Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has withdrawn so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo.

[Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, like the other speakers this afternoon, I welcome the Government’s amendments. However, I remain concerned about two matters, to which I will speak briefly; I will also ask the Minister to try to assure the House on them.

Many speakers have mentioned my first concern. Although having a statutory duty on local authorities to provide accommodation is welcome, if we do not deal with the question of community-based services, there is—as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said—a huge danger of money being transferred into the provision of the accommodation and away from such services. The Minister, who has done an excellent job on this Bill, has not explained clearly to the House why Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Lord cannot be accepted so as to protect these services in the interim while the commissioner undertakes her mapping exercise. If she is not prepared to accept that amendment, will she explain to the House what steps the Government will take to protect community-based services in the period when the mapping will be undertaken?

The second area that I want to refer to briefly is that of joint commissioning and the work being done in localities to provide these valuable services. The Minister touched on the lack of clarity over what this meant. I made inquiries of these services in Gloucestershire, a large county where localities have been undertaking community-based commissioning since 2013; this involves working across local authorities, health authorities, the police and crime commissioner and other services. The joint commissioning model has enabled them to offer far more women help than would be possible under an accommodation-based offer only. The service, they tell me, has taken referrals for 6,000 women in the past year, whereas an accommodation-based model would not have been able to deal with more than around 100 a year.

When we understand this perspective of the importance of community-based services and how they support victims and their families, it is incumbent on the Minister to explain why she is not prepared to take the route of Amendment 85. In Gloucestershire, the emphasis is on safely keeping victims in their homes, allowing them to maintain family and community networks and avoid isolation, and enabling their children to stay connected to their school friends. These are clear objectives that can be distilled in demonstrating what a community-based model looks like. The services also offer places of safety through a scheme in which they provide safe accommodation in the form of individual properties for victims and their families, who can access this accommodation alongside outreach support.

We are talking about specialist services that are there to support victims of domestic abuse aged 16 and over. They provide help desks, phone lines, specialist group work and independent domestic violence advisers to support victims in the courts. They provide independent advisers to support young people and encourage them to confront the perpetrators and the type of behaviour that is developing. They also work with the health services and GPs to identify domestic abuse and respond to it rapidly.

This model is not unique to Gloucestershire. The Government have enough to make provisions in Amendments 30 and 85 to move us forward. This does not mean that the services will be available tomorrow, but it does mean that we understand what types of services are necessary. Even at this late stage, with the excellent work that has been undertaken by many noble Lords in this area, I sincerely hope that the Government will think again, give a much clearer lead on the pathway to deliver jointly commissioned community-based services and make the provision of such services a statutory duty.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, in Committee, the need to consider help for victims in the wider community as well as in refuges was raised again and again. These amendments put other local authority services for domestic abuse victims and their children front and centre, giving them the recognition and attention they deserve. However, it must be said that concerns have been expressed across the House about funding because we cannot enforce the provisions in the Bill and in these amendments without it.

We already know that most help and services are accessed in the community; the noble Lord, Lord Russell, described it as a no-brainer. I am therefore absolutely delighted by the Government’s response. I want to give the Minister full credit for the way in which she has listened and acted.

I support government Amendment 99, which would, for the first year only, give six months’ leeway for the Government’s new clause duty to report on domestic abuse services in England. That seems entirely reasonable to me. Who knows what challenges and obstacles the first report will encounter?

This has been an extremely useful and succinct debate. When I looked at the number of speakers, I thought “Oh my goodness, we’re going to be here a while”, but we have not. I hope that noble Lords, both those in the Chamber and those listening from home, will appreciate that we have a lot to get on with; their succinct comments are very welcome.

I will take a leaf out of their book and conclude by saying that peace has broken out. This debate is an example of the Lords working at its best. I congratulate noble Lords, the Minister and all the charities and organisations that have worked together in the best way possible to ensure that we have got to this situation.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

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

[Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]]

My Lords, absolutely it is late in the day, and so many other noble Lords have made brilliant speeches to which I cannot add a great deal. I wholeheartedly support Amendment 162 and thank my noble friend Lady Morgan for setting out the case so well.

We have heard a lot about why we are waiting for the Law Commission. I do not think that we should wait, because threats to share intimate images make up such a small part of this review. Amendment 162 is a simple, narrow yet powerful amendment to extend an existing offence. I ask the Minister how many more victims will live without the legal protection they need while we wait years for the law to change—a change that we can make right now in this Bill. I hope that the Government consider and take on board this amendment.

[Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak only briefly on Amendment 162. I too thank those organisations that have provided a briefing for this debate, particularly Refuge, which has been excellent throughout. Like other noble Lords, I commend its report, The Naked Threat.

At the beginning of the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, eloquently outlined why we need to act now. It is impossible to imagine the horror that someone might feel when their phone pings with a message from their ex-partner with photos attached, perhaps ones that they did not even know had been taken, and a threatening message saying, “How bad would it be if these were sent to your work colleagues?” By threatening to share the photographs, your ex-partner is escalating a campaign of intimidation and coercive control to make you do what they want. You can try to deal with it, but he is going to continue with those threats. He had been volatile and controlling, which is why you left him, and now he is trying to get you to go back to him or he wants to prove that he can still control you.

Over time, those threats become darker and more unsettling. You become anxious, you feel unsafe, you are not sure whether he is coming to your home or your work, following you or contacting your friends. He is now frightening you and threatening your physical well-being. Finally, you go to the police, but they decline to help on the basis that he has not done anything wrong and has not committed an offence, so there is nothing they can do. You feel deeply depressed, isolated and fearful. You stay away from friends and virtually go into hiding, not knowing where to turn for help.

As noble Lords have said, young women are disproportionately affected by these threats. The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has compellingly set out the statistics. This issue is only going to grow, so any form of protection now needs to be brought in rapidly. The data is clear and illustrates why it is vital that an amendment is made to this Bill. No doubt, as other noble Lords have said, the Minister will cite the Law Commission review. However, as we know, those reviews can take years to come to a conclusion, as well as the Government deciding which recommendations they will accept. The Government then need to find parliamentary time. In replying to the debate, the Minister really does have to answer the question put by other noble Lords: if we are to wait for the outcome of the review and the Government’s decision on which recommendations they will apply, how long will that take? How long are the Government asking the survivors of this abuse to wait?

The Law Commission review covers a vast area of policy. Amendment 162 is not about pre-empting the full review. The changes it would make are small, straightforward amendments to an existing law that would not have a broader impact on the legal landscape. There really is nothing to stop the Government making this small change now, given that we have appropriate legislation before us.

This debate has clearly demonstrated that the threat to share intimate images is widespread. It is linked to domestic abuse and is having a devastating impact on the survivors of abuse. It is an issue that is going to increase and will continue to put power in the hands of the perpetrator, leaving survivors traumatised and isolated, perhaps forced to change their lives and move away from their homes, simply because the Government refuse to make this small change to the law. I hope that, in replying to the debate, the Minister will explain clearly, if the Government are unable to accept the amendment, how they propose to protect the survivors of this abuse.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. Why should those who row in to back a judicial review that they lose be automatically insulated from the costs of doing so? He knows that time after time the taxpayer picks up the bill. This measure is simply to ensure that those who row in behind a judicial review but do not make a valid contribution to the process cannot be immune from facing the costs if they lose.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I remind both Front-Bench speakers, one who has already spoken and the other who has been speaking for rather a long time, that the debate ends at 7 pm and other Back Benchers wish to participate? The Secretary of State has got his points on the record, and perhaps Mr Slaughter will conclude his remarks so that we can call the Back-Bench speakers.

[Mr Slaughter]

I give up with the Secretary of State. We are talking about interveners, who are there to assist the court and broaden the issue where it is helpful for matters of public policy. If he cannot see that after having discussed the Bill since February, I really do give up on him.

The Government proposals would prevent judicial review if they can persuade a court that it is highly likely that an unlawful act would have been lawful if done differently. That is a recipe for poor decision making. They will hobble the attempts of people to raise the considerable funds needed to bring a case and weaken their ability to have protection from the Government’s costs if they lose. Most bizarrely, they discourage the intervention of expert bodies, such as charities and civil society organisations, which often assist the court in making the right decision. Under pressure on this last point, or to give the usual fig leaf to the Liberal Democrats, a series of last-minute amendments have been tabled by the Lord Chancellor on interveners, but the opinion of experts who have looked at them is that, if anything, they make the Bill worse.

Labour MPs will therefore vote to uphold judicial review and the rights of the individual against the state. We will oppose the motion to disagree with each and every one of the Lords amendments in this group. We will vote against the Government’s amendments in lieu. We may, I hope, be joined by one or two libertarian Tories, although I am not holding my breath. It will be interesting to see how many Liberal Democrats, so keen to shout about their love of liberty before voting for legal aid cuts in secret courts, will join us in the Lobby.

Immigration Statistics

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Friday 28th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. These latest figures are not just disappointing, they are catastrophic. I do not doubt that when the Government and the Prime Minister pledged to reduce net immigration figures to the tens of thousands they hoped and intended that that would be the case. I also accept that nobody could have predicted that the UK would create more jobs in the year than the rest of the EU put together, acting as a massive pull factor when that pledge was made. However, is not the simple problem that the Government made a pledge that they were in no position to be able to guarantee while we are in the EU and while there is free movement of people within the EU?

Is it not time that the main political parties were honest with the British public and simply admitted to them what they already know—that is, that we cannot control immigration while we remain a member of the European Union. Why is it so difficult for the Government to say what is merely a statement of the bleeding obvious?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Obvious is not a word we use.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you, Mr Pound. I know I can always rely on you for sound advice.

Mr Davies, I think that you need to rephrase that sentence. Using the word bleeding on the Floor of the House is not acceptable.

[Philip Davies]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I meant the blinding obvious.

We know that the EU is not going to budge on the principle of the free movement of people and therefore we need to leave. Will the Minister explain why the part of the immigration figures that the Government can control—non-EU immigration—also went up in the past year and what the Government are doing to bear down on that?

Do the Government agree that these levels of immigration are completely unsustainable? Does the Minister accept that we cannot cope culturally with immigration at these levels? Does he agree that the NHS cannot cope with immigration levels of this magnitude? Does he accept that we cannot provide the school places fast enough and that we cannot build the houses needed for this level of immigration? We would have to build an entire Bradford district every two years to keep up and it is ridiculous to think that that is possible in any way. Does the Minister accept that?

The British public want immigration to be controlled, but more than that they want politicians to be honest and the honest truth is that we can control immigration only if we leave the EU. Does the Minister at least accept that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

Yet again, from a sedentary position a Labour Member talks about the banking crisis that started under his party.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Minister, I would be grateful if you avoided taking up the challenge of any sedentary comments that are made and simply answer the points being made to you by the person who has had the Floor. If the shouting at you from a sedentary position persists, I will deal with it. I do not think that it is helping.

[Mike Penning]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Prime Minister made a promise and a commitment in good faith, and I accepted that, like we all did. When we make a commitment, however, sometimes we do not know what is coming down the line. That promise was made, but we have never seen immigration from the EU at the levels at which it is at the moment, and we must do something about that. If one method does not work, people have to try another. If they are out there trying to negotiate and feel that they are not getting somewhere with one point, they try another. What the Prime Minister has announced today means that we will restrict benefits for people who come to this country for four years when they come here to work. We will prevent them from having social housing for four years. What really winds up my constituents is when people from the EU working here send child benefit and child tax credits back to another country. That will stop under the next Conservative Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has said repeatedly in the debate that net migration was higher under Labour, but is that correct, given that we know that net migration now is 16,000 higher than when the coalition Government came to power?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

That is not a point of order for me; it is a point of debate. I am sure that that debate will continue, although not now, because we are returning to the discussion on the private Member’s Bill.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

The right hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening. He was concentrating so hard on preparing his question that he completely ignored the question that I had asked. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Mr Khan, you have got your point on the record. Everyone is joining in the shouting across the Chamber, and it is very undignified. Minister, will you please continue your speech?

[Mr Vara]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am happy to continue, in a reasoned and measured way.

As I was saying, the courts will need to consider in every case whether someone was acting for the benefit of society or adopting a generally responsible approach to the safety of others in the course of a particular activity. However, as has already been pointed out, the Bill will not preclude them from considering any other relevant factors. It will not give medics, police officers, teachers or anyone else immunity from being found negligent if all the circumstances of the case warrant that. Nor will the Bill have any bearing on criminal liability. If a person’s conduct amounts to the commission of an offence such as gross negligence manslaughter, there may be criminal as well as civil repercussions.

I believe that the Bill will serve an important purpose in reassuring a wide range of people that the law will treat them fairly, and that they should not let worries over being sued deter them from making a valuable contribution to society. Again, I thank all Members who have contributed today. I simply say to Opposition Members that they should illustrate their observations by their actions. If they really mean what they said earlier, where are their Back Benchers, and why will they not be voting against the Bill?

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill: Programme

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 14 October.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration o of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—(John Penrose.)

Question agreed to.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has been very generous in giving way, but he has been speaking for some considerable time and there are at least six other Members who wish to speak before this debate terminates at 6 o’clock. May I gently suggest that he be less generous and make progress quickly?

[Dr Huppert]

I am starting the last page of my speech and I shall try to avoid taking more interventions.

If the Justice Secretary did as I suggest, we could look in the round at everything from simple possession through to murder with a knife. We could have coherent guidelines for these offences and more proportionate sentencing. I want to see that. It would also help us with an evidence-based approach. We could look at the facts and at what makes a difference, and make sure we take the right steps to get knives off our streets and out of the hands of children.

I entirely understand the arguments of the supporters of the new clauses. I understand what they are trying to achieve and I have sympathy with it. I do not fault their intentions at all, but we should look at the consequences, the downsides and the alternatives. We should remain tough on those who use knives to harm other people and we should be tough on the causes of knife crime. We should not do just what looks tough.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that this debate ends at 6 o’clock and we have to go back to the mover of the new clause, which means that we will entirely lose the last group of amendments. It is not possible in the time available for every Member to speak for 25 minutes. Therefore I ask Members to speak for 10 minutes or less and to be courteous to their colleagues in order to try to make time for them.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I will restrict my remarks to new clauses 6 and 7 moved by the hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who has left the Chamber. Much as I respect his work and his commitment to dealing with knife crime, I cannot agree with or support his amendments. I agree very much with the points just made by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on mandatory sentencing. There is a principle at stake here. There is a Sentencing Council and legislation on what is and is not a crime, but surely it must be for the courts to determine what is appropriate for the prisoner in front of them, rather than to have that laid down by statute. Surely that is the right way forward, and we should respect it.

I do not underestimate the issue of knife crime. Less than two weeks ago a young man was killed in my constituency by yet another knife crime. As I have done with the other families concerned, I went to see the family afterwards. The shock, the horror, the loss and the waste, and then seeing the flowers placed alongside the spot where the young man died, and young people congregating around it—that is a pretty significant message to an awful lot of young people that that person died because of a knife crime. It is an important message to them about the loss involved in it.

I have been to funerals where the families have turned up grieving, and hundreds of young people have turned up. We have held memorial events at which an incredibly strong message has been given to young people that carrying knives is not a protection; it is in fact an increased danger to themselves and they are more likely to be injured by the knife they are carrying than they are to be able to defend themselves with it, and it is simply not the right way forward. Surely that is a strong message to get across. The sense of shock that affects young people is considerable. I was astonished when visiting a primary school last week to be asked questions about knife crime, because the pupils had all seen the stories of the murder in the community.

We must ask ourselves a number of questions. Is a mandatory sentence for someone who is carrying a knife for the second time the right thing to introduce? Will it reduce reoffending? Will it make the person who is convicted of carrying a knife for the second time more or less likely to reoffend, or is it more likely to brutalise them—because that is what our prison and youth justice system does—making them more likely to reoffend than someone who has not been given a custodial sentence?

The hon. Member for Enfield North kindly allowed me to intervene and I drew attention to the evidence taken in the Justice Committee when we were examining issues of youth justice. We visited a number of young offenders institutions and took evidence from former inmates and victims of crime. We took evidence from large numbers of people, and the piece of evidence that most strongly sticks in my mind is being told in no uncertain terms by a repeat offender—though not for knife crime—that their toughest sentence was a community service order in which they had to attend a place, carry out a task and do something to try to turn their lives around, because somebody was on their case, in a way that never happens when someone is in prison, and happens only to some extent in young offenders institutions.

Mandatory sentencing looks tough, sounds tough and will please some of the less thoughtful media in our society, but its implications are not helpful. I draw attention to the advisory note given to us for this debate by the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, which has looked at the issue and knows a thing or two about it. Its estimate is that 200 more young people—children actually, in law— will be put in prison as a result of the new clauses that we are discussing today, should they be agreed to and should the House of Lords want to put them into law.

I also draw attention to another, perhaps more difficult question. Those who are found in possession of a knife and convicted of that have not necessarily committed a crime. They have been found carrying a knife with a blade more than 3 inches in length. Often they have been found by stop and search or by intelligence gathering by the police. The House should not misunderstand me: I do not approve of anyone carrying a knife, but when one then looks at who is stopped and searched, one rapidly finds a wholly disproportionate picture of modern Britain and modern youth. A disproportionate number of black youngsters will have been stopped and searched, therefore a disproportionate number will be in possession of knives, and there will then be a disproportionate number in the prison system and a disproportionate number will reoffend. Surely the courts should have discretion on this matter, and instead we should redouble our efforts to provide young people with the opportunities, inspiration and ambition that takes them beyond gang culture and the idea that possession of a knife will protect them and provide them with some degree of security in the future.

The Prison Reform Trust has also looked at the issue in some detail and the latest Ministry of Justice figures show the rates of child and adult convictions for knife possession. In the first quarter of 2014, 652 offences involving knife possession were committed by children aged 10 to 17, resulting in a caution or a sentence. The adult figure was 3,262. The number of knife possession offences committed by children under 18 in the last quarter reduced by 34%, and I pay tribute to all those who have ensured that it has reduced. The number of knife possession offences committed in the last quarter by adults over 18 fell by 23% over the same period. It is also evidential that custodial sentences have the worst outcome of the sentencing options available, with nearly 70% of children and 58% of young people aged 18 to 20 being reconvicted within a year of release. The Prison Reform Trust says:

“Mandatory prison sentences for knife possession could drive up the numbers of children and young people in custody following a welcome period of decline both in youth imprisonment and youth crime.”

The Standing Committee for Youth Justice and the Prison Reform Trust have highlighted the disproportionate effect on black youngsters that will result if the new clause goes through.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. This debate must end by 8.30 pm, and the Minister needs to respond to all the questions and proposals put to him. It should be possible to get every Member in, and of course the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will get a few minutes at the end of the debate if he wishes to respond. May I ask each Member to aim to speak for about eight minutes, which will leave time for the Minister? Obviously, it is not compulsory to speak for eight minutes—it is possible to speak for less time, but I would prefer no longer so as to ensure that everybody gets in.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) for his support today and on the panel, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for the support and guidance that he has given me throughout this process. This is very much an issue on which the House can come together, and it has been heartening to see that when it comes to the protection of children, people think on more a logical and protection-based basis than a political one.

New clauses 2 and 3 are the result of a cross-party inquiry into child sexual exploitation that I led with Barnardo’s. We discussed the new clauses in Committee, and I appreciate the careful consideration that the Minister gave them then as well as subsequently, and I hope that that translates into a commitment.

New clause 2 would amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 as recommended by the inquiry so that the police are better able to prevent young people from being groomed. At present, someone is considered to have committed a grooming offence under section 15 of the Act if they contact the child twice and arrange to meet them, or travel to meet them with the intention of committing a sexual offence. My new clause would mean that the perpetrator would have to make contact only once, although the other requirements of the offence would obviously still remain. During the legal and the police oral evidence sessions, advocates and the police reported that the current legislation is too weak, and that making the grooming offence easier to use would make it a good prevention tool. As one legal professional stated,

“there is a lot to prove”

when trying to get successful prosecutions using current legislation.

In many cases, there have been multiple instances of contact between the perpetrator and the victim, but proving that can be difficult for the police. There was unanimous support for this change in the inquiry’s oral evidence sessions, specifically from senior police officers. Indeed, it seems clear that if a child is travelling across the country to meet an adult, or vice versa, and that adult has demonstrated the intent to commit a sexual offence, it is completely unnecessary to require them to make contact with the child at least twice.

Two years after the UK Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Scottish Parliament considered recommendations and adopted legislation on sexual grooming. Prior to making a decision, the Scottish Parliament heard from a number of witnesses. Several respondents questioned the need for adults to have met, or communicated with, a child on at least two earlier occasions. The Association of Directors of Social Work considered that to be prohibitive, as a meeting can be set up with just one communication. The Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration recommended revising the requirement to one prior communication to more accurately reflect the reality of some children’s vulnerability and perpetrators’ skills in exploiting it. The Law Society’s written submission questioned why there was a necessity for the accused to have met or communicated with a child on at least two earlier occasions. It recommended that the reference to two earlier occasions should be deleted from the offence provision. In oral evidence, the Law Society witnesses confirmed their belief that there needed to be only one communication.

In oral evidence, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland suggested that more than one contact may often be made in the grooming of children for sexual abuse, but that

“If contact had been made on a single occasion and the circumstances and other information that was available to us suggested that the contact was illegitimate it would not be helpful if we were required to wait until another contact had been made or the person had travelled with the intention of meeting the child and for more evidence that the meeting was likely to lead to sexual abuse, before we could intervene.”

In his evidence, James Chalmers also questioned the requirement for two previous communications:

“One lengthy internet conversation could last hours or the best part of a day and could be much more significant than two short conversations. That is why I have my doubts about the limitation of requiring two previous meetings or communications. I am not sure that that provision serves any useful purpose.”

Dr Rachel O’Connell, director of research at the cyberspace research unit at the University of Central Lancashire, gave evidence to the Committee that, in her experience, grooming can take place over a period of many months, but that in at least one case in Wigan, a girl went to a meeting with a paedophile after only a few online conversations during one day. In its submission to the Committee, the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit of Scotland stated:

“There is no evidence to suggest that a paedophile will not carry out the grooming process during the first communication and arrange to meet up with a child. This is no doubt the case in many instances. The aim of the new legislation is the protection of children and this loophole may well be one that the paedophile would utilise to avoid prosecution.”

I understand that the requirement for prior communication on two occasions was probably initially put in place to demonstrate clearly the intent to commit a crime. From a police point of view, however, and especially that of the child, this is at best an unnecessary burden and at worse will lead to a child being abused before the police can act. The Scottish committee recognised this concern, but considered that it is the content and the context of communications that are key to proving the offence, rather than the number of communications. There is a clear possibility that a particularly skilled paedophile could, in one communication, arrange a meeting with a vulnerable child. Because of all this evidence, the offence of grooming a child in Scotland is just one communication. I urge the Minister to follow that lead and adopt the same policy.

On new clause 3, there is at present considerable disparity between the maximum ages at which children can be considered to have been abducted, depending on whether they are in the care system or not. This was outlined well by the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire. New clause 3 would amend the Child Abduction Act 1984 to make it consistent for all children. Currently, the Children Act 1989 makes it an offence to remove a looked-after child from care without authority if they are under the age of 18. The Child Abduction Act 1984, however, which applies to children not in the care system, applies only to children under the age of 16. I went over the details of this issue in the Bill Committee and I am mindful of Madam Deputy Speaker’s warning.

In Committee, the Minister raised the case of a parent who objected to their 16-year-old running off to Gretna Green to be married and used the abduction notice to stop them. I understand his argument, but I believe that police would approach this pragmatically and make the right decision. New clause 3 would be extremely helpful in a case brought to me by a constituent. Her 16-year-old daughter keeps going out to meet her much older boyfriend. The mother is extremely concerned that the daughter is being groomed, but the police do not have enough evidence to act. As the daughter lives at home, the police cannot use an abduction warning notice on the boyfriend, which could be an effective deterrent. As she said:

“What am I meant to do? I tried locking her in her bedroom but she just climbed out of the window. Am I meant to chain her to her bed?”

If the Minister accepts new clause 3, all children under 18 will receive the same protection. My constituent’s daughter would not have to be demonstrably groomed or abused before the police could act. I urge the Minister to consider my new clauses.

Police Federation Reform (Normington Report)

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

That is an extremely imaginative suggestion. I have my own ideas about what should happen with the money, but my hon. Friend’s idea should be taken into account.

In making these assertions, I have largely depended on whistleblowers—people who have bravely come forward, shocked at what they have seen—but police whistleblowers are particularly at risk and so are loth to enter the public domain, which makes it hard to check what they have said. As a result, I called on the federation to publish its expense accounts and live up to generally expected standards of transparency. I did this so that I could confirm or deny whether these claims were correct. As far as I am aware, the federation has not published these expense and credit card accounts, which leads me to believe that the whistleblowers are right.

It is up to the federation’s members to say whether they consider this profligacy acceptable, because mostly—but not entirely—it is their money, but they cannot make that judgment unless they know exactly what is being done in their name with their money. So that is another reason to have total transparency in these accounts. Yet another reason concerns my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who as Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims represents the Home Office on the Front Bench today. We put taxpayers’ money into the federation—it is there properly to perform a function we want performed—so it might be the case that taxpayers’ money is being wasted at these conferences.

The federation appears to have a problem with transparency. It is telling that it failed to answer even Sir David Normington’s requests concerning the so-called No. 2 accounts used by the various branches. This money comes from selling insurance and then keeping a rake-off or commission, but so far the federation has not been willing or able to provide the information that Normington asked for. I understand that this probably accounts for £35 million of assets just sitting around the country. Again, this is money that belongs to serving police officers, not the organisation.

Contrary to the federation’s claims earlier this week, the full details of the 11 grace and favour apartments are not published in its accounts. I will not spend much time on this, but, to save colleagues time looking it up, I recommend they read note 3 of the federation’s accounts. It is the only reference to the apartments, but it does not contain what I would recognise as details telling us that these are grace and favour apartments used for the benefit of federation officers, with or without the approval of its members. It is clear that the federation does not know what transparency means, but it can only restore trust in itself if it imposes transparency on all its operations as a matter of urgency.

The federation’s use of funds raises another matter. It has formidable financial muscle. I guess its total assets come to about £70 million, the majority coming from subscription fees, but some from the No. 2 accounts. The last set of audited accounts showed the federation with a surplus, over and above all its costs and profligacy, of £3.5 million per annum.

In addition, we see in the costs that about £10 million was spent on administration, including the profligacies that I talked about. Most astonishingly, £8 million every single year was spent on legal actions. Furthermore, there are provisions against the loss of certain active legal cases—in one case, for up to £1 million. Other such provisions are for £350,000 or £450,000.

Let us understand something. The right hon. Member for Tottenham is here and will well understand that sometimes there are good reasons for the federation to act vigorously on behalf of its members. Big legal and individual interests will be in play in the Duggan case, and in such cases it is entirely proper that provisions should be made. I do not in any way criticise that element of legal defence, although I have to say that it should come about through an insurance function rather than through the discretion of a Fed rep. Never mind.

Such legal action is justifiable, but on many occasions aggressive litigation should not be carried out against those bringing complaints against the police. Chris Mullin, the distinguished predecessor of the Home Affairs Committee Chairman, has previously said that although most unions will not act on behalf of a member who is clearly in the wrong, the federation has a long track record of defending the indefensible and will gleefully launch claims against the victims of crime.

There are two recent examples of the federation’s appetite for litigation. PC Kelly Jones sued a burglary victim after she tripped on a kerb outside his garage and PC Richard Seymour sued another burglary victim after falling over a drain on his property. In both instances, it was the Police Federation that assisted in progressing the claims, despite the pleading of senior officers that such claims were detrimental to the image of the police force. This is based on press reportage, so I cannot be sure of it, but the federation has been accused of pressuring PC Kelly Jones into making her claim when she had no desire to do so. I hear from other whistleblowers that it is not uncommon for federation members to be actively encouraged to make claims that Members might find inappropriate. A particular concern—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Backbench Business Committee recommends that the opening speech should last for 10 to 15 minutes. He has now been speaking for 20 minutes. Ten Members wish to participate, and there is another debate this afternoon. We are all hanging on the right hon. Gentleman’s every word, but he should bear it in mind that other people are involved. I would be grateful if he concluded soon.

[Mr Davis]

Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been generous with interventions—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that that does not count; the 10 to 15 minutes are not qualified in any way. The right hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving way, but other Members will want a reasonable time to participate.

[Mr Davis]

I will be as brisk as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I come to the most serious point of the debate: the bringing of defamation cases against people who disagree with the police’s version of events. There is no downside for a police officer when they pursue a libel action backed by the enormous resources of the Fed. That raises two distinct and concerning issues. First, action against the press, who must hold the police to account, is utterly against the interests of a fair and free society except in very clear-cut circumstances. Secondly, there is the action taken against members of the public, whom the police are charged with protecting, who disagree with the police’s version of events. That insulates the police from criticism and from being held to account for what they do. Such actions should not take place. If the federation is using its financial might to crush legitimate claims against officers or—worse—to pursue those who have already been subject to a police stitch-up, to take an extreme example, that huge injustice would compound existing injustices.

My next point is about the Normington report on politically motivated campaigns. It said:

“Throughout our inquiry we have heard allegations that some Federation representatives who have personally targeted successive Home Secretaries, Andrew Mitchell, Tom Winsor and others, bringing the Federation into disrepute and risking the police reputation for impartiality and integrity…If the Federation wants to be respected and listened to in the future, this has to stop.”

Such actions are completely unacceptable and contrary to the purpose of the Police Federation.

Finally, I turn to what should be done. As we consider whether progress and reform should be left to the federation, we should bear two simple points in mind. Are the interests of its officers, who have something to lose—a cushy job and good pay—or are the interests of the members being pursued? It is vital that the members themselves should be properly represented.

Last week, Fiona McElroy, a former principal private secretary brought in to help the federation achieve the reforms, was fired; her deputy also left the federation in outrage at her treatment. I ask the Minister to give the federation two ultimatums. First, it should immediately sign up to recommendation 1 and accept the revised core purpose to act in the public interest, with public accountability alongside accountability to their own members. Secondly, it should accept all the other Normington recommendations before its triennial elections this year, when it will lock in place a whole set of officers for another three years. If it does not do that, the Government will, I think, be properly authorised to intervene. In my view, if they do intervene, they should implement Normington-plus—put in place all the Normington proposals and in addition act to deal with the profligacy and misuse of public and members’ money.

Such a move, I am afraid, would mean selling the Leatherhead headquarters, centralising the money and giving back to members the funds that the federation has inappropriately used in the past several years. That would be about £500 a member and would still leave a viable federation. That is how we can make the Police Federation serve its members and, equally importantly, serve the public of the nation that its members are there to uphold.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Eleven Members now wish to speak. I suggest that each takes no longer than 10 minutes, including interventions. I will not put that limit on the clock, but if it looks as if some Members who have sat here patiently will not get to speak because we are running out of time, I will impose a formal time limit. Hopefully, however, 10 minutes with interventions will be enough for the main points to be covered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless]

Will my hon. Friend explain what specific role he sees the Police Federation playing in assisting that process?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) answers that, may I say to him that this debate is about the Normington report on reform of the Police Federation and that the debate on the police was yesterday? He needs to focus on the Normington report and not every so often in a sentence say, “Police Federation,” to make himself in order.

[Mr Ellwood]

I accept your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am also conscious of the time and that the Front Benchers want to conclude this debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) makes an important point. The changes I have discussed can come about only if the federation itself embraces them. As we have heard again and again today, it has been an obstruction against, and a hurdle for, those changes. My hon. Friend is right to ask the question, but it needs to be put to the federation itself so that it can address what it needs to do to recognise the changes needed.

In conclusion, the Police Federation has an important role to play—from bottom up, not just top down. If changes are to take place and if we are to see greater collaboration between constabularies, that needs to be embraced and promoted by the federation itself. Even with the advances in communications and technology, traditional practices across the police force, as well as those between all three emergency services, have resulted in a silo mentality and a convoluted web of interoperability that successive Governments have been deterred from overhauling. The longer we wait, the more complicated it becomes to improve inter-service procurement, training, operations and ministerial oversight. I believe that the Police Federation will rise to the challenge of reform, and I hope that it will consider some of the ideas and solutions proposed in this debate.

Police

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Percy]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The motion relates to England and Wales and the hon. Gentleman has spoken for a considerable time solely about policing in Northern Ireland. He has just told us that he wishes to go on speaking about Northern Ireland, but the motion in the name of the Secretary of State states:

“That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales)…which was laid before this House…be approved.”

There is no mention of Northern Ireland.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. I am sure the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) was going to come back in order for the debate on the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) who, up until his outburst on me, I considered an hon. Friend—I agree with many of his political positions. He said he would go on to speak about policing in Northern Ireland, and I believe I was perfectly entitled to question whether or not that was in order, particularly because I have been sitting in the Chamber from the beginning of the debate waiting to speak, and because the debate relates to the police grant in England and Wales. That is not to decry our fantastic Union—it is always a pleasure and delight to hear about Northern Ireland—but I am sorry he interpreted my attempts to bring him back to order in such a manner. I am sure we will still be friends.

I shall speak to the report as it relates to England and Wales, and my police force in Humberside, which serves the East Riding of Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire. I speak on the police grant debate most years. I have always abstained on the budget because of my concern, as previous Ministers have heard, about the scale of the reductions. I fully understand and support the need for reductions, but I am concerned about their scale, particularly as they come at the same time as a change in officers’ terms and conditions, which has had an impact on morale. I shall say more about that later.

I tend to say something about the Labour position every year in such debates. In 2007, police numbers were falling in my area—they fell by 137. [Interruption.] It would be nice if I could hear myself. There seems to be some noise coming from the Government Back Benches.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I will chair the proceedings. If every speaker were heard in utter silence, I would be so pleased, but that rarely happens. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friends can take note that he is struggling to make himself heard above the noise.

[Andrew Percy]

I am happy to be ignored in perfect silence or to be heckled, but when the noise is so close, it is a little difficult to hear oneself think. One expects an element of quiet—perhaps it comes with being a schoolteacher. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), my neighbour, will concur with the requirement for people to listen in silence.

On the Labour position on policing cuts, 137 officers were cut in 2007 in my area. There was no opposition from Labour representatives at the time. In fact, they supported the reductions and the civilianisation of roles, so I am a little amused when local Labour politicians engage in campaigns against police cuts and reductions in police numbers. They did not have such an issue with them in 2007. I respect the shadow Minister greatly, but I was unclear on the Labour position on funding for our police. He did not rule out cuts—he clearly could not do so given the statements made by the shadow Chancellor—but he did not tell us what the scale of those cuts would be. It is a little unfair for him to be critical of the Government without putting a proper alternative forward.

Dangerous Driving

Baroness Primarolo Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Slaughter]

I will come back to the issue of sentencing—the offence that the hon. Gentleman mentions carries a much lower maximum sentence than the ones that I have mentioned—but first I wish to explain my point about charging policy, which still leaves something to be desired. It is not a straightforward matter. First, there is the question of the degree to which the driving has fallen below the standard of competent driving, as the hon. Member for Leeds North West mentioned. That judgment needs to be made by the CPS.

In addition, having decided what level of offence to charge, there is the issue of seriousness regarding the quality of driving, and that of aggravating or mitigating factors, particularly if they pertain to the individual accused. Such matters are not straightforward, and again, on occasion, prosecutors err on the side of caution when deciding what to charge and what are their prospects of success. In the most serious driving cases it is open to the CPS to charge someone with manslaughter, but that happens very rarely.

Hon. Members from across the House have reviewed the nature of offences—again, in response to pressure from parliamentarians and the general public over time—and a number of changes were made by the previous Labour Government. In particular, under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving was increased from 10 to 14 years, as it was for causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs. The Road Safety Act 2006 introduced new offences of causing death by careless driving or by driving illegally. Those offences attract lower sentences—five years, I think, in the first case, and two years in the second—but they are new offences that came into effect in 2008.

Although it concerns a more recent offence, perhaps for completeness I should mention the offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, which again attracts a maximum five-year sentence. That was introduced through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, and both the Minister and I had the pleasure of serving on the Bill Committee. That offence was contained in one of the few clauses of the Bill that attracted unanimous support in Committee, and it arose out of a private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). That is significant not because he is also a doughty campaigner on these issues, but because many individual advancements in legislation have come about through private Member’s Bills or the actions of individual Members on behalf of their constituents, and indeed through debates such as this.

There have been substantial changes and increases in maximum sentences. That allows for new sentencing guidelines, and for longer—and indeed more careful—sentences to be given, since all the factors I have described must be taken into account by the sentencer. New offences were created where lacunae in the law were identified, which is right. The changes in law under the previous Labour Government led to the substantial revision of sentencing guidelines in 2008. I will not go through those in detail, but they substantially increased some of the guideline sentences and gave clear instructions to the courts about how aggravating or mitigating factors should be dealt with.

Although the sentence of just a few years for taking a life will always seem inadequate to the family of the victim, I suspect that what often causes most concern to families are the sentences handed out for some of the “lesser” offences such as causing death by careless driving or while driving illegally. Those sentences can be measured in months, or perhaps just one or two years, and that will never seem an adequate punishment for the taking of a life.

As I have said, steps were taken a decade ago, and more recently, and the ball is now firmly in the court of this Government. Sentencing guidelines are being looked at again, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I know that—as always—he will give a careful and thoughtful response about when and where he believes the sentencing guidelines are going, and say what is in the Government’s mind regarding improvements in the law.

Before I conclude, I wish to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East. Although we have focused narrowly—quite properly, as this is the subject of the debate—on the issue of dangerous driving and on lenient sentencing in particular, one cannot look at death on the road in isolation because it must be considered in the round. One must also look at prevention.

Safety on the UK’s roads has improved immeasurably over the past 40 years, and we have gone from having almost 8,000 deaths a year in the 1970s to around 1,700 a year—a phenomenal improvement. That is against a background around the world of 1.3 million deaths due to road traffic accidents—I saw those statistics today in The Economist—the vast majority in developing countries. There are now more deaths from road traffic accidents around the world than from tuberculosis or malaria. While we can congratulate ourselves a little on the improvements in this country, there is still more to do.

Numbers of driving offences and the use of the motor car as a weapon of destruction are increasing elsewhere, and there are particular problems in this country that we have not fully addressed. One is the issue of young drivers, who account for only 5%—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman coming towards the end of his remarks, because he has been speaking for quite a long time? Normally there are 10 minutes, maximum 15, for the shadow Minister in a Backbench Business Committee debate, but he has gone over that. Perhaps he will conclude briefly.

[Mr Slaughter]

I was given 15 minutes, I think, by the Backbench Business Committee, but having taken 18, another minute is the most I will stretch to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should not chance his luck. He is over his time and we need to hear the Minister as well. I would be grateful if he could conclude his remarks.

[Mr Slaughter]

I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Yes, we have a better record and a long way to go, particularly on young drivers—I mentioned the graduated driving licence. We could do a lot more on road safety, particularly for cyclists. The Minister will have seen the horrific figure of six cyclist deaths on the roads in London in a two-week period just before Christmas.

I hope that, in responding, the Minister addresses the matter in the round—clearly, he will deal with it primarily from a Ministry of Justice perspective. I hope that he can give us some comfort on the central point that all hon. Members have raised: how can we deter and punish those who take lives on our roads, and how can we in some way mitigate the consequences for the sad and tragic victims and their families about whom we have heard in the debate?