Police Conduct and David Carrick

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, this is yet another truly shocking and appalling case where a serving police officer has admitted to the most serious and devastating crimes. Of course, we pay tribute to the bravery of the police and that of the victims, but does this not show, once again, appalling failures in the police’s vetting and misconduct processes? Time and again, case after case shows that the current system is not fit for purpose. The consequences are devastating. Allegations of rape or violence against women are not taken seriously by serving police officers when made against another police officer; allegations of domestic abuse are not taken seriously in any vetting process.

In this case, rape allegations were made in 2021 but he was not suspended, despite domestic abuse allegations made two years earlier. A misconduct process concluded that there was no case to answer. A full vetting check was not triggered and his permission to carry firearms was restored. When is this sort of activity going to change? How are the Government going to drive this change, not only in practice but in culture? Most shockingly of all, this happened at the height of the alarm about Wayne Couzens and the deeply terrible murder of Sarah Everard. Commitments were made then. What has happened? That was supposed to be the turning point. It was not.

Public trust and confidence in our police is everything but it is being undermined, not only for women and victims but for hard-working police officers, including female officers who may have reported misogynistic abuse. It has got to change. We all support the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner’s determination to take action, but it is not only about the Met. Concerns have been raised in Sussex, Hampshire, Derbyshire and Gwent, and by Police Scotland and other forces, about misogyny and culture. We are told of hundreds of investigations in London alone. What assessment have the Government made of the scale of the problem? How many investigations nationally are there? Do they know, and can the Minister tell us?

The Government have announced that they have ordered that the record of every officer is to be vetted. Is this in guidance or is it statutory? What is the timetable? The Home Secretary has said that vetting obligations will be made “stronger and clearer”. Can the Minister explain what this actually means? Does the Minister agree with us that police officers accused of rape or domestic abuse should be immediately suspended? Does he accept that, in doing so, it would bring the police into line with other public sector workers, such as teachers? Does the Minister agree that it is not good enough that such decisions on whether to suspend are currently left to individual forces?

Does the Minister accept that there is no legal, statutory requirement on vetting? Employment history and character references do not have to be checked. The inspectorate has said that hundreds of officers who should have failed vetting are still in the job, including corrupt and predatory officers and those guilty of indecent exposure and domestic abuse. Is it any wonder that the charge rates for rape have dropped to 1.5%? This is a shameful figure, which is down two-thirds in the last seven years.

My father was a Metropolitan Police officer for 30 years, so I know only too well how hard-working so many of them are, but this cannot go on. The Government have to show leadership, and must tell us their plan and use statute, not guidance or exhortation. The Government promised action after the murder of Sarah Everard, after the murders of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman, after the shameful case of child Q, after the shocking Charing Cross reports, and after the Stephen Port inquiry. Across the country, and in London, we have seen far too many cases of misogyny and abuse based on prejudice. What are the Government doing to change it?

Is it not the case that there needs to be a complete overhaul of the vetting, misconduct and standards system? It is time for change. Is it not the case that we are letting down those police officers across the country who are doing excellent work through failures in the system? The time for warm words is over; it is time for action. That action will not happen if vetting remains the Cinderella department, as it was labelled by the head of the College of Policing, with no real resources given to it. It cannot remain a Cinderella department. Our Government—this country’s Government—need to take charge and deliver the change now, not just warm words.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has said. He probably said it a lot better than I could have done. I preface my remarks by saying that the vast majority of police officers, as the noble Lord mentioned, are hard-working, caring, decent and law-abiding. These remarks do not refer to them.

The most galling thing to me is how, again and again, serving police officers feel that they can act with impunity, and even boast about their illegal, corrupt and misogynistic behaviour. Never mind losing the trust of the public, they have lost my trust—something I once believed was unshakeable. But never mind that, our Home Secretary is going to order another review—I am sure that is going to do a fat lot of good.

We have here a caucus of individuals who are out of control, taking the mickey and biting the hand that feeds them. When a police officer believes that they can get away with rape and murder, where do you go from there? With David Carrick, you can add another allegation as well: depravity. Some of the things that he did are too distressing to even talk about. We can improve the vetting, of course, but what is to stop the old rotten culture spreading to the new intake of officers who are coming along? At least the leadership have made a start, by re-examining over 1,600 existing sexual abuse allegations.

We learn that the police are literally a law unto themselves. I was surprised to learn that there are no national rules on vetting, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, mentioned, or standards—for example, in recruitment. I ask the Minister why not. Surely a lack of consistency was going to be very unhelpful. The public just see the uniform wherever they are.

Since 2016, getting rid of bad apples has become more and more long-winded and legalistic, with an independent legal chair on misconduct boards. I understand that this is to be reviewed. Perhaps restoring the power of the chief constable to dismiss, with a robust appeals system, is the way to go. Where does the safety of the public figure on the scale of importance? It took 17 years of suffering before the force got rid of Carrick—17 years of missed opportunities, despite his nickname, “Bastard Dave”. Incidentally, Wayne Couzens’ nickname was “the Rapist”.

That brings me to my final point. Plenty of people must have known that Carrick’s behaviour was out of order and out of control, but no colleague for 17 years dobbed him in or reported him, as far as we know. Why did he succeed in escaping justice scot free to wreak even more suffering? In fact, it was worse than that: he was even promoted. It looks to me like cosy, collaborative complicity—a toxic culture protecting its own. That is the core of what needs to change.

Will there be a review of culpability of senior staff, who should have stamped on this laddish, and worse, culture? Unless someone gets a grip to expose all the other Carricks who are out there, how can I and so many other people feel safe with the police service ever again?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for their remarks. I start by echoing my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who the other day said that this was

“a dark day for British policing and the Metropolitan police, as an officer admitted being responsible for a monstrous campaign of abuse”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/1/22; col. 179.]

I am sure the whole House will want to join me and the Home Secretary in expressing our deepest sympathy to the victims, but also in thanking them for their courage in coming forward. It is intolerable for them to have suffered as they have. They were manipulated, isolated and subjected to horrific abuse.

We should also acknowledge, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, that, every day, thousands of decent, hard-working police officers perform their duties with the utmost professionalism. It is inevitable that those police officers will feel very let down by the latest offence. I am sure that they too deserve some of our sympathy.

I shall go into the specific questions that have been asked of me, but, of course, I agree with the tone of all the remarks that have been made so far. On vetting, noble Lords may have heard on the radio this morning that the Home Secretary has written to the chief constable of the College of Policing, Andy Marsh. He has been tasked with putting the guidance on vetting on a statutory footing by the end of February—the 2007 guidance is not statutory; it is only that: guidance. Importantly, it is worth reminding the House that HMICFRS published a report on this matter last year. The end of February is a new target. Previously, when this was a set of deadlines that forces had committed to meet, it was to be done by the end of October, so it is a significant, and entirely justified, improvement in timing.

The HMICFRS has also been tasked with re-inspecting all the forces by the end of April. Finally, the National Police Chiefs’ Council will ask all forces to check on to the police national database. The Met is already doing it, and it is obviously overdue that that programme should continue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, asked about the police uplift programme and vetting. Obviously, with such a large increase in officer recruitment, there are concerns about the vetting process, but the Government have ensured that all forces have been supported as they recruit officers and work towards meeting the 20,000 additional officer target—as noble Lords will know, that is well on track. That includes funding to deliver significant improvements to recruitment processes and improve infrastructure. A recent review of vetting capacity carried out by the uplift programme in October 2022 showed that, of the 36 forces that responded, 25 had increased capacity in vetting units between February and October of last year, totalling an additional 185 staff in those units—an increase of 33%.

Both noble Lords referred to the dismissals process. Last week, I answered a Question on this—coincidentally, I had a letter in preparation for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who asked it, because the terms of reference for that review were published yesterday. That review will look into whether the current system is fair and effective at removing officers who are not fit to serve in the police. It will include looking at the composition of misconduct panels, including the role of legally qualified chairs just referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, any trends in the use of misconduct sanctions, and consistency of decision-making in cases of sexual misconduct and other violence against women and girls. The Government expect the review to be completed in approximately four months. I imagine that I will be asked why we need another review, but it is important to stress that we have to look carefully at the evidence to ensure that any change to the system is effective. I agree that it needs to happen urgently, but I think four months is a very reasonable timeframe in which to conduct this work.

The questions on the culture of policing are obviously extremely important. There is no doubt that there is a huge amount of work not only for the Met but for the wider policing community to restore and rebuild trust and confidence among the general public, particularly among women and girls. I know that some important work is being done. For example, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary visited the force in Kent. In her opinion, it is leading from the front; it has instituted a whole raft of operational measures to support victims of serious offences and rape, and I hope that we hear more about that soon. Noble Lords will also be aware that both the Angiolini inquiry—the terms of reference for part 2 of which were published either today or yesterday; I cannot remember which, I am afraid—and the Casey review continue to look at this issue. Part 2 of the Angiolini inquiry will look specifically into the culture around Carrick.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me whether all officers who have a sexual or violent allegation made against them should be suspended. There is no place in policing for officers who perpetrate such crimes—that goes without saying—so all allegations should be dealt with robustly. We believe it important that forces have the option to suspend officers while they investigate such incredibly serious allegations, but they must remain as operational decisions which must continue to be taken by chief officers, having given full consideration to all the circumstances. I believe there are good reasons for that.

The noble Lord asked me about statistics, especially annualised statistics on police misconduct. For allegations that commenced after 1 February 2020, which were finalised in the year 2021-22, 0.6% of all allegations against police officers fell into the category of sexual misconduct. That includes abuse of position for sexual purpose. The Independent Office for Police Conduct publishes data annually on public complaints against the police. In 2020-21, 109 of 109,151 allegations made related to sexual conduct; this accounts for 0.18% of all complaint allegations. The College of Policing publishes annual statistics on those dismissed from the police. In 2020-21, of 257 officers who were dismissed—the statistic was broken down into well over 200 categories; there may be more than one reason for a dismissal—abuse of position for sexual purpose was a factor in 38 of those dismissals. Those are the best statistics I currently have.

I appreciate that time is running on, and I am probably talking far too much. I would like to reiterate that the Government are committed to the safety of the public. I was going to talk at some length about our violence against women and girls strategy, but I do not really have time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, asked about who, effectively, will be the agent of change in the police culture. It would like to commend Sir Mark Rowley, who I spent some time with last week, and his senior team, including Dame Lynne Owens and various others who have been on the news this week talking about these awful subjects. Sir Mark has been in post only since September. He is committed to doing the right thing, and I think that he is utterly sincere in that and the right man for the job. He deserves all our support, so I wish him well and hope that he manages to complete his task with extreme speed.

Metropolitan Police: Crime and Misconduct

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and his analysis of the role of good and consistent recruitment in the police.

I was so shocked that I remember exactly where I was when I heard Sir Mark Rowley on the BBC “Today” programme say that he had over 3,000 officers in the Met who he could not fully use due to misconduct allegations and health issues. Of these, we have heard that 500 were suspended or on restricted duties, and that about 100, in the words of Sir Mark,

“have very restrictive conditions on them because frankly we don’t trust them to talk to members of the public”.

A recent report by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, which has already been alluded to, found that fewer than 1% of officers with multiple misconduct cases against them had actually been dismissed. Sir Mark said that “hundreds” of officers “should be thrown out”. Mr Marsh of the Police Federation said, of the worst offenders,

“our regulations are so tight so you can dismiss them. But they haven’t and I can’t tell you why.”

Let us see if we can help him. For a start, sacking officers is, apparently, a six-stage process and takes over a year. I wonder how many noble Lords here today think that a year to sack someone with multiple misconduct cases against them is reasonable or workable. Secondly, I understand that every case of serious misconduct in the Met must be adjudicated by a misconduct hearing—a board comprising three people: an independent legal chair, as was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Blair; a senior police officer; and a member of the public. Compare this to so-called normal work procedures where an employer has the right to dismiss, but the employee has recourse to an employment tribunal if they feel they have been treated unfairly.

I know from having worked in this field in the dim and distant past that employers have to be extremely careful to follow their own procedures and the law to secure a fair dismissal, and rightly so. But the procedure in the Met seems to run in the reverse order, with the panel itself making the dismissal. So with the confidence of the ignorant, let me make a suggestion. What about giving the chief constable the powers to dismiss and back that up with a robust appeals procedure afterwards? If every dismissal currently takes over a year, and fewer than 1% of police officers with multiple misconduct cases against them get fired, and one in 10 officers is not fully deployable, something needs to radically change. Clearly, Sir Mark needs new, powerful tools to do the job.

However, we must keep things in proportion. Sir Mark told the BBC that the Met had

“tens of thousands of great officers who are doing amazing things day in and day out for London”.

Absolutely. We know that these officers’ good work is being besmirched, and they, as well as the public, are being let down by those bad apples who think they can carry on with impunity. For all our sakes, will the Minister commit to allowing the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner the tools he needs to cleanse the Augean stables of the stench of corruption and the culture of misogyny, indolence, bigotry and violence? I wish him the very best of luck, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for securing this debate today.

Violence against Women and Domestic Violence

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as I said, the Government are considering the report received from the organisations, including Southall Black Sisters, that operated the pilot scheme, and will respond in due course. I think that is as far as I can go at the moment.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

In a statement to the Guardian in May, when asked why the Government had excluded Article 59 from ratification, a government spokesperson said that

“we are evaluating our approach to supporting migrant victims of domestic abuse and will make a final decision … once that is concluded.”

Have the Government also evaluated how many victims are enduring abuse at home, fearful of seeking help because the threat of deportation is being held over them by their abuser? Is their suffering being factored into the Government’s evaluation?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I should make it clear that the Government regard the victims first and foremost as victims, so of course those considerations are being taken. We are far from alone in making reservations; 25 other countries have also done so on ratification or indicated their intention to do so when signing. As I have said, we will be considering that decision in the light of the migrant victims scheme pilot evaluation, which is being looked at.

Solihull Murders

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. Training includes those issues. I will quote the Minister in the other place yesterday, because she summed it up perfectly. She said:

“It is about time that people who work in this field do not look towards colour as being an excuse for non-activity. This Government take the matter very seriously. It does not matter what colour, creed or sex a person is; if they need the police’s help, they need the police’s help. I expect those themes to be included in proper police training.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/22; col. 158.]


So do I.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, in her remarks yesterday, the Minister also said:

“We need thorough risk assessments, and they need to be followed with proper training.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/22; col. 156.]


I am sure all noble Lords would agree. Can this Minister tell the House why some police forces have failed to carry out assessments and training of their officers? Can he give me any good reason why this training should not now become compulsory?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that question. We agree: it is incredibly important that the training reflects the gravity of these sorts of situations. We are taking action to improve this. I am sure she will be aware that we are supporting and funding the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s Deputy Chief Constable Maggie Blyth in her role as full-time national policing lead on this sort of subject. We are committed to funding the continuing rollout of the College of Policing’s Domestic Abuse Matters programme for front-line responders, and to adding VAWG to the strategic policing requirement.

On the training that has been developed by Maggie Blyth, which I think was released last December, so far only two-thirds of police forces have adopted it. That is not good enough. The Minister in the other place said the same and I am happy to repeat it.

Information Commissioner’s Office Report

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

On funding, our VAWG strategy comes with a significant amount of funding. On children and Rotherham, I could not agree more with the noble Baroness. In fact, I can think of other parts of the country where the culture makes some of its leaders completely blind to what is going on under their noses.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has already confirmed that she does not believe that the price for justice for rape victims in this country should be that their whole personal life is laid bare. It is causing victims to walk away before their case even reaches court, making them feel doubly victimised. The recommendations in this report are very modest to say the least. Why can the chief constables and the CPOs not just get on with implementing them now? Do they seriously need to be officially told to work together to implement consistent and proportionate treatment of victims—or will we just stand by as our already dismal prosecution rates get even worse?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

One thing I feel a bit disappointed about is that the report does not reflect some of the powers that I know the noble Baroness was instrumental in bringing forward within the PCSC Act. They will both help to protect privacy and, I hope, improve consistency across the piece.

Spousal Visas: Processing Times

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to reduce the processing times for spousal visas for the spouses of British citizens from in excess of 24 weeks.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Home Office is currently prioritising Ukraine visa scheme applications in response to the humanitarian crisis caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Staff from other government departments, including the DWP and HMRC, are being surged into the department to help with Ukraine work and to enable normal visa routes to return to normal service levels in due course.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, it is very commendable that the Government are pouring additional resources into processing Ukrainian visas, but can I ask that they do not lose sight of the over 18,000 families, split apart and waiting for spousal visas, who have no certainty that the recently increased 24-week timeframe will even be the maximum time that they will have to wait? What measurable steps are the Government taking to reduce this backlog, and when does the Minister expect the fast-track system to be reinstated?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I concur with the noble Baroness that we will not lose sight of that, but what we will also not lose sight of is that in many instances it is life or death for the Ukrainian people. I totally appreciate that other people are having to wait, and we are going to return to normal processing as soon as we can in due course.

Male Victims of Crime: Support

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My noble friend’s figures are absolutely right. Had we done it in the way that he suggests, there may have been a lot of complaints from women and domestic abuse organisations that we had not reflected the fact that it is predominantly women who suffer from domestic abuse. However, we published the Supporting Male Victims document in March to help to raise awareness of this issue and highlight the specialist support that may be required to assist them. They are included in both the tackling VAWG strategy and the tackling domestic abuse plan. As I said yesterday, anyone who comes forward as a victim of domestic violence will be treated first and foremost as a victim, whether they are male or female.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

Is the position paper in itself not inadequate, in that, while it outlines many of the barriers that men face, it does very little to address them? ManKind and other charities are calling for a full-blown strategy called the “intimate violence and abuse against men and boys strategy”. Does not the suffering of men deserve to be treated as equally valid to that of women?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

It most certainly does. As I explained in my previous answer, this does not diminish the problems that men face, but we as a Government recognise that the disproportionate effect of domestic abuse is on women and girls.

Domestic Abuse Victims

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

It is almost too horrific to read the detail of the cases to which the noble Lord refers, in which people do such things to such young, innocent children. We are very grateful for the work that the panel has undertaken and want to ensure that we improve our response to children in domestic abuse incidents. The noble Lord will of course recall the work we did through the Domestic Abuse Act.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

I know the Minister appreciates the importance of specialist support for victims and survivors of domestic abuse who face multiple disadvantages. I hope she agrees that they could be better served through tailored support and specialist partnerships to meet their needs. In response to the victims Bill consultation, the domestic abuse commissioner recommends a ministerial lead for multiple-disadvantaged women to work across departments to help pull services together. Will we be seeing this measure in the victims Bill?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I know we will have many discussions on the victims Bill and we will certainly take the recommendations of the DA commissioner very seriously. I think we have already accepted some and are working on them.

Domestic Abuse: Older People

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]]

The noble and learned Baroness is right that the effects of domestic abuse and forced marriage are not confined to any one age group. She will also know that 297 forced marriage protection orders were made last year, and that between 2008 and this year nearly 3,000 orders have been made. This must go some way to try to prevent it but the point that she makes about the ongoing trauma post forced marriage is absolutely right.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]]

The Domestic Abuse Act removed the upper age limit from the definition of domestic abuse and included relatives in the definition of “personally connected” but the elder abuse charity Hourglass found that only 0.7% of crimes against older people result in prosecution. With more tools in their toolkit, how can the police improve on this appalling prosecution rate and make abusers understand that there will be consequences of their cruelty?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]]

I agree with the noble Baroness: it is very concerning that that statistic evidences such low rates of conviction. It is probably multifactorial: people are unwilling to come forward, as I said earlier, perhaps not even knowing that they are victims of domestic abuse. As I said earlier, training for agencies and front-line staff will be crucial in identifying domestic abuse, bringing perpetrators to justice and supporting those victims in the future.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Burt of Solihull Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and thank her for all the work and passion that she has shown in bringing this series of amendments to the House. I am also grateful for the support shown across the House, especially by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and others on all Benches. I also thank and pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar in his absence. Without his particular personal interest in the issues before us we would not be where we are today. I therefore ask my noble friend Lord Parkinson to pay fulsome thanks to him.

It is important to welcome the fact that there will be some movement. I say that especially as vice-president of the National Association of Child Contact Centres and co-chair of the All-Party Group on Child Contact Centres. However, I regret that, under the terms of the amendments before us in the name of my noble friend on the Front Bench, it may be two years before we see any change whatever. It is welcome that all of us across the House are united in wanting to ensure that children can continue to see absent parents in the event of a family breakdown in safety.

However, I regret that there is no sense of urgency, such as that which we have seen with the Private Member’s Bill that will go through in this parliamentary Session, which makes sure that there are national standards and safeguards for all those working with 16 to 19 year-olds. It is bizarre and slightly concerning that they are being treated preferentially as compared with those in a younger age group, infants and those possibly up to the age of 18, seeking to meet parents in child contact centres and settings.

It is important that we establish that contact centres and services, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, are subject to the same basic minimum safe- guarding, training, DBS and criminal checks, and enhanced checks as all others working with children, including childminders and nurseries. The Bill will leave the House today with the addition of these amendments, which I welcome in so far as they go, but it does not go as far as it should.

I shall quote the statement issued yesterday by Sir James Munby, as president of the National Association of Child Contact Centres, and former President of the Family Division. He stated:

“The government’s reservation to support Baroness Finlay’s amendment, which has been drafted in partnership with the National Association of Child Contact Centres, would be a missed opportunity to address an anomaly in safeguarding children and improving standards in general and specifically in regard to domestic abuse…The amendment is seeking is to ensure the same standards of safeguarding, accreditation, checks and training for all child contact centres and services whether in a public or private setting, and on the same basis as those who work with children as child minders, in nurseries and now with 16-19 years olds in education.”


Perhaps the most disappointing omission in the Government’s amendments is that we have failed to alert them to certain essential facts. DBS checks already apply to those setting up contact centres through an accredited service. However, if one is not accredited, one can go ahead without getting DBS checks. Therefore, amending the regulations will not move matters forward. That applies also to enhanced DBS checks. About one-third of families who attend child contact centres are self-referrals, so they have no-one to guide them to an accredited centre unless they go on to the NACCC website. Also, in tune with what the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, the weight placed on the judicial protocol means that guidance will need to change to the equivalent of a requirement to ensure that it can support the expectation being placed upon it. The essential fact is this: if there is no one to check whether someone has DBS certificates, how would anyone know whether they have them or not?

I simply end with a question to my noble friend. If evidence comes to light within the two-year period he has allowed for the review, which is welcome, will the regulations that the Government are empowered to apply through the Ministry of Justice be put in place? Secondly, why is a higher bar being asked for in the evidence required for the younger age group of infants to 18 year-olds than that required in the Private Member’s Bill introducing safeguards for 16 to 19 year-olds? However, I welcome the movement that has been made and hope that we can work together with the departments concerned in this regard.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for their tenacity in protecting the interests of vulnerable children and abuse victims. Their knowledge and experience have fuelled their tenacity and insistence that a solution be found. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has used his great experience in the family courts, and I have had, if not exactly the same level of experience, raw enthusiasm in backing the cause.

However, that would have all been to no avail if the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, had not only seen what we were trying to achieve but gone the extra mile in seeking a solution, despite the fact that we did not have all the incontrovertible evidence he sought. I am sorry that he is not in his place, but I know that the Minister will pass on these remarks. When we suggested that the Government, not the NACCC, should obtain the evidence, he has come up with the amendment, which I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, will be minded to accept, to go and get the evidence. The widening of the definition of a child contact centre will catch many informal organisations—those that we are most concerned about—in the net.

All that any of us wants is to protect our children at a most difficult and vulnerable time, to ensure that unskilled and even unscrupulous people do not get anywhere near those children, and that those children are received into a welcoming environment manned by skilled, trained and compassionate people. We are not there yet and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, said, the movers of the original amendment will be setting two-year reminders in their diaries after the passing of the Bill, so the Government can expect timely reminders if the report has not appeared as the deadline looms.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the tenacity of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Although I have experience in the family courts and was aware of the child contact centres, I was not as well briefed on this issue as I am now, given the noble Baronesses’ backgrounds on this matter, particularly the legislative history of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.

I should also pay fulsome tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, who is relatively new to our House. We met him a number of times; he has properly engaged on the issues and expressed scepticism, which is sometimes helpful to people moving amendments. He has come up with a solution. Although, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, it may fall short of what we were hoping for, it nevertheless provides a road ahead for addressing the concerns that he expressed. He has potentially come up with a proper solution for the various loopholes in the child contact centre system, if I can put it like that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said in his introduction, the Government’s problem was one of evidence. As we repeated in numerous meetings, it is very difficult to get evidence of contact centres that come and go, perhaps operating in particular communities and essentially functioning under the radar. I am glad that the Government appreciated that point to the extent that they are willing to take on the responsibility of seeing whether this is a real problem and whether appropriate measures can be put in place to protect children who go to these child contact centres.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked three good questions for the Minister to answer. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, went on to quote Sir James Munby’s support for the earlier amendments. Sir James Munby has unequalled experience in these matters, so the Government should listen to what he says.

In conclusion, the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, and I have sat on a lot of committees together over the last couple of years and she has always been sensible in her support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady McIntosh. As she said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, accepts the Government’s amendments and that we continue to work together for the next couple of years to ensure that the Government follow through on their promise to review the existing provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, my group and I wish to avoid putting this Bill in jeopardy by doing our own bit of disagreeing with the Government and forcing another round of ping-pong just before Parliament is dissolved. We have achieved so much for victims in this Bill, with the exception, yet again, through the Government agreeing to Motion C, of failing to treat all victims equally and thereby failing to meet the criteria of the Istanbul convention, as my noble friend Lord Paddick said. The right reverend Prelate must be as disappointed, as so many of us are, that this was the only amendment to “go the distance” and be substantially modified, but still get no movement from the Government. Anyway, I digress; I have no wish to detain the House.

I feel reassured at the Minister’s words regarding Amendment 42. If I have misunderstood anything that she has said at the Dispatch Box, will she please disabuse me in her final remarks? My understanding is that, first, experts in domestic abuse and stalking will be included in the MAPPA process, assessing patterns of behaviour to decide which category an offender should be placed in. I particularly welcome the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, on how MAPPA should change the way it works.

Secondly, I understand that the assessment of MAPPA categories will depend on patterns of behaviour, not on the sentence received—I was going to say, “if any”, but from what the Minister said I understand that there must have been a conviction, not necessarily with the one-year criteria.

Thirdly, I understand that the domestic abuse commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner will get access to the figures on stalking and domestic abuse from MAPPA under the duty in this Bill to co-operate. References to the inclusion of stalking by the Minister have been heard loud and clear.

Finally, I reiterate what my noble friend Lady Brinton said: we are at only the start of this process. We have heard so many stories from victims of how their repeated calls for help have been ignored and threats and actions underplayed until the worst happened. Our culture must change; our responses must improve. Only then will we be able to say that the Bill has achieved its purpose. However, it is a great tribute to the Minister and her ministerial colleagues that we are where we are on the Bill today.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful for the movement from the Government that we have heard in the debate, including the inclusion of domestic abuse-related stalking in the perpetrator strategy. I pay tribute to the Minister for all her work on the Bill and for the many welcome changes, including these, that have been made during its passage. That is not to say that we do not still have some concerns that the proposed changes to the MAPPA guidance will not be strong enough. We welcome the idea of a debate in the autumn on the effectiveness of the guidance.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon for all her work on the issue of stalking, not only in the context of this Bill but over many years of campaigning in this House. The progress that we have made to date would not have been possible without her work. I also pay tribute to the work and support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and many others in this House.

I think we have all accepted that the system as it stands is not working—it is not catching the perpetrators where the Minister claims it should be. I would like her to be clear about what it is specifically about this change to the guidance that will make it work. If it is simply about a change in the guidance, we could have done that before. What is it about this amendment to the guidance that is going to deliver change?

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I listened to the “Today” programme this morning and heard the contribution from Zoe Dronfield; I do not know if other Members have. It was harrowing to listen to what that poor woman has gone through. She met someone and, after a few weeks, thought it was going to work, but then there were all the phone calls, the texts, the knock on the door and then her front door being kicked in. At no point did she get help from anyone—the police said, “He hasn’t really done anything, has he?”—and it had to get to the point where he nearly killed her before action was taken. That is totally wrong. These amendments are trying to stop the situation where you have to be nearly killed before any action is taken. We need a guarantee that serial and high-risk offenders will be risk-assessed and, where the risk of harm is identified, be included under MAPPA —otherwise, what is changing?

The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, is right that the death toll has to come down for us to see that the guidance and the Act are working. If we do not see that happen then we are failing victims, their families and campaigners. In the weeks and months ahead we have to see effects from this. If we do not then we have failed in our duty.

It is key that an offender’s past behaviour must be considered. Zoe Dronfield told the “Today” programme that she was not the first case; the person who attacked her had previously abused and attacked 12 other women, but she knew nothing about it. We have to ensure that the system starts to recognise the reality of these crimes and where the risk escalates—otherwise, what are we doing here today?

My noble friend Lady Royall has asked a number of detailed questions and I am sure the Minister will respond to them. The debates that we have had, particularly on this issue, have shed light on the failures of the past and current failures, and we all agree that we have to do better. I look forward to seeing the effective action that is going to happen.

I know that my noble friend and other campaigners, in this House and elsewhere, will be back if this does not work. We have the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, as well as other debates and issues—this is not going to go away; for too long victims have wanted to get this sorted out. The Government have done loads of good work on this and a good job with the Bill, which we are very happy with. But if there are issues that have not been sorted out, we will be back to ensure that they are, because we owe that to the victims and their families.