Grand Committee
National Citizen Service Bill [HL]
Wednesday 16th November 2016
(8 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate National Citizen Service Act 2017 View all National Citizen Service Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 64-I Marshalled list for Grand Committee (PDF, 92KB) - (14 Nov 2016)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 1: National Citizen Service Trust
Amendment 1
Baroness Barker
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde; since Second Reading he has been at great pains to discuss with opposition Members some aspects of the Bill. I put on record my thanks to organisations such as the challenge trusts, which have been similarly forthcoming in light of the searching questions that we on these Benches raised on Second Reading. I forgot to declare my interests on Second Reading; I have been a management consultant for over 30 years in the voluntary sector, and have a small consultancy that specialises in charities and voluntary organisations. I have no dealings with this organisation or any people engaged in delivery of the programme, but that experience of looking at voluntary organisations—how they are established, how they work and the trouble that they get into—led me to ask a series of questions on Second Reading about the establishment of this organisation. Those questions remain unanswered and that sets the scene for our more detailed probing this afternoon.
I hope that Members of your Lordships’ House might forgive some of us to whom voluntary sector organisations are deeply fascinating things; it might not be so for them. They should appreciate that the Government are about to invest a billion pounds in this organisation, so it falls to us to do some of the important due diligence that should be done in advance of such a decision.
I went away from Second Reading, read the Minister’s speeches carefully, and listened to and read again the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Maude. I am now even more certain than I was before that the Bill is based on two flawed assumptions. The first is that the National Citizen Service is unique. It is, in that it has had unprecedented support from the Government, but it is not in terms of the young people with whom it works or the benefits that it delivers to them. It is unique only in that its programme is four weeks long. Other organisations work with as large a range of people in the youth sector and do so on an ongoing basis. That assumption right at the beginning is profound, flawed as it is, because all the decisions that flow from it in the Bill are built on that wrong assumption. It is not true that the service is unique and can be delivered only by this organisation.
The second thing, which flows from that, is the statement made by the Minister during the debate on 25 October in cols. 187 and 188: that because the service is “unique”, it is incomparable. That is also wrong. Although the service is of a very tight and specific nature, its outputs and its outcomes for young people can be analysed and compared to those of other organisations. Some of them will be among the 200 organisations which deliver the National Citizen Service. It is therefore possible to look at the work done by this organisation, and its cost-benefits, and compare them.
I submit that that analysis should have been done before the decision to make the current sizeable investment was taken. It certainly should be done before the decision is taken to set this organisation in—to use a word that the Minister used in his speech—“cement” in the life of the nation. Having decided that this organisation should stand alone, the Government now wish to embed it in the most clunky, heavy and difficult-to-change charitable structure that can be found. That puts this organisation in yet another unique situation. Unlike the rest of the voluntary sector, which is having to become more efficient and effective, to collaborate, to draw up strategic alliances and to become much more lithe and nimble all round, this organisation is to be put into a structure which is almost impossible to change. We should therefore have a thoroughgoing look at this. Other Members on these Benches will talk about the effects of being a royal charter body and the extent to which services run through such bodies are extremely difficult to change.
The Minister prayed in aid the fact that to be a royal charter body means that an organisation will have to account annually to Parliament. I put it to him that for an organisation to receive the level of investment proposed for this one full reporting should be required, but it does not necessarily follow that it has to be locked down as would be the case here.
I started out by being sceptical about the need for the NCS to exist as a separate organisation. I remain doubtful that it needs to be a distinct organisation: its service could be provided by any one of a number of organisations. On balance, I would be happy to accept that the Government should be allowed to let it exist as a separate organisation. I see no reason why it should not exist as a community interest company. As such, it would be required to produce a high standard of accounts. I would prefer to see it incorporated as a charity. The challenge trusts are both and therefore subject to a high degree of public accountability.
I really do not see the need to use the structure proposed. I therefore tabled Amendment 1 and the consequential amendments in this group, which would remove the royal charter body status from the organisation while leaving the Government the option to explore other forms of charitable structure which would enable accountability. I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I have a registered interest as a member of the National Citizen Service Board. In briefly addressing the amendments in my name, I associate myself wholeheartedly with the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Lords, Lord O’Shaughnessy and Lord Maude.
It seems to me that the benefit of having a debate in Committee is to see where we can agree with each other, and I think that many of the amendments have taken on that challenge. There are many improvements that can be made to the way in which the current National Citizen Service is delivered, including greater transparency. It would be quite useful if people would reverse the mirror and say, “Wouldn’t it be a good idea if a lot of organisations receiving substantial public funds also had to comply with many of the precepts laid down in the amendments before us this afternoon?”. In other words, it works both ways.
In some cases, young people have been sceptical about the National Citizen Service, questioning whether it should be embedded—I prefer that term to “cemented” —in our structures. I am keen for organisations that work with these young people to monitor and publish evidence and material about both the impact on the young people and the spread of young people who are reached in the way that is quite rightly being asked of the National Citizen Service. I say “quite rightly” because it receives substantial sums of money. I do not think that it helps for the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, to talk about rolling up money. I used to ask previous Chancellors—not least Gordon Brown—not to do this. When I was at the Department for Education, he had a meeting with me and told me that in the next spending round education would get £19 billion. Unfortunately, it was over three years and was cumulative, and therefore it did not quite have the impact that £19 billion might have done. We are doing the same now with the National Citizen Service.
I want to say why I think that, difficult though it may be to implement the royal charter, it is better than having an NDPB. Making the National Citizen Service a government scheme with, effectively, a government department would be the biggest possible turn-off for young people and would make it extremely difficult for it to have a relationship with the dozens—in fact, scores—of good, professional and effective organisations that constitute the delivery mechanisms at NCS. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, referred to that but then suggested at the end of her speech that, although she did not oppose retaining NCS, it is an organisation which commissions, monitors and oversees, ensuring quality and consistency, but which in itself is not the delivery mechanism. All the good organisations that many of us in this Committee are associated with are the ones that are delivering.
Those who have at times worked with and spoken to the young people engaged in the National Citizen Service know that, as we said at Second Reading, that is just one part of a much bigger jigsaw in terms of the journey that young people make before they reach the relevant age for National Citizen Service. Also crucial is what happens afterwards with regard to part-time and full-time volunteering options, and the ability of young people to understand what their experience has meant to them, as well as, importantly, what it has been able to deliver for others.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lords I referred to a moment ago help to clarify that the Government cannot have their cake and eat it. If the Government want, understandably, to be engaged in the appointment of the chair, it will be quite inappropriate for a government representative—or, for that matter, an opposition representative—to be on the board. The process should be transparent, independent and open in the way that we seek for many other organisations. Incidentally, regrettably, there has been a drift over the last six years towards a hegemony where even those more transparent methods of recruitment have drifted into departmental pressure and something more than oversight. Many noble Lords on this Committee will be painfully aware of examples that they have come across where pressure has been brought to bear.
We must protect NCS, and its delivery and engagement with young people, from any suggestion that it is a government-operated organisation or subject to government appointments in that way. I hope that by the time we reach Report and Third Reading, we will not have to move amendments that reverse the situation as laid out by the Government at the moment on the issue of the appointments procedure. I also hope that by the time we reach Report we will have some idea about the transition arrangements. Although the Minister did write, as promised, after Second Reading, I do not think we are any clearer as to what the transition arrangements are than we were three weeks ago.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, declared his interest as a member of the board of the NCS Trust. I declare an interest as the Minister who, with my brilliant colleague Nick Hurd, brought the National Citizen Service into existence, and I hope your Lordships will forgive a certain amount of proprietorial pride in what we created and my very deep concerns. As the Bill takes NCS into the next stage of its existence and what I think we all hope will be a permanent place in the life of this nation—with the important role that is now proven to be the case that NCS can play in creating this rite of passage for young people on the journey from childhood into adulthood—I am concerned that we get this right, so I make no apology for the amendments that I and my noble friends have put down or for supporting other amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett.
I completely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has just said. It is an interesting group of amendments, because they go in opposite directions. Amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, crave more control by the Government, or more scrutiny, oversight and powers to intervene in the management and conduct of the trust. Amendment 16, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, suggests that there should be a chief executive who is the accounting officer, which would make it look and feel much more like a quango or a government department. The noble Lord is nodding approvingly—he is now shaking his head, although I am not sure at which part. But whatever it is, I do not like it. I do not want the NCS Trust, the body that administers this admittedly very large and growing amount of public money, to be something that looks, feels and behaves like a quango.
We deliberately set the trust up at the outset—frankly, against some of the advice we were given at the time —as a body genuinely independent of the Government. It was not to be without scrutiny by the Government—how could that be the case? As I said to your Lordships at Second Reading, I was the Minister who presided over a programme saving very large amounts of public money, and I do not think I can be accused of being cavalier with the use of public money. But the essence of the NCS Trust was that it should be entrepreneurial and able to innovate, to do things quickly and to be agile rather than being subject to endless scrutiny and endless intervention. It was not to become the kind of arm’s-length body that has a very firm grip by the hand at the end of the arm, which is why I and my noble friends have put down Amendments 14 and 15, which would make it absolutely clear that the NCS Trust board shall be independent of government.
That is not to say that the trust could appoint whoever it likes as chairman or members of the board; that is not what we have in mind. It is clear that it has been the case with the NCS Trust so far that the appointment of the chair and the members of the board have been subject to approval by Ministers. It would not have been possible for Stephen Greene, the brilliant chair of the NCS Trust, to have been appointed without us and indeed the Prime Minister of the day approving his appointment. Things were done a little less formally than is proposed here but, none the less, that was the reality. Your Lordships would expect that to be the case and we expect that to be the case in the way that the arrangements will work in the future. Therefore, it is very important to have a clear, bald statement on the face of the Bill to say that:
“The Board shall be independent of Government, with all appointments subject to fair and open competition”.
On the independence of the trust, it is important to establish from the very beginning that this is not to be an NDPB, which is a clumsy formal word for what we all think of as quangos—quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisations. We have established quite clearly that it is perfectly possible within the nomenclature or the way in which different types of bodies are classified for this, as a very unusual and I would say unique body, not to be classified as an NDPB. That is for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, set out.
This programme has touched the lives of hundreds of thousands of young people. We hope that over the years and decades ahead it will touch and change the lives of millions more. I cannot stress enough to your Lordships how important it is that this is seen to be not a programme run by the Government. Nothing could kill it more surely and definitively than that.
I agree that my noble friend the Minister and his colleagues want this to be set up in a way that enables there to be proper scrutiny and, as a last resort, the ability to intervene directly—because as a last resort the Government will always have the ability to withdraw the funding from the trust and to set up another administrative body if it goes completely out of kilter. Although I have that sympathy, I urge them to keep in mind and resist the tendency that all of us who have been Ministers have seen at every stage: that is, the desire of the government machine to reach out its hand—its no doubt very caring hand—to control what goes on outside the reach of government. That is of the utmost importance for the future success of this programme.
The programme has already demonstrated a very high degree of success with the young people whose lives it has touched and changed. It has attracted the support of political parties across the spectrum, after quite a high degree of initial scepticism, and huge swathes of voluntary bodies from the youth sector and beyond. It has been very successful but it is a fragile vessel that needs to be treated with great care. Therefore, I urge the Minister and his colleagues to take these amendments away and reflect on the fact that this is the way to give the best chance of success for the future and to guarantee independence, subject to scrutiny and the appointment of the chair being made, as we said, by the Prime Minister or on the recommendation of the Prime Minister to Her Majesty; and with the ability of the Prime Minister to approve appointments to the NCS Trust board for the rest of its membership. We strongly argue that there should not be a nominated government representative on the board, which smacks of having a nark in the camp and could undermine the crucial sense of independence that will make all the difference for the future.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 49 in this group. Before turning to it, I have to say that I was underwhelmed by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. It seems a shame if we should not be prepared to consider positive ways to deploy the very large sum of money in a programme that is already proving itself successful. She expressed concerns about bodies being squeezed out, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, made the point that the National Citizen Service Trust is a delivery operation. The opportunity is therefore for smaller charitable and voluntary groups. I entirely agree with her that there is a danger that they could be squeezed out; we shall be debating that in a series of amendments later on in Committee. The underlying thrust of what is being achieved with the Bill is entirely praiseworthy and we want to make sure that we maintain that. To take some of the details, my noble friend Lord Maude made a very important point about the need for it to be seen as independent of government to give it the best possible way forward.
Where I can be more sympathetic to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was in her remarks about the way that royal charter companies operate. They are tied into a very inflexible structure, to return to a point that I made at Second Reading. I understand the need for a royal charter, which would have the stardust in it. It is a great thing to be able to talk about as part of the sales pitch for this operation and will help the delivery groups as well. But all the evidence that I received when I worked in the charity world was that a royal charter makes an organisation very difficult to handle structurally.
Your Lordships can see this in the draft charter that has been tabled. If the Committee turns to the way that it deals with charter amendments at article 15, it can be seen to lay out quite an elaborate procedure for changes to the governing documents. The difficulty put to me before, not apropos of the Bill but of royal charter companies generally, is that most such changes have to be dealt with by the Privy Council, which is not of itself very familiar with this sort of activity. The Privy Council is therefore quite concerned about how it is to happen and what the implications are, so there is a good deal of back and forth—of talking and discussions—before a decision can be reached.
At the end of that, while I understand that the National Citizen Service Trust is not directly a charity, it will have a public benefit objective. The Privy Council will not want to find that it is allowing something to happen that could be done by a charity. It would then go off to talk to the Charity Commission. The whole system would start again, with a further series of questions going back and forth, and it would therefore be a very slow process. The Privy Council does not want to appear on the front page of the tabloids for having allowed something to happen which may of itself be undesirable and, even more importantly, would not have been allowed by the Charity Commission. In my view, if the NCS Trust is to be successful—and along with other noble Lords, I certainly hope that it is—and to go from 58,000 young men and women a year to 300,000, there will be changes to this document. We do not know what or when they will be, or how many there will be, but I suspect that there will be a lot of them.
My Amendment 49 is designed to keep the stardust implied by the royal charter but to simplify the procedures for changing the governing documents. It suggests that changes to the constitution, which is the key governing document, would require the permission of the Charity Commission and the giving of notice to the Privy Council, which could complain and therefore block it by talking to the Charity Commission. That would give the control, the proper parameters, that my noble friend Lord Maude referred to as being desirable. For changes to the by-laws, which are so far not extant but will come into being in due course and which are of a lower order of magnitude and importance in corporate governance, notice is to be given to the Charity Commission and the Privy Council. Again, complaints and objections could be made to stop it if required.
Finally, where the board or trust wished to move administrative matters from a constitution of by-laws, this could be done but again notice would have to be given to the Charity Commission. These changes are designed to provide the balance referred to by other noble Lords and the stardust that a royal charter implies but at the same time to enable the National Citizen Service Trust board to move reasonably quickly and to be flexible—my noble friend Lord Maude talked about the need for it to be flexible. It needs to be able to return to and react to changes. This measure would enable it to do so much quicker than in the structure presently envisaged. I hope that the Government will look favourably on the amendment.
Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and pleased to put my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and to Amendment 17 with those of my noble friends Lady Finn and Lord Maude. I thoroughly endorse the comments both of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and of my noble friend Lord Maude and their passionate defence of the purpose of the NCS programme and of its independence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked whether this is a unique programme—which I think gets to the heart of it. It is true that some of the activities that take place in NCS may be found in a range of other volunteering social action organisations, but there are things that are unique about NCS. The first is the idea of a rite of passage and the ambition that it should be something that every 15 year-old, 16 year-old or 17 year-old goes through as a binding experience that builds into a sense of social cohesion and social mixing, which are inherent to the whole programme. That is not to say that every activity in the programme is unique, but its ambition, its potential scale and the idea that is something that everyone goes through, with an opportunity to mix with others, are unique.
The NCS is not a threat to the sector. Rather, as others have said, it is an enabler of the sector. It is delivered by others. It is a beacon—a sense that the Government take incredibly seriously the idea of social action and are providing a centre of momentum that can push this agenda forwards. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, not just in this group but in others, seem to face in different directions. They give a lower status to the NCS Trust by keeping it as a community interest company but they also add more control, which seems to be the precise opposite of what one would want for it to be a success. It needs to be more independent of government and to have a higher status. That is ultimately what the Bill attempts to do.
Two principles are at stake here: the actual independence of the body and its perceived independence —of course, one feeds the other. The royal charter seems to be a neat way through this. It provides independence as a well as a sense of permanence and, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, puts the operation of the NCS Trust effectively beyond politics to become something that is seen as a public good and to be supported.
The royal charter sends a strong signal to all stakeholders that NCS is a permanent part of our national landscape, a new British institution that takes that most British of virtues—service to others—and elevates it to the appropriate position. Just as the National Trust might be seen as the protector of historic spaces, NCS can perform a similar role in the development of the nation’s young people.
That is why I absolutely support the amendments on not just the independence of the board but also the appointments process, which my noble friend Lady Finn will talk more about. It relates to this point about the public body, and it is quite right that given the level of state funding involved there is a new regime and greater accountability for the money spent. The clauses that deal with audit and accounts—and indeed appointments, subject, I hope, to some movement from the Minister—would provide the correct level of scrutiny, and of course it will continue to be audited by the National Audit Office and so on.
It is, however, incredibly important that the independence provided by the royal charter is not undermined by the NCS becoming classified, as my noble friend has said, as an NDPB—a quango—which could be a back route into the reassertion of government control. As we have discussed, that is the sure way to kill this thing in the eyes of the people we want to use it. For that reason, the right device is a royal charter. This is not my area of expertise by any means, but the Cabinet Office guidance on the classification of public bodies of various kinds provides for unclassified ALBs—arm’s-length bodies—when they are genuinely unique and unclassifiable, and I think this is genuinely unique. There is, therefore, a spot in the existing landscape that this body could land on. Another organisation with a similar classification is the Churches Conservation Trust—in receipt of public money but clearly carrying out a public good which is beyond the political realm.
In closing, those of us who have put our names to this amendment look to the Minister for his reassurance that the independence that he clearly wants to pursue through the royal charter will not be compromised by bureaucratic consequences of the classification process. It is so important that the fact that it should not be an NDPB is on the face of the Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I, too, should declare an interest. I have done most of my politics in places like Bradford, Huddersfield, Leeds and Manchester, particularly in areas where the people who we would now call the left-behind are clustered. That is where I have come across the National Citizen Service and been impressed by what it does. However, I also recognise that it is one useful initiative in places where government funding has been cut by 40% in the last 10 years, and where the state is not at all evident.
My worry—and the reason for all these probing amendments—is that we have here something that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, rightly called one part of a bigger jigsaw, and that can only be part of a bigger jigsaw. It needs not to be set too permanently in cement. It needs to have the flexibility to become part of a wider strategy, because we desperately need a wider strategy towards those who no longer feel that they are really citizens and part of our society. Other voluntary bodies are working in the same area. Just in the past six months I have visited the York schools partnership between independent schools and local state schools. It is excellent: Saturday extra curriculum throughout the year—including a week in the Lake District—funded by contributions and other sources. In the middle of August I visited a summer school run by local volunteers in north Bradford for children between primary school and secondary school, some of whom are still struggling to read or count. That point, at which children are moving from one area to another, is crucial. The local Tesco provided the food and we managed, with contributions from people like me, to take the children to the Lake District for a week to work together. Some of them had never been that far from their homes.
There is a range of activities run by the Scouts and others; they need to work together. If the National Citizen Service is to expand at speed, as is proposed, it also needs to be locally linked and networked, and not have yet more national organisation imposed on it. The choice of local partners and local providers is important.
We will need to develop a wider strategy and look at how one works the volunteer dimension and how far it can fit into the things that desperately need doing for younger people—not just the 15 to 17 year-olds but all the way through from when children enter nursery school. That needs to be discussed further. I worry a little. The reason why some of us are testing this royal charter is that, when one hears about permanence and cement, one wonders whether this is being put down as a great lump, when there is a huge amount that we need to do. Whatever we think about the outcome of the referendum, the scale of the vote that we saw not just against Brussels but against London, the elite and all the outsiders in these areas shows us that we have a major, long-term underlying problem, to which this is one useful response, but as part of a wider strategy—it is only part of a bigger jigsaw.
I have just a few hesitations from my limited experience in the coalition Government about the total independence of royal charter bodies if appointed by the Prime Minister on the advice of the Cabinet Office. There are occasional, small political interventions at that level. Perhaps I had better not say any more than that, but I have watched it with a degree of interest.
One should not overstate the contribution that NCS alone can make. The noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, talked about giving it a higher status. If this is to be a rite of passage—almost the rite of passage—we need to do a lot more. We need to do a great deal for those in secondary schools. This is a useful contribution to that, but there is a great deal more that this House might usefully debate—we might even have a sessional committee to investigate it further—because we know that we face a much wider problem.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 14 and 15, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord O’Shaughnessy, and to Amendment 17, also in the names of my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord O’Shaughnessy, which relates to the wording on appointments in the royal charter.
I reiterate that I am completely delighted that the NCS Bill seeks to put the remarkable success story of the National Citizen Service on a statutory footing. I fully support the aim of the Bill to achieve that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friends Lord Maude and Lord O’Shaughnessy that the independence factor is vital. For me, it is absolutely critical that the National Citizen Service is not classed as a non-departmental public body.
This real and perceived independence will give the National Citizen Service a status that is above petty party politics. To imperil that independence would be completely wrong. The NCS must not be seen as an arm of the state. I believe that the royal charter route, which brings a sense of permanence, is the best route to achieve all these aims. Like my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, I believe that the Cabinet Office guidance on this matter—that a publicly funded body can be unclassified if it is genuinely unique and unclassifiable—is the best solution in the case of the National Citizen Service Trust.
Having established that maximum independence with proper government oversight and accountability is essential, I turn to the vexed issue of appointments to the National Citizen Service board. The appointments lie at the heart of the real and perceived independence issues. I do not believe that the NCS Trust should have a formal government or opposition appointee on the board. There are several reasons for that. First, there is a very real conflict of interest. The Secretary of State has a role in regulating both the National Citizen Service and wider civil society. It would therefore be wrong to have the regulator as such sitting as a non-executive member of the board.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
Well, my Lords, what a good debate we have had. Possibly most of it could have been said at Second Reading but I think that it gained in acuity by focusing on our series of amendments. I say to the Minister, “If these are your friends, I wish you luck in trying to unscramble where you have got to on this Bill”.
First, let us be clear about the nodding. I was not agreeing; I was simply encouraging a previously hesitant Member of your Lordships’ House to speak on. I hope that it was not misunderstood in any way.
Having dealt with the serious stuff, let us move on. Here, we are debating the question of how to balance independence and accountability—a crucial area. Of course, those things are capable of being interpreted in many ways and I am sure that the Minister has had much advice about what the various modes lead to. I do not think that any of them would have led to the idea that this would not be an NDPB because it was genuinely unique and unclassifiable. I think that that might be a step too far for those who have to advise Ministers on such matters. I think that this is genuinely not a unique institution, and it is certainly not unclassifiable, even though we might wish it to be.
I will start with a problem that comes up from time to time—indeed, we have discussed it in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions. There are some models here that we might want to look at. If you are looking for genuine independence from government in a body, even though it may be in receipt of government funds, I think that you have to look at the green bank and the rather difficult discussions that we had about how to ensure that it was a truly independent body, although it retained at its heart the mission statement agreed by the Government and for which the Government offered funding. That was done by creating a break between Ministers and the bank by invoking a charitable body which would have the power to hold on to and sustain the mission statement. The Minister might want to look at that to see whether it is a route down which some of the arguments that we have heard today lead us.
If there is a sense abroad, and it is widely bruited, that the NCS is of government, that may well be the kiss of death, as my noble friend Lord Blunkett said; others supported him in that thought. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Maude, said that nothing could kill it more definitely than that. If that is the case then we will obviously have a serious problem. I think that there is another argument—I am sure that the Minister will make it—that if you are going to have a body which has truly national aspirations and which is a rite of passage for all our children and all those who aspire to contribute to our society, then there is some value in having an association, whether a royal charter or some other organisation, which shows that it is given that accolade. I do not think that we can just discount that by saying that independence is inconvenient for a better and more exciting future. There must be a way of brokering that.
I think that more time has to be spent on this issue before we come back to it, but I am pretty confident that it would be a very brave Minister who rejected such a strong coalition of interests as have argued this case today. I am sure that we will see this again on Report.
My Amendments 16 and 41 were predicated on the basis that this was an uncontroversial area, that there would be a royal charter and that there would be an arrangement under which this body would have to become a non-departmental public body. I am simply probing—because that is the nature of what we do in Committee—whether there will be an accounting officer. I think I will hear the response that there will be an accounting officer under this model, should it be approved. The National Audit Office will be the designated auditor, so I think that that follows. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that, if I am right and we are in that mode and have an accounting officer, the normal cycle of reports and appearances—if necessary—before the Public Accounts Committee will ensure the sort of scrutiny and accountability that other noble Lords have been seeking.
There is another point that I want to pick up, because I have been in this position before. Where an NDPB has an accounting officer and the PAC makes an inquiry, the Permanent Secretary as the accounting officer of the department responsible answers for the Government’s side of the equation. So there is very tight accountability, and it is a model which I hope we can retain the essences of if it is decided to move down a different route in terms of independence.
I do not want in any sense to be too critical but I think that Amendment 41 is the Kids Company amendment. It suggests that there has to be a strong line of responsibility over and above that which is placed on an accounting officer to ensure that, where there is any sense of financial impropriety or difficulty, the accounting officer is named as the person who will tell the Secretary of State in the—I hope—unlikely circumstances that there is a problem. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, can I add something, slightly tongue in cheek? One good reason for the NCS not being an NDPB is that it cannot be abolished under the Public Bodies Act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their views on this fairly large group of amendments. I hope that we can get through subsequent groups a bit quicker. I apologise for the length of my answers, but this is important because, as my noble friend Lord Maude said, it highlights the opposing views, and we have to try to strike a balance. We have to deal with the maintenance of the entrepreneurialism; we have to look at control, but we want flexibility; we want accountability; we want freedom from government but we want structure that can be sustained. Therefore, it is important that I go through these amendments to try to explain why we have decided on this constitution, if you like, that will strike the balance on those sometimes conflicting views and aims.
In many ways, all the amendments have to do with the governance of this organisation going forward. I start with the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. It is important that we lay out in detail why we think that the royal charter route is the correct one. Having piloted the programme in-house, in 2013 the Government set up the NCS Trust—my noble friend Lord Maude was involved in that—as an independent community interest company to start growing and promoting the programme. The trust had the independence of CIC status to work flexibly, innovatively and with pace. It has grown each year and has created an independent, bold brand for NCS that appeals to young people across the country. We want to retain the impact of this work and help the trust to continue delivering. That is why we want to incorporate it as a public body by royal charter.
A programme of this scale requires a distinct public body to deliver it that is accountable for its performance. For NCS to be a unifying experience, there needs to be consistency. A key strength of NCS is that it physically brings together young people from different areas and backgrounds. Young people bravely leave their friends to take on new experiences. All this needs a central co-ordinating body.
Royal charter status carries certain associations particularly appropriate to NCS. The first is a distance from government, which my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, have mentioned. The point was well made that, as a youth movement, NCS should not seem too close to government. The second is stability. If the nation is to embrace NCS as a rite of passage for the young then they need to be assured that we intend it to endure. The third is neutrality and respectability. The association with the monarch would be a constant reminder that this organisation must act in a manner worthy of a national institution and maintain public trust. The charter will enable the trust to retain operational independence from government. It will serve as the trust’s constitutional document by laying out the primary functions of the trust and how the board will be appointed and governed.
The Bill refers to the NCS Trust as incorporated by royal charter, so the Bill and the charter are inextricably tied. The Bill then makes provision for the trust to be appropriately accountable to Parliament. Removing reference to the royal charter from the Bill would render the Bill as drafted unworkable. We believe that this new legal framework strikes the right balance. It will make the trust more accountable, while ensuring its continuing independence. This will help the trust in its mission to entrench NCS as a rite of passage for young people. The trust is to be the commissioning body for NCS; as a public body, it will be even more important that its arrangement with government is proper and accountable.
Baroness Finn
It is quite a big responsibility to be a government representative who is given the ability to approve even the remuneration policy on pay. I suggest that the Government are quite rightly not going to intervene unless it is above the Prime Minister’s salary. It is already a reserved right that the chief secretary will have to look at any pay proposals above the prime ministerial salary. I therefore suggest that this is a bit of an onerous requirement on an organisation that should, in theory, be independent of government. I wanted to put that point out there.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The norm in these sorts of organisations is that the Government get involved in individual pay decisions, full stop, so this is a more light-touch proposal. If I am wrong on that—
Lord Maude of Horsham
Unless something dramatic has changed, the Government approve pay decisions only when they are above a certain level. There is a requirement that if it is proposed that someone should be paid above the Prime Minister’s salary, it goes to the chief secretary and the Chancellor for approval. Other than that, I do not believe that there is that kind of level of detailed control.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I take my noble friend’s point. I agree that above a certain level—which is, as my noble friend Lady Finn said, what happens in this case if it goes above the Prime Minister’s salary—it goes to the chief secretary. I think the answer is that we will have to come back to this and make sure that what I have said is correct. We can come back to it on Report, if necessary.
Lord Blunkett
Can I suggest that we try to find a way through on this, rather than having to have a debate and a Division on Report? If we wish to establish and embed a remuneration committee of the NCS board, and if the Government wish to have a representative on that committee, which they could quite easily do rather than being on the board as a whole, we might be able to square this circle.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am grateful to the noble Lord. As a general point, I agree with him entirely that we want to find a way through all the issues being raised in debate. The point of today is, in a way, to raise these issues, and I certainly commit to us trying, over the next two weeks until Report, to find our way through everything so that we can have a very easy Report stage. We will wait and see; we are only on the first group at the moment, so I will move on.
I turn to the subject of non-departmental public bodies and Amendments 14 and 15 from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. The body will be incorporated by royal charter and there is nothing in the Bill to say that it will be incorporated as an NDPB, which is not a legal status but a means of classification used by the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office has chosen those particular words to describe a body with certain characteristics, but it may use different words in future. None of this is established in legislation, and there seems little need to define a unique category in the Bill only to say that the trust is not in it. However, I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friend Lord Maude have had rather more experience in government than I, so of course commit to thinking about this before we come back on Report.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned the accounting officer. I can confirm to him that, in practice, the Government will require the trust to have an accounting officer, as set out in the government guidelines, Managing Public Money. The chief executive will be the accounting officer, as the noble Lord suggested, and will be the person to appear before the Public Accounts Committee. I am not sure about the Permanent Secretary in this arrangement, but I will check and come back to him.
The noble Lord is right that the Bill does not explicitly mention an accounting officer, but we are prepared to think about how that could be clarified. In doing so, we will have to take on my noble friend Lord Maude’s point about how not having an accounting officer is crucial to making the organisation acceptable. I commit to thinking about that and coming back. In practice, there will be an accounting officer: the chief executive.
On the noble Lord’s second amendment in the group, in the case of serious operational or financial issues with the trust’s provider network or staff, the accounting officer would normally be the individual responsible for informing the Government. However, we have left this open in the Bill in case the accounting officer was absent at a precise moment and needed to delegate this function to another officer. If this flexibility were not available, the trust might risk delaying its notification of the Government. As provided for in the Bill, the trust—that is, the members of the board—has that responsibility.
Finally in this group, your Lordships will be relieved to hear, I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for tabling his amendment, as we talk again about the functions of the trust and its governance. We entirely agree with the point that the NCS Trust must not be encumbered by excessive regulation. The royal charter and the Bill have been drafted to ensure operational autonomy for the trust, and we must be sure that its governance arrangements complement this intention.
The amendment aims to prevent a cumbersome process for amending the royal charter and clarifies the role of—or inserts a role for—the Charity Commission. However, the NCS Trust, as a royal charter body, will be a public body. This is an essential point. As it is not a charity, it will not be subject to regulation by the Charity Commission at all, and I suggest that the Charity Commission will have no desire to get involved. The charter contains provision for how it may be amended, without any role for the Charity Commission. I hope that my noble friend will be reassured that the existing amendment process is simpler than he fears.
The amendment would also introduce a process for amending by-laws, again with the good intention of streamlining the process. In fact, we have no intention of introducing an extra set of regulations for the body in the form of by-laws. The royal charter gives the trust a broad-ranging power to do anything calculated to facilitate, or incidental or conducive to, the carrying out of any of its functions. It is also expressly given full autonomy over its own procedures. This leaves it with more freedom than if it had further regulation in the form of by-laws.
I know that my noble friend has come across examples of charities that have experienced the cumbersome side of royal charter regulation, but in this case, the body in question is not subject to charity regulation and will be regulated only by the charter and the contents of the Bill. I hope that I have provided sufficient clarification on this point so that all noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I thank my noble friend for giving way at the end of a rather long and turgid debate. It is not that the Charity Commission wishes to get involved, it is that it will be forced to. The Privy Council is worried that something will be done with a semi-charitable body that will provide a loophole that is available to a royal charter company that is not available to charities generally. I am not asking him to answer the question now, but will his officials look at that between now and Report to be satisfied that the Charity Commission will not, willy-nilly, be pulled in to give its opinion every time the National Citizen Service Trust wants to change the trust?
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what was an important testing-out of the Government’s proposals. The Minister spoke helpfully about the tensions in what people had said were important for the National Citizen Service and in their attitudes to it. That is often the case when a charitable voluntary body is set up. What matters is what decisions people take, which are crucial to the body being able to achieve the objectives set for it. Some people were worried about status. I am not bothered about the status of the organisation; much more important is its effectiveness and efficiency in achieving its objective.
It is interesting that the Government have chosen to go down this route. From the long list of priorities that the Minister read out, he cited permanence. I think that the Government have put that above all else and built a structure that starts with permanence and then works through in a different order to other things. There are different ways to achieve a number of points that noble Lords raised. On independence, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, gave a description of a board of which the Prime Minister had oversight. Well, the Prime Minister has no oversight of the appointment of a charitable board. There are many instances of long-standing charities with a national reach—some of them have royal patronage, the Prince’s Trust being one—where there is no government interference at all, even though there is certainly accountability for public funds. If independence was what the Government really wanted, they would not have gone down this track.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was right to talk about the National Citizen Service being subject to high standards of scrutiny and accountability. Other charities, because of the way in which their services are commissioned and are open to competition, are even more subject to such standards. I fear that, given the rigidity of the structure envisaged and the permanence that is expected of it, it would be easy for the trust to let standards slip and for those not to be challenged for some considerable time.
I come back to the two points that are of fundamental importance. First, nothing that the service does is unique; it is designed in a unique fashion, but its interactions with young people and the outcomes it achieves for them are not unique—they could be delivered by other organisations. Secondly and most importantly, the service has not been subject to comparative analysis. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, that it is not about rolling up. If any charitable organisation in this country knew today that it could count on having £1 billion-worth of income over the next five years, it would be in a spectacularly unusual position. The Government are asking us to invest that amount of money in what the noble Lord, Lord Maude, called this “fragile vessel”.
We may not have got very far today in seeking the answers that some noble Lords want. I do not want to control the organisation; I want it to be accountable.
Lord Maude of Horsham
When I talked about a fragile vessel, I was not talking about the trust but about the programme and degree of confidence that it has inspired in young people. That is fragile and we must not put it at risk.
Baroness Barker
I am happy to stand corrected but the rest of us who have compared it with similar organisations would consider it to be a fragile vessel: it has not been going for very long and it has achieved what it has only with exceptional political support. I remain, like the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, unconvinced that this structure is right. I will, however, go away and look at what the Minister said, particularly about the accounting regulations, which we will come to in more detail later. I beg leave to withdraw—
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
Before the noble Baroness sits down, we all have questions about the NCS but it is wrong to say that it is “sectional” support. I am here, my noble friend is here: the Labour Party supports the NCS. We are not sectional; we want to see improvements and changes, but we support it.
Baroness Barker
I am sorry, but I think the noble Baroness may have misheard the word “exceptional”. Perhaps she will agree with me that, cross-party though it is, it has an exceptional level of support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, this should not take too long. I appreciate that there is also an amendment here from the noble Lord, Lord Cope, and I look forward to hearing his case for an England-only solution to these issues.
My question was based on page 4 of the Explanatory Notes, which tries to do what many Bills try and fail to do: to explain the difference between its extent and its application, should it become law. That page explains that the Bill extends to England and Wales, but applies only in England. I suspect that that will be an opening for the noble Lord, Lord Cope, to come in on his point. It continues:
“While the Bill includes provisions that are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Bill applies in England only, so no legislative consent motion is being sought in relation to any provision of the Bill”.
I can understand why that is so, but I regret that it is not the aspiration of the Government for what it calls a national citizenship scheme to operate in all parts of the United Kingdom. Failure even to put forward LCOs to the various national Parliaments and Assemblies does seem a rather fragile approach to this, so I would be grateful if the Minister could spell out in his response the ambition for this programme, and reassure us that there is a sensibility within the Government’s intentions to require that the NCS becomes a truly national—in all senses of the word—service. I beg to move.
Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)
My Lords, first, I apologise for not taking part in Second Reading, because a Select Committee meeting that I had to attend took place at the same time. I do, however, support the Bill and the NCS.
My Amendment 51 has been grouped here. It is a small amendment that has large implications. It suggests that Clause 13 should state that the Bill extends to England only, instead of to England and Wales. Clause 1 makes absolutely clear that the effects of the Bill are limited to young people from England. The draft royal charter is equally clear and limited in exactly the same way. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that the benefits of the NCS should be extended in some form to all parts of the United Kingdom. We are, after all, citizens of the UK, not only of England—or wherever else it may be in the noble Lord’s case. I strongly support anything that strengthens the union.
A different Bill would, however, be required to extend these provisions to the other parts of the UK. This Bill—Clause 1 in particular—limits them to England. On the other hand, Clause 13 refers to England and Wales. It is a lawyer’s nonsense—a lawyer’s fiction. It is a deliberate fiction: a lawyer’s fib is embodied in Clause 13. I hope that the Minister will confirm that when the Bill goes to another place, he expects it to be certified by Mr Speaker as an English Bill. I cannot see that any other decision could possibly be made at that stage.
I learned some law a good few years ago in the course of becoming a chartered accountant, and I have been a legislator for something like 40 years, so I know that when lawyers talk about the laws of England, they really mean the law of England and Wales—it is typical English arrogance that that happens, but there it is. We now know that there is “a body of Welsh law”. The Wales Bill, which was discussed again yesterday and a few days previously actually says so in terms. Why is there not also a body of English law, of which this would be part? If Tuesday’s Bill can talk about Welsh law, why cannot Wednesday’s Bill talk about English law?
I do not really expect my noble friend to respond to this great matter today in the way that I would like. However, I would like him to go back to his departmental solicitor and suggest that parliamentary counsel needs to reconsider this point, not only in relation to this Bill but much more widely. They should look out the windows of the parliamentary counsel’s office at the wider world—actually I think if they look out the windows of the office they will see Whitehall, which is not quite the wider world in the way I mean it; unless they look out the other way on to Horse Guards Parade. What is required in this is some common sense. Of course, I have been around long enough to know that common sense is not the same as legal logic.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, explained, his amendments would have the effect of giving the new charter body a UK-wide remit, extending the Bill to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. His reason for doing so was an opinion we all share. I can confirm that the Government’s aspirations remain that National Citizen Service should be truly national. We believe that all young people should have the opportunity to go on NCS, and that is a commitment we made. Its offer is unique, as well as complementary to the excellent programmes that I know are already available in Scotland and Wales. But as I know the noble Lord is aware, NCS is a devolved matter so we would not be able, and certainly would not want, to force NCS upon the devolved Administrations. An amendment of this kind would breach the conventions underpinning the devolution settlements unless approved by each devolved Administration by a legislative consent Motion, which he mentioned.
I am pleased to confirm that NCS is already available in Northern Ireland. The UK Government have licensed the NCS intellectual property rights to the Northern Ireland Executive. The programme is delivered on their behalf by Co-operation Ireland, a charity with unique expertise in bringing different communities together in the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. The arrangement maintains the consistency of the NCS programme but is in keeping with the spirit of devolution. It has worked well, we are wholeheartedly supportive of it and we commend the Northern Ireland Executive for their continued commitment. We have invited the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly Government to adopt a similar model so that NCS can remain a devolved matter, perhaps with a distinct Scottish or Welsh stamp, but with the vital elements in place to ensure that it is a consistent offer in all corners of the UK. We remain in dialogue with them. I assure the Committee that we will remain committed to working towards a UK-wide NCS. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Cope, who I note trained as an accountant; no wonder he was sceptical of lawyers in that way. My noble friend’s amendment would change the extent of the Bill from “England and Wales” to just “England”. He is right that the Bill applies only to England in practice. Under the current drafting, the NCS Trust will operate only in England and HMRC will write only to those with English addresses. However, it is a technical point that England and Wales are one legal jurisdiction. The Bill, if passed by Parliament, would form part of the law of England and Wales even if it applied only to England. That is why the relevant clause is written as it is.
Within this jurisdiction, the Bill restricts the trust’s activities to England. NCS is a devolved matter, so that is entirely appropriate. I would not presume to give advice to Mr Speaker, but it is worth saying that the Bill is not an England-only Bill under the English votes for English laws procedure. That is because certain provisions relate to reserved matters, such as the powers of HMRC and employment law—but that is a different point. Clause 13, on extent, refers to the legal jurisdiction: that is, England and Wales.
I can assure the Committee that on this point the Bill is entirely consistent with others like it; for example, the section of the Housing and Planning Act that deals with social housing in England specifically still has an England and Wales extent. I take the points that have been made and am certainly prepared to go back to the departmental lawyers, but in the meantime I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for their contributions to the debate. When you put down a probing amendment you sometimes do not quite know what will come back, but I was slightly surprised by the range of issues raised in that brief response. For instance, we did not hear the word “Barnett” in the discussion, which is pretty odd, because the Minister cut his teeth in the Treasury in previous years so he should have had the word rammed up him many times. By my calculation, some £15 million will go to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for Barnett consequentials, which is money that they would not otherwise have received and presumably will spend wisely on matters sufficiently close to the NCS to make sure that it operates effectively in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—across the whole United Kingdom.
If it is true as the Minister said that HMRC will write only to those with English addresses, which rather reinforces the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, what would happen if somebody like my young self in the remote highlands of Scotland—near Skye, for those of your Lordships who want to know—wanted to apply to do the NCS in England? Would I be refused on the grounds that I was not English or British enough? How very strange. There is perhaps a little more here than we had thought about, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, this group of amendments covers another meaty topic. I am sure that the Committee will be aware that it is the one that has generated the most submissions from those bodies which are directly or indirectly affected by the establishment of the NCS on a statutory basis under a royal charter.
The key element to come out of the submissions is that the unique selling point of the NCS is its social mixing—the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, cited that as a main issue in our debate on earlier amendments. A subsidiary concern in the submissions we have received is that there is expertise out there on how to attract and get involved with children who are hard to reach because of their upbringing, background, location or geography. It is a worry for all concerned that sufficient thought may not yet have been given to how the scaling-up of NCS will happen as it becomes more difficult to get the attention of those people who would otherwise miss out.
Our Amendment 3 tries to get at the sense of inclusiveness necessary for the NCS to succeed by suggesting a change in the wording about children to stress a more positive “all” and not a negative “different”, as in the current wording. Amendment 5 would make it a requirement that NCS should seek—and then be judged on whether it has achieved—social integration. That might be a difficult issue to define, but the impetus is important, and it is an important point to bear in mind when the reporting cycle starts.
On the point that I made earlier about hard-to-reach groups, Amendment 7 poses some questions; I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to them. Is he confident that there are credible plans to reach the hard-to-reach groups? Has the current organisation got the expertise to do that and, if not, how will it get it? Have the Government built in additional costs for the greater effort that will have to be expended on the last few per cent, as it were, of the cohort they are trying to reach, because that will be difficult? Are we confident that disabled young people, whether physically or mentally and ambulant or not, are sure that the programme will be for them? Unless it is arranged and presented in an appropriate way for them, it will be difficult to sell. That concern about the disabled came up in a number of submissions that I have received. It might be helpful to have that in the Bill.
I think that many other noble Lords wish to speak to this group, because their amendments go in the same vein but are based much more widely. I look forward to hearing the debate and I beg to move.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 18 and 26 but first, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, on his amendments. I shall not repeat his arguments but they are very well made and I hope that the Government will agree with them.
I thank a number of organisations, including the National Deaf Children’s Society, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, together with Sense and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists for their advice on my two amendments. I hope that the Minister will understand that our aim is constructive, but there is a need to include the amendments in the Bill to give it the necessary statutory force. Amendment 18 would ensure that there are ring-fenced funds made available for which NCS providers may apply to meet the cost of providing the support that disabled young people may require to enable them to participate fully in the scheme. Amendment 26 would put in place regular reporting about the participation of disabled young people. This will enable the NCS Trust, the Government and all those involved in the National Citizen Service to judge the reality of the scheme’s accessibility to individuals.
The Minister may argue that the Equality Act 2010 is sufficient, but I would say two things about that. First, it is not sufficient in providing access to the education system without additional funding. This has been generally recognised by successive Governments in a range of educational areas since 2010. Secondly, the Act provides insufficient protection for disabled people to access services because many organisations simply do not make the “reasonable adjustments” required by law to enable access for individuals to participate. As an example, many deaf young people can find it difficult to access mainstream extracurricular activities which can be vital for their personal development. With the NCS scheme being Government-funded and with £1 billion of public money going to the service, there will be no excuse for failure to ensure that young people with disabilities get equal access to NCS schemes.
On the reporting requirements under Amendment 26, as an example of the problem, the NCS website has few details about the support available for disabled participants. For example, subtitles have not been created for many of its promotional videos and there are no videos in alternative accessible formats such as British Sign Language. The duties of the NCS to act as a leader in support of young people with disabilities are clear, given the level of funding it will have and the responsibilities that the trust will carry.
In conclusion, it cannot be left to NCS providers to meet the cost of any support that disabled young people may require to access the scheme. A considerable proportion of the NCS budget will be spent on marketing the scheme and unless promotional materials are fully accessible to all young people, there will not be high take-up of the scheme by those with a disability. The NCS Trust will have to deliver its responsibilities to those who have a disability. These amendments would mean that, first, a duty would be placed on the NCS Trust to ensure that funding was available to cover the cost of additional support required by an individual and, secondly, an annual report to the Secretary of the State would address the extent to which disabled young people have participated in the scheme. I hope the Minister will be willing to look at these issues carefully. If the Minister feels a meeting might be helpful, I would be happy to take part in that, but I hope that there will be a response by the time the Bill reaches Report.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 3, 18 and 26, and start by saying I am confident, given the dealings I have had with NCS and some of its providers, that it is absolutely committed to inclusion in its widest sense. The briefing to which my noble friend Lord Shipley referred suggests that some of the extra costs of including disabled people are perhaps not being entirely recognised. That is something we need to make sure is put right, as there are two potentially worrying outcomes: first, that there will be reduced participation by people with disabilities, and secondly, that providers will suffer if they have to carry extra costs in the way that my noble friend described. We heard about one particular sort of disability, but it is easy to imagine that there would be all sorts of extra costs.
We have to be careful about not creating a perverse incentive. It would be ironic if a local provider was very successful at dealing with the particular challenges of some disabilities and then found itself financially disadvantaged for being able to successfully recruit more from that group. We need something about recognising the costs and ensuring that they are met.
The provision for regular reporting is absolutely key. I am sure the NCS is monitoring this, and will continue to monitor it, as it would be a key part of its own performance, but there is a transparency issue. It should be reporting on what it is finding out about its own performance with regard to inclusion generally and disability in particular. That will help it to improve and see where it is perhaps falling down, and help Parliament and the outside world in judging how well the NCS is doing. This is not all negative. It is going to be tempting for some organisations to benchmark their costs against NCS and say, “Oh well, we are providing this much more cheaply”, but if NCS is working with harder-to-reach people with disabilities, and its costs are higher, it is in its interest to report that.
I wish to make two unrelated points about exclusion. First, we must always caution against models which assume that young people live in functional families where their parents do everything to support them, including for example paying the £50 and that sort of thing. It is absolutely key that, however this is delivered, it is possible for young people to access it without necessarily having to rely on parents who are supportive or even there and interested. There is a danger of imposing our model of parenthood on other people.
Finally, one group that probably needs this help more than any other but will need extra assistance is the very many young people who are carers. They lead very difficult and challenging lives, and the opportunity to get out from their caring responsibilities to be able to do something in a normal way with other young people is key. But there is no doubt they will need extra help, as if they are not there to care, someone else needs to do it. That is something that we should all recognise, and they certainly should not be disadvantaged for the role that they play.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I support fully what the noble Baroness has just said, especially in relation to young carers. I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Stevenson and all the amendments in this group. Where young people with disabilities are concerned, it is absolutely right that it should not be up to the providers to deliver the extra money; it should be up to the NCS, and a way has to be found for that to happen. Like the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I do not think that the Equality Act 2010—although it is a splendid Act—provides the necessary underpinning. Something extra is needed in the Bill.
I know that social inclusion is at the heart of the NCS but at present there is nothing in the Bill about hard-to-reach people or people with disabilities. There has to be something in the Bill in that respect. As has already been said, the NCS is doing some terrific things. It wrote to me about some pilots that it has in Redcar, for example, where it developed a joint programme of work with Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council precisely to increase recruitment among the hardest-to-reach. That is fantastic. The NCS is doing that now, and we need something on the face of the Bill to ensure that, as it grows and becomes more successful, the NCS continues in that way. I would not feel confident if that were not set out in the Bill.
Noble Lords will recall that at Second Reading I raised the issue of refugees. The Minister said that the Government,
“are committed to providing a place for those who want it”.—[Official Report, 25/10/16; col. 184.]
I know from a letter that I have had from the NCS that it is working with local authorities to try to ensure that refugees are able to participate in the programme when they wish to. However, I would like the Minister to say something on the record about the NCS doing everything it can, where appropriate, to assist with refugees. This is all about social inclusion and healing divisions in our society.
With regard to my Amendment 35, the noble Baroness made the case for the annual report to refer to disabilities. I think it is equally important to have something in the annual report concerning hard-to-reach people. This is not a negative at all; it is a positive. I think that there are people who are still sceptical about the way in which the NCS is working to ensure social integration and social inclusion, and I believe that including such a reference so that it is visible and transparent in the annual report will increase trust in the NCS.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Lords who have tabled these amendments and I should like to reinforce one or two things that have been said. The issue of young carers is a subject very close to my heart. At Second Reading I mentioned that I was connected to Young Leicestershire. One of its clubs aims to give carers a chance to be something other than a carer for a short time each week. I am not really interested in whether the wording is right—I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if it sounds rude to say that—but the thrust of what we are trying to achieve here is enormously important.
On accessibility for the hard to reach, I have received a lot of correspondence from different groups concerned about how this will happen in practice. It sounds odd but perhaps I may put on a rurality hat. One of the big challenges is knowing how to provide the sort of service that we want for people who have to travel many miles to achieve anything. I realised when I sat down at Second Reading that I had not mentioned rurality. Obviously it is easier to get to bigger numbers of people when they live close together than it is to reach people in very rural areas. Some of the carers and young people out there who are doing a wonderful job incur additional costs in travelling to take part in such schemes.
I am very anxious that this scheme should work really well and that we should do as much as we possibly can to ensure that the hard-to-reach are reached, but with it will come extra costs, as was said earlier by other noble Lords. A challenge it is, but not one that we cannot overcome. As the Bill stands, however, it does not clarify it. A few extra words might well resolve some of the concerns felt by other groups out there.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to debate on this important part of the Bill.
I start by addressing the question of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in the previous group, and the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, about refugees. The Bill is clear: you are eligible for a place on the programme if you are resident in England or receive education or training there. That brings me to refugees, who are welcome on the NCS. Guidance has been circulated among charities on making NCS available to them.
I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Barker and Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who have spoken about an aim that is at the heart of the NCS: that it must be accessible to all. If it is not, it is simply not NCS. It must be available to any young person who wants a place. The royal charter stipulates that the trust must ensure “equality of access” to the programme: that is a clear requirement that can never be watered down. The NCS Trust will need to take all reasonable steps to meet that obligation and to report every year on the extent to which participants from different backgrounds have taken part. This means demonstrating that individuals from varying circumstances have come together in NCS groups, and I commit to noble Lords that this will include individuals with disabilities. NCS is a universal offer, and the trust must report on how it has made this a reality. I confirm, therefore, that we want to ensure that there is a place on National Citizen Service for every young person who wants one. We are currently working closely with the NCS Trust to ensure that it is fully accessible. The trust is currently developing a detailed inclusion strategy to ensure that over the longer term there is consistent and high quality for all.
Already, many NCS providers reach out and offer support to those with disabilities. For example, the largest provider, The Challenge, has worked with the National Deaf Children’s Society and adapted the programme for young people, including providing dedicated support workers. Across NCS, young people with special educational needs have personal coaches and one-to-one support workers alongside staff members. That brings us to the question of resources. It is the trust’s job to ensure that providers can make the programme accessible to all young people. Providers can work with the trust to access more resource. The Bill puts the requirement to make NCS accessible to all firmly in the charter.
The Government mean to take seriously their duty to hold the trust to account for meeting these requirements. If they do not, they have Parliament to answer to. The Government must provide the trust with the means of fulfilling its legal duty on this point: sufficient funding to allow people with disabilities to take part. That is why the Bill also enables the trust to deliver the programme to individuals as young as 15 and as old as 24. While the core demographic for NCS is 16 to 17 year-olds, this ensures that providers can be flexible for those with additional needs, such as people with disabilities. Clause 3 provides for the Government to fund the NCS Trust. The grant agreements drawn up between the trust and the Government will specify particular requirements on an evolving basis. We can assure the Committee that the trust will continue to work flexibly to provide any reasonable additional resource or support that a provider may require to deliver the programme.
Turning to reporting, the Bill requires the trust to report on how far it has met its strategic priorities, including the requirement to ensure that the programme is accessible to people of all backgrounds. There is an additional specific requirement to report on the extent to which people from different backgrounds have worked together. We have not listed all the specific categories we intend to cover, but people with disabilities is one of them. If we mention one category, we should list all of them, and that is unnecessary detail for the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, mentioned the Equality Act. They are right that the Bill will make the NCS Trust subject to the Act. It includes far-reaching duties to consider the need to advance equality of opportunity between people with a protected characteristic and persons without that characteristic, which of course includes disability.
I note that both noble Lords expressed worries about the limitations of the Act, and of course I will go back and look carefully at what they said, but that is in addition to what I said before about it being available to all, which is in the charter.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, would add to the functions of the trust to foster social integration and have special provision for the hardest-to-reach groups. The more complete list of the trust’s functions is included in the royal charter. These include an objective,
“to promote social cohesion by ensuring equality of access to the programmes by participants regardless of their background or circumstances”.
I hope that the noble Lord agrees that that covers both those points. To ensure equality of access, those with additional needs will in some cases require special provision.
His other amendment would change the requirement to enable participants from “different” backgrounds to work together to participants from “all” backgrounds. I think in this clause “different” backgrounds carries the stronger meaning. Although we want the programme as a whole to cater to all backgrounds, in each individual group we want a mix of different backgrounds.
The noble Lord asked how we expect the NCS programme successfully to achieve that in future and how successfully it brings people from different backgrounds together. Last year, 17% of summer participants were eligible for free school meals, compared with 8% of young people of the same age in the general population; and 30% were from black, mixed, or Asian backgrounds, compared with 19% of the general population. We think that the NCS Trust is doing quite well at the moment, but we certainly expect it to continue with plans in that area.
Lord Shipley
Perhaps the Minister could clarify the point about equality of access being an objective of the Bill. It clearly is, but the draft royal charter which accompanies the Bill makes no specific reference to young people with disabilities, which is the objective of my Amendments 18 and 26. Article 3.4.a refers to an objective of the trust as ensuring equality of access regardless of background or circumstances, and that can indeed be interpreted as including young people with disabilities, among many, but the amendments strengthen the accountability of the NCS Trust in this respect.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The charter says that the programme is available to all regardless of background, and “all” obviously includes people with disabilities.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I just want to come back to the issue of reporting. Of course the Minister is right to say that the Bill mentions the extent to which participants from different backgrounds will work together in these programmes. I understand what he is saying: that it is very difficult if you list this group and that group—who is out? It is precisely because the raison d’être of the Bill is to ensure that everybody is included—it is all about social inclusion— that it would really help the NCS and inspire trust in it if, for example, the Bill mentioned reporting in relation to people with disabilities and the hard-to-reach, because those are the two things that are most criticised about the NCS. I do not know whether this is the right place, but somewhere in the Bill, I would like disabled people and the hard-to-reach to be mentioned. I just put that into the atmosphere and I would love it if the Minister’s team could look to see whether it could be inserted somewhere in the Bill.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Soft-hearted to the end—it is wonderful. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendments and for making additional points which extend the case that is being made here. Those concerning young carers and rurality were particularly good and need to be thought about. I think the Minister is right: you cannot list every area where you would like action, but this group of amendments, and indeed the whole tenor of this debate, is about the need for signals that send the secure message to people that this is something that they could and should enjoy and from which they would benefit.
There also needs to be a message that there will be sanctions if, for some reason, the outturns are not as good as they should be. I felt that the noble Lord’s figures—although they obviously need to be thought about in the round and are a trajectory, not a fixed point—were a bit disappointing in what one might hope to see in a fully-fledged NCS. I know that we are not at that level; nevertheless, it is beginning to acquire scale, and it would be nice to think that the issues signalled in this debate were being picked up. The underlying feeling that I have is that the sanctions are probably in the Equality Act 2010 but that the signals are not yet sufficiently embedded. There may be a case for looking at either the royal charter or the statute, or both, to make sure that the best possible attempt at including them has been made.
The worst thing that could happen in the rush to scale up would be that the target was insufficient. That would happen in particular if there were a drive towards a numeric target, which I think we have talked about before. A target of 300,000 is not sufficient. It may be necessary to scale up, but that will not be achieved if the 300,000 people are all able-bodied, white and from well-established educational institutions. We are not saying that that will be the case, but there is an issue here that needs a more felicitous approach.
I hope that the Government will reflect on this issue; the Minister seemed to say that he would. This seems a sensible addition to the Bill, even if the wording is not right, and another meeting about it might be the appropriate way forward. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, the word “aspiration” has been used—the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, used it, as did the Minister—and this is another aspirational amendment. It would make a simple change to provide for the activities of the National Citizen Service to benefit society,
“in Great Britain or overseas”,
and it is the “or overseas” that I want to focus on. I make it clear at this stage that my amendment is permissive and not prescriptive. It does not require the Government or the NCS to do anything now; it just enables something to happen in the future. Therefore, it is not “requiring”; it is purely enabling.
In my view, the possibility of developing an international perspective increases one of the attractions of the NCS and, indeed, I think it will be particularly attractive to the more adventurous sort of people who participate in the NCS. It will be a shame if, by limiting it to just a UK view—and the Bill will not be changed again—we do not have the option of giving it a slightly wider canvas in the future.
As I explained at Second Reading, the International Citizen Service—the ICS—already exists. I explained to the House at Second Reading that I have had the privilege of going to Tanzania and seeing it in operation. Slightly alarmingly, they kept referring to the ICS as ISIS. I thought, “What’s happening? Am I in the right room or should I leave quickly?”. However, ICS has operated in Tanzania for a number of years, with 140 to 160 young UK men and women going out there. I met a group of about 40 young Tanzanians and very impressive they were too. They greatly valued their involvement and links with the UK volunteers. Through social media they were sharing experiences and building links between this country and Tanzania. One or two of them were particularly impressive. A young woman in a hijab from Zanzibar, which is 98% Muslim, sought me out particularly to say that it was really good to have somebody from the UK of my age and background facing the troubles that she was facing. She said she was able to realise that people around the rest of the world were thinking about what they were trying to do and prepared to encourage and help them, making them think that they were part of a wider community when things in that country were not always going as well as they might.
In my view, the UK is going to need all the friends it can get in the years ahead. This is not a Brexit speech but a tectonic plate speech. It is about the relative power of the US, China and India, which will shift dramatically over the next 25 or 50 years. ICS, if it is built into NCS, would give us a chance to develop friends overseas and find them growing into positions of influence and power in different countries around the world. Some of the 40 or so young men and women who I saw in Tanzania will clearly rise to the top of that society, and what happens in Tanzania will clearly happen in the other countries where ICS takes place.
When my noble friend comes to reply—I can of course look over his shoulder at the notes that have been written for him by his officials—he will say, “I don’t oppose International Citizen Service; it just shouldn’t be part of National Citizen Service because, inter alia, it is designed for people still at school”. That is all very well but the Bill, as we see in Clause 1(2)(a), refers to people,
“under the age of 25”,
which obviously takes it straight into the chronological bracket of the International Citizen Service. Leaving that aside, other noble Lords have referred to the briefings we have had from the NCVO and other groups about how NCS should be a first step in a journey—a piece in a jigsaw which encourages and leads on to a lifetime of civic involvement. I would argue strongly that building an international piece into our National Citizen Service would provide another potential step, or another potential piece in that jigsaw.
With this amendment, I seek only to include the possibility of an international bit in the NCS Bill because this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. When the Bill has gone through, our chance of being able to introduce an international element will be gone for ever. This bus will not come round again. I therefore seek this because it fits with the aspirational nature of NCS, because the age range allowed for in the Bill would certainly encompass an ICS component and because it would represent a further step in trying to create a way whereby people became involved in voluntary groups throughout their lives. Last but not least, it would be very good for the reputation of this country. It would build our soft power and reputation around the world over a period when the world is changing fast and we will need all the help and influence we can get. I beg to move.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I do not oppose an International Citizen Service—my noble friend really was looking over my shoulder. But seriously, I thank my noble friend for his points on the potential of international volunteering. We agree that it opens minds and enhances the UK’s reputation abroad. I shall be brief because we need to make progress.
We support International Citizen Service. I am pleased to say that the UK Government are committed to tripling the size of the ICS programme during this Parliament and are working with VSO to deliver that, which means that more than 32,000 volunteers will complete placements during this Parliament. I am in complete agreement with my noble friend on that but I am afraid that I do not agree that the NCS is the place to do it. It does not malign the NCS to say that it does not have the expertise or reach. We are talking about and have been debating where NCS is going to go, how it should be accountable, how it should be controlled and how it should remain flexible. I am afraid we do not agree that to add this extra burden to it is a good thing at this time. On a positive note, however, there are already strong links between the NCS and the ICS. The ICS is already offered as a next step for NCS graduates, who are guaranteed an interview to take part in ICS if they apply when they become eligible.
As for my noble friend’s point about the age group, of course the age group in the Bill includes up to 24 year-olds, but that is simply to allow people who are outside the core group of 16 and 17 year-olds to have access to the programme if they have disabilities or particular circumstances at home. I am afraid that he is hanging too much on that allowance.
To be very brief, we want to make NCS a rite of passage for the young people of this country. This Bill, and the delivery arrangements that it creates, has that intention in mind. It would not be feasible for ICS to operate on this scale, and so the Bill focuses on NCS. I hope my noble friend will take some encouragement from the increased commitment we have made to international volunteering programmes, because we agree with him that they are important. I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment tonight.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I am grateful to my noble friend for his answer and glad that I was able to read his notes so clearly over his shoulder. He will understand that I am very disappointed by his somewhat peremptory dismissal of this concept. International Citizen Service is run through DfID and has no statutory protection at all. If this Government or another Government, or a Secretary of State, were to change their mind and say that we will not have International Citizen Service any more and put the aid budget into something else, it would be gone. One great argument for NCS, which I entirely support, is that it makes sure that it is there for the long term. ICS may be there for the long term, but you cannot be certain of it in the way that we are clear about NCS—that is what we have this Bill for.
I will not delay the Committee any longer—because the Whip will turn around to look at me in a second or two—except to say something about the argument that NCS does not have the reach. As we have been discussing, NCS is going to use voluntary groups to reach out and find the people. The way that ICS recruits are found is by VSO reaching out—beating the bushes—to find young men and women to come forward who would like to do ICS. The process that we are using for NCS, and which will be increasing, is paralleled already by what is going on in ICS. So I do not accept the argument that NCS does not have the reach. I think it is a shame that, as a country, we are not going to use this opportunity to build our reputation. However, it is too long an argument to have out today. I am disappointed by what the Minister has said. I will read carefully what he said, but I may wish to bring this matter back at a later stage.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I say to my noble friend that my response was not meant to be peremptory or discourteous; I was just trying to be quick.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I can tell my noble friend that I was not offended by him in the least. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lucas
“( ) to secure the provision to participants of online, authenticatable evidence of the programme that they have participated in and of the experiences that it offered.”
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, the Careers & Enterprise Company announced in May that it was in negotiations with the National Citizen Service to develop together my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham’s enterprise passport. This is not evidently absolutely central to what the National Citizen Service does but to my mind sits extremely well with it, and is something of immense importance to England and English education. This amendment is merely intended to give that agreement and proposal a place in the Bill, or at least, if the Minister will say it, a clear place in the intentions of the Government when it comes to funding the National Citizen Service, so that we can all be sure that these negotiations can go ahead and not be derailed by someone saying, “We have just had a Bill through Parliament and no one ever mentioned it”. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, Amendment 10 is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Scott, for whose signatures I am grateful. As is well known, I fully support the NCS programme, which represents an important rite of passage and will make a great contribution to social cohesion, social engagement and social mobility.
However, we must never forget that it is just a part, albeit an important one, of the tapestry of other voluntary activities through which our young people can develop, hence this amendment. The amendment would enshrine a third purpose for the NCS Trust alongside providing and promoting the NCS programme. It would establish a duty on the trust to ensure that its presence made a positive contribution to the sector, enabling a coherent journey of youth social action providers—a journey about which we said much at Second Reading and on which we all agree.
The amendment would mean that the significant public funding committed to NCS would help all parts of the sector rise together and enable it to support existing provision where doing so furthered the trust’s other stated aims, avoiding any situation whereby the trust’s actions or payment-by-results model systemically undermined existing provision.
I declare an interest as a member of the advisory council of Step Up To Serve, which is the umbrella organisation for increasing and encouraging volunteering from the age of 10 to the age of 20, and as a member of the board of trustees for City Year, a charity that transforms lives by placing young adults in schools that could benefit from extracurricular activity and peer support. Opportunities such as City Year and the ICS are exactly those that we hope would be taken up by the alumni of NCS—as I am sure they will—so that they might use their new-found skills and confidence to continue making a difference for others.
I am going to be a bit naughty here, but noble Lords will recall that at Second Reading I spoke about a year of service and called on the Government to establish legal status for full-time volunteers in the UK. I will not rehearse those arguments, but ask the Minister when and whether the Government will make further information available about a review of or a commission on full-time volunteering. I well understand that the wheels of government turn slow, but it is time for a signal from the Government that an announcement will be made—if it is not to be made today.
As someone who owes a great deal to the Girl Guides, I also commend the work of uniformed organisations such as the Scouts and the Guides, which work with children as young as six on building their skills for life and an ethos of service that will last them a lifetime. The success of organisations such as the Scouts and Guides will undoubtedly lead to more young people participating in the NCS at the age of 16. However, opportunities before and after NCS are key to realising the full potential of the programme and the significant investment of public money that comes with it. It is in the interest of the trust and the taxpayer that we should think of ways of ensuring, by putting it in the Bill or perhaps in the charter, that the NCS should never undermine existing opportunities for young people. I know that that is not what it is meant to do, that it is meant to be inclusive and that it is to be a commissioning organisation while other organisations deliver, but it is necessary for this somewhere to be stated so that people have trust in the NCS and can see that its purpose is to collaborate with other organisations.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. In the interests of time, I shall be brief. We have to accept that one of the great things about this country is the way in which the voluntary sector works and the contribution that is made in local areas by many hundreds of voluntary organisations, some of which have existed for a long time.
It is quite easy to inadvertently destabilise that. I do not think a single one of us believes in any way that the NCS would do anything such as that purposely, but we have to accept that a new kid on the block on this scale could have that destabilising effect. The NCS needs to work with the sector as it exists—I recognise that it currently intends to do so—to benefit from it and to add benefit to it. For that reason, there is no harm in having it enshrined in the purposes of the organisation to make sure that as it goes forward—particularly when it starts to work at scale, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said on an earlier amendment—it never lets go of those principles that this is part of the lifetime experience of young people and part of the very rich community that we have all grown to admire so much.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I too support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. Recent research published by the University of Edinburgh highlights that members of the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides have been demonstrated to have significantly better mental health in adulthood than a very similar group of non-members. Whatever happens with the Bill and this very important work, it should not undermine in any way the good work of the Girl Guides and the Scouts. There is a 15% improvement in mental health for those who have experienced the Girl Guides or Boy Scouts.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I will comment briefly on a couple of points that have been made. It is worth recording that this was another area where a lot of submissions were received by those of us involved in the Bill. I hope this is not misunderstood, but I thought there were two significant things about those submissions.
First, the NCS itself was very respectful of this point and understood the destabilisation effect that could occur if its work was somehow just inserted into other work and no account was taken of that. I know we are not supposed to refer to anybody other those present in the Room, but it is good to see the chair of the NCS present in the audience to listen to the debate in the raw.
Secondly, those who might well have had a feeling at the beginning of this process that they had done something wrong, as they were not similarly blessed with significant support from government and the offer of a charter and statutory backing, also welcomed the NCS coming in, seeing it as an addition. My noble friend Lady Royall got it right: the intention is, surely, to make sure that all boats rise in this tide. The underlying worry is that somehow that cannot happen unless we ensure, at the level of drafting, that this is part of the Bill.
My noble friend Lady Royall has been a very successful and long-standing campaigner on how volunteers are treated in our system. There is definitely a problem here. It is not just the issue of whether they should be classified as NEETs—not in employment, education or training—but also questions about how universal credit operates, how tax systems take account of time taken volunteering and whether there is going to be a read-across to students and higher or further education fees. These are all important issues and cannot be dealt with easily. They will certainly be interesting for anybody who might take this on when they have to confront the demons in the Treasury on how they are going to relinquish any control of this area. But it is time that this was reviewed, and I hope when he comes to respond that the Minister can make some comment about the timing of that proposed commission.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their very well-reasoned arguments and their considered amendments, which I will treat in numerical order.
My noble friend Lord Lucas made the interesting point that young people who take part in the NCS should be provided with accredited online evidence of the NCS programme to help them demonstrate their impact as citizens when applying for jobs, educational courses or further volunteering.
My noble friend’s amendment takes its cue from the digital passport, an online record of young people’s learning and work experience and an accessible way for their activity to be validated and recorded. I am pleased to inform my noble friend that the NCS Trust and the Careers & Enterprise Company have launched a partnership to further develop the company’s digital passport concept. NCS teaches young people from all backgrounds the lessons they cannot learn in class, and this passport will help to ensure that their contribution is recognised by employers and universities. There is great potential for the passport to encourage NCS graduates to do even more after the programme. Given the trust’s clear commitment to the digital passport, I hope that my noble friend will feel able not to press his amendment.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Royall and Lady Scott, have similarly sought to extend the trust’s functions. Their amendment would extend its purview to all five to 25 year-olds by requiring it to ensure that it is supporting and not “undermining” other opportunities for people in that age range that contribute to the stated objectives in the first part of Clause 1.
This amendment raises an important point. The NCS Trust does—and must continue to—work in a collaborative way with other providers of youth programmes, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked. As I have said before, a strength of NCS is that it encourages young people to take up other opportunities. NCS is very deliberately a short programme, designed to complement and drive demand for other social action programmes.
However, at the same time, it is important that we are clear about what sort of organisation the trust is and will continue to be. The trust is a commissioning body for the NCS programme. Its primary functions, as laid out in both the royal charter and the Bill, are to provide, or arrange for, the delivery of NCS, and to promote it on a national level. We need it to focus on doing this well if we are to maintain the quality of the programme.
The amendment, if added to the primary functions of the trust, would change its remit significantly. It would take it beyond a pure NCS commissioning body towards something that more resembles an infrastructure organisation for the whole youth sector. This would fundamentally change the trust’s purpose. That being said, the trust would not be able to meet its primary functions without supporting and working with a wide range of organisations across the youth sector. The Government are absolutely clear on that, and we expect the trust to report back on it in due course. We can also consider further how we provide assurances that the NCS Trust will work collaboratively.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, also mentioned a review of the legal status of full-time volunteers. Long-term volunteering programmes provide many benefits not only to those whose lives are being helped but to those who take part in them. I confirm that the Government are committed to supporting social action, including long-term volunteering. We are looking at existing barriers to long-term volunteering and the appropriate way in which they can be addressed.
I think I have covered most of the points raised. I will of course read carefully what has been said by noble Lords and, if I can add anything, I will write to noble Lords, but I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
I know that the Government are committed to a commission or review of long-term volunteering. When can we expect the Government to put a little more flesh on the bones?
The Earl of Courtown
The noble Baroness asks a very fair question. The answer is: soon.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that reply and to the department for allowing my noble friend Lord Young to write his speaking notes. There could not have been anything more positive in the response. I, too, support very much what the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is seeking to achieve with her amendment. This is going to be a big player. It is very important that it maintains good relations and sees that as part of its purpose. I fully understand why that does not get stuck in the Bill, but it absolutely has to be there in its actions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cormack
“( ) to establish a national citizenship scheme for all young people between the ages of 15 and 18.”
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, this is a probing amendment. It is also, in the words of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, an aspirational amendment. It is certainly a very serious amendment. I will pick up on some of the points that I made in my brief Second Reading speech.
If I have a criticism of the Bill—it is an affectionate criticism—it is that it is not ambitious enough. Anything that takes to itself the word “national” must not confound its own objectives by being too restrictive. That is why I have tabled this amendment. I am ready to admit that it may not be perfectly worded. I am more than happy to discuss with my noble friends—Ministers—how it can be improved. I am, however, determined to pursue this idea.
I first became aware of how necessary such a service was at the time of those ghastly riots, when Parliament was recalled in the summer of—was it 2012? There we saw, on our television screens, young people alienated from the society in which they lived—some may say it was a self-imposed ostracism, but that is how they felt—venting their spleen on ordinary, decent people, ruining businesses, causing mayhem and fires. It was dreadful. Of course, we have had riots before in this country. I remember well the Toxteth riots, the Brixton riots and so on. Every time something like that happens I feel that we are failing many of our young people by not inculcating in them a proper sense of belonging, and a sense not only of their rights but of their responsibilities as citizens.
Part of the fault lies within our education system: we do not attach sufficient importance to citizenship. We should. This afternoon, speaking to one of the earlier amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, talked very movingly about the fact that so many young people do not take for granted what we and our children were privileged to take for granted. If you are brought up in a dysfunctional family, where do you get aspirations from?
Imagine a proper national citizenship scheme in our country, where young people from the age of 15 were obliged to do some community service. I do not mind what service. There are young people who get enormous pleasure, satisfaction and stimulation from National Trust camps. Others go and sit with old people, or run errands for them. Community service can take myriad forms. There should be not only the opportunity for but the obligation on all young people to do something like that.
Side by side with that should be a proper education in citizenship and how important it is—and how privileged one is—to live in a functioning democracy. We do not have to dwell on recent events anywhere to underline the importance of that.
It is very important that part of that is recognition of the obligation—I use that term very deliberately—to be part of the system by registering. Some of your Lordships may know that on many occasions on the Floor of the House, I have raised the subject of compulsory registration. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, has an amendment in this small group which touches on some of these things. I have not had the privilege of being able to discuss it with him, and I do not know whether his views entirely accord with mine, but I think that in the penultimate year of education, all young people should be obliged to register. That does not mean they have to cast a vote—although there is a case for compulsory voting—but it does mean that it is brought home to them how important it is to recognise that they have the opportunity.
I do not want to turn this into a Brexit argument, but two things struck me during the Brexit vote. My teenage grandchildren felt horribly let down. One of them was old enough to vote, voted enthusiastically and received the result with great sadness. The other worked very hard in the campaign but was not quite old enough to vote. What they both also said was that far too many of their contemporaries and near-contemporaries said that they agreed with them but had not bothered to vote. That is a sadness to us all. Part of the object of a national citizenship scheme should be actively to encourage young people to participate. They have a stake in a future that is theirs more than ours, and they should be encouraged.
As part of this national citizenship scheme—it is a national scheme, not just a citizenship one—we should aim to create a scheme that will allow all young people to take part and, at the end, to have the sort of ceremony that I referred to in the Chamber, which those who take British citizenship have the right to take. I attended one of those citizenship ceremonies here on the terrace of your Lordships’ House. It was very moving to see people of all ages, from the fairly young to the quite elderly, proudly affirming their British citizenship. If a similar scheme were conducted in schools, church halls, churches and public buildings all over the place, and if it were run, as I indicated in the Chamber, by the lieutenancy, that would remove any sort of political or party-political taint from it and give another role to the lord-lieutenant and his or her deputies. At the end of the day, those young people would have something of which they could be proud.
Earlier today, I was officiating at the William Morris Craft Fellowship scheme, which I founded with a group of colleagues 30 years ago. It was our 30th anniversary, and we had the chairman of English Heritage and the chairman of Historic England to present the certificates. I spoke to one young lady stonemason, who said, “I saw that document hanging in the office when I had an interview, and I was determined to get one”. I found that very moving.
I really believe that we should be more ambitious with this Bill. If, when he replies, my noble friend tells me that he does not like this amendment, I beg him to convene a meeting so that we can discuss it to see whether we can table something more acceptable. I am not inclined to give up on this. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 20, which is on very much the same lines as those in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Bird. We are talking about citizenship and we are all saying that this is one part of what we need to do but it is not enough. We clearly need to go further. We may be unable to go much further in this Bill, but the problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, mentioned, is there before us in all our cities and in some of our rural areas: young people do not feel part of our society or our political system and they are deeply disillusioned. We want to encourage them to see themselves as citizens taking an active part in our political community and our society.
This scheme deals with society but not with the political community. Therefore, I tabled this amendment, which stresses that the National Citizen Service needs to be seen within a wider context of an approach to citizenship. If the answer determinedly from the Government is that they do not want to do that in this Bill, I suggest that we need to have a dialogue with them about how we take it further forward.
On a number of occasions in the past 15 or 20 years we have all talked about the need for citizenship education. I have been converted to the idea of 16 year-olds being able to vote because it would mean that in education they would talk about their citizenship and how to use their vote. I know that that is a controversial area but it is part of how one tries to get people into our political society. I repeat what I said earlier: if necessary, several of us should propose a sessional committee of the House next year to discuss the concept of citizenship and how we educate and encourage the younger generation into citizenship. That very much includes the sort of things that the noble Lords, Lord Bird and Lord Cormack, are talking about. This is a very important area.
Let us have no illusions: we have a society that is deeply disillusioned and alienated when it comes to politics. Westminster is not respected or liked. I was enormously cheered one evening last winter at a family party in Yorkshire when someone asked me what I did. I said, “I’m not sure you want me to tell you”, and she said, “Oh dear, you’re not a banker, are you?”. She told me that there are perhaps at least two professions that are further down the ranking than politicians, but not that many. For the future health of our democracy and our society, we all need to do something about that. The Bill makes a small contribution towards solving the problem, but not a large enough one. We need a large enough contribution.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 50. I am sorry that I missed Second Reading but I was away. In spite of appearances, I am the father of very young children. There are things that I have to do and that was the case on that occasion.
I am very interested in the concept of a National Citizen Service, and I am very interested in the idea of a rite of passage. However, I would like to see it widened into moving from our obsession with representational democracy, where we get people in the other place speaking on behalf of our citizens, and towards the participatory democracy which we are all talking about, and that is why I believe in the NCS.
We are talking about people getting involved in their communities rather than just whingeing about the failure of national or local government—by whingeing I mean just talking about it rather than doing something about it. All those people who go on demonstrations, sign petitions and do all those things are in a sense on the road towards that kind of participatory democracy. I was on a trade union march last week about defending our libraries, galleries and all that. I took my family, and I was there participating in democracy.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
My Lords, I have one specific question and would be grateful if the Minister could write to me on it. At Second Reading, I raised the point about voter registration. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has raised it now, and indeed it is part of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bird. In the letter that the NCS wrote to me after Second Reading, it said:
“HMRC was chosen as the body best placed to send out letters to teenagers on NCS’ behalf because it has the most robust and complete dataset of 16 and 17 year olds”.
I had not known that before about HMRC. It had not occurred to me, and I just wonder whether we are missing a trick in terms of relying entirely on local registration offices to ensure registration to vote when there is an organisation that has better information. I would be very grateful if the Minister could write to me on that.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I have a deal of sympathy with all the amendments in this group. I too think that everybody should be registered. They should be registered at birth and then opt out at some stage if they wish. I also believe in compulsory voting but that is a very personal view; it is not my party’s view.
At Second Reading there was some discussion about citizenship education, which I believe is absolutely crucial to the well-being not only of individuals but of society. As the noble Lord said, it enables people to participate, which is key. If you do not have citizenship education, you do not know how to participate, so you cannot take advantage of your rights and responsibilities.
The Minister addressed citizenship in the letter that he wrote to all noble Lords after Second Reading. In it, he said that citizenship remains a compulsory subject in maintained secondary schools, but therein lies one of the problems. I firmly believe that citizenship should be a compulsory subject in all schools and not just in maintained schools. My noble friend Lord Blunkett pointed out at Second Reading that the number of people being trained to teach citizenship has fallen dramatically, and therein lies another problem. The Government really do have to grasp the issue of citizenship if, as they do, they wish people to participate more in our democratic system.
It was suggested at Second Reading that there should be a government review of citizenship teaching and the whole issue of citizenship, but we have not had a response to that. I hope that is something that the Government are looking at seriously. I very much like the idea proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that there should be a sessional committee to look at citizenship, because I think that that would do society a good service. I would understand if these amendments were not accepted but I urge the Government to say something strong and positive about the review of citizenship teaching and about having more of a national citizenship ethos, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, suggested.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My Lords, this is a subject about which people feel very passionately, and it has been a very passionate debate. Perhaps your Lordships will bear with me as I talk about something with which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is very familiar, as his grandson goes to one of the schools that I founded—Floreat Wandsworth. The development of character is central to what we do at our schools. Included within that is what we call “civic virtues”, of which participation is obviously one, as is service to others, and that is one reason that I am so passionate about this area.
I completely agree with the idea that developing a sense of citizenship, participation and civic virtue should be a fundamental part of education, but there is a question about the compulsory nature of this. One of the arguments is whether PSHE—sometimes with a C or various other bits of the alphabet added on—should be compulsory. That is a conversation that we have sporadically in the House. For me, that should be part of education but it should take place within schools. Just because we think that this is an important issue, it does not mean that this is the right vehicle for it. Just because this tree is with us does not mean that we should hang the bells on it.
I strongly agree with the sentiments behind my noble friend’s amendment and those of other noble Lords. I would welcome a broad debate on service, citizenship and character development. The DfE has a character development programme. It is slightly in stasis at the moment as we have had a change of Secretary of State, but it may be one way to rejuvenate this whole process. However, to me, this is not the right vehicle for those absolutely correct sentiments.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, I should like to express some sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I am very concerned about the increasing number of children—boys and girls—who are growing up without a father in the home. This scheme might offer some of those children a step towards having a father figure in their lives, especially if it connects with other services, such as the Girl Guides and the Scouts.
Back in 2011, OECD research led by Professor Melhuish at Birkbeck, University of London, found that a fifth of children in this country were growing up without a father in the home. That compared with a quarter in the United States. However, the research also predicted that in future years we would overtake the United States, and that by—I think—the 2030s a third of our children would grow up without a father in the home. This is a terribly important fact for us to keep in mind. The evidence shows that low-income boys are more likely to get involved in the criminal justice system if they grow up without a father in the home. We need to think of all possible means to keep fathers, as far as possible, in the home, and to fill the deficit—for girls and boys—when there is no father figure there. One rationale for rolling out the scheme nationally is to meet the needs of those boys and girls for some positive father figure. It is obviously a short-term intervention, and I hope very much it might lead them to other interventions such as the Girl Guides and the Boy Scouts.
I do not wish in any way to disparage lone parents. Just recently I was speaking to a father bringing up three children on his own who works very hard, washes his children’s laundry, cares for them—he says he has no time for a social life. I do not intend to disparage those parents at all; I merely say that from the point of view of so many boys and girls it is a real challenge for them to grow up without a father in the home.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I add my support to my noble friend’s amendment. The scheme before us —the trust—is hugely important in opening doors. It is giving all young people between the ages of 15 and 18 and, with exceptions, beyond that, a chance to have a month’s experience of volunteering. That is what the Bill is about. I fear that we have wandered away from that a bit. However, it is hugely important that we have wandered, so I hope that the Minister forgives me a little.
I take my noble friend’s point that a lot of citizenship should be done in schools: that is right, and it is what those of us who go out on the Lord Speaker’s outreach programme try to do in a very small way and confined space. It has its role, and I am delighted to be going to a primary school this Friday. I have been specially asked to go; it is good for us, too, to be with the young.
I particularly wanted to come back to my noble friend Lord Cormack’s suggestion that we could recognise participation in the scheme in a slightly better way. His suggestion was that perhaps at the end of their month, if they wished—it would not be compulsory—the young person would receive a certificate presented by somebody at the school, or wherever, to give public recognition of the fact that they had taken part in the scheme. That gives two opportunities. First, that person has a certificate, or something important, that they can take away and that makes a difference when they look for jobs in the future, by showing that they have participated. Secondly, and more importantly, it would give other youngsters better knowledge of what opportunities there are out there. So, while the debate has wandered a little widely—and I agree with everything that has been said—there are bits that we can take from the debate that would add value to what is proposed in the Bill. That is why I support my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Bird
I just wanted to add a point to what the noble Lord was saying with regard to schools. I agree with him 100%, but when teachers are saying, “We now have a choice about whether we teach citizenship”, and they do not, there is a profound problem. What is so interesting is that behind all this we have a Government who are prepared to spend £1 billion, or thereabouts, on something that is a great big hole in the middle of society. How do you get children to participate in democracy or learn how to participate in democracy? How do you draw people in to vote and do all those sorts of things?
It is quite interesting that the schools have let us down a bit. This is not a sticking plaster but it is taking the argument to after school: what do children do in the evening and at the weekend? I was almost saved by the National Association of Boys’ Clubs—almost. Unfortunately, they closed them down in the area that I lived in.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, until recently, I was a governor of a special school in the Chilterns, near where I live. On one of my regular walk rounds, I happened to chance on a citizenship class and was immediately seized upon as an exhibit, because they happened to be talking about the House of Lords at the time. I had the embarrassing experience of trying to persuade a group of rather terrifying young men, who were trying to make sense of what on earth democracy was and how it worked in their circumstances, which were not particularly good, why I would have anything to say that meant anything to them. I think I was successful—but then I would say that, wouldn’t I? However, it was good to see the lesson. I thought it was well-planned and well-exercised. The kids got something out of it and, at the end, I sent them away to think about what they would like me to do if I were ever lucky enough to get high enough in the Private Members’ Bills ballot to put in a Bill of my own. I will not share in this august company what they wanted but it got them talking, which was great.
Is not the problem here that this is one of the wicked issues? In all my time looking at, studying and working in government, I do not think we have ever come up with a solution to the problem in which a strong departmental wish for movement in another department has provided the necessary edge or leverage for that to happen. Here we are saying that a well-funded and thought-through programme depends to a greater or lesser extent—I would say greater—on there being a solid foundation of knowledge and understanding about citizenship, but we lack the ability in the system to impress that wish on the department that is responsible for school education, maintained and otherwise, and therefore it will not happen. I am sad about that because all the arguments being made today are absolutely right.
If the prospect facing Ministers is that a member of their own side who normally can get excited only about cathedrals and church choirs is saying that he is determined not to give up on this point, then I wish them luck. An irresistible force is coming your way, but I am afraid it will meet an immovable object in the form of the new Secretary of State. Indeed, although I know his heart is in the right place, the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, gave the game away when he said that the current work on citizenship and service more generally had gone into a hiatus because of the change of Secretary of State. There we are, you see: it will not work.
Why will it not work? It is a classic example of the sort of joined-up government that we all go on about, but we simply cannot do it. I wish there was a way of doing it. Although the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, said that this is not the right Bill, maybe it is. The noble Lord is shaking his head. I was nodding earlier and now he is shaking his head. Tut-tut: he has not learned the lesson.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
That was my point earlier, but I nodded—such stupidity.
We have to give some indication. It may be that there are other ways. I like the suggestion from my noble friend Lady Royall for a Select Committee, which of course we cannot order but on which we can certainly make recommendations. Something needs to be started here today by those of us who care enough about this to make it part of what we want to do with the Bill. If it flows in different ways, all the better, because we certainly are not in a good place, and we know now that is the case. I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Byford that this has been rather a wander as opposed to a highly focused debate on these amendments, but it has also been very useful. I thank noble Lords for highlighting so articulately and passionately the ongoing importance that citizenship and citizenship education must play in our country. We agree with my noble friend Lord Cormack that NCS must be, as it says in his amendment, “for all young people”, no matter what their background. As we have discussed, the functions set out in full in the royal charter attempt to capture, in the most appropriate form, what the NCS is and should always be. They include an objective to seek to expand the number of participants.
We know that volunteering can promote a sense of citizenship, and social engagement is one of the NCS programme’s core elements. The latest independent Ipsos MORI evaluation showed that NCS graduates give back to their communities an extra six hours per month. They feel more able to have an impact on the world around them and say that they are more likely to vote, so there are elements of citizenship there. But the NCS is not designed to establish a national citizenship scheme. It is not equipped or funded to do so.
The Government wish to put the NCS Trust on a stable and assured footing so that it may promote the NCS programme across the country to young people, parents, carers, schools and local authorities, to become a scheme that can deliver these outcomes, as my noble friend was intimating, for every young person on the cusp of adulthood who wants a place. Our manifesto commitment is clear on that, so I hope my noble friend Lord Cormack can be assured of the Bill’s aspiration. But as we expand the scheme to allow more young people to benefit, we must concentrate on our primary goals to maintain the success and quality we have had so far, to which my noble friend referred. He also mentioned an obligation to do NCS, but the NCS must remain voluntary to retain its ethos. It will fail if young people feel it is compulsory for them to do it.
The second amendment in this group, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, would require the trust to set out in its annual business plan the ways in which the NCS contributes to citizenship education more broadly. I fear I must repeat the point that the NCS Trust must be allowed to focus its resources and reporting on its primary functions, namely to enable participants from different backgrounds to work together in local communities to participate in projects to benefit society, and to enhance the skills of those participants. Although the links to citizenship are clear, it would not be practical for the trust to report more widely on citizenship education.
Citizenship education is mandatory in state-maintained schools, as part of the national curriculum. The citizenship curriculum aims to equip young people with knowledge, skills and understanding to prepare them to play a full and active part in modern Britain. The NCS is part of the citizenship landscape of this country, as are many organisations working with young people and helping them to become more resilient and informed members of society, but asking the trust to report on work wider than its core mission risks distracting it from delivering a quality programme. I hope that noble Lords can take assurance that the NCS complements an ongoing commitment to the importance of citizenship education in schools.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for making the point that the NCS has the potential to encourage democratic engagement and participation among young people. We are in full agreement. The draft charter requires that the trust must have regard to,
“encouraging participants to take an interest in debate on matters of local or national political interest, and promoting their understanding of how to participate in national and local elections”.
This will ensure that the NCS Trust keeps these considerations at the front of its mind whenever it makes decisions about how to deliver its core mission. In short, the aim here was to capture, as concisely as possible, the very point the noble Lord makes. The NCS Trust is working jointly with the democratic engagement team in the Cabinet Office to explore the possibilities for the NCS to contribute to this agenda. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Bird, not to press his amendment.
Without making any commitment, I should say that my noble friend the Minister is only too happy to hold meetings with as many Peers as he can. I have always wanted to say that. None the less my noble friend Lord Ashton of Hyde is happy to meet noble Lords before the next stage of the Bill. I also make a commitment to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that we will write to her on the issue that she raised.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the noble Earl has just remarked that this is a cross-departmental issue, involving the Cabinet Office, Department for Education, DCMS and one or two others. I urge him and the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, to take this back and perhaps write to us all with the suggestion that we might have a cross-departmental meeting with Peers to discuss how a broader approach to citizenship might be taken forward across Whitehall.
The Earl of Courtown
My Lords, we will of course consider what the noble Lord has said and write to him about our final decision on that matter, but at the moment I would ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate and I am extremely grateful to everyone who has taken part, particularly to my noble friend Lady Byford, who restricted her comments to my amendment. It was very good to find so much common ground with the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Bird, and I hope that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, can be acted upon. We have set something running and we must keep it running. This is a good Bill, which we all welcome and support, but it is not aspirational enough. That is the point. I hope we can have conversations between now and Report, as it is important that the House in general has an opportunity to discuss these things. I am certainly minded to put down a similar amendment on Report and hope to trigger an equally vigorous debate on the Floor of the House. In the meantime, with very good grace and while thanking my noble friend for his generous reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cope of Berkeley
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but just for the convenience of the Committee, I would inform Members that the usual channels have agreed that we will finish after this group.
Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords, after that very wide-ranging debate, I come to an extremely nitty-gritty point. Before we leave page 1, we have Amendment 12, which goes with Amendment 44. These two amendments draw attention to the fact that there are slightly different definitions of “young people” in the two clauses concerned, Clause 1 and Clause 9. The difference is not of huge importance, but it has significance in that it will not let HMRC write to a few of the young people who may be covered by the scheme, which seems a very odd thing to have happened. After my earlier remarks, I do not want to criticise lawyers for the drafting of the thing, but one wonders whether it is a mistake or deliberate. I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, which I am sure is nothing to do with our politics as we are completely diametric on just about everything I can think of. It must be because we are both accountants. He is absolutely right as I, too, alighted on this point and thought that it would be a good issue to raise.
It is a bit odd to read in Clause 1(2)(a) that,
‘“young people” means 16 and 17 year olds, but may also include other persons who are 15 years old or have attained the age of 18 but are under the age of 25”.
There are probably reasons for it, and I am sure the Minister will be able to explain them. I think I get what that means but if we look at the royal charter, its description of exactly the same area is completely different. It says:
“For the purposes of paragraph 1—a. “young people in England” means 16 and 17 year olds”,
which is clear, but that,
“b. the NCS Trust may, from time to time, determine that “young people” also includes one or more of the following … 15 year olds … any person who has attained the age of 18 and is under the age of 25 … any person of a particular age falling within the range described in sub-paragraph ii”.
We could try to get the same wording into the different parts of the Bill. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that there is a different definition for the section dealing with HMRC functions, that is probably explicable in terms of what records it has and can therefore rely on. Again, however, it is confusing if we are to get this sorted out.
That is the issue which I wanted to raise. My Amendment 13 also bears on this point. If we are to muck around with the ages, that is something which Parliament ought to be involved in. The current arrangements would be that if the Bill is true, it must be something set in statute but if the charter is true, it can be changed by the NCS Trust. If either of those is wrong—I do not agree with them—I would rather see that Parliament had affirmative regulations.
To be serious about this, we hope that who qualifies for the service will be quite a hot ticket. It is important that we know from the start whether 15 year-olds qualify, whether over 18 year-olds qualify, whether the upward age of 25 is fixed and what exactly the rationales are for having different ranges and the flexibility that goes with them. It may be to do with getting to hard- to-reach families and individuals. To pick up my noble friend Lady Royall’s earlier point, that would be a good thing. However, it may just be an aspiration to do something on a much wider scale that we do not know about. If we are sticking to the arrangements in the current Bill, Parliament needs a better handle on that.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cope and to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. They both rightly observe that Clause 1, in defining the NCS Trust’s functions, defines young people as 16 and 17 year-olds, but says it may also include other persons who are 15 years old or have attained the age of 18 but are under the age of 25. Clause 9, which confers a power on HMRC to write to young people, then sets an age range of 15 to 17. The amendments would make the age range in Clause 1 apply to Clause 9. I can assure the Committee that the difference in age ranges between the two clauses is deliberate.
Clause 1 makes a distinction: first, it defines young people as 16 and 17 year-olds but allows a degree of flexibility, both for 15 year-olds and those up to the age of 25. NCS should be focused on 16 and 17 year-olds. The majority of participants now are of those ages. Most do NCS in the summer after their GCSEs; some do it earlier in spring and others in the autumn of the following academic year. People with summer birthdays can conceivably do NCS after their GCSEs when they are still 15, so the Bill allows for that.
The upward age range to 25 is to allow flexibility for those with additional needs or in particular circumstances. Someone might miss out for a particular reason or it might be more appropriate for someone with a learning disability, for example, to do the programme a little later. Those older than 17 can therefore take part if the trust agrees but the programme is not openly advertised to older age ranges. For NCS to have its rite-of-passage feel, we want to keep it focused on a tight age range. Those doing NCS outside that age range would be the exception rather than the rule. The focus of marketing the scheme must therefore be on 16 to 17 year-olds, or those approaching that age.
The definition in Clause 9 has therefore been set more narrowly so that HMRC letters go out at a time that targets the core age group. If a young person is unable to go on the programme at that age, and might need to wait until they are older for practical reasons, this can be agreed with the NCS Trust. They will none the less have had the letter already, so the clause is not restricting anyone from hearing about NCS. They will all hear at the same time and can decide when to do the programme later if necessary. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will see that the difference in the specified age ranges serves an important purpose and will feel able to withdraw his amendment. We want the programme to be flexible but the marketing needs to be focused so that no one is misled.
Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, would require the Government to make a statutory instrument which received the express approval of both Houses before amending the age ranges outlined in Clause 1. The noble Lord is absolutely right that the age range is critical to the definition of NCS and must not be allowed to change lightly. NCS should take place at a formative period between childhood and adulthood—the juncture between compulsory education and the freedom to make life choices.
That is why we have explicitly stipulated the age range of participants in the Bill, while allowing flexibility for those with additional needs. I can confirm that primary legislation would be required to amend the age range. This is important, and we would want to do so only for the very best of reasons: that a future Government deemed it necessary to change the core NCS demographic. Such a change could alter the fundamental character of NCS and therefore should require the full scrutiny of Parliament.
I hope that the noble Lords can take confidence in the Bill’s current drafting and will not press their amendments.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I do not think that the Minister answered my point about the wider drafting of the royal charter. Of course, we have no locus in the royal charter, but can he commit to looking at the wording on page 7 of the draft charter and commit to making the wording of the two documents the same?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I will certainly commit to looking at it but it is important to note that a Bill in Parliament always trumps a royal charter. There is no doubt about what the age ranges are; they are as set out in the Bill. As I said, I will commit to looking at the two documents to see what can be done, but there is no doubt about what the age ranges are—they are as set out in the Bill.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I must be going crackers. The Bill says that,
“‘young people’ means 16 and 17 year olds”,
and that is followed by a variation. The charter says,
“‘young people …’ means 16 and 17 year olds, but … the NCS Trust may, from time to time, determine that”,
it includes others. I do not think that you can have it both ways. If the statute trumps the charter, which is what I think the Minister is saying, then the statute must stand and the charter is wrong. I am asking him to look at the wording of the charter and to try to align it more with the statute. I hope that that is not too great an ask, even at this late hour.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
It certainly is not and I have already said that I will do that.
Lord Cope of Berkeley
My Lords, I am mildly disappointed to realise that the marketing to those with difficulties and so on up to the age of 24 will not be quite as wide as the marketing to others. Nevertheless, I understand my noble friend’s response. I am glad to know that it is deliberate and I am grateful for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
Does the Minister want to move that the Committee stands adjourned?
House of Lords
Mental Health: Children and Adolescents
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Tyler of Enfield
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the Report of the Values-Based Child and Adolescent Mental Health System Commission What Really Matters in Children and Young People’s Mental Health, published on 7 November.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, we welcome the noble Baroness’s report and its endorsement of the direction set out in Future in Mind, our own report which puts children, young people and their families at the centre of this Government’s ambitious transformation programme to improve children and young people’s mental health and well-being. This means listening to their views and enabling them to access the high-quality care they need. This report builds on and strengthens that approach.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree with one of the key recommendations of the commission’s report that schools, if properly funded and supported, have the potential to make a really big difference to improving children’s mental health, not least because children spend one-third of their time in school? Linked to this, does he also agree that the proposed Prime Minister’s challenge on children’s mental health should incorporate this strong focus on schools?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, when I read the noble Baroness’s paper over the last couple of days, I thought the part about schools was the most persuasive. School is clearly critical. The pilot project being done by the Department of Health and the Department for Education, trialling the single point of contact in schools, is very important, as is the PSHE guidance on teaching about mental health at the four key stages of education.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord’s sincerity in this area is not in any doubt. However, he knows that, despite the instructions that Ministers have given to the NHS through the NHS mandate, the health service is actually disinvesting in many mental health services. On Monday, the noble Lord will have seen the King’s Fund report on sustainability and transformation plans, on which he has rested much of his hope about the future of the NHS. Mental health services appear to be very marginal to the focus of those STPs. What action do the Government intend to take on this?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Lord raises an important point. Interestingly, the spend on mental health in 2015-16 is up by 8.4% on the previous year compared to 3.7% for health spending overall. So there is clear evidence that the money that we have been talking about is getting through. The local transformation plans to which the noble Lord refers are being incorporated in all the strategic transformation plans. So there is evidence that it is getting through. It is taking longer than the noble Lord and I and others would wish, but when Theresa May became Prime Minister one of the things that she said on the steps of Downing Street was that she put mental health near the top of all her priorities. There is serious hope now that the money promised by the Government is getting through to the front line.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, the commission highlighted the importance of valuing the workforce, but a 2014 survey of teachers and lecturers indicated that about 55% of them reckoned that their work was seriously damaging their own mental health. Have Her Majesty’s Government any plans to address that particular issue so that the mental health of teachers can be improved and so they are better equipped to help and improve the mental health of their pupils?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I cannot answer that question effectively and would like some time to think about it. Clearly, the mental health of teachers, nurses and doctors is critical. Certainly in the medical profession we are doing quite a lot to help doctors who are going through periods of mental health problems. If it is all right with the right reverend Prelate, I shall reflect on his question and write to him at my leisure.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise the harm to children’s mental health when they and their families live in temporary accommodation? Is he concerned that there will be 120,000 children living in temporary accommodation this Christmas and that the use of bed and breakfast has increased by 15% over the last year? Will he discuss this matter with colleagues developing the housing White Paper and impress on them the importance to children’s mental health of finding stable accommodation for families on low incomes?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, there is no doubt that whether it is housing for young people or loneliness for old people, many factors affect people’s mental well-being. The noble Lord may be interested to know, as I know that his particular interest is in looked-after children, that we have set up an expert working group to look particularly at that case. Interestingly, 85% of the local transformation plans that have been developed single out looked-after children as a group that requires special attention.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the mental health dashboards, which allow people to hold their local clinical commissioning group to account for how much it spends on mental health, including on children, and on the quality of the services that it provides. However, can the Minister say how those dashboards are being publicised, and whether there is any way in which local people can benchmark the performance of their local CCG compared to others across the country?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, transparency is critical to this and every CCG will have its improvement assessment framework. Unless I am badly mistaken, they will all be in the public domain and it will be possible to look at the relative performance of each CCG. NHS England will also produce its own matrix and integrated dashboard, which will have all the key information about funding, the numbers of people accessing mental health provision and the improvements that those people achieve once they are in the system.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)
My Lords, from the mental dataset it is very clear that black and Asian minority ethnic adults are overrepresented in the mental health field, but the data on CAMHS are very inconsistent. They show that young black and Asian people are underrepresented, despite the fact that they are overrepresented in the criminal justice system, excluded from school more and overrepresented in the care system. Is it a recipe for disaster if young black people with challenging behaviours are being pressed through the criminal justice system as opposed to receiving good, early mental health care? Is that the reason why 40% of young people in secure institutions are from a BME background?
Lord Prior of Brampton
If it is indeed the case that young black and Asian people are not attending school and are going into the criminal justice system because they cannot get access to mental health services on the same basis as other children, it will be a national scandal, to be honest. I will certainly take away those figures. I have not seen David Lammy’s report, which I gather came out this morning. The noble Lord said that 40%, I think, of all young people in secure detention are black or Asian—I think in London it is 80%, which is a staggering statistic.
Cataract Operations
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harrison
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to increase the availability of and capacity to undertake cataract operations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, clinical commissioning groups are responsible for commissioning cataract surgery for their local populations. Patients have the right to start consultant-led treatment within 18 weeks of referral for non-urgent conditions. All patients should be treated without unnecessary delay and according to their clinical priority.
Lord Harrison (Lab)
My Lords, given the recent dispiriting report from the RNIB of ever-lengthening queues and waiting times for vital cataract operations, will the Government provide more money and stop offloading it—as the Minister has just done—on to CCGs? Will they at the same time embrace innovative and new practices and initiatives by the community optical service and practice?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, there is evidence of variation around the country, of that there is no doubt, although overall, the waiting times for cataract treatment are no longer than for other procedures. The RNIB has identified two issues of concern: second eye operations and follow-ups. We have asked NICE to bring forward further guidance in 2017 so that there is a proper evidence base for the threshold for cataract operations. As the noble Lord referred to in his Question, we are developing opticians in the high street to help do the follow-up consultations.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest: I am sure I am one of many in this House who has benefited from cataract operations—I went to the Western Eye Hospital, which is part of the Imperial College system in London. Is the Minister aware of the huge change in life for people who have cataract operations now? My father had to travel from Australia to Vienna in 1938—in fact he was there when Hitler marched in; he got out as quickly as he could after that, but with his eye bandaged it took a bit of time. But that was because one of the only people in the world who could do cataract operations at that time was this surgeon in Vienna. We really do not value what we are getting now, which is done so well.
Lord Prior of Brampton
The cataract operation is remarkable; it can literally give back people’s sight in the course of a 10-minute operation. I think I am right in saying to the noble Baroness that the first cataract operation was done in 1787.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the Minister is absolutely right in accepting that there is a huge variation in the availability of cataract surgery. In fact, the variation is fourfold. Nearly 35% of people over 65 will require cataract surgery, and such surgery is the definitive form of treatment for cataracts. Incidence will rise with age and, with ethnicity, it is even higher. As the Minister accepted in part, the variation is caused by variation in commissioning, which is based on clinical judgments, not the scientific evidence that CCGs need. Better guidance will help, as he suggested, but unless the guidance is appropriately monitored and the CCGs follow it, nothing will change—40% of people do not get second eye surgery because CCGs will not commission it.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I mentioned earlier that NICE will bring forward its evidence-based guidelines in 2017. It will be up to CCGs to commission on the basis of those guidelines, and they in turn are monitored by NHS England. Clearly there is variation; there is variation wherever we look in the National Health Service. One of the reasons why Professor Briggs is doing his Getting it right first time work is to try to identify that variation and address it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists. I understand from the Minister that NICE is preparing guidelines, but in the meantime, will he take this opportunity to condemn CCGs in which there is crude rationing of cataract services? I refer him to the Daily Mail freedom of information survey in July, which showed that under some clinical commissioning groups, a person not only had to have poor eyesight, but had to demonstrate that they had fallen twice in the last year, lived alone and had hearing problems, or that they were caring for a loved one. If that is not crude rationing, I do not know what is.
Lord Prior of Brampton
Clearly the case that the noble Lord mentions is totally unacceptable. Where CCGs are rationing access to cataract operations on such a crude basis, we would all deplore that. But as I said, there is variation around the country, and the new NICE evidence-based guidelines will help to address that.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, in terms of cost-effectiveness alone, is not the cataract treatment a good one to back? The developments have been remarkable. Years ago one spent two months in a darkened room, but now it is bad luck if one has to spend two hours.
Lord Prior of Brampton
The cataract operation is a remarkable one. There is a huge variation in productivity around England: some surgeons are extremely fast, and in some hospitals the process has been streamlined. Interestingly, in India, where cataract operations are largely done by technicians not doctors, the cost per operation is below $10.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that greater use could be made of laser eye surgery for cataracts, as has been pioneered at Frimley Park Hospital? This could result in better outcomes for patients, reduce the risk of complications and, above all, reduce waiting times, which are unacceptable —up to 15 months—at present.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I do not know enough about laser eye surgery to give the noble Lord a proper response, but I will investigate. The average wait time for a cataract operation is 12 weeks, and very few people wait for more than 18 weeks—but of course, that does not alter the fact that there are people who have not been referred for a cataract operation when perhaps they should.
National Identity Cards
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to consult the National Police Chiefs’ Council regarding the case for introducing national identity cards.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, Her Majesty’s Government have made it clear that there are no plans to reintroduce identity cards, and therefore there is no need to consult the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, that is very bad news indeed. Now that we have evidence of the availability on the dark web, at a price, of counterfeit passports, driving licences, national insurance cards, credit cards, credit references, NHS treatment entitlement cards, European health insurance cards, utility bills, work permits, bank statements and examination certification, is it not now time to return to the whole issue of national identity cards? We cannot escape this debate any longer.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned a number of areas in which there is fraud and counterfeiting. I am sure that in terms of identity cards, it is no different in trying to obtain them fraudulently.
Baroness Sharples (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that I twice asked this Question of different Governments many years ago and received exactly the same Answer as was received today?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I think that is probably because the Government have not changed their position on this subject.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, the coalition Government were right to scrap the identity card and the national identity register. It impacted severely on civil liberties and, more importantly, on state intrusion. Is the Minister aware that a very serious rift is developing between the Muslim community and the Prevent strategy that the Government have established? What consultations are taking place with this community to ensure that we are able to deal with those people who are born and radicalised in this country?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Lord brings up a number of areas. He is absolutely right to bring up the subject of civil liberties in terms of identity cards, because that was one of the concerns about them in the first instance. The Prevent strategy aims to protect people against the threat of radicalisation, not to punish them. In my previous role in communities and local government, I was aware of some fantastic community work, much of it led by the Church, which is helping people to come together to discuss those areas that unite communities rather than divide them.
Lord Richard (Lab)
My Lords, for the life of me, I do not understand why the Government have set their mind so firmly against the idea of having an identity card or identity document. It is common practice in many parts of the world. If the Government, in their rush to Brexit, wish to control immigration, it seems to me that the most obvious thing they should do is to have some form of common identification to show that people are United Kingdom citizens.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, we do have common systems of identification: 84% of people in this country have a passport and 60% have a driving licence. As the noble Lord said, many European countries have identity cards, but we have not seen any evidence that they offer any greater protection than we have in this country.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that we are quite right not to have identity cards for the very reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that all those documents are forgeable? Surely what is needed is a unique number for every citizen—because if a state does not know who its citizens are for national security, good governance and everything else, it is not in business. If there were a single number to which biometrics could be attached, it would be a big advance. We do not need the actual card.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think that my noble friend is saying the same thing as me but in a different way. In this country we have passports and driving licences. As I said, there is no evidence that identity cards have improved security in the European countries that have them.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister who introduced the original identity register and card—I still have mine—I ask whether the noble Baroness would concede that, if people do not like the term “identity card”, it might be a possible way forward for all British citizens over 16 to have a mandatory passport and for all non-British citizens to carry a card that registers their status in this country. Surely that would be a way round what has become a very sterile argument.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I would congratulate the noble Lord on introducing the identity card—but the Government do not agree with them and his identity card is probably invalid by now. I cannot help but repeat that we have passports. In fact, our passports now, particularly the e-passports, where facial identity can be cross-referenced with the actual document, are an improvement on what we had before.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister name one country anywhere in the world whose citizens have identity cards or a number equating to their identity and has fewer problems with regard to benefit fraud, immigration or terrorism? Is there anywhere across the world were these problems have been completely eradicated on the basis of the demands of those who want to see this form of identification?
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, one of the greatest civil liberties is to not have your identity stolen. We have found in the banking world, and other worlds, that by having biometric cards that identify clearly who you are this can be avoided; these cards cannot be duplicated easily because they are biometric. I have no doubt whatever, and I would be interested to know whether or not the Minister agrees, that we will inevitably end up having a card—whatever we call it—in order for our people not to have their identity stolen.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do recognise what the noble Lord said, particularly in terms of identity fraud. One of the things we are doing is working with banks because it is such a huge financial loss when people fraudulently open bank accounts or take money from other people’s accounts. E-passports now have facial recognition, which is a very good system of identification—but we will not be moving to the identity card scheme.
United States: Diplomatic Relations
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the outcome of the United States presidential election, what assessment they have made of future diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and the United States.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, the US and the UK are natural, resilient and strong allies. Throughout the history of the special relationship, British Governments have worked with successive Presidents to advance our mutual interests and tackle shared challenges. As the Prime Minister said during her call with President-elect Trump on 10 November, we look forward to working with his Administration to ensure the security and prosperity of our nations in the years ahead.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for her Answer and her welcome statement that we will attempt to build close relationships with the president-elect and his transformation team. But may I ask her to join me in regretting that a dispatch from the ambassador was printed in full in the Sunday Times last week, and point out that unless these leaks can be controlled, ambassadors will write with an eye to the newspapers and to their reputations in the countries in which they are based, rather than giving clear advice to the Government who accredit them? This problem of constant leaks from embassies has got to be addressed. Will the Minister address it in whatever way is most appropriate?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My noble friend is right that it is invaluable for diplomatic staff around the world to be able to report events as they perceive them, in what are sometimes very hostile environments, and to do so frankly. If they cannot, the Government will not be able to fully understand the circumstances there. So I certainly take to heart what my noble friend has said. It is one of the reasons why, in condemning the practice of some people to indulge in leaks, we do not comment on leaked documents.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, Winston Churchill described British foreign policy as best when we balance carefully between our links with the United States, with Europe and with the Commonwealth. Tony Blair, when President George W Bush came in, abandoned that and wanted to hug close a right-wing Administration in the United States. Are we not in danger of hugging this very right-wing Administration close at the expense of the other circles of British influence?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, it is in the British interest always to ensure that we work with like-minded people around the world. That underlines what the noble Lord has put forward; there has to be a balance. But we must recognise—and I am pleased to do so—that our relationship with the United States, not over decades but a couple of centuries, has been based on the common values of democracy, freedom, enterprise and human rights. That is why we remain firm friends with the United States.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, many people were concerned about the rhetoric during the campaign, none more so than many British Muslims. Although any changes to the immigration system in America are a matter for that country, can my noble friend please confirm that at the earliest opportunity we will be given an assurance that any changes to America’s immigration status or policy will apply to British citizens regardless of their religion?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My noble friend is right to raise these matters. During a somewhat, shall we say, rumbustious contest for the presidency some interesting comments were made on a variety of matters —I think that I would use more House of Lords language. My noble friend raises an extremely important issue. We note that US immigration policy is a matter for the US authorities, as my noble friend says, but of course US Customs and Border Protection has made it clear that:
“The religion, faith, or spiritual beliefs of an international traveller are not determining factors about his/her admissibility into the U.S.”.
We should support the continuation of that policy.
Lord Kinnock (Lab)
My Lords, those working close to Donald Trump have reportedly said that they take what he says seriously but not literally. Does she think that that is good advice for the conduct of Her Majesty’s Government’s future relationship with Trump?
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that what we have witnessed in America is actually a great triumph of democracy? The most powerful nation in the world is able to hand over power from one Administration to another relatively peacefully, in a way in which three-quarters of the world could not possibly manage. Winston Churchill once said that democracy is a pretty awful system of government except that it is much better than anything else we happen to have invented. Alongside all the criticisms, can we not celebrate the fact that we live in a free western world?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My noble friend is absolutely right. As I am privileged to travel around the world for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office I see countries that do not have peaceful transitions, so I certainly celebrate in the way that my noble friend does.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, as one of the most important allies we have, is not the most important and effective relationship with the new President direct communications between the respective Heads of Government? When will she and the Prime Minister prioritise a meeting with President-elect Trump?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had a conversation on the telephone with Lord Trump—
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I have clearly made one of the most popular proposals ever for an increase in the size of this House. As I say, when my right honourable friend had a conversation with President-elect Trump, he ended by extending an invitation to the Prime Minister to visit him in the United States as soon as possible, and I am sure that she shall.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, it is no secret that an important part of our relationship with the United States lies in the exchange, at the highest level, of intelligence. Does the noble Baroness acknowledge the importance of that particular aspect of the relationship, and can she confirm that in any negotiations, however broad they may be, very considerable emphasis will be placed on that aspect of the relationship, which is clearly in the best interests of both countries?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The noble Lord makes an essential point and we certainly shall concentrate on that. The co-operation we have at the security level is essential to the peace not only of this country and of the United States, but of the whole world.
Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill
Wednesday 16th November 2016
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Act 2017 View all Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 14 November 2016 - (15 Nov 2016)
Immigration Act
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by the Immigration Minister to an Urgent Question in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“The Home Secretary updated this House on 24 October on how the UK Government were supporting the French authorities in the humanitarian operation to clear the camp in Calais. That Statement outlined the Government’s absolute commitment to bring eligible children from France to the UK. This included those with close family links under the Dublin Regulation and those unaccompanied refugee children who met the wider criteria of the Dubs amendment to the Immigration Act 2016. Those are: the very youngest; those assessed as being at a high risk of sexual exploitation; and those likely to be granted refugee status in the UK. On Monday, my department published further details of the policy, including our intention to prioritise the youngest.
We remain absolutely committed to bringing all eligible children to the UK as soon as possible. More than 300 children have been transferred from France since 10 October, including, with transfers resuming over the weekend, another 19 girls assessed as being at high risk of sexual exploitation who were brought to Scotland. It is important to note that all the children previously in the camp in Calais are now in the care of the French authorities. Staff from the UK supported the French operation to move the children from the container area in the camp to specialist centres across France, where they are receiving the care and protection they need.
Home Office staff, interpreters and social workers are currently visiting the centres to carry out the necessary assessments to determine whether it is in the best interests of the child to be transferred to the United Kingdom. This Government have continued to seek every opportunity to expedite this process, but as has previously been made clear we must work alongside the French and with their permission. I am grateful for the support of the local authorities that have stepped forward to accommodate these children and I look forward to continuing to work closely with them to ensure that we do not place an unnecessary burden on them.
The Government are getting on with the job of bringing eligible children over to the UK, working closely with the French authorities to ensure that both Governments are working in the best of interests of these children. Mr. Speaker, I hope that is something that the whole House will join me in supporting”.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, first, I refer noble Lords to my registered interests. I further declare that the local authority that I am a member of has taken some of the children from Calais in recent weeks. I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question in the other place given earlier today.
We are dealing with children who are alone and in the most vulnerable of situations, and it is regrettable that a broad provision is being tightly restricted in a way that goes against the spirit of what Parliament agreed. Why are the Government restricting the eligibility of children over the age of 12 to those from two countries only, whereas for those under 12 that does not apply? Whether they are aged 11 or 13, the one thing they have in common is that they are children at great risk of harm. However, with this policy, if you happen to be 13 and are not Syrian or Sudanese, the UK is going to turn its back on you. How is that in the best interests of the child? Could the Minister please tell the House?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, it will perhaps be helpful if I repeat the criteria on which these children will be considered. We will be considering: all those children aged 12 or under, not just certain children from certain countries; all children referred to us by the French authorities who are assessed as being at high-risk of sexual exploitation; and those nationalities most likely to qualify for refugee status in the UK aged 15 or under.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, this is a bitterly disappointing Statement. Can the Minister confirm that, when the Government announced their response to Section 67 of the Immigration Act, the Government said they would respect the letter and spirit of that amendment? My contention is that the Government are doing neither. How can one say that young children refugees fleeing from Eritrea, Somalia and Afghanistan, for example, are not eligible to claim refugee status on a statistical basis? That is a breach of the 1951 Geneva Convention. Can the Minister please think again about this depressing Statement?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble Lord is disappointed in the Statement, because he and I have worked so productively over the last few weeks and months on Calais. In October, we updated our country guidance on Eritrea to reflect the court judgment, but we cannot base a threshold on possible future grant rates. The threshold is based on overall grant rates for the year ending June 2016 and the nationalities that have a grant rate of 75% or higher are Sudanese and Syrian.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am still very confused. Having made an arbitrary decision on eligibility based on country of origin, which has no relevance to an individual’s asylum claim, can the Minister explain why the Government are excluding children who potentially would have a valid asylum claim here in the UK?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, we are not basing the criteria on country of origin. I repeat that we will consider: all children aged 12 and under; all children referred to us by the French authorities assessed as being at high risk of sexual exploitation; and those nationalities most likely to qualify for refugee status in the UK aged 15 or below.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, Section 67(3) says that this will,
“be in addition to … children under the Vulnerable Persons Relocation Scheme”.
Will the Minister tell us how many children have been received under that provision thus far? In additional, will she say something about the criteria she mentioned? She said that children at risk of sexual exploitation will be included, but why does that not extend to children who might be trafficked, or involved in labour exploitation or other provisions of the modern slavery legislation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, to answer the noble Lord’s last question first, any child at risk of sexual exploitation—that might include trafficking—will be a top priority, no matter what country they are from; ditto any child aged 12 or under. On the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, there have thus far been more than 3,000 people transferred, and half of those are children.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, what is the Government’s budgeted average cost for relocating in this country these vulnerable children? What provision is being made to support local authorities, on which the bulk of this expenditure will, presumably, fall?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, we have increased by a third the funding to local authorities. I cannot give a specific figure for a specific child because it will depend. It is around about £32,000 per child, but that is an average figure. I cannot give a specific figure for a specific child because it will be different in different cases, depending on whether the child is to be fostered, taken into local authority care, or here as part of a community sponsorship scheme. It is different in every case. I hope the noble Lord takes what I am saying in a qualified way.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, to say I was shocked at the guidance issued by the Government would be an understatement. It will come as a bitter disappointment to all those voluntary organisations that have worked so hard with children, during the demolition of the camp in Calais, to keep them in the system and stop them absconding and going missing. We know that is a risk; this Statement will make it impossible for them to keep the children in the reception centres in the French regions. They will abscond, make their way back to Calais and try their luck on the backs of lorries again. What advice did the Government take on redefining a child as being aged 15 or under?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, while those children are in France, they are under the care and jurisdiction of the French. I have said this over and again and I cannot make the point strongly enough. The French have safeguarding systems that are among the best in the world. We are not talking about countries where these children are at risk. The French are doing everything they can to ensure these children do not abscond or jump on to the back of lorries, as the noble Baroness said.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, there are, I understand, something like 140 reception centres in France to which Calais and Dunkirk children might have been, or are being, moved. Can the Minister assure the House that all of these reception centres will be visited by British officials in order to identify both family reunification cases and those who qualify under Section 67 of our Act?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I can absolutely confirm to the noble Lord that there are, in fact, more than 160 reception centres. Officials in this country are engaging very closely in identifying exactly those children whom the noble Lord talked about.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, if the Minister is correct in her statement about funding for these children within local authorities, why have many local authorities objected to the shortage of funding for children? Does the Minister agree with me that some of the most generous local authorities that have come forward to help these children have their own extreme needs in their local community? If local communities are to be welcoming of these children, they must believe that it is not at the expense of cutting down on services for themselves or their families. The Government should provide funding in full for the life of the child so that this scheme works well.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I take the opportunity to commend those local authorities that have been so very generous in offering support to these children. I refer the noble Baroness to the Written Ministerial Statement issued by Robert Goodwill on 1 November stating how we will evaluate the need for any additional training required by foster carers and support workers in looking after unaccompanied children. We take our role as a corporate parent very seriously; local authorities do as well. While those children are in local authority care, they should receive exactly the same high quality of care as our own children do.
Investigatory Powers Bill
Wednesday 16th November 2016
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 70-I Motion to be moved on consideration of Commons reasons (PDF, 76KB) - (15 Nov 2016)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the House for long. I want merely to note my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for choosing not to press her amendments on press regulation again today. Her efforts and those of her supporters have successfully raised the profile of this issue and made a clear signal of her intent. She can rest assured that this has not gone unnoticed by the Government. I say that with due emphasis: the proof of it lies in the public consultation on this issue announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. That consultation provides, in my submission, the right means for interested individuals and groups—including, I trust, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and other noble Lords—to have their say. It is a serious consultation, designed to take the process forward in a considered fashion. The Government have committed to respond promptly, following its conclusion.
Therefore, in moving this Motion, I hope that noble Lords who supported the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, at earlier stages will recognise that their efforts and their arguments on these matters have not been wasted. I beg to move.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, the Commons has spoken and we must, as usual, bow the knee, even if it took us twice to get round to it this time. I take some consolation from what the Minister said, because at least the consultation document is something concrete which has an end date. However, we know that Governments can take an awfully long time after the end date of consultations deciding and announcing what they are going to do, and the present situation is very unsatisfactory. Section 40 sits there in the ether, with nobody knowing whether it is in or out, and we get rumours in the papers about the Government’s purported attitude. This is not how this matter should be dealt with; it should be dealt with quickly.
If anyone thinks there is no problem now with the press post-IPSO, they should read the coverage of what has happened to poor Prince Harry and his girlfriend. With the privacy issues involved in that, do they really feel that this shows—although there are, no doubt, two sides to the case—that the press has put its badnesses from the past behind it? I submit that they should not. This is a matter that requires urgent treatment—although I agree, not in the Bill.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I should like to acknowledge the thoughtful contributions to debate on the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady O’Neill, both on Report and at Third Reading. These amendments aimed to hold the Government to account over their failure to commence Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, a key element of the post-Leveson inquiry cross-party agreement. The vote on Report, on what was only the second day back after the Recess, was passed with a majority of 102. I am told that this was the joint fourth highest majority in the House this Parliament. I was very grateful, in particular, to noble Lords on the Conservative Benches who either voted content or spoke in support of what we seek to achieve. The size of this majority made the Government take note and I welcome that acknowledgement by the Minister today.
Just before the Lords reasons were debated in the other place, the Government, perhaps fearing a rebellion among their own MPs, attempted to head this off by announcing a sudden and short consultation on whether to commence Section 40 at all. The idea of a consultation is somewhat astonishing for three reasons. First, Section 40 was enacted by Parliament three and a half years ago, and there was no doubt then that the Government would do anything other than follow the normal constitutional practice of commencing a law passed by Parliament, especially since the terms of Section 40 were part of a formal agreement signed by the three party leaders at the time.
Secondly, the consultation will consider whether the Government should cancel the promised Leveson part 2. Part 2, as has already been agreed, is intended to look into allegations of police corruption and corporate press cover-up underpinning the hacking scandal, the reporting of Hillsborough, why police and public officials were convicted of taking bribes from newspapers, police co-operation over scores of controversial convictions and much more.
Thirdly, two important conclusions of the Leveson report were that the era of political deal-making between politicians and the press must end, and that the Government should have no future influence over press regulation. My concern is that this cross-Parliament agreement may have been turned on its head by a consultation which has to consider whether to listen to the press lobby or listen to the ordinary victims of press abuse, who are relying on Parliament to give them the protection they need. This is relevant to noble Lords’ contributions to this consultation.
In the Commons, the Government suffered something of a rebellion, with a number of Conservative Members speaking out for Section 40, but they still sent the Bill back to us. On 2 November we asked the Commons to think again and they did so yesterday. The impression given by some in the other place was that I was raising this issue to protect celebrity victims of press intrusion or their families. Of course, celebrities, the Royal Family and our judiciary are entitled to a degree of protection from an intrusive tabloid press but, like the newspapers, many celebrities have expensive lawyers to protect them. I am pleased, therefore, that what I heard in debate was concern mainly for the vast majority of victims of press intrusion who are ordinary members of society, usually previously unknown, who do not have access to the remedy they need to protect themselves from unethical and unlawful newspaper conduct. People such as the Dowler family, Christopher Jefferies and the McCanns—I have met these and many more—whose privacy has been invaded and against whom huge injustices have been perpetrated, all in the interest of selling newspapers.
I may be unelected but I seem nevertheless to represent a constituency of vulnerable people whose stories are not being heard by some of those who, although elected, seem to prefer to defend big media. I am not seeking to punish; I am waiting for the regulatory change that the Leveson inquiry showed is needed, as well as a culture change that would require the press to tell the truth if it is in the public interest and has been obtained by legal means. I emphasise that “of interest to the public” is not the same as “of public interest”.
The feeling expressed eloquently by the Minister is that this is the wrong Bill for this amendment. Respecting the important work that has been done on the Bill and its crucial purpose in protecting us all, I do not intend to divide the House. I can hope and be reassured that the Government will show your Lordships’ House and procedural propriety equivalent respect by commencing laws that have received Royal Assent. I thank the Minister for his courteous response and thank many other noble Lords who have given me huge personal support and encouragement during this debate. I intend to return to this matter on a more suitable Bill in the future.
During the consultation period, I urge the Government to take note of the serious concerns expressed by your Lordships and to find a way to listen to the voices of ordinary people who will not have the resources at their disposal that will be deployed by big corporations. Discerning the truth should not be difficult; however, the loudest voices may not be the most valuable ones to listen to.
Lord Myners (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend has taken the stance she has. She speaks of the constituency who feel that they have been treated unfairly by the press. I think we all recognise that. However, there is another constituency—those of us who have benefited from the work of a strong, independent, investigative journalistic cadre. I speak as a former chairman of the Guardian newspaper. Many of the stories that the Guardian has covered, which I believe deeply are to the benefit of its readers and society, may not have been written in the way they were had Section 40 been activated.
I see what has been written about Sir Philip Green by Oliver Shah in the Sunday Times as an example of journalism that would have been chilled by the impact of this section. This section is a charter for the venomous and the vexatious, the pernicious and the provocative, the scurrilous and the spiteful. I am grateful and pleased that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has launched a public consultation so that we can again look at the advisability of applying a presumption in favour of the claimant, which will simply encourage the worst of litigation without achieving the justice that so many in this House seek.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, who has in part repeated what he said the last time we considered these issues. I raise again my concern that this public consultation is not, as he describes it, a serious consultation. I explained last time that Cabinet Office guidelines—I appreciate there are no rules, laws or regulations about it—say that consultations should be for 12 weeks; this consultation is for 10 weeks. Consultations should not run over a holiday period; this consultation includes Christmas and new year. Why does it not follow Cabinet Office guidelines?
I do not share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Myners. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, I emphasise that the majority in this House voted for her original amendment, and I am sure it will not be long before this House has another opportunity to vote to force the Government to implement the provisions of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 that protect innocent victims from unreasonable and unnecessary press intrusion. The Government should know that we on these Benches will support such a vote.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said that a majority in this House supported the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, in her amendment, but there is an even bigger majority in this House for ensuring that the Bill becomes law. We are now dealing with a very serious threat, a very serious situation, in which the provisions in the Investigatory Powers Bill are important. As your Lordships know, if the Bill does not make progress now, with the sunset clause on the present arrangements we would be naked in having no provision in law to govern the working of investigatory powers. There is absolutely no doubt that the noble Baroness has done the right thing. We could not possibly go on with this and provoke that risk at this time. Whatever the merits of these amendments—and I have not gone deeply into their merits—there is no doubt that I speak for the overwhelming majority in this House when I say that the Bill has got to become an Act soon so that we have proper provisions in place to defend our country and our citizens against the risks they might otherwise face.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
I express my gratitude for the responsible attitude the noble Baroness has taken in this respect. I know how deeply she feels about the amendment she put forward. Of course, there is good journalism and less good journalism. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Myners, in his place. It is possible to distinguish between what he was talking about and the feeling in respect of Section 40. I particularly want to emphasise the Minister’s words—that this is to be a genuine consultation; in other words, I take it that the Government have not yet made up their mind on this question and therefore, it will be worth while for anyone who has a point of view to express it. Even though the consultation period is slightly shorter than before, it is over Christmas and the New Year, which is perhaps the best time to generate good feelings.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on pressing this issue over a lengthy period with such determination and vigour. I ought to set out our position. There is inevitably a strong feeling that the Government are seeking a means to go back on the cross-party agreement, the undertakings given to victims and their commitment to implement Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. In the Commons yesterday, the Solicitor-General rather gave the game away when he said that the consultation will ask whether Section 40 should be fully commenced, repealed or kept under review. Many fear that the consultation will prove to be a sham. Governments do not suddenly decide to hold a consultation on repealing recent legislation that has not yet been implemented unless that is something they would be happy to do. I suggest that the Minister knows that only too well. I suspect he may well choose to deny that, but the proof of the pudding will be in the outcome of this hastily organised consultation.
The question today is about the stance to take on the Government’s Motion. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has indicated her position—at least, the Minister has done it for her—and it is one with which we agree. Two matters in particular need to be considered. One is the impact on the progress of the Bill. In our most recent discussion of this issue, the Government sought to argue that carrying the amendments concerned could place national security at risk, because it would delay the implementation of the Bill when there is a deadline, in a few weeks’ time, by which it needs to be passed. However, the Government destroyed their argument about a risk to national security by taking longer than they needed over scheduling consideration of our amendments in the Commons. If the Government seriously thought that national security was being put at risk, they would have had the Lords’ amendments considered by the Commons much sooner than they did. However, we are now that much closer to the deadline. Since we support the Bill we do not wish to start raising credible doubts over whether it will become an Act within the required timescale.
The second matter concerns the role of this House. This is usually described as inviting the Commons, the elected House, where deemed appropriate, to think again about aspects of or gaps in proposed legislation. We have done that twice in respect of the issue we are considering again today, and the Commons has twice declined to accept our view. This House has carried out its role and its responsibility.
In view of that, while we will continue to pursue this matter and the Government’s actions, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, we do not believe that we should continue to do so through the medium of insisting on the amendments to the Bill that have previously been carried.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions made from all quarters of the House. I will comment briefly on the consultation.
The consultation is a serious effort to canvas opinion. This is a difficult issue. There is no consensus around Section 40 implementation. We want to find a model for self-regulation that has broad support and works in practice. As well as having a responsibility to the victims, the Government have a responsibility to make sure that we have, as the noble Lord, Lord Myners, has correctly put it, a vibrant and sustainable press, particularly at the local level. We want to gather the evidence through a proper process, better to understand the potential impacts and explore options for next steps.
I and the Government believe that a consultation period of 10 weeks is appropriate and right. This is enough time to enable those who want to comment to do so, and we look forward to that process commencing.
Policing and Crime Bill
Wednesday 16th November 2016
(8 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 55-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 129KB) - (14 Nov 2016)
“Meaning of “private” and “sexual”
(1) Section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 (meaning of “private” and “sexual”) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (3)(a) after “exposed genitals” insert “, breasts, buttocks”.(3) Omit subsection (4).(4) Omit subsection (5).”
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, with the consent of my noble friends Lord Paddick, Lady Hamwee and Lady Grender, and at their request, I rise to move and speak to Amendments 216 to 219 in this group. It was intended that my name should be added to Amendments 216 to 219A, but there has been a disconnect between intention and implementation, for which I apologise. Nevertheless, I support these amendments.
No one now disputes the need for the law to outlaw revenge porn. Disclosing private sexual photographs or films, usually acquired during a relationship, and publishing them on the internet with intent to cause distress to a former partner, is nasty and hurtful behaviour. To the victims it causes untold pain, embarrassment and humiliation. It is an appalling violation of privacy and a gross breach of trust.
Sections 33 to 35 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 came into force in April of that year, and there were 200-plus prosecutions in the first year. To that extent, the criminalisation of revenge porn has been a success. However, responses to BBC freedom of information requests showed that out of 1,160 reported instances between April and December 2015, no action was taken in no less than 61% of cases, and many of the victims were children, some as young as 11. Many cases were not prosecuted because of insufficient evidence or because the victim did not proceed with the complaint, but of course that does not mean that the incidents did not occur. We are seeing an ever-increasing use of the internet to hurt people, often hiding behind anonymity or disguised identity. It is reasonable to assume that revenge porn will continue to be posted on the internet, despite its criminalisation.
Especially worrying is the persistent and, I suspect, increasing prevalence of the practice known as sexting, particularly among children and young people. In addition to pursuing offenders through the criminal law, we must ensure that we increase public awareness and that police forces take these offences seriously—consistently seriously across the country—and develop a social culture which treats this behaviour as beyond the pale. An NSPCC study in 2012 estimated that between 15% and 40% of young people had been involved in sexting; that much of that was under pressure, whether peer pressure or personal pressure from people with whom they were involved in a relationship; and that many images were shared with others by those who received them without the consent of their subjects. There is no evidence that with the increasing use of social media by young people, that number has decreased. Of course, there is a strong link between sexting and revenge porn.
These amendments are designed to tighten up the law. They also to a large extent bring the law into line with the equivalent legislation in Scotland, the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016, where the wider provisions have worked well. Proposed subsections (1) and (2) of Amendment 216 would extend the scope of the disclosure offence to bring photographs and films of breasts and buttocks within the range of sexual images and therefore within scope of the offence in the same way as such images of the victim’s exposed genitals or pubic area. That is in the Scottish legislation and it is quite clear from the evidence we have seen that such images are likely to cause distress, particularly to young girls, in the same way and to the same extent as the images presently within the scope of the Act. Of course, disclosure of such images would be an offence only if the threshold criteria were met: that the image was private, that it was disclosed without consent, and that it was disclosed with the intention of causing distress. There is no reason for the legislation to restrict the images that are not to be disclosed in the way that it currently does.
In the second part of the amendment, proposed subsections (3) and (4) would remove Sections 35(4) and (5), which are the current exception in the legislation for photographs or films that are created by altering originals or combining them with other photographs or films in such a way as to bring them within the statutory definition of “private” and “sexual”, so doctoring films and images to make them offensive. We do not accept the need or the justification for that exception. If a photograph or film as finished and published has the effect of a private and sexual image and is disclosed without the consent of the subject and with the relevant intent, I suggest that is ample reason to bring it within the section rather than to except it from it.
The first two subsections of Amendment 217 would amend Section 33 of the 2015 Act to extend the disclosure offence to bring threats to disclose private sexual photographs and films within the scope of the offence, as well as actual disclosure. There can be no reason to exclude threats to disclose from the legislation and, although it is true that the actual disclosure is what causes much of the harm, a threatened disclosure by the holder of sexual images of a victim can be used to put real and painful pressure on the victim, usually a previous partner, causing very real distress. That is why the amendment would bring threatened disclosures into scope.
Secondly, proposed subsection (3) would broaden the category of the unnecessary emotional consequences for the victim necessary to sustain a conviction so as to include “fear or alarm” as well as “distress” as an alternative form of consequence. That extension is particularly relevant in the context of threatened rather than actual disclosure.
Thirdly, the amendment by the proposed subsection (3) would also make proof of recklessness regarding the distress, fear or alarm likely to be caused sufficient to found a conviction as an alternative to proof of intention. Again, this is in the Scottish legislation. In this context, reckless disclosure means disclosure that is deliberate but that is made entirely without regard to the distress, fear or alarm that it is likely to cause to the victim. The perpetrator knows he is making the disclosure. He should not escape criminal liability just because the prosecution cannot prove that he positively intended its obvious consequences. We suggest that he should be equally criminally liable if he turns a blind eye to those consequences. It is right that intention should be supplemented by guilt in respect of disclosure that is reckless as to the likelihood of the harm it will cause. The deletion of Section 33(8) that is proposed by subsection (5) is also necessary to achieve that end.
Lastly, the proposed subsection (4) in the amendment would introduce a clear and explicit ban on promoting, soliciting or profiting from photographs or films that are themselves in breach of the Act. I apologise that, as drafted, the use of the words,
“reasonably believed to have been disclosed without consent”,
is perhaps inappropriate; I am not sure that reasonable belief is correctly used there. I suspect the proposed new clause would better read if it were expressed as, “disclosed without consent in the knowledge or belief that they had been so disclosed”, and we would redraft subsection (4) in that regard before Report.
Amendment 218 would introduce a provision for compensation for victims of offences under these provisions. It is plainly right that these revenge porn offences should give rise to a power to award compensation, but I would add to that self-evident assertion two particular points. First, this offence is unlikely to give rise to civil proceedings— victims will generally be unwilling to go through civil cases because of the embarrassment that could cause, and they will rarely have the means to do so.
Secondly, there will be many cases of revenge porn offences where the perpetrator is gainfully employed and will have the means to pay compensation ordered by the court for the hurt he has caused. We suggest that a power to award compensation, to include compensation for anxiety as well as for direct financial loss, is therefore an important part of a judge’s power to deal with an offender and publicly to recognise the harm caused by the offender directly to the victim.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord is saying. What troubles me slightly is the quantum of the compensation and, more particularly, whether there is any appeal on it. I think these offences are triable either way. In the magistrates’ court, is there an appeal to the Crown Court on the quantum contemplated? If the case is tried on indictment, where lies appeal from the compensation ordered by the Crown Court?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, it is quite plain that there ought to be an appeal. I have not looked at the provisions and perhaps I can clear that up before Report. It is also quite clear that the appeal from the magistrates’ court on compensation would go to the Crown Court and from the Crown Court to the Court of Appeal, where the standard for an appeal is high but one would expect the judges to get it right. The noble Lord knows well that these issues of compensation are very much in the discretion of the trial judge, taking into account both the harm caused and the ability of the offender to pay the compensation. It is a perfectly good question and I undertake to look at it before Report.
Finally, Amendment 219 would simply add these offences to the list of sexual offences in respect of which a victim is entitled to anonymity. It is right that there should be anonymity for victims of revenge porn offences because these fall squarely within the category of sexual offences that are entitled to such anonymity. I think this is relatively uncontroversial. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I give qualified support to what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I have a great deal of sympathy with the underlying argument which he has advanced. There is no doubt, and it is increasingly the case, that people are using private intimate photographs and films for the purpose of blackmail or revenge. Given that we have a Bill where we can extend the existing law, I see absolutely no reason why we should not extend the substantive offence of disclosure to one of intent as well. That is a perfectly sensible amendment and I would support it if given the opportunity.
Regarding extending the definition of the “damage” from distress to the enlarged category which the noble Lord spoke of, my feeling is that the word “distress” probably encompasses what he has in mind. However, I have no objection to the extension in the sense that it does at least remove any doubt that may exist and is certainly not harmful. I suspect it is not necessary but I am not against it.
I made a point about compensation when I intervened on the noble Lord and I will not repeat it at any length. In principle, I am in favour of a compensation provision, but I worry about compensation at large without any kind of regulation of the amount: that can mean injustice. I am far from clear on whether the Crown Court has an appellate role in respect of compensation awarded at the magistrates’ court, and I would be grateful if the Minister could help the Committee on this. I am even more in doubt as to whether the Court of Appeal would have a role in considering an award made at the Crown Court. Will my noble friend give some thought to this, maybe returning at some later stage? If there is no effective appeal, I have two suggestions. One is that we should impose an arbitrary cap—a ceiling—on the amount that could be awarded. That would prevent any obvious injustice. Secondly, and differently, we should consider restricting the claim for compensation to a claim made in civil proceedings, where the procedure is more clearly established.
Amendment 219 is about anonymity. I took the opportunity to look at the substantive Act and was struck by the very large number of examples which are covered by anonymity. I can see no reason of principle, and rather a lot of advantage, in accepting the amendment put forward by the noble Lord to extend anonymity to this category of case.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I have some comments on Amendments 216 and 217 for consideration by the Committee. On Amendment 216, I am doubtful that Section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 needs amendment to add the words “breasts” and “buttocks”. The reason for that is that Section 35(3) already defines a photograph or a film as sexual if,
“it shows something that a reasonable person would consider to be sexual because of its nature”,
or if the,
“content, taken as a whole, is such that a reasonable person would consider it to be sexual”.
The reason why I anticipate that the 2015 Act does not make a photograph of a breast or a buttock necessarily sexual is that it is very easy to think of circumstances in which such a photograph is not sexual by reason of its context. It may be a photograph of your child in a swimming pool with their breast exposed; it may be a photograph of a breast-feeding mother. It may be a beach shot of my family that shows someone in the background wearing a thong. It all depends on the context—and if the context is sexual, the Act already covers it.
Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 217 would create a new criminal offence of promoting, soliciting or profiting from “private photographs and films”. I have no difficulty, of course, with the idea that that should be a criminal offence. I point out that that subsection, however, does not use the word “sexual”. I assume that that is a drafting error; it talks about profiting from “private photographs and films”, but I think it should say “private sexual photographs and films”. Otherwise, it has a very different scope—which I see from the nodding on the Liberal Democrat Benches was not intended.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is plainly right on that—it needs amendment.
Lord Pannick
I am grateful. My only other point on Amendment 217 is one that I think the noble Lord, Lord Marks, accepted in his helpful opening speech. The offence in subsection (4) is committed if the defendant reasonably believes that the photographs or films were “disclosed without consent”. That would be anomalous since the primary offence—the offence committed by the person who discloses private sexual photographs or films—rightly requires the prosecution to prove that the disclosure was without the consent of the individual.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in his place, as the Minister who announced the changes in the legislation when some of us were campaigning to get it transformed. It was a very proud moment when he announced it—quite late in the evening, as I recall—and we had watching in the Gallery a whole row of ladies, plus one man, who had broken their anonymity and shared with us the appalling experiences that each of them had been through as a result of revenge porn.
I am very proud that, even with the limited amendments that we managed to get through to the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, we are now as a nation a little further ahead than most others in trying to deal with a very difficult issue. But there are so many more who are not caught in the current legislation. While in 2015-16 we know that 206 individuals were prosecuted under the new law, a survey by “Good Morning Britain” revealed that police forces in England and Wales had dealt with a total of 2,130 cases. There is quite a difference between these numbers in terms of what is going forward to prosecution, and we have already heard what some of the difficulties in that area are likely to be.
It is also critical that we as parliamentarians stay ahead of the speed of change in attitudes and behaviour that smartphones and social media bring in their wake. In the US, a McAfee study revealed that 36% of people had sent or intended to send an intimate picture. As legislators, we have to understand that, whatever our attitude to and opinion of that, we need to create laws that foresee the way that society is changing. These amendments therefore necessarily go further and we must credit the Women’s Equality Party for its part in doing some of the drafting, which resulted in us trying to amend this in the other place.
I particularly want to address the issue of anonymity. When we ran this campaign a year ago, some women stepped forward and were prepared to be named when they recounted what they had gone through. But part of the problem was that many victims were too scared to put their names out there. This happened to one lady whom we dealt with—because her name was out there and she was campaigning against this, it ensured that she got far more coverage on some of the websites that she was deliberately trying to avoid. It has now been accepted in current legislation by this Government that victims of forced marriage are given that anonymity; I see this as being a very similar area.
I will conclude here. I think that we are aware that in this area there are issues of suicide, self-harm and damaged reputation. As we talk now there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of young men and women who are sharing intimate images that, frankly, will have a devastating impact on their future. It is up to us, through some of these amendments, to be ahead of the law at every stage.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for mentioning my small part in the acceptance of revenge porn as part of the list of criminal offences that the Government accepted ought to enter the calendar of criminal offences. The Government looked carefully at this and, in many ways, some of the conduct that was embraced within so-called revenge porn was probably covered by existing criminal offences. However, it was accepted that such was the need to identify specifically this sort of behaviour that it was appropriate to include it as part of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
While I entirely accept what lies behind these amendments and the evil that they are directed against, I think that one has to bear in mind that we have had only a very short time for this legislation to bed down. I am glad that there have been prosecutions; it appears that there was a need and the prosecuting authorities have acted accordingly. But I am not sure that I am, at the moment, satisfied that there is a need to go further in terms of definition. For example, Amendment 217 talks about threats to disclose. The Minister will no doubt correct me, but all these areas are probably covered by existing criminal law—for example, blackmail, threatening behaviour, theft or other offences. A threat may be something substantial but it may be something very trivial and we do not want to have relatively trivial matters embraced in what is often a very serious offence.
As to Amendment 218, of course, on the face of it, it seems attractive that there should be some compensation. I am a little concerned, however, about a judge in a criminal case having to assess anxiety and the degree of anxiety in terms of the appropriate quantum of damages. How is he or she going to do that? Will there be evidence from somebody expressing how affected they were, and the degree of the affection—whether, for example, it caused them to go to a doctor? There is a slight danger that we could lose sight of what is really important—a criminal offence, rather than whether there should be compensation.
Quite apart from the questions of appeal raised by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, there is some work to be done on this. On the question of appeal, surely there would be an appeal from the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court as of right, and to the court of criminal appeal in appropriate, and possibly restrictive, circumstances. It may be that in due course there would be some informal tariff, perhaps involving the Sentencing Council—but I would not like it to be thought that the criminal prosecution of matters should be used as some proxy for obtaining compensation.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. These amendments cover a serious and disturbing issue that has received considerable publicity in recent months. The purpose of the amendments, as I understand it, is to tighten and extend the reach and scope of the law in respect of disclosure of private sexual photographs and films without consent and with malicious intent. They include new clauses on compensation and anonymity for victims. At this stage we will listen with interest to the Government’s response, including the extent to which they consider that the law as it stands is sufficient—or, alternatively, needed—to deal with any or all of the issues addressed in the amendments.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has explained, this group of amendments all relate to what is commonly referred to as revenge porn, as provided for in Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Amendments 216 and 217 seek to extend significantly the scope of the offence, but the Government consider that the offence is working well. I am pleased to see my noble friend Lord Faulks in his seat; as he said, there have been more than 60 convictions for the offence since it came into force in April last year.
The offence is deliberately tightly drafted to target those individuals who have disclosed private and sexual images without consent, and with the intention of causing distress to the individual depicted. We are not persuaded that a sufficiently strong case has been made for broadening the scope of the offence, as proposed by the two amendments.
The general effect of Amendment 216 would be to significantly extend the range of material that could be considered private and sexual for the purpose of the offence. Currently, the offence is drafted to capture material that is sufficiently sexually explicit that its dissemination would be likely to cause real distress to those depicted. The offence also provides that images that are photoshopped—for example, so that a non-sexual image of an individual becomes sexual—should not be covered by the offence. This is because the disclosure of such an image, though still distressing, does not have the potential to cause the same degree of harm as the disclosure of an undoctored photograph showing images of the kind referred to in Section 35(3) of the 2015 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made some interesting observations to that end. To alter the definition of “sexual” as proposed in Amendment 216 would, in our view, unjustifiably extend the scope of the offence.
Regarding the extension of the offence proposed by Amendment 217, we see no need to capture those who threaten to post such images. The offence, rightly, deals only with the act of actually disclosing private and sexual images, as it is the disclosure of the images that causes the harm which criminalising this behaviour seeks to prevent. As my noble friend Lord Faulks says, threats to disclose could, depending on the circumstances, be captured by existing offences that tackle harassment, malicious communications or, of course, blackmail. It is also difficult to see what would be gained by including an intention to cause fear or alarm to the victim, as distress is sufficiently broad a term for these purposes. Amendment 217 also seeks to make it possible for the offence to be committed recklessly as well as intentionally. The offence is targeted at those who deliberately seek to cause distress to victims through the dissemination of private and sexual material. This malicious intent—the revenge element of revenge porn, so to speak—is a key feature of the offence and we believe it would be wrong to dilute this by applying the offence to conduct that is the result of recklessness rather than a deliberately malicious act. Similarly, the proposal to extend the offence to those who,
“knowingly promote, solicit or profit”,
in relation to revenge porn material would shift the emphasis from those who disclose the relevant images with malicious intent, the mischief which this offence is intended to address.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I will be very brief in response. We will, of course, consider the Minister’s reply in detail between now and Report.
On the question of appeal and the cap on compensation, I am anxious that victims are not directed to civil proceedings as a result of the difficulties I foresee here. Rather than imposing a formal cap, I am far more sympathetic to the idea of requiring either the Sentencing Council or the Judicial College to introduce sentencing guidelines for compensation for these offences. I am not, at the moment, convinced by the Minister’s response that current compensation-awarding powers necessarily cover the kind of distress and hurt caused by these offences and I cannot see why a specific power should be otiose.
On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the extension of the offence in respect of the type of depictions and images that can be shown would bring this Bill in line with Scottish legislation, as I said. The threshold criteria, according to which images must be private, published without consent, and with intent to cause to distress, answers the point that a distinction should be drawn between the precise nature of the image: if images meet those criteria, the fact that it is not the pubic area but only breasts and buttocks that are shown should still be enough to make them sexual. I am not convinced by the alternative catch-all provision, although I see the force of the point.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, made a point about threats to disclose information already being criminalised under certain laws. He mentioned blackmail and theft and the Minister mentioned harassment. The problem with blackmail is that it involves unwarranted demands with menaces, but there is no suggestion here that the mischief at which the amended offence would be aimed is a demand; it is the desire to hurt. I am really not sure that that is covered by any existing offence. Hurt can be caused by the threat of disclosure just as it can be caused by an actual disclosure, and I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for his support on that point.
As to doctored photographs and images, the point about the distress that they cause is that the people who see them do not know that they have been doctored —they are seen as images of the subject. That is how hurt is caused and that is why it is important to cover such photographs and films.
On anonymity, there is no reason why a victim should have to go through the hoops of satisfying a judge that it is required when generally in sexual offence cases it is given as a right. It is also particularly important that those victims who are considering whether to complain of an offence and take the matter to court are guaranteed anonymity as this is an important part of persuading them to come forward with a complaint that then gets prosecuted. The Minister did not answer that point at all.
With your Lordships’ leave, I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
“Pre-charge anonymity
(1) After a person is accused of a sexual offence, no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify them as the person against whom the accusation is made shall either be published in England and Wales in a written publication available to the public, or be broadcast in England and Wales, up until that person is charged with the offence, except where a judge is satisfied that it is in the public interest to remove the restriction in respect of that person.(2) In subsection (1), “matter” includes but is not limited to—(a) a still or moving picture or image of that person; or(b) the name and address of that person.(3) In subsection (2)(a), “picture” includes a likeness however produced.”
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 219A is tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. This amendment is designed simply to protect the identity of those accused of sexual offences in a similar way that the identities of the alleged victims of sexual offences are currently protected. The significant difference here is that the identity of the accused would be protected only until the point of charge, and if the police believe that the public interest demands it, the police can apply to a court to have that ban lifted so that the identity of the accused can be put into the public domain before charge. There needs to be a balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victims of sexual offences. This amendment is designed to allow us to establish where that balance should be.
We will all be acutely aware of the impact that sexual offences can have on the victims or survivors, but until recently the voice of those who have been falsely accused of such offences has not been heard. Some noble Lords will have heard about the impact that such accusations have had on the widow of Lord Brittan, Sir Cliff Richard and Paul Gambaccini when they came to speak to Members of the House about their experiences. I introduced that event but did not hear their personal accounts. Since then I have been contacted by others—the families of those whom none of us has ever heard of—who have been similarly devastated by allegations of a sexual nature being made, those allegations being made public, and then the police realising that there was no credible evidence to support the allegations. The emotional first-hand accounts of the pain and suffering of those falsely accused are powerful, but I have tried to stand aside from such emotions and to deal with this matter objectively.
It is important that I declare a number of interests in terms of my experiences over the years. During my professional career of more than 30 years as a police officer, I have dealt with, supported and campaigned for justice for those who have been the victims of male violence in general and of sexual offences in particular. I was one of the most senior police officers at New Scotland Yard when the incoming commissioner, Sir Ian, now the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, asked me to carry out a review of how the victims of rape were dealt with by the Metropolitan Police. Having been the co-author of a book that significantly changed the way the police investigated rape offences for the better, the commissioner wanted to ensure that the Metropolitan Police was among the best in the world at dealing with rape allegations. I carried out an in-depth review with academics and survivor groups, and produced hard-hitting recommendations on how the police should improve the way they support victims of rape. I worked together with the then assistant commissioner, Tim Godwin, to establish further Havens, places in the National Health Service where the survivors of sexual offences could go to receive the physical and psychological support they needed, where forensic samples could be preserved, and where they could be put in contact with the police if they wanted to pursue the case through the criminal justice system.
One of the first engagements I had with a group from outside the House following my introduction three years ago was with representatives of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, a UK-wide coalition of more than 70 women’s organisations and others working to end violence against women and girls in all its forms. The point I want to make is that I am passionate about working to end violence against women and girls, ensuring that the survivors of male violence are supported and the perpetrators brought to justice if the survivor wants to pursue the matter.
I know from personal experience about male violence and no one is more committed to ensuring that the criminal justice system does more to protect and support survivors, as well as ensuring that the perpetrators are successfully brought to justice in a way that respects survivors and encourages them to come forward. But this cannot be justice for victims at any cost. The protection of the rights of survivors cannot be at the unnecessary and unreasonable denial of the rights of the accused.
Many sexual offences are different in nature from other criminal offences. In most cases of criminal wrongdoing, there is objective and physical evidence of that wrongdoing. If someone is accused of murder, there is almost always a body. If someone is accused of child cruelty, there is a child who has been harmed. In many sexual offences cases, particularly where the offence is historical, very often there is no objective, independent physical evidence. The allegation can be made and the complainant can be credible, but the complainant may be mistaken or, albeit rarely, malicious. One has only to look at those parts of the report produced for the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police by Sir Richard Henriques, which was made public last week, to realise how the police can be taken in. The police must treat every allegation made to them seriously, but they must believe the person making the allegation as far as the initial investigation and care and support for that person are concerned. They must treat the allegations as true as far as their interaction with that individual is concerned, unless and until they establish that there is no credible evidence to support the allegation. However, until they do establish that there is credible evidence that they can put before a court, they should not do anything to identify the accused, unless there are exceptional circumstances. That is what this amendment seeks to achieve.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who has huge experience in this area. I open my remarks by telling a true story. A woman rifles through the dustbin of a reputable consultant, finds a used condom, smears the contents on herself and makes a false allegation of rape. Because the accused has no right to anonymity, he is suspended as a consultant psychiatrist, hauled before the GMC, shunned by his friends, attacked on the internet, loses £100,000, part of which was income, and is then discredited in his own community. Should we not be looking at the law on anonymity for men, as there are many cases of reputations that have been destroyed where prosecutions have been dropped?
I have raised this issue on many occasions over the last 15 years of my membership of this House. To be frank, I got absolutely nowhere. The problem is not in this House, but in the Commons. There are women in the Commons who feel strongly that transparency in the legal and investigatory processes helps to secure a high rate of successful prosecutions. I understand all that. The facts as the law stands speak for themselves: a 31% increase in recorded rapes in 2015 alone; gross underreporting of the crime; one in five women under 60 reporting sexual violence; abuse in the process, as in the recent Evans case; and the disturbing trend—I understand, although I am not a lawyer—of jury vilification, where juries return a verdict of not guilty despite a belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation. The jury, in effect, is nullifying a law it believes is immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate it is charged with deciding. Finally, there is a low rate of successful prosecutions. That is the background; it is the tension in the Commons that leads to opposition to the change of the law in this area.
These concerns and more stand at the heart of the anonymity debate. Women want early identification so as to counteract their concerns. As Maria Eagle put it in the Commons:
“Rape is often a serial crime and it is often only after many crimes that a perpetrator is brought to court. Previous victims often come forward at that point. That can be essential to the securing of a conviction”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/10; col. 567.]
That is the case in defence of the present arrangements.
There is, however, an appalling price to pay for the denial of anonymity. Lives are being destroyed. The new drivers behind the argument for reform are those whose lives have been ruined by pre-charge publicity: Cliff Richard, Paul Gambaccini and Leon Brittan—as we mentioned—and the many others who have written to me over the years detailing what has happened in their lives. It has meant the loss of livelihood, the loss of friendships, marriages collapsed and families destroyed by the unjustifiable publicity. Even when their names are cleared, they take to their graves an element of residual public prejudice and suspicion. The benefits of transparency have to be carefully weighed against the destruction of people’s lives, which on occasions has even led to suicide. There has to be reform.
We are then told by those who oppose anonymity that you cannot single out the crime of rape from other offences pre-charge. Again, as Maria Eagle put it in the House of Commons:
“In fact, people accused of sexual crimes should not be treated any differently from other defendants. If the Under-Secretary”—
who was across the Dispatch Box at the time—
“singles out rape from all other sexual offences … That will impinge on victims’ capacity to come forward … which will in turn impinge on the conviction rate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/10; col. 567.]
I cannot, however, understand how singling out rape pre-charge deters reporting by victims when, once a person is charged, goes to court and is placed on public trial, the world is made aware of the nature of the crime that they are alleged to have committed. In a particular case, a man is not tried for previous rapes, as I understand it, but only the rape or rapes that is or are the subject of the prosecution. Surely if, during a trial, further rape cases come to light, and if the evidence is there, further prosecutions can be brought.
We are then told that police guidelines protect the accused prior to charge from adverse humiliating publicity. However, as Mr Blunt, the Minister, said at the Dispatch Box in the other House on behalf of the Government in July 2010:
“It appears to be widely assumed that there is a self-regulation scheme in place that clearly prohibits the reporting of anybody accused of a crime but not yet charged with it. On close examination, however, the 2004 interpretative note does not provide complete reassurance. Nowhere does it contain an outright general prohibition on the reporting of pre-charge allegations. In fact, in the main, no mention is made of the distinction between pre and post-charge reporting at all”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/10; col. 557.]
That is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, so forcefully put in his contribution. In other words, there is potentially no redress for those accused who are innocent.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and his very reasonable amendment. The Committee is very lucky to have his expertise. Unfortunately, I have limited experience in the area of PACE and police investigations, so I am unable to offer the Committee my own solution. However, I have no difficulty in seeing that something is seriously wrong and needs urgent attention, and I intend to support the noble Lord vigorously.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Minister has never hesitated to rely on the principle of operational independence for the police, but it is a principle that I think is often taken too far and seems to me to be an excuse for doing nothing. Interestingly, when the then Home Secretary, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, wanted to curb the use of stop and search powers, operational independence did not seem to be a problem.
In public life, some people are important, some are powerful, some are senior and some are all three. Fortunately, I am none of these, so there is no risk to me of being subject to a sensational and false allegation, because no one would be the slightest bit interested.
It is not often that the Metropolitan Police has to investigate someone who is far more senior than the commissioner himself. When such a situation arises, no one—as far as I am aware—is suggesting that an investigation should not take place; far from it. In fact, in recent years we have seen Cabinet Ministers investigated and prosecuted. As far as I know, during Operation Midland Ministers and the Government did absolutely nothing and let the police follow the evidence, and rightly so. We would not expect anything else, and we do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Nevertheless, if the Metropolitan Police decides to investigate someone as senior as the noble and gallant Lord, Field Marshall Lord Bramall, KG—Knight of the Garter—one would expect the commissioner to keep himself very closely informed indeed, not least because it could have adverse effect with our overseas opponents. It also could cause very serious reputational damage to the Metropolitan Police if the operation turned out to be flawed.
The Committee will be aware that Lord Bramall was Chief of the Defence Staff at the height of the Cold War. Our Security Service, over many years, would have formally and informally taken all the necessary steps to ensure that he could be trusted with large amounts of highly classified material. Our “Four Eyes” partners would also have relied on that confidence, but the exceptionally overt Operation Midland investigation could well have called into question the reliability of our vetting procedures.
Lord Bramall would have known everything when he was Chief of the Defence Staff. For instance, in the event of a mass armoured attack on the north German plain, would we have used tactical nuclear weapons? He would have known. What serious weaknesses did we have that our opponents were unaware of? He would have known. What weaknesses did our opponents have that we knew about but they did not? He would have known. If there was any problem with Lord Bramall along the lines alleged, it would have been of strategic significance. It would have been unbelievably serious.
At Question Time last week, the Minister referred to the Henriques report. The report was initiated and the terms of reference were set by the commissioner. Apparently, this means he can also determine what is published and what is not. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is: does the report and its terms of reference cover the failure of the commissioner to terminate the Operation Midland inquiry into Lord Bramall as soon as possible after it became obvious that there was not one shred of incriminating evidence? Secondly, has my noble friend read the report? Will the Home Secretary initiate an inquiry on her own terms, so that she can determine what will be published?
I am extremely unhappy about the procedure for obtaining search warrants, although my advice is that the magistrate concerned probably did the right thing by granting one in the Bramall case. What is the point of involving the judiciary if magistrates grant a warrant in such circumstances as Lord Bramall’s case? What questions were asked of the police requesting the warrant in such an improbable case? For instance, were they asked whether the Security Service had been consulted and whether the sanity of Nick had been checked by a medically qualified person? If the complaint turned out to be fiction and baseless, would a criminal prosecution of Nick be inevitable because that should be the remedy for a malicious and baseless complaint? It would also be interesting to know whether the commissioner asked these questions. It now seems that it may be better to allow a senior police officer to authorise a search rather than relying upon the judiciary. At least there is some mechanism for holding senior officers to account, eventually.
If this totally flawed inquiry can be inflicted upon a retired officer of stratospheric seniority with apparent impunity, what is to protect the ordinary man in the street? It seems to me that the judiciary dish out search warrants like sweets, despite how distressing it must be for an innocent person, whatever their status. So far as I can see, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police had the power to terminate this inquiry at an early stage, but chose not to do so for presentational reasons. He could have written a sincere letter of apology to Lord Bramall, but chose not to, presumably on legal advice. Luckily, Lord Bramall has not passed away too soon; it is a pity the same cannot be said for Lord Brittan or, indeed, Lady Bramall.
Both these failings seem to me to indicate a lack of capacity to take an unpalatable course of action. It is not unusual for retired Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police to be offered a seat in your Lordships’ House, but your Lordships’ House is overfull with active Members. We already have far too many Peers, and we already have several retired senior and very senior police officers who are already meeting the needs of the House exceptionally well, not least the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. It is not clear to me why we would need another retired commissioner, and one who appears to be unable to write a sincere letter of apology to a Field Marshal who has had his reputation traduced solely because he is such a senior officer and a great public servant. If the police use their powers carelessly, it is our duty to constrain them.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, the Committee will be very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Campbell-Savours, for bringing forward this amendment on what is undoubtedly an important issue. I am sure the Committee shares their sense of outrage—I certainly do—at the treatment of Sir Cliff Richard and others who were wrongly and unfairly accused of sexual offences, but I am not persuaded that this amendment is the answer to the problem. A prohibition on publicising an accusation of a sexual offence raises many difficulties.
The first is that publicity can lead others to come forward with supporting evidence that helps to make the case against the person who is rightly accused. Sometimes this is evidence that the person accused has treated them in the same way. They have not previously come forward because they are fearful that no one would take them seriously. It is only hearing that an allegation is being taken seriously that gives them the confidence to come forward.
Lord Campbell-Savours
Surely they can come forward during the course of the trial.
Lord Pannick
The problem is that they come forward during the course of the trial only if there is one. By reason of the publicity, they are encouraged to come forward and present evidence that helps to persuade the prosecuting authorities that the matter should proceed to a trial. That is the difficulty. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, says that justice should not be achieved at any cost. He is right, but to impede convicting the guilty is a very high cost indeed. That is the first problem.
The second problem is that the amendment would prevent the person accused from publicising the allegation against him in order to express his outrage or possibly to seek alibi witnesses. There are cases in which publicity has been sought by the person wrongly accused and this helps to exonerate that person. I appreciate that this amendment would allow the person accused to seek permission from the judge to publicise the matter in the public interest. But if I am wrongly accused of a sexual offence, I should not need to persuade a judge that it is in the public interest for me to be able to publicise the fact. I am entitled to publicise the matter because it is in my interests.
The third problem is common to restrictions on open justice. You can prevent publication of the name of the person concerned, but you cannot prevent people in the know from gossiping. The consequence is that a larger group of people know the name of the person concerned. Those who do not know inevitably speculate. This amendment or any variation of it would not prevent the press from publicising—and they would—that a famous footballer, a well-known pop star or a senior politician has been accused of a sexual offence. It would not prevent the press from publicising details as long as this does not identify the specific politician, pop star or footballer concerned.
Earl Attlee
I am sure that the noble Lord is right. Would that not let other victims know that their allegations would be taken seriously?
Lord Pannick
No. They would not know who the individual was. This of course is very unfair on famous footballers, well-known pop stars and senior politicians who are not the subject of the accusation. Can they issue a press release to say that they are not the person concerned? That is the third problem.
The fourth problem is that the amendment does not address the difficult question of what is meant by being accused. As drafted, the prohibition on publicity would apply whether or not it is the police making the accusation. It seems to suggest that any accusation of a sexual offence would prevent publicity, but how far does this go?
Fifthly, the amendment fails adequately to address when the prohibition on publicity comes to an end. As drafted, the prohibition on publicity ends when the person concerned is charged with an offence. But let us suppose that the police decide not to bring charges and the person concerned is exonerated. Under this amendment, it seems that no publicity is allowed even at that stage—the person concerned cannot tell the world that he has been vindicated and the press still cannot report that a false allegation has been made.
Lord Campbell-Savours
The noble Lord has listed a number of objections. He is an eminent lawyer. How would he solve the problem in a way that enables people to protect their reputations when they are innocent?
Lord Pannick
The way that people protect their reputations is that we all have to emphasise the importance of the presumption of innocence. It is quite wrong that people such as the doctor to whom the noble Lord referred are subjected to serious detriment simply because an allegation has been made. That is the basis of English law: you are innocent until you are convicted. That is the principle and I do not accept that the nature of the problem justifies an amendment of this sort, which would lead to all the problems I have sought to identify.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, notwithstanding the very eloquent speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I am in favour of this amendment, subject to one or two points I am going to make. If the noble Lord will forgive me, most of his points are drafting points, which could be dealt with by way of further discussion and a further amendment. I take the point that there are defects in this amendment but in my view, the principle that the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Campbell-Savours, are aiming at is correct and the arguments that have been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are not correct.
I have two reservations. First, I note that one of the principal mischiefs that this amendment should capture is not dealt with at all: communication by police officers to the press, often for money. I know perfectly well that that is covered by existing legislation and I have no doubt that communication by a police officer giving private information regarding accusations is contrary to the disciplinary code, but if we are moving an amendment of this kind, we should seek to catch the very serious mischief of police officers giving private information to the press.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, is the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, saying that the practice of police officers giving information to the press after a person is accused by them of an offence is not covered by the amendment as drawn? I should have thought it was.
Viscount Hailsham
I really do not think so because it is a question of publication. What is meant by “publication”? It is, I think, different from communication. I think “communication” is a private communication—made, for example, by a police officer to a journalist—and “publication” is a more overt act which happens via the press, the television or whatever. I think they are different. Perhaps that matter could be considered by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
The second point concerns gossip. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is quite right about this. There will be gossip. Among the great mischiefs are social media and foreign communications, where there is an awful lot of identification. That is a form of gossip that is simply not touched by this amendment and probably cannot be. That is a defect, which I acknowledge even though I support the broad thrust of the amendment.
On the broad thrust, I find the arguments advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Paddick, very persuasive. Harvey Proctor was an old colleague of mine in the House of Commons. We all know that he lost his job and his home, and his reputation has been irreparably damaged by what happened. The publicity regarding Sir Edward Heath is simply absurd but it will taint his long-term reputation. I was PPS to Lord Brittan when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. His last days were darkened by the allegations against him, which were wholly groundless. There is therefore a serious mischief that the Committee should seek to address.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has made some important points here but, if he will forgive my saying so, he seems to ignore the principle of proportionality, which should come into play. If we are right in supposing that this is a very serious mischief, we should be cautious about allowing drafting points to stand in the way of confronting it. The question of witnesses coming forward is a proper point. There is no doubt that on occasion, publicity enables witnesses to come forward; that is absolutely true. Surely, though, the proviso in the amendment that would enable the police to go to a judge for the authority to disclose the fact of the accusation addresses that point. Maybe it could be improved upon but the concept of allowing the prohibition to be lifted by a judge is surely a sensible one.
The point the noble Lord makes about the accused person being prohibited from receiving exoneration is a perfectly good one and has substance, but actually it is a drafting point and it would take the noble Lord and myself but a few moments to add the necessary words to the amendment to cover it. I ask the Committee to stand back, look at the extent of the mischief and ask itself whether the drafting objections that have been put forward are sufficiently weighty to stand in the way of our doing justice.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, many speakers with much more experience than me might wonder why someone who has amendments later in today’s Committee on the rights of and support for victims might wish to speak in support of this amendment. I have experience of cases involving two teachers and very contrasting approaches by the police, both pre-charge and post-charge. The first involved a head teacher who happened to live in the area of his school. A pupil had made a very serious allegation and there was much publicity. Not only did the head teacher and his family have to leave the village but he became seriously ill; in fact he died within two years of the incident going public. It quickly became apparent that this was a fallacious allegation by the pupil, and the police dropped the case. The problem is people. The matter had been all over the local press and radio, and this man’s career was utterly traduced. There is no doubt that it led to the downfall in his health and his subsequent death.
The other case is that of a friend of mine who was abused at his boarding school aged about eight years old. After some decades he finally managed to pluck up the courage to talk to the police, and then the police guidelines were followed. Until after charging there was no advertising at all about the case. At that moment two other pupils from other decades came forward, thus supporting and helping the police and the CPS when they brought their case. Importantly for the initial complainant, they went through only one moment when the entire matter was made public. Had it gone public before then, there would have been repeated incidences in the press and very difficult times until it came to trial.
This is about justice. It is absolutely right that there should be justice where a complaint has been made and no charge follows. However, there is also an issue for the victims and the lives they have to lead if false publicity is given and nothing then follows; they also have to live through substantial amounts of publicity. I do not have the knowledge that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, does, but I support the amendment. If it needs redrafting to finesse it, that is absolutely right—provided that there is the chance at an appropriate moment, and it seems to me that charging is that moment.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, we know that this is an issue on which it is very difficult to find a satisfactory compromise. I am also conscious of not taking drafting points which might serve to divert us from the central issue. However, I am a bit concerned about this proviso. I understand that it is a sensible idea to have one, so that a judge can be satisfied that it is in the public interest to remove the restriction in respect of a person. If that is to be meaningful, will the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, explain to the Committee in what circumstances he envisages an application being made and who will make it? How is the public interest going to be defined? Whose interest is the public interest? Reference was made to a case where there was corroborating or forensic evidence being circumstances in which a judge would be satisfied. However, many of these claims may concern young people who did not know they could complain. Many years have gone past; there is no forensic evidence. As far as they know, there may be no corroborating evidence. Are they to come within that exception? How is the judge to assess this? If this is to be a meaningful exception to change the law, we need to set out with some precision the sorts of factors that ought to be taken into account.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I have great respect for both my noble friend Lord Paddick and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. On this occasion, it is with the former, rather than the latter, that I agree, although one takes on either of them with a measure of reluctance and trepidation. I was partly struck to say something in this debate when the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asserted that to impose obstacles to convicting the guilty is a very high cost. We actually pay this cost throughout our criminal justice system. It would be a lot easier to convict some people that we and the police think are guilty if we did not have to prove that they actually are, to the satisfaction of a jury, or if various procedures, such as disclosure, did not have to operate—the prosecution must disclose any evidence it comes across that might support the innocence of the accused. Many of these things make it more difficult to convict people, but they are part of the protection for the innocent and uphold the principle that someone has to be proven to have committed an offence.
Much of the argument about whether the kind of prohibition which my noble friend has advanced—and I agree this should be done—revolves around whether people who have had similar experiences of the accused will come forward. There are several points at which, if this clause were in operation, they would still be able to do so: between charge and trial or between the various stages of a trial process, for example between committal and trial. I am not an expert in this, but it appears that in most of the cases where this has happened it has been at that stage, rather than at the stage of initial accusation, except perhaps in some of the most notorious cases, which have been referred to this afternoon, where injustice has been done by publicity.
As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, correctly pointed out, the proviso has to be precisely worded. The point of the proviso is that anonymity might be broken if the police and prosecuting authority consider that they would like to go to trial and the evidence is not quite strong enough for them to do so but there is some knowledge that it is likely that people will come forward. A case where there is substantial evidence that does not quite meet the Crown Prosecution Service’s normal criteria, yet there is reason to believe that there may be others, might be just the circumstances in which an earlier breach of anonymity would be justified.
The weakest point put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was the one about gossip and speculation. The whole process is attended by the risk of these. If the name of an accused person cannot be disclosed prior to charge, there may be those who seek to gossip about it. That is something we should try to deal with in whatever way we can. But of course the same applies to the anonymity of the victim. Most of us have read newspaper stories which speculate and hint at who the victim might be in such a case. We cannot use that as a reason not to afford protection to the victim, and we should not use it as a reason not to afford protection to the accused at a stage in the process when it is unreasonable to visit a punishment more severe than applies in many other criminal offences, arising out of the publicity and shame and loss of office and other consequences that have attended some of the cases that we have heard about.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, produced several convincing examples of drafting that might be improved in this Bill, but that is what it was—the principle needs to be addressed, and it is not adequately satisfied by guidelines. Even though the better the guidelines the better the situation, guidelines fall short of the value of a firm principle enshrined in law, which the criminal justice system can itself uphold.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I introduce what I want to say by suggesting that we need to question certainties that anybody advances in this debate. I went to, was well informed by and was deeply sympathetic to, the meeting arranged by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, where we heard the overwhelmingly poignant stories of Mr Gambaccini, Lady Brittan and Sir Cliff Richard, and I thought, “That’s a certainty, isn’t it?”. But then I remembered an experience that I had when I was a young member of the Bar, of a client in the Midlands arrested for murder. If he was arrested, it meant that there were reasonable grounds for suspicion—and there were. It was quite a notorious case, and the publicity given to his arrest meant that two people came forward who were quite unconnected with him and were able to establish an alibi for him. Another man was subsequently convicted for the murder, so this man was totally innocent. If those people had not come forward, he would have remained in custody pending trial. They might have come forward by trial, but he would have been in custody for many months before his trial began—and, if they had come forward then, the argument would have been, “How can they be so sure that they were together or they saw him in this particular place on this particular night?”.
So there are certainties both ways. I want to contribute to the debate by making two separate and additional points to the ones that have been discussed—perhaps one to meet a point raised in discussion. It is said that rape and sexual crime is particularly awful, and there is usually plenty of other evidence when other crimes are concerned. Well, with murder, the allegation that a mother has killed her children is not the kind of allegation that can be trivialised. There are cases in which mothers alleged to have killed their children have not done so. Noble Lords are all familiar with the phrase “cot death”, although it summarises a much more complex idea. There the question is whether the children were murdered at all, or whether they died from natural causes. It is a terrible allegation to have to face. Do we say, “Ah, well, it does not matter if they have publicity”?
Then there is terrorism. Half the time with terrorism, if the police did not act before the bomb went off, on the knowledge that they have, we would be blown up. So terrorist offences usually consist of conspiracies and offences contrary to various terrorism Acts which never came to fruition. The whole case depends on demonstrating that there was going to be a bomb, or whatever, and it never happened. We have to be careful about the sorts of cases that we are thinking about. I suspect that causing death by dangerous driving is a dreadfully serious allegation to the public mind—and certainly, if it is said to be accompanied by drink, of course it is a dreadfully serious allegation, because it is a dreadfully serious crime.
I ask noble Lords to pause. I understand that sexual crime now seems to be at the forefront of public concern, but let us not just dismiss those other crimes as really not so important, so we do not really need to preserve the anonymity of the accused for them because it does not really matter so much. We need to have a clear principle about this. I think that we should have a principle that either says yes or no to publicity or anonymity at various different stages. But I do not, I regret to say, share the view that sexual crimes should be treated as entirely one-off, on their own, and separate.
There is one more point that I want to add to the discussion. We are working on the basis that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are drafting points—I do not share the criticism made of him. But drafting points matter in this context. Let us pause to consider what arrest means, if we are saying that “don’t disclose anonymity” stands on arrest but, once the charge happens, the anonymity goes. Pitch the time where you like—arrest means that there are reasonable grounds for suspicion. It means that you are incarcerated; it means that you have lost your liberty and that, lawfully, you have lost your liberty, and that it is justified because there are reasonable grounds for suspicion. I have concerns about a blanket prohibition imposing silence on the media in circumstances where somebody’s liberty has been taken from him or her, even if for a short time. That is not how we work in this country. We do not want people locked up for any time at all without anybody being able to say so. Those are considerations that I suggest should be added to the thought that we give to the issues in this debate.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, much gratitude is due to the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Campbell-Savours, for introducing and seconding this amendment, drawing on their long experience of work and reflection in relation to a very important issue. I shall return briefly to a question that has come up naturally in the course of our discussion—the simple question of whether the presumption of innocence until proved guilty is still in practical, effective existence where allegations of sexual abuse are concerned. Last week’s Henriques report showed that during Operation Midland innocent people were treated as if they were guilty, even though there was no serious evidence against them. A recent detailed study by the Oxford University Centre for Criminology concluded that there has been a cultural shift towards believing allegations of abuse and the presumption is now in favour of believing those who present themselves as victims. The study documents in great detail the immense harm done to very large numbers of ordinary, innocent people who had unfounded allegations made against them. In any walk of life, a person whose name appears publicly in relation to a mere allegation of abuse can expect to suffer much hardship. This wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs extends from state to Church, from the living to the dead.
As I have mentioned on previous occasions in your Lordships’ House, grave damage has been inflicted on the reputation of one of the greatest 20th century bishops of the Church of England, George Bell, after a completely secret and internal investigation of a single, uncorroborated complaint, made many decades after his death. At least the injustice done as a result of Operation Midland has been the subject of a thorough authoritative inquiry. In June, the Church announced an independent review of the case involving Bishop Bell. Four and a half months later, we still await the name of the review’s chairman and his or her terms of reference. There is no right reverend Prelate in the Chamber at the moment but I hope that these comments will be noted by the Lords Spiritual.
The authorities of Church as well as state must recognise that we need not just to halt but to reverse the trend that has eroded the presumption of innocence. We need another cultural shift, a decisive, morally responsible one that will stop the ruin of innocent lives and reputations. This amendment, I believe, would help us to achieve that shift.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I support the amendment, although there should of course be amendments to the drafting. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about anonymity acting to the detriment of the accused without his consent. I suggest that consideration be given to redrafting the amendment to permit the accused to waive the right to anonymity. On reconsideration, I should add that I consider my earlier intervention on the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, to be ill advised: the amendment does not in fact cover communication privately by police officers and I accept that it should.
There has been widespread discussion in the press of the independent review by Sir Richard Henriques into the failure of Operation Midland, the reliance placed on accounts given by, in particular, one unreliable witness and baseless allegations that had been made. Those allegations were, as has been said, permitted to do untold harm to the reputations of a number of prominent men who had given their lives to public service.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, reminded us that Sir Richard makes the case for increased anonymity, but his recommendation is that there should be anonymity only pre-arrest. He draws back from recommending anonymity at all stages prior to charge. His reasoning, in paragraph 1.67 of his report, is as follows:
“I consider it most unlikely that a Government will protect the anonymity of suspects pre-charge. To do so would enrage the popular press whose circulation would suffer”.
If that is the reasoning behind his conclusion, I disagree. He goes on to say:
“Present arrangements, however, have caused the most dreadful unhappiness and distress to numerous suspects, their families, friends and supporters”.
In that, Sir Richard is plainly right.
The question of when anonymity should be lost is one of balance. For my part, I do not believe that protection ought to be lost at the date of arrest, when the arrest can be made—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, points out—on reasonable suspicion only. I accept that the consideration that comes into play is whether, as he suggests, anonymity should apply only to sexual offences, rather than more widely. In my view, the particular position relating to sexual offences justifies the difference when we weigh the balance. He is of course right to say that what needs to come into the balance is the risk of injustice flowing from anonymity, just as there may be—indeed, we know there is—a risk of injustice flowing from the exposure that comes from the lack of anonymity.
As we all know, suspicion—even reasonable suspicion sufficient to ground an arrest—can turn out to be entirely misplaced. There may be a reasonable and truthful explanation for the circumstances that give rise to the suspicion justifying an arrest. While those circumstances may demand that explanation, an arrest can legitimately take place before the suspect has had a chance to give the full explanation required. When a suspect is charged, however, it is on the basis of a different test and different circumstances. First, the police must have the evidence that they believe will sustain a prosecution and conviction, if not refuted. Secondly, the suspect will generally have had a full opportunity to give a considered explanation of the circumstances, if there is one. Public exposure damages a suspect’s family life, his privacy and his reputation—for we are talking about men predominantly. The damage is largely irreversible, even where allegations are later withdrawn or found to be baseless. Death has sometimes made the damage and injustice total.
When striking a balance between the right of a suspect to be protected from that damage and the right of the public to know, the balance tips, in my view, in favour of the public’s right to know at the point of charge, not at the point of arrest. I am not persuaded by the argument that pre-charge anonymity will prevent other victims coming forward altogether. It may be that there will be a delay in such victims coming forward and they will do so after charge, rather than after arrest. That gives some opportunity for witnesses to come forward—as in the case of the murder client of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, which of course could happen in the case of a sexual offence client as well. There is delay to the stage at which anonymity is lost, but it is not lost for ever and there is no reason to suppose that others will not come forward at that stage. My noble friend Lady Brinton’s point, that there should be protection also for the victims from early disclosure until it is established by charge that there is going to be a case, is an important one. I agree with my noble friend Lord Beith that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on gossip and speculation, applies wherever there is going to be anonymity at any stage. The argument that we have to address is at what stage anonymity should be lost.
The only reasonable point that can be made against this amendment is that there may be cases where further witnesses might come forward with legitimate and admissible similar fact evidence which might justify the charge where otherwise no charge would be brought. However, for my part, I have concluded that such cases will be rare and that most can be met by the proviso included—though perhaps to be redrafted—in the amendment. It is a question of balance but, in my view, the possibility of similar fact evidence being lost and justice thereby being thwarted is of lesser weight than the inevitable damage caused by premature exposure of an innocent suspect’s identity.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, as we have seen from this debate, this issue raises strong feelings. I will say before I go any further that the overwhelming majority of those who have spoken so far will not be in agreement with what I have to say. It has not been our policy, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours in effect said, to support anonymity for rape suspects before they are charged or indeed those suspected of other sexual offences. There are almost no cases, at least as I understand it, where suspects are specifically granted anonymity in this way in our legal system. I appreciate that the amendment enables a judge to remove the restriction on identifying the person concerned where they are satisfied that doing so would be in the public interest. But we have yet to be convinced that this test will not in reality lead to fewer prosecutions and fewer victims of sexual assault coming forward than is the case even now. Granting anonymity specifically for those suspected of sexual offences could imply that a person making a complaint in respect of such an offence was not to be believed in the same way as someone making a complaint involving another individual in relation to any other kind of offence, such as child cruelty.
During the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, one reason we gave for not changing the law was precisely to avoid giving the impression that there is a presumption of doubt about the credibility of the complainant in sex offence cases, as well as the fact that naming a suspect in such cases can lead to other victims coming forward—as it did, for example, in the cases of Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall, and the case for a credible and successful prosecution was enhanced as a result. Many of Jimmy Savile’s victims said they thought they were the only ones, and doubted whether anyone would have believed them if they had come forward, bearing in mind the celebrity status of the offender. The position, and their approach, changed somewhat when they found out, through the absence of pre-charge anonymity, that they were not the only ones.
In the light of what has been said in the debate, perhaps it is worth stating that the victims of sexual offences have, of course, also had their lives darkened—not least when the sexual offences were committed by well- known public figures. Of course, the victims themselves rarely are well-known public figures.
I understand that the coalition floated plans to introduce anonymity for rape suspects in 2010, but after carrying out an assessment they concluded there was insufficient evidence to justify a change, and that a change would be likely to have a negative impact on justice for rape overall.
The argument is made that without anonymity, those suspected of sexual offences would suffer shame and harm to their reputation—usually as a result of how the media choose to report such cases even if the person has not been, and never is, charged with any offence. That may be quite true in some cases—more so if the police mishandle their investigation in the way highlighted in the report on the Metropolitan Police released a week or so ago. This argument would also apply, presumably, if someone were accused of murder, serious assault, child cruelty, major fraud or other forms of serious dishonesty and corruption—as we saw with the naming in the media of an alleged suspect, who had not committed the offence, in a particularly unpleasant murder case in Bristol a few years ago. The police have discretion over the naming of suspects, and should do so only when they have good reason to suspect that doing so might produce corroborating evidence that would increase the likelihood of a successful prosecution.
As for the concerns sometimes expressed about false allegations, I believe I am right in saying that the Crown Prosecution Service has found that the number of false allegations is no higher for sexual offences than for any other type of crime. Many would argue that the real problem is still the reluctance of victims to report rape and other sexual offences, and the reasons for that. It has been suggested—although I cannot vouch for this as the correct figure—that perhaps only 15% of rapes are ever reported to the police. Young people and children are targeted more than most by those who commit such offences, who are often repeat offenders. The report on child sexual abuse in Rotherham found that when offenders discovered, over time, that they could act with impunity and were unlikely to be challenged, they simply increased the scale and level of violence in their offending.
We understand why the approach called for in the amendment is being pursued. We do not argue that no case can be made for the amendment, but rather that the case that can and should be made against it is stronger and more powerful. Unless firm evidence can be produced that the terms of the amendment would not result in more perpetrators of sexual offences escaping prosecution because others who may have been the subject of similar assaults do not come forward—because they are unaware that the individual is being investigated, and instead feel that if they did come forward they would be on their own—the amendment cannot be supported.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. The variety of views on this subject speak to me of just how difficult an issue it is. I also particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the only woman apart from myself to speak in the debate. This is a very sensitive issue, and many noble Lords have talked about getting the balance right. We think that the Government have got the balance right, and I will explain why.
I shall start with the report by Richard Henriques on the Metropolitan Police Service’s handing of its investigations into allegations of sexual offences by persons of public prominence. That is a further element contributing to the debate. In answer to the point made by my noble friend Lord Attlee, I have been fully briefed on that report. It was commissioned by the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and as I said to this House the other day, the report—including its publication—is a matter for him and for the force. The commissioner has made a public apology to Lord Bramall, to Lady Brittan and to Harvey Proctor for the impact that Operation Midland had on their lives.
At the outset, let me say that the Government fully understand the anguish felt by those who have had their reputation traduced in the media following unfounded allegations made against them. The notion that someone is innocent until proven guilty is central to our justice system and to the rule of law, so the Government have every sympathy for the underlying aim behind the amendment. I will not go into what should be redrafted, but will talk about the amendment as it stands.
The Government also start from the position that there should, in general, be a presumption of anonymity before the point of charge. I believe that there is also a general acceptance that there will none the less be exceptional circumstances in which the public interest means that a suspect should be named. If there is a divide between noble Lords and myself on this issue, it is not therefore one of principle but is about how best to give effect to the shared policy position. For the Government’s part, we are not persuaded that legislation is the right way forward at this time.
One of the principal arguments put forward in support of retaining the public interest exception is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, there will be circumstances in which the police need to publicise a person’s identity to allow further witnesses to a known offence to come forward, or further unknown offences by the same person to come to light. As he also said, witnesses can come forward at a trial only if there is, in fact, a trial. He also made the further point that the accused could themselves create their own publicity around an event.
As the current Prime Minister said in response to the previous Home Affairs Select Committee on this issue,
“While we are clear that transparency and consistency should be at the heart of the criminal justice system, … we recognise that there is a difficult balance to strike in some criminal investigations between the operational advantages of naming suspects and respecting suspects’ right to privacy”.
As noble Lords will know, the issue of anonymity in relation to sexual offences has been debated in this House over many years. Anonymity for complainants in rape cases was introduced in 1976. It was subsequently extended to sexual offences generally. Anonymity for defendants who have been charged with an offence was introduced at the same time, but abolished in 1988. Defendant anonymity was subject to exhaustive consideration before and during the passage of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, in 2010 the then coalition Government published independent research relevant to defendant anonymity in rape cases, which found,
“insufficient reliable empirical evidence on which to base an informed decision on the value of providing anonymity to rape defendants. Evidence is lacking in a number of key areas, in particular, whether the inability to publicise a person’s identity will prevent further witnesses to a known offence from coming forward, or further unknown offences by the same person from coming to light”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/10; col. 27WS].
The coalition Government declined to proceed with introducing defendant anonymity in rape cases unless the evidence justifying it was “clear and sound”. In the absence of any finding to that effect, they reached the conclusion that the proposal did not stand on its merits and would not be proceeded with further.
While the amendment before us would confer anonymity on suspects rather than defendants, I note the preceding history to highlight the challenges we face in coming to an equitable view on this sensitive issue. There are powerful arguments against conferring anonymity on either suspects or defendants of sexual offences simply as a quid pro quo for that enjoyed by complainants. However, I also recognise that those whose identity is made public, be they persons of public prominence or not, may suffer unjustifiable reputational damage. Noble Lords have given many examples of those individuals. While we may personally empathise in individual cases, this should not blind us to the bigger picture and the very significant reasons that underpin the current regime.
As I have said, it is a fundamental tenet of our justice system that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. There must never be an assumption that being charged or arrested for an offence indicates that a person is guilty of a crime. Introducing a statutory scheme for pre-charge anonymity for sexual offences could be seen to undermine that principle. Indeed, while it is true that a suspect who is not further proceeded against in respect of a sexual offence may nevertheless suffer reputational damage, the same may be true of any other serious offence, such as murder, theft or fraud, as noble Lords have said. As with these other offences, it is absolutely right and proper for the police to have operational independence in deciding whether to name a suspect.
The police are guided in making such decisions by the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice material Guidance on Relationships with the Media. The current guidance makes clear that decisions should be made only on a case-by-case basis and the police should not release the names of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime unless there are clearly identified circumstances to justify it. These would include incidences, for example, where there is a threat to life or to assist the police in the detection or prevention of crime.
The College of Policing is currently developing new authorised professional practice on media relations and has recently undertaken a consultation as part of its development. The consultation closed in July and the college expects to publish its response to the consultation in the new year. It would not be right, therefore, for the Government to pre-empt the outcome and we will await the conclusion of the college’s review. However, the Government firmly believe that non-statutory guidance, rather than primary legislation, is the appropriate vehicle for guiding the police in these operational decisions. It is vital that the police are able to exercise their own judgment and act swiftly in the circumstances where releasing the name of a suspect may prevent further harm, for example.
I must emphasise that public reporting of a suspect’s name is unusual, but in certain circumstances the police authorise release so that any other potential victims of a suspect are encouraged to come forward. The introduction of a statutory scheme would hamper the police’s ability to act in this way. We know that such identification can help other victims to recognise that they are not the only ones who have suffered sexual abuse—as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, rightly articulated—and this might encourage them to overcome their reluctance to come forward. Victims must feel that they are able to come forward and report abuse to the police as well as get the support that they need. We have seen recently an increase in the number of offences recorded. That is thought to be the result of increased willingness to report among victims and action taken by police forces to improve their approach to investigating sexual abuse. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, convictions for this offence are still woefully low.
In March this year, the chief executive of the College of Policing, Alex Marshall, wrote to all chief officers and PCCs following a number of high-profile cases concerning non-recent child abuse which had focused public attention on the police approach to victims, both at the point of reporting and in investigating the crime. Mr Marshall’s letter put on record that:
“In cases involving sexual offences, substantial efforts have been made to improve the confidence of victims to come forward and report crimes to the police. It is important that progress is not lost”.
I cannot emphasise this point enough. We must not undermine victims’ confidence in our response to sexual offences. Agreeing this amendment could send a message to sexual offence victims that they are less likely to be believed than victims of any other crime. This would be an undeniably retrograde step.
As has been highlighted in the debate we have had today, there are two issues in relation to this matter. The first is the right of the police to name individuals and the second relates to cases in the media where those being investigated, but who have not been charged, have been named. A number of these cases highlighted in the media have been as a result of information being provided not by the police but from other sources. The guidance from the college to the police does not interfere with the rights of the media to publish information obtained from another source, for example, where such information is provided by a victim of crime or a witness to the crime. The press is self-regulated and develops its own codes of practice. Any reporting which breaches an individual’s right to privacy would need to be demonstrably in the public interest. The Government are committed to an independent press, free from government interference. The majority of the press are members of the Independent Press Standards Organisation and are held to account via the Editors’ Code of Practice. The code stipulates:
“Everyone is entitled to respect for his or her private and family life, home, health and correspondence, including digital communications”.
As noble Lords will be aware, we already have a number of remedies in our justice system to redress the balance where individuals feel they have been treated unfairly—
Lord Campbell-Savours
May I ask the Minister a simple question? She used the phrase,
“demonstrably in the public interest”.
What was demonstrably in the public interest in the naming of Sir Cliff Richard for an offence he did not commit, and Leon Brittan, Ted Heath and Paul Gambaccini? What was demonstrably in the public interest in those cases?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I will not talk about individual cases, and noble Lords would not expect me to do so. I am talking about the code of practice for the press. I have also just talked about the guidance from the College of Policing. We are committed to an independent press. Noble Lords will already be aware that we have a number of remedies in our justice system to redress the balance where individuals feel they have been treated unfairly by the media and others. This includes resolution through the courts.
In conclusion, and for the reasons I have outlined, I am satisfied that there is an operational need for the police to be able to determine whether to name an individual ahead of charge and that adequate provisions already exist in current legislation and practice to safeguard those accused of a crime without the need for legislating for pre-charge anonymity. I hope that at the end of this rather long debate the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister and to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for supporting this amendment.
I have to make it clear to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that this amendment is not an attack on the Metropolitan Police. It operates in what some might find a very strange way but there are reasons the commissioner is distanced from the operational decisions made by his officers, although I will not go into them now. The police have always had the problem that when things go wrong they are held back from apologising by their own lawyers, for reasons which will be apparent to the lawyers in the Chamber.
On what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, I agree with my noble friends that these are drafting issues. I said that the reason for this amendment was to allow a debate. The wording is actually a copy and paste of the protections provided to the victims of sexual offences; no doubt many of the noble Lord’s criticisms could therefore be directed at the current legislation. I will not go over what he said as criticisms have been made by other noble Lords and I do not want to carry on in that vein.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for saying that, in principle, he felt this was correct. It is interesting that he said that the unauthorised disclosure of information by police officers should be addressed, particularly in light of the fact that the Government want to put a stop to part two of the Leveson inquiry, which is supposed to look at the relationship between the police and the press. The Government seem determined not to allow it to go ahead so maybe we should sidestep it and include this issue in the amendment, which we will no doubt return to on Report.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, I gave an exact example of an exceptional circumstance where such an exemption might take place and I do not want to detain the Committee by repeating it. However, perhaps “in the interests of justice” might be a better phrase to use than “in the public interest”.
Lord Faulks
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps he could help the Committee with this: the amendment would change the moment when anonymity is lost from arrest to charge. As the decision an officer takes about whether to charge is a very difficult one, does the noble Lord not think that there might be a temptation on the part of the police to charge rather earlier than they should—or at all—because then anonymity would be lost and they might be able to get more evidence? That would be a distortion of proper police practice.
Lord Paddick
I am quite surprised that that argument is being put forward. The noble Lord will know that in serious cases such as sexual offences the police cannot charge on their own account but have to have the agreement of the Crown Prosecution Service. I am sure that the noble Lord is not suggesting that the Crown Prosecution Service would be tempted to charge somebody in the absence of available evidence—the police would argue that the contrary is the case.
I take my life in my hands in addressing the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. In answer to his question, yes, it is important, and my noble friend Lord Marks has come up with the solution of including in the amendment the proposal that the identity of the accused should not be put into the public domain without his consent. That would cover the example that the noble and learned Lord gave of alibi witnesses being sought.
We are not saying that sexual offences are more serious than murder or terrorism. We are saying that there are many sexual offences and that particularly when it comes to historic offences there are questions of consent—perhaps—or there is no evidence at all and it is one person’s word against the other. That is not the case with murder or terrorism. Even when there is conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, evidence is gathered, whether, for example, from emails or through security services bugging rooms in which these people are operating. For those offences, there is some tangible evidence and that is what makes sexual offences different in a real sense. That is not to say that they are more serious—they might be so in terms of the reputational damage done to the individuals concerned but not in terms of the offence.
As a police officer who exercised the power of arrest on hundreds of occasions, I am not as confident that the level of reasonable cause to suspect that leads the police to arrest somebody is as high as the noble and learned Lord suggested. Yes, liberty is taken away, and somebody should not be deprived of their liberty without anybody knowing about it. However, if we put it into the amendment that the identity of the person should not be released without their consent, that issue would be addressed. Presumably it could also be given by the lawyer in particular circumstances.
I am very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, said about the presumption of innocence and what he referred to as a cultural shift away from it. Everybody agrees that the presumption of innocence is at the heart of our criminal justice system, but, in practice, it is not being reflected in the minds of the public or the editors of certain newspapers. We have to deal with that reality and not some theoretical construct, and regrettably that is where we are going as far as the presumption of innocence is concerned in the minds of many members of the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, cited Stuart Hall as an example of a case in which more people came forward as a result of an arrest, but Stuart Hall was arrested and charged on the same day. In the case of Jimmy Savile, people did come forward to the police and were not believed; that was not because he was given anonymity but because there was something fundamentally wrong with the culture of the police at the time and they did not believe vulnerable victims. That is the issue that needs to be addressed.
We also have to ask ourselves about publicising cases which inevitably collapse. What impact does that have on victims of sexual offences who may be afraid that their genuine concerns will also result in a collapsed case? That is no doubt what is happening at the moment with the man who made these allegations and is known only as Nick. I am sure there are tabloid newspapers trying to identify that individual in order to give him negative publicity.
In response to the Minister, this is a difficult and sensitive issue. It is a question of balance and we have heard from noble Lords who have spoken in the debate that the majority feel that it is not right at the present time. The noble Baroness said that legislation is not the way forward at this time, but times have changed, as the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, said. People’s attitude towards those accused of sexual offences has changed so we need to look at this again, which is why I have brought forward the amendment and why we are having this discussion.
As I said in my opening remarks, everything needs to be done to encourage any victim of a sexual offence to come forward and report it to the police. Systems need to be in place within policing so that if allegations are made in different parts of the country against a long-distance lorry driver, for example, they are then matched up in order to reinforce the situation. But in saying that the College of Policing is doing a review when guidance is already in place which says that the presumption should be against identifying the accused, how on earth does that square, for example, with the way Sir Cliff Richard was treated by South Yorkshire Police? How does that follow College of Policing guidance, and how is a review of that guidance going to change police practice in the future?
On guidance to editors or the code of practice for the press, I have to question whether the noble Baroness reads the press and the attitude taken by its members and how a coach and horses is driven through the guidance to editors on an almost daily basis. This is why guidance is proven not to work. In marginal cases there may be some loss in terms of people not coming forward after someone has been arrested if no publicity is given, but people come forward predominantly when someone is charged and there is some certainty that a court case will happen, not at the point of arrest. That is why we will return to this on Report, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Evidence about complainant’s sexual history
(1) The Secretary of State shall within six months of the day on which this section comes into force, publish a report on the operation of section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (restriction on evidence or questions about complainant's sexual history).(2) The report shall, in particular, include information regarding—(a) the number of applications made for leave in accordance with subsection 41(2) of the Act;(b) the number of such applications granted;(c) the number of such applications refused;(d) the number of prosecutions not proceeded with because of the victim’s concerns as to an application for leave;and to the extent numerical information is not available, as full information as possible regarding such matters.(3) The report shall include any proposals for the amendment or repeal of section 41 of the Act.”
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I rise to move this amendment tabled in the names of my noble friends Lord Paddick, Lady Ludford and myself. The appeal in the Ched Evans case has raised fears that complainants will be deterred from reporting rape because they might be cross-examined about their sexual history under Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. Those fears are real and if they are justified that would suggest that a change to Section 41 is necessary. I say at the outset that this is surprising because ever since Section 41 was passed, it has been assumed that it is very restrictive and that evidence of a complainant’s previous sexual history may be adduced or cross-examination allowed only in very unusual circumstances.
In 2001 in R v A (No 2), reported in 2002 on page 45 of 1 Appeal Cases, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, said,
“my view is that the 1999 Act deals sensibly and fairly with questioning and evidence about the complainant’s sexual experience with other men. Such matters are almost always irrelevant to the issue whether the complainant consented to sexual intercourse on the occasion alleged … or to her credibility”.
Section 41(3) of the 1999 Act provides that evidence or proposed cross-examination must relate to sexual behaviour that is so similar to the defendant’s account of the incident in issue that the similarity cannot be explained as a coincidence.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I will be very brief. I find myself in agreement with much that has been said this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, but on this occasion I must state a thorough disagreement. I speak as somebody who has been at the criminal Bar, off and on, for 40 years.
Section 41 of the Act imposes substantial restrictions on the ability of defence counsel to adduce evidence of previous sexual conduct, or to start on a process of cross-examination as to that. I am sure the noble Lord has reminded himself of the terms of the restrictions in Section 41, which are set out conveniently in Archbold. I have taken the liberty of bringing a photocopy of that to this Committee. The restrictions are considerable, but in my opinion—based on a long period at the Bar—there are a very limited number of circumstances when it is necessary, to secure justice, that the defence counsel brings forward instances from the complainant’s past sexual life and has the right to ask questions about that. As it is set about by the restrictions of the judge’s discretion—which is set out in statute—I see no reason to depart from the existing legislation.
I am sure the noble Lord has consulted Archbold, Blackstone’s and Cross on Evidence. I would urge your Lordships in this Committee who have any doubt about this matter to look at those authoritative textbooks, where they will find satisfactory examples of instances when the courts have allowed such evidence and cross-examination.
The noble Lord is effectively calling for a review and it is very difficult, as a matter of principle, to stand against a review. I am sure it does not have to be in legislation. But it is calling for a review, and if enough of your Lordships’ Committee want one, so be it. However, in my view, the existing legislation is right and I very much hope there is no departure from it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for raising the important issue of the protection of complainants of rape and sexual offences from being questioned about their sexual history. It is vital that victims have confidence to report crimes as terrible as rape and in the criminal justice system’s process of bringing offenders to justice. Our message to those who are willing, but currently worried about reporting such offences, is that they are encouraged to do so. As my noble friend Lord Hailsham says, Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 provides that questions about a complainant’s sexual history are not allowed in rape and sexual offences trials. This is except where a strict set of criteria are met, so they are rare. The legislative bar on adducing evidence of a complainant’s sexual history is high and decided by judges on a case-by-case basis. The case that has prompted concerns about how the protective bar is operating has made no change to that.
We are aware of the recent concern about the admissibility of a complainant’s previous sexual history, and wider perceptions about the law. We accept that the concern should be looked at and we intend to deal with it. We have committed to looking at how the law is working in practice and will do so as expeditiously as possible, to understand whether any further action needs to be taken.
The noble Lord also asked whether anything has followed on from the 2006 Home Office study. The evaluation in 2006 made recommendations to ensure that the intention of the legislation would be fulfilled. There was no finding of a need to change the legislation substantially at that point.
With that brief explanation, I hope the noble Lord feels happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Can the Minister be clear from the Dispatch Box as to whether she has announced the review?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, we have carefully considered the concerns that have been raised about the provision and we will then determine how best to look at how it is working in practice before deciding whether any further action needs to be taken. We are going to do it as soon as possible.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, the noble Lord ought to be cross-examining himself because he has just secured a concession by excellent advocacy, which I failed to do—or I did, but not in such clear terms. In view of that, I will withdraw the amendment.
I disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, on only one point, which was his assertion that I disagreed with him because I said, when speaking to this amendment, that there may be those rare cases where a dispassionate observer might think the exclusion of a relevant account could lead to injustice and unfair convictions. The point here, and the point we seek to have reviewed, is whether, as a result of the Ched Evans case, there might be cases where the restrictive nature of Section 41 has been or may be watered down. We need to look at how it is operating. It is very important that rape gets reported and that the legislation in place is certainly as restrictive as we always thought Section 41 was and as the textbooks say it is. The public concern is that this case seems to have weakened that protection; I am sure the review will take that point on board. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Cox
“Registration of religious marriages
(1) The celebrant of a religious marriage ceremony must—(a) take all reasonable steps to ensure that the marriage accords with the law relating to marriages in England and Wales; and(b) register the marriage as a legal marriage in accordance with the requirements of the Marriage Act 1949.(2) A person who fails to fulfil the requirements of subsection (1) commits an offence.(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years.”
Baroness Cox
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 219C in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Buscombe and Lady Massey, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I am most grateful to them for their support.
At the outset, I emphasise two points. First, this is a probing amendment, seeking to highlight serious concerns and to explore possible solutions. Secondly, this is in no way—as has been indicated by some—an anti-Muslim or Islamophobic initiative. It is motivated by deep concern for many women suffering in this country in ways which are utterly unacceptable, and it has strong support from leading Muslim women scholars, such as the internationally renowned Canadian Raheel Raza and many Muslim women in this country.
The amendment provides an obligation on the celebrant of a religious marriage to ensure that it is also legally registered. The maximum penalty for failing to do so would be three years in prison. This may seem a severe provision. However, when I hear from women who have suffered horrendously from the religious marriages which are not legally registered, I believe there is an urgent need for effective measures to remedy the situation. The amendment does not identify any specific faith tradition, yet it does have specific relevance for Muslim women who are adversely affected by the discriminatory rulings of many sharia councils. As Theresa May explained when speaking as Home Secretary,
“there is evidence of women being ‘divorced’ under Sharia law and left in penury, wives who are forced to return to abusive relationships because Sharia councils say a husband has a right to ‘chastise’, and Sharia councils giving the testimony of a woman only half the weight of the testimony of a man”.
I do not say this happens in every case, but I will highlight two concerns which cause profound distress to many women, some of whom have come to see me to share their pain. The first is the issue of divorce. Under many applications of sharia law, a husband does not have to undertake the same process as a wife when seeking an Islamic divorce. He merely has to say, “I divorce you”, three times, without having to give any reasons or justification to any person or authority. The wife, however, must meet various conditions and usually has to pay a fee.
Just two weeks ago, a Muslim lady came to me in tears after the breakdown of her own Islamic marriage. Although a religious ceremony had taken place, the marriage had never been officially registered and was therefore not valid in the eyes of civil law. She was denied access to her children, ostracised by her community and felt so lonely, broken and ashamed that she had attempted to commit suicide. Another lady, who had suffered years of abuse from her husband, showed me a piece of paper she had received through the post. It simply read, “I divorce you”, three times. No consent from her was needed, her opinion was not sought and the imam confirmed the divorce. To use her words, and I will never forget the yearning in her voice, “I felt that plain piece of paper was a mockery of my human rights”.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and begin by paying tribute to her amazing record of courage and tenacity in confronting some of the most difficult issues in society, including and in particular the rights of women and equality of their rights under the law.
It is important that I repeat what the noble Baroness said concerning context. The amendment does not identify any specific faith tradition, yet it does have relevance for Muslim women who are adversely affected by the discriminatory rulings of sharia councils. The amendment seeks in principle to ensure that all women have access to full rights under the law to confront those many situations referenced so eloquently by the noble Baroness—situations which isolate and separate women and subject them to living in appalling circumstances here in the UK. We have been turning a blind eye to this discrimination for many years, even though the evidence is out there. This has been chiefly because we would be called racist or intolerant of different cultures. In fact, we have been acquiescing in the disrespect, outright abuse and denial of equal access to our rule of law and it is time to put that right.
In addition to the arguments put by the noble Baroness, I have two key points. The first relates to current inquiries into sharia law and the second concerns references to and comparisons with religions other than Islam. On the first, there are currently two inquiries, one of which is by the Home Affairs Select Committee. I have to ask: where has this committee been on this issue for the last 40-plus years? That we have more than 80 sharia councils across the UK meting out a system of justice that can choose to ignore our rule of law is extraordinary, although I assume that most MPs, if they are active in their constituencies, must have known and know what is going on, or at least have their suspicions, and yet have preferred to promote the rights of women in other parts of the world and in conflict zones. Why, when so much that is wrong is happening here in the UK? In contrast, in Pakistan, family law has been regulated according to its rule of law since 1960 and is not sharia-based. I ask my noble friend the Minister: how many sharia councils exist across Europe? I am told none, so can my noble friend confirm that there are no other sharia councils across Europe other than here in the UK? It would be helpful to have that confirmed.
The second inquiry, referred to as a review of sharia councils, launched by the Home Office, while welcome in principle as a step forward, has drawn criticism from various quarters, including Muslim women, mainly on the grounds that its focus is upon the application of sharia law and is seeking examples of “best practice”. In other words, its focus is on how sharia is applied and how that application might be incompatible with our public law, not whether sharia itself is incompatible with our public law—a subtle-sounding but fundamental difference. In essence, by accepting sharia law in principle, we are and have been accepting that one body of people living in the UK may ignore the rule of law where it believes it conflicts with its views and beliefs, particularly with regard to the treatment of women. I am not quite sure why we need this review to work that simple fact out.
In addition, there is genuine concern about the make-up of the review panel. Why, it is asked, are there two Muslim religious advisers and no non-Muslim expert on Islam, nor experts on human rights? It is interesting to note that the chairman of the inquiry, a Muslim academic, Mona Siddiqui, makes the following clear in her book My Way:
“For a lot of women from Islam even just making their voice heard is a big jihad”—
meaning struggle—
“It means they’ve gone against so many moral codes”.
This recognition of the difficulty among Muslims of speaking out gives me hope that evidence to the inquiry will not just be accepted at face value. However, I am less encouraged by Ms Siddiqui’s admission that if she had had any daughters, she would have been more conservative with them than she is with her sons. That is a worrying bias.
I hope my noble friend the Minister will not feel constrained in her response to the amendment by deferring to either of the inquiries, particularly given that, while the latter was announced in May of this year, for some extraordinary reason it is not due to complete its deliberations until next year.
My second key point in support of the amendment relates to the often-used erroneous references to other religious practices when seeking to defend the existence of sharia councils, in particular Beth Din. Jewish couples who wish to complement a civil marriage with a religious one, or couples undergoing a civil divorce who wish to complement this with a Jewish law divorce, can ask Beth Din to oversee this. I have been assured by several experts that in neither circumstance can Beth Din override our public law. I understand that the same applies for the Quaker religion and Quaker ceremonies, in that all religious ceremonies must be ratified by our public law. Anything else is subordinate and any arbitral awards remain subject to English law.
In her otherwise excellent article in the Evening Standard on 3 November, Rosamund Urwin, in highlighting this issue, said of sharia law that its rulings,
“are sometimes at odds with the spirit of British law”.
With respect, I beg to differ: sharia law breaks our law.
Take the existence here of polygamy, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred. If my husband, who happens to be a Christian, committed bigamy—never mind polygamy—he would be in prison. What are we doing allowing this absurd situation to continue here in the United Kingdom? How can we have the nerve to try to tell others across the world how to live their lives when we let these illegal, disgraceful practices happen here? We are, in effect, legitimising violence against women.
This important amendment is about equal rights and equal treatment under the law—our rule of law. There is absolutely no point in talking about, or spending yet more taxpayers’ money on, efforts and projects to improve integration, social cohesion or social mobility. It will not happen as long as we stand by and allow these practices that subjugate women’s rights to continue.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this amendment and congratulate my noble friend Lady Cox both on her persistence in raising these issues and on her courage. I have had the privilege of travelling with my noble friend to some out-of-the-way places such as North Korea; but—perhaps more importantly in the context of this debate—before my daughter went up to university, I told her that the person she should travel with, and get to know a little of, if ever she wanted to think about going into public or political life, was my noble friend Lady Cox. She therefore accompanied my noble friend to Nagorno-Karabakh—a war zone—and I hope that she will one day be a chip off my noble friend’s block.
The House might not be aware of it, but my noble friend has arrived back today from Nigeria, which is not such a bad place to start, because we know that my noble friend travels to dangerous places to see things for herself. In Nigeria, look how Boko Haram—words that mean “eradicate western education”—treats young women. Look at what happened in Chibok. Look at the seizure of those girls. Look at the denial of education for young girls, such as those who were seized in Chibok, and then ask yourself some serious questions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has rightly done in her remarks a few moments ago. Look at the nature of sharia law, and ask, “Is that something we would want to have operating as a parallel law system in the United Kingdom?”. It is a system, after all, that says that a woman’s evidence in a court of law is worth only half that of a man. That is surely intolerable in our society and we should resist it with every means available to us.
I attended a meeting organised by my noble friend Lady Cox a few weeks ago and became interested in this issue as a result of that meeting, which was held here in your Lordships’ House and was addressed by some formidable Muslim women and others. They highlighted the risks of having parallel systems of law in the same jurisdiction, a situation that put at risk the equality of Muslim women and failed to protect them. The principle of equality before the law should always be a central pillar of our democracy, yet we know from countless testimonies—such as those I heard that evening and others alluded to today by my noble friend—that many Muslim women in Britain are not experiencing the legal rights by which they should be protected. We heard that in the context of things such as polygamy a few moments ago. They are not treated equally; they are not living freely, and they are inhibited from getting the help they really need.
Take, for example, the story of A’aisha—a pseudonym, of course—from the West Midlands. Upon the breakdown of her own Islamic marriage, she discovered that she was not entitled to the same rights afforded to other British divorcees. Like so many others, she had wrongly assumed that, because her religious wedding ceremony had taken place in the UK, it did not need to be accompanied by a civil marriage in order for it to be recognised under English law. As my noble friend Lady Cox has already said, this amendment seeks to protect women such as A’aisha, and to help those who might be duped into believing that they were married under the law of the land, only to find upon divorce that they have few rights in respect of finance or property. It is intolerable that women should be treated in this way.
I recognise, as my noble friend has said, that this is a probing amendment. It may well indeed need tweaking and improving, but I trust it will promote a positive response from the Front Bench. I hope that when the Minister replies, we might at least start to think about how we can bring forward more comprehensive measures to address effectively concerns such as those raised by my noble friend Lady Cox and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in your Lordships’ House this evening.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I did not put my name to this amendment because there were enough people already, but I used to teach family law, including the law of marriage. In this country, it is very easy to get married in a registry office or in a properly registered religious place. You can get married in a hotel if you want to or you can have a civil partnership. There are all sorts of official unions that you can make very easily, but the worst of all possible worlds is to be duped into believing that you are married in a religious ceremony and then find that you are not, because you lose any protection that English law gives you, while at the same time, stereotypically, your husband—if he is really your husband—can abandon you or take another wife.
This is not just a question of running parallel systems of law: it is about the protection of women and the need to preserve transparency and regularity in people’s marital status. All that is necessary is for more mosques to become registered as proper places of marriage, just in the way that synagogues are, and all would be resolved. I see no arguments against this amendment at all. It is overdue.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the arguments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Cox and Lady Deech, my noble friend Lady Buscombe—who made an excellent speech—and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. As has been said, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has done so much to raise in this House the problem of marriages that are not legally binding and that therefore do not carry the legal rights and responsibilities of a legally binding marriage. I recognise that she has spoken to many women in this situation and has sensitively presented their evidence to your Lordships this evening and on other occasions. There is particular cause for concern if one or both of the parties is unaware of their lack of rights or coerced into a marriage.
There is a strong tradition of religious marriages in England and Wales, with a long-established right that couples are able, in their place of worship, to enter into a marriage that is legally contracted, provided that the requirements of the law are met. Some people, for religious or other reasons, have preferred to enter into a marriage that is not capable of legal recognition. To make it illegal to conduct, or enter into, religious marriages that are not legally contracted is likely to be an overly complex solution and one that restricts personal choice. It is also unclear how many unregistered religious marriages would take place in breach of any change in legislation, since, by their nature, public notice of these marriages would not be given. I am sure that noble Lords appreciate the complexity of legislating in people’s private and religious lives.
We are conscious that there are complex issues behind religious marriages that are not legally valid, including where people use a religious ceremony to give recognition to an additional spouse, and so we do not consider that any one approach to Muslim or other faith communities can work in isolation. Of course, we are also aware of concerns that some women can be put under pressure to use the services of religious councils, including sharia councils, to arrange matters on the break-up of the relationship and that these women are not always treated equally when recommendations are made.
One of the issues that the noble Baroness highlighted was that of child custody, a matter raised by women to whom she has spoken. In fact, it is not the case that women have few or no rights in this matter, although they may well not be aware of their rights. In England and Wales, where there is any dispute between parents about arrangements for their children, either parent may apply to the family court for one or more types of order under the Children Act 1989. Most commonly, this will be a child arrangements order determining who a child is to live with or spend time with, and where and when this is to happen, referred to respectively as custody and access in many other jurisdictions. These proceedings are free-standing. This means that a parent is entitled to make an application to the court at any time, simply by virtue of being the parent of the child concerned and regardless of the status of their relationship with the other parent. There is no distinction for this purpose between legally married parents, unmarried parents, parents in a religious marriage that is not legally binding, parents who are otherwise cohabiting or, indeed, parents who are living apart.
On the issue of polygamy, noble Lords will be aware that polygamous marriages cannot be legally contracted in the UK. Attempting to enter into a polygamous marriage under the law of England and Wales is a criminal offence which carries a maximum sentence of seven years in prison. Nor is it possible for anyone domiciled in the United Kingdom to enter into a polygamous marriage abroad. Where a polygamous marriage is contracted within the law outside the United Kingdom between parties neither of whom is domiciled in the United Kingdom, it will be recognised by the court. The Government continue to support the law preventing polygamous marriages from being entered into in England and Wales.
The Law Commission has also given initial consideration to the issue of religious marriages that are not legally valid. It published its scoping study in December last year setting out the parameters of a potential review of the law concerning how and where people can marry in England and Wales, following consultation with a wide range of religious organisations and other interested parties. The scoping study concluded that this was one of a number of issues that might be ameliorated through a fairer and more coherent framework for marriage. The Law Commission also considered that offences relating to the celebration of marriage should be reviewed. It would not make sense for the Government to introduce a new criminal offence, such as that proposed by this amendment, without evidence of the scale and nature of the problem and without consideration of how the new offence would fit within existing marriage law.
The Government are carefully considering the Law Commission report and will respond in due course. We will also wish to consider the issue of unregistered religious marriages in light of the findings of the independent sharia review, launched in May by the current Prime Minister. The Government share the noble Baroness’s concerns and take them very seriously indeed. These concerns are central to the independent sharia review and involve the equalities, justice and faith and integration agendas across government. I thank the noble Baroness for raising again this important issue and the very real consequences for people’s lives.
My noble friend Lady Buscombe asked how many sharia councils there are across Europe. I do not have a number; I will have to go away, look into it further and write to my noble friend. I trust that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will understand the need to wait for the Government’s response to the Law Commission report and the sharia review and, on that basis, will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Cox
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and those who have supported this amendment and made some very powerful additional arguments. I thank the Minister for the sympathy that is there in her response, but I feel some concern over the apparent lack of a sense of urgency about the need to address the real suffering that is going on at the present time. To wait for the outcomes of the reviews leaves these women in a terrible situation. The gap, the chasm, between the de facto realities and the de jure realities is one into which these women are falling and suffering in ways that should not be allowed in our country today. These issues are urgent: women are suffering on a large scale. I intend to take this debate back to my colleagues, with whom I am sharing these concerns, to consider the most appropriate ways forward. I am very grateful for what has been said tonight; we can learn from it ways to proceed to help the women suffering in these appalling situations. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Information relating to the online abuse of children
(1) Section 11 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (information for public etc) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2), at end insert “subject to subsection (2A).”(3) After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) “specified information” shall include but not be limited to information that relates to the online abuse of or offences against children—(a) that take place through social media, online channels including messaging services and electronic communications;(b) that are repeated by sharing through social media, online communications including messaging services and electronic communications;(c) that are orchestrated, planned or organised through social media, online channels including messaging services and electronic communications;(d) that are recorded and uploaded online (for personal use or for distribution or sharing with others) howsoever; or(e) for the purpose of which the internet is used as a means of exploitation or contact.””
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 219D, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser, would be an important step in enabling police and crime commissioners to tackle online abuse of children. Only once local police forces begin systematically collecting these data can we know the prevalence of the issue. Only once the prevalence of the abuse is known can commissioners begin to tackle it and to provide adequate resources and appropriate services. Digital technology has fuelled an explosion in these crimes over the last two decades, including children being forced to commit sexual acts online and children being groomed online for the purpose of abuse and exploitation in the real world. The impact of these horrendous crimes can be devastating, and children can be repeatedly revictimised as images of their sexual abuse are viewed online by offenders all over the world.
At a national level, progress on tackling these crimes has been made, such as the Child Abuse Image Database. The centralised expertise of the National Crime Agency also plays a key role in keeping children safe in the most severe cases, but we remain concerned about the ability of police forces to respond adequately to online offences committed against children at a local level. The recent HMIC child protection report found that there is a huge local variation in the response to these offences, including delays of up to 12 months in forensically examining devices. Such delays can have serious implications for the safeguarding of children, including children not being promptly identified and safeguarded and reoffending taking place while a device is still being analysed.
An NSPCC freedom of information request found that police use of cyberflags to monitor online sexual crimes against children is worryingly patchy. A small number of forces said they were not using this or did not know about mandatory cyberflags. It is imperative that this failure to cyberflag offences is addressed. Requiring local forces to collect these data, in addition to the data collection outlined in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, could help address this variation and help to build a local picture of prevalence.
In June, Operation Lattise, Police Scotland’s first national operation to crack down on online child sexual abuse, brought the scale of the problem into sharp focus and demonstrated what can be achieved when there is a focused response. Running for six weeks, the operation resulted in 77 people being arrested and charged as a result of 134 investigations. This led to more than 30 million indecent images of children being recovered.
As police and crime commissioners develop their local plans, the Government must ensure that the police focus their attention on this area, and this amendment would help to do that. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, no one would suggest that the issues to which the noble Lord has referred are not hugely important, but I shall make a point which may not be wholly popular. There is a limit to what legislation can do when—to me and I think to my noble friend Lord Paddick, with whom I have consulted very briefly—it is a matter of culture and practice.
I believe that police and crime commissioners have made a start on sharing information. I suspect there is a long way to go and that most of them would say that there is a long way to go, but to provide that everything that is good practice—I am probably arguing against an amendment that I have already proposed on a different issue, and more that I will propose—and that culture and practice can always be enshrined in legislation, which requires the issue to go up to the Home Office and then come down again, is something that I would not go so far as to say I am instinctively against, but I feel instinctively needs to be questioned.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for bringing this forward and drawing attention to what is a very important issue. Exploitation of, and offences against, children, whether online or offline, are appalling and this Government are committed to tackling such criminality very robustly. The internet has opened up a wealth of opportunities for young people, but it has also exposed them to new dangers.
The Government are committed to improving the safety of children online and have a strong track record of working with the internet industry and the charitable sector to achieve it. However, we also recognise that our understanding of the scale and nature of the problem is far from complete, and in many ways we almost feel that we are running to stand still.
Our starting principle is that what is illegal offline is illegal online and criminal offences typically apply in both environments. However, recognising that the picture is less clear in relation to offending online, the annual data requirement on forces includes a requirement to flag offences where the reporting officer believes, on the balance of probability, that the offence was committed, in full or in part, through a computer, computer network or computer-enabled device. This online flag has been mandatory since April 2015, and all 43 forces in England and Wales have provided data since then.
The NCA’s annual strategic assessment of child sexual exploitation and abuse, published in August, found that the visibility of the threat was improving, but that there remained significant intelligence gaps in relation to the overall scale and prevalence of the threat. The NCA works continually to improve our understanding of the threat. I reassure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that our response to the threat is rightly robust and includes law enforcement agencies taking action against online offenders, developing new capabilities to find and safeguard victims and working with the internet industry to remove illegal images.
For example, all UK police forces and the NCA are now connected to the Child Abuse Image Database—otherwise known as CAID—which reduces the time taken to undertake investigations and identify the victims. A new victim identification suite has been established by the NCA with access to CAID. In 2015-16, UK authorities identified over 450 victims from abuse images, more than double the number of any previous year and, in a recent case, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection command of the NCA was able to use CAID to review one of its largest ever seizures within six weeks. Based on the case size, before CAID this would have taken a minimum of six months to review.
In 2015-16, the NCA received £10 million of additional investment for further specialist teams to tackle online sexual exploitation. This enabled a near doubling of its investigative capacity to tackle child sexual exploitation. An NCA and GCHQ joint operational cell has also been established to target the most technologically sophisticated offenders. In 2015, 2,861 individuals were prosecuted for offences involving indecent images of children—a 27% increase on the previous year.
I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord that we are working to improve our understanding and our response to the threat and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, to add to what I said before, I think that there is a very important role for the Home Office, working in conjunction with the police and many others, on the consistency of the data, to which this amendment refers but perhaps a bit obliquely. It seems to be an issue that comes up time and time again. Yesterday a report was published by ECPAT and Missing People on young people going missing from care and one of the recommendations was about achieving consistency of data.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It might please the noble Baroness to know that I have become the Minister for data and therefore anything that she can feed into the job that I will be doing will be most appreciated.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, as the Minister said, understanding the overall scale, complexity and prevalence of the threat is crucial. I am pleased to learn what the department and the police are doing. It is important we understand this.
I accept the point about data that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made. I also accept her point on legislation. This is such a complex problem. We do not quite know what we have here, as unfortunately new things are developing all the time, so it is worth trying to explore and make sure that our legislation is correct.
However, I am very happy at this stage to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Offence of abduction of a vulnerable child aged 16 or 17
(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence if, knowingly and without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he or she—(a) takes a child to whom this section applies away from the responsible person;(b) keeps such a child away from the responsible person; or(c) induces, assists or incites such a child to run away or stay away from the responsible person or from a child’s place of residence.(2) This section applies in relation to a child aged 16 or 17 who is—(a) a child in need within the meaning of section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (provision of services for children in need, their families and others);(b) a child looked after under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (provision of accommodation for children: general);(c) a child housed alone under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996 (homelessness: England); or(d) a child who is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm subject to section 47(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989 (local authority’s duty to investigate).(3) In this section “the responsible person” is—(a) a person with a parental responsibility as defined in the Children Act 1989;(b) a person who for the time being has care of a vulnerable child aged 16 or 17 by virtue of a care order, an emergency protection order, or protection under section 46 of the Children Act 1989 (removal and accommodation of children by police in cases of emergency); or(c) any other person as defined in regulations for the purposes of this section.(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; or (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.(5) No prosecution for an offence under this section shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, young people aged 16 and 17 are still children although they are legally able to consent to sexual activity, get married and undertake a number of other matters and be deemed responsible for their behaviour. Amendment 220, in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, seeks to put a new clause in the Bill to create a new offence of the abduction of a vulnerable child. Most 16 and 17 year-olds are not well protected, with a tiny minority subject to the protection of the Children Act or in police protection. Children of this age can get themselves into all sorts of problems and can be targeted by adults who seek to exploit their vulnerability. The amendment seeks to create a specific offence.
Amendment 222 would require police forces to collect annually the number of child abduction notices issued, the number breached and the number of sexual risk orders and sexual harm prevention orders issued following such a breach. This information would have to be laid before Parliament in the form of a report. This would provide valuable data to both Parliament and the Government so we can see what is happening and make specific policy and legislative changes with relevant information to hand, if deemed necessary. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I can sum up my comments really as, “as above”. The points I made on the previous amendments are relevant, although the report I have just mentioned called Heading Back to Harm is particularly relevant here. There are so many associated issues that I would prefer the focus to be on practice—I will add it to my point about data—including trust in authority. In some situations, lack of trust in authority is a big component in young people who have been rescued going missing again. I do not underestimate the importance of the issues at the heart of this. Can the Minister give the Committee any information about the success of child abduction warning notices, where they apply, now, before we seek an extension?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, Amendment 220 would create a new offence of abduction of a vulnerable child aged 16 or 17. The offence would be in addition to the existing offence in Section 49 of the Children Act 1989, which already makes it an offence to abduct a child in care, including those aged 16 and 17. The new offence would also be in addition to Section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984, which makes it an offence to abduct any child under the age of 16. The new offence would extend only to children aged 16 and 17 who are considered to be vulnerable and therefore in need of additional protection.
The criteria for being considered vulnerable are set out in subsection (2) of the new clause and cover a range of circumstances defined in the Children Act 1989 and Housing Act 1996. These criteria potentially encompass a wide range of individuals and raise concerns that they would have very wide effect. For example, as drafted, the offence would cover all disabled young people of that age. The children it extends to are often in need of services such as housing and education but are not necessarily in need of special protection, as opposed to others of that age.
The Government completely share the objective of the noble Lord and the noble Baroness of ensuring that young people are protected from sexual exploitation and other abuse. That is why, in March last year, we introduced new civil orders to protect the vulnerable and disrupt offending at the earliest opportunity. We believe that providing the right powers to the police is the way forward. Our priority is to prevent offending, so making better use of these orders is a more precisely targeted response than creating a new criminal offence.
As noble Lords will be aware, a similar new clause was tabled in the House of Commons and there have been amendments to previous Bills on this issue. We remain unpersuaded that the proposed new abduction offence is the way forward. Young people aged 16 and 17 are generally deemed capable of living independently of their parents and of exercising their free will, notably on sexual matters. As noble Lords have said, we therefore need to achieve the right balance between additional protection for young people in this age group and recognition of relevant rights and responsibilities. Creating a new offence would raise difficult issues about where we draw the line, and it would not help young people who are older than this age group but are also very vulnerable.
That is why we believe that sexual risk orders provide appropriate powers for the police. I do not have the figures or any information on how the child abduction warning list is working; it might be in my pack. I apologise—I am getting quite tired at this stage of the day. I will write to the noble Baroness. The preventive civil orders are relatively new and we will therefore keep under review whether they fully address the kind of predatory behaviour to which the amendment refers.
Turning to Amendment 222, it is very important that we get the right balance in national reporting of data. This Government have already introduced a new mandatory requirement for all forces to collect data on child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation offences as part of the police annual data requirement, and from next April we will be expanding that requirement to include non-crime incidents related to CSE as well. This means that for the first time, we will have all child sexual abuse and exploitation-related crimes and incidents recorded by the police. This will allow for all sexual offences against children to be identified; for example, it was previously not possible to identify obscene publication offences that are specifically related to victims aged under 18.
We are working closely with the police to monitor and review the use of the new sexual risk orders, as well as child abduction warning notices, in order to ensure they are effective in protecting children who are at risk of sexual harm. I think that is precisely the noble Baroness’s point. As child abduction warning notices are part of an administrative process, the police do not regularly record the number issued. This means that, in practice, this amendment would place a significant and disproportionate new burden on the police manually to interrogate their systems.
We agree on the need to do all we can to disrupt predatory behaviour before it causes lasting harm to children and young people. The Government remain unpersuaded that the approach proposed in these amendments is the right way forward. In order better to understand the issues raised and to create an evidence base for the use of existing powers—that is the important thing here—we have set up a working group that will monitor the use of sexual risk orders so that we can fully evaluate whether there are gaps in police powers to disrupt at the earliest opportunity. I expect this group to report to Ministers in the autumn of next year, and we will consider its findings very carefully.
I hope the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful and detailed response. These are serious matters, and we want to make sure that we have the right legislation and mechanisms to deal with them. I will read her comments tomorrow, but I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, 11 years ago, my life, and the lives of a number of my colleagues, friends and supporters, was turned upside down when we became the target of somebody who began by politically harassing us and then moved into criminal damage and on to stalking. It took more than three years before the case came to a satisfactory conclusion, when he pleaded guilty to five offences and asked for 68 other crimes to be taken into consideration. Eight and a half years on from his court hearing, I still find it difficult to talk about it, not least because when I arrived in court I was placed, along with the only other victim who had decided to come, within an arm’s length of the dock. It was the first time that I had seen the man since the police had charged him, although I had believed for some time before that it was him, and clearly I was right.
That unfortunate experience in my life pales into insignificance compared with the experience of many victims of domestic violence, stalking and coercive control, but it was my experience of harassment and stalking that made me join the parliamentary inquiry into stalking in 2011 and led to the amendments to the Protection of Freedoms Bill in 2012. In the House of Lords, when we were considering the Commons amendments, I cited the then Home Secretary, who had said that the amendments put forward by the Government,
“will widen the … offence to incorporate behaviour that causes the victim serious alarm or distress that has a substantial effect on his or her day-to-day life”.
When she addressed the Commons, she said that the legislation would be kept,
“under review. The last thing we want to do is to find that the legislation is being misinterpreted”.
She set out examples which were,
“to send a message to people that that is all they are”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/3/12; cols. 546-47.]
At the time of the debate in your Lordships’ House, I and other noble Lords asked for strong evidence that the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice would ensure that the softer elements that are essential to provide victim support were put in place, such as training throughout the criminal justice system to recognise the needs of victims, not just for the police but in court, where assistants might place people, as happened in my case, in some of the situations that cause extreme difficulties for victims. I know that noble Lords who are lawyers are not surprised by delays, but there are many things that happen day-to-day in the criminal justice system that cause victims real distress. There seems often not be very much joining up of agencies, let alone police forces. The requests for training that we made in 2012 seem not to have been applied across the board. There is some good but patchy training—and it is not consistent.
The result of that is that many victims of these serious and intrusive crimes feel that their victimisation continues as the case progresses through the criminal justice system. That is despite progress in the victim personal statements scheme that arrived in 2001, witness care units, the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime, the victims’ fund, Victim Support and the restorative justice service. A number of sources, including the organisation Victim’s Voice Survey, made it clear that all these were having little positive impact on victims, who seem to be routinely failed and face revictimisation by the whole of the criminal justice system.
The hour is late and I will not go into much evidence, but there is plenty of it from these surveys and the number of cases highlighted to show the gap between these policies and the day-to-day administration of practice. Currently, some victims’ rights, though not all, are covered by entitlements in the victims’ code, which was designed to make the system more responsive and easier to navigate. The problem is that this is not legally enforceable. It is a code, not statutory guidance. It places discretionary accountability on the agencies. Victim feedback strongly suggests that agencies often fail to apply the code. Agencies which should be guided by it are aware that a failure to provide the service does not make a service provider liable in any legal proceedings.
The complaints and right to appeal process within the code is lengthy and very difficult to navigate. There is clear evidence the victims are deterred from engaging in the complaints procedures because of their complexity. This misses any opportunity to identify ongoing issues that victims are facing and to improve services.
The original victims’ code was clearly a well-intentioned document, but there was widespread agreement, including from the current Government, that it was not delivering all that had been hoped. The new code is similar to the original but makes it all the more difficult to see where improvement to services for victims might come from. There seems to be widespread failure to adhere to the guidance that the code offers, with lack of information and support for victims continuing to be a critical concern.
I should like to give an illustration. During the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Bill I spoke about Claire Waxman, who had at that point been the victim of stalking for considerably more than one decade. She reported that when, after 18 months of harassment, she first went to her local police force, the officer she met laughed at her and told her that she was making a fuss and should be flattered by the attention. She described how, in incident after incident, paperwork was missing for court and the CPS was ill-equipped to cross-examine the stalker in court because it had no idea what the case was about, as the prosecutor had received the files only a few minutes prior to the trial.
On one occasion she received a knock on the door at 10 pm from a uniformed police officer. He informed her that she was due in court the next day as a witness in the ongoing case. The court date had been moved and they realised very late at night that she had not been notified of this change. She was so shocked to be told that she was due in court the following morning that she had no time to prepare herself, or even to inform her work. However, she said that it showed her how much of an afterthought victims really are in this process.
That is a brief illustration of the evidence provided to a group of Peers at a seminar we held in October. A victims’ rights Bill introduced in the House of Commons last October by Sir Keir Starmer has all-party support. Many of the amendments that we are laying before your Lordships now are incorporated into the Private Member’s Bill. These amendments would create a balanced and fair justice system for all who participate, and should restore public confidence in the criminal justice system.
There is one other key point that I want to make. Many of the problems that victims face are due to inefficiencies in the system. If these alone were remedied, there would be a considerable saving to the costs of running the court system. I speak today for victims, but there is a much more important element here that would save the public purse an enormous sum.
We outline a statutory framework for victims’ rights. In summary, we believe that the right to information at every stage of the justice process should be natural, as should the right not to be discriminated against or prejudiced from accessing justice. There should be the natural right not to be subjected to any unnecessary delay and to challenge decisions that impact directly on the victim’s personal safety. There should be a revision of offences that can be appealed on the grounds of leniency. There is a separate amendment later on the non-disclosure of victims’ names to perpetrators in cases of serious sexual offences, where the perpetrator has targeted a stranger. There should be the right to attend and make representations to any pre-court hearing to determine the nature of the court proceedings.
I end on two incidents that were addressed at the hearing, which also set the context of why this is not just about inefficiencies in court. Alleged suspects have many rights once they are brought into a police station. They are entitled to meals, blankets, breaks, tea, coffee, doctors and, where necessary, alcohol and drug workers. All the victims at the seminar that day, when asked whether they had even an offer of tea or coffee when making their formal statements, reported that they had not.
Another incident was more about the police force involved absolutely abrogating its responsibility. A woman who was initially slapped by her husband, who had a history of domestic violence, was thrown on to the bed. He then violently raped her. Their eight year-old son came to the door and he assaulted him to get him out of the way. When the local police came to investigate, they decided that it had to be referred to three different branches of the police: to the CID for the initial slap; to the Sapphire unit for the rape; and to safeguarding for the child’s issue. The victim in this case—the mother of the child—had to make three separate statements and be kept updated with three separate sets of proceedings, and each time relive the experience.
While the victims’ code as it stands has the best of intentions, it is not good enough and we need to strengthen it. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
I will be very brief, not only because of the lateness of the hour but because the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has already been through the case for these amendments.
The noble Baroness said that a victims’ rights Bill was introduced in the House of Commons last year by the then shadow Home Office Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, and it had all-party support. Currently, as we know, victims’ rights are for the most part covered by entitlements in the victims’ code and affected by various other initiatives in recent years. But that code is not legally enforceable and feedback from victims suggests, as has already been said, that agencies often fail to apply the code, perhaps because they are aware that a failure to provide the service does not make a service provider liable to any legal proceedings. Lack of information and support to victims are major areas of concern, with victims prioritising the right to information, protection, treatment and support as the highest priorities.
The purpose of these amendments is to place victims’ rights in a statutory framework, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has already referred to a number of those rights that are covered. The amendments also place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish and implement a strategy to provide training for all relevant professionals and agencies on the impact of crime on victims.
In essence, these amendments lay down what support should be offered to victims, how that support is managed, what training is necessary to put this into place and how complaints can be pursued. I, too, hope that the Government will feel able to give a favourable response.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, we on these Benches support our noble friend Lady Brinton. I do not want to detain the Committee so will make just a couple of comments. When discussing matters such as trafficking and slavery, I often hear that these issues are where domestic violence was 20 years ago. It is very concerning to hear about the treatment of women—and men—who have suffered domestic violence in the way that my noble friend has described. That is not progress over the past 20 years.
There is another argument for my noble friend’s various amendments, which I do not think she mentioned; that is, obtaining the best evidence from victims who are also witnesses. These are very sensitive issues and one hears of very good practice by some police forces and some members of the judiciary. It is a question of spreading that good practice. There is an awful lot raised in these amendments, including the very delicate issue of ticketing for the judiciary dealing with certain cases. This is not the moment to go into that but the implications of the amendments need to be taken on board over a very wide area of practice. The Committee should be grateful to my noble friend and the noble Lord for ensuring that they are raised. It is a pity that, coming to the end of Committee, we are not able to do them the justice that we would all like to do them.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and other noble Lords who have spoken, for raising the important issue of victims’ rights.
It is crucial that the needs of victims of crime are given proper consideration at every stage of the criminal justice process. We published a revised Code of Practice for Victims of Crime, which came into force in November 2015. As a result, victims of all criminal offences, not just victims of more serious offences, are entitled to support under the code. The code provides victims with a range of entitlements, including information about their case, interpretation and translation, and for them to be treated in a respectful and professional manner without discrimination of any kind. Furthermore, the code requires police and other service providers to have a complaints procedure. If victims are dissatisfied with the outcome, they are able to refer their complaints to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman via their Member of Parliament.
It is essential that victims receive the best possible support to help them cope with and recover from what they have been through. We have a raft of arrangements in place which ensure that victims have access to a wide range of emotional, practical and specialist support determined by and tailored to their needs; wherever possible, this support is accessible locally. We are committed to ensuring that victims get the support they need and have protected the overall level of funding for victims across the spending review period, with over £95 million being provided in 2016-17 to fund crucial support services, including £7 million for the provision of support for victims of child sexual abuse, in recognition of increasing demand. Of the £95 million, we allocated over £67 million in grant funding to police and crime commissioners, who are using that funding to commission local services. The Justice Secretary has recently agreed to extend grant funding to all the nationally funded organisations for 2017-18 while we consider the current mixed model of commissioning national and local services.
We recognise the importance of training for professionals who work with victims. Organisations are responsible for ensuring the highest-quality training for their staff to ensure that victims receive the best possible service and support. However, we also recognise that more can be done. That is why we are working to place victims and witnesses at the heart of a justice system that works for everyone. We recently announced the national rollout of pre-trial cross-examination in 2017 to improve the support available for vulnerable witnesses. We are also investing close to £1 billion to reform and digitise our courts and tribunals. This will improve the experience for all court and tribunal users, including vulnerable victims and witnesses. Furthermore, we have committed to introduce further measures to strengthen the rights of victims of crime. It is important that we take the time to get this right, and we will announce our plans in due course.
Finally, the proposal for homicide reviews is also unnecessary. If the family of a victim has concerns about a closed homicide case, this can be looked at again under the Crown Prosecution Service’s recent guidance, Reviewing Previously Finalised Cases, to determine whether or not a review should be conducted.
Having had this opportunity to debate these important issues, and in the knowledge that the Government will be bringing forward proposals to strengthen the rights of victims, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Brinton
I thank the Minister for her reply, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee for their contributions. I am pleased that the Government will be looking at this but the difficulty is that much of what we have heard from the Minister does not address the soft issues that face the day-to-day running of any case in the criminal justice system, which are causing many of the problems. I wonder if the Minister would be prepared to meet over the next few weeks to talk through some of these issues. I see she is nodding. I am very grateful. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Brinton
“Ethnicity monitoring in the youth criminal justice system
All youth criminal justice agencies using the 16+1 ethnicity code must replace the code with the 18+1 ethnicity code based on the 2011 Census.”
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, Amendments 228A and 228B would introduce ethnic monitoring into the youth criminal justice system for Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children and young people.
The case for the amendments is simple. Young Gypsies and Travellers are widely acknowledged as being hugely overrepresented across the entire youth justice system. They have some of the very worst experiences in custody and considerably greater care needs. Yet the youth justice system still uses ethnic monitoring systems based on the 2001 census and therefore Gypsies and Travellers do not appear in the official data. I will touch briefly on why ethnic monitoring is important, particularly in education and in addressing the specific needs of Gypsies and Travellers.
The Government have rightly placed great emphasis on the need to improve the education provided for prisoners, particularly those in the youth justice system. Yet the lack of official data means that the educational needs of young Gypsies and Travellers are ignored without even being addressed. The lack of targeted education interventions is particularly acute in the youth criminal justice system. The Irish Chaplaincy’s research, Voices Unheard, found that 52% of young Irish Travellers required basic educational intervention. In fact, despite investigations from the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman and reports such as Children in Custody consistently revealing that Gypsies and Travellers have lower levels of literacy and are far less likely to understand written English, few to no steps have been taken to address this inequality.
Unfortunately, Gypsies and Travellers continue to experience marginalisation and discrimination in everyday life. Naturally, this negative experience means that they are more likely to distrust authority and far less likely to request help when they need it in prison. Low literacy and being fearful of requesting help directly contribute to Gypsies and Travellers having worse experiences in custody. They find it harder, primarily due to literacy issues, to make applications, to get a prison job or to be involved in purposeful activity while serving their sentences. This is not because of idleness or out of personal choice but because they cannot navigate the system.
There is a real willingness among Gypsies and Travellers to seek education in prison. A Children in Custody report found that 89% of Gypsy, Traveller and Roma young people thought that education in secure training centres would help them when they left. That is compared to just 66% of young people. That desire to learn can be confirmed with organisations such as the Traveller Movement and the Irish Chaplaincy, which regularly work with Gypsy and Traveller children.
However, these children are being failed because they are not seen as a priority. Without official data, the various facilities do not feel any pressure to address the unjustifiable differences in the outcomes for Gypsy and Traveller young people in prison compared with other young people because the absence of data means that these differences in outcomes cannot be fully revealed.
The latest Children in Custody report also revealed that Gypsies, Travellers and Roma in both young offender institutions and secure training centres were significantly more likely to consider themselves to have a disability. In addition, Gypsy, Traveller and Roma children in secure training centres were far more likely to report having unmet health needs. The health and education needs of Gypsy and Traveller children are simply not being addressed in the current system.
Official, reliable and consistent data are integral to ensuring that these children’s needs are being met. There is nothing like having to answer specific questions on a particular group to focus the minds of those delivering a service. The inclusion of Gypsies and Travellers in ethnicity monitoring in youth justice is integral to highlighting and addressing differences in outcomes and, most importantly, in ensuring that these children are provided with a better chance of successful resettlement. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I add my support to the powerful arguments that have been put before the Committee today by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in her excellent speech. Her amendment would include Gypsy and Irish Travellers in the ethnic monitoring systems used in youth justice. The argument for ethnic inclusion was put best by the then Commission for Racial Equality, which likened having an equality policy without ethnic monitoring to,
“aiming for good financial management without keeping financial records”.
Evidence has long suggested that Gypsies and Travellers suffer worse health outcomes, and are at more risk of suicide, than other ethnic groups. Research suggests that they are three times more likely to suffer from anxiety and over twice as likely to be depressed. This is consistent with findings by HM Inspectorate of Prisons, which has found similarly high levels of mental health issues experienced by Travellers and Gypsies in prison, with them also being twice as likely to experience mental health problems compared to other prisoners. As is common with most ethnic minorities, Gypsies and Travellers find it difficult to open up to people outside their community and are therefore far less likely to report issues to prison staff. These findings underline why ethnic monitoring is urgently needed in the youth justice system, as the noble Baroness has explained.
The Gypsy and Traveller groups that have developed in adult prisons as a consequence of ethnic monitoring have made an enormous difference to Gypsies’ and Travellers’ experiences inside those prisons. These act as a safe space where they can talk about how they are coping in prison and, more importantly, receive support from their own community. A Traveller forum in HM Prison Chelmsford, supported by the Brentwood Ursulines, is testament to this. The forum meetings are now attended by around 40 Gypsies and Travellers and acts a platform for Gypsies and Travellers to speak openly about the challenges that they face.
The forum has also helped to improve the literacy of Gypsies and Travellers. In order to secure a prison job, you are required to pass level 2 literacy, a threshold that many Gypsies and Travellers in prison are, sadly, unable to meet. As is often the case with people who struggle with reading and writing, they fear stigmatisation and ridicule if they admit they cannot read and write. This prevents many Gypsies and Travellers from engaging in education programmes. It is the ultimate Catch-22, a finding that is confirmed by the Irish Chaplaincy’s Traveller Equality Project.
Happily, however, I can report that as a consequence of the forum’s work many of those Gypsies and Travellers have started to take part in the Shannon Trust’s Turning Pages project, which assists prisoners who wish to learn how to read. This has had some significant outcomes, including the possibility of securing jobs. Equally importantly, the forum has also greatly improved the relations between the Gypsy and Traveller prisoners and the prison staff who attend the meetings, and address issues that have been raised. Without the introduction of ethnic monitoring, it is hard to imagine how some of those things would have been achieved.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I add my support to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to which my noble friend Lord Rosser has added his name. She has hit eloquently on an important omission in our capacity to deal with young offenders.
When I and members of the Gypsy and Traveller communities first lobbied for an extension of the census categories to include Gypsies and Travellers, before the increase in our Roma population, we did so because important areas of discrimination, resulting in significantly poorer life chances, were undocumented and a minority ethnic population of very long standing was simply unrecognised in many sets of official statistics. When we eventually achieved this in 2011 we thought that at last the public services would begin to understand more about the significantly worse outcomes in health, education, employment, housing and experience of the criminal justice system endured by many from these communities.
It remains disappointing that the Youth Justice Board has not taken advantage of the opportunity of the 2011 census categories to map more accurately what happens to young Gypsy, Traveller and Roma people. I am grateful for useful meetings with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as chair of the Youth Justice Board, and his officials on the subject. His acknowledgment that the current system is not robust was welcome and I appreciate his commitment to improvement in data gathering. However, the fact remains that records still do not consistently capture more of the reality of who the young people who go through our criminal justice system are.
There are, of course, some external obstacles. Many young people from the Gypsy and Traveller communities are fearful of admitting their ethnicity because of the bullying and exclusion which has been meted out to them in the past. But trust can be developed if the information is shown to be helpful.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, it would be very important to be able to correlate the probable overrepresentation of these young people with literacy levels and mental health status—also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Their experience of education and accommodation has often been deeply unsatisfactory, but we cannot begin to make these links and to do something about it until we have the data tools.
As has been said, we know that both HM Inspectorate of Prisons and the lead chief constable for Gypsy, Traveller and Roma issues have called for the change the amendment would provide. The excellent Irish Chaplaincy's Traveller Equality Project has really positive evidence of good practice to justify the use of up-to-date information in the adult prison estate.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will see the point too and accept this amendment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendments 228A and 228B in the name of my noble friend Lady Brinton. The arguments for ethnic monitoring are well versed and I will touch upon them briefly. As has already been said, without ethnic monitoring it is very difficult for public services to identify, and therefore address, any inequalities which vulnerable groups may be experiencing. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said, whenever there have been research or studies into the experiences of Gypsies, Travellers and Roma in custodial institutions—in either the youth or adult estates—these communities are almost always shown to have worse experiences and greater care needs.
Voices Unheard: A Study of Irish Travellers in Prison found that over 20% of Traveller young offenders were identified as having mental health issues. This is an alarming number and needs a co-ordinated effort in order to be addressed. However, as we know, without ethnic monitoring and consistent data it is unlikely that such an intervention would take place. As the report’s author, Dr Conn Mac Gabhann—I hope I have pronounced that correctly—said in an interview on this issue recently:
“While ethnic monitoring will not solve all the problems Gypsy and Traveller children face in the youth criminal justice system, it will be an important step in helping us to highlight the problems and issues they face and ensure these issues become a target to be tackled”.
I have little more to add to the very powerful speeches of my noble friend Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. They have covered the ground extremely well. I hope the Government can support these amendments and ensure that the issues affecting young Gypsies and Travellers in the youth justice system can finally be addressed.
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I have sympathy for the noble Baroness’s amendment regarding collection of ethnic minority data. I would like to pick up on the point about education. So long as we are not properly educating the Traveller community it will continue to be exceptionally difficult for it to engage exclusively in legitimate economic activity.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I will add a few brief comments to what has been said, without seeking to repeat the arguments which have already been made. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, may have been quoting from a letter, dated 2 November, which the deputy chief constable of the Cheshire Constabulary, who is the NPCC lead for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller issues, wrote to Elizabeth Truss at the Ministry of Justice. In this, she drew attention to the amendments to the Bill which we are discussing tonight. I will give a further quotation from the letter. She says:
“It is my firm belief that the lack of robust and reliable data on the Gypsy and Traveller population is a major barrier to developing a coherent understanding of these communities and their social, economic, education and welfare needs. Updating the ethnicity monitoring systems in youth justice to include Gypsies and Irish Travellers would be an integral step in helping us to address the disproportionate number of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children in both Secure Training Centres and Youth Offender Institutions”.
She concludes her letter to Elizabeth Truss by saying that:
“I hope you and your Department are able to support the amendments”.
I hope that when the Minister replies she may be able to tell us what Elizabeth Truss’s response is to that request from the NPCC lead for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller issues to support the amendments that we are discussing this evening.
I have also got a copy of a letter which the chairman of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales sent very recently to Kate Green MP, in response to a letter that she had written to him about the collection of data on the number of Gypsy and Traveller young people in the justice system. He says in his reply that:
“The YJB currently records the ethnicity of young people in the youth justice system using the 2001 census categories, which does not include Gypsy, Traveller or Romany (GTR) as a category. Consideration has been given to changing information systems to capture the number of GTR young people but it is too costly at present to make the required changes to existing local and central case management systems to make this possible. This position will be reviewed as new IT systems are developed and implemented”.
I am not sure that that statement holds out a great deal of hope. Perhaps in her reply the Minister could say something about what the costs would be of making the required changes to the existing local and central case management systems to achieve the objective being sought, so that we can all form a view of whether that is too costly or not.
I also ask the Government to respond to one other thing. Since the position will, apparently, be reviewed as new IT systems are developed and implemented, are we talking about new systems that will be developed and implemented within the next six months, the next six years or the next 60 years? Once again, the letter does not make that clear. It is interesting that the letter from the chairman of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales then goes on to assert that,
“it is not the case that no data exists in this area”.
He then refers to the fact that:
“The YJB and HM Inspectorate of Prisons publish an annual report, Children in Custody, based on surveys of children in Young Offender Institutions (YOIs) and Secure Training Centres (STCs)”.
That is an interesting observation since, as I understand it, certainly on at least one previous occasion the relevant Minister has expressed the view that, as not all young people return a completed survey, they cannot determine the actual number of GRT young people held in YOIs and STCs, or even know if the sample is representative. That would suggest that on previous occasions the Government have not regarded the data contained in Children in Custody—in those annual reports—as necessarily being particularly reliable or particularly helpful.
Like others, I very much hope that the Government will be able to give a helpful response to this amendment. If the argument is going to be all about the cost of doing it, we will really need to ask the Government for a full breakdown of those costs and when they expect to rectify the situation so that we can all form an assessment of the validity or otherwise of that particular argument.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising the issue, and all noble Lords who have taken part.
The Government acknowledge that it is of great importance that ethnicity classifications of children and young people in the youth justice system are robust and accurate. Noble Lords will recall that the Prime Minister announced in August an audit of public services to reveal racial disparities and to help to end the injustices that many people experience. At present, youth custodial establishments and youth justice agencies, such as youth offending teams and the Youth Justice Board, are not required by legislation to use a particular system of ethnic monitoring; these amendments would change that.
In 2011, the National Offender Management Service adopted the 18+1 system on the centralised operational database used in prisons and young offender institutions for the management of offenders, following the change of classifications for ethnicity within the national census. However, it is the case that the new classification is not consistently used by secure children’s homes, secure training centres and youth offending teams. In principle, we agree with the aim of using the 18+1 classification, and the Government are ready to examine whether and how this could be done consistently across youth justice agencies and custodial establishments. I should point out, however, that such a change can be delivered through administrative means rather than through legislation. We feel that such an approach is preferable, given that to enshrine the 18+1 code in legislation would inhibit future flexibility in the event that the Office for National Statistics were to decide to change the 18+1 code system and introduce a new system of ethnicity classifications.
Although we support working towards consistency in terms of the data that we are recording, I hope that the noble Baroness would recognise that the universal adoption of the 18+1 code would require youth justice agencies to make a significant number of technical changes to a range of data systems, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned. This is because many existing IT and data collection systems are designed only to accommodate the 16+1 classification. For this reason, we believe the impact on agencies and custodial establishments must be explored and analysed and appropriate approaches identified.
I do not have costings at the moment, and will have to get back to the noble Lord on that point—although, interestingly enough, inspiration has appeared over my left shoulder. However, I am not sure that it is going to be that helpful. I have no information on the cost of the necessary IT changes. Clearly, they would need to be identified and factored into the work that would need to be done as youth justice agencies moved to the 18+1 system. I shall make inquiries as to whether further information is available and write to noble Lords. I am afraid that I do not have much more to add.
In conclusion, the noble Baroness has highlighted a valid issue. We support the broad aim of these amendments and will consider further the practical implications of embedding the 18+1 code system throughout the youth justice system. I hope that, on this basis, the noble Baroness would be content to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Brinton
I thank all those who have contributed to this debate on this very important issue, including the noble Lord, Lord Alton, the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for highlighting in detail the issues that I felt that I did not have time to go into on what is happening with the IT system. I put it on record, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, wanted to speak in this debate but, because the date has moved on, were unable to be in their places.
I thank the Minister for her comments, although I was slightly startled by her opening statement about this new system of ethnicity. It is new only to the youth justice system. It is in use absolutely everywhere else. I am not intending to suggest that the Minister was saying anything else, but that is the whole problem—that there is a particular section of the criminal justice system that is not using the same databases as everybody else. We know from the example that the Minister quoted of the W3 Gypsy or Traveller code being added to P-NOMIS that the Irish chaplaincy has reported that many prisons are holding Traveller groups, appointing Traveller reps and holding Traveller history months—and, what is more, there is an increase in uptake of education by more than 10% among Traveller prisoners. That is a sign of real success. Surely young Gypsy and Traveller children who are in the system early on deserve that support the moment they come into the system. I hope that we can keep the doors open to discuss the matter as a matter of urgency. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wigley
“Victims and witnesses of serious crime: disclosure
(1) A police force or police officer may not disclose the identity of a victim or witness of a serious sexual or violent offence to the person accused of the offence, if it is reasonable to assume that such a disclosure would put the victim or witness at risk of further harm. (2) In determining whether disclosure is reasonable for the purposes of subsection (1), a police force or police officer must take into account the—(a) previous convictions,(b) mental health, and(c) access to new technology or social media,of the person accused of the offence.(3) This section applies whether or not the person accused of the offence has been charged with the offence.”
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, Amendment 228C stands in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote. I apologise, as I have before, that I have had to dip in and out of the debates on this Bill, for reasons I think noble Lords will understand.
This amendment concerns the victims and witnesses of serious crime and its purpose is to prevent the disclosure of a victim’s identity to the accused when there has been a serious sexual assault and the accused is a stranger. The need for this amendment is best illustrated if I briefly recall a disturbing incident. About 30 months ago, a person, whom I shall call “M”, was followed by a stranger off a bus and subsequently attacked. There was an attempted rape and threats to kill her if she did not stop screaming. Fortunately, two off-duty police officers heard the screams and arrested the attacker. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, will recall that M gave harrowing evidence to a seminar that she chaired last month. M told Peers that, later at the police station, she was horrified to learn that her full name had been given to the assailant. He did plead guilty and was handed down a seven-year sentence but, understandably, M is now terrified that, on release, her assailant will find her and attack again. She contacted Voice4Victims, who worked out that he will be released on parole in July next year. M has changed her name, moved home and deleted her name from the electoral register, but she still fears that, by using the internet and social media, he will trace her.
She is not alone: other women have reported similar experiences. One woman reported dropping a case of sexual assault after learning that the attacker had been given her name. Another reported, “I am still scared every day that the guy who did this will be released and he has all my details”. That was also a case of attempted rape. She said that it would have been much safer for her if she just had not reported the attack. M has contacted the police and the Met have responded, saying:
“There is no specific policy or legislation which covers the issue of providing the name of a victim of rape to the suspect. Instead it is an operational decision taken by the officer in the case on a case-by-case basis”.
This came from the office of Commander Christine Jones. M has written to the police heads in all 32 London boroughs. What emerged is that there is no uniform policy at police stations. Most confirmed that, yes, they did disclose. Some said that they did not and that it was a matter for the court. Most were unsure. This situation is not satisfactory and is putting vulnerable female victims at risk. It is not a matter of the right of the accused knowing the accuser. As they are strangers, the use of initials or a single letter would be enough. At court, special measures can and are applied for, but by then it may be too late.
The amendment makes it clear beyond doubt that disclosure puts victims at risk—anonymity does not. The clause, which was drafted for me by Voice4Victims, stipulates that disclosure is prevented if it is reasonable to assume that disclosure would put the victim at further risk of harm. In determining the concept of “reasonable”, the police would take into account previous convictions, mental health issues and, indeed, access to IT. This should mean that in practice names are never given to perpetrators.
I hope that the Minister will recognise the serious circumstances which have led me to table this amendment. I hope that the Government will accept it today, but if for any reason there are technical difficulties with it, I would ask that they bring their own amendment at a later stage, so that this serious matter is properly addressed and victims are not caused additional and unnecessary distress, and potentially serious consequences, because of the current uncertainty as to the requirements of the law. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I was sent the same briefing as him, so he has largely said the same as I was going to say. I just remind the Committee that I sit as a magistrate in central London and I deal, not with issues of this seriousness, but certainly with issues of harassment and others of that nature. There is one other factor that I want to add, on what I understand the legal position to be, which I took from the CPS website. If the police want to apply for anonymity for a victim and believe that they have proper grounds to do that, they can apply to a magistrates’ court but, indeed, I believe police officers can give that anonymity if they believe that there is a proper case for it. They have to reapply for anonymity when a trial happens, either at the magistrates’ court or at the Crown Court.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said so clearly, many of the police who were contacted about this issue simply did not know what the law was and they gave wrong advice to the young woman who was asking for advice. This is very worrying and is very likely to discourage other young women from coming forward. That is really the importance of this amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, it certainly seems extraordinary that there is no policy for legislation determining whether to disclose the identity of a victim of serious sexual crime to the alleged stranger perpetrator. It seems to me that, while nothing is gained by disclosure in the police station, it could be very damaging to the victim. It is relatively easy, in today’s society, for anybody with access to the internet to trace and find the whereabouts of any person, just by having their name.
Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Lab)
I too support the amendment. M, as referred to in my noble friend’s speech, is a family connection—a very capable young woman, as can be seen from the fact that she wrote right round the Metropolitan Police to discover that there was indeed no policy about whether victims’ details were handed over. It was done quite routinely, on admittance, as it were, in a case in which two off-duty police officers had actually rescued her. This seems a most peculiar omission.
I should also point out that the new clause as drafted does not just cover rape or attempted rape, but stranger danger of other sorts. Many years ago I was the victim of an attempted mugging. I got the number of the chap’s motor bike, reported it to the police and offered to give evidence. In fact he was convicted, but the police kindly said that they did not need to invite me, because he had pleaded guilty to that and a multitude of other offences. But he had issued the traditional snarling claim that he knew where I lived and would come and get me if I spoke up.
At that time it was possible to feel fairly secure and confident, having a Jewish name—Cohen—that was extremely common in London, that if I removed my name from the London telephone book, probably nobody would find me. This is not the case any more. M is a young woman with her career to make, and necessarily has a Facebook presence. He can find her if he needs to—and this is a case in which there is considerable doubt about the chap’s mental capacity.
There are lots of cases like this that are not rape; there is also assault. As a lawyer, I am conscious that the proposed new clause may be too broadly drafted. I ask the Government to get parliamentary counsel on to it to ensure that it can be adopted. If not, I will return to the issue on Report, no doubt with the support of others. This seems to me an anomaly caused by just a lack of process and anybody thinking about it, and which renders ridiculous our attempts to protect victims of stranger danger.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 228C in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill. As we have heard, its aim is to provide additional protection for victims or witnesses of a serious sexual offence, using the test of whether it is reasonable to assume that a disclosure of the person’s identity,
“would put the victim or witness at risk of further harm”.
It is right to include the rights of victims and witnesses in primary legislation where possible, and this is what the amendment seeks to do. Both victims and witnesses of serious offences can be very traumatised by what has happened to them or what they have witnessed. The disclosure of the name of the victim or witness to the person alleged to have committed the offence could put them at risk of further harm, as we have heard, or of fear of further harm. That, in itself, can cause additional stress and trauma for the victim or witness. Therefore, this amendment would place a specific duty on the police, when considering releasing the names of victims or witnesses to the accused person, to take into account the matters listed in new subsections (2) and (3) of the proposed new clause. That would be a sensible and welcome move, and I hope the noble Baroness will respond positively to the amendment.
I fully endorse the comments of all those who have spoken to the amendment. I was particularly surprised to hear my noble friends Lord Ponsonby and Lady Cohen say that the police have no idea what the policy is in this area. I am amazed by that. I certainly fully endorse the amendment.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, explained, this amendment seeks to grant victims or witnesses of sexual or violent crime anonymity in cases where it is reasonable to assume that disclosure would put them at risk of further harm. The noble Lord has indicated that he is particularly concerned with cases of so-called “stranger rape”.
I say from the outset that I agree wholeheartedly that the criminal justice system must support and protect victims and witnesses, particularly victims of sexual offences who are especially vulnerable. There are already a number of means whereby those at risk of further harm can be safeguarded and I will briefly itemise these in a moment but, before doing so, I must point to a central difficulty with the noble Lord’s amendment. The overarching principle of our criminal justice system is that the defendant must be given a fair trial. This is clearly stated in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Fundamental to this is the right of the accused to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. I am sure the noble Lord accepts that the accused cannot be expected to defend himself properly at trial if he does not even know who is accusing him of the alleged crime. This amendment would fundamentally undermine that cornerstone of our justice system.
That is not to say that there should not be crucial safeguards in place for victims and witnesses who have had the grave misfortune to experience violent or sexual crimes. As I have indicated, there are already multiple mechanisms the police and courts can employ to protect victims. Where necessary for the purpose of the investigation, the police can seek to detain the accused for up to 96 hours pending charge and seek to have him or her remanded in custody post-charge. If it is not possible to bring charges within the time limits on pre-charge detention, the suspect can be bailed subject to conditions which prohibit contact with the victim.
There are also established provisions in legislation for witness protection programmes and the provision of special measures during criminal proceedings; for example, a complainant can give evidence via a live link or behind a screen.
There is already provision for anonymity of complainants or witnesses, to be used as an exceptional measure of last practicable resort. A witness anonymity order can be granted by the court if it is satisfied that their identification would adversely affect the quality of evidence given by them, or their level of co-operation with the prosecution. The Director of Public Prosecution’s guidance on witness anonymity is clear that where the prosecution cannot present its case in a way that allows the defendant to defend themselves, it is under a duty to stop the case, no matter how serious the allegations may be. Hence, this must be very carefully considered when deciding whether to grant victim or witness anonymity—fair, equal and open justice for all must be the imperative.
While I have every sympathy for the noble Lord’s objective of protecting vulnerable victims and witnesses, I hope he will accept that the blanket approach provided for in his amendment is fundamentally at odds with our system of justice and the right of the accused to a fair trial. It is important to remember that the accused is just that: accused. He or she is not convicted, and is presumed innocent until proved guilty. This amendment arguably assumes guilt and undermines the protections and safeguards against miscarriages of justice of which this country is justly proud. Moreover, there are already a number of mechanisms available by which victims and witnesses can be supported through the criminal justice process. Given these points, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response but I find her interpretation very strange indeed. I mentioned that the policy in fact varies from area to area within London, and that some police stations do operate the policy I am advocating of not giving out names. If this is a basic question of human rights, as was suggested, it seems to raise a fairly fundamental question about police stations following public policy or not.
With regard to giving the defendant a fair crack of the whip in the courts, what difference does it make if he knows the name of the victim or not, particularly in circumstances where he previously did not? If he did know it, giving him this information will not matter because he already has it. But if he did not, it is clear that he will be being given information that may well be prejudicial to the well-being of the victim in the fullness of time, and it will not do all that much to defend his circumstances in court.
I am very grateful to the noble Lords and Baronesses who have contributed to this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe of Idlicote and Lady Cohen of Pimlico. The cases they made were very strong indeed. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, from the Opposition Front Bench. I do not believed that the response we have had answers the questions raised. I entirely accept that the wording of this amendment may be deficient but I ask, in all seriousness, that the Government look at this between now and Report. If they see, as do my colleagues and I, that there is a case for a change in law, I ask that they consider bringing forward their own amendment which meets the points raised while avoiding the deficiencies that have been pointed out. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wigley
“Reviews of sentencing
The Secretary of State must by order under section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (scope of Part IV) specify that the following additional offences may be reviewed under Part IV (reviews of sentencing) of that Act—(a) offences under section 4A (stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress) or 5 (restraining orders on conviction) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997,(b) offences under section 76 (controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship) of the Serious Crime Act 2015,(c) offences under section 12 (support for a proscribed organisation) of the Terrorism Act 2000, and(d) offences under section 160 (possession of indecent photograph of child) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.”
Lord Wigley
My Lords, Amendment 228D stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. This amendment increases the range of offences for which the Attorney-General has the power to refer a relevant lenient sentence to the Court of Appeal for review. The offences covered by the amendment are stalking, which my colleagues in the other place have been involved in seeking legislation on over the past two or three years—I am glad to see positive movement on this—multiple breaches of restraining orders, coercive control, incitement to support a terrorist organisation and the possession of indecent images of children. Those are the categories we refer to in the amendment.
The Criminal Justice Act 1988 gave the Attorney-General the power to refer unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal. The power was rightly restricted to certain serious offences, but since that time new legislation has been enacted for other grave matters. The time is right to reflect those changes and to address the concerns about individual cases of leniency by adding these new offences to the relevant schedule to the 1988 Act. The changes are not retrospective but would give the Attorney-General the power to refer such lenient cases in the future.
There have been a number of sentences in individual cases in the recent past involving the offences I have listed in the amendment which have been widely reported and have indeed caused public concern. Subsection (a) of the proposed new clause refers to stalking, which is dealt with in Section 4A of the Act,
“involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress”,
and would have been relevant, had it been enacted, to the sentence of only three years for the stalker of Emily Maitlis. This seemed to be very lenient given that the behaviour had gone on for more than 20 years and despite many previous convictions. The stalker of Claire Waxman, again with numerous convictions, got three years and was back in the community after 18 months. Longer sentences would not only be just, they would also allow for longer perpetrator treatment while in custody.
Stalking victims constantly complain that restraining orders do not work because they are not enforced. The perpetrator in the Claire Waxman case breached them many times and other women currently working with Voice 4 Victims say the same. Sometimes, for whatever reason, it appears that the police do not investigate, while in other cases the courts hand out fines or warnings, yet the maximum sentence for a breach is five years. The ability to refer multiple breaches for re-examination by the Court of Appeal would facilitate the raising of the threshold.
Coercive control in a domestic situation became law in 2015. The behaviour causes massive damage to predominantly female victims and can last for years. Women may be controlled financially or in terms of their movements by being confined to their homes, and harassed and bullied. Too few prosecutions have been brought to court so far. The ability of the Attorney-General to refer individual cases will help to highlight the serious nature of such unacceptable behaviour.
Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 involves inciting support for a proscribed organisation. Earlier this year, the hate preacher Anjem Choudary was given three and a half years despite the fact that the court heard that he had encouraged at least 100 young people to turn to ISIS. He could be out in 20 months or less.
The inclusion of the possession of indecent images of children follows an extraordinary case this summer where a male offender was given a suspended sentence in spite of having thousands of images on his devices, including 400 category A images, which are the most vile. His defence argued for a non-custodial sentence on the grounds that he wanted to start a family.
This amendment, which has been drafted by Voice 4 Victims, would update the Attorney-General’s powers and increase public confidence in the sentencing process. I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I want to add a few words of support for this amendment. Four years ago I was fully in support of the creation of the offence of stalking, which involves putting a person in fear of violence, serious alarm or distress. Although the maximum sentence is five years, there have been a number of disturbing and unduly lenient court sentences for perpetrators who had been stalking their victims for a decade or more.
I recently met Claire Waxman who has been referred to and who had been hounded by a relentless stalker for 13 years. Her case highlighted the struggle that stalking victims face in the criminal justice system. It was one of the key cases given as evidence in the stalking law reform and it took over a decade for her perpetrator to receive a substantial custodial sentence. In those years, Claire said, “I felt completely failed by the justice system for allowing my long-term stalker to receive suspended sentences or very short jail sentences. These sentences served little purpose as he continued his criminal behaviour each time. I strongly believe had we been able to refer this case to the Attorney-General for the Court of Appeal, he may have received the right sentence earlier on, saving me from years of unnecessary harm and distress”. I very much hope that the Government will see a way to support this amendment fully.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, I also support this amendment, to which I have put my name.
As I mentioned in an earlier debate, I sit as a magistrate in central London for crime, youth and family matters. I have been a magistrate for just over 10 years and have seen a big change in the nature of crime which we deal with in London. While there is a decreasing overall amount of crime brought to courts in London, there is a rising proportion of crime related to domestic abuse. We all receive specialist training on that matter—we have specialist courts and are very careful about the way we deal with those matters in court. It is an ever increasing proportion of our workload, so I have given out many restraining orders and have also dealt with many breaches of restraining orders. When one gives a warning to somebody who has been given a restraining order, one can never really be too stark in explaining to the offender just how serious it is. Many times you get the impression that they do not appreciate the seriousness of their activities.
Even when a defendant has been acquitted and found not guilty, you can still put in place a restraining order if you believe it is suitable, and you still have to give a suitable warning for that restraining order being put in place. The amendment deals only with people who have been convicted, but restraining orders can be put in place when people are acquitted as well.
The purpose of this amendment is as a backstop to provide the ability to have higher sentences where the courts have put in place unduly lenient sentences. The maximum is five years, but very often there needs to be a facility and an ability to increase sentences if they are felt to be unduly lenient.
Baroness Brinton
My Lords, one of the major concerns is that stalking is not used as a charge often enough. It is still too easy to charge with the offence of harassment, rather than stalking. We really need to make sure that the criminal justice system recognises and understands stalking—that was the law reform in 2012 that we worked hard to achieve. However, it is also important to recognise that some cases of stalking are consistently appalling and are also coercive behaviour.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to the case of Emily Maitlis’s stalker who had previous convictions, including breaches of restraining orders in 2008, 2010, 2013, 2014 and earlier this year. I am sorry to say that that is not uncommon behaviour with stalkers and there needs to be the facility for the courts to apply for more serious custodial sentences where orders are consistently breached—not least the way that the stalking and coercive behaviour continues. One of the problems we have heard time and again from victims of domestic violence, stalking and coercive behaviour is the way other courts are used—the civil courts or family courts that do not recognise restraining orders that have been held elsewhere. We heard of information, which had not been passed to the family courts, of one former stalker who had been trying to get in front of his ex-partner through the family courts. It is very necessary to have this limited use but essential tool available for the judiciary.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Government recognise and agree with the noble Lord’s desire to see the unduly lenient sentence scheme extended to enable reviews of sentences for a wider range of offences. The scheme is a valuable way of ensuring that sentences for serious crimes can be challenged when they are considered to be unduly lenient. The Government have a manifesto commitment to extend the scope of the scheme and on 4 October my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced an extension to cover many terrorism offences—including those under Section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000—that are covered by the noble Lord’s amendment. The extension can be done very straightforwardly by order.
The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to use primary legislation to require the Lord Chancellor to exercise the order-making power she has under Section 35 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to add offences to the scheme. This would add additional complexity to the legislative framework around the scheme and would curtail the Lord Chancellor’s discretion to amend the scheme as provided by the 1988 Act. Under the current provisions, the Lord Chancellor can amend the scope of the scheme by order and the Government can consider more broadly what offences or types of offences are most appropriate for inclusion at any time, as we have announced we will do with terrorism offences. With the reassurance that the Government intend to honour their manifesto commitment, I hope that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response and the recognition that there is a need to act on this. I ask for her confirmation that the statutory instrument system available to the Minister to take the action I referred to is applicable in all the cases listed in the amendment. If she wants to intervene, she can by all means do so.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I was just going to ask whether I could confirm that in writing, because I would not want to give misinformation at the Dispatch Box.
Lord Wigley
That is fair enough. I accept that. I do not expect any Minister necessarily to carry all the details on their fingertips, but it would be helpful if we had a response on that before Report so that, if it is necessary to take this matter further on Report, there is an opportunity to do so.
The Minister heard the comments made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe of Idlicote and Lady Brinton, and by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on this matter. The feeling is generally shared that there needs to be action, and it is shared by the Government. The question is how it can be done and, perhaps more importantly, when it will be done. If these order-making facilities are available to the Minister, why have they not been used? If they are to be used, when will they be used? If there was a definitive statement in those terms we would be a little happier in withdrawing the amendment. There is an opportunity to come back on Report. I hope that between now and then these angles will be covered, either in correspondence or by other means, so we can be assured that action is not only promised but will be taken in a short timescale to put this right. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Coroners’ investigations into deaths: meaning of “state detention”
(1) Section 48 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (interpretation of Part 1: general) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), in the definition of “state detention”, after “subsection (2)” insert “(read with subsection (2A))”.(3) In subsection (2), at the beginning insert “Subject to subsection (2A),”.(4) After subsection (2) insert—“(2A) But a person is not in state detention at any time when he or she is deprived of liberty under section 4A(3) or (5) or 4B of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.””
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and her officials for their time and help over the issue of this amendment. I declare my interest as independent chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum, and it is in that role that I have heard repeatedly about a problem relating to people who die when subject to deprivation of liberty safeguards. This new clause amends the meaning of state detention in Section 48 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to correct the problem that I will now explain. I want to explain first how the amendment works and then some of the background as to why it really is needed.
The amendment removes the duty on coroners to conduct an inquest in all cases where the deceased had an authorisation for the deprivation of their liberty in place either under deprivation of liberty safeguards or a Court of Protection order or because the deprivation of liberty was otherwise authorised by the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Subsections (2) and (3) of the new clause amend Section 48 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to provide a new definition of state detention. To do this, there is a new subsection inserted into the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to provide that a person is not considered to be under state detention for the purposes of that Act when they are deprived of their liberty under the relevant sections of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This covers the deprivation of liberty safeguards, which can be from a Court of Protection order, from a DoLS authorisation or, where the deprivation of liberty was urgently required, pending a decision by the Court of Protection on the authority to restrict the person’s liberty. The second amendment makes a consequential change to the Long Title of the Bill.
Let me explain why this new clause is needed. After the Cheshire West judgment, the number of DoLS applications has risen enormously. This was the subject of a debate in this House on 16 March 2015. Prior to the Cheshire West judgment, in 2012-13, there were 11,887 DoLS. In 2014-15, 122,775 individuals had an active DoLS application either granted or in process. That is more than a tenfold increase in the number of DoLS. Some of these people were seriously ill and some died. In 2015, there were 7,183 such deaths. The vast majority of those were expected, anticipated and accepted by the family and those responsible for care. These were not deaths that came as a surprise to anyone. When that family was then told that the death must be referred to the coroner for an inquest they were often shocked and worried, as if there were some sort of accusation against them or others. They could not progress with their grieving and arrange the funeral, as they then had to wait for the inquest.
In 2015 the average time for inquests was 20 weeks, although coroners tried very hard to ensure that deaths under DoLS, when clearly of natural causes, were dealt with more quickly. To put the numbers in context, of the more than 7,000 deaths under DoLS, 6,760—or 94%—were found at inquests to be natural.
The distress to the bereaved has become a common cause of complaint to the Department of Health. In addition, it is not a good use of coroners, who should be investigating deaths where there is any suspicion whatever. Indeed, I remind the House that the Ministry of Justice’s Guide to Coroner Services states:
“Registrars of births and deaths, doctors or the police must report deaths to a coroner in certain circumstances. These include where it appears that: no doctor saw the deceased during his or her last illness; although a doctor attended the deceased during the last illness, the doctor is not able or available, for any reason, to certify the death; the cause of death is unknown; the death occurred during an operation or before recovery from the effects of an anaesthetic; the death occurred at work or was due to industrial disease or poisoning; the death was sudden and unexplained; the death was unnatural”—
so that includes all suspected suicides—
“the death was due to violence or neglect; the death was in other suspicious circumstances; or the death occurred in prison, police custody or another type of state detention”.
The Ministry of Justice document goes on to say:
“If you believe that a death of this kind has not been reported to the coroner, you may report it yourself”.
In other words, relatives who have any concern can themselves report to the coroner. It goes on to say:
“You should do this as soon as possible and before the funeral. The coroner will then inform you of the action he or she proposes to take”.
Nothing in the amendment removes the obligations to inform the coroner if there is any suspicion whatever around a death. The amendment is to remove the mandatory requirement to hold an inquest where the deceased was deprived of their liberty under all relevant sections of the Mental Capacity Act—or, indeed, where the deprivation of liberty was to provide care to them.
Under the Mental Capacity Act a person who lacks capacity may be detained in circumstances which amount to deprivation of liberty. No detention amounting to deprivation of liberty may be permitted without lawful authorisation, because it would otherwise constitute false imprisonment. The Mental Capacity Act provide safeguards known as DoLS and Court of Protection orders to be made depriving a person of liberty for their care. It also allows for the deprivation of liberty of a person for the purpose of giving life-sustaining treatment only where a decision of the court is pending.
I want to address a concern that has been raised with me in relation to anyone who dies under the care of a mental health trust. A suicide or an unexpected or a sudden death must always be referred to the coroner, but I would expect there to be a routine review of any death in a mental health trust or similar organisation. Such a review should be available to the Care Quality Commission inspectors and I would expect the inspectors to ask about the number of deaths that had occurred in people subject to a deprivation of liberty safeguard application or authorisation. They should look in depth at the quality of the review of care that had taken place. Additionally, anyone who has concerns at any stage should raise those concerns, whether through whistleblowing or through the complaints process.
Complaints and how they are handled also form part of CQC inspections and I believe that such searching questions are far more likely to detect poor care than relying on a referral to the coroner, who is only looking at one instance and cannot see how care is delivered across a whole organisation. The recent incidents of poor care of those with learning difficulties that have come to light are certainly alerting inspectors that they must be more rigorous in their inquiries than before. To summarise, I hope that this amendment will correct an anomaly that has caused more than 6,500 bereaved families unnecessary distress in the last year alone. I beg to move.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for this amendment. The Government are pleased to be able to offer our support for this amendment, which will minimise the stress on bereaved families at a very difficult time for them. The amendment will fully address the concerns that no family, having watched and comforted their loved one through his or her final days, should then be unnecessarily subject to the anxiety and confusion of having their death investigated by a coroner. I thank the noble Baroness for raising the profile of this important issue and for her valuable input, which the Government very much welcome and support. I commend her amendment to the Committee.
Lord Wigley
“Digital crime review
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to provide for a review of legislation which contains powers to prosecute individuals who may have been involved in the commission of digital crime, in order to consolidate such powers in a single statute.(2) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to the statutes and measures that the Secretary of State deems appropriate, including but not limited to—(a) section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988;(b) sections 2, 2A, 4 and 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997;(c) sections 16, 20, 39 and 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861;(d) sections 10, 13 and 55 of the Data Protection Act 1998;(e) section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1998;(f) sections 30(1),(3),(5),(6) and 78(5) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000;(g) the Computer Misuse Act 1990;(h) the Contempt of Court Act 1981;(i) the Human Rights Act 1998;(j) sections 4, 4A, 5, 16(b) and 18 of the Public Order Act 1986;(k) sections 46 and 145 of the Serious Organised Crime Act 2005;(l) section 48 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006;(m) sections 32 to 37 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2014; (n) the Protection of Children Act 1978;(o) the Obscene Publications Act 1959;(p) sections 28 to 32 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;(q) sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;(r) sections 127 to 131 of the Communications Act 2003;(s) section 4 of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014;(t) section 5 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992;(u) the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015;(v) sections 33(5) and 29(6) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012;(w) section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971;(x) sections 4, 8, 10 and 62 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003;(y) section 43 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001;(z) section 127 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980;(za) section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961;(zb) section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008;(zc) section 21 of the Theft Act 1968;(zd) section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977.(3) The Secretary of State has a duty to determine for the review any other statute under which persons have been prosecuted for a crime falling under subsection (1).(4) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with any person or body the Secretary of State deems appropriate, including but not limited to—(a) the police;(b) the Crown Prosecution Service;(c) the judiciary; and(d) relevant community organisations.”
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendments 231 and 231A in this group; all are also in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. The amendments address issues related to digital crime review, surveillance and monitoring offences, and digital crime training and education. I am grateful to Harry Fletcher of the Digital-Trust for his assistance in drafting these amendments. First, they consolidate the numerous statutes that have been enacted over the last 30 years, a period that covers the huge expansion of illegal digital activity. Secondly, they aim to update the law to address the most recent online behaviour. Thirdly, they attempt to ensure that police officers are properly trained in respect of digital crime.
The growth in online crime has been truly immense. Two years ago the head of the College of Policing said on Radio 4 that half of all crime reported to front-line officers had a digital element. By now, it represents a majority of crime. More than 30 separate Acts of Parliament cover various aspects of this category of crime, from the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 to the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. Inevitably, such a plethora of law lacks clarity and is confusing for the police in undertaking their responsibilities.
The Computer Misuse Act 1990 was originally intended to deal with hacking, unauthorised access, stealing data and circulating viruses. Yet between 1990 and 2006 there was on average just one conviction per month. Parliamentary Answers show that between 2007 and 2013 there was a slight improvement—the number of guilty outcomes increased to 1.5 each month across England and Wales. My amendments would place a duty on the Secretary of State to review and consolidate the existing legislation. In doing so, the Minister would of course consult the police and other relevant bodies.
Many online activities may not be covered by current statutes, however. The amendments clarify the situation. For example, use of a digital device to repeatedly locate, listen to or watch a person without legitimate purpose becomes a specified offence. Similarly, installing spyware without the user’s agreement would be an offence, as would taking multiple images of a person, unless it is in the public interest.
In a very timely report, published on 3 November, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary warned that some forces risk being overwhelmed by the volume of digital evidence being collected. It said that there was a significant shortfall in digital skills in the police and unacceptable delays in fulfilling basic tasks such as getting data off mobile phones. It also noted that some forces were not capable of dealing with the amount of digital evidence being gathered, especially in cases such as harassment, sexting and serious domestic abuse. This is a worrying state of affairs and supports the urgent need for comprehensive digital training for all police officers.
I now turn to the extent and type of digital crime. According to the Digital-Trust, digital abuse is rising steeply as a result of five identifiable factors. First, there is the increased use of technology at work and for social interaction and entertainment. Secondly, ever-increasing technological complexity results in increased risks. Thirdly, technology has become too intricate for victims to recognise the threats and know how to respond. Fourthly, surveillance technology has been consumerised and is available to abusers. Finally, the volume and speed of change makes it difficult for individuals, organisations and, indeed, the criminal justice system to react in a timely fashion.
Many types of behaviour are seen in digital abuse, including, first, unwanted communications by phone, text, emails, electronic messaging and social media; secondly, intimidation, including the posting of threats of physical violence and humiliating victims by posting explicit photographs; thirdly, grooming, using online information to groom a victim financially or sexually; and fourthly, surveillance, illegally accessing accounts or using computer technology to monitor movements, conversations and contacts. The phenomenal growth of online crime threatens to overwhelm those who may be expected to move against the perpetrators. There is a pressing need to step up action, and the authorities need the law to facilitate and support the initiatives which are now urgently needed. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who has made almost all the points I was going to make. I am very conscious that there has been a large and ongoing investment by government to address the changing nature of digital crime. Metropolitan Police officers now routinely wear body cameras, we have large investments in data collection and the presentation of data in courts, and the CPS is grappling with the changing nature of crime. This is a massive amount of investment, and a massive amount of data has to be handled to go through the court process properly.
I want to make a point that is slightly different from the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. In my experience, digital is also changing the nature of crime in the domestic context. I have seen films of police officers going into houses where there is a domestic dispute. The situation is very stark and is seen immediately. I suggest that digital makes it much more likely that there is an early guilty plea in such cases. The whole context of crime is changing—not just digital crime but the way more traditional crimes are perceived and the likely conviction rates of those crimes. I support the amendment.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for his explanation of these amendments, which call for a review of the criminal law in relation to digital crime. The Government of course share the noble Lord’s concern about online crime, especially where new technologies, which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby referred to, are used to abuse, harass or intimidate people.
Amendment 230 seeks to codify the existing criminal law in relation to digital and cybercrime into a single statute. I share the noble Lord’s concerns about online crime, but I do not believe a single statute for digital and cybercrime would be helpful or a good use of resources. Indeed, I am not persuaded that the existing criminal law in this area is defective. As the Committee will be aware, any action that is illegal when committed offline is also illegal if committed online. Current legislation, some of which was passed before the digital age, has shown itself to be flexible and capable of catching and punishing offenders whether their crimes are committed by digital means or otherwise. The majority of the statutes and offences listed in Amendment 230 relate to offences that can be carried out by non-digital and digital means.
Producing a single statute, containing,
“powers to prosecute individuals who may have been involved in the commission of digital crime”,
as Amendment 230 suggests, would add further complications to the criminal law by creating new overlapping offences, reproducing and duplicating many existing laws. Furthermore, many existing offences would need to be retained for non-digital offending, so we would end up with parallel offences for crimes committed online and offline.
However, while I am not convinced of the need for a review as suggested here, I assure the noble Lord that where specific gaps in legislation are identified, or where new behaviours that should be criminalised are brought to light, we will continue to take action. The Government’s record has shown that we will and do legislate when we need to, such as passing the Serious Crime Act 2016, which further strengthened the Computer Misuse Act 1990.
Amendment 231 would require the Home Office to ensure funding is made available to every police force to train their officers in how to investigate digital crime and abuse. Mainstream cybercrime training is already available to police officers and while I have sympathy with the underlying objective of the noble Lord’s amendment, I do not believe that legislation is necessary to require police forces to provide such training. Furthermore, subsection (2) of the proposed new clause, requiring all police forces to record complaints of digital crime and abuse and their outcomes, is unnecessary as I can assure the noble Lord that work in this area is already under way.
From 2015, police-recorded crime data collection also includes a mandatory online flag that allows police forces to record online instances of crimes, including stalking and harassment, whether the crime took place wholly online or just had an online element to it. The Office for National Statistics published these data, for the first time, as experimental statistics in July. We welcome the continuing improvement in the statistics on reported fraud and cybercrime that better reflect the extent of the problem. Having an accurate picture is vital to informing the most appropriate response to these crimes. It is important that police forces be able to respond to changing technologies, and we recognise the need to support forces to invest in the capabilities they need. However, the training of police officers is an operational matter and critically, it is the police themselves who can best determine what their training needs are.
Amendment 231A seeks to create an array of new offences relating to digital surveillance and monitoring, presumably to address issues such as online harassment and stalking. The Government are absolutely clear that abusive and threatening behaviour is totally unacceptable in any form, online or offline. Existing legislation in the form of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 includes the offences of stalking, harassment and putting people in fear of violence, and applies to offences committed online.
In 2015-16, almost 13,000 prosecutions were commenced for harassment and stalking offences—a rise of 864 offences from 2014-15 and the highest volume ever recorded. The Government have strengthened the law on stalking: an insidious crime that can involve a wide range of behaviours, which may include the misuse of digital equipment, spyware and social media. There is no exhaustive list of behaviours relating to stalking, but recognising the ongoing pattern of fixated, obsessive behaviour is really important in tackling stalking.
New stalking offences were introduced in 2012. They are stopping people living in fear and preventing escalation to more serious violence. In 2015-16, more than 1,100 prosecutions were commenced under the new stalking legislation. Our recent consultation on the introduction of a new civil stalking protection order demonstrates our determination to support victims of stalking at an earlier stage and address the behaviour of perpetrators before it becomes entrenched. This draws on our successful roll-out of other civil orders, such as FGM protection orders, domestic violence protection orders and sexual risk orders.
I am sorry to have gone on somewhat, but I hope the noble Lord recognises that the Government keep the criminal law in this area under review and that police forces are alive to the need to have the capabilities to tackle such crime. I hope the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his support. I know the interest that the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has taken in these matters. She had to leave before this debate but she has been one of the leading people in questions of cybercrime and associated matters.
At this time of night, I hate to be fractious with the Minister but I am afraid that what came over was complacency. There is an avalanche of cybercrime and associated dangers flooding the country. The police and other authorities do not have adequate resources, training or back-up to handle it. Unless action is taken to a much greater extent than it is now, this will overwhelm us. I urge the Minister, although she cannot agree with my amendment, to take back to the department the very serious worry that is represented by these amendments, to see what can be done to speed up action and provide more resources to enable those who have the responsibility of bringing perpetrators to justice to do that and not feel that they are fighting a losing battle. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, these are technical and consequential amendments to the Extent clause and I beg to move.
“( ) Section (Anonymity of victims of forced marriage: Northern Ireland) extends to Northern Ireland only.”
“( ) The power under section 60(4) of the UK Borders Act 2007 may be exercised so as to extend to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man any amendment made by or under this Act of any part of that Act (with or without modification).”
“( ) sections (Posthumous pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences), (Other pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences) and (Sections (Posthumous pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences) and (Other pardons for convictions etc of certain abolished offences): supplementary);”
“( ) section (Anonymity of victims of forced marriage: Northern Ireland);”