Victims and Prisoners Bill

Baroness Finn Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 30th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I was happy to add my name to this amendment, to which several of us spoke at Second Reading and in Committee. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and Stella Creasy MP for the dogged way in which they have pursued this issue. I give the Government and the Bill team credit for being worn down to the extent that a degree of accord, and indeed a recognition of this particular form of invasive behaviour, have been reached.

There is a lot in the press at the moment about a phenomenon known as sextortion. I would almost call what we are talking about in the amendment a form of domestic terrorism. It is somebody making a completely unfounded allegation about, in this case, somebody else’s fitness to be a parent of small children in order to, in a sense, force a situation in which an investigation has to take place. Even though the investigation finds that there is absolutely no basis in the allegation, the allegation remains on that individual’s record, and that individual is compelled to reveal that allegation in a variety of situations in which they are required to provide due diligence. In each case they have to explain that it was malicious and the result of harassment. That is what we are trying to avoid.

I too am looking forward to what the Minister will say in response. I hope that at Third Reading there will be an amendment that we can all agree with. Your Lordships will be aware that, as Stella Creasy was surprised to find out, we in your Lordships’ House are able to table an amendment at Third Reading. We very much hope that will not be necessary, because we are sure the government amendment will meet what is required. To that extent, the sooner we are able to see the wording of the government amendment and have a further dialogue about it if necessary, so that we are all on the same page at Third Reading, the better. I thank the Minister and the Bill team for being so accommodating.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I spoke in Committee on behalf of my noble friend Lady Morgan and I support her amendment today. I commend the tenacity of Stella Creasy, my noble friend and other noble Lords in engaging with various government departments, and I thank my noble friends the Ministers for engaging with her and Stella over some of the more complex issues involved.

I appreciate that this is not completely straightforward, but the fact that it is difficult to reach a conclusion should not prevent us tabling the amendment and getting it right. While it is disappointing that we do not yet have a government amendment to scrutinise, I thank my noble and learned friend the Minister for agreeing to table an amendment that we hope will cover all the areas of concern at Third Reading.

It is hard to overemphasise the toll that malicious complaints take on individuals, their mental health and their family life. I take a real case of someone who suddenly, out of the blue, received a call from the local police sharing details of a complaint made about the treatment of her children. Despite the false claims being robustly rebutted—her children had attended school, were taken to the dentist and were registered with their local GP, despite allegations to the contrary—this mark remains on her record and that of her children. She describes it as feeling like “the sword of Damocles hanging over my head”. It is a constant worry. It is simply not right that many victims find that, even if the person targeting them has been convicted, their harassment continues because such records remain. The retention of this data has lasting consequences for all individuals involved.

I am not going to repeat all the arguments but will quickly emphasise three points. First, limiting this amendment to victims of crime where the data is linked to that crime would ensure that it does not become open to abuse, but stalking and harassment involve many actions by perpetrators, so it is important that the drafting of these amendments should not be too narrow. Secondly, while there needs to be a clear threshold to show that the retention of data will continue the harassment, the removal of data should not be confined to criminal convictions. My noble friend Lady Morgan has made the case for the various thresholds very clearly.

Finally, if an individual makes a malicious complaint about someone to the police, the police can act to remove that record. If chief constables have clear guidance that covers the removal of malicious allegations, it should surely be possible to have similar guidance for malicious reporting to other organisations. I am very grateful that my noble friend the Minister has agreed to explore this further.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, it was an honour to sign this amendment and to join in some of the meetings with the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and colleagues and Stella Creasy. Other colleagues have already explained the progress that has been made. We are hoping to hear from the Minister shortly, but I just want to say that, should the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, decide to call a vote, we on these Benches will support her. If she does not, we look forward to seeing an amendment at Third Reading.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Baroness Finn Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bertin (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Morgan, who is sorry not to be here today, I shall speak to Amendments 101, 102 and 173, and I shall speak to my own Amendment 115. I give praise and thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for outlining a lot of the issues in these amendments.

First, I shall talk about Amendments 101, 102 and 173, which, I might add, have the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, attached to them too. Amendment 102 and the associated necessary Amendments 101 and 173 seek to ensure that victims of crime—but particularly victims of sexual violence, for that is where the issue most frequently arises—are protected from excessive and unreasonable demands for their personal data. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has pointed out, that is the reason why attrition rates are as they are.

Third-party material is material about the victim held by third parties. It can include medical, educational and social services records, as well as records of therapy and counselling, which I will come to in more detail later. It has become commonplace for victims to be subjected to scrutiny of their personal lives, and thus their credibility, by way of a trawl through their personal data, and nowhere more so than in rape investigations. This issue has been well examined in both the media and at a policy level. These trawls act as a deterrent to reporting, and can cause a victim who has reported to then withdraw. There are fears about deeply personal information ending up in the hands of the defendant or being aired in court, where friends and family of the victim may hear it. In addition, requesting this information in such a non-discriminatory way can dramatically elongate already considerable investigation times.

I applaud the Government for introducing legislation in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, which set out a regime to be used by police when requesting digital data, such as that held on mobile phones. Within this Bill, the Government have tabled clauses which purport to do the same for third-party material, but these clauses differ considerably from those in the PCSC Act. As it stands, there will be two quite different regimes for the police to apply when considering obtaining digital material and third-party material, which, in practice, they frequently do in tandem. This is potentially confusing for the police, but, more importantly, for the victims of crime.

Amendment 102 is quite simple, in that it seeks to apply exactly the same robust regime to third-party material as the Government, having listened thoroughly to campaigners, already laid down in legislation for digital material. I hope Ministers will see the need to follow suit in respect of third-party material. This amendment is backed by my noble friend Lady Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner, so I will allow her to speak to it.

I will speak to my Amendment 115. I am very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Rape and sexual abuse, as we know in this Committee, are deeply traumatic crimes, the impact of which can be wide-ranging and life changing. Sexual violence and abuse are often a root cause of mental health problems, eating disorders and self-harm, and, tragically, suicide. It is common for the impact of sexual violence and abuse to affect family and personal relationships, a victim’s ability to work, and long-term educational attainment. For many victims and survivors, counselling and therapy are a vital means of working through trauma, supporting them to find routes to regain control of their life. It is therefore imperative that those who choose to do so can seek support without fear that their counselling records will be used to humiliate them in court or, more often, to stop their case progressing in the first place.

The reality is that counselling records contain feelings and not facts. Typically, rape survivors will have feelings of shame and self-blame, and often complex feelings towards the perpetrator. Counsellors and therapists will support survivors to work through these painful feelings and make notes of things that will support their recollection for the next session. They are not collecting evidence for criminal investigations.

Routine access to this material by criminal justice agencies has severe consequences for victims’ mental health and well-being. Some try to stay with the process, while receiving no or limited emotional support, while others drop out altogether because of the intrusion into their private lives. According to recent figures, the proportion of adult rape investigations which ended due to victim attrition was 62%. I think we can all agree that that is far too high. Despite widespread recognition of this problem and the good work carried out by the Government to limit the vast amounts of personal data taken from rape victims, this remains a very big problem.

The Home Office’s own research found that, in case file reviews of rape cases, almost one-third contained a police request for counselling and therapy notes. Where a reason was given for the request, 32% were simply related to establishing a perceived victim reliability or credibility, and did not pertain to the facts of the case.

Rape and sexual abuse are treated with exceptionalism in the criminal investigation process. In no other crime does the victim have their counselling and therapeutic records trawled through and scrutinised with a view to finding any content that may disregard their character. I acknowledge 100% the good work that the Government have taken forward and progressed through Operation Soteria. Stronger legal protections are needed to limit far-reaching requests for these notes which very often contain the most sensitive personal data.

Other jurisdictions have demonstrated that it is possible to do this, while allowing for vital fair trial rights to be duly safeguarded. The state of New South Wales in Australia is a good example. It has an adversarial legal system—very similar to ours—but its notes are afforded far greater protection. This is achieved by ensuring that counselling records are disclosed only when they contain material of substantial probative value and by transferring the decision as to whether this meets the test to a judge. In 20 years, no appeals have been overturned on the basis of counselling and therapy notes.

I propose a similar model because it would strengthen and support the important work led by this Government. It would reinforce the transformative effects undertaken by police and prosecutors through Operation Soteria. It would also save precious police and prosecutor time and resources. They would need to access this material only when they were able to ascertain that there was substantial probative value in it, and not waste time simply trawling through irrelevant records.

We should not miss this opportunity. If the situation does not change, tens of thousands of survivors will have their rights undermined, face further intrusion and be deterred from both therapy and from engaging with criminal investigations. I will leave my noble friend Lady Finn to speak to Amendment 106. I whole- heartedly support Amendment 78. I sincerely hope that the Government will take it on board.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 106 in the name of and on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes. She is sorry not to be here today because of family commitments. This amendment was first debated in the other place. It was proposed by the honourable Stella Creasy based on her own experience as a victim of harassment. This experience is not unique to her. I am grateful—as I know she is too—for the support for this amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton.

In short, if an individual makes a malicious complaint about someone to the police, the police can act to remove that record. Malicious reporting to other organisations—whether social services or an employer as part of a campaign of stalking and harassment—does not carry the same safeguard. As a result, data is retained on individuals who have been targeted maliciously, be it through workplace harassment, stalking or something else. Many victims find that, even if the person targeting them has been convicted, their harassment continues because such records remain. Current data protection rules mean that such records cannot always be deleted. The retention of this data has lasting consequences for all individuals involved.

This proposed new clause seeks to enable the deletion of data where a clear threshold is met to show that the report was the result of malice and that retaining it would continue the harassment. As the testimony of victims has shown, it is not necessary to be an MP to be subject to malicious reporting as part of a deliberate campaign of stalking and harassment. Such reporting, designed to have a serious long-term impact on victims and their families, can occur against anyone doing any kind of public work, in the context of domestic abuse or as anonymous, vexatious harassment.

Public bodies can refuse to delete the data on the grounds that they feel it necessary to retain that data for compliance with a separate legal obligation or for performing a task in the public interest. To overturn this, a person has to demonstrate that the public body’s retention of the malicious data is not necessary for either of these purposes, thereby putting the burden of proof on to the data subject and potentially requiring lengthy court action.

For most people, this is not possible or desirable, leaving them with no legal recourse. This amendment would update the UK general data protection regulation and address these inconsistencies, mirroring the concept of exceptional circumstances under which any deletion would take place. The proposed new clause would give all data controllers guidance on how to manage situations where there are competing obligations—for example, in safeguarding or identifying repeated attacks on an individual via third-party reporting. Unlike the current right to object, this would create an absolute right to request deletion and therefore overrule exemptions that currently apply. This would ensure that public bodies such as local authorities are able to comply with these requests for deletion without risking failing to meet their legal duties. At present, these authorities are very clear that due to existing data protection rules they cannot take this step.

Parliamentary Democracy and Standards in Public Life

Baroness Finn Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as the Conservative member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The CSPL has occupied a unique position in the standards landscape since its formation in 1994. Although it includes cross-party representation, the majority of its members are independent. It provides advice for maintaining and improving standards, based on evidence gathered from a wide range of people. The most recent report, Leading in Practice, published in 2022, looked at how a variety of organisations have sought to integrate ethical values into their policies and ways of working. It has been widely welcomed across the public sector. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, who led the committee with distinction over the last five years, and welcome our new chair, Doug Chalmers, who is already starting a programme of engagement with regulators and those responsible for standards across the United Kingdom.

The late Lord Nolan set out three golden threads for standards: codes of conduct, independent scrutiny and education. The key question for your Lordships’ House is who should exercise that independent scrutiny, especially when ministerial conduct has been called into question. One of the central pillars of our unwritten constitution is that the Prime Minister, appointed by and chief adviser to the sovereign, remains in that position for as long as he or she commands the confidence of the other place. Other Ministers remain in post for as long as they retain the confidence of the Prime Minister. Not one of us in this place would object to raising standards in public life or disagree with the Nolan principles, but the Nolan principles work precisely because they are just that—principles and not rules. My noble friend Lord Forsyth mentioned the recent excellent Policy Exchange report on upholding standards, which deals with this. My fear is that, by the patchwork codification of standards, whether statutory or quasi-statutory, covert or overt, we erode the functions of political accountability that are the proper province of Parliament.

These political mechanisms of accountability are a great success of the British constitution and one that other countries struggle to emulate. We should not abdicate standards enforcements to ethics tsars or unelected regulators who are accountable to no one. If we do, we invite the unedifying prospect of judicial or regulatory pronouncement on ministerial appointments and dismissals. This, I fear, will not improve the standing of parliamentary democracy but diminish it.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Finn Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, I second my noble friend’s Motion. I am conscious of the great honour to do so and of the privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Lamont—a son of Shetland, a reforming Chancellor and a kind mentor to many, including me. While in office, my noble friend recruited a young special adviser called David Cameron, hired as his principal private secretary a fresh-faced civil servant called Jeremy Heywood and, during the referendum campaign of 2016, advised the new Back-Bench Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip on how to make his case. As a trainer of thoroughbreds, he is up there with the Earl of Carnarvon and Henry Cecil.

It is said that the key to success is to choose your predecessor carefully so that you are not outshone. The last humble Address was seconded just two months ago with a brilliant, witty speech by my noble friend Lord Dobbs—so I have clearly chosen my predecessor poorly. For the next leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition, this is unlikely to be a problem.

It is also the custom for the Queen’s Speech seconder in either House to be an up-and-coming young Member. The definition is rather looser in your Lordships’ House. Contrary to his youthful appearance, my noble friend Lord Dobbs is in his eighth decade—admittedly only just—and was the architect of a previous landslide election victory in 1987, the year after I left my comprehensive school in South Wales. He is also of course the established author of the globally best-selling House of Cards novels, which outline how to succeed as a Chief Whip. I assume that my noble friend Lord Ashton will have read those novels—but, while I might think that, he could not possibly comment, ho ho.

Although none of us in this House had a vote in the election, many of us played a role. For some of the time, I was tasked with looking after Dilyn, the Downing Street Jack Russell. I had to control a headstrong beast who created upheaval wherever he went, was jealous of his territory and flustered civil servants, but who won hearts with his joie de vivre. It was a role for which I was well prepared, having previously worked as a government special adviser.

I became a special adviser in the coalition Government because I believed, as we all do here, in public service. As an accountant with a background in business, I wanted to put myself at the service of my country. The progress that our country made during the coalition years would not have been possible without the tireless work of other advisers, including my noble friend Lady Fall and the noble Lord, Lord Oates. In so doing, I came more deeply to appreciate the sense of public service which animates us all. In particular, as an adviser charged with overseeing the Government’s relationship with the trade unions, I came to admire the dedication of people such as Sir Brendan Barber, his predecessor the noble Lord, Lord Monks, and his successor Frances O’Grady, in standing up for working people. While we did not always agree, I was never in doubt that they sought to serve those whom they represented with passion and commitment.

As I have already noted, this is the second Queen’s Speech in as many months. As with London buses, you wait ages for one and then two come along at once. This gracious Speech sets out an ambitious programme for the nation which I wholeheartedly support. It reflects the energy and reforming passion of our Prime Minister, and I congratulate him on the scale and breadth of his success. He, more than anyone, will understand that a great mandate imposes an equally great responsibility to meet the country’s expectations.

What most people want of their Government is that they should be a moderate, pragmatic and competent Administration who get their business done and see to the well-being of the whole United Kingdom. Most voters are not driven in any way by ideology and do not run their lives according to great and complex political theories. They value above all else security, liberty and the rule of law, and the ability to get on with their lives and to do the best for themselves, their family and their community. They want to go to work and raise their family, and for their children to be taught in good schools. They want to take home as much as possible of what they work hard to earn, and they expect their public services to be decent, effective and accessible.

Most people do not think of themselves as Conservatives, but they voted Conservative in this election in extraordinary numbers. This new Government, with representatives elected from Bridgend—just down the road from where I grew up—to Bassetlaw, Bolsover, Burnley, Bishop Auckland and Banff and Buchan, have a responsibility to serve those working people who have placed their trust in them. That is why I am delighted to see in this Queen’s Speech measures designed to reflect the priorities of working people across our nations: support for the NHS, measures designed to level up economic opportunity, and investment in the infrastructure that promotes prosperity.

One thing that has held back Britain’s investment in infrastructure is an outdated Treasury methodology that too often gets wrong the economic costs and benefits. One casualty of this has been the Swansea tidal lagoon, a project close to my heart. This has the potential to be the prototype for world-leading exportable technology. We need to exploit every single one of Britain’s competitive advantages, and our uniquely powerful tidal flow is one that it would be a crime to ignore.

Of course, the Queen’s Speech will also allow us to give effect to the result of the referendum. Your Lordships’ House has many expert voices on Britain’s relations with Europe and, unlike some, I do not believe that the British people have had enough of experts, so the scrutiny that this House provides is vital. But the British people did signal in this election that they have had enough of delay. We in this House are here to serve the people and now we must move on.

Then there will be the hard yards of negotiating the most comprehensive agreement for Britain’s future relationship with our closest neighbours. It will need to cover the security and intelligence relationship as well as trade and economics, and the Government should insist that there is no cherry picking by the EU. The future relationship should be suffused with respect, generosity, fellowship, our deep shared values and the recognition that, for any kind of foreseeable future, the economies of the UK and the EU 27 will be deeply interlinked.

This is a time of change, a time of disruption. For many, this brings anxiety, but change also brings opportunity, and this is a time of great opportunity for Britain. Ours is a great country, with decency and tolerance running through it and an instinctive desire for fair play that should, and will, see us through these times. To take pride in what we are is not to look inward and backward; it is the foundation from which we can look outward and forward.

As the daughter of a Czech refugee father and a Welsh mother, I will always be grateful for the immense honour of being able to serve in this place, where voices from so many communities, traditions and backgrounds blend in the pursuit of democratic harmony, and I humbly beg to second the Motion.

Motion to Adjourn

Moved by