Judicial Review and Courts Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Relevant document: Tenth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Judicial Review and Courts Bill, HC 884.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendment 11. If it is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. Before I call the Minister, I ask hon. Members to indicate whether they want to contribute to the debate, because not many have put in.

Clause 1

Quashing orders

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 3, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 5, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendment (a) to the words so restored to the Bill.

Lords amendment 11, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 4, 6 to 10 and 12 to 22.

[James Cartlidge]

I begin by discussing some of the key changes made to the Bill in the other place as a result of amendments brought forward by the Government and I will then turn to the other Lords amendments. Since we last debated the Bill, further measures have been added by the Government with unanimous support from the other place.

First, Lords amendment 7 seeks to give greater flexibility to the online procedure rule committee when it comes to establishing standards relating to dispute resolution conducted online before court proceedings are initiated. It will enable parties who tried to resolve their dispute online prior to commencing legal proceedings, but who do not resolve some or all of their dispute, to then transfer into the legal process seamlessly.

Secondly, Lords amendment 10 will allow coroners to provide registrars with additional information to help to ensure that deaths do not go unregistered. It will address an anomaly whereby, in a small number of cases, families do not register a death when coroners authorise the disposal of a body before any formal death registration has been completed.

Finally, Lords amendment 12 will allow pro bono cost orders to be made in tribunals in much the same way as they are already available in the civil and family courts. It captures the majority of tribunals in which cost orders might be made, but it also creates a power for the Lord Chancellor to bring additional tribunals within the scope of the power through secondary legislation. I urge hon. Members to support those amendments.

A series of minor and technical amendments were also made to the Bill by the Government. I do not intend to go through them in detail, but if any hon. Member has a question about them, I will endeavour to address it in my response to the debate. [Interruption.] I shall expect a flood!

I now turn to the amendments that the Government did not bring forward in the other place. Lords amendment 4 removed the presumption, which provided that a court would have to use the new quashing order powers if they offered adequate redress and there was no good reason not to do so. Lords amendments 1 to 3 remove prospective quashing orders from the Bill.

The courts have several duties with regards to judicial review. They have a duty to individuals who may have been adversely affected by a decision or action, a duty to Parliament to review whether a decision was taken in accordance with the process and procedures set down by the law, and a duty to respect their own limitations and not review the merit of a policy decision or artificially constrain a decision maker’s discretion. They also have wider duties to justice, fairness and the public interest. On many occasions, these duties align and the best outcome for a case is clear, but on other occasions these duties can conflict with the result that the nuance of the circumstances can be lost in the bluntness of the remedy.

The new powers brought forward in this Bill, as introduced, would allow the courts to respond flexibly. As such, I was disappointed that the other place voted, albeit narrowly, to remove the power for quashing orders to be made with limited or no retrospective effect, and I do not need to speak hypothetically. In Canada, another common law country, prospective remedies have been used for some decades to good effect. They have been used, for example, to help vulnerable people maintain important workplace protections that would have ceased to exist had a quashing order applied retrospectively.

Turning to the presumption, I can be brief. The Government do not accept the argument that the presumption fetters discretion or is in some way dangerous. Its purpose is to precipitate the rapid accumulation of jurisprudence on the use of these new powers. In furthering that purpose, however, we have heard persuasive arguments that it is in fact unnecessary. I am reassured, particularly by the learned former members of the judiciary who contributed to the debates in the other place, that judges will use these powers and consider their use regularly without the need for the presumption. Consistency and predictability for their use are further fostered by the list of factors in clause 1(8). I can therefore confirm that the Government will not be bringing back the presumption.

Lords amendment 5 replaced the ouster clause used to remove so-called Cart judicial reviews with a measure that would only prevent such challenges reaching the Court of Appeal, preserving the route of challenge from the upper tribunal to the High Court. I am very grateful to the other place for bringing forward this suggestion, and while I appreciate the sentiment behind such a compromise position, the Government cannot accept this as a meaningful solution to the problems we have set out. While it would tackle some of the resource question, it does nothing to reduce the burden on the High Court or upper tribunal—approximately 180 judge sitting days per year—which is where the burden mainly falls. It also does not tackle the current anomaly of a further challenge to a permission to appeal decision after that application has been rejected by both a lower and a senior court—what has come to be called in this debate, “three bites at the cherry”. The Government propose to bring back the original ouster clause, along with a technical amendment on the Northern Ireland carve-out, to ensure its terminology is consistent with other provisions.

Finally, Lords amendment 11 seeks to provide legal aid for representation for bereaved people at all inquests where public bodies—for example, the police or an NHS trust—are legally represented. While the Government are sympathetic to the intentions of those in the other place, I am afraid I do have concerns about this amendment. As drafted, this amendment would make access to legal aid in these circumstances automatic, removing the means and merits tests, and leading to significant and open-ended costs to the taxpayer. This would go against the principle of targeting legal aid at those who need it most by allowing funding for those who could comfortably afford the cost themselves.

I am very grateful to the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) for meeting me several times to discuss this issue, including with colleagues in the other place. I have assured them that the Government are continuing to make changes to help ensure that bereaved families are truly placed at the heart of the inquest process. Aside from our recent removal of the means test for successful applications for representation through the exceptional case funding scheme, we are also proposing to remove the means test for legal help in relation to any inquests where there is a potential human rights breach or significant wider public interest as part of the means test review that is currently out for consultation. These changes will genuinely help them navigate the inquest process, where appropriate, and I urge hon. Members to await the outcome of this consultation before pursuing further legislation on this issue.

I am grateful to the Members of this House for all their scrutiny of the Bill so far, and I hope today we can accept the changes proposed by the Government on the amendment paper. Even if there remain some small disagreements between us, I am sure all hon. Members here today would like to see this Bill reach Royal Assent, particularly as it contains a number of important court recovery measures. I therefore urge hon. Members to accept the compromises the Government have made, and allow the Bill to finish its passage through both Houses as quickly as possible.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Anne McLaughlin.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I will speak briefly about the parts that apply to Scotland, which are significant and potentially extremely damaging to people’s rights to access justice. Because Scotland is currently compelled to do as we are told as part of this Union—we do not have the normal powers of a normal independent country—even our own democratically elected Government can do nothing about that damage. If that is not an argument for voting yes in the 2023 independence referendum, I do not know what is.

It is also interesting that, on this Bill, as with the Nationality and Borders Bill and the policing Bill, it has been left to the House of Lords—the unelected House—to represent the views of the people and attempt to get rid of the most egregious parts of each horrible piece of legislation. As a big fan of democracy, that does not make me any more inclined to support an unelected Chamber, but I want to pay tribute to those Members who have worked so hard, often into the early hours of the morning, on all of the amendments to try to make an awful Bill a tiny bit more palatable.

Lords amendment 1 removes the power to include provision and quashing orders, removing or limiting their retrospective effect. Those on the Opposition Benches, and in particular those of us who were on the Bill Committee, tried hard to get the Government to understand that if quashing orders are not to be applied retrospectively, there will be a very chilling effect. Many of us talked about the landmark case of Employment Tribunal fees that Unison brought to the Supreme Court in 2017, where the Court found that Parliament was wrong to limit people’s access to justice by charging them to use the Employment Tribunal. It found in favour of the claimants, and the quashing order had immediate effect, so the fees were abolished immediately and the Government were required to refund anyone who had paid them in the past. Given that people were being charged up to £1,200, that was a great outcome that will have made a big difference to many.

However, if the Government get their way and Lords amendment 1 is not agreed to, should something similar happen in the future, anyone who had paid such fees would be unable to claim their money back. Who would put themselves through all that for no tangible outcome? There will be zero incentive to challenge the Government or other public bodies, so those public bodies and the Government will be able to proceed safe in the knowledge that they can do whatever they like. The Scottish National party therefore absolutely supports the very sensible Lords amendments 1, 2 and 3.

At last, the Government have seen sense and agreed to Lords amendment 4. There was something sinister about the Minister wanting the power to tell the judiciary how to do their jobs. Judges have a suite of remedies at their disposal, and they should decide which are the most appropriate, so I am relieved that they finally agreed to that amendment.

Rape and Sexual Violence

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ellie Reeves]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to mention the joint inspectorates’ report and what it said about this issue. The inspectorates looked at 54 rape cases, 32 of which were adjourned more than once; one was adjourned 21 times, often at 24 hours’ notice. In their report, the inspectorates recommended that the Ministry of Justice immediately group adult rape cases into specialist rape offence courts, which called on the Government to look at implementing a year ago. It is not difficult to imagine how those courts could be set up using the existing court capacity, with a few courtrooms in every Crown court centre allocated to dealing with rape cases and existing ticketed judges hearing the claims. Best practice around separate entrances and exits for accuser and accused could be enforced, and safe space rooms could be available. Today, we ask the Government to begin an immediate review into setting up specialist rape offence courts to help clear the significant Crown court backlog, so that rape victims are not waiting nearly three years for their cases to get to court. I hope the Minister will back this call.

Allowing victims to give their evidence and be cross-examined pre-recorded, known as section 28, also has an important role to play in speeding up cases. It has applied to child and vulnerable witnesses for some time, and the equipment to hear evidence in this way is available in every Crown court in the country. Labour has long called for section 28 to be rolled out to victims of rape and serious sexual violence. It would mean victims could give their evidence as soon as possible, improving the accuracy of their testimony, relieving some of the stress and anxiety while waiting for trial and allowing them to pursue pre-trial counselling, yet in the Government’s end-to-end rape review, all they offered was an extension of the existing section 28 pilot from three Crown courts to a further four. The Government finally said in December last year that they were committed to rolling out section 28 for intimidated witnesses, yet we are still waiting for that to happen. Even in the pilot areas, the inspectorate’s report found that section 28 is not being used consistently by the police or the Crown Prosecution Service.

We are three years on from the Government announcing their end-to-end rape review, yet section 28 is being used for rape victims in only a handful of Crown courts, and even then the necessary training and awareness are not fully in place. Warm words and promises are all very well, but without the political will to make things happen, the pace of change will be far too slow for thousands of victims.

One of the things that survivors tell us time and time again is that they feel the criminal justice system is working against them. With no right to their own legal support, they can find themselves trying to navigate a complex and opaque system on their own. One victim said of their journey through the criminal justice system:

“I felt unsupported by the prosecution lawyer. I did not know his name or how he was going to advocate for me. I had only met him 10 minutes before going into court. The whole experience is traumatising. I completely understand why people do not report rape to the police.”

Other victims have told me that the demands to disclose all the data on their mobile phones going back years made them feel like they were the ones on trial, and that they were unsure of their rights when it came to the digital strip search. That is why under Labour, rape victims would have a legal advocate from the moment they reported their case to the police station, right through to trial. That advocate would be there for them every step of the way, driving up standards in the criminal justice system and reducing attrition rates, but the idea is nothing new. A pilot of that scheme was trialled in Northumbria in 2020, and it found that legal advocates substantially improved best practice in the police and CPS and led to an overall improved victim experience. It would cost just £3.9 million annually to replicate this scheme across England and Wales. If the Government were truly serious about this issue, they would roll it out in a heartbeat.

As well as fixing these problems with the criminal justice system, we need to see sentences that deter potential offenders and send a strong signal that violence against women and girls will never be tolerated, but the public are losing confidence in the Government on this, with polling showing that seven in 10 women consider action to stop sexual harassment, rape and domestic abuse to be inadequate. That is why we are announcing that a Labour Government would toughen sentences for spiking and introduce minimum sentences for rape and stalking.

There is currently no statutory minimum sentence for rape, only a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. While the starting tariff in the sentencing guidelines is five years, that can be reduced. In 2021 alone, seven rape convictions were referred to the Attorney General’s Office through the unduly lenient sentences scheme. They had initial sentences ranging from two to five years. Despite that, none of the cases was referred to the Court of Appeal. Truly appalling crimes are receiving lenient sentences, yet the Government are not doing anything to tackle it. Labour would introduce a new statutory minimum sentence of seven years, which better reflects the seriousness of the crime and the lives it destroys.

Sentences for stalking and harassment do not reflect the fear and distress they create for the victims of these crimes, who are very often women and girls. Despite a record number of convictions for stalking in 2019, more than half of those convicted got community or suspended sentences. Labour would create a new minimum custodial sentence of five months for stalking involving fear of violence or serious alarm or distress. A court would have to impose at least the statutory minimum, unless there were exceptional circumstances.

Despite a surge in reports of spiking to the police in recent years, there have been no more than 66 prosecutions in any year since 2010, and only 512 in total between 2010 and 2020. Conviction rates have also plummeted, with just 0.56 convictions per prosecution over that time period. Under pressure from Labour, the Government have agreed to a review into spiking, which we welcome, to find out how widespread it is and who is being targeted, but the review does not explicitly cover sentencing, and it must. We need tougher spiking laws to deter people from committing this awful crime, and a Labour Government would seek to introduce tougher sentences by referring the issue to the Sentencing Council for new guidance. I hope the Government will agree to do that.

Under the Conservatives, rape prosecutions are at a record low, so perpetrators are left on the streets and can reoffend, which leaves women and girls less safe. The Conservatives call themselves the party of law and order, but how can they say that when they have effectively allowed rape to be decriminalised on their watch? Until we have a Government who are ready and willing to commit to the actions needed to drive up rape prosecutions, victims will continue to be failed by the system. The Opposition have a plan to put things right. Is it not about time that the Government backed it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

As colleagues will appreciate, time is pretty short, so it is likely that I will introduce a time limit of five minutes once the Minister has sat down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We will start with a six-minute time limit, although that may well have to go down. I call Jess Phillips.

Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

We will be, but this is such a fundamental review of policing and CPS practice. The area where we have piloted it already—Avon and Somerset—is beginning to roll out lessons to other police forces, but we need to be clear as to what is working and what is not working. None of us wants unintended consequences in any of this work. It will be rolled out nationally, but we are just making sure that the academics uncover everything. We have a team of academics who go into a police force area, dive into the files and look at everything. From that, they come up not just with data but, importantly, with recommendations on what went wrong and what worked. This is an incredibly intensive programme, and it will take a bit of time before we roll it out nationally, but we are already on schedule with rolling it out to the five pilot areas and the next tranche of forces. That is what we are determined to do.

I hope that the right hon. Lady also supports the fact that as part of our efforts to improve rape convictions, referrals and investigations, we have listened again to victims. One of the areas that they are understandably most concerned about is the idea that their mobile phones will be taken away from them without good cause. The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) has raised this with me on a number of occasions. We hear that and we get it, and that is why in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill we have included new criteria that the police must abide by in the decision-making process as to whether they should take a victim’s phone. What is more, we have piloted a phone swap-out scheme if a phone has to be taken for more than 24 hours. We are seeing whether having a swap-out will help to inform a national scheme. In addition, we are rolling out digital technology across forces so that it is much quicker for them to deal with these phones—[Interruption.] I very much hear your discreet coughing, Madam Deputy Speaker—in a non-covid way—but if I may, I will just deal with the national roll-out of section 28.

Those in the Chamber will know what section 28 is. It involves the ability of victims of sexual violence and modern slavery to give pre-recorded evidence, so that, rather than waiting a long time for a trial to come to court, they give evidence as quickly as possible after the event and it is then used at the trial. This is exciting work, and we have committed to rolling this out nationally as quickly as we can. There will be more news on this in the coming months. There is much more I can say, but I am going to take your hint, Madam Deputy Speaker.

There are many areas of agreement on this. It is absolutely right of Her Majesty’s Opposition to hold us to account and scrutinise what we are doing, but there is genuinely an enormous amount of good will in Government and across the House to tackle these invidious crimes. Please, the message must go out from the Chamber that enough is enough. We—half the population—will not put up with this behaviour any more, and by working together we really can make this the decade of change.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Minister. We have 15 speakers for this debate, so I urge colleagues to be considerate of one another. I think it boils down to about seven minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Farris]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, which pre-empts what I was coming onto—the three issues that are serious and that we have not really tackled. The first is the prevalence of online porn. On checking the figures today, I found that more than half of children up to the age of 13 have viewed porn, and that rises to two thirds by the time they get to 15. Most of them say that they have seen some violent content when they were not looking for it. The numbers of children under the age of 16 who have viewed rape porn is unbelievable. I think that, when I am an old lady, we will look back at this moment in our history and think that it is absolutely unforgiveable that this form of child abuse—that is what it really is—is still operating, and it really affects the attitudes that boys have towards women. In my day, it was lad mags and lap dancers; now it is something far more pernicious.

The second point is the police culture. We have heard recently that Wayne Couzens had WhatsApp groups and those police officers have been named. We have PCs Denis Jaffer and Jamie Lewis who pleaded guilty to the grotesque crimes that they performed on the bodies of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman. Then there is the Charing Cross branch of the Met, a member of which described a domestic abuse victim as “mad and deserving a slap”, and then talked about whether they would rape or chloroform somebody. There is a serious issue that goes beyond one bad apple, and I look forward to the outcomes of those inquiries.

Finally, I do not even know whether the two sides of the House disagree on this, but there is clearly more to do on perpetrators. I think that we have all come to understand that there are gateway crimes—stalking is a prime example—and there needs to be now, which the Government are getting to, a perpetrator strategy that records escalating violence.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I need to remind Members that the case relating to Sabina Nessa is still sub judice, and will remain so until sentencing or the conclusion of any appeal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

Since I entered this place, I have given much political headspace to the issue of male violence against women and girls, and I wish that was not the case. However, there is a duty on every one of us to speak out about this issue, which is endemic in our society. It is not getting better; the difference is that it now occupies more column inches and headlines than it did. We need to ensure that that remains so until the problem gets better, but even now, in this instance, I fear we are some way off from making any real progress.

We should be talking about closing the gender pay gap, delivering for working-class women in low-paid sectors such as social care, bettering access to affordable childcare for young mothers and encouraging young girls and women to enter the arena of science and technology but alas, no—yet again, we are in this place debating and talking about just keeping women and girls safe from male violence. We are yet again discussing our inability as a society to protect 50% of our population from harassment and sexual assault, from rape and from murder. That is how imbalanced the scales are, and frankly it makes me angry that we as lawmakers do not seem to grasp the size of the task at hand.

With that in mind, I would like to make a comparison to another incredibly important subject to provide some context. Since 1970, we have lost around 3,400 people to terrorist-related incidents, while more than 6,000 women in that time have been killed at the hands of men. For starters, how about we start treating femicide as seriously as terrorism? This Government are far too relaxed about the femicide taking place right under their nose.

In my own city of Liverpool, were it not for covid, we were due to hold a vigil back in November for women murdered by men, not least the number that occurred across Merseyside in the preceding weeks and months, which would be enough to send a shiver down anyone’s spine. Next week, I hope to take part in a debate called by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on sexism in the Metropolitan police, which supposedly is an organisation meant to keep us safe.

Despite all that, we have continuously been subject to the endless nonsense from Government Ministers, such as the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who repeatedly celebrates all crime as coming down. When he does so, he demonstrates a complete ignorance and insensitivity to the fact that women have no confidence in the system and often do not report the crimes they have been victims of, and an ignorance of the damage that austerity has caused to refuge services, support services, the justice system and much more. I have no faith in a system that spends more on perpetrators than it does on victims, and I will outline some figures in relation to that.

A Merseyside charity that runs a programme aiming to challenge the behaviour of men who have been identified as potential perpetrators was provided with £217,000 of funding from the Ministry of Justice to be spent over a six-month period. The programme stated that, “All males have access to wrap around support including a Mindfulness programme. This has previously been shown to significantly increase engagement, improve sleep, and improve positive mental wellbeing”. That is £217,000 to support 40 perpetrators, which equates to £5,425 per head.

In comparison, Liverpool Domestic Abuse Service in my constituency is given £120,267 per annum by the Ministry of Justice, which equates to £60,133 for the same six-month period. It assists 1,284 women, meaning that only £46 is invested in supporting women and girls in the community who had no choice over the abuse committed on them for the same six-month period.

Let that sink in: there is £5,425 per head for a male identified as a potential perpetrator as opposed to £46 per head for a woman who has suffered abuse at the hands of a male perpetrator—how shameful. How on earth can that be right? That is the value placed on the wellbeing and safety of women. Yesterday, during Home Office oral questions, I called for misogyny to be made a hate crime. That is the scale and breadth of the task at hand, and we have barely begun to scratch the surface on the matter. Acknowledging the problem is not enough; immediate and robust action is required.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I think the hon. Lady might have referred to another hon. Member in her speech. I am sure she knows that, if she were to do so, she should notify them. Perhaps we can have a discussion about that.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Edwards]

I spent last Friday evening in St Peter’s Rooms in Ruddington with a nurse, councillors, shop owners, a reiki practitioner, childcare professionals and many more members of the community. We were taking part in a training programme to help people to identify signs of domestic abuse, talk to survivors they might come across in their place of work and put them in touch with local professional services. The programme is called J9, after Janine Mundy, who was brutally murdered by her ex-husband. I think I must have taken part about 15 times now in the course, which I am delivering across the constituency with my constituent Nicola Brindley, but it never gets any easier to hear the stories of abuse suffered.

I therefore strongly welcome Lords amendment 57, which extends the time limit for prosecution for common assault or battery in domestic abuse cases. There are so many reasons why it takes time for victims to come forward. We must do everything we can to stand with them and support them when they do.

I also welcome Lords amendment 13, which clarifies the inclusion of domestic abuse and sexual offences in the serious violence duty, and Lords amendment 56, which protects women doing the most natural thing in the world: breastfeeding their child. I commend the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for all her work in the area.

Also before the House is the issue of making misogyny a hate crime, as set out in Lords amendment 72. I fully support the intention behind the amendment, as I think every Member does, but having read the Law Commission’s report, I share some of the concerns voiced. I take very seriously the concerns raised by organisations such as Rape Crisis, which believes that adding sex or gender as a protected characteristic would further complicate the judicial process and make it harder to secure convictions.

Lords amendment 72 also carves out sexual offences and offences related to domestic abuse from the scope of prosecution as a hate crime motivated by sex or gender, because there are considerable difficulties with keeping them in. As the Law Commission’s report shows, research has shown that sex or gender-based hostility is much more likely to be identified or proven in the context of sexual violence perpetrated by strangers in public settings, particularly where it is accompanied by physical violence. Using misogyny as an aggravating factor in such cases would risk perpetuating the highly damaging myth that there is a hierarchy of sexual violence, which already does so much damage to victims whose experience is different, but whose suffering is no less.

In many crimes of violence against women and girls, such as those in cases of domestic abuse where the victim is known to the perpetrator or is in an intimate relationship with them, it may be more difficult to evidence hostility to gender, so I understand why those offences have been left outside the amendment’s scope. I understand the very strong views of Opposition Members that the amendment should be made without including them, but I worry what sort of message we would send as a Parliament if we made crimes such as domestic abuse and sexual violence—some of the most serious crimes against women and girls—exempt from an aggravating sentencing factor of misogyny. Those concerns, which have been set out by the Law Council, Rape Crisis and Women’s Aid, are the reason I cannot support the amendment.

The findings of the Law Commission, which I believe began its consultation with the expectation of supporting such a change, show why it is so important that changes to law are based on evidence so that we can focus on the most effective measures, which is why I welcome the Home Office’s public consultation on the issue of sex for rent—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Bill is dangerous and undemocratic and has united a broad church of organisations in opposition. Even if all the Lords amendments that I rise to support today are agreed to, there would still be a huge amount in it that causes me concern. Our task today, though, is to try to improve what is before us.

Lords amendment 72 would play a key role in updating our existing hate crime laws to give our police forces and courts the vital tools that they need to tackle violence motivated by misogyny. By including sex or gender in hate crime reporting and sentencing, with exceptions for more serious sexual violence offences to ensure that sentences for them remain higher, it would give our police and courts the ability to track and hold to account those who target people for crimes purely because of who they are. As we have heard, selected police forces have already identified when crimes are motivated by hatred of someone’s sex or gender. They have already seen an increase in victims’ confidence to come forward and report those crimes.

The Government’s position is that making misogyny a hate crime goes against the Law Commission’s advice, but as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) set out extremely eloquently, that is not entirely correct; the Law Commission was not commenting on the Bertin amendment. In line with concerns raised by the Law Commission about changing the burden of proof in relation to sexual or domestic offences, the amendment creates a carve-out whereby it would not apply to such offences. It uses the wording “sex or gender”, which is in line with the approach proposed in the Law Commission’s report on hate crime, and which would ensure that all crimes motivated by misogyny, or indeed misandry, are captured by the new law rather than leaving loopholes that could undermine the system.

This simple but powerful change would send an incredibly important signal. It would be part of the cultural change that we have been talking about. It would give women and girls the same protections that we give to others who are targeted solely because of who they are. It would show how seriously we take crimes motivated by misogyny. Frankly, the Government have been kicking the issue into the long grass for too long. It is time to step up and do the right thing by women and girls.

I will speak briefly to Lords amendments 114 to 116. As numerous organisations from Liberty to the End Violence Against Women Coalition and the Runnymede Trust attest, serious violence is a human rights issue. It devastates communities across the country and demands an evidence-based approach that works with, rather than against, those communities that bear its brunt. There is simply no evidence that serious violence reduction orders will protect communities from harm, however, and there is a wealth of evidence that they will sanction injustice and discrimination and risk fracturing public trust in public services and in the authorities. There is a risk that they will entrench the harms of ineffective, suspicion-less stop and search and that they will expand the injustice of the doctrine of joint enterprise, with a disproportionate effect on over-policed and marginalised groups, including young women experiencing domestic abuse and criminal exploitation.

It therefore seems entirely right and sensible that a robust pilot be carried out and that decisions to roll out SVROs nationally be informed by its findings and come before Parliament, as Lords amendments 114 to 116 propose. The amendments, which I support, reinstate democratic oversight of laws engaging rights and equalities issues and affirm the importance of an evidence-based approach to tackling serious violence.

I turn to Lords amendments 141 and 142. I have received emails from a number of constituents about how tens of thousands of women are being propositioned by predators offering free or discounted accommodation in exchange for sexual favours. Only one person has ever been charged for that kind of crime, because the law is woefully inadequate, leaving men to get away with sexually exploiting renters in need of a home. The Lords amendments specifically criminalise such landlords; they also implement financial penalties on websites and platforms. That is why they have my support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

I find this fascinating. So often in these debates, it is entirely understandable for the Opposition to say that the Government have not been in listening mode, and therefore amendments from the Lords have been turned down. Today, however, the evidence is striking. The Government are accepting, I believe, 22 Lords amendments on a wide range of matters, including emergency workers, domestic abuse, breastfeeding, common assault, data, hare coursing and child cruelty. I think that that is a good indication of both Houses working together.

I want to say a few words on Lords amendment 70 on spiking, and the Government amendments in lieu of it, and then on Lords amendment 72 on misogyny. On spiking, I am grateful to the Minister for his kind words about my 10-minute rule Bill, which is supported by Members from five different parties in this House, and which I think has helped to ensure that spiking is covered in this Bill. Certainly, when I originally proposed it, the thinking was that that would not be possible, so I recognise the movement that the Government have made.

The specific reason that I do not think the Lords amendment does the job that it could do is that it specifically calls for an amendment to the offence under section 61 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The truth, as we covered in the 10-minute rule Bill, is that there is more to spiking than sexual offences, although they are a big part of the problem. I am therefore satisfied that the amendments in lieu tabled by the Government will make a significant difference to the issue of spiking. As the Minister has said, it is clear that this behaviour is not exclusively linked to sexual activity, and the requirement on the Home Secretary to provide a report on the wider issues is therefore important. I believe that the Minister’s commitment—he might want to nod to repeat it—that the Home Secretary will be required to publish and lay the report before Parliament within 12 months of the Royal Assent of this Bill, is significant.

I note that the Minister has also asked officials to explore the need for a specific criminal offence to target spiking directly. I believe that this would change patterns of behaviour. It would have a preventive effect, and it would give young people—particularly young women—more confidence, especially at university. I would be delighted if he was able to commit to come back to this within six months of Royal Assent with a decision on whether to proceed with this further specific criminal offence, and I hope that he will say something on that in his winding-up speech. I have decided to pull my 10-minute rule Bill from its Second Reading, which had been proposed for 18 March, on the basis that the Minister has given that commitment, and I hope he will give a further one in his winding-up.

On Lords amendment 72, we have heard from distinguished colleagues including my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy)—four powerful advocates balancing strength of feeling with legal expertise on this issue. My own feeling is that, since I have just explained why I believe that a spiking Bill will help in terms of having a preventive effect and giving young people more confidence, there is something to this and I am glad that the Minister will come back and report to the House—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I call the Minister.

[Kit Malthouse]

With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the debate. I am grateful to all the Members who have spoken, and I hope that what has been exhibited is our shared concern for many of the issues we have talked about today, not least the safety of women and girls, which has naturally and rightly dominated the debate. A number of undertakings were sought from me, latterly by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who has done so much work on the offence of spiking. I am happy to give him a commitment that we will come back within a six-month period, as he requested. Obviously we will be producing a wider report within 12 months, but we should be able to give him an indication at the time.

My right hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), asked for a specific legislative vehicle, but I am afraid that I cannot preview the Queen’s Speech, much as I would love to. I cannot give her a specific vehicle, but I can tell her that we will be responding to the Law Commission’s report within six months. We are giving serious consideration to the work streams that I have talked about. As I have said to her, it is my personal view that we have an issue that needs to be addressed, either through public order offending, through recording or through a specific offence. I hope that on that basis she will feel able to support us this evening.

The work that we will be doing in this area sits alongside an awful lot of other work looking at the issue of street harassment, including our safety of women at night fund and the safer streets fund. In September we launched the new StreetSafe tool, allowing the police to access greater information and data about where people feel, or indeed are, unsafe. I am told that more than 12,000 reports have already been submitted through that line. In December, the College of Policing published new guidance showing what the police can and should do when they receive a report of public sexual harassment. The criminal offence is already available and other protective tools can be used. As I hope my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North has just been to see, we have also launched a new communications campaign this evening. There is an awful lot to cover in this first group of amendments, but I hope that we have looked at a wide range of offences and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester for pointing out that we have been listening. The number of amendments we have accepted weigh in the balance of support for the votes that we are about to undertake.

On the misogyny issue, I commend the motivation behind the set of amendments that we are sadly declining. We understand people’s genuine concern about the safety of women and girls in the public sector, and indeed we share it. We are determined to make significant inroads in this area. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) and my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Newbury have pointed out so effectively, we cannot in all conscience support an amendment that the Law Commission and other large groups interested in this area believe runs the risk of damaging the cause of women’s safety. That puts an obligation on us to bring forward alternatives that will do something positive for women’s safety. That battle is under way, and we commit to doing exactly that.

Lords amendment 2 agreed to.

Lords amendment 70 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 70.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 72.—(Kit Malthouse.)

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 58, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 107, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 61 to 69, 94 to 106, 121 to 140, 144, 145, 149 to 152 and 155 to 161.

[Tom Pursglove]

There are no less than 161 Lords amendments for the House to consider this evening. To ensure that as many hon. and right hon. Members as possible who wish to speak can do so, I do not propose to detail all the amendments in this group, as many were uncontentious and will have the support of the whole House. I will, however, outline the key Lords amendments in this group brought forward by the Government, before commenting on the two amendments in this group that were agreed by their lordships contrary to the Government’s sound advice.

I know that MPs from across the House will want to share our support for the family and friends of PC Andrew Harper and their campaign to strengthen the law so that no other families go through the same heartbreak they have suffered. We were therefore pleased to announce our amendment in the other place, following our commitment to look at what action may be possible in this area. Lords amendment 1, known as Harper’s law, will impose mandatory life sentences on those convicted of unlawful act manslaughter where the victim is an emergency worker acting in the exercise of their functions as such a worker. The amendment will apply to adult offenders and 16 and 17-year-olds. The amendment will also contain judicial discretion for the court to impose an alternative sentence in exceptional circumstances.

In the case of Andrew Harper, the court did not impose life sentences on any of the defendants. Each received sentences of between 13 and 19 years for manslaughter—sentences that were subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal. They will all be incarcerated for a significant period, but the Government believe that where a person is convicted of unlawful act manslaughter and the person who has been killed is an emergency worker, that should be punished with life imprisonment, except where there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offender or the offence.

The successful campaign of Lissie Harper, PC Harper’s widow, and the Police Federation drew this issue to the Government’s attention, and we are grateful for that. Lissie has shown incredible bravery, fortitude and courage in campaigning for this change, and I know that it has had a profound impact on Members from all parts of the House and on our constituents in communities across the country, who have come together to support this change.

--- Later in debate ---

Lords amendments 61 to 69, 94 to 106, 121 to 140, 144, 145, 149 to 152 and 155 to 161 agreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We now move to the third set of amendments. When I call the Minister to move the motion, it would be useful if those who are trying to catch my eye indicate they wish to speak.

After Clause 54

Accountability of public authorities: duties on police workforce

[Kit Malthouse]

I beg to move that this House disagrees with Lords amendment 71.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 74, and Government amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 88, and Government amendment (a) thereto.

Lords amendment 73, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 80, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill.

Lords amendment 81, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 82, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 87, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (f) to the words so restored to the Bill.

Lords amendments 89 and 146, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 143, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.

Lords amendments 75 to 79, 83 to 86, 90 to 93, 118 to 120 and 148.

[Kit Malthouse]

Lords amendment 71 would introduce a duty of candour for the police workforce. I am sure that hon. Members know that the Government take police integrity and accountability extremely seriously. So much so that, in February 2020, we introduced a statutory duty of co-operation for serving police officers as part of wider integrity reforms.

A failure to co-operate in that way constitutes a breach of the statutory standards of professional behaviour by which all officers must abide and could therefore result in a formal disciplinary sanction. It is our view that the duty to co-operate puts a greater onus on officers than the duty of candour provided for in the Lords amendment, as they could ultimately be dismissed for a breach. In essence, the Lords is proposing a dilution.

Hon. Members will also be aware of the Government’s forthcoming response to the Daniel Morgan independent panel and to Bishop James Jones’ report concerning the bereaved Hillsborough families’ experiences, and we will set out our view on a wider duty of candour for all public authorities. Before the Government respond to those reports, however, it is clearly imperative that the Hillsborough families are given the opportunity to share their views.

None the less, we are closely monitoring the impact of the new legislation on police co-operation with inquiries and investigations. As we consider the case for a wider duty of candour for other public servants and bodies, we will determine whether there are gaps in the existing framework that need to be filled to ensure public confidence. I assure the House that we will set out our conclusions later this year.

Before I turn to the Lords amendments to part 3 of the Bill, I point out to hon. Members that over the last couple of years, with regard to public order, we have all seen that the police have struggled with some of the demonstrations that we have seen on our streets. Last autumn, Insulate Britain’s new tactics put a lot of police officers in danger, caused a significant amount of misery to many thousands of people who simply wanted to get to work or to otherwise go about their daily lives, and were difficult to address. Since, we have seen further examples of wholly unacceptable forms of protest. I am afraid that their lordships may regret the day that they voted down the significant number of measures that we had inserted in the Bill.

The House of Lords did, however, recognise that freedom of speech and assembly are qualified rights under the European convention on human rights, and there are times when it is appropriate to restrict those rights to protect the rights of non-protesters. For that reason, we are sympathetic to Lords amendment 143, which would introduce fast-track public space protection orders. The Government have listened to the concerns raised in the other place about the harm caused by disruptive protests outside schools and vaccination centres. We agree in principle with the amendment, and our amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 143 will have a similar effect but will ensure that provision for expedited PSPOs works with the grain of the existing legislative framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We have very limited time, so after the next speaker from the Opposition Front Bench there will be a time limit of five minutes. I suspect that that may have to come down during the course of the debate. Priority will be given to people who have not spoken previously.

[Sarah Jones]

I want to begin by making a comment in this House on the Government’s procedure in the other place. The Government tried to sideline the Commons from its role in the democratic process by bringing into the Lords substantial but last-minute amendments on protests that would have had a fundamental impact on our rights. The Lords had very little time to scrutinise them and that is generally considered to be very poor form. Instead of chasing headlines and rushing in last-minute sweeping amendments clearly not thought through, they should be focusing on driving up prosecution rates, improving their woeful record on crime and dealing with the problems that really matter to the British people.

Labour voted against the Bill in its entirety on Second Reading and Third Reading because of parts 3 and 4, which represent a power grab that effectively bans peaceful protests and will compound the inequalities experienced by Gypsies and Travellers. I want to pay particular thanks to colleagues in the other place who have stood up for democracy and prevented the draconian provisions on protests that the Government tried to get through at the last minute.

Before I come to the protest amendments, I want briefly to touch on the other amendments in this grouping. First, we are grateful that the Government have listened to reason on so many of our amendments. I want to mention two in this grouping in particular. I pay tribute to the hard work of Lord Bassam in pressuring the Government to extend football banning orders to online racist abuse in Lords amendments 148, 118, 119 and 120. Racists who abuse football players do not deserve to be anywhere near a game of football. The amendments send a strong message that disgraceful racist behaviour has no place in the world of football, online or in person.

We are also glad that Lords amendment 89, which will repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824, has been accepted by the Government and that they have finally decided to act. No one should be criminalised simply for sleeping rough. But I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance to the House that this crucial change will not be kicked into the long grass and that the new legislation will be brought in at the earliest opportunity.

I want to touch on Lords amendment 71. The Government are refusing to introduce a duty of candour on police officers at this stage to co-operate with inquiries. The Minister claimed that the existing schedule on standards of professional behaviour is sufficient, but we do not believe that it is. It states that police officers must act with honesty and integrity, which of course they should, but the amendment passed in the Lords goes significantly further to ensure that where the police are required to provide information to inquiries or other such proceedings, they must have regard to the pleadings allegations terms of reference and parameters of the relevant proceedings, but not be limited by them, in particular where they hold information that might change the ambit of the proceedings inquiry or investigation. That is a really important distinction. The Lords amendment goes significantly further than the statutory duty of co-operation.

In June 2021, the Daniel Morgan independent panel, which took eight years to report, recommended the creation of a statutory duty of candour to be owed by all law enforcement agencies to those whom they serve. It is time for decisions to be made and for actions to be taken to restore public confidence in the police service.

Part 4 of the Bill represents an attack on the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities, even though the police have made it clear that they neither want nor need these powers. The Government have rejected our calls to remove part 4, and that is one of the major reasons why we voted against the Bill in its entirety. Although Lords amendments 91 to 93 are very small technical amendments, they confirm the principles around the powers of seizure of property that we Opposition Members believe are unfair.

The problem that many Government Members seem to articulate whenever we debate this issue is actually one of antisocial behaviour. The solution to antisocial behaviour, wherever it comes, is tougher antisocial behaviour action. Under this Government, we saw 1.7 million incidents in the year to September 2021 and nothing has been done. Marginalising an entire minority is not the answer to antisocial behaviour. We need to distinguish between the two and not criminalise a minority.

I turn to the Lords amendments on protest. Over the past five days, thousands of people have been arrested and detained at anti-war protests across Russia. We would all defend their right to protest and yet here we are, in the mother of all democracies, debating an amendment to a Bill that would criminalise singing at a peaceful protest in this country. Britain has a long-standing and important democratic freedom to gather and to speak or to protest. The Minister quoted an HMICFRS report, but he misunderstood its conclusions. The report said that we need a

“modest reset of the scales”

because police forces are usually good at planning protests but the “balance may tip”. The report’s recommendations were not legislative; they were to update and improve guidance to senior police officers, to improve the way in which the police assess the impact of protests, to improve police intelligence and to improve debrief processes, all of which are very sensible.

The Government asked the HMICFRS to look at some legislative options, which it did, and it gave some qualified support to some of them, but at no point was noise any part of that conversation. I have spoken to many senior police officers and at no point have any of them asked for any changes to the law on noise. The Bill goes way beyond the right balance between the right to protest and the right for others, which we agree with, to go about their daily lives.

Police Grant Report

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We now come to the debate on the Police Grant Report (England and Wales). The Order Paper notes that this instrument has not yet been considered by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. I have now been informed that the Committee has considered the instrument, and has not drawn it to the attention of the House.

3.7 pm

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

I beg to move,

That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2022–23 (HC 1084), which was laid before this House on 2 February, be approved.

It gives me great pleasure to announce to the House the final police funding settlement for the fast-approaching new financial year.

The foremost role of Government is to keep the public safe from harm. Our effort to deliver that most critical of functions depends to a large extent on the work of our police service. As this settlement demonstrates, we remain firmly and fully committed to strengthening the resources and capabilities available to the police as they confront crime and protect our citizens.

Last year Parliament approved a funding settlement resulting in an increase of up to £636 million being made available for the policing system. This included an increase in Government grant funding of £425 million for police and crime commissioners in England and Wales to continue to strengthen police forces through our officer recruitment programme. I am delighted to say that with this funding, along with the £700 million received for year 1 of the programme, more than 11,000 additional officers have been recruited as of the end of December 2021. That means that we are more than halfway to meeting the 20,000 target, which is something to shout about. However, I assure the House that we are not resting on our laurels. We must keep up the momentum, because every new officer through the door is another courageous individual we can call upon in the fight against crime.

Beyond the recruitment drive, this year we have invested £180 million in combating serious and organised crime, £500 million in Home Office-led police technology programmes to replace outdated legacy IT systems, and £45 million in the safer streets fund to put proven prevention measures in place in areas plagued by neighbourhood crime, and to help combat violence against women and girls. The building blocks are now in place; now it is time to hit the accelerator, and next year’s settlement will enable the police to go further than before in confronting crime.

One of the most consistent asks from policing around funding is certainty, and on this we have also delivered. The spending review provides forces with a three-year settlement, ensuring that they have the necessary confidence and stability to pursue long-term strategic planning, as well as maintaining strengthened officer numbers. In 2022-23, the Government will be investing up to £16.9 billion in the policing system—an increase of up to an additional £1.1 billion when compared with last year. Of that significant investment, we have made an additional £550 million of Government grants available to police and crime commissioners in England and Wales. As well as supporting continued officer recruitment, that funding will allow forces to invest in critical capabilities, while focusing on modernising the police service to meet future demand.

IOPC Report on Metropolitan Police Officers' Conduct: Charing Cross Police Station

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I want to try to get everyone in but, as colleagues are aware, we have another statement and then further business, so I request that questions are short and to the point, which will enable the Minister to be short and to the point as well.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

In the last year alone, Cressida Dick was forced to make two public apologies for corruption and cover-up, in the Daniel Morgan murder case and—although she never apologised—for the atrocious mishandling of the vigil for Sarah Everard. We have seen the Met accused of institutional corruption, misogyny, racism and, following the Stephen Port killings, homophobia, not to mention the handling of the partygate fiasco. Now we have this damning report on the Charing Cross police station by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. This lack of leadership and the culture of cover-up are letting down honourable rank-and-file police officers, so why did the Home Secretary think that it was remotely acceptable recently to extend Cressida Dick’s term, as opposed to demanding her resignation?

Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his further elevation? I am delighted that his skills and experience have been recognised.

The care of Afghan judges, particularly female judges, is a matter that I know interests many colleagues across the House. We have already offered a home to more than 20 senior Afghan judges and prosecutors and their dependants; sadly, we cannot offer a home to all Afghan judges, but we look to others in the international community to play their part in supporting those who have upheld the rule of law. We really must work together across the international community to support such people. I would be delighted to meet my right hon. and learned Friend and others to further discuss how we can signpost judges to third countries, as well as our own, to ensure that they are safe.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. I welcome the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), to her place.

I welcome the fact that the scheme is finally starting, but it has taken far too long. The Minister talked about the “emerging situation” in Afghanistan, but it is not emerging. As she said herself, ARAP started in April and there was an emergency in August.

I welcome some of the specifics in the statement, such as working to recognise Afghan qualifications to enable people to work here in their profession. However, it feels as if there has been a bit of sleight of hand, and I want to know more about the figures. The Government cannot keep patting themselves on the back and talking about up to 20,000 people, because any number below 20,000 is “up to 20,000”. We have to be clear about that. I also share the concerns about restricting the ARAP criteria, which are leading to understandable suspicion about the reasons. I found the exposé in The Times deeply worrying.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. Will those who are here on ARAP but are being transferred to the ACRS retain the right to family reunion? I hope that she will answer that question today, and I very much hope that she will be able to allay our fears.

I was a bit confused on reading through the statement. Do people have to be identified or can they apply for the scheme? My reading of the statement was that it could be 2023 before any new Afghans arrive in this country. Surely that cannot be right.

The Minister rightly said that British nationals in Afghanistan

“experienced the same trauma and have the same needs as their Afghan neighbours”,

but what about those who did it—those who got out and have arrived or will arrive here by boat? Are their traumas and their needs not the same? The Nationality and Borders Bill says not; it says that they are illegal and could face up to four years in jail or be offshored, never to be reunited with their families.

The Minister talked about welcoming women and girls after year one. Nargis is 19. She and her husband fled to Pakistan, not realising that she would be in danger there, too. She is pleading with me, for the sake of her unborn baby, to help her escape. I told her that I would have news in January. Can the Minister please tell me what I should tell Nargis now?

Some of my constituents have family in hiding in Afghanistan. I have not heard anything today about how they can apply or whether anyone can apply—a crucial question, because the more vulnerable someone is, the less able they are to flee to a neighbouring country. How does someone in danger in Afghanistan apply?

Finally, I spoke this morning to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It has been calling for details for some time, so it welcomes this confirmation, but it has a number of questions. The biggest question is whether everyone with indefinite leave to remain will get refugee status, which gives different rights. The families that COSLA is working with need to know so that they can make informed decisions. All 32 Scottish councils stand ready to support the Afghan schemes; I hope that the Minister can give them a bit more detail in her response.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before we go any further, I do need to stress that a lot of people want to contribute on this statement and we have an important and well-subscribed Backbench Business debate afterwards. I would ask that colleagues put one question to the Minister to allow the Minister to give brief replies. This is very important, but we do need to move a little more quickly than we are at the moment if I am to have any hope of getting everybody in.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

May I return briefly to the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) about judges and prosecutors? The Minister will know that much work has been done by judges and lawyers in this country. People such as the noble Lord Goldsmith, Baroness Kennedy and Dame Maura McGowan, whom she and I both know, have done much to try to assist on this. There is concern about how the practical outworking of this will develop as the scheme goes forward. The scheme itself is welcome, but is she prepared to meet me and other interested parties to discuss the practical ways in which we can help these judges and prosecutors, particularly women? After all, many of them put their lives on the line to assist and protect British troops when prosecuting and judging those who had committed atrocities against our own people.

[Victoria Atkins]

I very much thank my hon. Friend, and I would be delighted to meet him and others involved in this effort. We are very conscious of the debt we owe to such judges. That is why I am very pleased that we have been able to welcome some already, but I do very much want to listen to the concerns in relation to others.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Dame Diana Johnson.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement this morning. I know that the Home Affairs Committee will want to look in detail at the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme in the coming months and take evidence from the Minister. May I press her on one issue that we raised in a recent Select Committee meeting? It is the problem of those local authorities that do not put themselves forward for schemes such as these, resulting in the burden not being evenly shared across the country. Will councils be compelled to participate? When councils are involved in these schemes, can she guarantee that the Home Office will be constructive in consulting with those councils and providing the resources that they need?

Prisons Strategy

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, whom I welcome to her new position. If I may, however, I will start by correcting some of the statements that she has just made. In case she missed this information in the statement, I can tell her that 74 body scanners have been rolled out across the male closed estate and have already produced impressive results, spotting more than 10,000 instances of prisoners trying to bring forbidden objects into prisons and thereby helping to safeguard both staff and prisoners.

The hon. Lady asked about the state of the cells. We have said that many of the establishments, some of which date back to Victorian times, are not what we would wish for in the 21st century, and not commensurate with what we know works with prisoners when it comes to rehabilitation and cutting crime. That is why we are upgrading safety standards in 35,000 existing cells. In addition, our unprecedented plan to build major new prisons across the country will incorporate many of the modern technologies that we want to see rolled out over the next few years.

The hon. Lady rightly raised the issue of recruitment and retention. As I said in my statement, buildings are but one part of our plan. We must have dedicated and committed members of staff in those buildings, not only delivering the safety that prisoners within the walls expect but keeping members of the public safe outside those walls. The hon. Lady also raised the issue of recruitment. We take very seriously the recruitment challenges faced by some prisons across the country, which is why prison officers in our 31 “hardest to recruit” sites receive an additional payment of between £3,000 and £5,000. Since the end of October 2016, we have recruited a net increase of more than 4,000 staff.

We do not shy away from the fact that the role of a prison officer is extremely difficult, and does not suit everyone. These are people who bear a great deal of responsibility and who must work with some very dangerous and difficult people, as several highly publicised cases have demonstrated in recent weeks. That is why in the White Paper we have put such an emphasis on supporting our staff and enabling them to develop their careers in the Prison Service, so that they feel fulfilled and are helping to contribute to our nationwide effort to cut crime.

The hon. Lady asked me about women in prison. I am sure it was not deliberate, but she overlooked the fact that the number of women in custody has fallen by 24% in the last decade, since Labour was last in power. We very much stand by the female offenders strategy, as I said in evidence to the Justice Committee only recently. We want to ensure that only women who must be in custody are in fact so sentenced, and we are helping magistrates and judges to find alternative sentences for those women when that is appropriate.

Throughout my statement run the golden themes of education, rehabilitation and reform, but protecting the public is another important theme. I look forward greatly to working with the hon. Lady and other colleagues on both sides of the House to ensure that we keep our constituents safe, while also ensuring that justice is served for victims of crime.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chairman of the Justice Committee.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Anyone who takes justice issues seriously will welcome this statement and these initiatives, and I congratulate the Minister on what she has announced. I might also observe that it builds on work done by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), who set much of this in train. I am also glad that the Minister picked up a number of themes that the Justice Committee has raised with Ministers over the years.

Does the Minister agree that it is important for us to have an honest conversation with the whole of society about the need for prison to focus more on rehabilitation and the prevention of reoffending, something that we have not done for decades under any Government? Does she also agree that to make this work, we must put resources behind it? Can she tell us what proportion of the welcome increase in funding received by the Ministry of Justice in the current spending round settlement will be devoted to rehabilitative measures?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We are not making brilliant progress so far, so if we want to get everybody in, we will need fairly short questions and answers.

[Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will do my best.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on bringing forward the White Paper, which has been long in the gestation. I am grateful for her commitment to it. Two things: first, when prisoners come into the estate, the importance of understanding neurodiversity and autism needs is very clear. I urge her to visit HMP Parc, where the unit on autism is breathtaking. Secondly, can she outline how, when prisoners leave, resettlement passports and the community accommodation service will make a transformational difference to cutting crime?

--- Later in debate ---

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement today. I have many serving and former prison officers in my constituency, and I hear from them at first hand about that sinking feeling when they say goodbye to somebody and then all too soon say hello to them again. These measures to address the revolving door for prisoners are vital.

I also thank the Minister for her time on another matter, which is the proposed new prison on the site of HMP Garth and HMP Wymott between Croston and Leyland. I can see my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland) in his place, and I have also spoken to him about this—thank you very much, sir. Residents there understand that the planning process is under way, but can the Minister join me in urging the planning authority, Chorley Borough Council, to consider carefully its representations on the correct infrastructure for the site—it has no bus services at the moment—and on maintaining the environment and watching flooding?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I really want concise questions on just one subject, so that we can get through everybody. Otherwise, others are prevented from getting in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend and hope he will treat me to a cream tea in the process.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

On that happy note, I thank the Minister for her statement.

Sexual Misconduct in the Police

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call Harriet Harman to ask her urgent question, I wish to remind all Members that the House’s sub judice resolution means that no reference should be made to cases in which legal proceedings are active, which includes those where an individual has been charged with an offence. I would also ask Members to exercise caution in discussing matters that are subject to current police investigations. I call Harriet Harman.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) (Urgent Question)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like, first off, to endorse the heartfelt tributes that have been made to James Brokenshire and send my deepest sympathy to his family.

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

You ask the urgent question first.

[Ms Harman]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on sexual misconduct in the Metropolitan police and in the police generally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the button, and there is no single answer to restoring, building or even maintaining that kind of trust. He will remember, because of his long history in this House, that some years ago a measure of confidence in policing was produced, and a huge amount of academic effort and work went into understanding what would move that confidence measure—what they could do in policing to shift it and grow confidence. Much of that research went into a dead end. In the end there were broadly two conclusions. One was to do a good job fighting crime, and the second was to be transparent and open, and to have a great relationship with the local community. That is what the vast majority of police officers aspire to. Our stream of work in dealing with the dreadful offences that are committed against women and girls across the country on a daily basis and driving those numbers down, while at the same time working hard to build and restore trust between the police and women and girls, and with all groups in society, must be critical for the health of British policing, and for our greater safety.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Minister for his response to the urgent question.

Point of Order

Baroness Winterton of Doncaster Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

The Minister may wish to respond further to that point of order.

[Kit Malthouse]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of his point of order. I have reviewed my words carefully and I do not believe I did, inadvertently or otherwise, mislead the House. He asked about the rescheduling of psilocybin, and I outlined general Government policy, which is—quite rightly—to follow MHRA authorisation on advice. He did not ask me about the law. His point on the law is, I believe, correct, but that is separate to the process of Government policy, which is to take advice on the rescheduling, or otherwise, or the use of substances, either medicinally or otherwise. I know he would not expect me to reschedule a hallucinogenic compound purely on his say so; he would expect me to do so following the examination of serious scientific advice, and that is what I was intending to communicate to him on the day.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record, and the Minister has responded. If further conversations need to take place, perhaps they could be outside the Chamber. This is obviously a complicated subject, and I suspect that even more detail could be entered into if we left it at that.