Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Ann Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[David T. C. Davies]

I know that the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be as quick as I can.

I declare an interest as a special constable with the British Transport police, which is why I wanted to speak. My speech can be short, because I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said. I particularly support new clause 26 on public-facing workers. I have little need to add anything. He was absolutely right in everything he said. In fact, only yesterday, I dealt with a lady, a retail worker, who had been spat at at close range. Obviously, I meet many rail staff who—the hon. Gentleman did not mention this—are the victims of daily verbal and physical abuse. We have already heard about nurses, too. I absolutely agree with the new clause and told my Whips that I would support it and vote for it, if it came to a vote.

I am saddened that I am unable to do so, however, because of new clause 34, about which the hon. Member for Stockport will speak in a minute. I ask her to think very carefully about that, because the clause would reverse some of the good work that would be done by new clause 26. It would take away some of the rights that police constables, who are, after all, public sector, public-facing workers, should have. They should have the same rights as nurses, rail staff, bus drivers and the rest. That is important because police officers are often called to domestic dwelling houses late at night, in cases where drugs and drink can be involved, and they will suffer horrendous verbal abuse and, sometimes, threats of physical abuse. I do not think that police officers should have to put up with that any more than social workers or anyone else who goes into a private dwelling house.

New clause 34 might also have unintended consequences. I am not trying to suggest that anyone is doing anything wrong, but sometimes neighbours might ring to allege that domestic violence is taking place and, when the police officer arrives, they might find one angry male—I am sorry if that is a stereotype, but it is often the case—under the influence of drink and shouting, swearing and so on. If neither of the people in that house is able to make an accusation, the fact that one person is drunk and shouting might be enough to allow a police officer to remove them from the premises by arresting them under the Public Order Act 1986. That is not something that police officers do lightly because they know that any arrest needs to be proportionate and that they will have to take somebody in front of a custody officer, who will not take kindly to arrests made without due cause. I ask the hon. Lady to think very carefully about her new clause.

If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington wishes to propose his new clause on some other occasion or to table an early-day motion, I will fully support him. I offer him my public support and I will vote for such protection for public sector workers. I would not do so, however, at the expense of police officers, who are also public sector workers like all the others.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

I want to say a few words on new clause 34. I thank the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) for giving me his views on it, but I think there might have been a misunderstanding.

The new clause would change the law to make the use of racist or other abusive language in a dwelling house an offence when it was directed at a policeman. I was recently contacted by a serving police officer from my constituency who was present when a colleague from the Greater Manchester police was called a “nigger” in a private house. Under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, no offence is committed if the “harassment, alarm or distress” takes place inside a dwelling house—that is, somebody’s house or flat. I was surprised by that because, like many people, I was under the impression that racist abuse was an offence wherever it was committed. However, this is not the case. I was shocked to hear that somebody could not be charged with the offence because it took place in a dwelling against a police officer pursuing his duty.

My amendment would make it an offence to use racist or other abusive language against a police constable who was present in a dwelling in the execution of his duty. The police officer from my constituency described attending a property where two men were aggressively arguing. One was very drunk and called one of the police officers a nigger. The officer described seeing her colleague abused and she told me, “I was quite horrified he had to endure this kind of abuse. I felt very frustrated and helpless that we could not charge the offender with any offence.” I am sure that this is by no means an isolated case and I suspect that other professionals such as social workers and health visitors have also been subject to racist abuse when visiting a person at their home address. It does not seem right to me or, I suspect, to the public that if the police officer had been called a nigger in the street, an offence would have been committed, but none was committed because it happened inside a house. I hope the Minister will feel able to consider the amendment that I propose.

[Simon Hughes]

I shall be very brief as we are short of time, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) also hopes to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I draw the attention of the House and those watching our proceedings to amendments 178 to 181 and 183. I do that not just in my own name, but on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which examined the issue as part of its consideration of the Bill. The Joint Committee is disappointed that the Government have not yet published in full their responses to their consultation on schedule 7. These are controversial issues. Of course, we need anti-terrorist legislation and there is always a balance to be worked out between the civil liberty of the subject and the powers of the authorities.

We believe, however, that it is very important that legislation distinguishes between the conventional powers to stop, to search, and to question, which can be exercised without reasonable suspicion, and more intrusive powers, such as those of detaining and taking biometric samples, for which the Committee believes the Government have not yet made a persuasive case. The Joint Committee recommends introducing a reasonable suspicion requirement for the more intrusive powers under schedule 7. I know that some argue that schedule 7 should go altogether. That is not the position of the Joint Committee nor, coincidentally, is it the position of my party, which debated this at our conference in Glasgow a few weeks ago and took a view that there should be amendment broadly along the lines set out by the Joint Committee.

The issue came to prominence, as the House will remember, in August, when Mr David Miranda was stopped at Heathrow when coming into this country on his way back home to Brazil and was detained for nine hours under the anti-terror laws. There were protests by the Brazilian Government and widespread concern about whether the powers were used extensively. We hope we can persuade the Government to take the position of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but we will not seek to divide the House this afternoon, hoping there might be a chance not just for my hon. Friend, but even for the Minister to respond to our concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann Coffey]

I shall speak to new clause 18, which is in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Rightly, there is a lot of concern about serious injury and death caused by aggressive dogs, and I support the measures proposed by my hon. Friends to tighten the current criminal law and introduce stricter penalties.

New clause 18 deals with a different situation—it is a simple preventive measure to stop injuries to many people who, every year, post millions of bits of paper through letterboxes. It is not unknown for dogs to regard fingers put through letterboxes as curiosities and fair game for fastening their teeth on. Some dogs are aggressive, but others might simply believe they are being playful. The thought of a dog hurtling itself at a letterbox might conjure up visions of an hilarious scene from a sitcom, but for the real-life recipient, it can be traumatic and painful. People can sustain injuries ranging from bite marks and minor bruising to fingers or nerves being severed, causing long-term injury. Some years ago, I had to take my constituency assistant to accident and emergency for a serious injury to her hand sustained while leafleting.

The amendment requires householders who keep a dog in their house to put up a wire mesh guard around their letterbox where there is a reasonable probability that, either through aggression or playfulness, it could go for somebody’s hand. I am not saying that every dog owner must rush out and buy a wire guard—if they have a good dog there is no need to worry. However, if there is a chance that their dog might jump up and, for whatever reason, bite someone through the letterbox, it would be up to them to take responsibility to prevent accidents and put in a simple wire guard.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I strongly support what my hon. Friend is saying. While delivering leaflets during the previous general election campaign, I was bitten by a dog. It took an hour out of my life to have a tetanus injection at the hospital.

[Ann Coffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure his experience is shared by a lot of hon. Members.

If dog owners fail to comply with the requirement and there is an incident, the person bitten would be entitled to take a civil court action against them. By this simple measure, I believe that many injuries could be averted every year, and it has the added advantage of protecting householders from the hostility generated if their dog bites someone, particularly if that happens to be a child.

I understand that there may not be much public sympathy for politicians who get bitten by dogs, but this is not simply a problem for politicians. Many people push leaflets and letters through doors, including: postmen and women; newspaper boys and girls; people starting up new businesses or advertising pizza and other fast food services; neighbours posting Christmas and birthday cards; and people posting leaflets advertising community events.

I support the other amendments that have been tabled that aim to change criminal law, to make owners manage their dogs better and to put stricter penalties in place. However, my amendment is designed with safety, not the criminal law, in mind and I hope the Government will feel able to accept it. If they do not, I hope they will include the proposal in any future consultation.

[Richard Fuller]

I rise to speak to amendments 140 and 141 in my name, which would increase the maximum sentence to 14 years for owners of an out-of-control dog that kills or injures a person or assistance dog. I am happy that the Government responded to the requests of the Committee and conducted a consultation over the summer. However, I am disappointed that the results are not available.

People have the right to see their representatives debate fully and vote on what sentences they feel are appropriate to be imposed on the owners of out-of-control dogs. Those people include the constituents of the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), who has been an outstanding campaigner on behalf of her constituents and the victims of out-of-control dogs across the country. They include the families who have lost loved ones over the years, as hon. Members have mentioned in their speeches, and the 13-year-old boy who was attacked in Bradford a couple of months ago. As reported by the Daily Mail, he suffered a 10-minute attack which ended with the young boy saying, “I’m going to die, I’m going to die.” These people have the right to see us debate how we intend to increase sentences.

The Communication Workers Union has a lot on its plate these days, but like any good union it is thinking first and foremost about the safety and well-being of its members. Five thousand postal workers are attacked each year by dogs. They have the right to have the House debate the right sentence. It is important for the Minister to understand that the CWU supports a 14-year sentence for the killing of a person by an out-of-control dog. The police also have a right to see us debate and vote on this issue today. In their evidence to the Committee, they raised the total and utter inadequacy of the current legislation in dealing with the important and increasing problem of attacks by out-of-control dogs. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s comments. I do not want to hear any flim-flam from him about how he is not sure where this is going and how we should just trust the Government to get it right.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Ann Coffey Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

The Government proposals are in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. New clauses 14 and 15, and new schedule 1, will simplify and strengthen the existing civil order regime under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The inspiration for the reforms is the Childhood Lost campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), who has attracted more than 100,000 signatures to her online petition and the support of 67 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, who have added their names to my hon. Friend’s new clause 5. I pay tribute to her and those on both sides of the House who have campaigned so effectively on this important issue.

The Government essentially agree with the campaign and we are determined to do everything we can to protect the public from predatory sexual offenders. The UK has some of the toughest powers in the world to manage the risks posed by sex offenders, but in recognition of the important points highlighted by my hon. Friend’s campaign we are bringing forward amendments to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to make our powers even more effective.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

I seek clarification from the Minister. The risk of sexual harm orders, which the new sexual risk orders would replace, can be given only to offenders aged 18 and over. Will the new sexual harm prevention orders also only apply to offenders over 18? If they will apply to offenders under 18, what consideration has he given to introducing accompanying rehabilitative provisions for child sex offenders?

[Damian Green]

If I may, I will first pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who has campaigned on these issues for a long time and deserves much of the credit for raising public awareness. If I may, I will come to the details of the offences shortly.

New clauses 14 and 15, and new schedule 1, will repeal the sexual offences prevention order, foreign travel order and risk of sexual harm order in England and Wales, and replace them with two new orders: the sexual harm prevention order and the sexual risk order. I welcome the engagement of hon. Members on this issue and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon will be pleased to note that we have sought to include her points as far as possible in the Government amendments. Indeed, following consultation with front-line professionals, including the police, the courts, the National Offender Management Service and the National Crime Agency, in a number of respects the Government amendments go further than her new clause 5.

The sexual harm prevention order will be available for those with convictions for sexual or violent offences. It may be made by a court on conviction, or by the magistrates court on application by the police or the National Crime Agency. A court may impose an order for the purposes of protecting the public in the UK and/or children or vulnerable adults abroad from sexual harm.

The sexual harm prevention order may prohibit the person from doing anything described in it, including preventing travel overseas. Any prohibition must be necessary for protecting the public in the UK from sexual harm or, in relation to foreign travel, protecting children or vulnerable adults from sexual harm. It lasts a minimum of five years and has no maximum duration, with the exception of any foreign travel restrictions which, if applicable, lasts for a maximum of five years but can be renewed.

The second new civil order is the sexual risk order, which will be available for those who have not been convicted of an offence but who none the less pose a risk of sexual harm to the public. It may be made by the magistrates court on application by the police or the new National Crime Agency where an individual has done an act of a sexual nature and poses a risk of harm to the public in the UK or adults or vulnerable children overseas.

--- Later in debate ---

The third priority is the criminal justice response. The House has discussed before the necessity for witnesses not to be intimidated out of giving necessary evidence by the traditional court procedures. Before the end of the year, we will pilot the use of pre-recorded video evidence by vulnerable witnesses in three centres, so that the full panoply of the court, which often puts witnesses off and intimidates them, is not there. We will be piloting that shortly to ensure that the appropriate safeguards are in place for the defendant.

[Ann Coffey]

On the support that is available in court for vulnerable witnesses, does the Minister agree that it is not acceptable that registered intermediaries are appointed in so few cases? If we are to support vulnerable witnesses, particularly child witnesses, we must make it a matter of course that registered intermediaries are appointed at the earliest possible stage, even before the first police interview.

[Damian Green]

Appointing registered intermediaries before the first police interview may be difficult in practical terms, but I accept the hon. Lady’s general point that we need better support mechanisms for vulnerable witnesses. Some of those mechanisms will involve institutional change, as I have said, but the provision of intermediaries may also be required.

The fourth priority of the group is online protection and, in particular, attacking the use of vile child abuse images online. There is therefore a lot of work to do beyond this legislation.

I will respond to some of the individual points that have been raised. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) asked about close reporting on the monitoring and extent of the powers. Various other Members talked about the necessity for guidance. The Government amendments require statutory guidance to be issued. We will work closely with the police, the NCA and others in considering the best way to apply the new orders.

We have had a vigorous debate about the use of the criminal standard of proof. If I may try to reconcile what has been the only scratchy part of this debate, there is a balance to be struck. We could apply the civil standard to the new order, but one consequence would be that a breach of the order would not be a criminal offence punishable by up to five years in prison. I hope that those who are doubtful about the level of proof will accept that what we are proposing strikes the right balance, given the risk of harm to children and vulnerable adults. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon explained, it is not the criminal standard of proof that led to the disappointing use of the original three orders in the Sexual Offences Act 2003.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North asked about legislation on the grooming of children on the internet. The orders that we are discussing may be used to restrict internet use, so they will hopefully have a direct effect on that type of criminal behaviour. However, it is worth repeating that the principle that what is criminal offline is criminal online always applies. There is no separate law that applies to the online world. If something is a crime in the real world, it is a crime in the online world. As I have said, cybercrime is one of the four immediate priorities of the national group.

I was asked about the appeal mechanism. An individual who is the subject of either kind of order will be able to appeal against the making of that order under the proposed new sections of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In addition, after an order is made, there is the right to apply for it to be varied or discharged. I hope that the appropriate safeguards are in place for people to make appeals.

Child Protection

Ann Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who as children’s Minister responded positively to the parliamentary inquiry into children who go missing from care, which was conducted by the all-party group for runaway and missing children and adults and supported by the Children’s Society. I am pleased to support his call for an overarching inquiry.

Over the past 20 years, we have had numerous high-profile inquiries and serious case reviews after children have been harmed, abused and killed. Almost without exception, those inquiries and reviews have come to the same conclusions—poor inter-agency working, sharing of information and communication were significant factors in failures to prevent the child’s injury or death. There is a public frustration that time and again recommendations point to the same failings in the system.

It seems that a lot of reviews and inquiries look at the failures of the organisations around the child rather than putting the child’s voice and experience at the centre of the review. I recently looked at a systems review of CSE practice by Stockport’s children’s safeguarding board through the eyes of a victim. I was struck that on a number of occasions her case was closed because she withdrew her co-operation. She would not communicate. Surely a better way would have been to find someone capable of talking to her and winning her trust, which could then have prevented the harm that subsequently happened to her.

Listening to the children who gave evidence to our inquiry, it was clear that children felt that they had not been, and were not being, listened to. One of the key challenges facing agencies charged with safeguarding children is being able to communicate properly with children, so that they feel able to talk about what is happening to them. I agree with the Children’s Commissioner, Maggie Atkinson, that staff who work with children and young people, from whichever discipline or profession, should experience a common set of training that crosses all boundaries. Unless we can communicate with children, we will not know what is going on in their lives and therefore we will not be able to prevent them from coming to harm.

Sadly, all too often, that essential communication with children does not happen and we find out all too late about the horrors of the experience that those children have been subjected to, which they then have to relive as witnesses in our courts. There is widespread concern about the treatment of child witnesses in the court system. The failures to provide sufficient support to child witnesses are based on an inadequate understanding of how to communicate with children.

No one should be in any doubt about how much children worry about going to court. Many children express those fears to the NSPCC’s ChildLine. I will read out just one example. One girl said:

“I have to go to court this week to give evidence and I really don’t want to. I didn’t want to report the abuse but I was told I had to. It just feels like everything’s my fault and I wish I had never told anyone.”

I welcome the new guidelines issued by Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, on cases involving child sexual abuse, which he said would ensure that the focus was on allegations made by victims, rather than their weaknesses and vulnerabilities. However, I fear that we are a long way from that in the way witnesses are cross-examined in our courts now.

The Government are making progress in piloting section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which will allow pre-recorded cross-examination of young and vulnerable witnesses. That is very welcome.

I recently tabled a series of parliamentary questions which revealed that in the first three months of 2013 registered intermediaries were requested for children in only 16% of cases. This indicates to me that the police, the prosecution, the defence and the courts do not really understand how difficult it is for children to communicate in the current adversarial system and do not understand the need for registered intermediaries to facilitate communication between them and the court.

Interestingly enough, in spite of all the publicity surrounding witnesses who have been called liars and fantasists and subjected to aggressive cross-questioning by multiple lawyers, I understand that there have been barely any complaints to the Bar Council, which indicates the acceptance and normalisation of aggressive, adversarial cross-examinations.

I have been reading with interest the work done by academic experts such as Professor John Spencer of Cambridge university and Joyce Plotnikoff about the need to reform the rules and conventional practice in the cross-examination of children. I would like the Minister to consider establishing a commission of inquiry made up of expert judges and leading academics into reforming the rules on cross-examination of children after the spate of recent high-profile sex trials in which lawyers branded vulnerable victims liars again and again.

Of course the right of the defendant to a fair trail and to examine fairly the witnesses against him or her must be sacrosanct, but the process has to be about obtaining the best quality of evidence in a way that is robust, reliable and safe for the witness. As Lord Justice Auld said in his review of the criminal courts:

“A criminal trial is not a game under which a guilty defendant should be provided with a sporting chance.”

Currently, the court appears to be set up as a theatre, in which lawyers perform for the benefit of the jury. Sometimes it does not seem like a real cross-examination of evidence, but to be about smearing and breaking down the witness to get defendants off the hook. One senior English barrister told Dr Emily Henderson, a visiting fellow at Clare Hall, Cambridge and a criminal barrister herself who is doing a six-month study of the impact of changes to cross-examination, that:

“You are always really playing to the audience. Of course, it is one-on-one in that there is only one person answering questions, but you are constantly aiming everything at the people who are ultimately going to be making the decision. So you are playing to the gallery.”

Another barrister told Dr Henderson:

“I have three speeches: my opening, my closing and my cross-examination.”

Barristers in sex abuse cases must be stopped from manipulating child witnesses like puppets.

As many leading academics, including Spencer and Plotnikoff, have said, 30-plus years of empirical research in this and similar adversarial jurisdictions has shown again and again that conventional cross-examination is more likely to confuse and mislead children than to draw out accurate and reliable evidence. Indeed, research by the NSPCC showed that more than 90% of children under 10 do not understand the questions they are asked in court. The commission that I am proposing could also consider what further measures might be undertaken to improve the safety and reliability of processes for the taking and investigation of children’s evidence by the criminal courts. In addition, it could examine extending the role of registered intermediaries to allow them to cross-examine vulnerable witnesses under the direction of counsel. This idea was first raised more than 20 years ago in the 1989 Pigot committee report, which recommended that advocates’ questions should be relayed through a specialist child examiner, such as a paediatrician, child psychiatrist, social worker or other person who enjoys the child’s confidence.

In most other continental jurisdictions, including France, Germany, Austria, Norway and Italy, young child witnesses are questioned by a neutral specialist. The interviewer investigates issues that the defence wants raised and consults the defence in the process.

I was heartened that in 2010 and 2011 the Court of Appeal released several judgments designed to clean up poor cross-examination techniques. The court was very clear that cross-examiners must use language appropriate to the developmental stage of the witness. However, despite these encouraging comments from the Court of Appeal, how we treat children in court is still a massive problem. In the last couple of weeks, we had the judge who described a 13-year-old victim of abuse as predatory. This was in addition to one of the barristers in the Oxford case accusing one of the girls of being a serial liar and fantasist who had fabricated the allegations, and a witness in the Stafford trial had to endure being called a liar day after day.

[Meg Munn]

There was a lot of condemnation of that at the time, with the Prime Minister and others saying that those remarks should not have been made, but does my hon. Friend agree that we should be worried not that such remarks are being made but that people in these positions believe these things in the first place about children?

[Ann Coffey]

I agree. Attitudes to children in our society are quite awful sometimes. That manifests itself in various ways.

Children’s charities and victim support groups said that the Staffordshire trial shamed British justice. These cases demonstrate the urgent need for reform. I hope that the Minister will agree with me that a commission to look into further reforms of the practice of cross-examination is the only way to ensure that in the future we get the best possible evidence, without which the courts cannot do justice to the victim or the defendant.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ann Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. What we are hearing from Opposition Members throughout this sitting is that they are the same old Labour party: they have no answers to any of the problems, they oppose any change and they oppose savings. Frankly, they are not fit to be an Opposition, let alone a Government.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

The appointment of registered intermediaries is an underused special measure for child witnesses. Because children do not hear or understand language in the same way as adults, they can find cross-examination very confusing. What more can Ministers do to encourage the appointment of registered intermediaries to help children give good quality evidence in court?

[Damian Green]

The hon. Lady is right that registered intermediaries do an extremely good job. On the wider front, I hope she is aware of the measures that we are taking to protect vulnerable witnesses and young vulnerable witnesses in particular. We have announced the reform that will allow them to give interviews by video link, so that they do not have to be in court; we are looking at ways to avoid unnecessary multiple cross-examinations by barristers; and we are piloting ways of allowing them to give evidence by video in advance. We have a number of ways to protect such witnesses.

Protecting Children Online

Ann Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

Yes; I discussed the numbers with the IWF, of course. It says that the survey on which it based that estimate was typical of surveys it has been doing over several years, so I think the problem is widespread and that we should not argue too much. It is clear that the numbers are far, far too big.

Up to 88% of the child victims appear to be 10 years old or under, and 61% of the images depicted sexual activity between adults and children, including rape and sexual torture.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

Google is one of the biggest hosts of child sexual abuse images, albeit inadvertently, and it should therefore accept the major responsibility for proactively monitoring and removing those images. Does my hon. Friend agree that if Google spent as much money on monitoring and removing illegal child sexual abuse images as it does on paying accountants to avoid tax in the UK, it might go some way towards living up to its motto, “Don’t be evil”?

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. By a happy co-incidence I received an e-mail at 12.35 pm announcing that Google is increasing its contribution to the IWF to £1 million.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have two separate buckets. Some imagery is unequivocally illegal, but we would find other imagery exceptionally unpalatable and not want our young people to see it. Given that 88% of mainstream porn involves violence against women, we need to improve the filters to try to stop that coming into the home.

Another recommendation of the cross-party inquiry was that public wi-fi should be filtered. There is no need to see adult content on public wi-fi. That has been implemented in the majority of cases and we are looking for universal clean public wi-fi to be implemented later this year.

[Ann Coffey]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady on her work and on the huge contribution she has made. Has she had any discussions with the retail industry on public wi-fi?

[Claire Perry]

I have not, but retailers source their wi-fi from a small number of providers, which have agreed to provide what is effectively clean public wi-fi.

We asked the Government for a formal consultation on opt-in filtering and got it. As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) has rightly said, it is not clear that the consultation was entirely representative and democratic. However, it was an open consultation and we did our damndest to encourage people to respond. Consultations are not always democratic, and that one was what it was. Basically, the consultation rejected the idea of opt-in, but the Government response was clear that we should have much better filters that protect all devices; robust age verification; and a system that people cannot simply click through, and in which the filters remain on unless people choose to take them off.

Those changes are being implemented by the four main ISPs, which control more than 80% of the internet market to the home in the UK, and will be rolled out to new customers by the year end.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ann Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are immensely grateful to the Minister. I feel sure that the Government could with great advantage schedule at some point a full day’s debate on the subject.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

6. What recent progress he has made on the implementation of section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Justice Act 1999.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

The Ministry of Justice is actively looking at the practical issues around implementing section 28 of that Act. Putting victims and witnesses first must be a common goal for everyone working in the criminal justice system. That is why this work has involved us working closely with the judiciary, the police, the courts and the Crown Prosecution Service, and it should be completed shortly.

[Ann Coffey]

I thank the Minister for his response. One victim of child sexual exploitation was aggressively cross-examined by seven barristers for three weeks in the Telford trial. Another was repeatedly called a liar until she broke down. Justice is not served by bullying vulnerable witnesses already scarred by their experiences. When does the Minister expect to be able to report further on the implementation of section 28, which allows pre-recorded witness evidence and cross-examination outside court, making the trial process less of an ordeal for victims?

[Damian Green]

I know that the hon. Lady has a long and distinguished record of activity in this area, and I am not asking her to be patient for much longer. As I said in my initial answer, we should come to a decision shortly. This is the last of the Act’s measures to protect particularly vulnerable witnesses to be implemented. I entirely share her concern that, within the confines of having trials conducted properly, vulnerable witnesses should receive proper protection.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Ann Coffey Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I rise briefly in support of new clauses 12 and 14, which were put forward so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and are supported by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey).

A key part of the four-point action plan “Tackling child sexual exploitation”, which was launched in November 2011, was a better court procedure for vulnerable young witnesses. Too many girls, having been abused, have effectively been re-traumatised in the courtroom by a phalanx of defence barristers. For many of them, it has meant that they have not given credible evidence or that the case has not come to court and has collapsed. In many cases, the witnesses run away rather than go through the procedure and appear in court.

The two new clauses, which I hope the Minister will take away and look at favourably, are about ensuring that we get justice in our courts and, in particular, that vulnerable witnesses and victims appear to get the justice they have been denied for so many years. The cases that are coming to court now are a sign of success. They are at least beginning to be taken seriously. We want to ensure that more people come forward and that more perpetrators are nailed. The new clauses will help to achieve that.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

I will speak to new clause 12, which I tabled along with the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and other hon. Members. I agree totally with the comments that she made in arguing for specialist courts.

Under new clause 12, registered intermediaries, which were first introduced in 2004, would be assigned to support all very vulnerable witnesses. Children are very vulnerable witnesses because they do not communicate in the same way as adults. Recent NSPCC research showed that more than 90% of children under 10 do not understand the questions that they are asked in court. It also showed that more than half of young witnesses experience stress symptoms ranging from sleeping and eating problems to self-harming. Children under stress become confused in the witness box.

Registered intermediaries are communication specialists, such as child psychologists, who are trained to help child witnesses to communicate their evidence effectively, both at the police interview and the trial. However, NSPCC figures show that only 2% of young witnesses were assigned a registered intermediary. That has to change.

In view of the tremendous cross-party support for new clauses 12 and 14 today, and in the wake of the Rochdale and Jimmy Savile scandals, I hope that the Minister will feel able to give a positive response to the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and me that call for specialist courts and registered intermediaries to give the victims of sexual abuse the confidence to come forward so that justice can be done.

[John McDonnell]

This is the parliamentary equivalent of “Just a Minute”.

I will speak to the amendments in my name, which are amendments 103 and 96 to 98, which relate to clause 25. Clause 25 commences the process of privatising the work of the fines officers of the courts. They are not just bailiffs, but officers who exercise judicial powers. This will be the first time that the House has privatised any office holder who has judicial powers. What do I mean by judicial powers? These officers can make a deduction from a benefits order, make an attachment of earnings order, and order the variation of the length of time over which a fine can be paid.

Clause 25 will privatise the 2,000 jobs of the fines officers and hand the work over to private bailiffs. We have seen the report by Citizens Advice on the role of private bailiffs. They are misrepresenting their powers, using intimidating behaviour, charging fees in excess of what is allowed in law, failing to accept reasonable offers of payment and failing to recognise debtors in vulnerable situations, as required by the national standards for enforcement agents. We are handing over these powers to private bailiffs, who have failed significantly and have intimidated many of our constituents, and yet we know that the existing fines officers are performing well and meeting every target that is set by their management and the Government.

This is a privatisation too far. We have never privatised the roles of judicial officers. This matter needs the consideration of the House. I urge the Government to think again. This measure is just an enabling part of the legislation and I hope that the Government will step back before they implement it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ann Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

As my hon. Friend knows, I feel strongly that we need to make changes to the human rights framework. Unfortunately, it is my belief that there is not a majority in this House for such changes, and it will therefore fall to a future majority Conservative Government to deliver them.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the level of delay in criminal proceedings involving vulnerable witnesses.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

We want the criminal justice system to move faster, and deliver justice sooner for vulnerable witnesses and victims. We are looking at how to tackle delays across the criminal justice system to improve efficiency.

[Ann Coffey]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Victims of child sexual exploitation, already traumatised by their horrific experience, face gruelling cross-examination in court, often by multiple defence lawyers, in the process of justice. Does she agree that justice for those vulnerable witnesses is not served by lengthy adjournments—I am glad that she does—and that having specialist training in tackling child sexual exploitation would help judges better to balance the needs of victims and the accused in court proceedings?

[Mrs Grant]

I fully understand and sympathise greatly with what the hon. Lady has said, and I agree with her that concerns can affect a witness’s willingness to participate in the criminal justice system. That is why the Ministry of Justice is embarking on a strategy to improve efficiency and the effectiveness of the system. That work will look at the entire process, from offence to completion of the case. I have recently written to her about a case in her constituency. I hope she has received that letter and I am happy to meet her to provide further reassurance.

Voting Eligibility (Prisoners)

Ann Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 22nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I wish I could give my hon. Friend that complete assurance, but there is another case pending on the right to vote on European elections, rather than national elections, that will be heard in our Supreme Court next summer. That is another thing that is not entirely welcome, but we will have to see what the judgment is when the time comes.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

I am still not clear about the issue of compensation. What advice has the Secretary of State received about what the situation will be if Parliament restates the present position and current prisoners decide to claim compensation?

[Chris Grayling]

The legal position remains that Parliament has the right to say no to any decision of the European Court of Human Rights, whatever that might be. It is clear that that is its absolute right but, as Lord Justice Hoffmann said, there is a political consequence of doing so. I do not make light of the challenge or debate that would follow if the decision were not to give prisoners the vote.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ann Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kenneth Clarke]

I congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituent on his birthday yesterday. The argument for retaining a retirement age of 70 for judges of all kinds—I agree that this is a mere stripling for most occupations—is that, unlike me and most other people in their 70s, they cannot be removed from office: they are there for life, and can be removed only for quite serious bad behaviour. If we let everybody go on until whatever age, we will get into difficulties and politicians or somebody else will have to start appraising their performance, as they cannot be dismissed peremptorily. That is what has made us hold back from raising the compulsory retirement age for magistrates and judges at every level.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

On 15 May, I asked the Minister when he was going to respond to the recommendations of the Justice Select Committee on the presumption of death in guardianship, which were published on 22 February. He responded, “Shortly”. May I please ask the question again?

[Mr Djanogly]

The answer is now “Very shortly”.