Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Jolly Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, since I have been gratuitously referred to, I ought to say some words. Archbishop Robert Runcie said, “A saint is a person whose life has never been fully examined.” All our lives have never been fully examined, but I confirm that I never committed any crime at the age of 15 or 16, and have not done even now. Even if I committed one, I am already excluded from becoming an archbishop again because I am now 72. Age would discriminate against me and push me out.

What I do not get is why being a police commissioner is the only calling where there is discrimination if something was done at the age of 16. I would have thought that, 40 years on, the person has done their time. Yes, there is a record but it does not have to be the only thing over which you exclude them, because they have come on in age. In wanting to remove this for police commissioners, we are not sending out a message that it does not matter whether you commit a crime at the age of 16. We are saying: why is there this hindrance to this profession? Because one day I may become a saint and my life will never be fully examined, I want to vote for this amendment. I hope that the Minister will just accept it and it will be put into statute without more debates, because this just does not make sense. But I speak like a fool.

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, as we said in Committee, we are in principle supportive of this amendment. However, we would want in an ideal world a balancing amendment to ensure the possibility of recall and by-election should a police and crime commissioner be found guilty of misconduct, along the lines of the Recall of MPs Act 2015. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bach, about the discrimination of early offences. Currently, because police and crime commissioners are democratically elected, they can be replaced only by means of another election, and as things stand there is no mechanism to force such a by-election. It is hoped that a disgraced PCC would resign but this should not be at the sole discussion of the PCC concerned. Therefore, we are reluctant to support the amendment without another along the lines of the one described earlier. My noble friend Lord Paddick says that he thinks it is unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, did not take the hint that he gave him in Committee.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I recall that the Minister said in Committee on this amendment

“I fear that my ice thins a little here”.

One can only say that I think it has got even warmer since then. The Government said in Committee:

“Having said all that, I have heard everything that has been said around the Chamber this evening, across party, and I will make sure that those arguments are reflected back to the Home Office.”


What happened when those arguments were then reflected back to the Home Office, to whom in the Home Office were they reflected back to, and what was the response?

The rules on previous convictions, which the Government said in Committee were necessary to ensure

“the highest levels of integrity on the part of the person holding office and to protect the public’s trust in policing”

do not seem to have been very effective or relevant in North Yorkshire on two occasions already where two different PCCs have already departed the scene in interesting circumstances.

I conclude, in indicating our support for this amendment and thanking noble Lords for all the arguments and points made, that in Committee the Government referred to part 2 of the review of police and crime commissioners. They said that it is “currently under way” and that

“this review will also assess the benefits and demerits of a trigger mechanism for the recall of PCCs; it is being debated.”—[Official Report, 22/11/21; cols. 649-50.]

Will this part of the review of PCCs also now look at the issue of the current bar, in its present form, on a potential candidate being able to stand for the position of police and crime commissioner, which is the issue we are debating tonight? If the Government cannot even say that this will now be included in part 2 of the review, what is the reason for that stance?

I very much hope, like my noble friend Lord Bach, that the Government will accept this amendment, or at the very least agree to reflect on it further prior to Third Reading so that it can be brought back again if the Government’s reflections are not very satisfactory.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Jolly Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I support this Amendment and agree with every word that noble Lords have said. My strong advice to my noble friend the Minister, bearing in mind that this is a policing Bill, is to come quietly. The alternative is to have another 45 minutes on Report, lose a Division and get into ping-pong. It is much easier to agree in due course.

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, I feel quite inadequate. I only have two sons, not six, and two were a handful. Clearly, I am a huge supporter of this amendment, and was completely unaware of somebody wanting to watch someone breastfeed. I am pleased that we are today trying to stop this or at least make it clear that this is beyond the pale.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Jolly Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Monday 1st November 2021 Lords Chamber

As I said, when we sentenced these people, we all had these things in mind. We all anxiously studied the probation reports. We all worried that, in sentencing a mother or father with a child—a single parent—to custody, we were creating a form of orphanage, placing this child in public care. We know that the state is not as good a parent as the natural parent. If I may say so to the right reverend Prelate, I do not think we need legislation on this, but we need information and we need that to be available to judges, sentencers and, more importantly, Ministers, who can direct their officials to produce the humane solution that all of us require. I have absolutely no doubt that my noble friend the Minister is the person to do that for us.

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, for two minutes, I want to throw a pebble into what seems like calm water. I totally support everything that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester has said. However, we need to ask ourselves: what is a child? If somebody talks to me socially and says, “Do you have any children?”, I say, “Yes, I have two.” They are grown-up men who flew the nest a long time ago.

However, adults with a learning disability are sometimes cared for by their parents, if they have chosen that the child should not go into care. Their family unit is mum and dad, who are in their 70s or 80s, and somebody with a learning difficulty who might be in their 50s. That is not what we think of as a nuclear family, but we still have to care for the child of those elderly parents, and when one parent dies there are all sorts of problems. Mencap has done a lot of work on this and I have worked with it on it. We really need to be careful about how we legislate for adults who have the mental capacity of a child.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the right reverend Prelate for not just these amendments but the care and time she gives to compassionate consideration of the criminal justice system generally. I am also grateful to the other authors of this group of amendments. We on these Benches fully support them.

In this House, we have repeatedly stressed the special needs of women in prison and the effect of custody on women and their children. I entirely take the point made by my noble friend Lady Jolly and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that there are others who are cared for who need our concern. In terms of legislation, we have achieved no more than lip service. These amendments would put that right by imposing real duties on courts and judges to gather the necessary information and consider the effect of custody on children in making bail and sentencing decisions for their primary carers.

Duties would be imposed on the Government to collect the data necessary to enable informed decision-making about the effect of imprisoning primary carers on the lives and futures of their children. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that Amendment 218 on data collection could—and should—have gone further than requiring data on the number of prisoners as primary carers and the number and ages of the children affected. For example, it would be helpful to include data as to the arrangements made for looking after those children following the imprisonment of their primary carers. For instance, we should know how many children have to be taken into care, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. We can and should consider that further on Report.

Noble Lords have had the benefit of the excellent briefing from the charity Women in Prison. The statistics it has collated tell a grim story. More than 53,000 children each year are affected by their primary carers being sent to prison and 95% of children whose mother is imprisoned are forced to leave home. One sentence encapsulated it all for me: “We’ve been sentenced,” says a mother, “but they’ve been sentenced with us.”

This point was at the heart of the opening speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. Parental imprisonment is for children a well-recognised predictor of mental ill-health, poor educational attainment and employment prospects, and future criminality for the children concerned. It is often said that criminality runs in families. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said that in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. The extent to which we fail the children of carers in the criminal justice system tends to make that a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The problem is made worse by the preponderance of short sentences among those passed on women offenders. Some 62% of sentences passed on women are for terms of six months or less, despite all the evidence that such sentences do far more harm than good, that offenders who receive short sentences are generally far more successfully rehabilitated with community sentences than with prison sentences, and that the damage to children of imprisoning their primary carer stems principally from the initial, sudden separation—the loss of home, the loss of parental care, the dramatic changes for children, that follow immediately on parental custody, often without any preparation or warning.

In the Joint Committee on Human Rights 2019 report on children whose mothers are in prison, the committee quoted the 2007 report of the noble Baroness, Lady Corston:

“[t]he effects on the … children every year whose mothers are sent to prison are … nothing short of catastrophic.”


The committee cited the evidence of a girl called Georgia of 15, who I think is the girl whose evidence was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen. She said:

“On the day of her trial, I was at home in the living room, dancing to MTV, and I got a phone call from my brother. He said, ‘Mum’s gone’. I thought he was joking. I had to ask him about five times. From being the young girl who was dancing in the living room, I automatically took on my mum’s role. I did not even have time to adjust to the custodial sentence. It just leaped.”


The amendments in this group rightly cover bail—that is Amendment 110—as well as sentencing decisions. The effect upon children of a remand in custody of their primary carer may be even worse than that of a prison sentence. It usually comes at the very beginning of the criminal process, often without any warning at all, and its effect is immediate, devastating, and of uncertain duration. Against that background, it is highly significant, and frankly shaming, that a very high proportion of women remanded in custody—66% of magistrates’ remands, a higher figure than that given by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and 39% of Crown Court remands—do not ultimately lead to a custodial sentence, largely invalidating the original remand decision. Amendment 110 would make bail more likely for primary carers, which would be a real benefit.

For sentencing courts, the duties proposed in Amendments 215 to 217 would lead to an immediate improvement in sentencing practice, as judges complied with these duties imposed by law in the interests of the children, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, stressed, where until now they have been subject only to non-binding sentencing guidelines, a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. For that reason, I disagree with the point expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, who questioned whether these amendments were necessary at all. I completely agree with the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that judges and recorders are hugely concerned not to send women who are primary carers for children to prison. But the fact remains that far too many primary carers do get sentenced to prison. I believe that over time, these amendments—because judges and recorders follow the law—would also lead to a general change of culture among the judiciary, and possibly in government as well, preventing courts sending primary carers of children to prison.

Before closing, I will add a word or two about sentencing pregnant women to prison. It is particularly welcome that Amendments 216 and 217 cover the special position of the unborn children of pregnant women facing custody. We have all been appalled by the report last month of Sue McAllister, the Prisons and Probations Ombudsman, into the death of Baby A in September 2019 at HM Prison Bronzefield, and the care of Baby A’s mother in the time leading up to and around her baby’s birth, when she was left alone in her cell—an account also mentioned by the right reverend Prelate. But it should be remembered that Baby A’s mother was described in that report as

“a vulnerable young woman with a complex history who found it difficult to trust people in authority.”

That description can be applied to the majority of pregnant women who find themselves in prison and, indeed, to the majority of young women prisoners. We should take care not to forget that, particularly given that three out of five women in prison have minor children. I urge the Government to respond positively to these amendments.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Jolly Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th March 2021 Lords Chamber

Part of the battle will now be to ensure that they understand the legal protections that they have and ensure that we give them all the help that they need to use them. I thank the Government again: this amendment really matters.

[Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Amendments 46 and 47, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, would amend the new clause in Amendment 45, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, to ensure that the definition of “personally connected” in Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 includes the relationship between a disabled person and their carer, in line with the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, to the definition in Clause 2 of the Bill.

Amendments 45, 46 and 47 sit together, and I hope that the Minister can be persuaded to add her name to Amendments 46 and 47. The new clause proposed in Amendment 45 would align the definition of “personally connected” in Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 with that in Clause 2 of the Bill. The result is that the offence under that section of engaging in “controlling or coercive behaviour” would apply in relation to members of the same family or people who have been in an intimate relationship, whether or not they live together.

Amendment 46 seeks to ensure that the relationship between a disabled person and their carer is included. This amendment and Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, would amend the new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, in Amendment 45 to ensure that the definition of “personally connected” in Section 76 of the Serious Crimes Act 2015 includes the relationship between a disabled person and their carer, in line with the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, to the definition in Clause 2.

I also highlight that the term “disability” includes learning disabilities, which is important in this context. Many parents choose to look after their children with a learning disability rather than entrust their care to an organisation. When the child becomes an adult and the parents are older and frail, what had been a loving relationship often becomes tense and fraught, and can lead to violence and abuse. This can apply equally when a person with a learning disability has a carer rather than parents. What started as a positive relationship can turn sour, and the abuse of one party by the other and violence are often the outcome. In this case, with no parents, it is the local authority that has the responsibility to sort the problem out.

This is a good suite of amendments and I am happy to support them.

[Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 45, but before I do so, perhaps I may record my concern at the situation described by the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Jolly, in relation to people with disabilities. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some comfort from the Front Bench on what is obviously a very unsatisfactory situation.

On Amendment 45, I want simply to add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the supporters of her amendment, both inside the House and those who have campaigned outside it, for this change to the provisions regarding post-separation coercive control. I also express my gratitude to the Minister for listening and, more than that, acting by adding her name to the amendment. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I have had a tremendously positive response to the news that the change was to be made. I can do no better than to quote from a note I have received from the director of the Daisy Programme in Norfolk, of which I am a patron. She has said, “We continue to witness at first hand the insidious nature of continued domestic abuse post separation and the controlling nature of perpetrators. Retraumatising of survivors is common as they continue to tell, retell and tell once again their stories, leaving little time to begin the process of rebuilding their lives.”

These amendments will support survivors and children who have been deeply impacted. As others have said, these are important amendments that will change people’s lives, and I welcome them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fairfax of Cameron (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I too speak this evening in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I apologise that I was unable to speak in Committee but I have read that debate, including the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Jolly, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I agree with all that they said.

I developed an interest in this subject because I personally knew two families where young adult, female family members were, might I say, captured by what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has called a charlatan counsellor—with prolonged, distressing and tragic consequences for the families and individuals in question. But as he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, have reminded us this evening, this issue is much more widespread: so much so that, as the House has heard, France, Belgium and Luxembourg have legislated against this behaviour.

At this late hour, I do not propose to repeat the arguments compellingly put both this evening and in Committee in favour of similar legislation being enacted here. My understanding is that the Government, as they have said before, may be sympathetic in general but, as several speakers this evening have intimated, too often one gets the timeworn mantra from the Government that this is not the right time and not the right Bill. I remember this particularly being said several years ago in relation to the Leveson Section 40 point.

My question to the Minister this evening is the same as that put by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and other noble Lords. If that is the Government’s position, when will be the right time to legislate against these reprehensible practices by charlatan counsellors who cause so much distress to so many families? In closing, I respectfully suggest that, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, government inaction on this issue has already dragged on unacceptably long.

[Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and I thank all Members who have taken part. The proposed new clause in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, both of whom have spoken very forcefully, would create an offence of:

“Controlling or coercive behaviour by persons providing psychotherapy or counselling services”


in a person’s home.

We have heard that my noble friend Lord Alderdice, himself a psychiatrist, has long taken an interest in this issue, even tabling a Private Member’s Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff—another doctor—the noble Lord, Lord Fairfax of Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, have made excellent cases for outlawing these charlatans. I thank them all for their robust and informed support.

Some time ago, I was approached by someone whose child in their 20s had their life ruined by an unregistered and untrained counsellor. Both the behaviour of and treatment by this charlatan were coercive and turned the child completely against their family. This is not something that many families talk about at length, but after hearing the dinner hour debate in the House some time ago, when my noble friend Lord Marks and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, both spoke, a significant number of people approached me and provided the evidence that convinced us that this is an issue that deserves attention from government.

What is done by these bogus counsellors is lawful but also amoral, unethical and without shame. I ask the Minister to support the proposed new clause. Without it, charlatans posing as professionals will be able to ruin yet more families and more young, vulnerable lives.

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

My Lords, Amendment 52 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill. This issue was debated in Committee and I was clear then that I supported the intention of the proposed new clause but was not convinced that this was the right Bill. There is always a problem with finding ways to address issues, whether through primary or secondary legislation, or finding a Bill that is in scope or the regulation or order that can be used to make the necessary changes.

On the issue itself, both in Committee and on Report, a powerful case was made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and my noble friend Lady Mallalieu. This is a serious matter where people can be victims of some very dubious, unscrupulous and frankly criminal practices.

As we have heard, a traumatised person seeking help from a counsellor, therapist or psychotherapist has absolutely no idea whether that person is properly trained and able to give them professional help—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, said, a charlatan preying on young people or vulnerable clients to debilitate and exert control. The risk is that the counsellor is untrained and unqualified and will do lasting damage to their client.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Jolly Excerpts

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

[Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames tabled this amendment and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, added his name, as did I.

I will not speak for long—just a few minutes—but I would like to give this amendment some context. Just over a year ago, my noble friend was approached by a concerned mother about the “treatment” of her adult daughter by a person who described themself as a psychotherapist. This treatment would not have been recognised by any professional body and did a disservice to the regulated profession of psychotherapy. Such an individual is able to walk into a stranger’s home after being contacted on the strength of an advertisement in a shop window, local newspaper, magazine or online. Counterfeit certificates, business cards and brass plaques are easily obtained to give undeserved credibility.

The phoney therapist broke no law, but the treatment was unrecognised by any regulating body and did great harm to the young woman. She was turned against her family by coercive behaviour and a catalogue of lies. She was turned inside out emotionally and her family were left distraught. I was somewhat taken aback to receive letters from other families whose adult children had been in receipt of similar coercive treatment, leaving them a shadow of their former selves.

This amendment sets out to right these wrongs and ensure that the therapist would not be able to practise in future. I thank my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, who spoke in that debate, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. The amendment sets out clearly what is an offence in this context, and how to determine that the perpetrator’s behaviour had a serious effect. It also sets out what would count as a defence for the person purporting to be the therapist, and, if found guilty, what the maximum terms of imprisonment would be.

Having listened to my noble friend Lord Paddick last week at the beginning of the debate, I think it worth mentioning that, although the original case concerned a young woman, there is no reason why it should not apply to a vulnerable young man. The amendment is gender neutral and goes a long way to right the wrongs in the case that brought me to this Bill in the first place. I am delighted to support it. I say to the Minister that the coercion was carried out in the victim’s home. It was abuse in a domestic setting and should have been a crime. This amendment will stop others being controlled or coerced by bogus therapists and, if they are sentenced, the punishment will fit the crime.

I wonder whether, before Report, the Minister would be willing to meet some of those who have spoken in this debate.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the opportunity to talk about the role of psychotherapists. As I will be discussing regulatory issues, I declare my membership of the GMC.

I have no doubt about the value of psychotherapists and the beneficial impact of their work for so many people. But there are potential risks, which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to eloquently when we last debated the amendment. Also, in a Lords debate on 2 March last year, he said:

“We have heard harrowing accounts of victims, often young, brainwashed by unscrupulous and controlling individuals. These charlatans play on their clients’ suffering, deluding them into a false belief in their treatment, often conjuring up in them fake memories about their early years and inducing unhealthy long-term dependence on the therapist and rejection of families and friends.”—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. 477.]


That was reinforced by the case the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, just referred to.

Patients and clients can be vulnerable, and an insensitive, critical or sexually exploitative therapist could increase the risk of the patient having a poor—and potentially damaging—outcome from their therapy. The big problem is that the terms “psychotherapist” and “counsellor” are not protected. Any one of us could call ourselves one of those titles and advertise our services to unsuspecting and sometimes vulnerable people. I have long had worries about this, going back to when I was a Health Minister, some 20 years ago.

In 2001, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, introduced a Private Member’s Bill to provide for the regulation of psychotherapists and make provisions to enable the registration of the profession. Since then, we have established workstreams to look into regulation, but, unfortunately, the profession found it difficult to reach a common cause, principally because there were so many different, and sometimes conflicting, schools of thought.

That, I am afraid, was the start of a long and unhappy journey. In 2007, the then Government published a White Paper which included plans to introduce statutory regulation for psychotherapists and counsellors. But, unfortunately, by 2010, this did not import into statute, even though, by then, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, had done a sterling job in pulling the different psychotherapy schools together and getting agreement on the way forward. We then had the coalition Government in 2010, which announced a new approach to regulation and a belief that centralised statutory regulation was not always the most effective or efficient way of ensuring high-quality care. That, essentially, is where it stayed.

The debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, last March, induced the following response from the Health Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell:

“The Government are committed to a proportionate system of safeguards for the professionals who work in the health and care system … Where practitioners pose a direct risk of harm to the health and well-being of patients, legal avenues will and must be explored … However, more rules are not always the answer to every problem. While statutory regulation is sometimes necessary where significant risks to users of services cannot be mitigated … it is not always the most proportionate or effective means of assuring the safe and effective care of service users.”—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. 480.]


He also referred to the more than 50,000 talking service professionals on the registers accredited by the Professional Standards Authority. That is welcome, but it is not statutory regulation, nor is it protection of title, which means any of us could, if we wanted to, continue to call ourselves a psychotherapist or counsellor.

The big problem here is that the Government are basing this on a risk assessment for which there is little evidence. There is a real lack of hard research in this area. I am grateful to the Library for unearthing a 2019 article, published in Frontiers in Psychology, which provided a potential explanation of why there may currently be a lack of quantitative research. It said:

“Although the broad topic of negative outcomes has been extensively discussed, empirical research on patient safety, directly examining the causes and prevention of harm, is not well established. Because harm … is relatively rare, and not amenable to experimental manipulation, such research is difficult.”


In 2017, the Brighton Therapy Partnership, a continued professional development and training organisation for counsellors and psychotherapists, said:

“There is very little research into the harm that properly executed therapy can cause. This is an unusual anomaly for a medical field, as in every other area research is abundant into both efficacy and failure of all treatment options.”


When the Government say, as I have no doubt the Minister will today, that it is not proportionate to regulate psychotherapists, there is an absence of evidence to base that on. In the meantime, in the absence of statutory regulation, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is essential. I hope he is prepared to support this all the way in the Bill. There is a dangerous gap, and some action needs to be taken.