Rape: Prosecutions and Support

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Donaghy]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take (1) to increase the number of rape prosecutions, and (2) to provide more support for women and men affected by rape.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, the 2021 End-to-End Rape Review Action Plan committed us to double the number of adult rape cases reaching court by the end of this Parliament, back to 2016 levels. We have since seen an increase in both prosecutions and convictions. Actions taken include establishing the criminal justice dashboard; funding Operation Soteria, making police investigation suspect-focused; providing the rape and sexual abuse support fund; launching a 24/7 rape and sexual abuse support line; and completing the rollout of pre-recorded cross-examination, so that victims no longer must face the courtroom but can be cross-examined beforehand.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

I thank the Minister, but under this Government, conviction rates for rape have reached historic lows, with only 1.3% of recorded rapes resulting in a charge. MoJ data from June of this year showed that 28% of 53,000 outstanding Crown Court cases were for alleged sexual offences, with up to five years before anything reaches the court. Some 65% of cases analysed in London last year ended in victim withdrawal, revealing a lack of high-quality victim care in the justice system. What other plans do the Government have to improve this shocking situation?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, first and with respect, we are making progress on this matter. Your Lordships will perhaps recall that, after 2016 and the Allan case, where a prosecution collapsed for lack of disclosure, prosecutions for rape fell until 2019. Then we had the pandemic. That is why the Government are now committed to returning to 2016 levels.

I will give one example of progress. In 2016, a total of 766 rape cases per quarter were referred by the police to the CPS. In Q2 2022, we had 901 such referrals, up on 2019 by 97% and even up on 2016 by 18%. Many other examples can be seen on the criminal justice system delivery data dashboard at justice.gov.uk, to which I respectfully refer your Lordships. You can see the progress we are making on every offence, across every region of the country. That is a considerable achievement and I commend it to your Lordships. In response to the noble Baroness, I do not doubt that difficulties remain, but we are making progress.

Human Rights Act 1998

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Whitaker for initiating this debate. I read her contribution in a debate that took place 11 years ago. Her wisdom and compassion shone out then as it did today. I quote one extract from her contribution:

“Enemies of red tape and bureaucracy should welcome the Human Rights Act. It is there to give a human dimension back to state operations. It is not … primarily for lawyers any more than water is for water engineers. It is for citizens to rely on and public servants to have regard to.”—[Official Report, 19/5/11; col. 1507.]


In the same debate the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said:

“one of the central purposes of human rights law is to protect the interests of those sections of the community who lack political power, who Parliament has failed to protect against unfair treatment by the majority … Parliament remained sovereign on all these issues … tempting though it is for politicians to try to win support by fighting a battle of Parliament Square against the Supreme Court, the current Administration need to be reminded that there are many issues where the dispassionate assessment of public policy by an independent judiciary, and by a reference to standards of fairness and proportionality, serve a valuable public purpose.” —[Official Report, 19/5/11; cols. 1502-03.]

Of course, we now know that the current Administration, the same Conservative Government, have yielded to that temptation 11 years later.

Before I continue, I echo the tributes that were made at the time to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who led that particular debate and, more importantly, steered the Human Rights Act 1998 through this House. His contribution to this country is immense. He reminded the House then that although Britain was the first state to ratify the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951, failure to incorporate the convention into our domestic law meant that our own citizens could not argue for their convention rights in our own courts, but had to take the long and expensive road to Strasbourg that some noble Lords have already referred to. It took another 47 years to resolve that, and he paid tribute to Churchill’s Conservative Government for ratifying the convention and referred to a publication by Norman and Oborne entitled Churchill’s Legacy: The Conservative Case for the Human Rights Act. In attempting to dispel many of the myths about the Human Rights Act, Norman and Oborne concluded:

“it is unlikely that reform of the HRA would be on any political agenda, were it not for the potent advocacy of the most powerful media groups in the country”.

The noble and learned Lord pointed out that the convention and the Act had

“enhanced protection for journalistic sources”,

and seen

“a dramatic reduction in the level of libel damages, and the right to report on a much wider range of court proceedings”.—[Official Report, 19/5/11; col. 1494.]

The Government’s Bill of Rights is actually a rights removal Bill. The Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights found that the Bill could weaken human rights protections across the UK. How will the Bill reconcile with the rights available under the Scotland Act and the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland? The Scottish Human Rights Commission and many other organisations pointed out that the Government ignored their own independent review, which concluded that there was no case for widespread reform. The commission is quite clear that the Government’s Bill of Rights will undermine rights protections for people in Scotland. The director of Liberty, Martha Spurrier, said that the Bill would make it harder for people to access justice. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede said the same thing on 23 June. Incidentally, I am a member of Liberty. I ask the Minister whether he could satisfy my questions on the issue of the Good Friday agreement and the Scotland Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

With respect, I do not think that I have any channel of communication with the candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party, but what I have just said is on the record and may be referred to. That is the Government’s position.

As your Lordships have observed, I personally find myself—as do the Government—with cannons to the left and cannons to the right. So in the valley of calm reasoned debate in this House, I would like to explore with your Lordships the centre ground to which this Bill is directed. In my repeat of the Oral Statement on the Bill on 23 June, I used the phrase “constructive balance”: balance between the roles of the legislature and the judiciary; balance between the domestic courts and the Supreme Court, on the one hand, and the Strasbourg judges, on the other, having regard to subsidiarity and the margin of appreciation; and balance between rights and responsibilities. To that theme of balance, I add three related themes: constitutional clarity, the separation of powers and reinforcing the fundamentals that underpin human rights.

I will address constitutional clarity first. After 25 years of the Act in operation, it is important, in the Government’s view, to restate certain basic principles. These include the following: that the convention rights are an integral part of the domestic law of the United Kingdom; that the ultimate judicial authority in interpreting those rights is the Supreme Court, taking into account our domestic legal traditions in particular; and that the possibility of divergence from Strasbourg is recognised—that is not in dispute; it has always been there, as has been pointed out already. Those basic principles are effectively recognised in Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill, which are declaratory of the existing position.

It is important that the convention retains a very special and unique constitutional status: no other Act of Parliament provides a machinery where another Act of Parliament, even a subsequent Act of Parliament, can be subject to a declaration of incompatibility under Clause 10. However, when that arises, it is the Government’s view that the separation of powers must prevail. At the moment, under Section 3, we have this curious provision whereby the courts can read down the Act to have a different meaning to that which Parliament intended. The Government wish to clear up that constitutional muddle, if I may put it that way, and put the responsibility for bringing the legislation in question into line with the convention back where it belongs—that is to say, the legislature that first enacted the legislation in question.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

I apologise for taking up the House’s time but just to clarify: the Minister is referring to a balance, but it seemed to me to be a balance between the judiciary and the Executive, and the role of Parliament was not clear in what he was saying. I wonder whether he could clarify that. It seemed to be a power grab for the Executive.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My understanding is that, in these circumstances, any necessary change to the legislation will be brought back to Parliament through the machinery of a statutory instrument, and required to be laid before the House by affirmative resolution. There is every ability for Parliament to determine what should then be done, so it is a balance between the legislature and the judiciary, and not, in the Government’s view, between the judiciary and the Executive, but let us explore that point further in due course.

Secondly, public authorities remain bound by the convention, as is set out in Clause 12. The main change here is in relation to this question of “positive obligations”; that is a conceptual issue which is being addressed in Clauses 5 and 7. Essentially, the underlying issue is: should human rights law under the convention develop a kind of de facto legislative or quasi-legislative content, with potentially serious implications for public expenditure or giving one policy objective priority over another, or are those kinds of decisions for the elected Members of the legislature? Where does the balance lie between the electorate, the whole process of elections, and democracy, on the one hand, and, as it were, judicial interventions on the other hand? That is, in my submission, a conceptual issue, which we should in due course grapple with. That is going to be, and is, the issue of the separation of powers.

Finally, in this brief response I draw attention to a third theme, hardly mentioned today, which is the reinforcement in the Bill of the Government’s commitment to freedom and human rights in the widest sense: freedom of speech under Clause 4, jury trial under Clause 9, the protection of journalists’ sources under Clause 21. There are many points that could be made, but I hope that that brief and admittedly high-level summary at least helps convey why the Government argue for the constructive balance that the Bill aims to achieve. It is not, in the Government’s view, weakening human rights; it is enhancing public confidence in the whole structure. One has to realise that not everybody is as convinced of the value of the Act as it now stands as are some of the noble Lords who have spoken today. This will, in the Government’s view, enable greater public confidence to be maintained in the human rights structure. This is not a new issue—

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

It will be immensely helpful to have a process of gathering information ahead of the Law Commission report on whether extension of hate crimes to embrace misogyny will work, and how. At present, we do not have good information. This is a really difficult area; I do not think that any of us has trouble with the concept of hate crimes, but the Scottish Parliament is currently undergoing extreme difficulty with the concept of hate speech. Many police forces in the UK are doing some very strange things with “hate incidents”, where these can be recorded just on the say-so of one person and then appear in another person’s DBS check. There are some difficult things happening around hate crimes and hate incidents generally; having good data must, surely, be at the core of reaching good conclusions.

Here, we have a difficulty in that the police have changed their recording of crimes and reports so that they record only the reported gender of a person and not their natal sex, as is the protected characteristic under the Equality Act. Recently, we have seen extraordinary rises in the reported level of sexual abuse by women. Is this real? Is there something happening to women in our country that we really ought to understand, or is this a fiction of the change in the police reporting method? Not having accurate data disables us in understanding what to do.

I very much hope that, if something comes of this—I hope it will—the police will not only record the natal sex but will record the gender of all the people concerned so that we can understand exactly what is happening. It really does not help trans people that the hate they are subject to is subsumed under misogyny if they are trans women. We need to know whether this is happening to them because they are trans. We are trying to gather data and understanding; the better the data we have, the better our response.

I support, but would like to see extended, the definition at the end of this. It is really important that we have clarity and completeness. Let us record sex as per the Equality Act definition because that is, as my noble friend on the Front Bench has confirmed to me on previous occasions, the basis on which the Government are working. Let us also record self-identified gender or whatever other formulation works best—we could perhaps adopt the one from the forthcoming census—so that we have a complete picture of misogyny and trans misogyny and can, when the time comes, craft effective laws about it.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab) [V]]

I am very pleased to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell. Members may have seen recent reports in the media covering the experience of elite female athletes being subject to harassment and intimidation when doing training runs in the street. They cannot go to their athletic tracks to train at the moment because of lockdown. As has been said, this is not about wolf-whistling; it is about violence and harassment, mainly against women. If those athletes were competing in an Olympic stadium, they would be cheered to the rafters for their success, but because they are training on the streets and are anonymous, somehow they are objectified and are easy prey.

During White Ribbon Week, I asked the Minister to accept the two year-old Law Commission’s report recommending that misogyny be made a hate crime. This is now a matter of increasing urgency. The police forces that have been adopting policies to record gender hate crimes are to be congratulated, but this needs to be adopted generally. Superintendent Andy Bennett of Avon and Somerset Police said:

“We know women are less likely to report hate crime committed by strangers in public, which could be because discrimination is normalised for many women.”


As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, Nottinghamshire Police was the first force in England and Wales to start recording hate crimes against women and girls. Sue Fish, the former chief constable of Nottinghamshire Police, said:

“Some of the feedback we had was that women, for the first time, described themselves as ‘walking taller’ and with their ‘heads held high’.”


According to the White Ribbon Campaign, one in five British men thinks that feminism has gone “too far”. Online misogyny can also be a gateway to wider divisions in society. A HOPE not hate report shows that some young men who interact with men’s rights activists online are on the first step to more extreme racist or far-right groups and regard more rights for anyone—such as people of colour, the LGBT community and people with disabilities—as a threat to their status. The chief executive of HOPE not hate supports this amendment. He states that misogyny is a recruiting tool for hate groups and a means to radicalise, especially among the very young. These online groups radicalise young men who go on to commit acts of aggression designed to intimidate, humiliate and control women.

Having better-quality information throughout all police forces is not just another paper exercise. It helps to increase understanding of the causes and consequences of violence against women and girls, and it gives women more confidence that their issue will be taken seriously. It may even go on to protect more women from violence and intimidation. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this afternoon, many noble Lords have described misogyny outside the scenario of domestic abuse—such as elite athletes training in the street, as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, just said. I hope to explain that, while I agree that the recording of misogyny as a hate crime is a good thing, it may confuse things when it comes to domestic abuse.

As has been explained, Clause 70 requires the Secretary of State to

“issue guidance to chief officers of police about the disclosure of police information by police forces for the purposes of preventing domestic abuse.”

This amendment is about including in that guidance that the police should record any crimes where the offender demonstrated hostility or prejudice based on sex, or where it is perceived that the crime was motivated by hostility or prejudice towards persons who are of a particular sex. This, in effect, would require police officers to record misogyny as a hate crime, although as it is worded in gender-neutral terms it would also require them to record misandry as a hate crime. I am confused about why misandry would be a hate crime, but we will move on. It then tries to bring this within the scope of Clause 70, which is about preventing domestic abuse, by mentioning taking account of evidence about the relationship between domestic abuse and misogyny and recording misogynistic crimes that, in the opinion of the police, have also involved domestic abuse.

Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill [HL]

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Friday 23rd October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very happy to speak in support of this Bill for three reasons. First, I supported the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, in similar circumstances three years ago. Secondly, speaking as a former chair of ACAS, I say that arbitration and mediation should not be the subject of confusion or brought into disrepute. Thirdly, I played a part in fighting for the rights of women, and I believe that every woman should have access to those equal rights.

In my contribution three years ago, I told the story of my visit to the electricity showroom—it shows how long ago that was—in the Chiswick High Road in the 1960s to take out a hire-purchase agreement on an electric fire. I was told that I needed my husband’s signature for something that I was paying for. I became a feminist overnight.

Progress can sometimes seem very slow, but it must not be transient. For ACAS, arbitration and mediation represent its bread and butter. It is important to distinguish between the two. Arbitration is where two or more parties agree an independent person who will decide their dispute. The terms of reference have to be mutually agreed beforehand and there has to be acceptance of the final outcome. Mediation involves a neutral person trying to help the parties identify common ground and reach a mutually satisfactory agreement. It is the parties which settle in this case, not the mediator.

Many of the reports which I have read show that arbitration and mediation are confused in sharia courts. Their remit is sometimes unclear and sometimes exceeded under the cloak of a judicial remit. It is sometimes said that a woman who attends these courts or councils is attending by mutual consent. I think that the definition of mutuality is sometimes being stretched. A woman is said to consent to a process when huge cultural and family pressure, a language barrier, ignorance of the law, a misplaced faith in the system or a threat of complete isolation from her community mean that the use of the word “mutual” in those circumstances is an abuse of the woman and an abuse of the English language.

Listening to and reading about the stories of women who have experienced real trauma in those courts is harrowing, and takes me back to women’s rights nearly 50 years ago. I appreciate that the Minister was a carefree teenager then—or perhaps there is no such thing as a carefree teenager. Domestic violence and rape within marriage were tolerated, and I lost count of the times I was asked whether I was going to get married or become a teacher or secretary. Visiting my mother’s family in Yorkshire, it was even more basic. I was asked, “Do you bake?”. This did not have the same connotations then as it does now, with so many TV programmes on baking making it so popular. “Do you bake?” was putting me in my place. I assure the House that I am not trying to compare something as trivial as my baking capabilities with decisions being taken on behalf of some women today about their marital status, inheritance or personal safety; I am simply saying that, historically, it is not that long ago that women were unequal before the law. We cannot afford to go backwards and tolerate a situation in which any woman is living in fear and isolation.

The Government may feel that the Bill is unnecessary, as the law is sufficiently adequate to ensure justice in that area, but I argue that more needs to be done. This is not confined to sharia law or the Muslim religion; I believe that these parallel laws discriminating against women have existed and may still exist in other religions. As long as some women live in fear and are trapped in their situation, we should act. This is about equal rights for women. I hope that the Minister will be able to say in what way the Government intend to help women in this predicament. No one pretends that passing this Bill will solve all the problems, but it will promote what one of the campaigners whom I greatly admire has called a “shared vision of citizenship”. I support the Bill.

Judicial Appointments Commission Regulations 2013

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2013 Grand Committee

I have been asked what progress has been made on diversity. My blunt answer is “not enough.” The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, asked whether the CILEx member would be involved only in specific panels. No, he or she would be a full member of the panel and would go on to selection processes as appropriate and as available. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, again raised the incapacity question. The Government believe that the relevant situation would comprise very narrow circumstances in which the Lord Chancellor himself would be watched like a hawk.

[Baroness Donaghy]

I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene on this. I do not have any legal qualifications, but I understand employment relations. I am grateful that the Minister has agreed to take this incapacity issue back because I think it is important to look at it from an employment relations point of view, if only to refer to agreed procedures in the regulations. That might see the issue out.

I think that there has to be transparency about the procedures. The circumstance might be very narrow, it might be extremely rare, but it is always those narrow and rare occasions which come under the spotlight. I think it is also a case of how the people who work in that environment feel about the fact that they could be treated in this way. I think there is an important issue as regards referring to some accepted procedure for the Lord Chancellor to go about in taking his or her decision.

[Lord McNally]

First, I am sure that those who produce Hansard will know this, but I think that I said that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, was a candidate for Lord Chief Justice. I was of course referring to Lady Justice Hallett, but I know how wonderful Hansard is at making sure that “ums”, “ahs” and mistakes miraculously become eloquence the following day.

I must be clear on this: I cannot take back the order. I am not empowered and, as I made very clear, these three orders have gone through a considerable mincer. What I have said I will do is draw to the Lord Chancellor’s attention the concerns that have been expressed today, the broader concerns of noble and learned Lords, and the noble Baroness’s particular concerns from the point of view of what I would call human relations. I will ask him to consider the points that have been made. If this is genuinely a mistake, a lacuna, or something that needs further action, I am sure that there are ways and opportunities to do so.

I hope that this very useful debate, which has covered a wide area, has given us an opportunity to air a number of important points. In the end, however, it is worth remembering that these statutory instruments build on the ambitions of previous Governments to make our judiciary more diverse and the method of selection more open. To go right back to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, yes, there is still a long way to go and these are perhaps timid steps, but they are steps in the right direction and I hope that they will have the support of the Committee.

Added Tribunals (Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal) Order 2013

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, we have seen a series of government proposals over the past year, all designed to reduce employment rights and all apparently in the belief that this will promote employment. So a supine, disposable workforce is expected to result in increased employment. This is entirely wrong. We have legislation now making it more difficult for a dismissed worker to claim unfair dismissal. Already, a worker must be in the job for two years before any such claim can be made. Then a series of steps has to be taken before the case can get to a tribunal. The Government have admitted that they want to make access more difficult, and their policies certainly have done so. Now, the Government want to charge and a complicated system is being proposed.

Level A claims for unpaid wages, and smaller claims under category A, are to have an issue fee of £160 followed by a hearing fee of £230. For unfair dismissal, the charges are much greater, being £250 and then £950. We are told that vulnerable and poorer people will not have to pay but the TUC research indicates that a significant number of people on the national minimum wage and living wage rates will have to pay. It is clear that the Government are moving in the direction of the Beecroft proposals, which were widely condemned even by employers. The Government are trying to do that without seeming to do so. The scheme by which employees give up employment rights in return for shares in the employing company, which incidentally was voted down in this House when first proposed, is not meeting with much success even though the Government managed to get it through the Commons.

The latest proposal about charging for tribunal access is part of the same mindset. An employee seeking access to a tribunal following what he or she deems unfair may have been in the job for a number of years. Losing the job could have a distressing effect not only on the employee but the family, leading perhaps to further benefit claims as well as the illness of the dismissed employee. An appeal to an ET before a judge sitting alone will cost more money, and lay members, who bring experience and knowledge of workplaces, are being dispensed with. The Government are clearly expecting that the whole process will seem too complicated and costly for most employees and that there will be very few claims as a result—with no legal aid, of course, in employment cases. Furthermore, employers will be less inclined to seek resolution internally, as they will understand well enough that the complex procedures and costs awaiting employees claiming unfair dismissal will put off any but the most determined.

Do the Government really think that a frightened, submissive workforce is going to assist us in our present economic difficulties? Of course it will not. Growth requires a committed and enthusiastic workforce. These latest government proposals are completely and utterly unfair. They should be withdrawn.

[Baroness Donaghy]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Beecham for raising these issues, and I will not cover the ground that he has already covered. During Committee on the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, I congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Marland, who was then taking the Bill through this House, on the fact that the proposals regarding ACAS were right. They laid emphasis on mediation and settlement, and aimed to enhance ACAS’s role. I said that this was the right thing to do and I still think that. Both sides would receive a reality check and be in a much better position to take appropriate action after the ACAS procedures—that is, until these proposals came along.

Unfortunately, alongside the much needed reform that came up in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Marland, there come these punitive measures for applicants to employment tribunals. It is a classic result of two government departments approaching a problem and coming up with contradictory results. What kind of mood will the client and the employer be in when they get to ACAS? The employer will hold his ground in the hope that the entry fee to the employment tribunal will be sufficient to put the applicant off. The applicant will feel that the cards are stacked against him or her and will be in no mood for conciliation. That is how to sabotage a perfectly good reform.

Today, I spoke to John Cridland, the director-general of the CBI, about these proposals because I knew his views when we were on the ACAS Council together. The CBI agrees with charging for employment tribunals but wanted a lower fee of around £100 and rules that apply more generally to each applicant, rather than all the exemptions and ceilings.

The CBI view is that the high fee is unhelpful. The exemptions defeat the purpose of the exercise and the proposals are confusing. It believes that the Ministry of Justice has concerned itself with recouping charges for its own cost base rather than as a deterrent for vexatious claims. The Ministry of Justice is not focused on how to influence culture, and John Cridland expressed frustration at the poor implementation that he fears, as do I, will get in the way of conciliation. My view is that this apparent deregulation and cut in public expenditure will set up a whole complicated bureaucracy because of the complexity of the scheme, and applicants will not know to which category they belong. This is more red tape, not less.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012

Baroness Donaghy Excerpts

Wednesday 25th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and I support the remarks made by both noble Lords, Lord Davies. It will be interesting to see the answer to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, posed.

I support the amendment because I believe that the people who are being disadvantaged are the very people whom the Government say they want to look after. They are also the people who make this country work, such as postmen, people in shops and people on the shop floor. They are the people who are likely to be worst affected by these cuts.

It puzzles me why we make cuts of this sort for essential compensation while at the same time we spend huge sums on matters that appear not to matter. We also ladle money out to foreign countries, which perhaps should start looking after themselves.

I had a Question answered about the £10 billion that many countries have agreed to make available to Afghanistan. I asked how much that would cost Britain. The Answer came back that it would cost £170 million a year between 2013 and 2025, so it seems that we can find money to support people abroad. I have no objection to that, but I want decent treatment of the people of this country.

The amount of money that is involved is relatively small. If the Government really believe in this big society in which we will all be treated properly, perhaps they should reconsider what they are doing in the matter of this compensation order.

I do not believe everything that I read in the newspapers about the Government being completely out of touch. But, frankly, almost every day we have an indication that the Government are completely out of touch. For example, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Gauke, suggested that people who pay cash to some of those who might be injured are immoral for doing so. The Government do not appear to realise that millions of people in this country do not have a bank account. There is only one way in which they can pay and that is in coin of the realm.

I put that forward as an illustration of how the Government appear to be completely out of touch with what is happening in the country and the needs of people, particularly those who are unfortunately victims of accidents or other incidents.

[Baroness Donaghy]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Royall. First, there is the issue of people being attacked by dangerous dogs. This particularly concerns the UCW, the trade union representing postmen and women, but has also been raised by a wide range of other organisations, including the Police Federation, the Royal College of Nursing and the Local Government Association. The MoJ consultative document proposed to tighten the current policy under which claims have, in some cases, been considered from applicants attacked by dangerous dogs not kept under proper control. The Government’s response to the consultation claims that:

“A small number of respondents expressed concern”.

That is a travesty, as widespread concern was expressed. We should not forget that not so long ago this was the subject of cross-party support and I regret that that is no longer the case.

The Government acknowledge the complexity of defining a crime of violence. They believe that these cases involve injuries sustained in incidents outside the core purpose of the scheme and that proper redress in these circumstances would be found elsewhere, through an insurance claim, a compensation order as a result of criminal proceedings or a civil claim. This is the height of cynicism. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme is the very last resort when all else has failed. The options suggested by the Government would offer no recompense, as the Minister well knows. A further suggestion by the MoJ is that postmen and women injured in dog attacks could sue their employer, the Royal Mail. However, the Royal Mail has a good record in discharging its duty of care to reduce risks and it is virtually impossible to secure personal injury compensation from an employer in a civil court in respect of criminal injury, with employers liability insurers resisting such claims vigorously and the courts, when tested, holding that the employer is not liable, on the whole.

The determination of deliberate attack, as the Government themselves acknowledge, is extremely complex. I live in an area of London where dogs are often kept as aggression accessories. To close off the opportunity for compensation to people who have suffered mental and/or physical injury as a result of dog attacks is inhumane. These cuts will also affect thousands of people who work in shops and public offices. Compensation is very important to the innocent victims. At present, only injuries that disable the victim for at least six weeks are compensated. It gives public recognition for pain and suffering, helps to pay off debts and can help recovery from trauma. Those who work part-time, as my noble friend Lord Davies has already said, which is 35% of retail staff, earn too little to qualify for SSP. The Government’s own impact assessment admits that the scheme has very stable running costs—around £210 million per year—and,

“we assume that in the absence of reform this will continue”.

There has been too much emphasis on the CICS as a demand-led scheme when it is, in fact, reasonably stable. As the general secretary of USDAW, the shopworkers’ union, John Hannett, has said:

“We do not believe that the innocent victims of violent crime should bear the brunt of austerity, or that these cuts are justified by the £50 million projected savings”.

Victims are to be asked to pay up to £50 upfront to obtain their initial medical evidence. If they are off work or still shaken from their experience, this could prevent genuinely injured victims from bringing a claim. The proposals for future loss of earnings could be worse off by £139.15 per week, which could result in serious financial hardship. The changes, as my noble friend Lady Royall said, fail to take account of the current job market, by demanding that people be regularly paid for a period of at least three years when temporary periods of unemployment are reasonably common nowadays.

The Government’s stated intention was to cut the lower awards to provide better protection and support for the most seriously injured victims. There is no evidence that this has happened. Even those with the most serious injuries will suffer as a result of these changes. In conclusion—and we have already heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, about what happened 50 years ago—it will be 50 years ago in December that the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Dilhorne, said in this House:

“For the innocent victims of such crimes we all feel sympathy, but we feel that sympathy alone is not enough”.—[Official Report, 5/12/62; col. 305.]

If the Government’s proposals go through, this will be a very sad anniversary indeed.