear framework of legal and ethical duties most certainly exists, and the Government believe that this framework—which includes the Nolan principles on public life and the Civil Service Code—is fit for purpose and appropriate to reflect the myriad professional functions performed by the public sector.
The noble Baroness may argue that given the complexity of the existing framework, this amendment serves to bring it all together in one place, making it all more accessible and easier to understand. If she argues that, I am afraid I cannot agree. The amendment just cannot sit neatly on top of the existing frameworks. We should not just assume that it can work with the existing framework of duties, which are carefully calibrated for the specific circumstance that they bite on.
Given that no one wants to abandon the Nolan principles or the Civil Service Code, that poses a real problem. The Government firmly believe in the benefits of having a bespoke approach to different parts of the public sector, because each part is different. We are not convinced that a single overarching duty would work well in practice.
It is clear from our debates on the subject that a particular concern is the conduct of public officials at inquests and statutory inquiries. It is very important to understand something about those particular contexts. I can confirm that, regardless of one’s status or profession, powers already exist—backed by criminal penalties—to obtain documents and testimony in an inquest or statutory inquiry. As noble Lords will know, the same is true of court proceedings, where relevant disclosure is required by all litigants. If the concern here is primarily inquests, inquiries, and the like, it is unclear what this amendment would add.
As Bishop James himself acknowledged, this is an extremely complex area, and I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. He also said that the most important thing is for all bodies who sign up to the charter to
“make the behaviours described in the charter a reality in practice”.
In my view, it would be unwise to rush forward with an amendment like this one. I believe that it would be disruptive; it would not work well in practice; and it could also have consequences which have not yet been realised. If we are going to put further statutory duties in place, the subject needs a lot more thought by a lot more people. I emphasise that the Government share the desire to see an end to unacceptable institutional defensiveness, but the key to doing that is to focus on changing culture across the public sector.
Let us make progress on our commitments in the Hillsborough charter, and indeed elsewhere; let us monitor how they are embedding. If we believe that there are further issues to address, we will not hesitate to take the appropriate action. In the light of what I have said, I hope the noble Baroness will reflect and perhaps feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the noble Earl for his usual comprehensive and very straightforward summing up, but we do not agree with him.
Part of the problem is that, although the Hillsborough charter may be comprehensive, a large part of it is voluntary. What we are discussing is something that covers everybody. Frankly, if a duty of candour can be applied equally in a hospital to the most senior consultant and a porter, I cannot see why it cannot be applied in this case to everybody. I am a non-executive director, and my chair and I both have the same duty of candour within the NHS, wherever we work and whatever we do. A duty of candour is not a silver bullet—I absolutely accept that it is often very tough to implement, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, knows—but it can change an organisation over a period of time.
The noble Earl himself has found many ways to achieve many things in his public duty, including the duty of candour in the NHS. It must be possible to say that all public servants should be bound by a duty of candour and to ensure that it is possible to do that regardless of whatever codes they are following and whatever they are doing.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Apart from inquests and statutory inquiries, what are the circumstances in which she expects this to be necessary?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Earlier in the debate, it was quite clear from our discussions about the report on Hillsborough that it should cover everybody who gives evidence and is involved in an inquiry or whatever arises out of a serious incident. That is what we are seeking to do. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“Code for victims of major incidents(1) The Secretary of State must issue a code of practice as to the services to be provided to victims of major incidents by persons having functions relating to— (a) victims of major incidents, or(b) any aspect of official inquiries and investigations following a major incident.(2) In this Part, the “code for victims of major incidents” means the code of practice issued under this section.(3) The code for victims of major incidents must make provisions for services which reflect the principles that victims of major incidents—(a) must be provided with information to help them understand the investigatory processes following the major incident of which they are a victim;(b) must be able to access services which support them (including, where appropriate, specialist services);(c) must have the opportunity to make their views heard in the investigatory processes following the major incident of which they are a victim;(d) must be able to challenge decisions which have a direct impact on them, other than through judicial review.(4) The Secretary of State may by way of regulations make further provision about the code for victims of major incidents of which a draft must be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5) The Secretary of State may make regulations under subsection (4) only if satisfied that provisions made in the code for victims of major incidents in compliance with the regulations would not result in—(a) a significant reduction in the quality or extent of the services provided in accordance with the code for victims of major incidents,(b) a significant restriction in the description of persons to whom services are provided in accordance with the code for victims of major incidents,(c) a significant restriction in the description of persons having functions in relation to victims of major incidents or any aspect of official inquiries and investigations following a major incident, or(d) a reduction of the involvement of victims of major incidents in the investigatory processes following the major incident of which they are a victim.(6) The code for victims of major incidents may make different provision for different purposes, including different provision for—(a) victims of different descriptions;(b) persons who have different functions of a kind mentioned in subsection (1).(7) The code for victims of major incidents may not require anything to be done by a person acting in a judicial capacity, or on the instructions of or on behalf of such a person.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this group concerns the victims’ code for major incidents. In speaking to Amendment 114, I am speaking to all the other amendments in this group as well.
We believe that this Bill represents a missed opportunity to extend entitlements of the victims’ code to victims of major incidents. Victims of major incidents will have suffered serious harm, often at the hands of state or corporate bodies. However, they do not receive the same recognition from government as victims of crime and so are not entitled to the same minimum level of support and services. Instead, they are often expected to navigate complex legal processes with little recognition of the harm they have suffered or the trauma they have faced. While the position of victims in the criminal justice system is far from perfect, as I have mentioned, organisations working with bereaved families have flagged a distinct lack of support for victims in the contexts of inquests and inquiries.
There is no principled reason to focus on improving the experience of victims in one context over another, while failing properly to recognise the needs and experiences of victims in a non-criminal context. It is also worth recalling that inquests and inquiries, particularly those relating to major incidents as defined by the Bill, often run concurrently with or prior to criminal investigations, allowing certain minimum entitlements in one process and not the other. This risks undermining the confidence of victims in both systems. There is little use in trying to ensure that individuals are supported through and engaged with the criminal process when they are at risk of being—or have already been—let down by a separate legal process addressing the same events. This provides an additional justification for affording victims in the inquests and inquiries contexts similar minimum entitlements to those in a criminal justice setting. Failing to do so is not only unfair but runs counter to the Government’s stated aim of ensuring that victims have confidence that they will be treated in a way they should rightly expect. I beg to move Amendment 114.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to Amendments 114 to 117, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which I supported in Committee and support again.
To those of us on these Benches, there seems to be no justification for limiting the protection and support for the victims granted in this Bill by the requirements for a victims’ code to victims of crime. It is not a massively radical step to produce an additional victims’ code for victims of major incidents which would give similar protections to those provided by the victims’ code for victims of crime—but tailored to victims of major incidents.
Part 2 of the Bill establishes the important scheme that we have been discussing for advocates of victims of major incidents. What it does not do is provide the necessary signposting for victims of major incidents to the assistance that they need—assistance of all types wherever available. There are particular issues for victims of major incidents and their families that do not necessarily arise for victims of crime, to do with accessing medical, psychological, financial and social help, among other things, in the wake of such incidents. The issues may be similar, but they are not completely overlapping.
Dealing with issues of bereavement and support for families following injury, dealing with issues connected with investigating and establishing responsibility for major incidents—these issues are very different in some cases from those facing victims of crime. However, there is no material difference in the need or justification for a separate code for victims of major incidents. If this Bill is a victims Bill, it should cover victims of major incidents as well.
On these Benches, we cannot see why we do not take the opportunity with this Bill of laying the ground for a similar code for victims of major incidents. I look forward to hearing how the Minister justifies passing up that opportunity.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for these amendments. While the Government understand the intention behind these amendments, we have not been convinced that they are necessary. Existing codes and the establishment of the independent public advocate deliver on many of these amendments’ aims. It may be helpful if I outline the Government’s rationale.
First, we have concerns over the application of this new code. As proposed, the code would apply only to those individuals who are considered victims of major incidents under the definition in this Bill. However, as this Bill is not retrospective, there are currently no victims under this definition. It would be premature to create such a code under the circumstances and we may lack the evidential basis for it at this time.
Secondly, the key aims of the proposed code directly align with the purpose of the independent public advocate, and it is therefore unnecessary. The IPA will help to ensure that victims understand the subsequent investigatory processes. They will help to signpost victims to appropriate support services and play a pivotal role in ensuring that the victims are able to challenge decisions and raise concerns, as part of their role will be to act as a conduit to government, to ensure that the victims are heard in order to effect change in real time.
Thirdly, as we noted in Committee, it is very likely that in many circumstances where a major incident is declared and an advocate is appointed, the victims will be victims of crime or criminal conduct. In these instances, they are already covered under the victims’ code, which sets out the services and support that victims of crime can expect to receive from criminal justice agencies. An additional code for victims of a major incident may therefore be duplicative and as such counterproductive.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, these were probing amendments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his support and for the arguments which he advanced. It seemed to me that the gist of the Minister’s response was that there was a lack of evidential basis for the requirements, which I outlined in my amendments. That may well be the case, but I did not hear from the Minister any desire to get that evidential basis, to keep the matter open. Nevertheless, I will withdraw this amendment. It may be a recurring theme in future Bills. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 114.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
“Publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people at inquests following a major incident(1) Section 10 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “(4)” insert “or (7).”(3) After subsection (6), insert—“(7) This subsection is satisfied where—(a) the services consist of advocacy at an inquest where the individual is an interested person pursuant to section 47(2)(a), (b) or (m) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 because of their relationship to the deceased, and(b) one or more public authorities are interested persons in relation to the inquest pursuant to section 47(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 or are likely to be designated as such.(8) For the purposes of this section “public authority” has the meaning given by section 6(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998.””
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 118 opens this seventh group. It concerns publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people at inquests following a major incident. We would have preferred to table an amendment extending publicly funded legal representation to all bereaved people at inquests, but I understand that was not in scope. It has been a long-standing Labour commitment to extend publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people.
The current funding scheme allows state bodies unlimited access to public funds for the best legal teams and experts, while families often face a complex and demanding funding application process. Many are forced to pay large sums of money towards legal costs or represent themselves during this process. Others use crowdfunding. The Bill would represent a tiny opportunity to raise the need to positively shape the inquest system for bereaved people by establishing in law the principle of the equality of arms between families and public authority interested persons.
It is no longer conscionable to continue to deny bereaved families publicly funded legal representation while public bodies are legally represented. Without automatic access to non-means-tested legal aid, bereaved families are denied their voice and any meaningful role. The absence of representation weakens investigations into state action; funded representation of the bereaved can safeguard lives and ensure that mistakes or harmful practices are brought to light. I beg to move.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 119 seeks to establish a code of practice for post-mortem processes. It arises out of a traumatic event suffered by Jenni Hicks, who lost her daughters Vicki and Sarah in the Hillsborough tragedy.
Perhaps the best way for your Lordships to understand the need for this amendment is to hear in Jenni Hicks’s own words what happened. This is how she described it in an email sent on 5 November 2022:
“I was asked if I would like to see 7 post, post mortem photographs of Vicki and 5 post, post mortem photographs of Sarah. I was warned they were both graphic and not pleasant. However, because of the 33yrs of lies, corruption, deception and lack of trust surrounding my daughters’ deaths, I chose to view them. I was shocked these photographs were in the hands of operation resolve. I’m aware the pathologists would have taken photographs to assist with causation of death and also to assist in writing the pathology reports. But, and it’s a huge but, I had assumed such graphic and sensitive photographs of naked bodies, including genitalia, would have been kept in a secure and safe environment. Not on a police computer”.
Moreover, as I understand it, the relevant injuries were to the head, and the genitalia were not pixelated, which they could easily have been. How could this have happened? These images existed for decades and, of all the many people who would have viewed them, not one of them thought, “This is not right”. It shows no respect for the dignity of the victims, who were young teenage girls. Why did not one person think that this was unacceptable? Not one did. If these had been the daughters of the people who had seen these images, year after year, one assumes that they would have been as profoundly upset and outraged as Jenni Hicks was. But they were not their daughters, so apparently no one cared. This unacceptable situation continued for decades.
For the most part, for whatever reason—and there may be many—a process of desensitisation often takes place in public authorities in the wake of major incidents such as this and on other occasions, apparently. This amendment seeks to put this right.
This amendment tries to address what is clearly an urgent need for a statutory code of conduct to preserve the dignity of the deceased and respect for the feelings of the bereaved. This is a probing amendment, as the Minister is aware. I understand that the Home Office is conducting a review to that end, so I assume that the Minister will want to await its outcome before deciding how to proceed. However, I would be grateful if he could confirm that the Government understand that this was unacceptable, that it must never recur and that they will give any new code of conduct the force of statute.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I support both amendments in this group. On Amendment 118 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, it is accepted that the whole question of publicly funded representation at inquests has been a grave injustice for many years. Amendment 118 seeks to correct that injustice, which involves a huge imbalance between the families of victims, public bodies and companies that are liable to be blamed for deaths. All those have representation that they can afford, whereas the families and bereaved do not. That injustice should be put right and this amendment seeks to achieve that.
For all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, I support his amendment on the post-mortem process and the code of practice designed to preserve the dignity of the deceased. But I would go a little further: the code of practice needs to look at the whole process that precedes the public part of the inquest.
In recent months, in two separate cases, I have helped the parents and the widow of victims of medical accidents. They have had real difficulties in getting at the truth and securing pathologists’ reports and post-mortem reports from the coroner’s office. Swift availability of such reports and swift disclosure to bereaved parents and families are of great importance. If this amendment were to see the light of day—I understand that it is only probing—I would suggest that the code of practice should go wider than simply preserving the dignity of the bodies to ensuring that bereaved families are not further hurt by avoidable delay, making that history.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, the amendment on the way that bodies are dealt with following a disaster is incredibly important. I remind the House of the “Marchioness” disaster back in 1989; there was an absolute outcry from the relatives about the way that some of those bodies were dealt with. The problem is that their grief is complicated when they hit different barriers and when they feel that the investigation and the post-mortem have been conducted inappropriately, particularly if they feel that things are being withheld from them.
To ensure that we provide support for these relatives, we need to make sure that there is a proper code of conduct and to improve the way that things are dealt with. I therefore think that this is an important probing amendment. I am glad that it is probing, because there are lots of things that could be altered and improved, but this work needs to be done and I hope the Minister will provide us with that assurance.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for Amendment 118, which extends legal aid to inquests. I completely understand the point that is being made, but the Government’s position is that the effect of the amendment is extremely broad and would give all interested persons the entitlement to free legal support and representation in any inquest, regardless of whether or not it follows a major incident, provided that at least one public authority was also an interested person. So, because of its width, the Government are unable to support the amendment.
In addition, the Government are already considering access to legal aid at inquests following major incidents. That is notably in response to Bishop James’s 2017 Hillsborough report. The MoJ is consulting on expanding free legal aid that is available for bereaved families at inquests following a major incident under this legislation and following terrorist attacks. In the Government’s view, the amendment goes beyond its stated purpose and the Government are already acting to deal with the issue of legal aid at inquests, so I respectfully urge the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
I turn to Amendment 119, a probing amendment. I am sure that everyone was moved by the description of the experience of Jenni Hicks, which was recounted by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. I was very sorry to hear about that experience. We very much appreciate the effect this must have had on Mrs Hicks and other families affected. In the Government’s view, Jenni Hicks and others are entirely right to have raised the issue in this Chamber. It is an issue that requires proper consideration. I know that Operation Resolve itself very much regrets the anguish and distress caused by the incident, and has offered its apologies. The officer in overall command has written to them setting out the actions taken to address their concerns, and last year I think the Policing Minister met with the families affected. The Home Office has been assured that appropriate procedures are now in place.
Lord Wills (Lab)
Can I just clarify this? I think the Minister accepts how serious an incident this was; I think it is accepted that this sort of contempt for the victims and the bereaved is probably pretty widespread, and that something has to be done to make sure it never happens again. Will he confirm that whatever code of conduct emerges from the processes he describes will be given the force of statute?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I am not at this moment in a position to give that confirmation at the Dispatch Box. I will give further thought to it, and write to the noble Lord in due course as to whether the Government are in a position to give that assurance. I see the force of the point.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a short but interesting debate. I acknowledge the points that the Minister made on my Amendment 118, about the existing consultation that the Government are doing and the broadness of the amendment. What was contained in the amendment was an aspiration, I suppose.
My noble friend spoke to Amendment 119 and gave the very moving example of Jenni Hicks. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also reminded us of the “Marchioness” disaster in 1989. Here again, the Minister said that the independent pathology review will look at processes. We look forward to what may come out of that, and to the Minister’s answer to my noble friend’s question about whether it will have the force of statute. For now, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 118.
Lord Bellamy
“Review of Part 2(1) The Secretary of State must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the review period—(a) prepare and publish a report about the operation in the review period of this Part, and(b) lay the report before Parliament.(2) The “review period” is the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which the power in section 30(1) (appointment of advocate in respect of major incident) is first exercised.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to review the operation of Part 2 in the period of 18 months following the first time an advocate is appointed under Clause 30.
Lord Wills
“Power of Secretary of State to establish an inquiry on major incidents(1) Within six months of the declaration of a major incident under section 28(2), the Secretary of State must make a statement to the House of Commons on whether they intend to establish—(a) an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005,(b) an alternative fact-finding inquiry, or(c) no inquiry at that time.(2) A person or persons appointed to hold an inquiry established under subsection (1)(b) must be granted the powers to see and report on all relevant documentation.(3) A statement under subsection (1) must set out why the Secretary of State believes the decision is in the public interest. (4) In consideration of the public interest, the Secretary of State must demonstrate that they have had regard to timeliness, cost, transparency and the emotional and financial interests of the parties.”
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, I heard what the Minister had to say about this amendment, but in view of the seriousness of what is involved here, the timeliness of a resolution for victims and the bereaved, and the cost to the taxpayer, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, there being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order 55, which provides that no proposal to amend a Bill in the form in which it is before the House shall be agreed to unless there is a majority in favour of such amendment, I declare the amendment disagreed to.
Earl Howe
“Infected Blood Compensation Authority(1) A body corporate called the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is established.(2) In this Part that body is referred to as “the IBCA”.(3) Schedule (Infected Blood Compensation Authority) contains further provision about the IBCA.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause establishes the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to the other government amendments in this group. I am grateful to have the opportunity to do so. These amendments collectively provide the necessary legal framework to establish an arm’s-length body and pay compensation without undue delay. Let me assure the House and those listening that the case for compensation is clear and the Government will pay compensation to those infected and affected by the infected blood scandal. The government amendments demonstrate our absolute commitment to deliver long-overdue justice to victims of infected blood.
On 20 May, the infected blood inquiry will publish its final report. This will be a historic day for those who have sought answers for decades, and I hope and trust that the inquiry will give those impacted the recognition that they deserve. I take this opportunity to thank the chair of the inquiry, Sir Brian Langstaff, for the thorough work that he has undertaken to produce his final report and to recognise the bravery of those who have provided evidence and testimony to the inquiry. I recognise the resilience of each person who continues to campaign on this issue, and I hope my words today will provide reassurance that we are moving in the right direction. I also thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for working with the Government to ensure that the amendments provide the legal framework to get this right. My firm intention today is to provide some meaningful reassurance that we have heard the concerns and are committed to establishing a scheme that works and delivers for victims.
Let me turn to the government amendments. These amendments impose a duty on the Government to establish an infected blood compensation scheme. They also establish a new arm’s-length body named the infected blood compensation authority to deliver the compensation scheme. The authority will operate on a UK-wide basis to ensure parity and consistency. Perhaps I can make it clear in passing that the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, should not have appeared with that of my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy at the top of Amendment 119C. I understand this was a clerical slip of the pen.
Victims of this scandal have waited far too long to see justice, and the Government share the determination of your Lordships to ensure that compensation reaches victims quickly. The government amendments pave the way for this, with early commencement provisions establishing the arm’s-length body on Royal Assent. The Government will give a substantive update to Parliament responding to the infected blood inquiry’s recommendations on compensation as soon as possible following 20 May. Subsequently, the details of the scheme will be set out in secondary legislation. The regulations to establish the scheme are subject to the “made affirmative” procedure the first time that they are made, which means they will have legal force immediately, and to the draft affirmative procedure thereafter, which applies to any changes to that first set of regulations that may be made in the future. This will provide parliamentarians with the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s intentions without any unnecessary delay to implementation. Operational matters around the setting up of the arm’s-length body are subject to the negative procedure, again to prioritise the speed of implementation.
We recognise that Parliament and the infected blood community need clarity on when these measures will be in place. I can say now that the Government support the Opposition’s amendment to deliver the regulations establishing an infected blood compensation scheme within three months of Royal Assent, and we are committed to doing so. However, in committing to that, it is right that I should signal a caveat on a purely practical issue. We must acknowledge that the three-month period could unavoidably include periods or circumstances in which the Dissolution, Prorogation or adjournment of Parliament affects the Government’s ability to make the regulations. There is a practical reality here. These “made affirmative” regulations will need to be agreed within government before they can be made, and there are operational processes that simply will not be running as normal when Parliament is not sitting.
There is also the challenge, that I am sure many noble Lords will speak to, that we need to build trust with the infected blood community on the scheme’s provisions. This would require sufficient time where both Ministers and Parliament were available ahead of regulations being laid. We had hoped by tabling Amendment 157CA that we could find a constructive compromise on those issues. However, with a view to consensus and having accepted the Opposition’s Amendment 119CA, we will not now put that amendment to the House.
I must be clear that we are seized of the need to move as quickly as possible to provide compensation for victims regardless of any external pressures that may arise. Noble Lords will understand that it will take some time for the new infected blood compensation authority to become operational in its fullest sense, such that—
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Before the Minister moves on from addressing my Amendment 119CA, I want just to be crystal clear that the Government are accepting the amendment without their own amendment. I understand what the noble Earl has just said from the Dispatch Box, but as far as my amendment is concerned, are the Government accepting it as it is?
Earl Howe (Con)
Yes, my Lords, that is right. In the spirit of consensus, albeit in the light of that practical caveat that I voiced, which represents a risk and no more.
It will take some time for the new infected blood compensation authority to become operational in its fullest sense, such that it is in a position to accept applications and deliver payments. There are formal processes around setting up an arm’s-length body of this kind which we cannot—indeed, must not—try to get around. However, the Government recognise the need to compensate victims of infected blood, and we are absolutely committed to doing this as quickly as we are able. For this reason, a shadow body will be established by 20 May, led by an interim chief executive. This will be critical to getting the practical work in place to ensure that the infected blood compensation authority can be fully operational as soon as possible. The shadow body will be able to begin work, such as implementing IT systems and appointing staff who are needed for assessing and delivering compensation payments, as quickly as possible.
We also understand the importance of ensuring that processes are in place for the compensation scheme to run smoothly. The Government are therefore clear that the infected blood compensation authority will have all the funding needed to deliver compensation once it has identified the victims and assessed claims. Once established, we intend that the scheme will make payments quickly and effectively.
I now turn to the membership of the infected blood compensation authority board and, in doing so, perhaps I may address Amendments 121B to 121H tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Featherstone and Lady Meacher. I would like to be clear with the House today that it is the Government’s intention that the process of recruiting a chair of the infected blood compensation authority will begin immediately. In the coming weeks, we will begin to identify potential candidates for the role. The successful candidate will be appointed through the usual public appointment process. The government amendment provides flexibility for the composition of the other members of the board, both executive and non-executive, albeit that minimum and maximum numbers are specified to align with the expected requirements of an ALB of this nature. As many noble Lords have made clear, building trust with those infected and affected by the scandal is critical. It is therefore the Government’s intention to involve the infected blood community in the appointment process for the chair.
Tomorrow the Minister for the Cabinet Office begins his engagement programme with those infected and affected by the infected blood scandal. That will be a useful opportunity to discuss how those impacted can be involved in the process of appointing the chair, while ensuring that that does not inadvertently delay the end goal of getting compensation into the hands of victims as soon as possible. I think we can achieve both objectives.
Baroness Meacher
“(2A) In exercising its functions the IBCA must have regard to the following matters—(a) the need for swift and fair redress to victims;(b) the ease of accessibility to the relevant compensation scheme;(c) the efficient and effective operation of the relevant compensation scheme.”
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I rise to respond to the Minister’s remarks and thank him for his commitment to make conversation available to the victims of the contaminated blood scandal. However, I also express concern that we do not have any clear dates even for the appointment of the chair of the body that is yet to be established in order to begin to provide these compensation payments. These people have been waiting and waiting for decades. They need urgency and speed and I argue that the Minister, in order to win their trust, needs to set out early dates by which they can expect to receive compensation.
I am concerned that victims who have already had access to the derisory compensation programmes that have been made available might not be entitled to the Government’s new compensation programme. I hope I am wrong about that, but I do have some concern. There has been the most appalling neglect of these victims and really quite derisory payments—in so far as anything has been paid to them at all. With those concerns, I thank the Minister for his comments.
One of my concerns is that the regulations must not put a time limit on people making an application for compensation, so I propose that amendment to the House. It is vital that these victims are not penalised if they do not meet some arbitrary deadline. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who is taking part remotely.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as my first husband, Graham Ingleson, died from infected factor 8 in the early 1980s, aged 32. I welcome the Government’s amendments and am really grateful for the significant time the Minister has given me since Committee to understand the concerns of the infected blood community and to look at ways to address them in the Bill. The Government have shown signs that they are listening as we know from the proposals before us, including provision for interim payments. As we heard in the debate on the Government’s Statement last week, they acknowledge that the community must have a role in the infected blood compensation authority itself, including now, we hear, on the interview panel for the chair.
The Government’s amendments are a good start, but the infected blood community still has significant concerns. For example, the last-minute Amendment 157CA does not go far enough. Other concerns are reflected in the suite of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher, Lady Brinton and Lady Featherstone. I have added my name to Amendments 119BA, 119CA, 119MA, 119T, 119PA, 119Y, 121B, 121G—now replaced by 121GA— and 121H, and support the intent of the others they have tabled. These amendments would ensure that time limits are introduced to speed up the process, that the chair of the IBCA is a High Court judge or equivalent and that support and assistance for applicants is mandatory.
Time limits are critical to ensure there are no further delays in compensation. There is nothing like a deadline to focus minds. Amendment 119CA requires the scheme to be set up within three months of the Bill becoming law and it is vital that interim payments are made well before that. With reportedly two deaths a week of those infected, they cannot come soon enough. I hear why the Minister wishes to widen the pool of applicants to chair the IBCA and am pleased to hear that some of the infected blood community will be on the interview panel. However, in my view and that of the community, the Government should accept Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendation for a judge-led IBCA. With horror stories emerging of experiments on innocent schoolboys, rebuilding trust with the community is imperative and only a High Court judge would signal that commitment. Their impartiality and objectivity are unquestioned, with no risk of conflict of interest. It would powerfully reflect the status and credibility of the IBCA, underlining its independence. Amendments 121B and 121G provide for such an appointment.
The infected blood community must be assured they will have the support and assistance they need under the scheme. Amendment 119T amends the Government’s power to secure such support to a duty to do so.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for meeting many of us in many different meetings between Committee and Report; I suspect there may be some more meetings to come. I have a number of amendments. For the record, my amendments to the government amendments are Amendments 119D, 119HA, 119K, 119M, 119P, 119T, 119U, 119V, 119X, 119Y, 121B, 121C and 121D. I also have Amendments 119YB, 119YC, 163 and 166.
Following discussions with various members of the infected blood community, I want to make a brief point about the approach in amendments laid by the Government. In Committee, the Minister said:
“The Government’s intention, therefore, is to bring forward an amendment on Report which will correct these two deficiencies”—
that he had outlined—
“and add further standard provisions to ensure a more complete legal framework when setting up an ALB”.
He went to explain that he was going to engage with us, and we are very grateful for that. He went on:
“That drafting is not yet complete. One of the main reasons for this—which I personally felt strongly about—was that we should use this Committee stage as an opportunity for a general debate on the infected blood scandal and, in advance of Report, for the Government to be made aware of the views expressed … around the Chamber”.—[Official Report, 26/2/24; col. 833.]
I thank the noble Earl for that comment, and I think he has certainly got our views.
However, instead of one amendment covering two deficiencies and a more complete legal framework, the Government laid nearly 40 amendments within the last 10 days without any equivalent to an Explanatory Memorandum or a long letter to explain their thinking. I accept that there was an explanatory statement under most of the amendments, but I have been operating two sets of the amendment booklet just to try to work out what on earth has been happening here.
The real problem is that, while we express general views in Committee, we are now being asked to vote—or not—on really fine detail, which I think many Members have been struggling with, just to get amendments laid. That is why there are 67 amendments in this one group this afternoon.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell and Lady Meacher, set out why the infected blood community is concerned that there is not enough detail to give them confidence, despite the Government moving forward a bit. I just wonder if the Minister is open to a meeting, because I think we may be able to move further forward, particularly on the issue of interim payments that would satisfy both noble Lords and the wider community.
The noble Earl explained why the Government do not support Sir Brian’s approach to interim payments. He went into a lot more detail in a private meeting, for which I am grateful, but this week—or was it last week?—the Paymaster-General told the Commons that interim payments would be made through the existing schemes to the estates of those eligible for interim payment, where the deceased was registered with a current support scheme or one of its predecessors. While those in the infected blood community are content with this, they are still very concerned about the lack of timescale on interim payments where the deceased meets the criteria and the need for an assurance of one month, as we originally proposed. If it cannot be one month, we should have some idea of the timing.
I am very grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the two-tier system, where those who have not yet had interim payments but are known in the system are different from those who are not yet known. I think the community understands that as well. The victims also need reassurance where the government amendments refer to “may” rather than “must”. I know that there are some reasons for that, but, in the meetings with the community, the Paymaster-General may have to explain some of those reasons. Again, this is about rebuilding the confidence that he spoke so movingly about at the start.
The detail of the government amendments has been met with bemusement and anger by many of the community. It is partly about the timescales. I think the House is grateful that the Government are accepting Amendment 119CA from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, but there is still no framework and no idea about tariffs. Worse, the threats to the victims and their families of this scheme remain. One widow told me that she was concerned that widows and children will end up worse off under the scheme than currently. So where is an impact assessment, as current payments may be stopped and there is no outline about what the tariff is? Somebody could end up with a proposal that is considerably less but has many years still to live, so how will they be protected from this happening?
Will recipients be asked to pay back support—“benefits” to you and me—that families relied on after their loved ones became infected and needed to be nursed and cared for by family members? Jobs and houses were lost and, frankly, we know that benefits have not been generous either. That is in the nature of benefits, but many people have been living this way for 30 or 40 years—now approaching 50 years for some. It would be egregious if those families were to receive compensation that immediately went to pay back decades of benefits. Can the Minister confirm that this will not happen? This is part of my Amendment 119HA, as an outline for framework tariffs and a clear statement that families will not have to pay back benefits. By the way, my amendments follow recommendations 6 and 8 in the interim report from Sir Brian, which was published nearly a year ago now.
I also have other amendments trying to give clarity for the position of the IB victims and their families. For example, there has been a lot of discussion with the Horizon postmaster victims about legal support. Will there be legal support for these families? My Amendment 119V says that they should have the option of that legal support, including people who have been supporting them at the inquiry and other places. That is not retrospective payment. It would be continuing support in the future, so that they can negotiate with the scheme.
My Amendment 121B refers to the appointment of a High Court judge as chair. I am grateful for the points that the noble Earl has made, but there is still no timescale and that remains a key issue. Could he explain to the House exactly why, and perhaps unpack a little more about whether the chair should be a judge or even a High Court judge, which is very much what the infected blood community wants?
Finally, I have laid Amendment 119YC, which uses the principle helpfully offered by the Government for their own amendment for the infected blood compensation body, to probe whether now is the time for a truly independent compensation authority overall. This body would act as the manager of all compensation schemes for victims of failures of public bodies. We do not have time this evening to discuss this in any detail, but it is appalling that we have the infected blood scandal scheme —still not sorted after over 40 years—the postmaster Horizon scheme, the Windrush scheme, the Grenfell disaster, the sodium valproate scandal, the vaginal mesh scandal and many others. The one thing common to all of these is that no Government, of any colour, have acted fairly or with reasonable speed to resolve the remedies for all these victims. Perhaps now is the time to begin that debate—not tonight, but at this time.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
I join other noble Lords and Baronesses in paying tribute to my noble friend, who has been extremely generous with his time in meetings. I am quite certain that he personally has been pushing in the direction that has led to really major progress. I declare an interest as a former Secretary of State and therefore a witness to the Langstaff inquiry.
The three months is excellent; the shadow organisation set up before the final report is good; the shadow CEO is excellent. I am interested in Amendment 119HA, from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Like her, I would like the reassurance sought in her proposed new subsection (2):
“In assessing compensation under the scheme, no account should be taken of any past support payments”.
The structures of the tariff-based compensation and so forth seem right and sensible. If we can have reassurance on that also, it would be very helpful.
The major item in the noble Baroness’s amendment is one that sets off tremendous alarm bells in the former Chief Secretary lobe—or half—of my brain. The idea of letting the chair set the tariffs, even with these structures around them, would have been very alarming to me, as a former Chief Secretary, and would be alarming to any future person who has to be accountable for public expenditure.
None the less, I still hesitate on it, because every noble Lord has spoken about the requirement to rebuild trust, and my noble friend himself began his speech with that. If it were possible to provide criteria for the payments such that the chair was enabled to be independent within those criteria, that would rebuild trust in a formidable way. I would be very interested to hear what my noble friend has to say on that.
Rebuilding trust is the primary task, as it has been among the terrible casualties of this disaster—trust in the state, trust in the NHS and doctors, trust in everybody. Trust in Ministers, of course, has been severely damaged and we may have to take exceptional steps in this really unparalleled scale of disaster to rebuild that trust. Precedent is always a terrible weapon to deploy against anything, but one hopes that there would be a few precedents for disasters on this scale in the future. I would like to probe my noble friend a little further on that, but I end by thanking him again. I was privileged to work with him as a colleague in the past, and it is no surprise to those of us who have worked with him that he has been not only efficient but empathetic and careful, in the best sense of the word, in his dealings certainly with me and, I suspect, with other Members of this House as well.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, as some of your Lordships will know, I declare an interest as my nephew died aged 35. He was a haemophiliac, a twin and my sister’s son. He left a 10 month-old baby daughter. I too thank the noble Earl for being so sincere about this. He is one of the first people I have heard on the government side who actually gets it and understands the agony that the community has been through over the last 40 years—so I thank him for that.
I will speak briefly to a couple of amendments. With Amendment 119PA, we are concerned that infected and affected people who may want to appeal against a decision on compensation will not be able to go to a separate body to appeal, as Sir Brian Langstaff recommended in his report. If Sir Brian’s recommendations are ignored, people will have to seek to reverse a decision through the First-tier Tribunal, as is the case at the moment. They are concerned about that because the First-tier Tribunal is not specialised in infected blood and has a whole host of other things to deal with, such as PIP and housing appeals. The process will be very difficult.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
I thank the noble Earl for the way in which he introduced this debate. I will speak briefly to the government amendments. Like others, I was disappointed to see the three-month time limit removed, but I appreciate the practical caveats that my noble friend the Minister has raised. I genuinely do not think this is a delaying tactic. He clearly appreciates why some reassurance on timelines is necessary.
In that same spirit, I would like to raise one further matter on the expert group. It will provide advice to the compensation authority and will help develop the framework for compensation. In his letter before Report, my noble friend the Minister acknowledged the need for greater transparency in relation to this group, and that the Government would therefore publish the terms of reference. They have now done this, and we are very grateful. However, the membership has been redacted, which has quite reasonably upset many of the infected and affected. I am sure my noble friend can see why people are dismayed that the names of the legal and clinical experts have been kept secret. I know that people will be very keen to understand why this has happened.
I can conclude only that this is an incredibly sensitive area; we know that. I appreciate that the group has attracted some controversy, not least because of the chair’s connections with Bayer, although no one doubts his personal integrity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, has just said very powerfully, the infected and affected have been deceived and misled for more than a quarter of a century. As with other national scandals, the cover-up is at least as bad as than the original offence, if not worse, so transparency is obviously key.
To reiterate, it is understandable that people will view this body with distrust if they do not know who is sitting on it. These are people who will be making decisions on their futures and the futures of their families. Given everything that they have been through, I do not think it is fair or acceptable. We all hope that we are reaching the end of a very long road, and it would not be right for all those infected and affected to face another hurdle or to have to fight another fight.
That is the moral point; I have one practical point. My noble friend the Minister has made it very clear that he would like the infected and affected to have a role in the compensation authority and that this will be critical. I completely agree with him, but anyone taking part from that community would expect, and no doubt want, to be accountable to their peers, even if they knew that meant there could be some difficult moments in the future. It would certainly be very hard for them to take on that role in secret. That would mean that we would end up in a position with one rule for the experts and one rule for those affected. That would be a very difficult position to be in. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could tell us why this anonymity has been allowed and whether the Government will consider lifting it, given the circumstances.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the extremely sensitive way in which he has been open to discussions at all times. I know that he has met with many of us individually.
As noble Lords have heard, there was an error with the clerical system, so my name was added to a government amendment; I think the Public Bill Office was overloaded. There is much to commend in the government amendment, but I am not supporting it because I have put my name to amendments to it. I put my name to a lot of the amendments. Others have spoken very clearly to all those amendments.
There seems to be a problem with the government amendments, which is the word “may”. Reading through, one sometime feels that word should become “must”. It would be helpful to have clarification from the Minister on why some of the “mays” are not becoming “musts”. The “must” really makes things happen.
Compensation is long overdue. I remind the House that it was in May 1975, nearly 50 years ago, that the WHO expressed serious concern at the international plasma trade. There has been an enormous erosion of trust, grief and anguish. I even worry when people talk about rebuilding trust, because I think we have to stop it being eroded. From the explanations that I have heard outside this Chamber from the noble Earl, I can see how the Government are really hoping to stop the ongoing erosion of trust. That has to happen before you can start to rebuild it.
The inquiry led by Sir Brian Langstaff made clear recommendations about interim payments and the way a compensation scheme should be managed in the future. I am glad the Government accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, which requires a stated time of implementation within three months of the Bill passing. It is essential that the details of all these processes are looked at very carefully so that they do not leave anyone feeling that anything has been kicked into the long grass yet again. Support and assistance will be essential. That seems like a time when “may” should be changed into “must”, as in Amendment 119T. The interim payments must be made within one month of the Bill passing.
On a High Court judge being the appointed chair, I know the Government have said that they want to keep the options open and somebody excellent may come forward. Somebody may, and they could certainly serve on the board, but, of all the skills that a High Court judge has, they need to be seen to be there to oversee the infected blood compensation authority.
On that authority having among its executive members those infected—involving the infected blood community —I simply reiterate the point that those people will need great support, because it will be extremely difficult for them on that board with some of the decisions that they will have to take and some of the difficulties lying ahead. On the selection process, I hope that the support is adequately available and that not too much falls on the shoulders of any one person.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Perhaps I may add something about High Court judges, having been one myself. It may not be necessary to have a sitting High Court judge, because there are a number of recently retired High Court judges who would be entirely suitable. However, it needs to be a High Court judge who has tried medical cases. I add the fact that many family judges try medical cases quite as much as civil judges. Let us not necessarily be tied to an existing High Court judge.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, this is my amendment, so I think my job is to bring this—
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has already spoken, so it is not appropriate for her to continue.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the infected blood scandal is an appalling injustice. We in the Labour Party want to ensure that justice and compensation for victims and their families are delivered urgently, with guarantees of no further delays. Campaigning and advocacy organisations, alongside the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Haemophilia and Contaminated Blood, have worked tirelessly to help secure justice.
At Third Reading of this Bill in the House of Commons, the Government lost a vote on an amendment in the name of the right honourable Dame Diana Johnson MP. The vote was a remarkable victory for victims of the infected blood scandal, and it was a victory for Diana Johnson. The Government are now obliged to do the right thing and take the steps necessary to bring forward a final compensation scheme urgently—the noble Earl has spoken to this. The Government have already confirmed that they fully accept that there is a moral case for compensation, while the Chancellor has said:
“This has been going on for far too long and … justice delayed is justice denied”.
We welcome that the Government have finally accepted the need to bring forward a compensation body promptly, as evidenced to some extent by the new Report stage amendments we are debating in this group.
However, adding a fixed timeline to the Bill is essential to help finally to give those who have suffered for so long the reassurance that they should soon get the compensation they deserve. My Amendment 119CA will amend the Government’s Amendment 119C, reinstating the three-month time period that was in the original new clause, currently Clause 40, added in the Commons.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We have had very many meetings about this issue. I think he said he would not move government Amendment 157CA, which was a possible compromise that he put forward at one point. I absolutely agree with the noble Earl’s point about the need to work collaboratively with the victims community to re-establish trust as far as possible. Trust has been a theme running through this debate.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed, both today and during our previous discussions on this important topic. The moving statements we have heard throughout the passage of the Bill have been a true measure of the gravity of the infected blood scandal and its far-reaching impacts.
I will address the amendments spoken to in this debate, starting with Amendment 119HA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I can today give her an assurance that the Government’s intention, via regulations, is to establish a tariff-based compensation scheme, and that people who are infected and affected will be eligible for compensation under the scheme. The regulations will provide clarity on what the scheme comprises.
We recognise that it is also important that an arm’s-length body is functionally independent. In common with Sir Brian Langstaff, we view this as critical for building trust with the infected blood community. However, there is an important principle here around maintaining government accountability. My noble friend Lord Waldegrave, whose comments I appreciated, referred to this. The Government simply must hold responsibility for overseeing the expenditure of taxpayers’ money, and it would not be appropriate for the rates of compensation to be set by the chair of the IBCA. Instead, the chair will hold an important role in the delivery of the scheme, making sure that the right people receive the right compensation and ensuring support for those who access it, against the parameters set out in legislation.
To address a further point in the noble Baroness’s amendment, those details are being informed by the expert group of clinical, legal and social care experts appointed in January to assist the Government in responding to the inquiry recommendations—and I shall refer to that group again in a moment.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on the selection of a chair for the IBCA, I gave reasons earlier why, although we are entirely open to the suggestion that the chair of the IBCA should be a High Court judge or, indeed, a retired judge, we may need to allow for the possibility that no judge will be available or willing to occupy that post. We want the right person in place as expeditiously as is proper. What is most important in that connection is that the IBCA is operationally and functionally independent and seen to be so, and the way in which we are framing the legislation provides for exactly that.
The government amendments are clear that a final UK-wide compensation scheme is being established, distinct from previous support schemes. The details of how payments are to be made will necessarily be set out in regulations. In any event, I can now confirm to the House that it is not the Government’s intention to deduct any past support or ex gratia payments, excluding any interim compensation payments, from the final compensation payments made by the infected blood compensation scheme. I hope that that provides the noble Baroness with some welcome reassurance on the points that she raised.
As I said earlier, I am not in the business of prolonging people’s uncertainty unnecessarily. I understand that the infected blood community and Parliament are keen for transparency on the Government’s intentions in regard to the compensation scheme. As my noble friend Lady Sanderson has rightly raised, there have been concerns about the anonymity of the expert group —and I have listened to those concerns. The Government took the decision not to publish the names of the expert group members alongside the terms of reference to safeguard the privacy and the ability of the experts to continue their front-line clinical roles while advising on government policy. However, once their initial work has concluded, the Government will ensure that the identities of the experts are disclosed.
Additionally, in the spirit of transparency, the Government will commit to publish the compensation tariffs when they are available, ahead of secondary legislation. I hope that my commitment to these actions today will provide the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, with confidence not after all to press her amendment when it is reached. The Government amendments as drafted provide workable and appropriate legal powers to establish a compensation scheme in a way that is deliverable by government—and I fear that, should the noble Baroness’s well-intentioned amendments be moved and carried, this will simply not be deliverable for the Government and could ultimately delay the payment of compensation.
I turn to Amendment 119BA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. We absolutely respect the principles that the noble Baroness has raised, and the need for the infected blood compensation scheme to be efficient, fair and accessible to deliver justice effectively. It is our sincere intention to deliver this and put the needs of victims at the forefront of the operation. In saying that, I should add, as she will understand, that there are clearly many different needs and perspectives to take into account. The imperative for the new infected blood compensation authority to act effectively and efficiently towards that aim is already provided for in paragraph 11 of the new schedule to Part 3, as set out in government Amendment 121A. Creating more statutory provision around the exercise of functions is, I can assure the noble Baroness, not required.
I move to amendments that deal with adhering to the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry’s second interim report on compensation. These are Amendment 119EA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and Amendments 119D, 119E, 119K, 119M and 119U, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Ministers are clear that recommendations of the infected blood inquiry should form the basis of the government response. In January this year, an expert group was appointed to provide technical assistance in understanding how the inquiry’s recommendations could work in practice. I assure the House that the expert group is intended to build on and not replace in any way the recommendations made by Sir Brian Langstaff. This will help to ensure that the Government are able to respond to recommendations in a manner that reflects the impact that the scandal has had on the lives of individuals, while also considering what implications that has for delivery.
There are some specific instances where we must divert from recommendations in order to make the compensation scheme deliverable for the Government and to ensure that payments reach those eligible as swiftly as possible. I emphasise again that we are committed to working with the infected blood community to ensure that the compensation scheme meets its members’ individual needs. However, on reflection, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that a formal consultation with legal representatives across the UK would lead to one sure outcome, which would be to delay the process of establishing the scheme. We do not consider that it is required.
The Government are acutely aware of the importance of establishing an accessible and sensitive compensation scheme for victims of inflected blood. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Brinton, for their Amendments 119MA, 119V and 119VA, which speak to the support for claimants who would be accessing the scheme. First, I want to be clear that the infected blood compensation authority will provide support to applicants and, within this support, will consider the provision of legal support services. The government amendment allows for that support to be provided for victims, and the House can expect the Government to work with the infected blood compensation authority on the support that is required.
The government amendments set the legal framework required to enable the Government to move quickly to establish a compensation scheme; they do not limit in any way the procedure for applications. However, the operation of a scheme must be efficient and user-friendly. In-person hearings, as proposed in one of the amendments, could extend the timeline for payments for individuals. We will need to consider that idea carefully, alongside the delivery of the scheme as a whole.
The Government also recognise the benefits of providing legal assistance to individuals accessing the compensation scheme. I shall take that point away with me, in the way that I have just indicated—and I refer noble Lords to government Amendment 119S in this connection.
Leaving aside the fact that it would be undesirable to commit in this legislation to a panel of specific law firms to undertake government-funded work, it is important that any support provided is well considered against two principal benchmarks: first, that it provides the most benefit for claimants and, secondly, that it is consistent with the appropriate management of public funds.
I turn to Amendments 119CB, 119DA and 119DB, which introduce the word “harmed” into the government amendments that identify who may be eligible for compensation within regulations. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that the existing wording is sufficiently wide to capture all those infected and affected by the treatment of infected blood, and the additional drafting that she has suggested is not required.
Amendments 119J, 119P and 119T would change “may” to “must”. These amendments could inadvertently limit the breadth of what could be done under a general power and are therefore not considered appropriate at this stage. This is about having a process that is efficient for victims and that also allows for oversight of public money. I am very happy to meet noble Lords to discuss this issue further. Amendment 119P is a good example. If we were to change “may” to “must”, as that amendment proposes, it would be, as it were, dictating to the IBCA what it has to do. We are keen not to do that where we do not have to, because of the need to give the IBCA autonomy. I give that as an example.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, the lead amendment in this group is Amendment 119BA, which I happened to table. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments at great length, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Featherstone, who made very powerful speeches. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the very considerable number of assurances he has given this House. They will, I know, provide tremendous reassurance to the victims of the contaminated blood scandal, who have been waiting, as I said before, for a very long time for some action; I think they can now expect compensation quickly after 20 May. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Infected blood compensation scheme(1) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office must by regulations establish a scheme (“the infected blood compensation scheme”) for making payments to eligible persons.(2) “Eligible persons” means such persons within subsection (3) as the regulations provide are to be eligible persons.(3) The persons within this subsection are persons who—(a) have been infected as a result of being treated with blood, blood products or tissue,(b) have been infected as a result of another person being treated with blood, blood products or tissue, or(c) have been affected by another person being infected as described in paragraph (a) or (b).(4) The regulations may define an eligible person by reference to matters including (but not limited to)—(a) the kind of infection;(b) the duration or effect of an infection;(c) when the treatment occurred;(d) where the treatment was given;(e) who gave the treatment;(f) whether a person was treated with blood, blood products or tissue;(g) in the case of a person within subsection (3)(b), how the person was infected and their connection with the person who was treated;(h) in a case of a person within subsection (3)(c), how the person has been affected and their connection with the person who has been infected.(5) The regulations must provide for payments under the scheme to be made by, and the scheme to be otherwise administered by, the IBCA.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause provides for the Secretary of State or Minister for the Cabinet Office to establish an infected blood compensation scheme by regulations.
“Payments(1) The amount of a payment under the infected blood compensation scheme is to be determined in accordance with regulations under section (Infected blood compensation scheme).(2) The regulations may make provision for the amount payable to eligible persons—(a) to be a specified amount;(b) to be an amount within a specified range;(c) not to exceed a specified amount.(3) The regulations may make provision—(a) for payments to be made as a lump sum or periodically;(b) for payments to be held on trust;(c) for interest to be payable on payments;(d) for the amount of any periodic payment to be increased to take account of changes in the value of money.(4) The regulations may make provision for payments to be made subject to conditions.(5) The regulations may make provision for payments under the scheme to be repaid to the IBCA (in whole or in part) in specified circumstances.(6) In this section “specified” means specified in the regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause makes provision about the kinds of payments that may be provided for by the infected blood compensation scheme.
Baroness Brinton
“(1) The amount of a payment under the infected blood compensation scheme is to be determined in accordance with a framework of tariff-based compensation for eligible infected and affected persons, at rates which broadly take account of but are not limited by current practice in courts and tribunals across the UK and sums payable in other UK compensation schemes, and allowing an assessed basis for defined financial losses.(1A) The rates of compensation in the framework under subsection (1) must be based on the advice of the independent clinical and legal panels and set by the Chair, adopting the measures set out in Recommendation 5 of the Infected Blood Inquiry’s Second Interim Report.(1B) The awards which may be claimed under the tariff- based compensation under subsection (1) framework must be as defined at Recommendation 6 of the Infected Blood Inquiry Second Interim Report. (2) In assessing compensation under the scheme, no account should be taken of any past support payments made under other support schemes or their predecessors.”
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful for everything the Minister has said to the House, including going through all the amendments in detail, and in particular for his offer to meet. I thank all the infected blood community organisations and people who have been working with many Peers around the House for their contributions. Six petitions on infected blood compensation were presented in the House of Commons today. That is how important this is. They are very keen that my Amendment 119HA, which summarises the key issues in Sir Brian Langstaff’s interim report, is voted on and those issues heard. On that basis, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Applications and procedureRegulations under section (Infected blood compensation scheme) may deal with the procedure for the making and deciding of applications for payments under the infected blood compensation scheme and, in particular, may—(a) impose time limits for making an application or taking other steps;(b) make provision about evidence.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause provides that regulations may make provision about applications under the infected blood compensation scheme and other procedural matters.
“Reviews and appeals(1) Regulations under section (Infected blood compensation scheme)—(a) may make provision for the IBCA to review decisions taken under the infected blood compensation scheme;(b) must confer a right of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision taken under the scheme.(2) If the regulations make provision under subsection (1)(a), they may provide for the right of appeal to be exercisable only if the IBCA has reviewed the decision.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause provides that regulations may make provision for reviews of, and appeals against, decisions made under the infected blood compensation scheme.
“Information: infected blood compensation scheme(1) The IBCA may provide information to another person, and a person may provide information to the IBCA, for the purposes of any matter connected with the administration of the infected blood compensation scheme. (2) The IBCA may by notice in writing require a person to provide information to the IBCA for the purposes of any matter connected with the administration of the infected blood compensation scheme.(3) If a person fails to comply with a notice under subsection (2), the IBCA may apply to the appropriate court for an order requiring the person to comply with the notice.(4) The information referred to in this section may comprise or include personal data.(5) This section does not limit the circumstances in which information may be disclosed apart from this section.(6) Except as provided by subsection (7), a disclosure of information authorised by or required under this section does not breach—(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).(7) This section does not authorise or require the processing of information if the processing would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether it would do so, take into account the powers conferred and duties imposed by this section).(8) In this section—“the appropriate court” means—(a) in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, the High Court;(b) in Scotland, the Court of Session;“personal data”, “processing” and“the data protection legislation” have the meanings given by section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause enables the IBCA and other persons to provide information to each other for the purposes of any matter connected with the administration of the infected blood compensation scheme and also enables the IBCA to require other persons to provide information for those purposes.
“Duty to co-operate with the IBCA(1) Each relevant person must co-operate with the IBCA on any matter connected with the making of payments to persons in connection with those persons, or other persons, being treated with infected blood, infected blood products or infected tissue.(2) The relevant persons are—(a) the Secretary of State;(b) the Minister for the Cabinet Office;(c) a Special Health Authority established under section 28 of the National Health Service Act 2006;(d) the Welsh Ministers;(e) a National Health Service trust established under section 18 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;(f) a Special Health Authority established under section 22 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;(g) the Scottish Ministers;(h) a person who has at any time been appointed by the Scottish Ministers under section 28(4)(d) of the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 13) to manage a scheme made under that section;(i) the Department of Health in Northern Ireland;(j) the Regional Business Services Organisation established by section 14 of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009 (c.1 (N.I.)); (k) any other persons specified as relevant persons in regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office for the purposes of this section.(3) Regulations under subsection (2)(k)—(a) may not specify a Welsh body as a relevant person unless the Welsh Ministers consent;(b) may not specify a Scottish body as a relevant person unless the Scottish Ministers consent;(c) may not specify a Northern Ireland body as a relevant person unless the Department of Health in Northern Ireland consents.(4) In subsection (3)—“Welsh body” means—(a) a devolved Welsh authority as defined in section 157A of the Government of Wales Act 2006;(b) a person providing services to a person within paragraph (a);“Scottish body” means—(a) a person who is a part of the Scottish Administration;(b) a Scottish public authority with mixed functions or no reserved functions (within the meaning of the Scotland Act 1998);(c) a person providing services to a person within paragraph (a) or (b);“Northern Ireland body” means—(a) a Northern Ireland department;(b) a public authority whose functions are exercisable only or mainly in or as regards Northern Ireland and relate only or mainly to transferred matters (within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Act 1998);(c) a person providing services to a person within paragraph (a) or (b).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the persons listed in subsection (2) to co-operate with the IBCA on any matter connected with the making of payments to persons in connection with those persons, or other persons, being treated with infected blood, infected blood products or infected tissue.
“Provision of support and assistance(1) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may make such arrangements as they consider appropriate for the provision of support and assistance to applicants (or potential applicants) for compensation under the infected blood compensation scheme.(2) The arrangements may be for the provision of support and assistance by the IBCA or any other person.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause provides a power for the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office to make arrangements for the provision of advice and assistance to applicants and potential applicants under the infected blood compensation scheme.
Baroness Brinton
“(3) Applicants must have the option of access to independent legal help for the purposes of making their claim and any appeal.(4) The firms of solicitors who have represented core participants in the Infected Blood Inquiry must be the solicitors from which applicants may choose representation, with fees payable capped at public service rates.(5) Such legal fees must be paid by the IBCA and not the applicant and cannot be deducted from any award.”
“Payments to personal representatives of qualifying infected persons(1) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office must make arrangements for the personal representatives of a qualifying infected person (in their capacity as such) to receive a payment of £100,000.(2) A “qualifying infected person” is a deceased person—(a) who was registered as an infected person under an infected blood support scheme, or with a relevant organisation, before 17 April 2024, or(b) whose death was registered as the death of an infected person under an infected blood support scheme, or with a relevant organisation, before 17 April 2024,and to or in respect of whom no payment has been made under the Infected Blood Interim Compensation Payment Scheme.(3) An “infected blood support scheme” means—(a) the England Infected Blood Support Scheme established under section 2 of, and paragraph 7C of Schedule 1 to, the National Health Service Act 2006,(b) the Wales Infected Blood Support Scheme established under sections 1 to 3 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006,(c) the Scottish Infected Blood Support Scheme established partly under section 28 of the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 13), and(d) the Infected Blood Payment Scheme for Northern Ireland established under section 3 of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009.(4) A “relevant organisation” means—(a) the Caxton Foundation (charity number 1142529),(b) the Eileen Trust (charity number 1028027),(c) the Macfarlane Trust (charity number 298863),(d) the Macfarlane (Special Payments) Trust established on 29 January 1990,(e) the Macfarlane (Special Payments) (No. 2) Trust established on 3 May 1991,(f) MFET Limited (company number 07121661), and(g) the Skipton Fund Limited (company number 5084964). (5) A payment is made in respect of a deceased person under the Infected Blood Interim Compensation Payment Scheme if a payment under that scheme is made to the person’s personal representatives (in their capacity as such) or the person’s bereaved partner.(6) The Infected Blood Interim Compensation Payment Scheme means the scheme of that name administered by the persons who administer the infected blood support schemes (whether or not in conjunction with other persons).(7) The arrangements under subsection (1)—(a) must include provision about the procedure for making payments to the personal representatives of qualifying infected persons;(b) may include arrangements for one or more other persons (which may in particular include relevant persons) to administer the making of payments, in accordance with that procedure, on behalf of the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office.(8) The arrangements under subsection (1) may be made, in whole or in part, by exercising powers conferred on the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office apart from this section.(9) In this section—“personal representatives” , in relation to a deceased person, means the persons responsible for administering the deceased person’s estate;“relevant person” has the same meaning as in section (Duty to co-operate with the IBCA).(10) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may by regulations repeal or amend subsections (1) to (9).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires the Secretary of State or the Minister of the Cabinet Office to make arrangements for the personal representatives of deceased infected persons to receive a payment of £100,000 where no interim compensation payments have been made to or in respect of those deceased persons.
“Information: payments to personal representatives(1) A person may provide information to—(a) the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office, or(b) a person administering the making of payments under section (Payments to personal representatives of qualifying infected persons) by virtue of section (Payments to personal representatives of qualifying infected persons)(7)(b),for the purposes of any matter connected with the making of payments to personal representatives under that section.(2) The information referred to in subsection (1) may comprise or include personal data.(3) Subsection (1) does not limit the circumstances in which information may be disclosed apart from that subsection. (4) Except as provided by subsection (5), a disclosure of information authorised by this section does not breach—(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).(5) Subsection (1) does not authorise the processing of information if the processing would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether it would do so, take into account the power conferred by that subsection).(6) In this section “personal data”, “processing” and “the data protection legislation” have the meanings given by section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause provides that a person may provide information to the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office, or a person administering the making of payments to personal representatives of qualifying infected persons on their behalf, for the purpose of any matter connected with the making of such payments.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Tuesday 21st May 2024
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 57-IV Fourth marshalled list for Report - (17 May 2024)
18:50 - Division on Amendment 132 - Ayes: 211 / Noes: 208 - Amendment 132 agreed.
19:02 - Division on Amendment 133 - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 198 - Amendment 133 agreed.
19:19 - Division on Amendment 149A - Ayes: 91 / Noes: 192 - Amendment 149A disagreed.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 44, page 45, line 4.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords will recall, there is a power created in Clauses 44 and 45 of the Bill that will allow the Secretary of State to refer release decisions made by the Parole Board to the Upper Tribunal. When we debated this issue in Committee, I said that we were satisfied at that time that the Upper Tribunal has the necessary skills and powers to deal with these referral cases, having consulted the Judicial Office on that matter last summer.
However, the Government have listened carefully to the arguments put forward for this amendment by noble Peers in Committee, including by two former Lord Justices, and, in the light of that debate, I asked the judiciary to reconsider this matter. The unanimous view put forward was that, given how the intervention power in the Bill has evolved over the time, the High Court is the most appropriate venue to hear referred parole cases. I therefore tabled amendments that will make that change.
I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to the members of the Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber for their work with my officials on the measures in the Bill and to make it clear that this decision does not, in any way, reflect on the important work of that chamber; it is simply a matter of deciding where this power should best reside within the upper judiciary system.
There are two other technical amendments related to the referral power—my Amendments 122E and 122F —which will ensure that there is clear, lawful authority to detain a prisoner while the Secretary of State decides whether to refer their case to the High Court. As the decision-making process cannot be fully undertaken until the board has directed the Secretary of State to release the prisoner, it is essential to have these interim protections, so that there is a proper authority to detain the prisoner in the meantime. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister for what he said and the amendments he has put forward. For reasons that would be boring to explain, they achieve exactly the same result in practice as the amendments put forward by myself and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon. I am delighted that the Government have accepted this and I concede that their amendments are simpler.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I simply say that we support these amendments; we argued for them in Committee. A view I expressed then was that it was bizarre that the Bill provided for the Upper Tribunal to determine Secretary of State referrals from the Parole Board of release decisions, with the High Court involved only in cases with sensitive material.
We also agree that releases should be suspended pending decisions on such referrals by both the Secretary of State and the divisional court. The only further point I will make is that I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate from the Dispatch Box that such referrals should generally be dealt with as expeditiously as possible, to minimise the anguish of people waiting and the risk of prisoners having their time in custody unjustly extended by the delay.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the government amendments in this group. The Government have listened carefully to the two previous Lord Chief Justices and decided that the High Court is the most appropriate place to hear parole referrals. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said that the Government’s amendments in this group were better than his, which has circumscribed the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, raised an interesting point about how the courts should deal expeditiously with parole-type matters, and I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say on that.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, once referred to the court, the timetable and listing will be a matter for the court, but I am sure that it will take account of the need for expedition and the remarks made in the Chamber just now.
Lord Bellamy
“(5) In section 32ZZA (imprisonment or detention for public protection: powers in relation to release of recalled prisoners) (inserted by section 48 of this Act), after subsection (3) insert—(3A)The Secretary of State must not be satisfied as mentioned in subsection (3) unless the Secretary of State considers that there is no more than a minimal risk that, were the prisoner no longer confined, the prisoner would commit a further offence the commission of which would cause serious harm (and section 28ZA(4) applies for the purposes of that assessment).”The Secretary of State must not be satisfied as mentioned in subsection (3) unless the Secretary of State considers that there is no more than a minimal risk that, were the prisoner no longer confined, the prisoner would commit a further offence the commission of which would cause serious harm (and section 28ZA(4) applies for the purposes of that assessment).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 48, page 52, line 27, inserting new section 32ZZA of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in Committee to these matters affecting IPP prisoners and to all those who have continued to engage in constructive debate with us in preparation for Report. I fully share the desire to use this opportunity to do all that we reasonably can to help offenders serving the IPP sentence to progress towards release, where that is safe to do so. To that end, we have brought forward four substantive government amendments and are taking other important measures as well. Indeed, progressing IPP licence termination and swiftly considering cases for release remain one of the top priorities for HMPPS and this Government, and I emphasise that.
The first amendment, Amendment 139A, applies where the Parole Board directs the re-release of an IPP prisoner. The amendment grants the Secretary of State the power to decide that the recall should have no effect for the purpose of the two-year automatic period, which is the period before the licence automatically terminates. Under the current measures in the Bill, the two-year clock will be reset when an offender recalled during the automatic period is subsequently re-released by the Parole Board. This would mean they would be required to serve a further two years in the community before the licence would be terminated automatically.
However, the Government’s amendment would enable the Secretary of State to decide that the recall should have no effect on the automatic period if he considers it to be in the interests of justice, much as the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, has proposed in his amendments to introduce a power of executive re-release, which I will come on to shortly. In these circumstances, if the recall is disregarded for the purposes of the automatic period, the clock will not reset on their release from prison and the offender would then be required only to remain on licence for whatever time remained of the two-year automatic period. I must stress, however, that this discretionary power would not apply to all IPP recalls in the qualifying period; it would be a matter for the decision of the Secretary of State in the light of all the circumstances.
The Government’s second amendment concerns the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Carter—Amendments 137 and 146—to grant the Secretary of State the power to re-release a recalled IPP offender without the need to go through the Parole Board process at all and for the offender to benefit from the automatic period as if the recall had not occurred. Our Amendment 139B will permit the Secretary of State to re-release recalled IPP prisoners and mirrors a power that the Secretary of State currently has to re-release offenders serving determinate sentences—now referred to as risk-assessed recall review, known colloquially as RARR. This is an executive power, and it will be for the Secretary of State to decide if and when to use it. We have also included an amendment to enable the Secretary of State to impose licence conditions in a recalled IPP offender’s licence if the Secretary of State uses this power to re-release them on licence.
This amendment also, again, includes a parallel power for the Secretary of State to decide that the recall of an IPP offender should have no effect for the purposes of the two-year automatic period, again where it is considered in the interests of justice. This will ensure that the Secretary of State has the same discretionary power regardless of whether the decision to release a recalled IPP offender is taken by the Parole Board or by the Secretary of State using the RARR power. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made a compelling case for his amendments in Committee. I hope that he will agree that the amendment introduced by the Government achieves the objectives of his amendments and that he will not press Amendments 137 and 146.
The Government’s third amendment concerns the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—Amendment 141—to put the IPP action plan on a statutory basis and require the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before Parliament. I fully recognise the noble Lord’s intention and I am particularly grateful for his significant engagement on this and other matters relating to this part of the Bill. We have therefore tabled Amendment 139C to require the Secretary of State to lay an annual report before Parliament about the steps taken by the Secretary of State in the reporting period to support the rehabilitation of IPP and DPP prisoners and their progress towards release from prison on licence termination.
The Bill includes a non-exhaustive list of the issues that it should address, including support for female offenders, those sentenced to detention for public protection and the engagement undertaken in the reporting period. The Government are committed to ensuring that the IPP action plan delivers tangible change by safely reducing over time the IPP population in custody and in the community, while still prioritising public protection. Through the IPP action plan, HMPPS is putting in place further measures to boost the support of those serving IPP sentences in custody and in the community, including a new policy to deliver multi-disciplinary progression panels to oversee cases at critical points, such as that early period following release or the period following a recall to custody. Delivery of the action plan is overseen by a senior IPP progression board chaired at a senior level which meets quarterly. I have asked that quarterly reports be supplied to Ministers, to ensure that the action plan is effective.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I rise to address the amendments that stand in my name. The purpose of these amendments can be briefly stated. It is to try to achieve a measure of justice for those on whom IPPs were imposed during the limited period 2005 to 2012. It is important to bear in mind what Lord Lloyd of Berwick, then Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and then Lord Judge all did to try to right the problems that had been caused by this sentence. It was a sentence that Lord Judge described as the most draconian on the statute book, apart from a discretionary life sentence. I am extremely grateful for all that the Lord Chancellor and the Minister have done to try to deal with these issues, but we are side- stepping a fundamental issue: the way in which we release those who are subject to this sentence. We should not do that, and this House has a responsibility.
Of the amendments that stand in my name, in the time available, I wish to speak to only one: Amendment 149A. It is an attempt to compromise; to do at least something to give hope and provide justice. It leaves the release test as it stands but requires the Parole Board to take into account the concept of proportionality and other factors in making its determination. It is designed to give hope and a sense of justice to those who are behind bars under IPPs, and their families. There are three reasons I wish to highlight.
First, although a few were given IPPs who might have been given the most draconian sentence—a discretionary life sentence, under pre-2003 legislation, as a result of decisions of the Court of Appeal in the Kehoe and Wilkinson cases—the vast majority would have been given determinate sentences if the IPP sentence had not been put on to the statute book, or would have been released long ago without any risk assessment. The way our system worked historically and works today is what would have happened to them. Given that the vast majority of those under IPPs would have had that, how can it be just that, eight years later, we have done nothing—that is, in effect, what has happened —to revise this and put the Parole Board in a position to permit their release?
Secondly, if one looks at those who were sentenced in the period up to 2008, some were imprisoned who would have received a sentence of under four years. It is incredible to think that we are now releasing prisoners who have been sentenced to under four years because the prisons are overcrowded. Why can we not have regard to that? Again, this is unjust.
The third reason is that there can be little doubt— I referred to the evidence when I spoke in Committee—that the mental health of many of those who are still detained or have been recalled has suffered as a result of this sentence. The evidence is very strong and the effect on them is a matter on which we ought to reflect. The vital factor here is state responsibility—and, fortunately, we are beginning to live up to our responsibilities as a state. The position can be very briefly explained.
There is significant agreement that, if you do not know when you are going to be released, a long period of detention causes huge mental health problems. It is quite different for those who receive discretionary life sentences for the most serious crimes, described by Lord Bingham as sentences of a
“‘denunciatory’ value, reflective of public abhorrence of the offence, and where, because of its seriousness, the notional determinate sentence would be very long, measured in very many years”.
Such sentences are deserved in those cases—you can understand why people receive them—but how can it be just to keep in prison those who, during this specific eight-year period, committed something for which, before and today, they would have had a determinate term? It is no wonder that they and their families feel injustice.
I am sure that, if this point were put properly to the British public, as it is now being put in the media, they would understand. Therefore, I find it difficult to follow why people cannot go along with a measure of reform.
The crux of this amendment is to require the Parole Board to take into account proportionality—that is, looking at the length of term served as proportionate to the original offence, and some of these offences were not that serious—together with other factors, when determining whether the test of public safety has been met. It is vital to appreciate that the overwhelming majority of these people would have been released without any risk assessment. Looking at the position today, how can it be just that they should be kept there?
Now, the Minister might say that there is a provision in the Act that could be relied on. It is difficult to know precisely what the Minister will say, because he has not said it, but I am sure that is no answer to what I have said, because the difficulty is that what is in the current Bill does not require the Parole Board to do what this amendment requires it to do, which is to have regard to proportionality and other factors that affect the position. To my mind, there is a very simple question. It is 11 years after the abolition and I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who has led on, and accepted responsibility for, dealing with this. It is a great shame that others will not do the same. We should, as a state, accept responsibility and bring about at least one step towards reform. It is not what I believe we should do, but I put this forward and support it as a measure of compromise.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I know that we have had extensive debates on the range of issues on IPP and DPP. I will try to be brief, because everyone will want to reach the Statement on the infected blood scandal.
I want to pay tribute to those on my own Front Bench for their support in some difficult and tricky issues, and for their understanding, and to Peers from every corner of this House who have worked tirelessly together to work out how we can make progress and how we can help both those caught up in prison, those on licence and in fear of recall, and of course the families and campaigners. I too pay tribute to UNGRIPP and those who have been campaigning tirelessly alongside them. It has at last reached the public ear—in broadcast, print and online media there is now real attention to this issue, and a sympathetic hearing. That is a very good thing.
I want to say thank you to the Minister. Thank you for being prepared to engage with those committed, and for the concessions that have been outlined this afternoon in terms of my amendments. Government Amendments 133B, 138ZB, 139A, 139B and 139C deal substantially with my Amendments 41, 42, 134, 138A and 144. I am very grateful for both the sensitivity and understanding, and the ability to give, in a period leading up to a General Election, which is difficult for any Government to do on issues such as these, which are often toxic in the public arena. Together with the current Under-Secretary of State and his equivalent in the Commons, some progress—not as much as we, or those campaigning, would like, but some—has now been made on the Bill.
My Amendment 149—I have agreed with the Minister that we might come back to this when we debate the Criminal Justice Bill—is about a technical readjustment of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act so that IPP and DPP prisoners are not disadvantaged. This afternoon we have made progress on the action plan and how it will be updated and implemented; the progression board and its transparency and reporting; the challenge group that will be overseeing and, as it says, challenging what is happening administratively; and the commitments in relation to parole.
I just want to make one comment about probation. There is a new head of Probation—Martin Jones—who was the chief executive of the Parole Board. He understands these issues very well. I have real confidence in him, as I do in the head of the progression board, Chris Jennings; they get what we have been talking about and will move heaven and earth to make the system work. But the Probation Service has to change its outlook and risk aversion, because we have a situation at the moment, because of the enormous pressure on the Prison Service and the lack of rehabilitation that that brings, where the Government have felt it right to release people early and to slow down prosecutions, while the Probation Service recalls people on licence all the time, filling the places that the Government are unfilling. It is like having a washbasin with the tap on and the plug out.
We have to make urgent progress in both getting release, making those spaces available, and not returning people to prison—not least because Ian Acheson, a former prison governor who has been working with the Government over a number of years, said recently that 50% of those currently in prison are taking illegal substances. When they are adjudged to have taken an illegal substance, their likelihood of being able to get parole is immediately reduced. Should they revert when they are on licence, having been subject to illegal substances while they were in prison, they are brought back into a place where illegal substances are readily available. We have got to stop the cycle and we can do it only with the good will of Ministers, future Ministers and those working in the service, who need to be brave —so thank you for what has been done so far.
I turn to Amendment 149A, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, who has just spoken. I want to draw attention to a court case that took place on 9 May this year, overseen by Lord Justice Popplewell. This was the case of Leighton Williams, who was sentenced in 2008 and who, until 9 May, was in prison under an IPP because he was at the time 19, not 18 or younger. It was judged in that case—and these are all technically difficult cases—that the original judge had misunderstood and applied an IPP inappropriately when the sentence should have been for five years in a young offender institution. That having been decided, Lord Justice Popplewell released Leighton Williams immediately. This cannot be a precedent, but it indicates that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, is right in relation to the test of what is appropriate and proportionate in the work of the Parole Board. I hope that the task force that is now going to be established within the Parole Board will help provide focus. While understanding entirely the position of my own Front Bench and Whips, I feel obliged to vote for this amendment, having added my name to it, believing that it is right that there should be a better proportional test.
I repeat that the campaigns have made a difference to the work that has gone on in relation to worries about mental health and who deals with mental health provision in the service. Is it the provider or the NHS? How do we get it right for individual prisoners who really need intensive support? The campaigners have raised all those issues with all of us, and they deserve credit for it. We are not entirely there yet, but we have made some progress. I am very grateful to the Minister for his understanding and collaboration in making that possible.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and in particular to follow him in expressing a very large degree of gratitude to the Government. Although one is going to end up disagreeing with them on certain narrow points in the course of this short debate, the Government have introduced amendments in the Commons which are extremely helpful to IPP prisoners who are out on licence, and today amendments have been introduced which deal with the very good points made by the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Carter of Haslemere, allowing them to withdraw their amendments.
I do not think it is at all an exaggeration to say that more has been achieved, both operationally and legally, for IPP prisoners in the past few months than in the preceding 12 years. I am sure that a great deal of that is due to the personal efforts of the Lord Chancellor and my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy on the Front Bench. I wish to express my gratitude and a degree of congratulation.
I also want to say—here I find myself again echoing the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—that I am very impressed with the effort and determination of the officials charged with taking responsibility for clearing up this scandal; they really wish to do something. I wish them well, and I hope that that continues for as long as it needs to, whatever the character of the Government in power.
Before I turn to Amendment 145 in my name, I wish to say that there are some amendments in this group tabled by Back-Bench Peers which have not found favour with the Government. My Amendment 145 is one of them, and so is Amendment 140, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, and Amendment 147, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower. It is not for me to make their speeches advocating their amendments; I simply wish to say in advance of their doing so that I am very supportive of what they are trying to do in those amendments and of their aims.
Amendment 145 in my name was not actually drafted by me. As noble Lords who were present in Committee will remember, it was in fact drafted by the late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who felt passionately about this and, coincidentally, whose memorial service is happening later this week. On social media, it has been dubbed the “Simon Brown Memorial Amendment”, as testament to the passion that he brought to this topic and the efforts that he made.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I would like to say a few words about Amendment 141 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, to which I have put my name, and also, briefly, about Amendment 145 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to which, again, I have put my name.
Before making those remarks, I join both noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble and learned Lord the Minister for all the work that he has been doing to find a way of progressing this deeply damaged group of prisoners towards safe release. I use the words “deeply damaged” because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has reminded us, there is a grave effect on them of being detained for so long under preventative sentences with no prospect of release. This has had the result that many of them suffer from a variety of conditions that make the process of releasing them so much more difficult than might have been expected to be the case when they were sentenced. They have faced the trauma of detention in overcrowded prisons without the support they needed, mental health problems, substance issues and various other points that the Minister himself told us about in Committee.
It is impossible for us, who have not seen and studied the files that have been kept on the cases of each of these prisoners, to appreciate the magnitude of the problem that the prisoners themselves face and that faces the Parole Board too. All we have are the numbers: the number of those in the various groups who have never been released, the time they have remained there in comparison with the tariff which they would have faced had they been given a determinate sentence, and the number of those who have been recalled to prison because their licences have been terminated.
The bare statistics are as depressing as ever, with no end in sight for so many of them. That is why so many of your Lordships, including the two noble and learned Lords who are no longer with us, have been pressing for so long for things to be done to enable the situation to be reformed. The various amendments that the Minister has introduced have gone a long way towards mitigating the problem that these preventive-sentence prisoners have been facing for so many years. The changes that have been made to the process for the review and termination of their release from prison on licence are also especially welcome.
Amendment 141 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, seeks to put the Government’s existing action plan for this group of prisoners on to a statutory basis. I will not go over the details, but I draw attention to the wording of one provision in the opening subsection of the proposed new clause, which sets out in clear language the purpose of the action plan proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. It says that its purpose is
“to ensure that all possible steps are taken to ensure the earliest possible safe release and progression”
of this group of prisoners, so it flags up at the outset what this action plan is designed to do.
When we were in Committee on 12 March, I asked the Minister whether there was some way of getting that purpose clearly identified in the existing IPP action plan and of communicating that purpose to the prisoners who are subject to the system, so that they know what the plan is designed to do. The Minister was kind enough to say that this was certainly something that he would take away when considering the Government’s position. The amendment to which I was referring then was about review—not the action plan that Amendment 141 is now talking about—but the need for a stated purpose is the same point. So I would be grateful if the Minister could say whether the Government’s plan as now proposed states what its purpose is, and, if not, whether he would be willing to include a purpose to that effect before the plan is finalised.
As far as Amendment 145 is concerned, I really do not need to say very much, in view of the very thorough way in which the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has discussed the subject and plainly explained his reason for not pressing the amendment. I appreciate and agree with the various points he has made. I agree with him that Amendment 149A of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, should be preferred, because it focuses on the key issue of proportionality. It preserves the existing test but highlights proportionality as a crucial point that must be addressed. For these reasons, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, does test the opinion of the House, I propose to vote in favour of it.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I am going to speak to four amendments in this group: Amendments 137 and 146 on executive release, on which I can be very brief; a new amendment in my name, Amendment 148; and a few words about Amendment 149A, which was tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, to which he and others have already spoken.
Starting with executive release and Amendments 137 and 146, I am delighted and grateful to the Minister for bringing forward his Amendment 139B, which incorporates neatly into one clause those two amendments, which I will now obviously not press. I have just one question on the Government’s amendment: as regards the licence being treated as having remained in force following executive release if it is in the interests of justice, what sort of cases are covered by the “interests of justice”, a phrase which was not in my original amendment? I would be grateful if the Minister could say a few words about that.
As I seem to be on a bit of a roll as regards my amendments being accepted, Amendment 148 is a new amendment but on the same theme of helping to reduce the time spent in prison following a recall. This is about ensuring that IPP cases will be referred by the Secretary of State to the board within 28 days, or earlier if the prisoner makes written representations about the recall. This 28-day deadline already exists in statute for determinate sentence prisoners, and my amendment simply requires the same thing for IPP prisoners, not unlike executive release. There is no reason for any difference. Many recalled determinate sentence prisoners will involve more preparation before referral to the Parole Board than IPP prisoners, so why treat them differently? Since it is currently MoJ policy, as I understand it, to refer recalled IPP prisoners to the board within 28 days, let us be consistent and make it a statutory duty, as with determinate sentence prisoners.
Your Lordships may ask what difference it will make, given that it may be many months, if not years, before the board then considers the case. On paper, it is perhaps only a little, but it is only once the case is referred to the board that the process towards a paper or oral hearing can be initiated. It is easy to forget that every day in prison matters hugely for the prisoner concerned, particularly just after the psychological trauma of a recall, with all the frustration and despair that involves.
Although this amendment is only a small step when set against the unfair delays that currently arise at the board stage, it should make some difference for IPP prisoners to know that there is at least a statutory time- table governing the immediate aftermath of a recall. A statutory deadline would also mean the Secretary of State would have to ensure adequate resources were put into ensuring that a properly documented referral can take place within that timescale. I make no apology for that. Every day in prison matters hugely to the prisoner concerned. So I very much look forward to the noble and learned Lord saying, as he did with my executive release amendments, that he sees force in that one.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I will briefly repeat some of the remarks I made in Committee about the issue which is now dealt with in Amendment 147. The cases the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned demonstrate amply why many serving and recalled IPP prisoners have simply lost hope of ever being properly released. The purpose of Amendment 147 is to create, on a statutory basis, a mentor and advocate scheme to add to the support which may be available to IPP prisoners.
When I spoke about this in Committee, I was quite gratified by the Minister’s response, notwithstanding the fact that such an amendment has not found favour. The Minister said, having listed the kinds of support that exist for IPP prisoners:
“That is not to say that there could not be better organisation of voluntary agencies or, despite what I have said, some other route to consider whether there are ways of strengthening the support of prisoners on some non-statutory basis”.—[Official Report, 12/3/24; col. 1966.]
Since the amendment, in its current form as Amendment 147, has not found favour with the Government, I urgently ask both the Minister and the Government to look at offering the kind of additional support which would have been offered in an advocate and mentor scheme.
It is clear from everything that has been said from all sides of the House about the current situation of IPP prisoners that it is incumbent upon us to do everything we can. Although I understand that a scheme like this will not end up being statutory, it could provide added support for those prisoners and perhaps some small measure of hope that they may ultimately be treated somewhat more fairly than hitherto.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am very pleased that the Government and the Labour Front Bench have improved this Bill, because it was quite a difficult one when it was first presented. However, it would be so amazing if they both accepted this last little tweak of Amendment 149A. Although it applies to very few people, this is an issue of justice and of unfairness that could be put right. I know it is very late, but that amendment is very worth while.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 140, which is in my name, although I support all the amendments tabled by noble colleagues in the IPP group.
I thank all the groups involved in this that have supported us. I also thank the Minister himself for the huge efforts he has made on behalf of IPP prisoners, and the Government for the immense distance they have travelled so far in repairing the damage done by this sentence on the psyches and futures of the remaining rump of unfortunate individuals left serving IPP sentences. We all want to help them progress and leave this torturous situation, but we all know that it must be done in a safe way that will not endanger the public. Amendment 140 would go a huge distance towards achieving this for those the system has damaged the most: those stuck in prison three or more years after their tariff has expired, whether or not they have been released and recalled in the meantime.
Under the current law, any prisoner who is being transferred to hospital will be entitled to the same level of aftercare as any other individual who has been in hospital under qualifying sections. This is an estimated 600 prisoners out of the almost 3,000 still in the system. Section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, on aftercare, provides wraparound care, which can include forensic psychiatrists working with police, probation, victim liaison officers, and local health and social care practitioners, as appropriate, under MAPPA auspices in their local areas.
For prisoners who have been sectioned, the duty means that multiagency planning starts before release and that prisoners come to their parole hearings with a package of support and care ready for them. This will enable them to live safely on the outside. It is hugely successful and throws a light on a path that would lead to many more successful releases. Over 90% of IPP releases by the Parole Board of prisoners who have had Section 117s between November 2021 and August 2023 would have had aftercare plans before release. This is double the percentage of IPPs who did not have Section 117s.
If you speak to any practitioner involved in the parole process, they will tell you that the number one problem preventing the release of people stuck in prison on this sentence is the lack of a package of support in the community to give the Parole Board confidence that they can safely be managed. With an aftercare package provided by health and social care, in consultation with probation, much more care is taken to ensure that the basics—the scaffolding on which the individual can rebuild their lives—are covered. This scaffolding may include suitable accommodation and support as needed from an allocated psychiatrist, working with police, probation, victim liaison officers, local health and social care practitioners, et cetera. Arguably, all prisoners should be entitled to this, but sadly we know that the system often lets them down.
I will give two real-life examples. Their names have been changed for obvious reasons. I am calling them John and Peter. John was sentenced when he was 15 for a minimum term of under a year, and he spent 15 years in prison. Peter was sentenced at the age of just 13. He had a DPP with a minimum of 12 months, and he spent 17 years in prison.
John had a traumatic childhood, which included abuse and being put in care. His first 10 years in prison were chaotic. Over time, it became clear that he had developed a serious mental disorder in the form of a personality disorder. In one prison, the prison psychologist suggested that he should be assessed for a transfer to hospital. He consented and was duly transferred under the Mental Health Act 1983, so he was entitled to the support afforded by Section 117. He said that
“for the first time ever I was able to go to the Parole Board with a really good and supportive release package on the table”.
It has not been all plain sailing for John since his release. He was rearrested for a breach of conditions several months later, but he knows that the support is still there to help him face the Parole Board again and to succeed when he is released. The support package will last for as long as John needs it.
Contrast this with Peter’s story. Peter initially did very well in custody and was first released when he was just 17. He has had long periods of stability, but then things broke down and he has been recalled five times. He now lives in a constant state of anxiety that he will be recalled to prison. He says that living at an endless risk of recall is “like living on eggshells”, and that his sentence has
“given me bad anxiety and paranoia—even when I am the victim I am the one who gets arrested whenever I contact the police— I fear going out and getting recalled because something might happen”.
On his latest release, Peter went to a special mental health approved premises, but was discharged from prison without his medication. After 12 weeks in a hostel, his accommodation entitlement was up and he had nowhere to go. His last recall followed a significant deterioration in his mental health and a spell of time as a voluntary patient in a mental health ward from which he was discharged without suitable accommodation and support. He said he was glad to be back in prison because at least he “couldn’t be recalled”. Because he has never been sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983, he is not entitled to the same wraparound care as John. But why should he not be?
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I wish I could speak as eloquently as a number of those who have already spoken—I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, will do so in a moment. We have travelled quite some way over the last few weeks, to a large extent due to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and other colleagues of his on the Cross Benches, and my noble friend Lord Moylan, who has been our shop steward in our discussions with my noble and learned friend the Minister.
I hope I will not embarrass my noble and learned friend by repeating what others have said about him, but it is clear that without his willingness to listen and his understanding of the deeply serious problems that IPPs present, we would not be where we are today. I salute him for his patience and kindness in listening to me and in understanding the plight of IPP prisoners. As a Government Minister—particularly one in charge of the justice system and the prison system—the most important phrase that concerns you when you get up in the morning, or go to bed at night, and think about a Bill such as this is “the protection of the public”. We have heard him use that expression any number of times during our discussions. The great advantage we have had in talking to him is that we have had discussions, not rows. The whole temper of the debate this afternoon demonstrates that, across the House, we want a discussion because we want to reach a just and fair answer to this very difficult problem.
I have co-signed a number of the amendments on the Marshalled List, but I want to concentrate, reasonably briefly, on Amendment 149A, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and others, have spoken. It seems to me to encapsulate the essence of what we are trying to do: yes, to ensure the protection of the public when it is necessary to do so, as the Minister wishes to do, but also to bring a degree of proportionality into the decisions that have to be taken by the Parole Board. There are no double negatives in this proposed new clause; there is a straightforward fixation upon doing what is just and fair.
Many noble Lords will have read the terms of the noble and learned Lord’s proposed new clause, but really one has to read carefully only subsection (2) of it to see that it allows for the Government—any Government—to protect the public, but also allows for our justice system to end the monstrosity which is the injustice and the unfairness of the IPP system. We have had two examples from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and two more examples from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, but there are many, many more. Those are the prisoners who have survived, but bear in mind that there are a number of IPP prisoners who have died by their own hand because they have run out of hope. The one thing that a justice system must provide is the ability for a prisoner to get better, to rehabilitate, to return to society and to make his or her way in the world.
Subsection (2) says that
“the Secretary of State must by order pursuant to section 128 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 … direct that, following the prisoner’s referral to the Parole Board they will not be released unless the Board is satisfied that, having regard to the proportionality of the term served to the seriousness of the offence or offences of which they were convicted”.
Come back to the 18-month tariff, come back to the two-year tariff, and see that these men are in prison 18 years after being sentenced, nearly two decades after that tariff has expired. Importantly, the subsection also refers to “any other relevant factors”. The Parole Board is not required to just open the door and release them regardless because they are still there 20 years later, well beyond their two-year or 18-month tariff. It can take into account any other relevant factors. That could be the mental instability of the prisoner concerned or any number of characteristics or behaviours that the prisoner demonstrates, which demonstrate to the Parole Board and those who advise it that this particular prisoner—albeit he has served 20 years beyond his two-year tariff—is still, none the less, unsafe to release.
The burden must surely be on us, as representatives of the state in your Lordships’ House and as makers of legislation, to do things which promote fairness and justice, in a way that is transparently sensible. If I may say so, Amendment 149A speaks nothing but common sense, justice and fairness. Even at this very late stage of the Bill, I urge the Government to have one more think. This is not a matter of Labour against Conservative, Cross-Benchers ganging up on the Government, or the Liberal Democrats ganging up with the Labour Party against the Government. It is not even a matter of a couple of lily-livered, pinko Conservative drips ganging up on their Government and trying to engender a rebellion.
Lord Garnier (Con)
It is a cross-party justice question. If I cannot stand up and speak for justice as a Conservative, I am in the wrong business. I will be voting with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, this evening.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, how do I follow those words about pinko commie Conservatives? Quite easily.
Perhaps we would not start from here, but as we are here, I too warmly welcome the Government’s concessions. They show that the Minister has been listening in Committee and at all the meetings. I hope that his listening continues, because there are many very fine amendments in this group, as reflected by the many very fine speeches. Even if the amendments are not voted on, I still think that they are worth considering, and I hope that the officials and the department will take on board what is being said.
All the amendments in this group tackle very specific, and sometimes seemingly technical, matters that remain outstanding in trying to tackle the IPP issue. It strikes me that all these fiddly, piecemeal issues could have been dealt with historically in one fell swoop, and once and for all, by a resentencing amendment. Although I know that that is off the table for now, it will need to be brought back by some future Government. For all that, this group of amendments adds up to more than the sum of its parts, which is why I hope that the amendments will still have an impact, even if they will not all be voted on.
Before I speak to the amendments that I put my name to, I want to show my support for Amendment 145, which the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, said he cannot now press because of a lack of support. The notion of reversing the burden of proof when applying for parole made for one of the most important amendments in this group, not least because it would have had a material impact on the 3,000 IPP prisoners still in jail and it presents the most hope of the amendments here. A lot of people have rightly congratulated UNGRIPP and Donna Mooney on the work that they have done. She reminded us why she wanted Amendment 145 in particular to pass: she is worried that the IPP prisoners who are still incarcerated feel doubly abandoned by this Bill, because it does so little for them as a group. I concur, and I wanted to see that rectified.
That is why it was so gratifying in Committee to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, had described then as a “nudge” to the Parole Board that would make a significant difference. Indeed, as we speak, the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, from the Dispatch Box are being echoed and cheered on widely in a clip featuring them in Peter Stefanovic’s latest short vlog, which has had over 1 million views in a matter of days. It is interesting that those words are being cited as a positive example of cross-party co-operation on an important matter of principle about criminal justice. I hear that the Labour Front Bench is now unable to support this amendment.
I want to counter something that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, mentioned. He said that, in the build-up to an election, this is a toxic topic. I understand the nervousness about law and order, but I will challenge that. I do not think that it is as toxic as we in this House or the other place sometimes suggest to the public. In fact, I think that public opinion can be won over—and is being won over—on IPPs. The fear that politicians have of the public and public opinion is sometimes an underestimation of the public’s sense of fairness and justice, as we have seen with the range of scandals over recent weeks and months—there have certainly been far too many.
The principle behind Amendment 145 is still important to consider, because if the state insists on retaining the power to continue incarcerating people for decades after their original tariff is spent, using a sentencing regime that the state itself has abolished as not fit for purpose, it is only right that the burden of justifying such extraordinary power should then lie with the state.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendments 138A, 143 and 144 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. These amendments are concerned with DPPs—with people who have been detained, as opposed to imprisoned, for public protection. I listened very carefully to the Minister when he explained Amendments 139A, 139B and 139C and the very sympathetic way he has addressed the issues that we raised in Committee.
All I wanted to say at this advanced stage of the Bill is that we need to remember that DPP prisoners were, when they were first detained—“detained” sounds very straightforward; when they were first convicted—under 18. We need to think very carefully about that. They are people who have had—it is almost certain—the most appalling life chances. Members of your Lordships’ House who have worked in this area will have appalling stories about how these people have been unable to get their lives together. We surely have a special responsibility to people who have started out like that, and, in thanking the Minister for the changes he plans to make in procedure for this terrible situation, I hope that the fact that they were children at the outset will not be overlooked.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow noble Lords—and noble and learned Lords—and to benefit from their considerable wisdom on the matter at hand. I do not wish to repeat all that has already been said, but my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester has added her name to several amendments in this group. She is sadly unable to be here today, but I know that, like many other noble Lords, she is dedicated to seeing the reform of the criminal justice system, particularly in respect of our prisons, for which she is the lead bishop for the Church of England.
I will reflect briefly on Amendment 140. As has already been said, we know that many IPP prisoners are stuck in the system, and appropriate psychiatric care in the community is not in place to manage their high-support needs. It is clear to anyone who visits prisons and meets IPP prisoners that they suffer great mental distress, reportedly more so than the wider prison population. This sentence—arguably more than any other— disrupts relationships and leads to hopelessness, anxiety and alienation, as we have heard so much about. In many cases, it can be said that the sentence itself is the very cause of that mental distress, as is reported by many chaplains in our prisons.
The changes proposed through this Bill are welcome and, as we have heard, much progress has been made; but, for the sake of both the prisoners in question and the wider community, I submit that the extended aftercare arrangements proposed in Amendment 140 are needed. Like other noble Lords, I ask the Minister to think again on this important matter.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, it has long seemed strange that, having abolished IPP sentences during the coalition in the LASPO Act, we still have nearly 3,000 prisoners, many of whom had relatively short-term tariffs, in custody or recalled to custody many years after their tariffs have expired.
In this House and elsewhere, there is unanimity that IPPs have been and remain a stain on our justice system, and that they are an inhumane mechanism, unjustly withholding from prisoners a date of release, routinely depriving them of any hope of freedom and causing them serious mental health problems. This is a fact highlighted by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Garnier. The IPPs were frequently in the wake of offences that were not of themselves the most serious.
This is all against a background of a Government taking strange measures, almost impossible to justify, to keep down the prison population. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out, we have prisoners on determinate sentences being released up to 93 days early, for no good reason apart from that there is no space for them. With Operation Early Dawn, we have hearings of criminal cases being delayed to avoid using up prison space by convicting and sentencing offenders expeditiously. We have a prison building programme that even on the most sanguine projections for planning and construction cannot possibly keep pace with predicted increases in prisoner numbers.
Yet we have a Government who have already been the cause of increasing prisoner numbers—with longer prescribed sentences and legislation increasing times in custody—setting their face against doing more to relieve a significant part of the pressure by releasing IPP prisoners faster and more humanely. Certainly, they have moved some way, and I join my noble friend Lady Burt in welcoming the Government’s movement and in her call in Amendment 140, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the right reverend Prelate, for much more and far better aftercare and support for these damaged prisoners who have suffered so much from IPPs. The action plan, so far as it goes, is welcome, as are the other government amendments, in which the Government have accepted the spirit of amendments moved by others throughout the passage of this Bill. I join those others, notably the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who has been mentioned and who has spoken, in appreciating the discussion and co-operation that we have all had with the Minister. However, one suspects that it has been despite the Minister’s best efforts that the Government have not moved far enough.
Amendment 149A, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and powerfully supported today by the noble Lords, Lord Moylan, Lord Carter, and others, with its requirement for an approach that embodies proportionality, is a modest amendment. Why the Government cannot accept it I cannot imagine. The noble and learned Lord’s amendment is designed to give IPP prisoners the hope that they need. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, expressed powerfully the effects of the loss of hope for IPP prisoners in the context of this amendment. If the noble and learned Lord does test the opinion of the House, we will support his amendment. I hope only that a good number of Labour Peers and Conservative Peers, in the cross-party spirit shown by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, will do the same. It would be very welcome if the Government would heed his plea to have one more think.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I too acknowledge the work done by the Minister on IPP and the significant movement that there has been through the government amendments.
It is right that IPP sentences were abolished. We share the concerns that lie behind many of these amendments. We have always sought to work constructively on a cross-party basis on this issue, which is why we are supporting the government amendments to bring forward a statutory action plan. Our default position will always be, where possible, to secure the safe release of IPP prisoners. However, public safety must be at the centre of our approach. It is not possible to make assessments of public safety responsibly and confidently from the opposition position without the necessary evidence on the individual needs of these offenders. In government, the Labour Party will work at pace to make progress and will consult widely to ensure that the action plan is effective and based on the evidence available.
Government Amendment 139C, the annual report amendment, is a government concession to Amendments 141 and 142 tabled by my noble friend Lord Blunkett. It places an obligation upon the Government to report annually on the progress and rehabilitation of IPP and DPP prisoners through the enhanced work of the progression board and to outline those whom they have consulted in supporting such progress. There is clear intent of prisoner release and support and progress on licence while being monitored and advised by the scrutiny panel—currently known as the external challenge group. The Minister mentioned the members of this group. Nobody could doubt their credibility.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I first thank noble Lords for their contributions. To those who were kind enough to refer to me personally, I respectfully say that I simply speak on behalf of the Government, not on my own behalf. This Bill, these amendments and the matters we are discussing are government-sponsored matters. It is the Lord Chancellor and my right honourable friend Mr Argar in the other place, and the Government as a whole, who have put forward this Bill and these amendments for your Lordships’ consideration.
I gathered from the most eloquent speeches we heard today that a number of amendments are not going to be moved. For the record only, I will therefore touch only briefly on those amendments and then turn in more detail to those that remain in contention.
Amendments 134 to 136, proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, would permit offenders to apply to the Parole Board for licence termination after at least a year had elapsed. The Government’s view can be briefly stated: the relevant offenders have to complete only two years on licence, so we are talking about only one possible application to the Parole Board during that two-year period. By the time the Parole Board has determined the application, one would be very close to the end of the two-year period anyway. In the Government’s view, it is not unreasonable to expect an offender to fulfil the required two-year period; that is a clear and certain test. We should not overburden the Parole Board—even more than it is burdened already—with these further applications. That is the brief answer to that point; I will not elaborate further.
On the noble and learned Lord’s Amendment 138, which addresses what are described as inappropriate recalls, I simply point out that, in his recent report of December 2023 on the Probation Service and the power of recall, the chief inspector found that the power was being used in a necessary and proportionate way. I associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, bringing to bear his experience as a magistrate, about the importance of recall and the circumstances in which it happens. It is very important that the Probation Service is not criticised for the way in which it makes recalls. Be that as it may, in the Government’s view, these amendments, including Amendment 138, are now overtaken by government Amendments 139A and 139B, which provide, in effect, for re-release and for the release not to count if that is in the interests of justice.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, whether I can give any examples of what might be in the interests of justice in that instance. My official advice is that I cannot, because that would pre-judge particular circumstances. I can say in my personal capacity, however, that one could imagine, theoretically and hypothetically, that a recall made rather close to the expiry of the licence term, when the effect might be to restart the two-year clock—or a recall made in circumstances where there had been an arrest but subsequently there were no charges, or nothing was done to pursue the matter that led to recall—might be instances where this kind of power could be useful. I think that is as far as I can go on that matter.
Amendment 139 concerns the power in delegated legislation to change the qualifying period, which at the moment could be either reduced or released. That is a standard provision. The Government cannot imagine the circumstances in which anyone would ever want to increase the qualifying period, but one never knows. Therefore, we are not in favour of changing the statutory power to change the qualifying period.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
In a debate on public bodies, protests and funding, we wanted to use the word “reasonableness”, and the Government still stuck to proportionality—in government circles, on that particular Bill, they knew what proportionality meant. Moreover, I was in the debates on the Human Rights Act; it was very clear that part of the human right is whether the decisions that have been taken are really proportionate. The Act spells this out, so I do not understand why, in this particular case, the Minister is relying on case law, particularly on the Human Rights Act. I do not see why that cannot be applied in this particular instance.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I cannot do better than simply refer to what I have already said: the Government think that there should be a very clear, simple test of public protection, and that the way to get these prisoners out is to work in a way that enables them to meet that test, so that they and the wider community are safe. My respectful submission to this House is that that is a reasonable and responsible approach, because otherwise we run terrible risks in relation to releasing this cohort, who have already been found several times not to be safe to release. That is the Government’s position.
I turn briefly to Amendment 147, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, which relates to other support for IPP prisoners through the use of independent monitors, and in addition to the support I indicated on the last occasion. The Government will look at additional support, as the noble Baroness asked me to do, and consider whether that would be a further element that we can build into the action plan. I respectfully say to the noble Baroness and to other noble Lords who have made this point that, for prisoners who have lost hope, the Government’s actions should be the start of restoring hope. We are in the business of restoring hope for this cohort of prisoners.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 45, page 47, line 28.
Lord Bellamy
“ScheduleInfected Blood Compensation AuthorityPart 1ConstitutionMembership
1 (1) The IBCA is to consist of—(a) a Chair (who is to be a non-executive member),(b) at least 3, but not more than 6, other non-executive members,(c) a chief executive, and(d) at least 2, but not more than 5, other executive members.(2) The members are to be appointed in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 4.(3) A person exercising a power of appointment in accordance with those paragraphs must when doing so ensure, so far as practicable, that the number of non-executive members is at all times greater than the number of executive members.Appointment of non-executive members
2 (1) The Chair is to be appointed by the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office.(2) The other non-executive members are to be appointed by the Chair except for the first three who are to be appointed by the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office.(3) A person may not be appointed as a non-executive member if the person is a member of the IBCA’s staff.Appointment of executive members
3 (1) The chief executive and the other executive members are to be appointed by the Chair.(2) The executive members are to be members of the IBCA’s staff.Appointments of members: eligibility
4 (1) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may by regulations make provision about criteria which must be met by persons in order to be appointed as members of the IBCA.(2) The regulations may make provision for a person to cease to be a member of the IBCA if the person no longer meets those criteria.Terms of membership
5 (1) A member of the IBCA holds and vacates office in accordance with the terms of the member’s appointment (subject to this Schedule).(2) A member may resign from office by giving notice to the appropriate person.(3) A member may be removed from office by notice given by the appropriate person on the grounds that the member—(a) has without reasonable excuse failed to discharge the member’s functions, or (b) is, in the opinion of the appropriate person, unable or unfit to carry out the member’s functions.(4) A person ceases to be—(a) a non-executive member of the IBCA upon becoming a member of its staff;(b) an executive member of the IBCA upon ceasing to be a member of its staff.(5) In this paragraph “appropriate person” means—(a) in the case of the Chair, the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office;(b) in the case of any other member of the IBCA, the Chair.Non-executive members: payments
6 (1) The IBCA must pay, or make provision for the payment of, such remuneration, pensions, allowances or gratuities as the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office determines to or in respect of a person who is or has been—(a) the Chair, or(b) a non-executive member appointed by the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office under paragraph 2(2).(2) The IBCA must pay, or make provision for the payment of, such remuneration, pensions, allowances or gratuities as the Chair determines to or in respect of a person who is or has been a non-executive member appointed by the Chair under paragraph 2(2).(3) Sub-paragraph (4) applies if—(a) a person ceases to be the Chair or a non-executive member appointed by the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office under paragraph 2(2), and(b) the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office determines that the person should be compensated because of special circumstances.(4) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the IBCA must pay the person compensation of such amount as the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may determine.(5) Sub-paragraph (6) applies if—(a) a person ceases to be a non-executive member appointed by the Chair under paragraph 2(2), and(b) the Chair determines that the person should be compensated because of special circumstances.(6) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the IBCA must pay the person compensation of such amount as the Chair may determine.Staffing
7 (1) The IBCA may—(a) appoint employees, and(b) make such other arrangements for the staffing of the IBCA as it determines.(2) The IBCA must pay its staff such remuneration as may be determined in accordance with this paragraph.(3) The IBCA must pay, or make provision for the payment of, such pensions, allowances, gratuities or compensation as may be determined in accordance with this paragraph to or in respect of any person who is or has been a member of staff of the IBCA.(4) Members of staff of the IBCA are to be appointed on such other terms as may be determined in accordance with this paragraph.(5) A matter is determined in accordance with this paragraph if—(a) in the case of a matter which relates to an executive member, it is determined by the Chair; (b) in the case of a matter which relates to any other member of staff, it is determined by the IBCA.(6) Before making a determination as to remuneration, pensions, allowances, gratuities or compensation for the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) or (3), the IBCA must obtain the approval of the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office as to its policy on that matter.Interim chief executive
(1) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may appoint a person as an executive member to act as chief executive of the IBCA (“an interim chief executive”) until the appointment of the first chief executive by the Chair under paragraph 3(1).(2) An interim chief executive may incur expenditure and do other things in the name of and on behalf of the IBCA until the appointment of the first chief executive by the Chair under paragraph 3(1).(3) In exercising the power in sub-paragraph (2), an interim chief executive must act in accordance with any directions given by the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office.(4) Paragraphs 3, 5 and 7 do not apply to an interim chief executive.Committees and sub-committees
9 (1) The IBCA may appoint such committees and sub-committees as it considers appropriate.(2) A committee or sub-committee may consist of or include persons who are neither members, nor members of staff, of the IBCA.(3) The IBCA may pay such remuneration and allowances as it may determine to any person who—(a) is a member of a committee or a sub-committee, but(b) is not a member of staff of the IBCA,whether or not that person is a non-executive member of the IBCA.Procedure
10 (1) The IBCA may determine its own procedure and the procedure of any of its committees or sub-committees.(2) The validity of any proceedings of the IBCA, or any committee or sub-committee of the IBCA, is not affected by any vacancy among its members or by any defect in the appointment of such a member.Exercise of functions
11 (1) The IBCA must have regard to the need to exercise its functions effectively, efficiently and economically.(2) The IBCA may delegate any of its functions to—(a) a member of the IBCA,(b) a member of the IBCA’s staff authorised for that purpose, or(c) any committee or sub-committee.(3) A function may be delegated to the extent and on the terms that the IBCA determines.Funding
12 (1) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office must pay to the IBCA—(a) such sums as are required to meet payments made by the IBCA under the infected blood compensation scheme, and(b) such other sums as the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office considers are reasonably sufficient to enable the IBCA to carry out its functions.(2) Payments under sub-paragraph (1)(b) may be made subject to conditions. (3) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may by regulations make provision about what the IBCA must do with any sums repaid to it by virtue of section (Payments)(5) (which may include provision requiring the sums to be paid to the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office).Annual report
13 (1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year the IBCA must prepare a report on the exercise of its functions during that financial year.(2) The IBCA must send the report to the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office.(3) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office must lay the report before Parliament.Accounts and audit
14 (1) The IBCA must—(a) keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to them, and(b) prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year in the form specified by the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office.(2) The IBCA must send a copy of each statement of accounts to the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office, and the Comptroller and Auditor General, as soon as practicable after the end of the financial year to which the statement relates.(3) The Comptroller and Auditor General must—(a) examine, certify and report on each statement of accounts, and(b) send a copy of each report and certified statement to the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office.(4) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office must lay before Parliament a copy of each such report and certified statement.Meaning of “financial year”
15 In this Schedule “financial year” means—(a) the period beginning with the date on which the IBCA is established and ending with 31 March following that date, and(b) each successive period of 12 months.Provision of information
16 The IBCA must provide to the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office such information relating to the IBCA’s functions as they may request.Status
17 (1) The IBCA is not to be regarded—(a) as the servant or agent of the Crown, or(b) as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.(2) The IBCA’s property is not to be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of, the Crown.(3) Service as a member, or a member of staff, of the IBCA is not service in the civil service of the State.Seal and evidence
18 (1) The application of the IBCA’s seal must be authenticated by a signature of—(a) a member of the IBCA, or(b) another person authorised for that purpose by the IBCA.(2) A document purporting to be duly executed under the IBCA’s seal or signed on its behalf—(a) is to be received in evidence, and(b) is to be taken to be executed or signed in that way, unless the contrary is shown. (3) But this paragraph does not apply in relation to any document which is, or is to be, signed in accordance with the law of Scotland.Supplementary powers
19 The IBCA may do anything it thinks appropriate for the purposes of, or in connection with, its functions.Part 2Transfer schemesPower to make transfer schemes
20 (1) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may make one or more schemes (“transfer schemes”) for the purpose of transferring to the IBCA such property, rights and liabilities of a relevant person as the Secretary of State or Minister considers appropriate for the purposes of enabling the IBCA to carry out its functions under or by virtue of this Act.(2) In this paragraph “relevant person” means—(a) the Secretary of State;(b) the Minister for the Cabinet Office;(c) a Special Health Authority established under section 28 of the National Health Service Act 2006;(d) the Welsh Ministers;(e) a National Health Service trust established under section 18 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;(f) a Special Health Authority established under section 22 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;(g) the Scottish Ministers;(h) a person who has at any time been appointed by the Scottish Ministers under section 28(4)(d) of the Smoking, Health and Social Care (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp 13) to manage a scheme under that section;(i) the Department of Health in Northern Ireland;(j) the Regional Business Services Organisation established by section 14 of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009 (c.1 (N.I)).(3) A transfer scheme may not be made—(a) in relation to a relevant person within sub-paragraph (2)(d), (e) or (f), unless the Welsh Ministers consent;(b) in relation to a relevant person within sub-paragraph (2)(g) or (h), unless the Scottish Ministers consent;(c) in relation to a relevant person within sub-paragraph (2)(i) or (j), unless the Department of Health in Northern Ireland consents.(4) The things that may be transferred under a transfer scheme include—(a) property, rights and liabilities that could not otherwise be transferred;(b) property acquired, and rights and liabilities arising, after the making of the scheme;(c) criminal liabilities.(5) A transfer scheme may make supplementary, incidental, transitional or consequential provision and may, in particular—(a) create rights, or impose liabilities, in relation to property or rights transferred;(b) make provision about the continuing effect of things done by a relevant person in respect of anything transferred;(c) make provision about the continuation of things (including legal proceedings) in the process of being done by, on behalf of, or in relation to, a relevant person in respect of anything transferred; (d) make provision for references to an interim compensation authority in an instrument or other document in respect of anything transferred to be treated as references to the IBCA;(e) make provision for the shared ownership or use of property;(f) make provision which is the same as or similar to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (SI 2006/246);(g) make other supplemental, incidental, transitional or consequential provision.(6) A transfer scheme may provide for—(a) modifications by agreement;(b) modifications to have effect from the date when the original scheme came into effect.(7) For the purposes of this paragraph—(a) references to rights and liabilities include rights and liabilities relating to a contract of employment;(b) references to the transfer of property include the grant of a lease.(8) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (7)—(a) an individual who holds employment in the civil service is to be treated as employed by virtue of a contract of employment, and(b) the terms of the individual’s employment in the civil service of the State are to be regarded as constituting the terms of the contract of employment.Tax treatment of transfer schemes
21 (1) The Treasury may by regulations make provision varying the way in which a relevant tax has effect in relation to—(a) anything transferred under a scheme under paragraph 20, or(b) anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, a transfer under such a scheme.(2) The provision which may be made under sub-paragraph (1)(a) includes in particular provision for—(a) a tax provision not to apply, or to apply with modifications, in relation to anything transferred;(b) anything transferred to be treated in a specified way for the purposes of a tax provision;(c) the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office to be required or permitted to determine, or specify the method for determining, anything which needs to be determined for the purposes of any tax provision so far as relating to anything transferred.(3) The provision which may be made under sub-paragraph (1)(b) includes in particular provision for—(a) a tax provision not to apply, or to apply with modifications, in relation to anything done for the purposes of or in relation to the transfer;(b) anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, the transfer to have or not have a specified consequence or be treated in a specified way;(c) the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office to be required or permitted to determine, or specify the method for determining, anything which needs to be determined for the purposes of any tax provision so far as relating to anything done for the purposes of, or in relation to, the transfer.(4) In this paragraph references to the transfer of property include the grant of a lease.(5) In this paragraph— “relevant tax” means income tax, corporation tax, capital gains tax, value added tax, stamp duty or stamp duty reserve tax;“tax provision” means any legislation about a relevant tax.Part 3AmendmentsPublic Records Act 1958 (c. 51)
22 In Part 2 of the Table in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of public records), at the appropriate place insert—“The Infected Blood Compensation Authority.”Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 (c. 67)
23 In the Schedule to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960—(a) in paragraph 1 (bodies in England and Wales to which the Act applies), at the end insert—“(q) the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.”;(b) in paragraph 2 (bodies in Scotland to which the Act applies), at the end insert—“(g) the Infected Blood Compensation Authority.”Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c. 13)
24 In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (departments subject to investigation), at the appropriate place insert—“The Infected Blood Compensation Authority.”House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 24)
25 In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, at the appropriate place insert—“The Infected Blood Compensation Authority.”Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 25)
26 In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, at the appropriate place insert—“The Infected Blood Compensation Authority.”Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36)
27 In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (other public bodies), at the appropriate place insert—“The Infected Blood Compensation Authority.”Equality Act 2010 (c. 15)
28 In Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (authorities subject to the public sector equality duty), under the heading “Health, social care and social security”, at the appropriate place insert—“The Infected Blood Compensation Authority.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision about the constitution of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, for the transfer of property, rights and liabilities to and from the Authority and for various enactments to apply in relation to the Authority.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 44, page 45, line 4.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 44, page 45, line 4.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the High Court to determine all prisoner release cases referred by the Secretary of State under section 32ZAA of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 inserted by Clause 44.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 44, page 45, line 4.
“(2A) The requirement for the Secretary of State to give effect to the Parole Board’s direction to release the prisoner is suspended—(a) during such period, beginning with the day on which the direction is given, as the Secretary of State reasonably requires to determine whether to direct the Parole Board to refer the prisoner’s case to the High Court under this section, and(b) if the Secretary of State gives such a direction, pending determination of the reference under section 32ZAC(1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment suspends requirements to release a prisoner while the Secretary of State is considering whether to refer the prisoner’s case to the High Court and until any such reference is determined.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 44, page 45, line 4.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 44, page 45, line 11.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 44, page 45, line 4.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 44, page 45, line 4.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 44, page 45, line 4.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 44, page 45, line 4.
Lord Bellamy
“(b) in subsection (3), after “subject to” insert “—(a) section 32ZAA(2A) (suspension of duty to release prisoner pending referral to High Court or decision whether to refer), andMember’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 44, page 45, line 11.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 45, page 47, line 28.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 45, page 47, line 28.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the High Court to determine all prisoner release cases referred by the Secretary of State under section 256AZBA of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 inserted by Clause 45.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 45, page 47, line 28.
“(2A) The requirement for the Secretary of State to give effect to the Board’s direction to release the prisoner is suspended— (a) during such period, beginning with the day on which the direction is given, as the Secretary of State reasonably requires to determine whether to direct the Board to refer the prisoner’s case to the High Court under this section, and(b) if the Secretary of State gives such a direction, pending determination of the reference under section 256AZBC(1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment suspends requirements to release a prisoner while the Secretary of State is considering whether to refer the prisoner’s case to the High Court and until any such reference is determined.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 45, page 47, line 28.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 45, page 47, line 34.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 45, page 47, line 28.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 45, page 47, line 28.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 45, page 47, line 28.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 45, page 47, line 28.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 45, page 47, line 28.
Lord Bellamy
“(b) in subsection (3), after “subject to” insert “—(a) section 256AZBA(2A) (suspension of duty to release prisoner pending referral to High Court or decision whether to refer), and Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 45, page 47, line 34.
Lord Bellamy
“(2) In subsection (3), before paragraph (b) (and the “or” before it) insert—“(ab) in accordance with subsection (3A),”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments of section 31 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 made by my amendment of Clause 48, page 50, line 31.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments of section 31 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 made by my amendment of Clause 48, page 50, line 31.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 44, page 45, line 4.
Lord Bellamy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 45, page 47, line 28.
“Licence conditions for serial and serious harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements(1) A condition of the release and licence of serial and serious harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators is that they must be included in the Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements.(2) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows. (3) In section 325 (arrangements for assessing etc risk posed by certain offenders)—(a) in subsection (1), after ““relevant sexual or violent offender” has the meaning given by section 327;” insert ““relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” has the meaning given in section 327ZA;”;(b) after subsection (2)(a) insert—“(aza) relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrators,”.(4) After section 327 (Section 325: interpretation) insert—“327ZA Interpretation of relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator(1) For the purposes of section 325, a person (“P”) is a “relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” if P has been convicted of a specified offence or an associate offence and meets either the condition in subsection (2)(a) or the condition in subsection (2)(b).(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the conditions are—(a) P is a relevant serial offender, or(b) a risk of serious harm assessment has identified P as presenting a high or very high risk of serious harm.(3) An offence is a “specified offence” for the purposes of this section if it is a specified domestic abuse offence or a specified stalking offence.(4) In this section—“relevant serial offender” means a person convicted on more than one occasion for the same specified offence, or a person convicted of more than one specified offence;“specified domestic abuse offence” means an offence where it is alleged that the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse within the meaning defined in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;“specified stalking offence” means an offence contrary to section 2A or section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.(5) Within 12 months of the day on which the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 is passed the Secretary of State must commission a review into the operation of the provisions of this section.””
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, in rising to speak to Amendments 132 and 133 I take the opportunity to apologise to the House. I asked a supplementary question at Question Time that related to university funding and I did not refer to my interests in the register.
The amendments are the same as those that we moved in Committee and they are similar to amendments that we have moved to other Bills, but the Government have not acted and women continue to be attacked and killed as men with violent histories are allowed to escalate their behaviour by moving from victim to victim.
In Committee, the Minister said, as many Ministers have said before, that the Government agree that the robust management of perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalking is crucial to keep the public safe and that they completely agree with the spirit of the amendments, but that the objectives can be met through current provision and policy.
I beg to disagree. All the evidence demonstrates that this is not enough. Various initiatives have been, and are being, piloted, and countless letters are written to police forces urging them to make proper use of Clare’s law and stalking protection orders, but still it is clear that offences on a discretionary basis are not being treated with the same seriousness under MAPPA 2 and MAPPA 3. Where lives are at stake, a postcode lottery—which is what we have at present—is not acceptable.
This year a new report was published, following a national domestic homicide project and a Home Office-funded research project led by the National Police Chiefs Council—the NPCC. It showed that domestic abusers who went on to kill their partners were known to police in 80% of cases. Some 60% of those had been reported to the police specifically for domestic abuse, and a third of offenders were known to other agencies. The NPCC said that this highlighted the need for a
“multi-agency approach to effectively safeguard victims”.
The victims and perpetrators are known by many agencies and the most dangerous and serial perpetrators must be managed by MAPPA in order to close down opportunities for them to reoffend, and to ensure that their history is captured on the violent and sexual offenders register. This must be accessible whenever and wherever they move, just as with sex offenders.
The Minister might refer me to Clare’s law, which is certainly welcome, but it is simply not working in the majority of cases. It leaves the onus on potential victims to protect themselves, instead of placing positive obligations on the perpetrators. It affords no protection when the abuser leaves prison, moves address and targets a new woman—or when they change their name, which many serial perpetrators do.
Women repeatedly report they have been sent away or told by police that they are not a vetting agency. Clare’s law is failing because there is no duty on police to proactively identify, assess and manage serial perpetrators, or to record information about them and share it. NPCC data from October 2021 to March 2022 reveals that at least 56% of criminal background requests made by women were denied. This is truly shocking and demonstrates why the amendments are necessary.
I could cite so many examples that demonstrate the urgent need for these two amendments, but I will limit myself to six cases. I mentioned Zoe Dronfield in Committee. The man who nearly murdered her was released on 2 May. We have had to continuously push to ensure that he is managed at category 3 of MAPPA, when this should have been automatic. There are concerns about future women that he might target. We know that he has changed his appearance, but Zoe is not allowed even to see a photo. Why is it that his rights are being protected?
Chloe Holland was coercively controlled and abused by Marc Masterton. She died in hospital in March 2023 after trying to take her life because of him. Before doing so she reported him for domestic abuse and gave a two-hour video interview. He was sent to prison last year. Hearing of Chloe’s case, another victim, Zoe Castle, had the courage to come forward. Masterton has just been convicted for coercively controlling her and was sentenced to a further three years and seven months.
Zoe had just turned 18 when she moved in with Masterton and she lived in constant fear of him. She had to bend to his will and was fearful that she would lose her daughter. He hit over the head with a glass bottle, threw her into a wardrobe and, in another incident, picked her up and placed her in a freezing cold bath. When he comes out of prison, this serial perpetrator will do it again—he always does. He should go on a register, with stringent conditions.
“Danielle”—a pseudonym used to protect the victim’s identity for safety reasons—met her ex-partner through work in 2022. About six months into the relationship, it became clear that her new boyfriend had an alcohol problem. She thought she could save him, or that he would change for her, but he turned out to be abusive and attacked her twice in her own home. In a drunken assault, he grabbed her by the throat and hit her head against a wall, leaving only when she managed to reach the front door and scream for help.
Danielle said that she had never heard of Clare’s law when it was mentioned by her social worker soon afterwards, but she agreed to an application for information about her partner being made on her behalf. When the police arrived a few days later, she was shocked by what they told her. Her partner had a record of violent assaults on 20 other women.
In breach of the restraining order issued after the first assault, he broke into her home, seriously assaulting her again. He was sentenced to 10 weeks in prison for common assault and was released earlier this year. Naturally, she is terrified.
Holly Bramley met serial perpetrator Nicholas Metson in 2016 and they married in 2021. Holly had no idea about his previous convictions for offences against former partners in 2013, 2016 and 2017. Twenty-six year-old Holly decided to leave him and on 17 March last year he killed her, cutting her body up into 200 pieces and depositing it in a river.
Holly had a right to know about Metson’s serious and serial offending history.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am very happy to add my name to both these amendments, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for the many years that she has pursued this subject—seemingly to no avail but cumulatively, the more people hear about it, the more we might finally get something done. As I was listening to the powerful examples she was giving, I was mindful of the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Casey of Blackstock, which some noble Lords may have heard recently, where she repeated the litany of women, mainly, who have died at the hands of their male partners which Jess Phillips MP normally gives every year. The litany will go on and on until we have the moral courage to face up to this and to the fact that what we have currently is not working.
Why do we persist? I draw your attention to Hansard of 26 February of this year, which was our sixth day in Committee, and I will read directly from the words of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Roborough:
“The Government agree that robust management of perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalking is crucial to help keep the public safe. We completely agree with the spirit of these amendments; however, we believe the objectives can already be met through current provision and policy”.—[Official Report, 26/2/24; col. 860.]
We then go to the Minister again, who gives us an example of how well the current system is working:
“The VAWG strategy confirms the Home Office will work with the police to ensure all police forces make proper use of stalking protection orders. Among other actions, in October 2021, the then-Safeguarding Minister Rachel Maclean MP wrote to all chief constables whose forces applied for fewer orders than might have been expected to encourage them to always consider applying for them. In February 2023, the former Safeguarding Minister, Sarah Dines MP, did the same”.—[Official Report, 26/2/24; col. 862.]
It goes on and on. The evidence is that the current system does not work.
In a meeting which the Minister kindly had with us to discuss some of the issues around stalking, we referred to the voluminous evidence put forward by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust in its super-complaint to the Government. This super-complaint will have a response from the Government, probably within the next two months, and in that meeting we exhorted the Government to look carefully at its evidence. Given the opportunity we have in this Bill to try and put it right now, rather than go through the charade of having the Government’s reaction to the super-complaint, more discussions about it, and then perhaps more discussions about what might be done, why do we not actually pull our finger out and do it now?
I entirely agree with the two amendments that the noble Baroness has put forward and I ask all noble Lords in the Chamber to consider very carefully supporting them when, as I think she will, she divides the House to see how we feel.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I also thank Laura Richards, Claire Waxman—the Victims’ Commissioner for London —and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust for their consistently helpful briefings for us. I am very moved by the powerful examples that the noble Baroness gave us and I agree with everything that she and the noble Lord said.
I just want to reiterate the point that we as a group keep making, which is that the government arrangements often mean that stalkers are missed out. They are often mischarged with other crimes, such as harassment or malicious communication. It is common for the National Stalking Helpline to see high-risk stalking cases managed as low-level nuisance behaviours or even as isolated incidents, and as a result fewer perpetrators are convicted and even fewer sentenced to 12 months or less.
There are also some concerns. The Minister has told us that the Home Office domestic abuse and stalking perpetrator intervention fund for last year was made available for PCCs to commission services covering all forms of stalking, including non-DA. However, there were a disproportionate number of funds apportioned to DA-specific stalking services or even DA services that do not address stalking at all, or claim to address stalking but without any stalking expertise. Some 65% of awards in this grant were solely for domestic abuse interventions, with no stalking provision. The problem is that whatever we say here is not ending up on the front line, so can the Minister tell us how the Government propose to manage a more comprehensive approach for stalking perpetrators?
The Suzy Lamplugh Trust has provided plenty of evidence over the years, and indeed in its super-complaint, about how investing in perpetrator management saves money. It saves money because there is no constant repeat of crimes committed by these obsessed and manipulative stalkers, and it helps the state as well. On that basis, from these Benches we support the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, if she wishes to call a vote on these two amendments.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be brief. My name is on this amendment, and indeed, I spoke to similar amendments in Committee. It was a great pleasure to do so, but I regarded myself, as I said at the time, as a substitute for my noble friend Lady Royall, who indeed has the most tireless record of championing this cause and taking every opportunity to remedy the problem. We are presented with an opportunity here. Guidance is not working. That is the problem. We have to put these modest amendments into the Bill because we know that guidance is not working. It is not good enough, and it means that it is a postcode lottery as to whether action is taken in the way that is necessary, and it makes a hit and miss system for whether or not women’s lives are saved. That is not good enough. It is time. We need to put both these amendments in the Bill. We owe it to the victims of stalking to ensure that the police everywhere will see stalking for what it is: often a stepping stone to something worse. It is time we did that.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for her amendments relating to the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements —MAPPA. Before addressing the amendments, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Newlove, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for making the time to meet me and my officials on this matter.
The Government agree that robust management of perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalking is crucial to help keep the public safe. We are in agreement with the spirit of these amendments. However, we believe that the objectives can already be met through current provision and policy and through separate legislation that we are taking forward. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, kindly commented, that remains our view.
I will address Amendment 132 first. Under existing legislation, individuals who are convicted of specified violent and sexual offences and are subject to notification requirements and/or sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment or more are automatically eligible for management under MAPPA. These offences include offences which are committed in the context of domestic abuse, such as threats to kill, actual and grievous bodily harm, and attempted strangulation, as well as stalking, including fear of violence. The list of offences is kept under review and, in recognition of the seriousness of the offence, we are legislating in the Criminal Justice Bill to ensure that offenders convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment or more will automatically be managed under MAPPA. This will mean that many of the most serious domestic abuse offenders will be subject to stringent multi-agency management.
MAPPA in the 42 police force areas of England and Wales are delivered by independent strategic management boards. As well as representatives from the police, probation and prison services, SMBs will have representatives from other agencies, such as local authorities and health providers. To encourage consistency, SMBs must have due regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State pursuant to his permissive power under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, while also responding to local needs.
As we committed to do during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill, we strengthened the Secretary of State's MAPPA guidance to include a chapter dedicated to domestic abuse and stalking. This mandates that all domestic abuse and stalking offenders who do not qualify for automatic MAPPA management must be considered for discretionary management, known as category 3. We have also worked with MAPPA agencies to improve practice, including the publication of additional guidance setting out the thresholds to be met for the various levels of MAPPA management to assist practitioners making these decisions, and, if we find that cases of domestic violence and stalking that need to be managed under MAPPA are still not being identified and referred for MAPPA management, to take further remedial action.
In response to the six harrowing cases that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, mentioned earlier, while we cannot comment on individual cases, I express my and the Government’s sincere condolences to all individuals and families who have been impacted by domestic abuse or stalking. The MAPPA framework is available only for convicted offenders. All individuals with convictions for domestic abuse and stalking behaviour, where not automatically eligible, must already be considered by the responsible authorities for management under MAPPA. The statutory guidance makes this clear. MAPPA is not available in cases where individuals do not have convictions, but there are other measures that are either already in place or are due to be piloted shortly that serve to protect a victim; for example, the statutory domestic violence disclosure scheme, often referred to as Clare’s law, which provides a mechanism for the police to disclose information about an individual’s past abusive or violent behaviour, or civil orders, such as stalking protection orders and, later this year, domestic abuse protection orders.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell. I have to say that I am not content. I have heard the word “guidance”, “guidance”, “guidance”, and that the current provision and policy will make everything work. They will not. I repeat: they will not. Why are so many women dying? The reason is that they do not work. Pilots, guidance and Clare’s law are simply not working; they are not enough. We should take the moral courage as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and vote in favour of this amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, it is not just about doing something that is right and protecting lives; investing in perpetrator management also saves money. What is not to like? I intend to test the opinion of the House.
“Relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrators’ register(1) A condition of the release and licence of serial and serious harm domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators is that they are subject to notification requirements in accordance with this section.(2) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.(3) In section 80 (persons becoming subject to notification requirements), after subsection (1)(a) insert—“(aa) they are a relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator”.(4) After section 80, insert the following new Clause—“80A Interpretation of relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator(1) A “relevant domestic abuse or stalking perpetrator” under section 80 means a person (P) who has been convicted of a specified offence or an associate offence and meets either condition in subsection (2)(a) or subsection (2)(b).(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the conditions are—(a) P is a relevant serial offender, or(b) a risk of serious harm assessment has identified P as presenting a high or very high risk of serious harm.(3) An offence is a “specified offence” for the purposes of this section if it is a specified domestic abuse offence or a specified stalking offence.(4) In this section—“relevant serial offender” means a person convicted on more than one occasion for the same specified offence, or a person convicted of more than one specified offence;“specified domestic abuse offence” means an offence where it is alleged that the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse within the meaning defined in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021;“specified stalking offence” means an offence contrary to section 2A or section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.(5) Within 12 months of the day on which the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 is passed the Secretary of State must commission a review into the operation of the provisions of section 80 of this Act.””
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Roborough
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the amendments made by Clause 48 all relate to Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (life sentences).
“(1A) In section 31 (duration and conditions of licences)—(a) in subsection (3), after paragraph (a) (but before the “or”) insert—“(aa) in accordance with subsection (3ZA),”(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(3ZA) The Secretary of State may include a condition in a life prisoner's licence on release under section 32ZZA.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 48, page 52, line 27, inserting new section 32ZZA of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 and enables the Secretary of State to impose a condition in a prisoner’s licence on release under that new section.
Lord Roborough
(i) for the definition of “preventive sentence” substitute—““preventive sentence” means—(a) a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (including one passed as a result of section 219 of the Armed Forces Act 2006), or(b) a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (including one passed as a result of section 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);”;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment amends the definition of “preventive sentence” in section 31A(5) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 to clarify the effect of previous amendments.
(a) if the prisoner was not at any time in the period of two years beginning with the date of the prisoner’s release serving any preventive sentence in respect of an offence for which the prisoner was convicted when aged 18 or over, that two year period;(b) otherwise, the period of three years beginning with the date of the prisoner’s release.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for a shorter “qualifying period” for prisoners only serving preventive sentences imposed in respect of offences for which they were convicted when aged under 18.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 48, page 52, line 13, which provides for a shorter “qualifying period” for prisoners only serving preventive sentences imposed in respect of offences for which they were convicted when aged under 18.
“(b) after subsection (5A) insert—“(5B) Subsection (5C) applies where the Secretary of State releases, under subsection (5) above, a prisoner to whom section 31A (termination of licences of preventive sentence prisoners) applies.(5C) The Secretary of State may determine that, for the purposes of paragraph (c) of section 31A(4H) (automatic licence termination), the prisoner’s licence is to be treated as having remained in force as if it had not been revoked under this section.(5D) The Secretary of State may only make a determination under subsection (5C) if the Secretary of State considers that it is in the interests of justice to do so.(5E) Where the Secretary of State makes a determination under subsection (5C), the Secretary of State must notify the prisoner.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Secretary of State, when the Parole Board directs the re-release of a preventive sentence prisoner who is recalled to prison, to disregard the revocation of the prisoner’s licence for the purposes of automatic licence termination under amendments made by Clause 48(2).
“(4) After section 32 insert—“32ZZA Imprisonment or detention for public protection: powers in relation to release of recalled prisoners(1) This section applies where a prisoner to whom section 31A (termination of licences of preventive sentence prisoners) applies—(a) has been released on licence under this Chapter, and(b) is recalled to prison under section 32.(2) The Secretary of State may, at any time after the prisoner is returned to prison, release the prisoner again on licence under this Chapter.(3) The Secretary of State must not release the prisoner under subsection (2) unless satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should remain in prison.(4) Where the prisoner is released under subsection (2), the Secretary of State may determine that, for the purposes of paragraph (c) of section 31A(4H) (automatic licence termination), the prisoner’s licence is to be treated as having remained in force as if it had not been revoked under section 32.(5) The Secretary of State may only make a determination under subsection (4) if the Secretary of State considers that it is in the interests of justice to do so.(6) Where the Secretary of State makes a determination under subsection (4), the Secretary of State must notify the prisoner.(7) In this section, “preventive sentence” means—(a) a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (including one passed as a result of section 219 of the Armed Forces Act 2006), or(b) a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (including one passed as a result of section 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006).”” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Secretary of State to re-release a preventive sentence prisoner who is recalled to prison and to disregard the revocation of the prisoner’s licence for the purposes of automatic licence termination under amendments made by Clause 48(2).
Lord Roborough
“Imprisonment or detention for public protection: annual report(1) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable after the end of each reporting period—(a) prepare and publish a report about the steps taken by the Secretary of State in the reporting period to support the rehabilitation of preventive sentence prisoners and their progress towards release from prison or licence termination, and(b) lay the report before Parliament.(2) For these purposes, in relation to a preventive sentence prisoner—(a) “release from prison” means the prisoner’s release on licence under section 28(5) or 32(5) of the 1997 Act or unconditional release under either of those sections as modified by section 31A(4G) of that Act;(b) “licence termination” means an order, under section 31A(2) or (4H) of the 1997 Act, that the licence on which the prisoner was released from prison is to cease to have effect.(3) The report must in particular contain details of the steps taken in relation to the following—(a) preventive sentence prisoners who are female;(b) preventive sentence prisoners who at any time in the reporting period were serving a sentence mentioned in paragraph (b) of the definition of preventive sentence (detention for public protection for serious offences committed by those under 18).(4) The report must also contain details of the persons the Secretary of State has consulted in the reporting period in relation to the matters mentioned in subsection (1)(a).(5) In this section—“the 1997 Act” means the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997;“life sentence” has the meaning given by section 34(2) of the 1997 Act;“preventive sentence” means—(a) a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (including one passed as a result of section 219 of the Armed Forces Act 2006), or(b) a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (including one passed as a result of section 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);“preventive sentence prisoner” , in relation to a reporting period, means a prisoner who—(a) was serving one or more preventive sentences at any time in the period, and(b) was not serving any other life sentence at any time in the period;“reporting period” means—(a) the period beginning with the day on which this section comes into force and ending with the 31 March following that day, and(b) each successive period of 12 months.” Member's explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to prepare, publish and lay before Parliament annual reports about the steps taken to support the rehabilitation of preventive sentence prisoners and their progress towards release from prison or licence termination.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
“Imprisonment or detention for public protection: release test II(1) This section applies to a prisoner serving a sentence of imprisonment or detention for public protection who has served a period of imprisonment or detention—(a) in excess of the maximum determinate sentence provided by law for the offence or offences for which they were convicted, or(b) 10 years or more beyond the minimum term of their sentence.(2) In the case of a prisoner to whom this section applies—(a) the Secretary of State must by order pursuant to section 128 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (power to change test for release on licence of certain prisoners) direct that, following the prisoner's referral to the Parole Board they will not be released unless the Board is satisfied that, having regard to the proportionality of the term served to the seriousness of the offence or offences of which they were convicted, and any other relevant factors, it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that they should continue to be confined;(b) section 28ZA of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (public protection decisions) does not apply.”
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I wish to move this amendment. I thank all who participated in the debate we had a little while ago, but I am moving it because it is necessary to confront and deal with the problem that has occurred by reason of the imposition of IPP sentences and the effect it has had on prisoners, particularly their mental health, of which examples were given during the debate.
The Parole Board can be trusted to make proper decisions. The test will remain the protection of the public, but anyone who has experience of judging risk in relation to prisoners knows it is not an absolute and it is right to give the Parole Board guidance to take proportionality and other factors into account. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be adjourned until not before 8:15 pm.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, there is a reason my noble friend has said that. It is in case the debate finishes early.
To be helpful to the House, I will outline the procedure. Given that we are combining two Statements into one today, the length of the Statement repeat has been extended to one hour. That does not take away from what my noble friend has just said. My noble friend Lord Howe will repeat both Statements before 20 minutes of questions from the Opposition Front Benches. The Minister will then respond to 40 minutes of Back-Bench questions. My noble friend Lord Harlech said what he did just in case the debate runs a little short.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Tuesday 21st May 2024
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 57-IV Fourth marshalled list for Report - (17 May 2024)
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group, Amendments 150 to 153, objecting to Clauses 49 to 52 standing part of the Bill, fall into two slightly different categories. The first three amendments, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, who I am grateful to for her support, would remove the proposals in the Bill that Section 3 of the Human Rights Act be disapplied in relation to three pieces of legislation.
First, by Clause 49, the disapplication would apply to Part 2, Chapter 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, which concerns life sentences and sentences of detention at His Majesty’s pleasure, release on licence for prisoners serving such sentences, and their release on licence, recall and removal from the UK, and will include all those amendments to be introduced by Clause 41 of this Bill. Secondly, Clause 50 would disapply Section 3 to Part 12, Chapter 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which concerns the release on licence, supervision and recall of certain fixed-term prisoners, and will include all those amendments to that Act to be introduced by Clause 42 of this Bill. Thirdly, Clause 51 would disapply Section 3 to Section 128 of the LASPO Act, or any order made under that section. That is the section which, as we have heard in debate at some length in Committee and earlier today, permits the Secretary of State to change the release test for certain prisoners, importantly including IPP prisoners, to shift the balance so that if conditions are met, an IPP prisoner must be released.
As will be familiar to the House, Section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires that:
“So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights”.
The ECHR is fundamental to the protection of human rights in this country. That is and has long been an article of faith for my party and the Labour Party, which was responsible for enacting the convention as part of domestic law by the means of the Human Rights Act. Indeed, it is important for many but not all in the Conservative Party; we have all seen the fault-lines on this issue over the tenure of this Government. However, the present Secretary of State for Justice is a keen advocate for the convention.
The architecture of the Human Rights Act has been widely and, I suggest, rightly praised for striking the balance between the sovereignty of Parliament and the convention. That architecture has at its heart the combination of Section 3—the section I just read—which requires convention-compatible interpretation and application of legislation where possible, and Section 4, which provides for a court to make a “declaration of incompatibility” where a legislative provision is found to be irrevocably incompatible with the convention right. The making of such a declaration leaves it to Parliament to legislate so as to comply with the convention and remove the incompatibility.
It follows that the proposed disapplication of Section 3 represents an invitation, almost an instruction, to courts to disregard convention rights when interpreting or applying the legislation. This is not a purely academic point; in relation to IPPs, for example, the European Court of Human Rights found in the case of James, Wells and Lee v UK in 2012 that the applicants’ IPP sentences were a violation of their Article 5 rights to liberty and security because the unavailability of rehabilitative courses meant that their detention after the expiry of their tariff terms was “arbitrary”.
As the Prison Reform Trust put it, in its helpful briefing for this debate:
“The introduction of specific carve-outs from human rights for people given custodial sentences contradicts one of the fundamental principles underlying human rights—their universality and application to each and every person on the simple basis of their being human. Moreover, it is precisely in custodial institutions like prisons that human rights protections are most vital, because individuals are under the control of the state”.
These carve-outs represent an insidious threat to the effectiveness of the convention in this country and, I suggest, a stalking horse for future legislation, undermining the balance between parliamentary sovereignty and the convention that I spoke of. They should be resisted.
I am bound to say that I find it very disappointing that the Labour Party is not whipping Labour Peers to support these amendments. The Human Rights Act was one of the Labour Party’s finest achievements. For Labour Peers to be instructed to condone by abstention the disapplication of Section 3 to these provisions is a sad portent for the future.
Before closing, I turn to Amendment 153, which seeks to remove Clause 52 from the Bill. Clause 52 does not seek to disapply any part of the convention, but it seeks to skew the court’s decision-making process on the application of convention rights in a way that is underhand and unacceptable. It would provide that, in making a decision as to whether a person’s convention rights have been breached in relation to a release decision:
“The court must give the greatest possible weight to the importance of reducing the risk to the public from offenders who have”
been given prison sentences. In other words, risk reduction is to outweigh all other factors. But what does the instruction to give “the greatest possible weight” say to a judge? The answer is effectively that no other factor is to count. There is to be no careful judicial balancing exercise, because if the risk reduction factor can be outweighed in the balance, a judge cannot, by definition, give that factor “the greatest possible weight”. Judicial discretion is to be removed; judges are to be compelled to reach decisions that they would not otherwise make, because they may not judge for themselves what weight to give to competing factors. That is not acceptable.
I fully intended to divide the House on these amendments, but given the Labour Party’s decision not to support them but to abstain and the fact that it is now late, I have decided not to. Nevertheless these amendments raise an important point of principle for all those who believe in the convention.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I was very disappointed by the Minister’s response in Committee, so I felt that I ought to have another go in support of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, aided by the British Institute of Human Rights and Amnesty International, which were also very disappointed.
First, the Minister said that this clause is not about disapplying the Human Rights Act. Well, of course it is not about disapplying the whole Act—but not just Amnesty, the BIHR and the Howard League, but also the EHRC, the chair of the JCHR and the Law Society take the view that it is disapplying Section 3. It feels like one of those occasions when the Government is the only marcher in step.
The BIHR challenges a number of the Minister’s arguments—first, his reassurance that it is still possible to plead any breach of human rights in the usual way and to seek a declaration of incompatibility. It points out that the point of the Human Rights Act was to bring rights home and provide an accessible, practical and immediate remedy. The excision of Section 3 makes access to human rights harder. He said it was a “difficult section to apply”. The BIHR argues the opposite, pointing out that it is used by lay front-line workers who see it as having given them a clear legal framework for arguing for the protection of people’s rights.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I am unclear whether the Government accept, as I think they must, that the reason why they wish to disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act is because they recognise that, without such disapplication, the substantive provisions of this Bill would plainly contradict Britain’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, Section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires courts to interpret legislation compatibly with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights as far as is possible. Clauses 49 to 52 would disapply Section 3 to prisoners as a group when it comes to legislation about their release. It is disappointing to see this Government wasting parliamentary time and public money to remove human rights from prisoners.
There is no evidence of the Human Rights Act 1998 limiting the Parole Board from making decisions about prisoners. These clauses appear to be trying to solve a problem that does not exist, while the Government ignore the many critical problems across our criminal justice system. We in the Labour Party are proud that it was a Labour Government who brought about the Human Rights Act in 1998, and a future Labour Government will continue to be a bastion of justice and hope, unlike this current Government, who cannot bring themselves to focus on the real issues affecting the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my noble friend Lady Lister spoke about the lack of support from the Labour Party if he were to press this matter to a vote. He said—I wrote it down—that he thought this was “a sad portent for the future”. That is a harsh interpretation of our stance. I have just reiterated our commitment to the Human Rights Act. We would not have chosen to support him if he had pressed the matter, but the statement I have read out reaffirms the Labour Party’s commitment to the Human Rights Act. Having said that, I think the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has put his finger on the central question. If the Government see no diminution of the Human Rights Act, why are they disapplying Section 3 within this Bill? Do they believe that it would breach the Human Rights Act if they failed to disapply the Act in this case?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for his amendments, which seek to remove Clauses 49 to 52. I am extremely sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and others, but the Government laid out their position in Committee and nothing the Government have heard since or this evening alters that position.
As I think I have said previously, Section 3 of the Human Rights Act is a procedural, not a substantive, provision. Clauses 49 to 51 effectively disapply Section 3 in relation to prisoner release legislation. Let me start by reiterating that nothing in these clauses removes or limits any convention rights enjoyed by prisoners. If I was asked, as I think I was, to confirm that the full range of substantive rights under the ECHR remain: yes, of course they do. Nothing in these clauses removes or limits any convention rights enjoyed by prisoners. A breach of human rights may still be pleaded before any domestic court or in Strasbourg in the usual way, and we would not want to prevent such action by prisoners where it is warranted.
I respectfully respond to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, by saying that this provision does not represent either an invitation or still less an instruction to the courts to disapply the Human Rights Act; nor does it imply, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and perhaps by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that the Government believe there is any breach of the European convention in relation to this legislation. That is not the case. The Government do not accept that there is any breach whatever in this legislation. It is the Government’s position that a matter as important as the public protection test should be for Parliament and that it should not be open to the so-called writing-in or reading-down provisions of Section 3, which is an interpretive position which means that the courts may be required to go further than usual in interpreting legislation that would otherwise be compatible with convention rights. Although this has happened less often in recent years, it can require courts to stray from Parliament’s original intention, and the Government do not think that that is appropriate in this context. The real issue is the balance between the courts and Parliament from a procedural point of view.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am puzzled by this because it is an unusual thing in legislation to say that Section 3 is disapplied. Is it not the inevitable inference from the inclusion of that provision disapplying Section 3 in this legislation that the Government are seriously concerned, at the very least, that the substantive provisions would breach the substantive provisions of the Human Rights Act?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, that is not by any means the Government’s position; nor can that inference be drawn. The Government’s position on this clause is, as I understand it, in effect, that which the noble Lord himself is reported as expressing to the independent review on human rights because Section 3 requires the judge to perform a remedial function which legislation does not on its proper construction conform to convention rights. Such a role is inappropriate under our constitution and unnecessary because Section 4 provides an effective means by which Ministers and Parliament can amend the legislation. That is the Government’s position on this provision.
So, totally hypothetically, if anything in the legislation from which Section 3 has been disapplied was found to be incompatible, it would be for the court to make a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4. It would then be up to Parliament to decide how to rectify it, rather than the intermediate rewriting process of the courts. It does not remove or limit convention rights. It is simply saying that in this case that is the right balance between Parliament and the courts. That is the Government’s position on that.
This group of amendments also seeks to remove Clause 52, which sets out that, when considering a challenge, the court must give the greatest possible weight to the importance of reducing risk to the public from the offender. Of course, the courts already consider risk to the public. This clause does not mean that public protection will be the exclusive or only factor to be considered. The matter will be up to the judges, who are very capable of doing their independent part in construing the legislation. What the clause does is to ensure that due weight is given to the important consideration of public protection.
So, on behalf of the Government, I beg to move that Clauses 49 to 52 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 150.
Lord Bellamy
“(1) Section 239 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (the Parole Board) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (5)”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 53, page 54, line 21.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, for convenience, I will start, if I may, with Amendments 154B to 154D, which relate to the role of the chair of the Parole Board. The Government have taken note of the debate in Committee regarding the original proposals affecting the Parole Board chair and the power of the Secretary of State to dismiss the Parole Board chair.
Strong leadership of the Parole Board is essential. It appears that a mechanism already exists, in the unlikely event that it is needed, for the Secretary of State to ask an independent panel to consider dismissing the chair if there are concerns about their ability to do the job effectively. On balance, the Government have decided that this existing mechanism is sufficient, so we will not be proceeding with the original proposals in the original Bill.
We have also listened to feedback that the judicial functions of the chair, including deciding whether a hearing can be held in public, would most appropriately continue to be held by the chair. It has become clear that, to lead the board effectively, the chair should retain these functions, including their ability to take part in individual cases. For these reasons, I have tabled these amendments to remove all provisions relating to the chair of the board from the Bill.
I turn next to my Amendments 153A and 154A, which seek to amend Section 239(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. These amendments enable the Secretary of State to create procedural rules via secondary legislation which the Parole Board must follow when carrying out its statutory duties.
These amendments will allow the Secretary of State to create new rules that will allow the Parole Board chair to delegate certain functions, including some judicial functions, from board members to staff in its secretariat. The Government intend for this provision to be commenced immediately on Royal Assent. This is the subject of Amendments 162A and 162B, to which I shall refer briefly in a moment.
Other courts and tribunals typically have provisions in primary legislation to allow for rules permitting the delegation of certain functions but, to date, we have not had comparable provisions for the Parole Board.
The Parole Board has approximately 320 members and 200 staff in its secretariat. Its members are public appointees, including judicial members, specialist members and independent members, the specialist members typically being psychologists or psychiatrists.
The purpose of the amendment is to give the Parole Board greater flexibility in how it manages its workload. I have to say that delays in the Parole Board process are currently serious and must be tackled. Each review that the Parole Board carries out will include a range of case management decisions, such as varying or revoking certain directions, agreeing deadlines or timelines, adding or removing witnesses, or adjourning or deferring cases that are not ready to be heard. At present, these decisions are taken by Parole Board members, but that is not always necessary. There are efficiency savings to be made if some case management decisions could be delegated to appropriate staff, and the Parole Board supports this amendment, which is dedicated to improving the overall efficiency of the board and reducing delays in the system. That is particularly important in relation to IPP prisoners, whom we discussed earlier, since we can anticipate an increasing flow of IPP decisions to the Parole Board and an increasing workload accordingly.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I need some guidance. Today’s list indicates that in this group are contained the government amendments to Clauses 55 and 56, which are the amendments relating to marriage and civil partnership. Today’s list also indicates, in the next group, that we have already debated my opposition and that of other noble Lords to Clauses 55 and 56. I am very happy to delay my comments on Clauses 55 and 56 until the Minister deals with them, but I thought I should just mention where we are.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
If I may help advance this, our understanding is that the Clauses 55 and 56 stand-part debates are the subject of group 6. I do not know whether that is the Minister’s understanding.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, that is my understanding. I am in a slight panic at the moment—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, having raised this matter—and I hope I have not proceeded in the wrong order. I think this is group 6, according to my instructions.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am simply referring to today’s list, which is what I am working from. If the Minister looks at today’s list, he will see that this group includes, for example, government Amendment 156ZB, which is an amendment to Clause 55, and government Amendments 156ZC, 156ZD, 156ZE and 156ZF. I do not mind at all whether my amendments are in another group, but I do not want to be told later that I have missed my opportunity.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I associate myself with those remarks. I stayed late, expecting to debate the question of the marriage of long-term prisoners, and was a bit concerned to see that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, appeared to be described as “already debated”, which I do not think it can possibly have been.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will try to help once again, because I have in front of me a copy of the groupings that were sent out. The noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Meston, are absolutely right that some of the consequential government amendments have been put into group 5, but group 6 certainly includes—as we were told by the Government Whips’ Office—Amendment 165ZDA and Amendment 156ZI, which is the prisoner marriage substantive stand-part amendment. If we could proceed, that would be most convenient.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very happy to proceed on the basis that group 6 will deal with these matters.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I have to say that I decided to ignore those and will discuss them in the next group, because they were in the wrong place.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
It is also the Government’s wish and position that we discuss that in the next group.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
Would it be possible to say something about what I think is common ground in this group—namely, the amendments dealing with the composition and functions of the Parole Board? This is dealt with in government Amendment 153A and Amendments 154, 155 and 156, in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett.
I thank the Government for what they have done. I entirely associate myself with that, and thank the Minister and the Lord Chancellor, and anyone else from the Government who accepted all of this. I am very grateful.
However, I now want to be slightly churlish about the new chair of the Parole Board—a very important position. A new chair is to be appointed, and looking at the website I see that the deadline for the applications was 24 February, sifting was 31 March, and interviews are expected to end on 31 May. I assume that the competition is largely done but current. Maybe the Minister cannot answer this now, but the provisions in relation to the Parole Board have been significantly changed as a result of this amendment.
There are two things. I imagine there are a number of people who would never contemplate taking on a quasi-judicial position; they would not touch it with a bargepole on the basis that you could make a decision that the Secretary of State thought affected public confidence in the board. No one would become a judge if you could be removed on the whim of a government Minister; it seems equally clear that no self-respecting person could agree to be chairman of the Parole Board if they could be removed on the whim of a Minister, as was in the Bill when this competition was run.
More seriously, the role of the Parole Board chair was crafted to remove the chair from the core work of the board—that is to say, deciding cases. Everyone knows that if you sit as a judge it is critical that you are not an administrator—you cannot lead and you are not respected. It seems to me very clear that the position of the chairman of the Parole Board has to be looked at in the light of the amendments that we are about to make.
I find it somewhat disappointing that this competition has been rushed ahead with without the position of the chairman being clear. I very much hope that the Minister can give some reassurance that more time will be taken to consider this in the light of the changes to the Bill, and that the competition will not go ahead without a further opportunity for people to apply and a proper assessment made of whether the persons who are in line are competent to deal with sitting on cases.
I do not know how this has happened. I am sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the Minister, but it is very disturbing that an appointment should be made on the basis of something in the Bill which has now been radically changed. I feel very churlish to be raising this point in the light of the Government’s acceptance of these amendments, but it seems to me that, as the chairmanship of the Parole Board is so critical, as the Minister and all of us accept, we must get the right person to do it. I am not certain that it is possible to have the right person without taking into account the new qualifications. I apologise for being churlish and for asking this question, but it is rather important. Otherwise, I warmly welcome this and thank the Government for what they have done.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I concede that I am the amuse-bouche of this debate, rather than the main course, as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. If your Lordships’ House will allow me a few minutes, I will develop my remarks on Amendment 156ZA, tabled in my name, on Parole Board hearings. I thank my noble friend Lady Lawlor for originally moving this amendment so ably in my absence—I was unavoidably detained on parliamentary business—in Committee on 25 March. Naturally, I read my noble friend Lord Howe’s response on that occasion with great care.
The amendment seeks to establish the presumption that Parole Board hearings will be open to the public, but with exceptions. It endeavours to improve public faith and trust in the criminal justice system. This is both a probing and a permissive amendment. It is a natural progression that consolidates the reforms undertaken by Ministers over the last six years.
As we know, this was prompted by public disquiet over the proposed release of serial rapist John Worboys in 2018, which resulted in a review of the parole system and a public consultation, which was published in 2022. There was a finding in the High Court that the Parole Board’s rule 25—a blanket ban on transparency and details of the board’s deliberations—was unlawful. The Government have rightly moved to address the very serious failings identified by the Worboys case by allowing summaries of Parole Board decisions to be provided to victims and other interested parties, and to allow a reconsideration mechanism introduced in 2019. This allows a prisoner and/or the Secretary of State for Justice within 21 days to seek reconsideration of several decisions taken by the board. Victims are now also permitted to seek a judicial review on the grounds that decisions are procedurally unfair or irrational. Most significantly, the Parole Board’s rule 15 was amended by secondary legislation in 2022 to enable public hearings to be facilitated, upon request to the chair of the Parole Board, “in the interests of justice”—a test utilised by the Mental Health Tribunal.
This amendment is nuanced and heavily caveated in proposed new subsections (5) and (7). It presumes no absolute right to open Parole Board hearings on the most serious cases, but it nevertheless presents a balance between the interests of the victim, prisoners and the wider criminal justice system. It imposes a statutory duty on Ministers to take note of the importance of rehabilitation, reducing recidivism, fairness and due process.
I accept that the Parole Board discharges a quasi-judicial function, but secret justice is not justice as most reasonable people would regard it. Open and transparent judicial proceedings are one of a few fundamental principles in the court system of England and Wales. Furthermore, other jurisdictions across the world, such as those in Canada and the United States, have a more open and transparent hearings regime, especially regarding the right of victims to attend and participate in such meetings.
I am not entirely convinced of the Minister’s comments in the previous Committee debate: that the changes made in the 2022 regulations definitively precluded all but a few hearings from being held in public. My amendment specifically addresses concerns about sensitive evidence, and the concerns of the victims. It permits such matters to be raised as a rationale for proceedings to be held in camera.
Finally, may I respectfully disabuse the Minister of the notion that every one of the 8,000 parole cases would be held in public? This is not the aim of the amendment, the permissive nature of which means that there is an expectation that the powers will be only lightly exercised in a minority of the cases by the Secretary of State, with checks and balances in place to protect the operational independence of the Parole Board, and a requirement to publish a review of the efficacy of the policy as it affects the interests of justice test, as well as public confidence in and support of the criminal justice system.
I look forward to hearing my noble and learned friend the Minister address these issues and explain why it is not possible to go further, in the commendable programme of reforms already undertaken, by allowing public hearings to become the default position. I thank him for engaging so positively on this important issue.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining his amendments, which accept a number of points made in Committee. On the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, about the position of the chair of the Parole Board—he raised this with me a little earlier, so I have not considered it in great detail— I am bound to say that I take the view that he is exactly right: you cannot possibly proceed with a selection procedure and take it to a conclusion when you have completely changed the job description. I hope the Government will take that point away.
I will speak to my Amendment 156ZAA, which remains on the Marshalled List and remains unresolved. It is intended to reduce the trauma caused to bereaved families and victims by repeated unmeritorious applications to the Parole Board for parole by the perpetrators of crimes who are serving life sentences. The restriction of such applications would be implemented without in any way diminishing access to the Parole Board for applicants who have a genuine reason for making, after an earlier refusal, further applications that may, in the right circumstances, be made as little as a year after a refusal. I am grateful to the London Victims’ Commissioner for her help with this amendment.
The present provision in Section 28(7)(b) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 provides that a prisoner serving a life sentence may not require the Secretary of State to refer the case to the Parole Board until after they have completed their minimum tariff and after the lapse of two years after any previous reference was completed. However, in practice, the Parole Board can, and frequently does, consider parole more often than every two years. Indeed, in the case of Chris Cave, stabbed to death at the age of 17 in 2003, there have been nine parole hearings after the earliest release date. His mother describes the repeated trauma of facing those parole hearings for her son’s murderer as torturing and as sometimes allowing only six months’ respite before the family has to prepare psychologically for the next parole hearing and prepare further victim impact statements.
This amendment would enable the Parole Board to direct a waiting time of between 12 months and four years before a further reference could be made—so the Parole Board could make the direction. However, if there were a direction for a waiting period of more than two years, the Parole Board would have to have a reasonable belief that the prisoner’s release prospects were unlikely to change over the period, and that decision would be reviewable.
The parole process is lengthy and is a potential time of stress for bereaved families and for victims and their families. Although such victims and bereaved families appreciate the opportunity to make impact statements and have them considered by the Parole Board, the strain of making them often is considerable and can often be retraumatising. This amendment is primarily aimed at preventing victims being subjected to that frequent stress when it is clear that nothing has changed.
We have considered concerns, which the Minister raised in Committee, that the rights of prisoners to reviews of their detention under Article 5(4) of the convention might be infringed. But we are satisfied that the flexible provisions in this amendment, including the review provision, are compliant with the convention and strike a fair balance between the rights of prisoners and those of their victims and their families.
At the same time as making this relatively modest change, we invite the Minister to say a bit more about what extra support can be offered through a perpetrator’s parole process to make that process more manageable and less frightening for the victims and bereaved families. With more public parole hearings and the trialling of victims’ attendance at closed hearings expected, the need for that support—and for sufficient resources to be allocated to providing it—is increasingly important.
The provision of further information to families is also very important and we would be grateful if the Minister would say something about the future provision of information to victims and bereaved families, either through the victim contact scheme or otherwise. Better information about the parole process is important, but such information is also needed about moves of prisoners to open conditions and their progress towards rehabilitation. That information would make the perpetrators’ process towards release much less painful for the families of their victims. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very glad that we have managed to sort out which are the right amendments in the right place through a collective effort across your Lordships’ House.
Noble Lords will recall a discussion on this matter in Committee, which is presumably what has led to these government amendments. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, I welcome them, but his questions about the appointments process are absolutely legitimate and feed into what we said in Committee—that the Government need to recognise the independence of the Parole Board and understand the risks of politicisation. The original Bill seemed to be government proposals in search of an actual problem to solve. The decision on the composition of the board should be a decision for the board.
The 2019 Ministry of Justice review of the Parole Board Rules stated:
“Restrictions on which panel members can hear particular types of case have gradually been lifted over time … to allow greater flexibility and timeliness in listing the right cases for the right panel members and we do not wish to undo the improvements this has achieved”.
That was echoed by Martin Jones, the chief executive of the Parole Board, when he gave evidence to the Commons committee.
So we are in a better place than we were at the beginning of this Bill, but the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, are very legitimate and require the Government’s attention and an answer. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, raised some very interesting points about how the board operates and its accessibility. That is a difficult issue, because it sometimes deals with sensitive and controversial matters. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that, because its decisions by their nature are sensitive and controversial and the Government should keep the new additional power in sub-paragraph (2C) inserted by Clause 54 under review. Removing the chair because a decision in an individual case is unpopular, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, would influence the panel’s decisions and I think is not the way the committee and the House wish to see this go.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I begin with the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. It was not in the least bit churlish to raise this point about the process for the appointment of the new chair of the Parole Board. I have no reason to believe that this is not a fully effective appointments process, but I am not informed of the detail at this moment, and I will write to all noble Lords to set out what the position is.
I take it that the amendments proposed by the Government remove the need for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, to move his Amendments 155 and 156. I was not entirely clear on whether the noble and learned Lord is still moving Amendment 154, which relates to the law enforcement members of the Parole Board. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I simply emphasise that nothing in the government amendments decides which individual members sit on which panel in individual cases. That remains the responsibility of the board, and that is right and proper. So I will not say anything further about that group of amendments.
I then come to Amendment 156ZA, proposed by my noble friend Lord Jackson. I thank him for the amendment because, as has been pointed out, it does raise some interesting and important issues. Once again, it is effectively a question of balance between all the various interests: victims, prisoners, confidentiality, details of health, et cetera. To recap, the provision for public parole hearings was introduced in 2022, allowing any hearing to be conducted in public if the chair of the Parole Board decides that it is in the interests of justice to do so. That changed the previous position, where all hearings were held in private. The amendment proposed by my noble friend would change that position so that all hearings would be in public by default, and a private hearing would take place only in exceptional circumstances.
The Government’s position on this amendment has not changed since it was explained in Committee and, if I may put it colloquially, the Government feel that we are still in the relatively early stage of developing and gaining experience from how the Parole Board manages public hearings. We are not yet ready to go as far as my noble friend would like us to go at this point. That is the essential answer to his point—but I do not close off the question at all. As has also been pointed out, it is part of a consideration of the continuous process of updating and reviewing the workings of the Parole Board as circumstances evolve.
To respond to the specific 8,000 hearings point raised by my noble friend, the Parole Board holds more than 8,000 hearings a year. This amendment would require the Secretary of State and the Parole Board to consider the merits of having a public hearing in every case. Victims would need to be contacted in every case, which would potentially add to their trauma. It is more complex and takes longer to have public hearings, and that may well delay proceedings further. To date, the Parole Board has published decisions for just 32 public hearing applications since 2022, eight of which have been granted. That suggests to the Government that the demand for public hearings is not, in fact, especially high, but I again emphasise that the situation is still evolving and that we need to continue to learn from the practice of the day. I very much understand the desire to create more openness, transparency and trust in the parole system, but I would not wish to create new administrative burdens on the system, potentially slowing it down. On the other hand, I do not feel that this amendment can be pursued at this point in time. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Amendment 156ZAA, tabled again by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, concerns the interval between hearings and seeks to allow the Parole Board to direct the period of time. It aims to deal with the problem, as he would put it, of repeated applications. The Government are not able to change their position from that set out in Committee. The current system already provides for flexibility in the time set for the prisoner’s next parole review, and it is HMPPS—not the board—that currently sets that interval. HMPPS considers a range of factors in deciding when to refer the prisoner to the Parole Board on behalf of the Secretary of State. Reasons must be given for the length of the interval between reviews, including the Parole Board’s reasons for declining to direct the prisoner’s release at the conclusion of the last review and the interventions required to allow them to progress. The closer the interval length is to the two-year limit, the greater the justification required for the time between reviews.
Lord Bellamy
“(2) After subsection (5C) insert—“(5D) Rules under subsection (5) may also make provision for functions of the Board (including judicial functions) to be exercised by employees of the Board, other than any function so far as its exercise involves—(a) making a public protection decision in relation to a prisoner within the meaning of section 237A(2) of this Act or section 28ZA(2) of the 1997 Act;(b) giving a direction for the release of a prisoner on licence under this Chapter or under Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the 1997 Act;(c) making a decision or giving a direction under subsection (4) or (4F) of section 31A of the 1997 Act (imprisonment or detention for public protection: termination of licences);(d) reconsidering a decision or setting aside a decision or direction under provision made by virtue of subsection (5A).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment allows for Parole Board Rules to provide for functions of the Board (including judicial functions) to be exercised by employees of the Board, subject to exceptions.
Lord Bellamy
“(1) Paragraph 2 of Schedule 19 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (membership of the Parole Board) is amended as follows.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 54, page 55, line 1.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 54, page 55, line 1.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
If Amendment 154D is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 155 or 156 due to pre-emption.
Amendment 154D
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out provisions relating to the appointment, resignation, dismissal and functions of the chair and vice-chair of the Parole Board.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, with the permission of the House, I suggest that we de-group this amendment and begin the next debate with Amendment 156ZB, as today’s list is not giving the correct information.
Amendment 156ZB
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on new subsection (3A) of section 27A of the Marriage Act 1949, inserted by my amendment of Clause 55, page 57, line 19.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
For the convenience of the House, as we have just agreed to de-group the amendments, it would be helpful if the Minister could introduce this group.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
We are now on what was group 6. In any event, the Government are bringing forward Amendments 156ZB to 156ZD and 156ZE to 156ZH. These are technical amendments and do not change the policy, which remains as set out on previous stages of the Bill. The amendments make minor revisions to the drafting of Clauses 55 and 56. Importantly, they ensure that registrars have all the information they need at the point they consider an application to marry or to enter into a civil partnership. The information needed is whether an applicant or their intended spouse or civil partner is a whole-life prisoner and, if so, whether they have been granted an exemption from the Secretary of State. They also make some minor changes to clarify the procedure and to update related legislation in line with the reforms. For the reasons that I have just given, I ask that Clauses 55 and 56 stand part of the Bill and invite noble Lords to support these government amendments.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I have tabled my opposition to Clauses 55 and 56, which noble Lords know will prohibit a prisoner serving a whole-life tariff from entering into a marriage or a civil partnership with another person without the written permission of the Secretary of State, with that permission to be granted only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances. I am very pleased to be joined in my opposition to these clauses by the noble Lords, Lord Bach and Lord German—the latter of whom unfortunately cannot be in his place tonight—both of whom spoke very powerfully on this topic in Committee.
I am also very pleased to be joined by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, whom I first met when he was a legal adviser at the Home Office from 1989 to 2006. We used to travel together to Strasbourg to defend the United Kingdom against allegations that it had breached the European Convention on Human Rights. Our record in court was mediocre at best, but the lunches were excellent, and I have great admiration for his expertise and judgment. I very much look forward to what he has to say on this subject.
Why have we brought this matter back on Report? It is not because I have any expectation of changing the Government’s mind, and it is not because I intend to divide the House, particularly at this late hour. My motive is simply to ensure that we record why this is an objectionable measure which has no conceivable justification. There are three reasons why I express such a critical view of these clauses. First, the Government’s reason for conferring this power on the Secretary of State and imposing this disability is so weak. In Committee, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, suggested that these measures will
“drive up public confidence in the justice system”.—[Official Report, 25/3/24; col. 491.]
I can think of many reasons why confidence in the criminal justice system has been undermined: the unacceptable delays in hearing trials in which defendants are accused of serious offences; the fact that so many courtrooms cannot be used because of their poor state of repair; the low rates of pay for prosecutors; and the low rates of legal aid renumeration for criminal barristers and solicitors, which has substantially reduced the number of lawyers available in criminal cases. What I have never heard anyone say is, “My confidence in the criminal justice system has been undermined because whole life prisoners are able to marry”. It is preposterous.
My second reason for objecting to these provisions is that they are wrong in principle. We all know, and the Minister emphasised in Committee, that whole life orders are reserved for those who have committed the most serious crimes—awful crimes of serial or child murders involving premeditation or sexual or sadistic violence. However, this does not mean that we deny such prisoners basic rights. However repellent their crimes, whole life prisoners are allowed to eat more than a crust of bread; they are allowed to exercise; they are allowed to read books, to watch television and to send and receive letters. The right to marry another consenting adult is also a basic right. National law may limit the exercise of that right—you cannot marry your brother, a 12 year-old or your dog—but what the state cannot do, consistent with human rights, is impose restrictions so extreme that they impair the very essence of the right to marry. That is the test repeatedly stated in the consistent case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
The Minister in Committee suggested that the Government consider that Article 12 of the European convention allows for a restriction on the right to marry to be in the public interest. However, that does not assist the Government because there is a judgment of the Strasbourg court in a case concerned with prisoners. It is Frasik v Poland in 2010. The court recognised at paragraph 91:
“Imprisonment deprives a person of his liberty and… some civil rights and privileges. This does not, however, mean that persons in detention cannot, or can only very exceptionally, exercise their right to marry”.
The court added, at paragraph 93, that the state cannot prevent a prisoner exercising the right to marry because of the view of the authorities as to what
“might be acceptable to or what might offend public opinion”.
That is precisely the basis on which this Government purport to justify Clauses 55 and 56 of the Bill—public opinion, public confidence. I ask the Minister, how can the Government maintain the statement, made by the Secretary of State for Justice on the front of the Bill, that Clauses 55 and 56, like the rest of the Bill, are compatible with Convention rights?
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, it is a real privilege to support my noble friend Lord Pannick in this debate on whether these clauses should stand part of the Bill. As he has said, back in the 1990s, in another life, he and I used to travel to Strasbourg together to fight prisoners’ cases on prisons law. It is no exaggeration at all to say that I acquired most of my public law knowledge from working with and learning from my noble friend on these and other issues.
Prisons issues back in the 1990s were at the very cutting edge of the development of human rights law. Here we are again, about 30 years later, discussing basic human rights for prisoners such as the right to marry and to form a civil partnership. But it is about much more than that. It is about how as a society we treat those we lock up. Someone said, it may have been Gandhi, that the way we treat those we imprison is a measure of how civilised we are—
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
It was Winston Churchill; I am corrected—both great names.
If we have progressed at all from the way prisoners were treated in the past, we should be enabling whole-life prisoners to find some meaning and purpose in a life that is certain to end in prison. This includes providing opportunities for them to have some social interaction and build relationships, even though they can never expect to be released—in fact, especially because they can never expect to be released. This reflects the long-standing legal position. It is trite law now that prisoners enjoy basic human rights, such as respect for their private and family life, their religion, freedom of expression and access to a lawyer etc. Under Article 12, prisoners have the right to marry and form a civil partnership.
My noble friend Lord Pannick has already referred to the case of Frasik. I will quote again that passage from the court’s judgement, because it is so powerful. Imprisonment, the court said, does not mean that those detained
“cannot, or can only very exceptionally, exercise their right to marry”.
Yet is that not exactly what Clauses 55 and 56 say? The ECHR memorandum conveniently sidesteps that by saying that marriage by whole-lifers
“undermines public confidence in the Criminal Justice System”.
We have just heard from my noble friend Lord Pannick on that one; it is, in effect, code for “offends public opinion”. But the Frasik judgment, as my noble friend said, says that the Bill cannot do that—it cannot automatically prevent prisoners forming marital relationships.
It is not all about the law either. Compelling legal points, such as those we have mentioned, often arise from a rotten policy, which is what we have here. The Government’s justification seems to be the case of Levi Bellfield. Awful as that is as an example of the right to marry being abused, it is one case of about 70 whole-lifers in the system. They have all committed terrible crimes, but their whole-life tariffs are the punishment for that. Even Ministers have recognised that we send people to prison as punishment, not for punishment. Automatically denying prisoners, even whole-life prisoners, the right to marry or enter a civil partnership amounts to nothing more than the state imposing additional, entirely gratuitous punishment on this cohort of prisoners for no reason other than to show the public that it is tough on crime.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, expressing his personal views at Second Reading, put it well when he described it as a “petty measure”. The noble Lord, Lord German, who unfortunately cannot be with us tonight, rightly called it cruel. It also punishes prisoners’ partners, who are entirely innocent in all this. It punishes them emotionally, of course, but it may also affect their entitlement to, for example, a widow’s pension on the death of a whole-life prisoner or a spouse’s exemption from inheritance tax. Has any consideration been given to the effects of this policy on partners? I would be most grateful to know the answer to that.
There is a simple solution to the Government’s wholly justified concern about the Levi Bellfield case, which would deal with all the legal and policy objections that have been mentioned. The existing law entitles a prison governor to refuse an application to marry or form a civil partnership only if it would create a security risk to the prison. Why not ditch Clauses 55 and 56 and legislate to widen the basis for refusing such applications to include cases where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the application is not made in good faith but from some improper motive? This could easily be made legally watertight to minimise the possibility of unfounded legal challenges.
In conclusion, and at this late hour, in the dying breaths of the Bill, I urge the Minister to ignore the word “reject”, which is in his briefing notes in capital letters, underlined, in bold type. Why not surprise everybody, not least his officials, by agreeing now to remove Clauses 55 and 56 and adopt the more proportionate, but no less effective, solution that I have just proposed?
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I do not intend to say much, for the very good reason that I do not have to. The arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are overwhelming. I do not want to put the Minister, for whom I have huge respect, on the spot, but I have a suspicion that he has more than a bit of sympathy for the arguments that have been put.
The only point I want to make is this: commentators have said that, when the Minister and the Secretary of State came to their positions, there was likely to be a different attitude towards issues of this kind than there was under some predecessors. The evidence is that that is true, and we have seen examples tonight and this afternoon of the Minister no doubt using his influence in persuading the Secretary of State to have sensible views and change the Bill where it needed to be changed.
This is exactly a case of a clause that is both against the European legislation we have adopted and against all common sense; it should be removed. It would be a real shame if this Bill, which contains some really excellent stuff on both prisoners and victims, has at the tail end of it, as the noble Lord said, this rather ridiculous and very anti-British way of dealing with this issue—so I do ask the Minister to please think again.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I raised questions about Clause 55 and how it might operate in practice at Second Reading that were really not answered. I make no criticism; the Minister had a lot to deal with. I regret not being able to participate in Committee. But I have devoted quite a lot of my professional life to the formation and validity of marriage, and therefore in the context of this Bill I would like to point out that the question of whether and to what extent certain marriages should be restricted or governed by statute faces two underlying problems.
First, it is generally not necessary for anybody otherwise qualified to marry to have any good or creditable reason to do so. I mention that in the context of my noble friend Lord Carter’s suggestion that possibly in these circumstances prison governors should question the motives and have the ability to do so, and that that may be the way through this problem. I have to say that research suggests that the decision to marry is rarely reached on rational grounds—and indeed the same research revealed that 3% of those surveyed did not know why they were getting married at all.
Secondly, and altogether more seriously, there is the fundamental right to marry, stated in Article 12 of the ECHR. That is a right that long predated that convention in this country. However, it was Article 12 that underpinned the Marriage Act 1983, which allowed for marriages of those detained in prison, for essentially pragmatic reasons. It was legislation that did not attract criticism—indeed, only newspaper headlines such as “Get Me to the Jail on Time”. Article 12 also led to the extension of the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986, which I had a part in, believe it or not, and which set mankind free to marry their mothers-in-law.
The restrictions proposed in this Bill on specific marriages were understandably prompted by the attention-seeking attempts by particular convicted prisoners to marry—something that many people, no doubt including their victims and their victims’ families, will have found grossly offensive. Nevertheless, the underlying points emphasised by all noble Lords who have spoken so far simply cannot be ignored.
If Article 12 rights are to be curtailed and qualified simply by reference to the nature of the sentence being served or by vague concepts of public interest, the Government really should spell out more clearly the justification for the proposed restrictions and should clearly indicate the circumstances likely to satisfy the Secretary of State that they are “exceptional circumstances”. At Second Reading, I suggested that they might include terminal illness, but I can see that it ought probably to go wider than that. Otherwise, we are simply going to be storing up problems and litigation for the future.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, and in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord German, I want to say that we have had a fascinating, amusing, witty, but actually very important debate. We on these Benches completely support everyone who has spoken so far. I know that there is no question of moving to a vote, but it is something that we fundamentally believe in.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, from these Benches I express irritation that we have these in the Bill at all. We have spent the last two or three months working across the House, improving and building a new framework for victims. It is, let us just say, very puzzling that these are in the Bill.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for tabling his amendments, and of course I thank the noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Meston, Lord Bach and others for their eloquence. I can well understand the feelings expressed. I of course recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, together with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has spent many hours in Strasbourg defending the United Kingdom, and in that context, although the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was modest enough—probably inaccurately—to say that his results had been mediocre, in fact the United Kingdom has, if not the best, at least one of the best records in Strasbourg of respecting human rights.
The question of the compatibility of this particular provision with Article 12 of the ECHR has been very carefully considered—otherwise the Secretary of State would never have given the certificate in the first place.
The Government’s arguments were set out in Committee and I am not sure it is particularly useful at this late hour—especially as it is 10.01 pm—to repeat them. In the Government’s view, the measures are proportionate and apply to a very small cohort of the most serious offenders who have committed the most serious crimes. As of last December, there were 67 whole-life prisoners in England. Because they will never be released, their ability to enjoy anything resembling normal married life is already lawfully and legitimately restricted in a very significant way.
In the Government’s view, the measures are justified on the basis of public interest, as already set out in Committee. The public’s confidence in, and respect for, the justice system is a matter for which any elected Government must have regard—and that of course includes the feelings of victims. The one cause célèbre that has been mentioned did have an important impact in that regard.
I would add only that the measures do not prevent whole-life prisoners benefiting from supportive relationships while in custody, in the same way as other prisoners. We are simply talking about being married or in a civil partnership, and not being able to do that does not have any practical impact on an individual’s ability to maintain a relationship with a prisoner, and does not provide any additional rights or detriments in terms of visits or communications.
I am very sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in particular. I do not have any authority to simply drop these clauses, nor am I able to indicate in any way what my personal views may or may not be. I hope I have provided at least some reassurance and I respectfully suggest that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I thank the Minister. I also ask him to give a very modest undertaking this evening that, before Third Reading, he will ask the Secretary of State to consider the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, as a way of solving the perceived problem, without including in the Bill a clause that so many of us regard as objectionable. I ask him to kindly give that undertaking—with of course no commitment whatever.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I can and will and do give that undertaking.
Amendment 156ZB agreed.
Amendments 156ZC and 156ZD
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on new subsection (3A) of section 27A of the Marriage Act 1949, inserted by my amendment of Clause 55, page 57, line 19.
“(1A) In section 27ZA of the Marriage Act 1949 (circumstances in which a notice of marriage is not to be recorded in the marriage register), in paragraph (a), at the appropriate place insert—“section 27A(3A);”(1B) In section 27A of the Marriage Act 1949 (additional information required in certain cases)—(a) in subsection (3) (case where marriage intended to be solemnized at detained person’s residence)—(i) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (a);(ii) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “; and(c) stating whether the person is serving a life sentence and, if so, whether the person is subject to a whole life order.”;(b) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Where the relevant person is a detained person who is serving a life sentence and is subject to a whole life order, each notice of marriage required by section 27 of this Act must also be accompanied by a statement made by the Secretary of State not more than twenty-one days before the date on which notice of the marriage is given under section 27 stating that the relevant person has the permission required by section 2A(2).”(c) in subsection (6), for “or (as the case may be) (3)” substitute “, (3) or (3A)”;(d) in subsection (7), before the definition of “medical statement” insert—““life sentence” and “whole life order” have the meanings given by section 2A(5) of this Act and section 2A(6) (persons treated as being subject to a whole life order) applies for the purposes of this section; and””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision about notices of marriage in consequence of Clause 55 (whole life prisoners prohibited from forming a marriage).
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 56, page 58, line 20.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on new subsection (5A) of section 19 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, inserted by my amendment of Clause 56, page 58, line 20.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on new subsection (5A) of section 19 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004, inserted by my amendment of Clause 56, page 58, line 20.
“(5) In section 9F of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (recording of information in the register: compliance with requirements), at the appropriate place insert—“section 19(5A);”(6) Section 19 of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (detained persons) is amended in accordance with subsections (7) to (9).(7) In subsection (4) (supporting statement)—(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (a);(b) after paragraph (b) insert “, and(c) states whether the person is serving a life sentence and, if so, whether the person is subject to a whole life order.”(8) After subsection (5) insert—“(5A) Where the detained person is serving a life sentence and is subject to a whole life order, each notice of proposed civil partnership must also be accompanied by a statement made by the Secretary of State not more than 21 days before the day on which the notice is recorded stating that the detained person has the permission required by section 3(1A).(5B) The fact that the registration authority to whom a notice of proposed civil partnership is given has received a statement under subsection (5A) must be recorded in the register.”(9) After subsection (7) insert—“(7A) “Life sentence” and “whole life order” have the meanings given by section 3(3) of this Act and section 3(4) (persons treated as being subject to a whole life order) applies for the purposes of this section.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision about notices of proposed civil partnership in consequence of Clause 56 (whole life prisoners prohibited from forming a civil partnership).
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment enables regulations to be made amending other legislation in consequence of provisions in Part 1, 2 or 4 of the Bill other than those currently listed. The affirmative Parliamentary procedure is required for amendments to primary legislation.
“(1A) Each of the following may by regulations make provision that is consequential on, or on regulations under, Part 3—(a) the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office,(b) the Welsh Ministers,(c) the Scottish Ministers, and(d) a Northern Ireland department.(1B) Regulations under subsection (1A)—(a) made by the Welsh Ministers, may contain only provision which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd;(b) made by the Scottish Ministers, may contain only provision which would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament;(c) made by a Northern Ireland department, may contain only provision which—(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and(ii) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment confers power to make consequential amendments relating to Part 3 of the Bill on the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the Welsh Ministers, the Scottish Ministers and a Northern Ireland department.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables legislation passed or made after the current session of Parliament to be consequentially amended by regulations under Clause 58.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 156BA and to the three further government amendments in this group. Yesterday’s publication of the infected blood inquiry’s final report has laid bare the devastating tragedy and suffering that far too many people have endured as a result of the infected blood scandal. I trust and hope that the House is assured of the Government’s commitment to compensate victims of this dreadful scandal, and to do so as quickly as possible. Noble Lords will have seen that I have withdrawn government Amendments 162 and 165, which would make early commencement provisions for the establishment of the infected blood compensation authority and interim payments to the estates of deceased infected people. Having done so, I am now proposing to replace those amendments with government Amendment 162AA, the effect of which is to ensure that all provisions under Part 3 will be available to government on Royal Assent. This will ensure what I know is the wish of all noble Lords: that there will be no unnecessary delay to implementation of the infected blood compensation scheme.
This group also contains further consequential amendments—government Amendments 157CB and 157CC—which allow for consequential amendments of other legislation to be made to ensure that the legislation operates as intended. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, we are very grateful that the Government have agreed to move forward with these amendments. It is extremely important that things move at pace. Obviously, there is always a bit of concern about a regulation that can revoke primary legislation, but given the circumstances, it is completely understandable. Given the lateness of the hour, I will stop there.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. We welcome these amendments.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the regulation making powers conferred by my amendments to Part 3 of the Bill and my amendment to clause 58, page 58, line 31.
“(2A) For regulations made under section 58(1A) by the Scottish Ministers, see section 27 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10) (Scottish statutory instruments).(2B) The power of a Northern Ireland department to make regulations under section 58(1A) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 58, page 58, line 31.
“(2A) A statutory instrument containing (alone or with other provision) the first regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office under section (Infected blood compensation scheme) must be laid before Parliament after being made. (2B) Regulations contained in a statutory instrument laid before Parliament under subsection (2A) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(2C) In calculating the period of 28 days, no account is to be taken of any whole days that fall within a period during which—(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or(b) either House of Parliament is adjourned for more than four days.(2D) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (2B), that does not—(a) affect the validity of anything previously done under the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.(2E) Any other statutory instrument containing (alone or with other provision) regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office under section (Infected blood compensation scheme) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the first regulations about the infected blood compensation scheme to be subject to the made affirmative procedure, and subsequent regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
“(2A) A statutory instrument containing (alone or with other provision) regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office under section (Payments to personal representatives of qualifying infected persons)(10) (unless it is a statutory instrument to which subsection (2A) applies) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations under subsection (10) of my new clause about payments to personal representatives of qualifying infected person to be subject to affirmative procedure, unless subject to made affirmative procedure under the subsection (2A) inserted by my amendment to clause 59, page 59, line 8 inserting subsections (2A) to (2E).
“(2A) A statutory instrument containing (alone or with other provision) regulations made by the Secretary of State under section (Disclosures by victims that cannot be precluded by agreement) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment replaces my amendment 157 with revised provision to enable a statutory instrument containing regulations under Clause (Disclosures by victims that cannot be precluded by agreement), which are subject to the affirmative Parliamentary procedure, to include consequential provision.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables a statutory instrument containing regulations under Clause 58 that amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation, which are subject to the affirmative Parliamentary procedure, to also contain the regulations on which they are consequential.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations made under clause 58(1A) (inserted by my amendment to clause 58, page 58, line 31) to be subject to affirmative procedure if they amend primary legislation.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment disapplies affirmative procedure to regulations which amend primary legislation if they are subject to the made affirmative procedure under the subsection (2A) inserted by my amendment to clause 59, page 59, line 8 inserting subsections (2A) to (2E).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the regulation making powers conferred by my amendments to Part 3 and to clause 58, page 58, line 31.
“(4A) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Treasury under paragraph 21 of Schedule (Infected blood compensation scheme) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.(4B) A statutory instrument made by the Welsh Ministers containing regulations under section 58(1A) that amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation (within the meaning of section 58) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, Senedd Cymru.(4C) Any other statutory instrument made by the Welsh Ministers under section 58(1A) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of Senedd Cymru.(4D) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under section 58(1A) that amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation (within the meaning of section 58) are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).(4E) Any other regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under section 58(1A) are subject to the negative procedure (see section 28 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).(4F) Regulations made by a Northern Ireland department under section 58(1A) that amend, repeal or revoke primary legislation (within the meaning of section 58) may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly.(4G) Any other regulations made by a Northern Ireland department under section 58(1A) are subject to negative resolution within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.)).” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment specifies the procedures for regulations made by the Treasury under paragraph 21 of my new Schedule and regulations made by the Welsh Ministers, Scottish Ministers or a Northern Ireland department under clause 58(1A) (inserted by my amendment to clause 58, page 58, line 31).
Lord Bellamy
“(da) Part 3;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for Part 3 of the Bill, dealing with infected blood compensation, to have UK extent.
“(5) His Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any of the provisions of Part 3 to extend, with or without modifications, to—(a) any of the Channel Islands;(b) the Isle of Man;(c) Gibraltar;(d) the Falkland Islands.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment confers power to extend Part 3 to the Channel Islands, Isle of Man, Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands by Order in Council.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments of Clause 61, page 59, line 27, provide for the provisions of the Bill specified in those amendments to come into force on Royal Assent
Lord Bellamy
“(a) section 53(1) and (2);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the amendment to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (which allows Parole Board Rules to provide for functions of the Board to be exercised by employees of the Board) made by my amendment of Clause 53, page 54, line 21 to come into force on Royal Assent.
“(a) Part 3;(b) this Part.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for all of Part 3 (infected blood) to come into force on Royal Assent. It replaces my amendments 162 and 165, which provided for certain provisions of Part 3 to come into force on Royal Assent and the rest to be brought into force by regulations.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Beith) (LD)
If Amendment 162B is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 163 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 162B
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of Clause 61, page 59, line 27 that provides for provisions about the Parole Board rules to come into force on Royal Assent.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Clause 61, page 59, line 29.
Lord Bellamy
“(a) Parts 1, 2 or 4, or(b) this Part.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendment to clause 61, page 59, line 31.
“(3A) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may by regulations make transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of any provision of Part 3.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may by regulations make transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of any provision of Part 3.
Lord Bellamy
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment adds a reference to the infected blood compensation scheme to the long title.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Thursday 23rd May 2024
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 86-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (23 May 2024)
Lord Bellamy
“Right to erasure of personal data
(1) Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (right to erasure) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In paragraph 1, after point (f) insert—
“(g) the personal data have been processed as a result of an allegation about the data subject—
(i) which was made by a person who is a malicious person in relation to the data subject (whether they became such a person before or after the allegation was made),
(ii) which has been investigated by the controller, and
(iii) in relation to which the controller has decided that no further action is to be taken.”
(3) After paragraph 3 insert—
“4. For the purposes of paragraph (1)(g), a person who has made an allegation about a data subject is a “malicious person” in relation to the data subject if the person—
has been convicted of an offence specified in column 1 of the table in paragraph 5 in relation to which the data subject is a person specified in the corresponding entry in column 2 of that table, or
is subject to a stalking protection order under section 2 of the Stalking Protection Act 2019 or section 8 of the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (c. 17 (N.I.)) made to protect the data subject from a risk associated with stalking (see section 2(1)(c) of the 2019 Act and section 8(2)(c) of the 2022 Act).
The table is as follows—
Offence | Data subject |
1. An offence under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (offence of harassment: England and Wales) | A person mentioned in section 1(1)(a) or 1(1A)(a) of that Act |
2. An offence under section 2A, 4 or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (other harassment and stalking offences: England and Wales) | The person against whom the offence is committed |
3. An offence under section 8 of the Stalking Protection Act 2019 (offence of breaching stalking protection order etc) | A person who the stalking protection order was made to protect from a risk associated with stalking (see section 2(1)(c) of that Act) |
4. An offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales (within the meaning given by that section) is an offence specified in entry 1, 2 or 3 of this table | A person specified in column 2 of the entry in which the corresponding offence is specified |
5. An offence under section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or Air Force Act 1955 as respects which the corresponding civil offence (within the meaning of that Act) is an offence specified in entry 1 or 2 of this table | A person specified in column 2 of the entry in which the corresponding civil offence is specified |
6. An offence under section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 as respects which the civil offence (within the meaning of that section) is an offence specified in entry 1 or 2 of this table | A person specified in column 2 of the entry in which the civil offence is specified |
7. An offence under section 39 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 13) (stalking offences: Scotland) | The person against whom the offence is committed |
8. An offence under section 1 of the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (c. 17 (N.I.)) (stalking offences: Northern Ireland) | The person against whom the offence is committed |
9. An offence under section 13 of the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (c. 17 (N.I.)) (offence of breaching order: Northern Ireland) | A person who the stalking protection order was made to protect from a risk associated with stalking (see section 8(2)(c) of that Act) |
10. An offence under Article 4 or 6 of the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/1180 (N.I. 9)) (harassment offences: Northern Ireland) | The person against whom the offence is committed” |
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I have two matters to address. The first matter is the position on devolution. The majority of the measures in Part 1 of the Bill apply to England and Wales. Clause 18, which relates to the issuing of guidance about victim support services, engages the legislative consent process. The Senedd did not grant legislative consent for this measure. Accordingly, the Government will table in the other place an amendment so that this clause applies to England and reserved matters in Wales only, and consequently removes the requirement to consult Welsh Ministers before issuing guidance.
Part 3 of the Bill applies UK-wide, and I can confirm consent has been granted by the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament. However, the process has not yet concluded in Northern Ireland. In the interest of ensuring the legislation is passed and these vital measures come into force across the UK, we will need to proceed to legislate for all, including Northern Ireland.
Part 2 of the Bill applies to England and Wales, and engages the legislative consent process for the appointment of the independent public advocate. The Bill contains a measure which requires the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before declaring a major incident in Wales and appointing an advocate. The Senedd did not grant consent for this part of the Bill. We continue to believe that this is an appropriate level of involvement for the Welsh Government and that it respects the legislative competence of the Senedd. Having considered the Senedd’s position, the United Kingdom Government have decided that, in this instance and given the context of major incidents, we will proceed without the Senedd’s consent. It would not be acceptable for the independent advocate provisions not to apply in Wales. It is vital that these measures apply to—
Lord Watts (Lab)
Can the Minister explain why the Senedd is refusing to sign up to this agreement? It might be of interest to the House to know why.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am afraid I am not in a position to say why the Senedd has refused consent; only the Senedd can say. The original issue was whether it should have some kind of veto over the appointment of the independent public advocate, or whether it should simply be consulted. One could infer that it was not satisfied with the requirement to be consulted and wanted a stronger role. That is an inference I draw as I have no inside information on the point. In any event, it is vital, in the Government’s view, that these measures apply to England and Wales to bring the benefit to all victims within England and Wales. So that is the devolution position.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I do not know whether, in this procedure, it is permissible for me to answer the question which the Minister was not in a position to. If I might explain, it was hoped that in the spirit of the United Kingdom you might be able to agree on a lawyer. There are an awful lot of lawyers and normally parties can agree, but, as the Welsh Assembly sees it, for some extraordinary reason the Government refused to do what normal litigants do, which is to agree on a lawyer. It stuck on that point because it thought it showed how unworkable the union is becoming if you cannot even agree on a lawyer.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Quite frankly, there are lots of lawyers in here. I do not know whether, if we put forward everyone’s name, perhaps the Senedd could agree to someone who is already in the House of Lords.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I think this is not a very useful debate to pursue at this stage of the proceedings. Without going any further, I am under the impression that it is not only the question of agreeing on a lawyer, but whether a standing public advocate should be appointed in the first place. I suggest that is something we should leave aside for today’s purposes.
My second duty is to speak to Amendment 1 in my name on the Marshalled List. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and Stella Creasy, a Member of Parliament in the other place, for the amendments they have tabled on this issue, and their engagement with myself and officials in this area. The amendment concerns what to do when there is a malicious complaint to social services and the procedure for removing that complaint, following the conviction of the complainant and the finding that the complaint was malicious.
Amendment 1 will insert into Article 17(1) of the GDPR—in fact, it inserts it into the relevant European directive so we have an unusual example of the UK Government directly amending European legislation—a new Part 2 ground which creates the right for certain victims who are data subjects to request deletion of personal data when the following two circumstances occur: first, when an allegation has been made by a person who has been convicted of relevant criminal offence against the data subject, or the person is subject to a stalking protection order made to protect the data subject from a risk associated with stalking; secondly, following an investigation by the data controller, it has been decided that no further action has to be taken in relation to the allegation.
The relevant criminal offences listed in the amendment are the offences of stalking and harassment against a victim. A power is also taken to update this list by regulations made using the affirmative procedure, should further offences be required to be included in the future. This amendment will provide a specific new ground for victims of stalking and harassment for the deletion of false allegations made about them, and support them to prevent the further distress that retaining this information may cause.
To ensure that the data controller has an important reason to retain the data, the exemptions under Article 17(3) of the UK GDPR will apply. This allows the data controller to refuse the re quest for a limited list of reasons, including whether processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation or the performance of a task carried out in the public interest, which could capture refusal for safeguarding reasons. However, data controllers must provide reasons for any refusal and inform data subjects of their right to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office. We will ensure that guidance, including on child safeguarding, is updated so data controllers understand how the new ground is intended to work. We will also update the victims’ code so that victims are aware of their rights around data erasure.
I therefore commend this amendment to the House, and I hope that what I have said will permit the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, not to press her Amendment 2 on the marshalled list.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on this very important Bill. I am delighted that it covers so many vital issues and will proceed, we hope, to Royal Assent before Parliament is prorogued.
I shall speak to Amendments 1 and 2. I thank my noble friends the Minister and Lady Barran, and their officials, for their engagement on this matter at some speed. I am delighted that Stella Creasy is here to listen to the debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, my noble friend Lady Finn and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for their support, as well as the Opposition Front Bench.
Politics is the “art of the possible”, as the important quote goes. The Government have now accepted, after resisting for many months, the principle behind Amendment 2, which we repeatedly tabled in this House at various stages of the Bill. As we have heard, the law should be updated to recognise that, in cases of stalking and harassment, one of the things that the stalker or harasser can do to prolong their victim’s agony is to make a false and malicious allegation which stays on the record, and data controllers hide behind their rights in not deleting it even when the allegation has been found to be both false and malicious.
I recognise the progress that has been made in the tabling of Amendment 1. As ever, of course, the devil is in the detail. As my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy has said, there are still grounds under Article 17(3) of the GDPR on which a data controller could refuse to delete the data. I really welcome his clear commitment that there needs to be strong guidance to the ICO and data controllers in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, and also provisions in the victims’ code. The danger with all this is that we still leave the burden on victims to argue for the data to be erased, and the power remains with the data controller. That is what worries me about those exemptions in Article 17(3).
In that guidance, the data controller must be told that they need to set out substantive grounds for refusing any request for erasure of the data. We also hope that the Government will set out scenarios in which those exemptions in Article 17(3), provided for in law, cannot be used in cases where data records have been created as a result of malicious conduct.
Having said all that, I recognise where we are at this time in this Parliament. I will be interested to hear what other noble Lords might say in this short debate and what the Minister might say in summing up. I recognise and thank my noble and learned friend for the progress that he has made on this issue.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for her persistence and skills in negotiating with her own party, which is possibly easier than doing it from outside the party.
I stress the absolute importance of giving crystal clear guidance. The occupation of data controller is not necessarily high on the list of most of us as a potential career. I suspect that it is not the most exciting part of many bureaucracies. I also suspect that it is an area where one follows the rulebook, or what one perceives to be the rulebook, particularly closely. I suspect that the ability of individuals to feel that they have the power to exercise their own judgment is somewhat limited and probably not encouraged. It is incredibly important that there is absolutely no doubt in the mind of even the least curious or the most obdurate data controller as to what is and is not acceptable in terms of erasure.
Other than that, I thank the Government for having thought about this carefully, and for having responded. I hope that as a result of this, the data controller in Waltham Forest who is making Stella Creasy’s life rather difficult will at least read this debate or be told of it and will rethink his or her decision to not erase the data.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
It is my privilege to follow both the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. I signed this amendment and continue to offer my support. I echo and agree with everything they said.
I have slight concerns that this is not just an issue about the data controller; it is also about social work practice. That really worries me, because there is a mindset that says that if anyone makes a complaint, we have to have it on the record just in case for the future. I hope that the government amendments are sufficient to provide an answer, but should we discover either that Stella Creasy’s case is not dealt with or that there are others, I put all future Governments on notice that there is a team in this House that will return to the subject.
Lord Watts (Lab)
I will make just one point to the Minister: will the direction and guidance given to the data controller say that the information being found to be vexatious will be an automatic reason to delete it? As soon as something is found not to be true, it should be deleted and the data controller should have the obligation to remove it straightaway.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this amendment. Congratulations all round are due to the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan, Lady Finn and Lady Brinton, and the Ministers. I take issue with what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said: negotiating with your own party is every bit as challenging as negotiating from outside—I speak from experience—but this is a very good example of the point of the House of Lords. When we do this sort of work, we can take an issue that is clearly an injustice, as my honourable friend Stella Creasy has experienced, along with others—mostly women—and persuade the Government to take action. That is the right thing to have done.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, there is little I can add. In preparing the guidance, the Government will take into account all the points, particularly those made by my noble friend Lady Morgan. The word “automatic” may be a slightly difficult word in the guidance, but I anticipate that it will be made extremely clear that in these circumstances the data controller would have to provide very clear reasons for not deleting the complaint concerned. I hope that will be covered comprehensively in government guidance, whichever Government are in power.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, certain noble Lords wish to speak to this Motion.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise some issues that have arisen since the publication of the framework and tariffs for the new infected blood compensation scheme on Tuesday afternoon. I thank the noble Earl and John Glen for providing the details to make that possible, and the usual channels for ensuring that the work done so far is not lost but carried through.
However, over the last 24 hours, we have heard from a substantial number of members of the infected blood community who are distraught by the detail that has come out in the framework and tariffs, which seem to be at complete odds with the schemes that have gone before. I have a long shopping list of over 20 points; I will not detain the House with them, but I forwarded them to the Minister in advance of this debate. I will raise two or three as illustrations.
Under the new framework, there will be no distinction between chronic hepatitis B and C in calculating infection. There is no consistency about other diseases; for example, variant CJD has been left out of the new scheme but was included in the old one, as has Hodgkin lymphoma and possibly other cancers. Many people believe that the Government’s proposals still mean that the current schemes will be closed down, leaving them worse off, and that the Government have an incentive to wait longer to pay compensation. They need great reassurance and clarity that that will not be the case, because that is not evident in what was published on Tuesday afternoon.
Can the Government provide a breakdown of how the core route awards examples have been calculated? That would be helpful, even if only to say that there will be further information published online. There are concerns about the illustrative awards being worded as
“for a living infected person”
and not simply an “infected person”. Given that your Lordships’ House has debated a great deal of the wonderful news that estates will also be able to claim, does that mean that estates will be excluded from this part of the scheme?
Noble Lords can see that there is a lot of detail here. A community that thought, on Tuesday morning, that everything was going to be all right are now very concerned that there are a large number of anomalies that need to be corrected. I will not go on, except to say that I am really grateful for all the help that the Minister has given, and I hope that he can provide some reassurance.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief because I know that time is of the essence. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for her sterling work on this Bill. She has given great comfort and strength, as well as enormous amounts of information, to the infected blood community, so that they can keep up with what we have been doing in this House up until today. She is right that there is now confusion in the community.
At the end of a very long day on Monday, I had thought that I might just get a day off, but by Tuesday my phone was ringing off the hook, and I became a helpline to many in the infected blood community who have the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, just described. I urge the Minister to give a little more clarity, if he can today, so that we can go back and continue to give reassurances to a community that has been campaigning and working towards this week for probably 35 years. I thank the Minister for his open door, because we have been going in and out of it for weeks. I, for one, really appreciate his support and help.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I add the thanks of these Benches to the Ministers—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy—and the Bill team as a whole for the way they have handled the Bill. It has been a real example of co-operation and cross-party help, leading to a number of amendments, not only on this particular issue but on all the issues that we have faced. We have not always reached agreement and there have been Divisions; nevertheless, I think everybody here agrees that the Bill will leave this House much improved.
I also very much wish to associate these Benches with everything that has been said by my noble friend Lady Brinton, speaking from these Benches, and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. I pay tribute to the noble Earl for the way he has handled the infected blood issue, particularly by meeting with the community and noble Lords in a way that has been utterly helpful and completely sympathetic. We all know that it has devoured an enormous amount of his time, and we all respect and admire the care he has given to handling this issue. I hope that he will be able to give the reassurance today—to my noble friend Lady Brinton, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and the House—that is sought by the infected blood community; it would be a great relief to them.
Many of us had telephone calls yesterday in which extreme concern was expressed about what was happening in view of the calling of the general election, the fear that the Bill might be lost and that further improvements or reassurance on the scheme might not be possible. I add that it would have been a crying shame if this Bill had been lost and had not got through the wash-up. That seemed a real problem yesterday; there was concern that it would happen. It has got through, and for that we are extremely grateful.
It is also a great shame that the Arbitration Bill and the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill look as if they are under threat. That is ridiculous. The Arbitration Bill is a Law Commission Bill. It has to start in the House of Lords, it went through a long Special Public Bill Committee procedure, ably chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and there is no opposition to it. Similarly, the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill has no opposition. These are two Bills important to the British economy because of the contribution that the legal services sector makes to it as a whole. For the progress of those Bills to Royal Assent before Prorogation to be stymied by an absurd convention that, if it has not already been introduced in the other House, a Bill will necessarily fail, is wrong. In those circumstances, I profoundly hope that the Whips in the Commons can come to an agreement. As I understand it, there is all-round agreement in the Lords that these Bills should go through. They must be taken through, just as this Bill has been taken through.
We are very grateful that this Bill has gone through. However, if the other Bills that are non-controversial and agreed cannot get through, the procedure on the wash-up needs a radical shake-up.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has absolutely nailed it, and I absolutely agree with him about the Arbitration Bill, although my pay grade is much too low to do anything about any of those things.
This is one of those times when we are allowed to say “Thank you” and “Didn’t we do well?” Thank goodness we have this Bill and that it did not fall with the call of the general election. Between us in this House, we have improved the deal for victims across the country. We have given powers to our Victims’ Commissioner which she needs to do her job. I thank everybody we have worked with: my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who is of course in court today—I do not think he has done anything wrong—the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the ministerial team. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, has been a model of what you need in a Minister in your Lordships’ House in that he is always prepared to listen, to discuss and to hear what might be needed, and when something is just, he seems to be able to act on it. You cannot ask for much more than that. I thank the Bill team, because I know what hard work it is to be a Bill team. I also thank my own people in our office, who have been backing us up on this Bill. I am just very glad that it has made it through wash-up.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I will briefly add two sentences. In respect of the provisions dealing with the Parole Board and the IPP parts of the Bill, I pay a special tribute to the Lord Chancellor and Minister for Justice, and—although I know he will disclaim any responsibility—the Minister in this House. It has been a great pleasure to see the way in which, although we do not agree on everything, we have made huge reforms to the IPP system, and for that we all ought to be truly grateful.
Speaking of what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, it is of the utmost importance that we should find a means—I do not believe it is precluded by precedent—of at least getting the Arbitration Bill forward, for all the reasons that he put forward. However, I pay tribute to the Minister on that Bill as well—he has worked so hard on it—and to the teams on both Bills for what they have done.
Lord Garnier (Con)
It is not the Oscars ceremony, but I just wanted to agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in relation to the Arbitration Bill. I am precluded by the rules of the House from mentioning the other, uncontentious piece of legislation—but I quietly agree with him.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I just want to say that it is the Victims and Prisoners Bill and it is very important that we acknowledge the work that has been achieved for IPP prisoners. I thank the team for that. Even though I wanted it to go further, I understand when progress has been made.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, will not mind me saying that the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, have also been very receptive and very helpful. For the first time since I have been here, I have had meetings with officials—it has all felt very grown up—in which I felt that they were listening and that things were being done. So, on this Bill at least, I felt that it was a very constructive engagement. Even though sometimes we have to be antagonistic and critical of the Government and the Front Bench, because they do not do exactly what we want them to do, that does not mean that we do not appreciate the work that has gone on and goes on. I for one will now be contacting the IPP prisoners who, like the people who have been mentioned in relation to the blood scandal, have been, with their families, contacting me all night, saying, “Please don’t let this drop”. Leaseholders are less happy, but that is a different story. Anyway, in this instance, I say thank you on behalf of both victims and prisoners.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, the ministerial team and everybody across the Chamber from different teams. It has been heartwarming to see everybody trying to get the best result for victims and their families and make sure that the system understands what their journey is about. I also thank the Bill team, whom I have worked with not just on this Bill but as Victims’ Commissioner. I am very proud to be able to work my way round in that role as well.
Most importantly, it was not very nice to have “victims and prisoners” on the Bill, but we are where we are. However, to understand what victims go through is very important. I give huge congratulations on not throwing the baby out with the bath-water in all the politics. This is about people and this legislation is so important. It is a driver for getting other things on to it, whoever gets into power. It is important never to forget that victims have a voice and that voice must always be listened to. That is, as legislators, how we make legislation far better as it goes through these Houses.
I thank the ministerial team and everybody else who has joined in support of these amendments.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, mindful that this is somewhat exceptional procedure at this stage of a Bill’s passage, I shall first address the points and questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to whom I am grateful for the opportunity to provide some clarity on various aspects of the infected blood compensation scheme.
On Monday, as the House is aware, the infected blood inquiry published its final report. By any standards, this was a very significant day. As the Prime Minister said, the report shows a decades-long moral failure at the heart of our national life. So the importance of ensuring that we provide a clear commitment from all sides of the House, as I believe there is, on doing what is right for the infected and affected victims, cannot be overstated. We must progress this legislation and we must continue to engage with the infected blood community on the details of the proposed scheme, ahead of those details being set in regulation. I hope that all parties join me in that sentiment.
I turning to the specific questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. On the issue of interim payments, I reassure her that this legislation still provides for the duty of interim payments to the estates of deceased infected people where payments were not previously received. In addition, a further interim payment of £210,000 is being made to living infected persons in recognition that this will meet the needs of those most likely to be disadvantaged by the passage of time. This payment will be delivered separately by the infected blood support schemes.
The Government are working to deliver these payments to the living infected as a matter of urgency. This morning, the Department of Health and Social Care laid a Written Ministerial Statement to seek a contingencies fund advance to make these payments in England and the Minister for the Cabinet Office met the relevant Health Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to discuss these operational details. We are working with the devolved Administrations to make these payments swiftly across the UK and I am assured that we share a joint determination to make them as swiftly as possible. Once we have finalised the process with the devolved Administrations, those due to receive these payments will receive details of the date of payment directly from the infected blood support scheme that they are registered with. All interim compensation payments will be deducted from any final payment.
The noble Baroness raised questions on the definition of hepatitis C and related matters. In line with the recommendations of the infected blood inquiry, those infected with hepatitis C will be eligible for compensation, and this includes those whose infection lasted less than six months and those whose infection became chronic—by which we mean it lasted more than six months. Those who had a chronic hepatitis infection that has now cleared as a result of successful treatment will still be eligible to claim compensation.
On the questions that the noble Baroness raised on how the core route has been calculated and the other conditions which indicate hepatitis C progression, let me reassure her that, as announced by the Minister for the Cabinet Office in another place, Sir Robert Francis will now conduct an engagement exercise with the community before regulations to establish the scheme are made, and further details on that will be released shortly.
The noble Baroness also asked why the illustrative tables provide figures for living infected persons only. This is because awards in relation to deceased persons with an infection have a much greater degree of variability depending, for example, on the duration of their illness before they passed away. Publishing an illustrative table for deceased persons, given that awards will differ quite markedly depending on individual circumstances, would not be very helpful.
Compensation with regard to a deceased individual will be distributed to the estate, as the noble Baroness mentioned, and bereaved partners and other affected dependants. The Government are also providing a technical briefing with key representatives of the infected blood community to explain the Government’s proposals, as set out on GOV.UK, and I am confident that will be a useful discussion.
The noble Baroness asked a further question about financial loss incurred by affected dependants of a deceased infected person. Where an infected person has, sadly, died, those who were reliant on them at the time of their death—for example, a partner or child under 18—will receive a financial loss award under the scheme to recognise this loss. On the duration of the blood support schemes, let me reassure the noble Baroness that the establishment of the scheme will not have any immediate impact on the support payments received through the infected blood support schemes and there will be no gap in the payments provided to beneficiaries.
The support schemes are delivered separately in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and decisions on individual schemes will be for the devolved Administrations. No one will be worse off under the final compensation scheme than they would have been under existing support schemes. However, the infected blood compensation scheme will compensate for both past and future losses suffered as a result of infected blood.
Once assessed under the scheme, the applicant will be able to choose how to receive their compensation, as either a lump sum or periodic payments. This means that those who value the security of a regular payment will be able to receive compensation in this way. I hope that clarification is helpful.
In the event that the infected blood compensation authority assesses that a person is entitled to less compensation through the compensation scheme than would otherwise have been paid to them through continued infected blood support scheme payments, an additional top-up payment will be provided to bring the compensation they receive up to the level of the support payments. Any top-up payment awarded will take into account other compensation payments that a person has received through the scheme, either in their own right or as an estate beneficiary. This will ensure that no one will receive less compensation through the compensation scheme than they would have received through the payments to which they would otherwise have been entitled through existing support schemes.
I hope my words have provided reassurance to the noble Baroness, and, more widely, to the infected blood community, many of whom have followed the passage of this legislation with close attention. As we have seen throughout the passage of the Bill, and following the announcements this week, there is cross-party agreement to progress work on infected blood, and the Government will continue to deliver what was set out on Tuesday.
As we reach the concluding stages of the Victims and Prisoners Bill, I express my gratitude, and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy and my noble friend Lord Roborough, to noble Lords on all sides of the House for their amendments, engagement and collaboration throughout the passage of this Bill. Through its stages in this place, between us we have made vital changes to strengthen code compliance measures for victims, establish the body to pay compensation to victims of the infected blood scandal, and bring forward a package of reforms for those sentenced to imprisonment for public protection sentences. I am confident that the Bill leaves this House as a package that truly delivers for victims and the public.
In expressing my thanks to noble Lords, I am mindful of the difficulty of singling out colleagues by name, but I extend particular thanks to the Victims’ Commissioner, my noble friend Lady Newlove, whose expertise has been vital throughout these stages.
Lastly, I express my deep gratitude, and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy and my noble friend Lord Roborough, to members of the Bill team and all officials in the Cabinet Office, whose hard work and professionalism have been exemplary. Were it not contrary to custom and practice, I would mention them by name.
This is important legislation, and I am pleased that it will make it to the end of its parliamentary passage ahead of Dissolution. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Friday 24th May 2024
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 24 May 2024 - (24 May 2024)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 33, 44, 56 to 60, 63, 64 and 142. If those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Clause 15
Guidance about independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisors
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)
I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 35.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 35, and Government amendments (b) and (c).
Lords amendment 46, and Government amendment (a).
Lords amendment 32, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 33, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 47, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 54, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendments 98 and 99, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendment (a) in lieu.
Lords amendment 106, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendments 1 to 31, 34, 36 to 45, 48 to 53, 55 to 97, 100 to 105, and 107 to 143.
Edward Argar
It is a privilege to open this debate and bring the Victims and Prisoners Bill back to this House, slightly larger and more robust—a description that I fear, after nine years in this place, could apply to my physique too. A series of amendments were made in the other place that we believe strengthen the intentions behind the Bill.
At the outset, I express my gratitude to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and to the usual channels for their work in a very short timeframe to ensure that we are able to proceed with the Bill today. It is a pleasure to serve opposite the shadow Minister. He knows not only the huge respect but the fondness I have for him. Notwithstanding the six weeks of to and fro that I suspect we may have during the election, I want to put it on the record that I genuinely wish him very well for the future.
On Report in the House of Lords, we strengthened measures on victims to make it clear that compliance with the code is not optional and to bolster measures to hold agencies to account for its delivery. We also introduced measures to give a stronger voice to victims of offenders whose conditional release is considered by the mental health tribunal, to make it clear that victims who have signed non-disclosure agreements can make disclosures to much-needed support services without fear of legal action, and to raise the threshold for the disclosure of counselling notes for victims so that they can now only be disclosed where they are of substantial probative value.
We also tabled an amendment in the other place yesterday to create a new ground within article 17 of the UK general data protection regulation specifically for the victims of stalking and harassment to request deletion of personal data related to false allegations. The amendment will help protect victims from further distress caused by the retention of such data. I put on the record my gratitude and tribute to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for raising the issue and campaigning on it, and to my friend the noble Baroness Morgan of Cotes for pursuing it in the other place.
I turn to Lords amendments to part 3 of the Bill relating to infected blood. I am grateful, and I know this country will be grateful, to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for her tireless campaigning in seeking to expose and tackle this national scandal and ensure that those who have been victims of it receive the support and compensation they deserve.
The Lords amendments do three crucial things. They impose a duty on the Government to establish a UK-wide infected blood compensation scheme within three months of Royal Assent; they establish a new arm’s length body named the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to deliver the compensation scheme; and they impose a duty on the Government to make interim payments of £100,000 to the estates of deceased infected people where previous interim payments have not been made.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for all the work that he has done on the amendments, but could I ask him about the final group who have received not a penny—the parents who lost children and the children who lost parents? The Government have announced an additional £210,000 for those who were infected, to be paid within 90 days. There is no timescale for payments to people who have not received anything yet. Can he help the House understand when the payments will be made?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, and I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) has raised similar questions previously. I know that the right hon. Lady and others are in correspondence with my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
The questions raised are complex and detailed. My understanding is that Robert Francis will be spending June having those conversations with communities and with victims and families, so that he can work out the detail of the answers to those questions from the basis of what those families and communities want to see, rather than a Minister or anyone else pre-empting that. One of the key lessons that I and, I hope, the Government and this House have taken from the work the right hon. Lady has done is the need to listen to those affected, and that is what Sir Robert will be doing. I do not want to pre-empt that from the Dispatch Box.
Edward Argar
I suspect that the right hon. Lady will want to enlarge on the point in her speech, but of course I will let her come back now.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am grateful. I just gently point out to the Minister that Sir Brian Langstaff told the Government in April 2023—over a year ago—to get on and make these payments. I have to say that work could have been undertaken in that period to get to the point where payments could be made quickly, and it is very regrettable that that has not happened.
Edward Argar
I entirely note, and the House and country will have heard, the points made by the right hon. Lady. She participated in the statement by the Prime Minister and the subsequent statement by the Minister for the Cabinet Office, which set out the work that he has undertaken at pace to make things move forward. What we see in this Bill is a hugely important step forward, and I look forward to Robert Francis working at pace to ensure that the views of those affected are genuinely reflected in the detailed answers to the questions that the right hon. Lady has posed.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
This is the last time that I intend to speak from the Dispatch Box in any Parliament. Actually, I have one more statutory instrument to do, so that may not be quite true.
Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for calling me to speak. I thank you for your service to this House in many different capacities over the entirety of my parliamentary career. I hope it does not cause offence in any other quarters if I say that you are my favourite Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that others share that opinion. That is in no way casting aspersions on the quality of your colleagues, but we have known each other and been friends for many years. I wish you good fortune in whatever you do after you leave this place.
I extend equal thanks to the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar) for the way he conducts himself as a Government Minister. The way that he deals with colleagues from across the House—with shadow Ministers, Back Benchers and others—is exemplary. He is a class act in that regard, and a model of what many of us should aspire to. I have been a Minister, and I know what a difficult job it is, and what a difference it makes to have a Minister in a Department who takes Parliament, and what Members of Parliament say, seriously; does their best to accommodate opinions and measures suggested by other Members of Parliament; and does not think that the Government have a monopoly on wisdom, or on measures when they bring a Bill to this House. The Minister is prepared to engage in debate and consider amendments, and I thank him for the way in which he conducts himself in this place.
As she is in her place, I will mention the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). Some Members may be aware that many years ago she was a pupil at Radyr Comprehensive School when I was a teacher there, so I did not think that she would leave the House before me.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Or be a Conservative!
Kevin Brennan
Indeed. I was obviously a lousy teacher, as she ended up a Conservative Member of Parliament, but I wish her well in the future as she leaves this place. I also send my well wishes to the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who is a friend from across the House, and who conducts himself in a manner that we can all aspire to.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way with his typical generosity. Does he agree that it is now important to move quickly? The Cabinet Office needs to meet and engage with the infected and affected community to make sure the compensation payments are right, and to ensure that the community is represented on the compensation authority board.
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman is right, as he often is. I completely endorse his remarks. I thank him for the £50 he will pay to charity after losing a bet with me that there would be a referendum on Scottish independence by the end of this Parliament. I put that on record, not because I do not trust him but because I said that I would send him the name of the charity after today’s debate. He is a man of honour and a man of his word, so I know he will pay up.
On a serious point, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution on this important issue. His background in the trade union movement means that he will always be thoughtful about the essential job of helping the weak against the strong, which is what we are trying to do in this place.
I should also pay proper tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North. A few months ago, her amendment to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on this issue caused them to suffer possibly their only defeat in this House during this Parliament, which is quite an achievement.
To echo Sir Brian Langstaff, we must tackle the lack of “openness, transparency and candour” that has left victims suffering for decades. We welcome the movement towards this important milestone, and we look forward to seeing victims get the financial redress they deserve sooner rather than later.
I should say that Les, the husband of my constituent Sue Sparkes, died in 1990 as a result of receiving infected blood.
There has been a lot of discussion and work, involving colleagues from all parties, to recognise the considerable concern surrounding sentences of imprisonment for public protection. IPPs are and were a stain on our nation’s criminal justice system, and we have acknowledged our role in the past. It is right that IPP sentences were abolished, and we share the concerns that lie behind many of the proposals suggested by colleagues, both here and in the other place, in relation to these sentences and prisoners.
We have continually sought to work on this issue constructively and on a cross-party basis, wherever possible, which is why we are pleased to support multiple Government concessions on this matter, including Lords amendments 103 and 107, agreeing to a new annual report and provisions for those sentenced to detention for public protection. I pay tribute to our colleague Lord Blunkett, who has done a great deal of work, perhaps to underdo some of the things he might have been responsible for many years ago.
Progress for those remaining on IPP sentences and on licence in the community is pivotal. We want to ensure that any solutions proposed are robust and assessed with public safety properly in mind, as the Minister rightly said. In government, Labour will work at pace to make progress and will consult widely to ensure that our actions for those on IPP sentences are effective, in their interest and based on the evidence in front of us.
On the MAPPA issues in the Bill, we are glad to have agreed on an overdue and important change in the arrangements in place to protect victims and the public from the terrible blight on our society that is domestic abuse. When the Bill passes, offenders sentenced to more than 12 months for the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour will now be automatically included in the multi-agency regime that exists for violent and sexual offenders. That follows strong support in the other place for more rigorous safeguards in such cases, where too often we see women in particular left to face repeating and escalating patterns of abuse within the relationships where they should be most safe. Labour has big ambitions in government to tackle violence against women and girls in particular—far beyond the commitments in the Bill—but we are nevertheless proud to have put this marker down and to support this measure.
Labour’s commitment to reforming the criminal justice system to ensure that victims are more than just bit players is unwavering. We are pleased to have supported and helped to improve the Bill. Our essential additions, from empowering the Victims’ Commissioner to introducing a duty of candour for public bodies, have highlighted our commitment to the rightful place of victims at the centre of the justice process.
We welcome the Government’s movements in the right direction on pivotal issues such as IPPs and on the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, notwithstanding the remarks I made about the slowness of movement to get compensation out to victims. I thank the Minister for his openness in accepting some of these changes. I look forward to the Bill’s conclusion—very shortly, I hope—and hope that the Act will be a step towards a new era of transparency and advocacy for all victims of crime.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, as we leave the House together, may I start by wishing you the very best for the future? I remember, as a keen young Opposition spokesman, being your shadow when you were Local Government Minister, and I could never have had a more charming or skilful opposite number. I learned a lot from that.
I see sitting behind me two of my oldest friends in politics: my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). We have been around the block—literally—in various local government campaigns in London over many years. It is a certain irony that we have all decided to depart at the same time; that will probably be cause for a good lunch at some point. I have not forgotten that I owe the Minister one as well.
I pay tribute to the Minister for his approach. I totally agree with the shadow Minister, to whom I am also grateful—he has been a good friend in relation to this and to issues about the performing arts and music, which we have both championed in this place—as well as the SNP spokesman.
The Minister has been exemplary in his approach. We are fortunate in the team of Ministers that we currently have at the Ministry of Justice, including him and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor—although he is not here today, his name is on the amendments—who is a quite exceptional lawyer, a quite exceptional Lord Chancellor, a star in this Chamber and somebody whose integrity and commitment to the legal system will be long recognised.
These are improvements to the Bill—I am glad about that. May I also thank the Ministry of Justice officials? I have dealt with many of them over the years. I am sorry that they have had to put up with some of the things that the Justice Committee has lobbed at them over that time, but there has always been a great, constructive spirit. In that context, I particularly welcome the fact that the Government have taken on board a number of the Select Committee’s recommendations in relation to our pre-legislative scrutiny of what was then simply the Victims Bill and became the Victims and Prisoners Bill, as well as some, although not all, of our recommendations in relation to IPP prisoners; more on that in a moment.
The scrutiny of the Victims Bill was particularly led by the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who served as my deputy on the Committee before she was rightly recalled to the Opposition Front Bench. I thank her too for the support she gave me on the Committee and the particular work she did for her constituents and for a better and fairer approach for victims in these cases. I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), whom I first met when we were both elected to the London Assembly in 2000, for the exceptional work she has done in relation to infected blood. We can work cross-party on these matters and she has performed a great service.
Chris Stephens
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and I wish him all the best for the future and thank him for the work he did as Committee Chair. One of his memorable moments in the last few months was to chair the Committee sitting in which I and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) were pushing the issue of the Horizon postmasters in Scotland and what that meant for us. That was a very intelligent session, with many legal experts, and he chaired it in an exemplary way that allowed the debate to continue. I have always found him to be one of the more interesting Members of the House, when it comes to discussing such matters, and very fair. I wish him all the best.
I also wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, all the best for the future. Like the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), I am going to name you as my favourite Deputy Speaker. You always used to tease me that I have a glint in my eye before I am ready to speak in the Chamber, and I would always be coy when you suggested I was going to be speaking next. I genuinely give you my good wishes, and thank you for all the kindness you have shown me as an individual and all the encouragement you give all hon. Members of the House in carrying out our duties, both to our constituents and here in the Chamber.
What an amazing week it has been. It was suggested that this Bill might not make the wash-up. If that had been the case, there would have been an almighty furore from the infected and affected community. I think pressure was applied by Members in this House, Members in the other place, and indeed the campaigners, to ensure that we got the Bill over the line. I am going to confine my observations to the amendments relating to the infected blood compensation scheme and setting up the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, which I welcome. I also welcome, as I did earlier in the week, the excellent appointment of Sir Robert Francis as head of the authority and of the compensation board.
Like many other Members, I am here to fulfil a constituent commitment, in particular to Cathy Young and her two daughters, Nicola and Lisa. It was one of my first constituency cases: Cathy Young came to see me at Darnley community centre. I had known a bit about the issue—in Scotland we had the Penrose inquiry, which was untidy to say the least—but I got more and more interested, and more and more passionate, because it was a clear injustice. As the hon. Member for Cardiff West suggested, I am a great believer that when it is time for an election, you do not shy away from it, but I do think that some of the events of the past couple of days have been a pity.
On Monday, when my constituent Cathy Young was down here in London, along with her daughters, I think some people in the Government knew that the general election was going to be called two days later. I do not believe that the Paymaster General did, but when he was on his feet delivering a statement about what the compensation scheme would look like, I believe that some people in the Government knew that the election was going to be called the very next day. We are in an unfortunate position, in that there are now a lot of questions that need answered and clarified before Parliament is dissolved. I am going to raise some of them in my speech, because we do seem to be in a bit of flux, which is a pity. I am going to take this opportunity on behalf of my constituents and the infected blood community, who have taken Members of this House to their hearts, as we have taken them to our hearts.
First, according to the scheme and the discussions that have taken place with the Cabinet Office, it looks as though the parents of a deceased infected child will receive the same amount as those of a living infected child. That does not seem right to me, and I think it needs to be clarified. There is also no mention of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease infection among all this paperwork.
A lot of clarity is needed on the confusion between what is a widow’s payment and what is an estate payment. The expectation appears to be that widows will distribute the money paid as an estate payment, but unfortunately that might be difficult, given the sad reality of life that some families do not speak to each other, for all sorts of reasons. It is suggested that widows would receive £16,000, which seems to be less than they receive at present. The Government are also suggesting that the support scheme payments will end, which is leaving a lot of people distressed and very worried about losing those monthly payments. We need clarity and more discussion with the infected and affected blood community to ease some of those concerns.
We also need clarity about individual heads of loss for the infected, because, frankly, we all seem to be in the dark. The uplift for psychological effects has also been omitted. Will that be covered by the injury impact award? At the moment that is not clear, so that is something else that we would want to discuss. There needs to be a discussion about what psychological support services there should be going forward, because this has been a difficult and emotional week for many people. Lastly—this is very important—if people accept the interim payment of £210,000, does that mean they are accepting all the compensation values that are currently on the UK Government website?
It seems to me that we need a lot of clarity and a lot more discussion. I welcome the fact that the authority has been set up and that this place has forced the Government to move on the issue. This has been the House at its best—just as many Conservative Members voted for the amendment tabled by my good friend the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) as did Members in other parts of the House. This is a collective, cross-party attempt to address this injustice. I hope that those questions will be answered, either in writing or in discussions with the infected and affected blood community, because we are all here to make sure that they get the justice they so richly deserve. Any further delays will mean justice denied.
Dame Diana Johnson
It is a real pleasure to follow my friend the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). I want to say a big personal thank you to him for all his excellent work over the years on the issue of infected blood, and for the important role he has played in the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, to get to where we are this week.
I also want to comment on the remarks of the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). I am very sad that he is leaving the House. I have looked up to him as an excellent role model for how to chair a Select Committee with grace and charm, but also with steel. He has not shied away from the effective scrutiny that is so vital to the functioning of this House through the Select Committee system. I wish him all the very best for what he goes on to do next.
As we are talking about Select Committees, I wonder whether I could also pay tribute to the members of the Home Affairs Committee, some of whom might not return to this House. I wish them all the very best for all the work they have done as Select Committee members. I also pay tribute to the work of the Clerks and the staff of the Home Affairs Committee over the past two and a half years that I have had the great honour and privilege of chairing it. In particular, I want to mention Jo Dodd, our current Clerk, David Weir, who was our previous Clerk, and Mariam Keating, the second Clerk, who stepped up when we needed her to during an interregnum between our first Clerks. I thank all of them.
The remarks that I want to make about the Lords amendments are very much in the spirit of what has been said about the infected blood scandal. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West said, what a week this has been. We started on Monday with the report from Sir Brian Langstaff, which followed six years of evidence heard by the independent public inquiry, which was absolutely damning about the role played by doctors, the NHS and the state, and a vindication of all those who have campaigned over the decades. Finally, we have the truth.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am conscious of the fact that the debate must finish at 12.51.
Dame Diana Johnson
I absolutely agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West has said about the questions that still need to be answered. One point that I want to raise concerns Sir Robert Francis and the engagement that will take place in the next few weeks. Legal representation is needed so that people can engage fully with that process and ensure that they are feeding in the issues about tariffs, which have caused a great deal of concern and worry. We also need to get on with providing psychological services in England. We have them in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but we now need them in England, and I hope the Minister will take that message back. The other key issue is that of support payments.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to associate myself with everything that has been said about infected blood. I also want to call to the attention of this House the cross-party working on Lords amendment 45, particularly by Baroness Morgan, Baroness Finn, Baroness Brinton, Baroness Thornton, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Russell, to protect victims of malicious harassment.
I thank the Minister and his team; he knows that this has been an issue that many of us have been vexed about because we have been victims of it ourselves. He has been patient, and he recognised that we could not simply say, “This won’t happen again,” and that we needed to put something into law. In that sense, I pay tribute to all the lawyers and experts on stalking who have assisted us, and we cannot let the Bill go through this place without acknowledging the work of the victims’ commissioner for London, Claire Waxman, who is sat in the Gallery this afternoon and who has tirelessly fought for victims legislation.
I have a few questions about Lords amendment 45— I would not be taking part in the debate if I did not. The amendment is about stopping harassment. At the moment, even if somebody who makes malicious complaints is convicted, it is not clear to many data controllers that because the records have been created by a process of malice, they should be deleted. As a consequence, victims find themselves being pursued based on those records, and the amendment would give people a direct right to request a deletion.
The Minister will know there is a concern that some of the exemptions could be broad. Will he commit to giving clarity on when those exemptions cannot be used for malicious complaints, as was done in the other House, and to giving protection to victims who are targeted in this way? Many of us in the public realm will be targeted; we have an election coming up, and we know that this will happen. Many of us want to face public scrutiny, but our families should not have to pay for the price for it, which is what so often happens with these records. Could the Minister commit to providing formal guidance?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am afraid the Minister will not have time to sum up, but I am sure that he will be in touch if there is anything he wishes to add.
One hour having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords amendments, the debate was interrupted (Order, 23 May).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83F), That the amendment be made.
Government amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 35.
The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).
Government amendments (b) and (c) made to Lords amendment 35.
Lords amendment 35, as amended, agreed to.
Government amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 46.
Lords amendment 46, as amended, agreed to.
Lords amendment 32 disagreed to.
Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 32.
Lords amendments 33, 47 and 54 disagreed to.
Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendment 54.
Lord amendments 98 and 99 disagreed to.
Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendments 98 and 99.
Lords amendment 106 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 106.
Lords amendments 1 to 31, 34, 36 to 45, 48 to 53, 55 to 97, 100 to 105 and 107 to 143 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 44, 56 to 60, 63, 64 and 142.
Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with their amendments 33 and 47;
That Edward Argar, Scott Mann, Aaron Bell, Paul Holmes, Chris Elmore, Andrew Western and Chris Stephens be members of the Committee;
That Edward Argar be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.— (Joy Morrissey.)
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Friday 24th May 2024
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberVictims and Prisoners Act 2024 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 24 May 2024 - (24 May 2024)
Lord Bellamy
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 32 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 32A in lieu—
“(3A) After section 51 insert—
“51A Duty to co-operate with Commissioner
(1) The Commissioner may request a relevant person to co-operate with the Commissioner in any way that the Commissioner considers necessary for the purposes of the Commissioner’s functions.
(2) A relevant person must comply with a request made to the person under this section, so far as it is appropriate and reasonably practicable for the person to do so.
(3) In this section “relevant person” means a person who is not an individual and is subject to the duty in section 5(A1) of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (duty to provide services in accordance with the code issued under section 2 of that Act).””
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Motion A I will speak also to Motions B to H.
It is a privilege to bring the Victims and Prisoners Bill back to this House from the other place, whence it has returned in relatively good shape. I am grateful to Members of both Houses for the constructive way in which they have engaged with the Bill, especially on this last stage of its passage. I again thank all the officials at the Ministry of Justice for their hard work on the Bill. The other place has made some amendments, which I will consider in turn. I hope they will not be controversial. I will take them in what seems to me to be a logical order, which is not necessarily the alphabetical order in which they now stand in the Motions.
Lords Amendment 33, which is the subject of Motion B, seeks to require training to be provided to those with obligations under the victims’ code. Of course, agencies should, and do, have training in place to deliver the legislative duty to act in accordance with the code, but that training must be tailored to the specific function that each person is discharging, and agencies are best placed to do that. As it would place an additional burden on the Secretary of State to implement a strategy of training, we consider this amendment would be costly and inefficient. It would not be proper for an amendment from the Lords to place financial burdens on public authorities.
We also consider that the more effective approach, as has been committed by the Government in the other place, is to include a requirement for agencies to report on the adequacy of their code training as part of evidencing delivery of code entitlements. This gives us a route to identify and address ineffective training if it has led to non-compliance with the code. For those reasons, the Government do not support the original Lords Amendment 33.
Lords Amendment 47, which is the subject of Motion E, seeks to establish a firewall and prevent the police sharing data relating to immigration status with Immigration Enforcement. We disagree with this amendment because it would be inappropriate to impose a blanket restriction on the use of personal data in the circumstances to which the amendment relates. It would not prevent the perpetrator informing Immigration Enforcement about the victim’s immigration status, and it would impact on the ability to investigate crimes and support victims.
Leaving those two amendments aside, the Government have today brought forward a number of other amendments in lieu. I turn to Amendment 32, which is the subject of Motion A and concerns the duty to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. We have accepted the principle of the amendment put forward, which would place a duty on relevant authorities to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner when requested. Again, I am pleased to see my noble friend Lady Newlove in her place today. We hear the strength of feeling that a response to the Victims’ Commissioner as they do their important work should not be seen as a favour and that there should be clear, open co-operation as an integral part of enabling the independent scrutiny that victims deserve.
The Government’s Amendment 32A makes a few minor changes to Amendment 32. First, it extends co-operation further than simply assisting the commissioner in monitoring compliance with the victims’ code. Instead, it requires co-operation in relation to any of the Victims’ Commissioner’s functions, including promoting the interests of victims and witnesses. Secondly, it adds important safeguards to make it clear that any co-operation must be not only practical but appropriate. This protects against, for example, potential interference with activities that are rightly independent, such as when exercising prosecutorial discretion. Thirdly, it future-proofs the clause by putting this duty on the agencies that deliver services under the victims’ code, rather than including a specific list of bodies that may become out of date over time.
I turn now to Lords Amendment 35, which is the subject of Motion C. This amendment disapplies Clause 18 in relation to devolved matters in Wales. Only yesterday, I think, I explained the devolution position as regards Wales. We are seeking to amend the measures that relate to the issuing of guidance about victim support roles, which now form Clause 18. Victim support roles operate across different settings, some of which are devolved. The Senedd did not grant legislative consent for this measure as previously drafted. I am therefore putting forward an amendment so that the duty to issue guidance applies to England and reserved matters in Wales only, and have consequently removed the requirement to consult with Welsh Ministers on “any” guidance issued. I am grateful for the constructive discussions that have taken place in relation to the important principles that sit behind this clause, which aims to improve the consistency of support services provided to victims, and am confident that we can continue to work together so that victims have this consistency across England and Wales wherever possible.
I now come to Motion F, which concerns the amendment on the duty of candour. Lords Amendment 54 seeks to place a statutory duty of candour on all public authorities, public servants and officials after a major incident has been declared in writing by the Secretary of State. The Government entirely share the desire to see an end to unacceptable institutional defensiveness, dissembling or what can perhaps be described as an economical approach to the truth. However, we are unable to accept the amendment in its current form as it would not sit neatly on top of the existing frameworks; it is ill suited to replace what already exists, both in the context of major incidents and beyond; it fails to take into account the nuances of different professions in the spheres of the public sector; and it would entail significant legal uncertainty. The area is complex, and we believe that it would be unwise to rush forward with this amendment for these reasons.
Therefore, we have tabled Amendment 54A to require a statutory review to determine whether additional duties of transparency and candour should be imposed on public authorities and public servants in relation to major incidents. This review will need to be completed by the end of the calendar year, and, following the completion of this review, a report will need to be laid before Parliament.
I come to Motion G, which concerns the MAPPA amendments. In effect, government Amendment 99A replies to Lords Amendments 98 and 99, which relate to MAPPA. Amendment 99A would ensure that those convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour who are sentenced to at least 12 months’ imprisonment will be automatically subject to management under the MAPPA arrangements, thereby ensuring that we are effectively managing and targeting the most dangerous domestic abuse offenders.
The previous amendment to the Bill was tabled in the other place to add domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators to those who qualify for automatic MAPPA management. While there is a legal definition of domestic abuse, a domestic abuse crime does not exist with the exception of controlling or coercive behaviour. Therefore, although well intentioned, this amendment would still have required criminal justice agencies to decide on a case-by-case basis whether an offender is eligible for MAPPA management and consequently would not quite have achieved the intention to reduce or eliminate any scope for local discretion.
There are already provisions in place that require offenders on licence to live only at an address approved by probation. All offenders released on licence are further subject to standard conditions, and there are numerous additional licence conditions that can be imposed to address specific risk factors. Those conditions also allow for information to be collected and used to manage the risk. The previous amendment would have added little to public safety but could result in a significant pressure on resources.
Offenders who perpetrate other forms of domestic abuse, such as threats to kill, actual and grievous bodily harm, attempted strangulation, putting people in fear, and stalking, including fear of violence, serious alarm or distress, are already automatically managed under the automatic MAPPA of sentence to 12 months custody or more. Adding the additional offence of controlling and coercive behaviour will ensure that the most harmful domestic abuse offenders will be automatically covered by these arrangements. These changes mean that these offenders will be automatically managed under MAPPA in the same way as those convicted of sexual, violent or terrorist offences. This is crucial, as controlling or coercive behaviour is a known risk factor for domestic homicide. Treating these offenders in the same way as the most violent offenders is critical to improving the safety of domestic abuse victims.
I come, therefore, to Motion H, which I think is the last Motion before the House, which is the home detention curfew amendment. For someone in my position, this is procedurally somewhat difficult to follow, because it involves the Government disagreeing with their own amendment, Amendment 106, in order to reintroduce it with an addition. Amendment 106A is exactly the same as Amendment 106, but Amendment 106B, which is the important amendment, extends the eligibility of the home detention curfew scheme to offenders serving four years or more.
The original aim of the home detention curfew scheme was to help suitable lower-risk offenders who had been in custody to reintegrate into society in a controlled manner. As sentences become longer, it is important that we revisit whether eligibility for HDC continues to allow all those who may be suitable and would benefit from the scheme to be considered, as originally intended. That means looking again at whether offenders who are excluded solely because of sentence length or old curfew breaches, rather than any assessment of risk, should be able to be considered for HDC. Since HDC was introduced, sentences have grown longer and should no longer be the sole determination of whether someone is eligible to be considered for HDC. A four-year sentence length for old curfew breach is not a useful measure of whether an offender is lower-risk and suitable for HDC.
While this amendment increases the number of offenders eligible for HDC, it does not extend the range of offences that make an offender eligible for HDC. All sexual offenders and serious violent offenders are excluded from the scheme, as are those subject to Parole Board release. Those convicted of offences often associated with domestic abuse, such as stalking or harassment, are also excluded. So are many other people, including category A prisoners. There is also a robust risk assessment to ensure that offenders are released only if there is a plan to manage them safely in the community. In every case, that includes a curfew backed up with electronic monitoring.
I think I have covered Motions A to H, and I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Brinton will respond to most of these items. I cannot resist wondering whether she will comment on whether it is inappropriate to rush towards the duty of candour given the history of the item, but I want to speak particularly to Motion E regarding data sharing for immigration purposes. This amendment has an unhappy history: we have never succeeded before, and I know we will not succeed today—as I say that, I look at the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, in whose name the amendment was tabled to this Bill.
The threat comes from abusers, often domestic abusers, but other abusers as well. In saying to someone who has immigration status that they are illegal, it is irrelevant that that is inaccurate: the abuser provokes fear, and this trumps everything in the mind of the person who is affected. Sadly, for some people, this amendment would be highly “appropriate”, picking up the words in the Commons reason, and the circumstances are immigration control. But for the Home Office, immigration control, even if this amendment is not really about immigration control, trumps everything. The Home Office has previously resisted attempts to control data sharing, so this is no surprise, but we will not pursue it today.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it seems only 24 hours ago that we were discussing these amendments. Indeed, we were. There has been some progress made, for which we thank the Government from these Benches. It may not meet everything that we were seeking, but there has been some clarity on some of the issues.
On Amendment 33—the training support and the alternative offer from the Government—the reason that those of us who supported it really wanted to see it is the lack of consistency in training between police forces and other parts of the criminal justice system. Although the Minister says that is expensive, it is also very expensive when mistakes are made because the training has not been adequate. We put on notice that this is yet another of the items that will, I suspect, appear as amendments in the future.
I completely support everything my noble friend Lady Hamwee has said on the immigration firewall, and I will not add any more to that. The review of the duty of candour for major incidents is welcome, given that the Government would not agree to Labour’s amendment on it. I hope the review will look at not just major incidents but the duty of candour widely in the public sector, because I am not sure, for example, that the infected blood scandal would have appeared as a major incident for perhaps a decade, or two decades, or even longer. I hope those involved with that committee will look at that, but we welcome the review.
On the MAPPA points, I think that is a helpful amendment, and I can understand why it has been laid. From these Benches, we would like to see it in operation to make sure that it works.
The final point I want to come to is on the Government’s own amendment to the eligibility for home detention curfews. I am very pleased that the Minister specifically mentioned that those convicted of stalking, even with sentences of under four years, will not be able to access home detention curfew. We spent some considerable time during the passage of the Bill also discussing why it is often the case that the CPS charges people with things other than stalking. Those people who are known to be stalkers, but are convicted of a lesser crime, still pose the same risk, particularly when they have been multiple offenders. We urge the Government from these Benches to make sure that the CPS looks at charging stalking and a lesser offence because we believe that that is a problem for many of the things that have been progressed during the passage of the Bill.
I will say very briefly that I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, for her help as the Victims’ Commissioner, and to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and the London Victims’ Commissioner —who is in the Gallery today—and all their teams. They have briefed your Lordships’ House to help the progress of this Bill. The London Victims’ Commissioner and I were remembering that it was 14 years ago that the stalking inquiry report was published, and much but not all of that has been enacted. I hope that future Governments will make sure that we can better resolve stalking cases in the future.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the discussions that have taken place in the usual channels to ensure that the calling of the election does not unduly disadvantage victims who have waited for many years for this legislation to be brought forward. We on our side have strived to be collaborative throughout the Bill’s progress and, while we have not been able to achieve everything we would have liked, we acknowledge that the department has been willing to negotiate on some matters and make a number of amendments in lieu.
It is a shame that my noble friend Lady Royall’s amendments on stalking were not successful as part of the negotiating process. On stalking and the eligibility for home detention curfew, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made a very interesting point about the CPS charging stalkers with alternative offences as well. As I have said in other debates, I have dealt as a magistrate with stalking matters relatively recently. If lesser charges of harassment can be pressed in the alternative, the court would have better choices to make when determining guilt or otherwise. I thought that that was an interesting point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, did not mention unduly lenient sentencing. While that was not part of the wash-up agreement, the Government nevertheless committed from the Dispatch Box to keep unduly lenient sentencing under review. As far as I can or cannot commit any future Government, I think it is something that any Government would want to keep under review, as the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is important.
We also welcome the amendment in lieu, Amendment 32A, on the duty for agencies to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. I congratulate her on all her sterling work on this Bill. This does not go quite as far as we asked, but it is an improvement, nevertheless.
The Labour Party remains committed to introducing a statutory duty of candour. It is a shame that the Government have not felt able to go further, but at least there is a review in the Bill.
We are pleased that the infected blood provisions will make it on to the statute book and be commenced at Royal Assent, and we welcome the recent government Statements and hope that compensation will get to people as early as possible.
On IPP, we have tried to work collaboratively across party lines and there is further work to be done. We want to ensure that solutions proposed are robust and assessed with public safety in mind, and we will work at pace, consulting widely on potential ways forward.
We of course welcome the concession on controlling or coercive behaviour and the MAPPA process, in Amendment 99A. It is an important marker, but only part of a bigger picture where violence against women and girls needs to be addressed. There is more work to do, but passing this Bill is an important step towards a new era of transparency and advocacy for victims of crime.
In conclusion, I thank my honourable friend Kevin Brennan for steering Labour’s response to the Bill through the other place and my noble friend Lady Thornton for her support for me during the passage of the Bill. I also thank our advisers, Catherine Johnson and Clare Scally.
Finally, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. I also thank his civil servants, who have been extremely helpful to me and, I know, to many other noble Lords who have taken an interest in this Bill. Turning back to the noble and learned Lord, I know he will say that he works as part of a team, but the team needs a leader and he has been the leader for this Bill in this House—and that has been to the benefit of all noble Lords who have taken an interest in the Bill.
The Bill is an accomplishment. It is only a step in the road, and I hope we can work on the progress that has been made in any future Governments who may be formed.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will deal briefly with the points made. The point the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made about the firewall is a difficult one. No doubt it will continue to be discussed in the years ahead. The Government do not feel able to go further at the moment.
On Motion E, which is on the importance of training, I hope we have now put in place something effective, though indirect, to ensure that training will happen properly. That will no doubt be kept under review and be publicly reported in the annual report, so that this House and the other place can monitor how that is going.
On Motion G, which is on MAPPA, I respectfully suggest that the Government’s amendment completes the picture. It includes coercion and controlling behaviour. The point the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made about the importance of the CPS considering exactly what it charges is important, but I stress my own understanding that a risk assessment will take place in every case so that, even if there is not actually a stalking charge, the fact that it is stalking-like behaviour should be properly taken into account in assessing the risk before HDC is used.
On the commitment in relation to unduly lenient sentences, which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned, at the time we envisaged that we would include something in the Criminal Justice Bill. Unfortunately, that has not taken place. The Government’s commitment remains as long as the Government are the Government—no doubt a future Government will wish to take that matter forward as well.
Those are my brief comments on the substantive points that have been made, but I will make some very brief concluding remarks as we reach the concluding stages of the Victims and Prisoners Bill. I once again thank all those who have engaged and collaborated throughout the passage of the Bill. I particularly thank my noble friends Lord Howe and Lord Roborough, who, if your Lordships remember, took over the passage of the entire Bill at a certain stage in Committee and have taken on certain sections of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Roborough has done very important work, particularly on MAPPA and related points, but my noble friend Lord Howe, as your Lordships know, has taken on a major role in relation to the infected blood issues. I am very grateful to them.
I am very pleased that the Bill has made it through this process. We have not lost it and I put on record my own thanks to all the officials who contributed to the Bill. They have already been warmly thanked in the other place, but I need particularly to mention Nikki Jones, Katie Morris and Lizzie Bates, who were among the team leaders. I also personally thank the infected blood team at the Cabinet Office.
Since I may not have another opportunity, I will say, personally, what a privilege it has been to deal at this Dispatch Box with the affairs of the Ministry of Justice over the last two years, and how much one appreciates the courtesy, perspicacity and hard work of this House. Members actually listen to the debates and take on board the points made. I think most people understand that we are trying to find solutions to very difficult problems and there are very often several points of view. My overall impression is that, on the whole, the House works very closely and collaboratively. As a newcomer to your Lordships’ House, I may say personally that that is a most impressive situation—possibly unique among legislatures in the western world.
Lord Bellamy
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 33A.
Lord Bellamy
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 35A to 35C.
Lord Bellamy
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 46A.
Lord Bellamy
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 47 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 47A.
Lord Bellamy
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 54 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 54A in lieu—
Lord Bellamy
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 98 and 99 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 99A in lieu—
Lord Bellamy
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 106 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 106A and 106B in lieu—
Royal Assent
Friday 24th May 2024
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 87-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Disagreement and Amendments in Lieu - (23 May 2024)