Victims and Prisoners Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[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.

[Jess Phillips]

Mmm-hmm.

[Edward Argar]

She may take a different view, as of course she is entitled to, as a matter of debate.

[Jess Phillips]

I do.

[Edward Argar]

Amendment 79 would remove the Secretary of State’s discretion over how to publish the advocates’ reports.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn now to minimal risk. Subsection (5) is at the heart of the release test, and it is the starting point for assessing risk. Hopefully the criteria set out here are straightforward; none the less, it may aid the deliberations of the Committee on what is required of the decision maker if I briefly run through them in turn. Subsections (5)(a) and (b) relate to the index offence for which the prisoner was sentenced and any other offence of which they have been convicted. Of course, these are crucial factors in determining the level of risk the prisoner might pose if released. The decision maker is therefore directed to consider the nature of the offence—what crime was committed—and the seriousness of the manner in which the crime was committed. For example, were there aggravating factors and what were the judge’s sentencing remarks?

[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.