Victims and Prisoners Bill (Fourth sitting)

Edward Argar Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Janet Daby]

Q Do you have a view on the Bill’s definition of a major incident?

Sophie Cartwright: It envisages significant numbers by reference to death or serious injury. It seems that the function of the IPA is around those incidents where there is death, but as drafted the Bill also covers a major incident where there is not death—where you would envisage an inquest or inquiry process—but serious injury. If it is intended just to cover major incidents, there is no definition of “significant”, but I know the guidance gives a comparable definition by reference to the Manchester Arena incident, Grenfell and Hillsborough. I think there is vagueness around significant numbers of deaths or serious injuries, but as drafted it would also capture major incidents where there is just injury.

The other thing I want to flag is that at the moment it is intended to cover only major incidents that occur in England and Wales. Again, there might potentially be a disconnect if you are excluding the IPA from having a role. One can well imagine the Tunisia inquest that occurred, which was to assist victims of a daunting, confusing and overwhelming process. As it is currently drafted, it seems almost to exclude major incident types where large numbers of British nationals get caught up in incidents overseas. I cannot see, on the face of it, why it would exclude major incidents where a large number of British nationals are caught up overseas. I wanted to flag that as a potential area where there may be a real role for the IPA: if there are large numbers of victims caught up in major incidents overseas.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

Q Good afternoon, Ms Cartwright. Thank you very much for joining us. I have just one question, but I am more asking for your reflections than asking a specific question.

You alluded earlier to the interaction between an IPA, as envisaged in the Bill, and other judicial or investigatory processes, whether they were inquests or other public bodies performing their work in the aftermath of a major incident. There have been a number of calls for the IPA to be a data controller, so that it can access data. We heard this morning from another lawyer, Tim Suter, who argued that that would not be the best approach and that individual public bodies should remain the data controllers, but with the IPA being able to view or access the data in that way. Do you have any reflections on that point? Once a statutory public inquiry is set up, how would the interaction between the IPA and the inquiry work best? On the data controller point, I can see arguments from various perspectives, and I am interested in your reflections.

Sophie Cartwright: Clause 30 deals with some data aspects. It goes back to having clarity as to the intended purpose of the IPA. If it is to discharge the role as per the evidence you heard this morning from the original proponent of the IPA role, it is for the IPA to have a data controller-type role in terms of seeking material and records. That could, though, be fraught with complete complexities that will then bog down the IPA role.

If it is envisaged at the moment that it will just be that supportive role, and interacting, it can become quite complicated, particularly if the IPA is not intended to have a role that involves legal activity. To that extent, anything around data controlling and making requests for records and properly retaining and looking after them is definitely more in the water of legal activity.

As the Bill is currently drafted, I think it would become an absolute nightmare if you were requesting the IPA to have the data controller function and require documents and records. Anything that involves requests for documents and controlling, retaining and storing them definitely has to have a legal activity-type oversight, so I can well understand why Mr Suter gave evidence today to the effect that the public authorities should remain the data controller.

It goes back to having a clear clarity of purpose as to what the IPA is. If it is intended that the IPA will have a candour role and make requests for documentation, it is inevitable that data protection and GDPR issues will have to be properly looked at and considered, because that is a very complex landscape. At the moment, that would not in any way come near what is intended in clause 30 on the data-control aspect of the IPA’s role.

[Edward Argar]

That is really useful. Thank you very much.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions, I thank you very much for your testimony. We are very grateful.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Fay Jones.)

Victims and Prisoners Bill (First sitting)

Edward Argar Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Champion]

Q The Domestic Abuse Commissioner spoke very highly about specialist services and their outcomes. We are also talking about a proper geographical spread of services. Are there enough specialist services to fill the geographical need, and what would happen once we have identified gaps? Who would fill those gaps?

Dr Siddiqui: No, I think there is a postcode lottery. “By and for” services, in particular, are very thin on the ground. Even in areas where there is a high black and minority population, “by and for” services are not necessarily commissioned locally. That is why I am saying that the duty to collaborate is not enough. You have got to have a duty to fund and you have got to have ringfenced funding, particularly for “by and for” services and specialist services, for that to work. At the moment, the system does not work and I do not think that this will necessarily improve it enough.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

Q I have a very brief question. I return to the point about funding, which you have both alluded to in different ways. Notwithstanding the very large funding increase—a quadrupling since 2010—you have both highlighted a gap between demand and supply, essentially, in this space. Although, funding and spending commitments should clearly not be made in individual Bills—that should be done in a public spending process in the round, because funding is finite and has to be set against other demands on the public purse—and without prejudice to your position on that, given that context do you see a potential value in the Domestic Abuse Commissioner’s point about a joint strategic needs assessment improving the efficacy of the existing funding spend and it being used in a less duplicative way, to plug gaps? Notwithstanding your position that you would like to see more funding, do you see a value in what the Domestic Abuse Commissioner is advocating—to better spend the money that is already allocated?

Dr Siddiqui: A joint SNA is important if you are going to have collaboration at a local level and it will help to highlight which gaps could be filled by which agency, but at the moment some of that work is being done locally and some of the gaps are still not being filled. For those with no recourse to public funds, there are hardly any services on the ground. For those from black and minority communities, or “by and for” services, there is hardly any funding in the local area—so even where a gap may have been identified, there is not the funding to fill it.

Jayne Butler: There has been a little bit of work done on this, in terms of the recommissioning of the rape support fund and thinking about how to share that geographically. The result, when you have the same pot overall, is that you end up reducing services in some areas. If we start to look at where the gaps are, but we do not put any more funding in, and we are just revisiting what is already there, the result will be that some services that are funded now, which have high demands, will be reduced. There is nobody sitting there who is seeing people within a week, or sometimes even a month or six months.

[Edward Argar]

Q To that point, since 2010 we have seen a quadrupling of funding for victim support services. Do you have any sense of what has happened to demand during that same 13-year period? If you do not, that is absolutely fine, because it is a detailed question; feel free to write subsequently if you want to. We are seeing a quadrupling across that period. What are we seeing with demand?

Dr Siddiqui: Our demand has really rocketed, particularly after the covid pandemic, and it has not really gone down. It has doubled in size. We deal with 20,000 cases and inquiries every year. Before, we had half that.

We must remember that the mapping report by the DA Commissioner has shown that only 6% of Government funding was being made available to the “by and for” sector. Even though the demand has gone up, the funding has not gone up. In fact, a lot of “by and for” services are in crisis and are having to close down or reduce their services.

The cost of living crisis is adding to the problem. Services are not able to pay their staff enough. They have to find more resources for service users. We are having to find money to supplement the rent and subsistence of victims with no recourse to public funds. Although we have money from the support for migrant victims pilot project at the moment, that is temporary and it does not give us enough money. It does not give a universal credit rate. It does not give us enough money to pay rent for a refuge. It does not give enough to cover living expenses. We are having to find that extra money in the cost of living crisis situation. That is really not sustainable.

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for this panel. I thank our witnesses, Dr Hannana Siddiqui and Jayne Butler, for answering questions in the room. I also place on record our thanks to Ellen Miller, who was on Zoom, intermittently without sound, and gave up her time this morning to try to give evidence.

Examination of Witness

Dame Rachel de Souza gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna McMorrin]

Q I have one tiny question on the proposed Jade’s law. Let us say that a man kills a woman and there are children involved. What is your opinion, Claire, of the man, if he has children, having parental responsibility?

Claire Waxman: I very much support Jade’s law. I worked with a family many years ago whose daughter was murdered, and they tried to adopt the grandchild. The prisoner—the murderer—had the right from prison to stop that adoption, and to cross-examine the bereaved family as well. He got legal aid. They did not get anything. At that point there is a presumption of no contact—of course he did not get contact—but they were still pulled into the most inhumane proceedings after their daughter had been killed. We need to stop that and to ensure that those convicted of murder do not have parental rights to access those children for the duration of the prison sentence. That needs to be reviewed very carefully to ensure that the family are well protected from engaging with the prisoner.

[Edward Argar]

Q It is always nice to see you, Claire—we spoke previously—and Vera, it is lovely to see you again. It has been a little while since we last spoke. You are right: I think it was during your time, and during my last stint, that we started to look at some of these things with respect to the victims code, and even this.

I will ask a couple of questions if I may. One might be specifically for you, Vera, and I think the other will be broader. Adding to what you have already said, are there any other aspects of the role of Victims’ Commissioner, in the context of the legislation, that you would wish to see elevated? I know we used to talk about, for example, your report being put before Parliament and similar. There is a lot more here than that, but what other aspects would you wish to see elevated in terms of the role?

Dame Vera Baird: It is nice to see that the Victims’ Commissioner must lay their report before Parliament; we have done that for the past two years. We had to crusade our way in, but it seemed important to me that victims’ rights were elevated to a parliamentary responsibility, and that the report did not just go to the Secretary of State. That is already being done, and it is good that it is in the legislation.

The most critical thing is to get data in the way I have already explained, but a big gap—make no mistake, you do need to put this right—is that there is no means to enforce any of the rights under the victims code: not one. It is not even expressed in terms of rights.

Let me give one quick example; I am a nerd on this, even though I have tried to forget in the last couple of months. Right 8.5 allows you as a victim to have a separate entrance and a separate place to wait from the defendant at court. That could not be more important. If my child had been run down by some driver, the last person I would want to meet when I walked through the door of the Crown court would be him—still less with his posse round him, which often does happen.

That is a very good right, and the right continues, but most courts do not have separate entrances and waiting areas. If you let the court know you are worried, it will do its best, but this is supposed to be a right. Many, many times—I am sure Claire will confirm this from an up-to-date perspective—people do come face to face with the defendant as they walk into court, and it is quite terrifying. You have to put the victims code in terms of rights in the first place, but you also have to be able to enforce it. If in default that ultimately must come to the Victims’ Commissioner, so be it.

I have a completely different plan for how we should enforce the code, but there is a statutory rule stopping the Victims’ Commissioner from being involved in individual cases. We still have 70 or 80 cases a month individually sent to us, so there would be a lot if that were done centrally. My notion is that we should have a local victims’ commissioner in the PCC’s office. That need not be a draconian imposition on a PCC; it could be someone who was there for two days. Truly, in Durham, where there are about 1,000 police officers, you do not need a Claire. You need a much smaller status of person.

That person could be the recipient of the complaint, but their working practice ought to be that they have a duty to promote, which needs to be put into the legislation, with respect to victim support services and the use of the code, which is not there properly either. Obviously, you have to have a duty to promote the code internally, so the CPS, the police and the court know they have to deliver it. Then, the victims’ services commissioned by the PCC could argue that a certain person needed an interpreter, or ask whether they had been guaranteed a separate entrance to court. If that was not happening, you could go to the PCC’s office with a working practice of trying to put the problem right in the case. I would not want to meet the person and be able to complain afterwards that I had met him by accident. I would never want to see him.

If you have that local resolution, ultimately for complaints but in the first place to try and intervene through local tentacles—PCCs are quite powerful people now—then you could stop a lot of this damaging material. If you do not, the recipient of the complaint in the first place could be that Victims’ Commissioner champion, who would then take on dealing with that on a local basis.

In the end, I think there have to be penalties. I think police officers should be docked pay; I think the CPS should have something done to them. The first code was in 2006. Now it is 2023 and 80% of people have never heard of it, even though they have gone right through. It is not just that there is nothing to impel it; there is a culture of disregard built on there. You need to change that. If you started there, then somebody has got to take a complaint that is not reconcilable locally up higher and that could go to the Victims’ Commissioner, if that were an appropriate route.

[Edward Argar]

Q Thank you. A very quick subsequent question to you both. I do not want to prejudge what, in due course, the Clerk may deem to be in scope or not of this Bill—whether Jane’s law or whatever—but on the basis that we have not had any such rulings yet, I am going to test my luck a little here.

One of the things you have both talked about is the need for people to be able to understand their rights, access them and know what they are, particularly in the context of the legal advice point for victims and complainants. I would be interested to hear both your perspectives. I know, Vera, that you ran a pilot programme on this up in Northumbria when you were PCC, which was done through you as the PCC. Were that to happen, what would be the right model for it? Would it be PCCs doing that, a national service or a regional service? To both of you: how do you think that might look were such a provision to be made, whether on a pilot basis and then extended or otherwise?

Dame Vera Baird: Two sentences. We could only do it the way we did it by recruiting solicitors from solicitors’ firms because we could not offer people contracts beyond the time of the pilot. So that is how we did it. However, the best way, in my view, is to have a lawyer in a place where independent sexual violence advisers—ISVAs—are also working so that the lawyer is steeped in the ethics and culture of what is going on and has that to draw on for cases coming through. Claire, you probably have more to say.

Claire Waxman: Looking at how this role has worked in London gives us a really good example and evidence of what should be changing. Some of the key issues that we see with victims is that, while the Bill is putting a duty on partners to promote the code to victims, we are still leaving the onus on victims to try and claim their rights. Victims who are just recovering or trying to get over a crime and go through the criminal justice system are not going to be in any state to claim those rights. We need someone to help them navigate that system.

On Vera’s points, first, there is no enforceability; the code is not even really defined as legally enforceable in the Bill and that is an issue. Secondly, there is no enforcement mechanism either. Most victims want to see some redress on their cases. They do not want to go through a lengthy complaints process. What is missing is having that separate entity or agency that works alongside the police and the CPS, so that the moment the victim reports to the police, there is someone supporting all the agencies to ensure that those rights and entitlements are being delivered to victims at the right time. We take the onus off victims to try and battle their way through the criminal justice system and claim those rights.

We also pick up problems if rights are not being delivered, as to how we tackle it there and then in order to keep the case moving all the way through the justice system. That is missing and those are really important mechanisms if we want victims to access their rights and we want to see better justice and recovery outcomes for victims. It is critical that we look at the Bill and how we can use this legislative opportunity to really transform the way victims are treated through the criminal justice system.

[The Chair]

Order. We have 15 seconds left, so that brings us to the end of this morning’s allotted time for asking questions. I thank the witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence.

Abortion: Offences against the Person Act

Edward Argar Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on section 58 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

Section 58 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 is the offence of administering drugs or using instruments to procure abortion. I recognise that abortion is a highly emotive issue across the House, and I understand the strength of feeling on both sides of this debate.

The Government are committed to ensuring access to safe, legal abortion, and ensuring that all women in England and Wales have access to regulated abortion services on the NHS. I also want to be absolutely clear at the outset that, as you have alluded to, Mr Speaker, I am unable to comment on any decisions made by a court in specific cases. Decisions made by a court are based on the facts and evidence before the court, and are a matter for the court and the judiciary. Access to abortion in England and Wales has been settled in law by Parliament, and we do not intend to change this. It takes nothing away from our commitment to ensuring access to safe, regulated abortion.

Let me briefly set out the law as it stands. The Abortion Act 1967 allows for safe and lawful abortion in England and Wales. It defines the criteria under which abortions or terminations can legally take place. In effect, lawful abortions can be carried out in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, where two doctors agree that the abortion is necessary and that it falls within one or more of four grounds. In practice, this means that access to an abortion is available to those who need and want it. Abortions beyond 24 weeks are also possible in more limited circumstances.

Abortions outside of these provisions are a criminal offence in England and Wales, while the criminal law in Scotland and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved Administrations. In England and Wales, the criminal law provisions in the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 have to be seen in conjunction with the provisions in the Abortion Act 1967, which provides exemptions to the criminal offences. The Government have a duty to see that the provisions of these Acts are properly applied, until and unless Parliament chooses to further amend the law. We believe that abortion continues to be a matter of conscience, and any changes to the criminal offences relating to abortion or to the Abortion Act 1967 would normally be subject to a free vote and a matter for Parliament, rather than a matter for His Majesty’s Government.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing an urgent question on this important matter of public policy. As we know, earlier this week a mother of three children was sentenced to a period of imprisonment for ending her pregnancy and was prosecuted under section 58 of the Offences against the Person Act, a piece of legislation dating from 1861 that carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

This case was desperately sad, and thankfully rare. It has been debated widely in the media and throws up important questions that merit an open debate in a healthy democracy. Crucially, though, it throws a spotlight on our antiquated abortion laws. Government and Parliament must look at this outdated legislation and make it fit for the 21st century. Can I therefore ask the Minister the following questions?

How do the Government reconcile the fact that women in Northern Ireland have already been removed from the criminal justice system by a vote in Parliament on 9 July 2019? The provisions of the Offences against the Person Act no longer apply in Northern Ireland, and there is a moratorium on abortion-related criminal prosecutions, so women in one part of the United Kingdom are treated differently from women in other parts of the United Kingdom in relation to the criminal law, which cannot be right.

Secondly, what is the Government’s view on the statement from leading medical bodies, including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives, raising concerns about the chilling effect of the current legal position and of the custodial sentence in this case, which they say

“may signal to other women who access telemedical abortion services, or who experience later gestation deliveries, that they risk imprisonment if they seek medical care”?

Finally, as we know, decriminalisation does not mean deregulation, and time limits would still apply. Have the Government undertaken any review of the necessary regulation that would be required if the criminal law were removed from this area of healthcare law in England and Wales? And have they engaged with the royal colleges and Professor Dame Lesley Regan, the women’s health ambassador, on establishing a new regulatory regime for abortion that does not involve putting women in prison?

[Edward Argar]

As this is my first opportunity at the Dispatch Box this week, and as an east midlands Member of Parliament, I put on record that my thoughts are with the families and all those affected by the terrible incident in Nottingham. Our thoughts go out to that great city and all those involved.

It is important to remind the House that the right hon. Lady has taken a principled and passionate interest in this issue for many years. I will not comment on the specifics of the case. The House has heard her very carefully worded references and, if she will forgive me, I do not propose to add to them because there is still the possibility of further legal proceedings in that case and I do not want to pre-empt anything in that space.

The long-standing position remains that it is for this House to seek to make changes, if it so wishes, but not for the Government. As I said, any such vote would be, in normal process, a free vote and would be brought before the House in the context of a private Member’s Bill or perhaps through the tabling of a dextrous amendment, which I know some Opposition Members are not averse to doing, and with success.

The position in Northern Ireland is due to a decision made by the House, cognisant of the fact that there would be different regimes in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales. Again, we respect the will of the House in that respect.

Sentences are a matter for the courts. As the right hon. Lady said, Parliament set the maximum sentence at life imprisonment, and it is open to Parliament to change that if it so wishes, but the courts have to apply the law as set by this Parliament, or by a previous Parliament many, many decades ago.

I accept the right hon. Lady’s final point that any change would not be about deregulation, and I heard her make that point very clearly on the radio a few days ago, seeking to frame it in a public health or health context, rather than a criminal context. Again, that is a matter for the House, not for the Government.

I am not aware of any specific conversations between the Government and the royal colleges and others on regulation. Were Parliament to show its will and seek to change the law, the Government would, of course, work to implement the will of Parliament effectively and efficiently.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Given advances in care for babies born prematurely, might this be a good time for the Government to facilitate a debate in Government time, followed by a free vote, to get at least an indicative feeling of where the House now stands, given the current situation?

[Edward Argar]

What debates are scheduled in Government time is a matter for the Leader of the House, who is in her place and will have heard my right hon. Friend’s representation, on which I am sure she will reflect.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Opposition spokesperson.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for this vital urgent question, where she has highlighted the current problems clearly.

On behalf of colleagues, let me say that this is a shocking, tragic and complex case. Three children have been left without a mother. Women should be able to get access to safe, legal abortion. We are worried that this judgment will deter women from seeking urgent medical and healthcare support that they need—that is paramount. Of course, there need to be safeguards and time limits in place, to prevent late-term abortion, which does mean there needs to be some kind of legal framework. However, we do not want to see vulnerable women serving prison sentences or being prosecuted when it is not in the public interest to do so.

I ask the Government to work with us to look at options to prevent an awful case such as this from happening again. More immediately, I ask that the Sentencing Council looks at this case to stop this sort of circumstance, with this sort of sentence. It needs to do that because no guidelines are in place for this section of the 1861 Act and it needs to produce up-to-date guidance. We should not have vulnerable women sent to prison like this.

The Director of Public Prosecutions must also review the guidance on public interest prosecutions. Will the Government review the legal framework to see how best to ensure that women are not deterred from seeking medical and healthcare advice, while keeping proper safeguards in place? We will, of course, work with the Government, on a bipartisan basis.

The Minister has said that this a matter of conscience and for a free vote in the House, so I know that there will be Ministers who have been absent or opposed action to improve access to abortion. In the wake of this awful case, I hope that the Government will be in a position to take action, at least on sentencing guidelines. This is too important an issue to play politics on. Labour is willing to work with the Government. We ask them to note that the legal framework currently has two legal frameworks: one for Northern Ireland and one for the rest of the UK. [Interruption.] And I thank the Speaker for his indulgence. [Laughter.]

[Edward Argar]

May I say that that was dextrously done by the shadow Leader of the House? She makes valid points in her typically reasonable and measured tone. She is right to highlight that this was an extremely complex and emotive case. Again, I hope she will forgive me for not straying into commenting on the judgment or the decision taken in this case. There is a legal framework for safe abortions, which is set out in the Abortion Act 1967. It set out the conditions under which abortion is legal and is available.

On the hon. Lady’s comments about the CPS, I gently say that in considering any decision it has to look at both the evidential test and the public interest test. However, the CPS is independent and it makes those decisions; again, it would not be appropriate for a Minister to comment on CPS charging decisions. Similarly, the Sentencing Council is independent, and it determines what to review and how to review it. I suspect that it will have heard her comments, but, again, it would be inappropriate for me to seek to direct the Sentencing Council, given its independent function.

Like the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, the hon. Lady mentioned that there is a difference in the frameworks in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales. The House was cognisant of that difference when it chose to make that decision, and that decision must be respected. As for any future decisions made by this House, I simply reiterate that were the House to seek to change the law and come up with a different framework, the Government would of course work to implement the will of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

When the House debated whether it should be possible to receive an abortion pill through the post, we warned that there might be a tragic case such as this. Some people in the abortion industry are now using this tragic case to argue for some sort of legal right to abortion up to birth. Given that many babies are surviving at 24 weeks, that is an obscene and cruel proposal. Surely the solution, given that it is difficult to determine gestation without an in-person appointment, is to return to the system of in-person appointments, so that women can receive safe, legal abortions if they wish.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend; his remarks highlight that there are strongly and sincerely held views on both sides of this debate, and it is right that those views are respected and able to be aired in Parliament. In noting that, all I would say on his final point is that although I respect his view, the House did debate that matter, and it expressed its view and voted accordingly.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has stated its belief

“that prosecuting a woman for ending their pregnancy will never be in the public interest.”

Even though the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is England and Wales legislation, constituents of mine, and I know of other MPs in Scotland, have been in touch concerned about this shocking case and the precedent that it sets in a worldwide context of erosion of women’s bodily autonomy. Abortion is a devolved matter and the SNP remains committed to protecting the legal right to essential healthcare, which is what abortion services are, safely and free from stigma. I hope to see more progress in Scotland on this area. I welcome that today sees the lodging of the final proposal for MSP Gillian Mackay’s private Member’s Bill on buffer zones in Scotland and I wish her all the best with that.

Is the Minister concerned that this judgment may create a chilling effect on women accessing healthcare services and, given the outrage that the judgment has caused, would he support decriminalisation to prevent this from ever happening again?

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady highlighted a number of points there. As she rightly highlighted, this matter is devolved in Scotland. I know the Holyrood Parliament will be considering it in due course and that is, of course, a matter for that Parliament.

On the hon. Lady’s comments about the public interest, that is one of the tests that the Criminal Prosecution Service applies in making a charging decision—whether there is sufficient evidence and whether it is in the public interest. It would be inappropriate for me as a Minister to second guess or comment on the decisions that it reaches in individual cases.

On the hon. Lady’s final two points, again, whether the law in this area should be changed is a matter for this House, not for the Government. This is a matter of conscience for Members of this House. This House is not shy about expressing its will, as we have seen on various matters, and I suspect that this may well be debated again.

In respect of the hon. Lady’s concerns about the impact the judgment may have, again, I will be cautious in not commenting on the judgment itself, save to say that I believe that, under all the provisions that impact in this space, there have been only two convictions in five years.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I always find it distressing, when these issues are debated, that so little concern is expressed for the welfare of the unborn child. Surely that should be an equal priority, alongside the mother’s health. Does the Minister agree that the least the Government could do in view of this case is review the regulation of the providers who send out these pills?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

Again, my hon. Friend’s contribution highlights to the House that there are genuine and sincerely held views on both sides of the debate, with colleagues concerned about the unborn child’s rights and, equally, colleagues concerned about the mother’s right to choose and the mother’s health. It is right that those points are aired. On his specific question, that would be a matter for colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care and I will ensure that they are aware of his question.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Following this shocking case, a constituent contacted me about her experience of seeking an abortion. Her partner is on medication, one side effect of which is that it can cause serious foetal abnormalities. For that reason, she was advised to seek an abortion, only to be told that it was not a legally valid reason, which seems ludicrous, and that she should make up another reason. Will the Minister commit to reviewing and updating the legally valid reasons for having an abortion?

[Edward Argar]

I hope the hon. Lady will appreciate that I cannot comment on a specific case. She may wish to write to me and I will see, depending on circumstances, whether there is anything I can write back to her with, but I do not want to set expectations because I will have to judge that when I receive the correspondence. However, she is welcome to do that. Again, her question is essentially relating to changes to the legal framework around abortion. As I have set out, that is a matter for this House—the will of the House—and individual parliamentarians in a free vote.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

This tragedy would not have occurred had there been a requirement for a face-to-face consultation and clinical administration of the drugs, would it?

[Edward Argar]

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that I am not going to comment directly on this case and the judgment involved, but I refer him to the answer I gave some moments ago in respect of that decision: this was debated and the House expressed its view.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I start by joining the Minister in expressing our condolences to the people of Nottingham. I had the honour of meeting Grace O’Malley-Kumar when she and her father were part of the vaccination effort in my local community. She was a wonderful young woman who clearly had a very bright future ahead of her.

The 67 prosecutions in the last 10 years under this legislation and the conviction that we have seen in England and Wales show that it is not a theoretical issue to consider whether women in England and Wales have a legal right to an abortion. They do not have a situation where they are exempted from prosecution. The situation is completely different in Northern Ireland, where this House voted to implement a human rights approach and give women in Northern Ireland a human right—something the Minister himself did not oppose when it came before this House. Has he had any legal advice on the inequality in the ability of women within the UK to exercise their human right to choose what happens to their bodies?

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I am pleased the hon. Lady’s voice held up through her question. I suspect she possibly still knows some of those who are friends with Grace, so I hope that through her I can pass on my condolences to them.

The hon. Lady is a passionate campaigner on these issues and dexterous in her use of amendments and the procedures of this House to make progress on the campaigns that she cares about. On her point about Northern Ireland, I have not received legal advice on any impacts of the differential regimes, but I gently reiterate that the House made that decision knowing that it would create a different regime in Northern Ireland, and I respect the will of the House.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Regardless of one’s views on abortion, surely it must be that those women seeking an abortion get proper medical advice so that their health and the health of the unborn child are protected?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an entirely sensible point. It is important that, when women make what is a very difficult decision, they have access to appropriate advice to assist them in making that decision. That advice is perhaps more a matter for colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, but I will ensure that they are aware of this urgent question.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Not only has a great deal of concern been expressed in this place about the case, but I am sure we have all received representations from constituents who are concerned and alarmed that this could happen. It has created uncertainty among women. What is the law? What are their rights? That is another reason why I ask the Minister to press for a debate in this place, so that we can address the law and reassure women about the situation.

[Edward Argar]

This House has debated these issues on a number of occasions, certainly during my time in the House and during the hon. Lady’s time in the House. The Leader of the House is not in her place at the moment, but she will have heard the point that has been made. Any such decision on a debate would of course be a matter for the usual channels and the Leader of the House, but I will again ensure that she is aware of that request.

[Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)]

It appears to me that every time anyone comes to this place and speaks openly about the rights of the unborn baby, they tend to get shouted down and jeered at. I am pretty sure that this subject will come to this House again in the not-too-distant future, and I am pretty sure it will vote to relax these rules. But before it does that, I want this House and this country to think of those unborn babies. They are lives—after 6 weeks old, those babies are fully formed and it is just a case of them growing, as we continue to do when we are outside the womb. We should also do all we can to help people to have as few unwanted pregnancies as possible. I am sure no woman goes to an abortion clinic and has an abortion and does not hate that experience. I am sure it is something that no woman ever wants to do. Can we just think of those unborn babies and of the women having those abortions? Maybe, if they had used contraception or had looked at things in a different way, these babies would not have happened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend highlights again that there are sincere and genuinely held views on both sides of this debate. Respect for those divergent views must characterise how we debate what is an extremely sensitive issue. This place, the heart of our democracy, is the right place for such views to be debated and discussed.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

How is it possible that Roman Catholic Spain and Italy—home to the Vatican —have decriminalised abortion but we have not?

[Edward Argar]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that different approaches are taken across Europe—for example, the UK has a 24-week limit; in most European countries that is much lower, at 12, 13 or 14 weeks. There are differences of approach across European countries such as France. We are roughly in line with the Netherlands in terms of the time limit. I take his point, but there is genuinely a wide range of approaches across European countries on some of the specifics in this space.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

In 2020, this House amended the law in Northern Ireland to remove the threat of criminal sanctions for any woman who attempted to end their own pregnancy. There is cross-party agreement in this place that more must be done to protect a woman’s right to abortion. I have great respect for the Minister, I have heard what he has said, and I understand that Parliament knew this would be the case when we established the different framework, but may I implore him to extend the same protections elsewhere in the UK so that no more women in desperate circumstances are ever threatened with prison again?

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady knows that, as well as having a huge amount of respect for her, I consider her a friend. I listen very carefully to what she says. I reiterate that Parliament was cognisant of the divergence when it made this decision. Of course, it is open to Parliament—if it so wishes at some point in the future—to change in the usual manner the framework in England and Wales. But that is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for this House and a matter of conscience.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The Minister says that abortion is “a matter of conscience” for the House, but it is also a matter of women’s mental and physical health. Surely Parliament has a duty to ensure that there is a consistent, humane and modern legislative framework that supports women’s wellbeing. On that point, could he confirm whether women’s personal data in relation to that medical treatment remains private and under their control?

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady makes a clear point about the divergence between the regimes of the two jurisdictions, and she rightly highlights the physical and mental health aspects of what is always going to be an incredibly difficult decision for any woman to take. It is, as I say, open to Parliament to make further changes through the usual routes—private Members’ Bills and similar—if it so wishes. On her latter, technical question, I understand that to be the case, but will she allow me to write to her? I do not want to unwittingly mislead her in any way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I am hopeful that the Minister will soon bring forward something so that we can discuss this. As colleagues on all sides of the House have said, there is a need for a modern, fact- based discussion. Will he ask his Conservative colleagues to ensure that, when we have those discussions, male colleagues are not speculating about what might be in a woman’s mind when she goes to seek treatment of that kind?

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady makes a couple of important points. Any legislation or changes to the legislative framework will, of course, be a matter for the House via the usual mechanisms in this space—private Members’ Bills and so on. In respect of debating the matter in the House, I cannot prejudge that, but I know that the Leader of the House will have heard hon. Members’ requests, and I am sure that she will, as she always does, reflect carefully on their views. In respect of the hon. Lady’s final point, I go back to what I said a few moments ago: respect, and respect for different people’s views and perspectives, as well as for what different people are thinking and feeling, must characterise debate of what is clearly a highly emotive and sensitive issue.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Minister seems to be saying that if something is deemed a matter of conscience and subject to a free vote, it is never a matter for Government legislation and bringing it forward is reliant on private Members’ Bills or Back-Bench amendments, as we saw with the Northern Ireland situation. Surely that is a total abdication of responsibility. We used to see that with LGBT rights, when free votes were allowed across the House. Is it not up to the Government to show leadership on this issue—which is primarily a healthcare issue for women, whether it is physical or mental health—and bring forward legislation that we can discuss?

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady will know that on matters such as abortion and assisted dying, it has been a long-standing approach by Governments of both parties—hers as well—that those are matters for the House and not for Government. In respect of what would happen were the House to legislate, I have already made clear that if the House did express its will through legislation, Government would of course respect that and work to implement whatever the House decided efficiently and effectively.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his balanced answers. If the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) thinks that section 58 should be replaced because it was made a long time ago, why is she not asking for repeal of the entire Offences against the Person Act? The whole Act is old. The age of legislation is irrelevant. What is important is what it does. Section 58 provides vital protection for not just the person but the most vulnerable person of all: the unborn child. Will the Minister commit to protecting the sanctity of life, as other developed European nations do, where the average limit is 14 weeks, and uphold section 58? Will he urgently review safeguards for the pills-by-post scheme, to ensure that such a case never happens again?

[Edward Argar]

I know that the hon. Gentleman has strong and sincerely held views on this subject. In respect of the broader provisions in the 1861 Act, I have to be honest that I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North would like to keep them, and I will not presume to know her mind. It is quite possible that she would like to see further changes, but the scope of this urgent question is this section 58 of the Act.

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that there are strong views on both sides of this debate. We have heard from other Members about the rights of the unborn child, but we have also rightly heard about the health rights of mothers and a woman’s right to choose. We have to recognise that this needs to be a balanced debate, with views listened to respectfully on both sides. On his final point, that will be a matter for colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, but I will ensure they are aware of the point he makes.

Draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2023

Edward Argar Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 General Committees

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2023.

Before I set out the effect of the draft order, it may be helpful for hon. Members if I explain the legislation underpinning the change that the Government are bringing forward. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 governs the disclosure of cautions and convictions for most employment purposes. More serious convictions remain disclosable for life, but under the ROA most convictions become spent after a specific period. Once a conviction is spent, it does not need to be disclosed by someone applying for most jobs. That approach supports the rehabilitation of the offender, helping them to put their past behind them when they have not reoffended over a significant period.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 lists activities or categories of jobs in respect of which those protections are lifted, so that individuals, are still required to disclose spent convictions if asked to do so. That enables greater disclosure of criminal records information for people in specified roles and activities. The primary rationale behind the exceptions order is that there are certain jobs for which more complete or relevant disclosure of an individual’s criminal record may well be appropriate.

Although it is generally desirable to facilitate getting ex-offenders into employment, the public must remain adequately protected. There are some areas in which an employer should be made aware of a person’s fuller criminal history before an offer of employment is made, so that consideration can be given to any necessary safeguards. The exceptions order is therefore a counterbalance to the ROA in favour of the protection of the public, providing a greater level of disclosure for individuals performing roles or activities that require additional safeguarding: working with children or vulnerable adults, for example, or in positions of public trust.

The draft order will amend the exceptions order by adding four roles to the exceptions order: chartered management accountants, fire and rescue authority employees, justice system intermediaries and notaries public of England and Wales. Each of those roles has been identified as meeting the criteria for inclusion in the exceptions order: either they are in line with the existing roles and activities reflected in the exceptions order, or there is a compelling case to justify requiring individuals to disclose all spent and unspent convictions. I will set out the rationale for adding each of those four roles to the exceptions order.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

Is the Minister aware—this is an open question—whether, ahead of this legislation, other professional organisations are going further with respect to liberalisation?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. This is a very narrowly defined set of professions, and the draft order will fulfil a request from some of those professions. As I will address in my closing remarks, there is always a difficult balance to be struck between liberalising the regime, to encourage and facilitate people who have offended but have a subsequent clean record getting into work and back into normal life, and protecting the public in particular circumstances. That does not necessarily mean that the individuals will not be given a job, but it does ensure that their employers have full disclosure so that they can make an informed decision.

The first profession to be added to the exceptions order is members of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. The reason is that the functions that they carry out are fundamentally based on trust, and they present a particular opportunity to cause harm to the public through abuse of that trust: they provide services including accounting, taxation and financial management services. The exceptions order already includes chartered accountants and certified accountants, but not members of CIMA, even though they carry out similar functions. I am persuaded that members of CIMA should be included in the exceptions order to enable the institute to discharge its regulatory functions properly and to ensure consistency with Scottish legislation, which already includes them.

The second profession is fire and rescue authority employees, for whom I also consider that there is a clear case for change. From the independent culture review of the London Fire Brigade, from media reporting on services across England and Wales and from recent reviews of fire and police culture, we have seen the importance of ensuring that we effectively vet and check the people we employ in our key public services; we have repeatedly debated those important issues in this House. Furthermore, the recent spotlight report on culture and values by the fire inspectorate, commissioned by the Government, specifically recommends such a change. The case for making it is also supported by considering the roles that individuals in our fire and rescue services undertake, which can include attending schools or vulnerable people’s homes, attending incidents as medical first responders, exercising statutory powers and helping to safeguard others. We hope that the change will help to protect the reputation of our fire and rescue services, which are deeply trusted and highly reliant on public trust and respect for the amazing job that they do to carry out their roles effectively.

The third profession is justice system intermediaries, whose role is to enable communication in police inquiries and in court and tribunal proceedings with those witnesses and parties whose ability to participate is diminished because they are under 18 or are suffering from a mental or physical impairment. It is common for some intermediaries to have unsupervised access to vulnerable adults for the duration of a communication assessment. In rarer cases, they have unsupervised access to children under the age of 18. The role can also involve discussions with vulnerable people concerning highly personal or sensitive matters such as domestic or sexual abuse. Those factors add to the safeguarding risk and place the intermediary in a position of increased responsibility for the welfare of the vulnerable person.

The fourth profession is notaries. “Notary” or “notary public” is a term for a specialist lawyer who has undertaken further legal education and examination and is appointed and regulated through the Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Notaries are authorised to attest the authenticity of documents, certify documents, take affidavits and swear oaths. Most notaries are solicitors, but they do not have to be. In the light of the Ukraine crisis, the then Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), wrote to legal services regulators to ask how the Government could support them to uphold the economic crime regime. In response, the Faculty Office recommended adding notaries to the exempted professions under the exceptions order. Adding notaries to the order will provide parity with other legal professionals such as barristers and solicitors, who are already subject to standard Disclosure and Barring Service checks, as opposed to the basic checks. Furthermore, given that notaries handle sensitive information and often work with vulnerable people, we consider that the role of a notary meets the criteria for inclusion in the order.

At present, employers can request only a basic DBS check for the aforementioned roles, unless specific activity being undertaken as part of the role makes them eligible for more than that. A basic check is the lowest level of check available and shows only those convictions and cautions that are not considered spent. Approving the draft order will enable employers to request standard DBS checks for prospective employees in those roles. It will also enable employers to assess the suitability of a person for any office or employment that the draft order adds to part 2 of schedule 1 to the exceptions order, such as in the case of the fire and rescue services. Standard DBS checks contain details of both unspent and spent convictions, as well as cautions held on the police national computer that are not subject to filtering, which is a process whereby old or minor convictions are filtered off a standard DBS check.

It is important to bear in mind that where an employer is aware of a conviction, it should not be an automatic bar to employment. The Government strongly urge employers to exercise a balanced judgment, taking into account factors such as the person’s age at the time of the offence, how long ago the offence took place, the nature of the offence and its relevance to the position in question. The Government are committed to the rehabilitation of those who have ceased offending and want to move on with their lives. I am proud to say that we have completed the roll-out of prison employment leads, who match prisoners to jobs, and employment advisory boards chaired by business leaders, which link prisons with local industry. We have delivered those in 92 prisons, including all resettlement prisons, ahead of schedule.

We want to ensure that employers use the new powers granted to them under the draft order fairly and proportionately. As a condition of these professions being added to the exceptions order, representatives of each profession have agreed to produce or update guidance, which is being developed with the support of policy officials. The guidance will help to ensure that employers are fair in their recruitment decisions.

In conclusion, adding justice system intermediaries, fire and rescue authority employees, chartered management accountants and notaries to the exceptions order is a necessary safeguarding measure. The criminal records disclosure regime is designed to protect the public, particularly children and vulnerable adults, while enabling those who have offended in the past to move on with their lives. We believe that the change that we propose appropriately strikes that balance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I will respond briefly, if I may. I thank the shadow Minister, both for her typically considered remarks and for the support that she has offered for this measure on behalf of the Opposition. I hope that the Committee agrees that this instrument is necessary and that adding the four additional professions, or roles, to the exceptions order is a sensible measure to ensure the protection of the public. It is always a complex balance to strike, and I share the hon. Lady’s desire for those who have committed a crime and paid for it and who wish to get back on the straight and narrow to be enabled to get their life back on track and live within bounds again. There should be no unnecessary barriers to that, but equally, appropriate safeguards and checks must be in place for particularly sensitive roles. As I have said, there is no automatic exclusion preventing someone from being offered a role; it is about the due diligence to check that their potential employers know what is coming.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the Minister give way?

[Edward Argar]

I will, because I was just about to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Actually, I was going to be really cheeky and say that women’s centres offer a particularly good place for rehabilitation for women. The Minister came to visit my local women’s centre in Brighton, and we would love to see him back to see the improvements and the continuous struggles that the centre has had in delivering justice and rehabilitation for women in my area.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who typically puts in a plug for his own constituency and the services provided there. I recall that in my last stint in this role, I had the privilege of visiting his constituency, visiting his local women’s centre with him and seeing the team’s amazing work down there. I can still remember it: I think we posed for a photograph on the front step after spending quite a long time chatting with the team, service users and others about the amazing work being done there. If I am able to, it is always a pleasure to return to sunny Brighton, particularly at this time of year or during the summer.

On the point that the hon. Gentleman made in his intervention on the shadow Minister, I think that this measure is an important step forward, but he is absolutely right to highlight that no statutory instrument—no single piece of legislation—can solve the problem. Once it is passed, it is not a case of “Job done: there we are.” Every organisation in our public services and beyond, particularly one that works with vulnerable people or holds a position of trust, has an ongoing responsibility to continue to look at its behaviours and processes to ensure that safeguarding, particularly of vulnerable individuals, is front and centre in its approach. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to highlight that point.

The shadow Minister raised a couple of questions. I have not met the campaign group that she mentioned, but if she wishes to write to me about the campaign as a starting point, she knows that I will always read her letters with care. As I mentioned in my opening speech, we are reviewing the guidance around each of the professions. We want to do so with the professions to try, in so far as is possible, to make it jointly authored and ensure that it actually works for the specifics of each. We will seek to do so collaboratively where we can. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to. 

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

3. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the use of non-disclosure agreements in sexual assault, harassment and misconduct cases.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

As the Minister for Victims, I am committed to ensuring that victims are supported in seeking justice through the criminal justice system where they choose to do so. I most recently spoke with ministerial colleagues about the use of NDAs in the context of discussions around tackling violence against women and girls.

[Layla Moran]

I thank the Minister for his response, but non-disclosure agreements and gagging clauses are endemic. They are used almost unthinkingly by businesses, political parties and even schools in cases of harassment, bullying and discrimination. They silence victims, prevent them from accessing vital services, and serve only to disempower. In the Victims and Prisoners Bill, we have a golden opportunity to ban them once and for all, so I thank the Minister for his words in yesterday’s debate and his offer of a meeting for Members, but would he consider meeting the victims so that he can hear at first hand the effect that these insidious things have on the victims themselves?

[Edward Argar]

As the hon. Lady will be aware, we have legislated to prevent higher education providers from using NDAs in cases of sexual abuse, harassment or misconduct, or other forms of bullying or harassment. The Government held a thorough consultation on the misuse of NDAs between workers and their employees, and we are planning our next steps carefully. As the hon. Lady alluded to, I listened carefully to her speech yesterday, and in that context agreed to meet with her and other Members. I am always willing to meet with victims, but given the cross-cutting nature of this issue across many Government Departments, it is probably most useful if I meet with her in the first instance and we take things from there.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

4. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the Illegal Migration Bill on access to justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)]

21. What steps he is taking to support victims of domestic abuse through the court system.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

As the Victims Minister I am committed to supporting all victims to pursue an outcome in the criminal justice system and bring perpetrators to justice. That is why we are more than quadrupling funding for victims and witness support services by 2024-25, and are recruiting to increase the number of independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers by 300—to more than 1,000—by the same time. Through the groundbreaking Domestic Abuse Act 2021, we have introduced important new protections and support for victims of domestic abuse at court.

[Holly Mumby-Croft]

It is important to remember that anyone can be a victim of domestic violence, including men. My constituents have raised this issue with me; will the Minister do all he can to reassure them and me that men, too, will be supported through the justice system?

[Edward Argar]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that men can be victims of domestic abuse and domestic violence. All victim survivors deserve access to timely and appropriate support. The updated controlling or coercive behaviour statutory guidance 2022 signposts specialist organisations that support men and boys who are victims of domestic abuse, alongside non-gendered services. Among the specialist organisations that we fund as a Government are ManKind and Dads Unlimited. The Home Office also supports the Men’s Advice Line, run by Respect.

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

22. What steps he is taking to support employment advisory boards.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Edward Argar Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 15th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to deliver the closing speech in this Second Reading of the Victims and Prisoners Bill. I give my genuine and sincere thanks to right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House for their thoughtful contributions. The tone, by and large—with the exception of Opposition Front Benchers—has been measured, thoughtful and considered. Actually, given the nature of the issues, the debate has been remarkably non-party political.

Let me start by paying tribute to previous Lord Chancellors who have worked on the Bill—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis)—and, indeed, paying tribute to the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), for the work that he did on the Bill in his previous incarnation in the Ministry of Justice. I will turn in due course to the speeches made by Members today, but first I want to pay a particular tribute to all the victims, and victims’ families, who have talked to us, worked with us, told us their stories and helped to shape the Bill. Despite their own personal tragedies, they have worked tirelessly to improve the system for others, and we are incredibly grateful to them.

As we heard earlier from my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, this is a crucial Bill, and as one who was victims Minister between 2018 and 2019 and is now in that post once again, I must say that it is a particular privilege for me—as it is for my right hon. and learned Friend and others—to hear from victims who have come to see us to tell us about their experiences so that we can understand them just a little bit better. They come with bravery and relive very traumatic events in their lives to share them with us, and it is extremely humbling when we have those conversations. I see that the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), is now sitting on the Front Bench; I know that he took a close interest in this issue when he was in the Ministry of Justice.

The Bill makes good on three long-standing manifesto commitments—three promises that the Government made to the British people. First, we promised to introduce a victims’ law, and we are fulfilling that commitment. For instance, we are enshrining the principles of the victims code in law so that victims, as well as every agency in the criminal justice system, are in no doubt about the service that victims should receive. Secondly, we promised to introduce an independent public advocate to support survivors and the bereaved after major disasters. We seek never again to see victims suffer as the Hillsborough families have, as the Grenfell families have, and as families have following the Manchester arena bombings. Thirdly, we promised to strengthen the parole system so that public protection would be the pre-eminent factor in every decision about whom it is safe to release.

As my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of the debate, if justice is to be delivered, victims must be treated not as mere spectators of the criminal justice system, but as core participants in it. That is the mission of this Government and the mission of this Bill. Huge progress has been made over the last decade for victims: that progress includes boosting the ranks of our police officers to tackle crime and bring criminals to justice, locking up the most dangerous criminals for longer as a result of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, improving the response to rape and domestic abuse victims through the End-to-End Rape review and our landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021, unparalleled investment in victim and witness support—we are more than quadrupling the 2009 levels of funding to support victims—and introducing a clearer, strengthened victims code. However, we rightly committed ourselves to doing more, and today we are doing more. The Bill will boost victims’ entitlements, bring greater oversight, amplify victims’ voices, and deliver further safeguards to protect the public.

[Sarah Champion]

Will the Minister give way?

[Edward Argar]

I will, very briefly. There are a number of colleagues to whom I want to respond.

[Sarah Champion]

I recognise and truly respect the work that the Minister did in his last role as victims Minister. Will he tell us whether he will fight to secure the necessary funding for all the measures that he is proposing and those that are already in legislation, because it is not there right now?

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady and I have worked together in the past, and I thank her for her intervention. I will come to the subject of funding in a moment, because it was mentioned by a number of other Members in this context.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Select Committee, for his work in respect of the Bill and for his typically thoughtful and forthright expression of his views on behalf of his Committee. Those who worked with me on both sides of the House on the Health and Care Act 2022 will know that I am always willing to engage with and genuinely listen to colleagues during the Committee and Report stages of legislation, as, indeed, is my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. That does not mean we will always be able to agree with everything, but we will engage, and we hope to make it a genuine engagement.

We have heard some sincerely held views expressed today. In respect of the independent public advocate, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and indeed to Lord Wills, whom I have met, as well as the other colleagues across this Chamber who have engaged with these issues. I had the privilege of meeting the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood along with the shadow Lord Chancellor and other Members recently to discuss the independent public advocate. What has emerged from the debate today, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), is a general desire to make part 2 of the Bill work for the victims and their families and to ensure that, while disasters may sadly occur again, no one has to go through what those victims and families went through.

The right hon. Lady was very clear with me about the importance of agency and empowerment. She was also clear about the context and about how those victims and those families who had lost loved ones had come to this point and what they had experienced, as well as the need for them to trust in the process and the concerns they had about when the state or powerful organisations seek to use their power to conceal or to make their lives much harder in getting to the truth. I understand where she is coming from, and my commitment and that of the Lord Chancellor is to work with her and other colleagues to see whether we can reach a point where everyone is content with part 2 of this legislation.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) spoke powerfully, and I am grateful for her kind words. She has played a huge role on behalf of victims and those who want to see crime tackled and criminals brought to justice. I look forward to working closely with her as this legislation progresses. She rightly highlighted the importance of police and crime commissioners, a number of whom I have met recently, including Matthew Barber, Lisa Townsend and Donna Jones, and Sophie Linden, the Deputy Mayor of London. They do a fantastic job.

One of the issues that hon. and right hon. Members have raised is whether a victim chooses to report a crime and the impact that can have. I am happy to reassure the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) that whether or not someone chooses to report a crime, they will still be able to benefit from the victims code, and the clauses in this legislation that link to it will read across. I hope that gives her some reassurance. That point was raised by other Members as well. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) raised the issue of NDAs. Without prejudice to the scope of this legislation and where we might land, I am always happy to meet my right hon. Friend and the hon. Lady.

Hon. and right hon. Members have highlighted a number of areas today where they would like to see the legislation go further in some cases and perhaps go less far in others. The only caveat I would gently add relates to scope. Some of the things they wish to push for may well be in scope, and I suspect that those who end up on the Bill Committee—I am looking at the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who I suspect I might see sitting across the Committee room—will wish to explore them, but I just caution that there might be some areas that, just through the nature of scope, will not be able to be debated. It is important for those watching our proceedings to understand that the nature of scope is determined by what is already in the Bill.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke touched on ISVAs and IDVAs, as did a number of other hon. and right hon. Members including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley. Last Thursday I had the privilege of speaking at the national ISVA conference and of meeting a number of them. There was strong support for guidance around their role, although I appreciate that the sector has mixed views on this. We are explicitly not seeking to create a hierarchy of support services but rather to recognise the professional role that ISVAs and ISDAs undertake and to help to bring greater consistency to it and greater awareness of their work across the criminal justice system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) comes to this debate with a huge amount of experience of the criminal justice system. He spoke thoughtfully and he knows of what he speaks. He also served as a Minister in the Department. His comments on part 3 were measured, and I will always carefully consider what he says. He touched on the requirements on the judiciary, and I gently caution that we are limited—quite rightly, given the separation of powers—in what we can and cannot tell the judiciary to do, but I suspect the Judicial Office will be following these proceedings carefully.

[Rob Butler]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Edward Argar]

I will make a little progress, as I want to speak for roughly the same amount of time as the shadow Minister, to be fair to her.

The hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), for Rotherham, for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Kniveton), all spoke movingly, powerfully and personally about their interactions with the criminal justice system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton spoke movingly about her experience of domestic abuse, and the whole House will admire the courage shown by all Members who spoke in such very personal terms. The hon. Member for Canterbury, in particular, demonstrated a huge amount of courage in giving a powerful and emotional speech, and she spoke for many who perhaps do not have the ability to speak for themselves in conveying what she did. She touched on third-party material, as did a number of hon. and right hon. Members, and that is one reason why I welcome the additional step we have announced today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who was my ward colleague on Westminster City Council for a while, invited me to meet Charlie Webster. I know Charlie from my previous incarnation in the Department, when we visited a number of services together. I am always happy to meet Charlie, and my office may already be trying to arrange a meeting. My hon. Friend also touched on her support for the IPA, which I very much welcome.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) and the hon. Member for Rotherham touched on the recent debate, and my hon. Friend’s ten-minute rule Bill, on prisoners changing their name. I hope to be able to meet my hon. Friend very soon to discuss the matter, and if the hon. Lady wishes to attend that meeting, I am always happy to see her, as I was when last we worked together.

Like the hon. Member for Rotherham, I pay tribute to Claire Waxman, with whom I have worked very closely in both my previous and my current role in the Department. The hon. Lady also mentioned Sammy Woodhouse, and I believe I engaged with her on the issues raised by Sammy last time I was in the Department and, like her, I am pleased to see the progress we have made in this space.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) was typically thoughtful, but I gently say to her that we have engaged throughout with the Welsh Government on the victim provisions. Indeed, back in early December, I believe my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton received a letter from Mark Drakeford thanking him for the close engagement with the Welsh Government on this Bill, and we will continue to engage on the newer provisions, such as the IPA. As with the Health and Care Act 2022, I am happy to engage with Welsh Government Ministers.

Finally, the hon. Member for Walthamstow asked for clarification on the definition of a victim. I hope I have given her some reassurance that, whether or not a crime is reported, an individual can still come into the orbit of the victims code. One thing she uniquely mentioned, which I will look at with her if she wishes, is the overseas angle. I am always happy to engage with her, and this time it is not about the private finance initiative in hospitals.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Among the long list of points the Minister addressed, I did not hear the one about murderers who refuse to appear in person in court to face their accusers and their sentencing. Does he think that that would be within the scope of this Bill?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. My understanding is that that would probably not be within the scope of this legislation, but he will have seen that the previous and current Lord Chancellors have been clear in their determination to explore legislative options to address exactly that issue.

I very much look forward to engaging across the Committee Room with the shadow Minister and indeed with all those on the Committee, because genuinely important views have been expressed today, from particularly personal perspectives and with particular angles on elements of this legislation. That has been underpinned by a determination on both sides of this Chamber to make this work and a commitment to making the Bill an effective piece of legislation. I approach it in that spirit, as I hope the Opposition will.

As I bring the debate to a close, I say again that victims are not bystanders. Their views and experience matter greatly. They deserve to be treated with respect, compassion and dignity at every turn in the criminal justice system. It is only with their engagement and immense bravery in coming forward that we can bring criminals to justice and make our streets safer. That is why we have acted. That is why the Bill will put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system, where they belong, so that every victim’s voice is heard, every victim gets the support they need and every victim is empowered to seek the justice they deserve. This is about giving victims, and the British public, confidence that the parole system will keep them safe. We will ensure that they are listened to. We will ensure that justice is done. We will work to ensure that more criminals are caught and brought to justice, which is why we are delivering today on our manifesto promises to bring this legislation before the House. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

VICTIMS AND PRISONERS BILL: PROGRAMME

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

That the following provisions shall apply to the Victims and Prisoners Bill:

Committal

1, The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 13 July 2023.

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

Consideration and Third Reading

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

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

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

Other proceedings

7. Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Jacob Young.)

Question agreed to.

Victims and Prisoners Bill: Money

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Victims and Prisoners Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State, and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Jacob Young.)

Question agreed to.

Victims and Prisoners Bill: Carry Over

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 80A(1)(a)),

That if, at the conclusion of this Session of Parliament, proceedings on the Victims and Prisoners Bill have not been completed, they shall be resumed in the next Session.—(Jacob Young.)

Question agreed to.

Victims’ and Offenders’ Rights

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 9th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) for securing this debate and for flagging some of the key issues yesterday. Although many of the issues she raises fall within Home Office policy areas and are not matters on which I have any authority, I will endeavour to answer as much as I can. If I am unable to do so, I undertake to ensure that the relevant Home Office Minister is given a copy of the transcript of the debate, with the right hon. Lady’s comments on the latest response she has received from the Immigration Minister highlighted, and asked to address any outstanding points in correspondence with her. I will, however, endeavour to address as many of her points as possible.

Let me begin by saying that, as the right hon. Lady has alluded to, behind every crime is a real person who has suffered harm, a real person picking up the pieces and living with the trauma of having survived that crime. We must always keep that in mind in our response to victims of crime. To quote the strategy that I brought forward as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice in 2018:

“The message from victims is clear: they want to be treated fairly, properly and with dignity. They want clear, timely and accurate information. They want the opportunity and the support to make their voice heard”

and their rights upheld. That is reflected in what the right hon. Lady has said about her constituent.

I believe that this Government have a strong track record on victims’ rights. The Government have fulfilled their commitment to introduce the Victims and Prisoners Bill. I do not wish to tempt fate, but I suspect that the right hon. Lady may well take advantage of the opportunities to debate it. If she is not on the Bill Committee, I suspect that she may well raise her points on Second Reading and Report. The Bill will enshrine the principles of the victims code in law, and require key criminal justice agencies to promote awareness of the code. That will send a clear signal about what victims can, and should, expect from the criminal justice system.

The right hon. Lady raised an important set of points centring on the specific, horrific and deeply saddening case of one of her constituents. I am grateful to her for sharing some of the background, and I offer my deepest sympathies. Although I cannot comment on the detail of that specific case, I will try to address some of her broader underlying points. As I said, I commit to ensuring that Home Office Ministers respond to any points to which I am unable to respond.

I will try to set out in broad terms the Government’s stance on foreign national offenders, the protection of human rights and mental health considerations to set the context for how some of these decisions are made. As the right hon. Lady said, the British public rightly expect that we put the rights of law-abiding citizens who are victims of crime above those of criminals. We are clear that foreign criminals should be deported from the UK wherever it is legal and possible to do so. As such, the removal of FNOs—if she will allow me to use the acronym—is a Government priority, with 13,000 deported between 2019 and 2022. My Department continues to work closely with the Home Office to increase that number.

Any foreign national who is convicted of a crime and given a prison sentence is considered for deportation at the earliest opportunity. FNOs can be removed from the UK via three main routes before the end of their prison sentence. Prisoner transfer agreements enable prisoners to be repatriated during their prison sentence, and they continue to serve that sentence in their home country. We have over 80 agreements in place with other countries. They also operate to bring British national offenders back to the UK. The early removal scheme and the tariff-expired removal scheme allow for FNOs to be removed before the end of their sentence, subject to a minimum time served. They are subsequently barred from re-entering the UK, and we are clear that any illicit entry will see them returned to prison.

Ideally, we would look to negotiate PTAs with all countries to allow all FNOs to serve their sentences in their home country. However, both the negotiation of new agreements and individual transfers require the agreement of the receiving country, and, as such, an appropriate and functioning Government with which to engage. That means it is not possible in all circumstances.

We are prioritising countries with the highest volume of FNOs. Our new PTA with Albania entered into force in May 2022, and we are working closely with the Albanian Government to speed up the removal of Albanian offenders, freeing up space in our prisons and reducing costs to the British taxpayer. In addition, we are looking to negotiate new prisoner transfer agreements with key EU member states and wider-world countries. We signed a new protocol to the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons in October 2021 to widen the scope of transferring prisoners without their consent.

We are now going further to ensure that FNOs cannot frustrate their removal process. Last year, under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, we expanded the early removal scheme to allow foreign national offenders to be removed up to 12 months before the earliest release point of their sentence, instead of 9 months. Their sentences will be paused following their removal and reactivated if they ever return. We also introduced the priority removal notice, giving those liable a cut-off date by which they must inform the Home Office of any additional grounds for their protection and human rights claims to remain in the UK, with evidence. The Act also allows for disqualification from the receipt of a recovery and reflection period available to victims of modern slavery, for any FNO who receives a custodial sentence of 12 months or more.

We are using the Home Office’s Illegal Migration Bill, which is currently passing through the House of Lords, to take further action. The Bill proposes that the disqualification from protection for modern slavery victims applies to all FNOs who receive a custodial sentence of any length, and it requires the Home Secretary to declare as inadmissible asylum or human rights claims from countries designated as safe states. From what the right hon. Lady has said, I understand that many of those factors would not apply in the case of her constituent, but it is important to set out the context. My understanding is that the Home Office’s policy of transferring asylum seekers to Rwanda—a designated third country—is not applicable to FNOs in this context.

I will turn to some of the human rights considerations that the right hon. Lady alluded to. The Government are committed to protecting and respecting human rights and the rule of law at home and abroad. The UK is a state party to the European convention on human rights, and is responsible for securing for everyone within its jurisdiction the rights set out in it. I will turn to articles 2 and 3, as far as I can, in moment. However, the deportation policy is subject to several exceptions, including where it would be deemed a breach of a person’s rights under the ECHR or the UK’s international obligations under the refugee convention. Individuals can be returned to their country of origin only when the Home Office and, where applicable, the court deem it safe to do so. When someone is removed from the UK, although certain rights, such as article 8, are qualified and can be balanced against the rights of others in the public interest, such as the rights of the victims, some rights are absolute under the ECHR and the HRA, which sits behind it, and cannot be limited or balanced in such a way.

In line with our international obligations, under article 3 of the ECHR, which is an absolute right, the UK Government cannot legally remove any person to a country where they are found to be at serious risk of torture or inhumane or degrading treatment. The right hon. Lady will have to forgive me for not being able to give her a definitive answer to what constitutes a third country or a third party in that context. I will ask that Ministers in the Home Office respond to that detailed legal point, and I hope that they will do so expeditiously.

Articles 2 and 3 rights are absolute rights that, in this case, can be deemed to be potentially contradictory. My understanding is that the victim—the right hon. Lady’s constituent—has article 2 rights, as we all do, in this context. In the deportation case, the question would have been focused on the article 3 rights of the FNO because the deportation case relates to the foreign national offender. Legally, that is what would have had to be considered. As I said, the article 3 right is an absolute right, and because that individual was the focus of the deportation, and therefore the party to the deportation, that right in that case becomes the absolute right. It is not the victim who is the subject of the deportation proceedings; it is the FNO. If I recall correctly, the right hon. Lady has a legal background, so she will understand the complexities of that. It may—how shall I put it?—sit uncomfortably with her, but in that case, legally it would have to be matters relevant to the FNO that are relevant to the decision.

The right hon. Lady touched on mental health issues and how the Mental Health Act 1983 works in this context. It is important to note what must be taken into consideration when a person is detained in hospital, rather than prison. I understand from what she said that that is directly relevant to this very unfortunate case. Under the Mental Health Act, a court can make a hospital order as an alternative to a prison sentence if it considers that it is necessary to do so to protect the public from serious harm. The decision to discharge will be made only after the consideration of detailed evidence from clinicians, social supervisors, the MOJ, nursing staff and any other parties that will have a direct interest in the management of the patient in the future, and only if it is believed that the patient no longer requires treatment in hospital for their mental condition, and that they do not pose a risk to the public that cannot safely be managed in the community.

Although those protections are of course necessary for any decent country, we remain committed to protecting the rights of victims of crime. The Human Rights Act 1998, which was a significant achievement of the previous Labour Government—I am always willing to acknowledge where these things have been done—incorporates into UK law rights drawn from the ECHR that protect the rights of victims of crime in the UK.

The victims code—a statutory code of practice—includes an entitlement to be referred to services that support victims. Although it is not appropriate to deal with that on the Floor of this Chamber, that is within the MOJ’s responsibilities, so if the right hon. Lady wants to speak or write to me about her constituent’s experience of not getting the support they needed, I am happy to look that separately. The MOJ provides police and crime commissioners with annual grant funding to commission local practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types.

The issues discussed today are of incredible import, and we have a strong focus on and proven record of putting victims at the heart of the criminal justice system. We do, however, remain bound by international law, where some of those rights and absolute rights may appear contradictory or in conflict with one another. There will always be complex and difficult cases where those two commitments meet.

In respect of the services that the constituent of the right hon. Member for Walsall did or did not receive, I am happy to pick that up with her separately to understand what happened. I appreciate that it does not change what happened, but it will enable me to look into it and hopefully to address some of those concerns. In respect of her point about a third country and the UK’s status in that context, that will be for the Home Office but I will ask that it addresses the point specifically, rather than generally, if it is able to. As I say, I have set out the broad context for the article 2 versus article 3 rights and why it would be the article 3 right that was applicable, because it was the FNO who was the subject of the deportation order. If she would like further detail on how that works in a letter from the relevant Minister at the Home Office, I am equally happy—she may nod assent or not at this point, given her legal background—to ask for that. [Interruption.] She is nodding assent, so I will ask again that that is included in more detail. Given her legal background, as I say, she may wish to interrogate that further, and I suspect she will.

I hope the right hon. Member will also convey my sympathies to her constituent for what was, on the basis of what she has been able to say, a horrific attack on someone doing their job—doing a job where they were seeking to help members of the public to improve their lives and get them the support they need. No one in any context should be subject to such a horrific attack. I hope the individual is recovering, in so far as she is able, from the trauma of being a survivor of such a crime, but where it crosses into Ministry of Justice policy I am happy to engage with the right hon. Lady and see if I am able to assist in any way.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Argar Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

15. What plans his Department has to consult on the options for reform in its response to the domestic homicide sentencing review.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

I am very grateful to Clare Wade KC for her work on this review, and I would also like to pay tribute to Carole Gould and Julie Devey for their tireless campaigning following the tragic murders of their daughters Ellie Gould and Poppy Devey Waterhouse, in whose names they campaign.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Deputy Prime Minister published the domestic homicide sentencing review on 17 March. We will launch a public consultation on increasing the starting point to 25 years for murders preceded by controlling or coercive behaviour. We have also announced other key measures to help ensure that sentencing better reflects the seriousness of these horrific crimes, so that this important legislation can be introduced as swiftly as possible.

[James Gray]

My constituent Carole Gould broadly welcomes the 17 proposals in the Wade report. Indeed, she welcomes the fact that we have had the Wade report at all. However, we bitterly regret the fact that only two years have been added for overkill, coercive behaviour and strangulation. It should be much higher than that: it should be 25 years minimum. We are also very disappointed that, of the 17 proposals Ms Wade brought forward, only three have so far been taken up by the Government. When will the Minister bring forward a consultation on the remaining 14, and how many of the remaining 14, which Ms Wade believes should form one package, will be accepted by the Government?

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am very much aware of the calls of Julie and Carole in this respect, and of their campaigns. I had the privilege of meeting them virtually recently, and I look forward to seeing them in person in due course. I am also aware of his dedicated campaigning on these issues in his role as a constituency MP.

Reflecting the complexity of the law in this area, our full response will be published this summer, providing an important opportunity to engage stakeholders and hon. Members as we continue to consider the remaining recommendations. We published the review because my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister felt it was very important that it was out there and people could contribute to that debate. As my hon. Friend highlights, we have accepted three recommendations and rejected one, and the other 13 will be considered very carefully in the light of representations made to us in the coming months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

19. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on tackling domestic abuse.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues about tackling domestic abuse and how we can build on the progress already made. The Government have made good progress on our implementation of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and the majority of measures are now in force. In February of this year, we announced additional measures to further tackle domestic abuse, including recording the most harmful domestic abuse offenders on the sex offenders register and classifying violence against women and girls as a national threat for policing for the first time. Just this month, we have announced tougher sentences for domestic abusers who kill their partners or ex-partners.

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but several areas were not addressed in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and many of us believe that they need to be covered in the forthcoming victims Bill. Specifically, they relate to improving the support that survivors receive. It is now a year since the publication of the draft Victims Bill, and we are still waiting for its First Reading. Will the Minister update the House on what the timetable is likely to be, and whether, once introduced, it will address areas such as the lack of specialist services for minority groups, the lack of mental health support, and the gaps in provision for children?

[Edward Argar]

As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question and the tone in which she put it. She will have seen the draft Victims Bill, and our response to the prelegislative scrutiny report by the Justice Committee. On support, she will be aware that we have more than quadrupled the funding for victims of crime, up from £41 million in 2009-10. As the Minister who wrote the victims strategy when I was last in this post in 2018-19, like her I very much look forward to the victims Bill. I hope she will not have long to wait, and I look forward to it being brought forward in due course. When it is, I look forward to working constructively with her as it passes through this House and the other place.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

Since questions began at 11.30 am today, 12 women across the country will have been raped. It is likely that not a single one of them will see their rapist charged. Those women have no Victims’ Commissioner and no victims Bill to protect them. Have not women suffered enough? How long will victims have to wait until they are put first in this broken justice system?

[Edward Argar]

Under this Government victims are always put first. The hon. Lady raised two or three points, and she will be aware that reports and charges of rape, and receipts in the Crown court, have been going up. There is more to do in that space—we have been clear about that—but we have continued to drive progress, not least through the Operation Soteria approach that we have piloted in a number of areas. She mentioned the appointment of a Victims’ Commissioner, and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has been clear that we are in the process of recruiting for that role. I am sure she would wish us to follow due process—those on the Labour Front Bench have called for that on a number of topics—and that is exactly what we are doing. I urge her to be patient with respect to the victims Bill, and I hope she will shortly be satisfied on that score.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Firearms Bill

Edward Argar Excerpts

Friday 24th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) for so ably stepping in for my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who has done so much work to bring forward this private Member’s Bill and to see it progress through the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich did an admirable job of picking up the reins and deftly steering the Bill through Third Reading. This important and proportionate measure will help to advance safety while allowing legitimate activities to continue.

As always, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), approaches the Bill in a pragmatic and sensible way. He highlighted the horrendous events in 2021 that saw the killing of five people in his constituency, and I pay tribute to him for the phenomenal support he gave to his affected constituents and to his community in the light of those horrific events.

As the hon. Gentleman said, he will shortly be seeing the Policing Minister, on whose behalf I am responding today. In respect of the inquest findings following the horrific events in his constituency, I believe that the Policing Minister is committed to respond within 60 days, which according to my calculation brings us to mid-May. It is right for those findings to be considered carefully and properly, and, while I do not wish to pre-empt what the Minister will say, I know that he will indeed be considering them very carefully.

I am happy to confirm that the Government support the Bill, which has been the subject of consensus across the House. It aims to address two vulnerabilities in the existing licensing controls, which have been debated in a commendably constructive way during its passage so far, here and in Committee. We committed ourselves to taking action following a public consultation on specific firearms safety issues that took place between 24 November 2020 and 16 February 2021.

Clause 1 tightens the law relating to miniature rifle ranges by removing the exemption, provided by the Firearms Act 1968, that has allowed those operating such ranges to do so without the necessity of first obtaining a firearm certificate. Removing that exemption will mean that the operators will be subject to police checks ensuring that the ranges operate within a secure and safe framework, and that the firearms used there are stored securely. The Home Office will amend its guidance to reflect the fact that the operation of a miniature rifle range constitutes a good reason for possessing suitable firearms and ammunition, which I hope provides the reassurance sought by some Members on this point during earlier debates. The clause also means that the .22 rim-fire rifles used on miniature rifle ranges—a type of firearm that is already subject to licensing by police in other circumstances—will rightly be brought within the licensing regime for miniature rifle ranges. Furthermore, the term “miniature rifles” will be more tightly defined so that only the less powerful .22 rim-fire firearms may be used on miniature rifle ranges.

Clause 2 tackles the unlawful manufacture of ammunition by introducing a new offence of possessing component parts with the intent to assemble unauthorised quantities of complete ammunition. The police had raised concerns that the component parts of ammunition were too easy to obtain, and were being used by criminals to manufacture whole rounds. I know there has been concern about the possibility that this is a back-door way of introducing controls on component parts, or that it will somehow prevent people from home loading their own ammunition. I hope it has been made sufficiently clear in our previous debates that someone with a valid certificate covering the complete rounds they possess will have nothing to fear, and that the measure is aimed at the criminals who seek to manufacture ammunition illegally. Concerns have also been raised—and were touched on by the shadow Minister—about clause 2 not extending to 3D printed ammunition. I hope it will reassure Members to know that such 3D printed items are subject to the law in the same way as any other firearm or ammunition. The fact that a 3D printer may have been used to make ammunition illegally could also be used in proving intent to a court.

Both those measures received support in the public consultation that I mentioned earlier. It was widely acknowledged, by those representing shooting interests as well as those who wish to see tighter firearms controls more generally, that these changes would help to strengthen our firearms controls. The Bill will make a valuable contribution to firearms legislation while also ensuring that those who wish to continue to engage in firearms activities legitimately—whether that involves target shooting at clubs or activity centres, the legitimate home loading of ammunition, or other lawful activities—can continue to do so.

Law enforcement agencies called on the Government to tighten the regulation in these areas and we have responded, but our work in keeping firearms law under review—another issue on which the shadow Minister sought assurances—and continuing to ensure that there are strong gun controls in this country does not stop here. A number of other issues that have rightly been raised during the Bill’s passage are out of scope, but the Government will continue to consider them closely in the context of the reports that have been received about the tragic shootings in various parts of the UK in recent months.

Let me end by thanking, in absentia, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West for bringing the Bill to the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich and the shadow Minister for the tone in which, as ever, they have approached this issue. I also put on record my thanks to the Home Office officials who have worked with Ministers in responding to and working on this piece of legislation, and to officials in my own private office in the Ministry of Justice—one of my private secretaries is sitting in the box as we speak—for the speed with which, in recent hours, they have made sure I am fully briefed for this debate. I hope to see the Bill continue to progress through Parliament apace; I look forward to its having a smooth and swift passage through the other place and into law and I fully support what is proposed.

Work of the Law Commission

Edward Argar Excerpts

Wednesday 1st March 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for securing this important debate and, more broadly, for his contribution to this country’s criminal justice system as a lawyer, somebody who sat on the bench, a Justice Minister, a Solicitor General, and a distinguished and reforming Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. There is much from his tenure in that office of which he should rightly be proud. I also had the privilege and the pleasure, when an Under-Secretary of State for Justice, of serving under his leadership. I will also highlight at the outset, in response to one of his comments—and with more than a nod to the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones)—that many things are done very well in Wales.

Let me start by offering my thanks on behalf of the Government to Sir Nicholas Green and his team for the hugely valuable work that the Law Commission undertakes, working with experts and the public to make sure the law in England and Wales remains modern, simple and fair. The sheer scale and variety of its contribution to law reform since it was established is extremely impressive, and it is difficult to find an area of the law that has not been improved in some way at some time by its work and its recommendations.

As my right hon. and learned Friend has set out, the Law Commission was created by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of recommending reform to the law. It is a statutory arm’s length public body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, and its principal objective is to promote the reform of the law by reviewing given issues and making appropriate recommendations for change. In making those reform recommendations, its main aim is to seek to ensure that the law remains fair, modern, simple and cost-effective.

A number of specific types of reform are covered by the 1965 Act and have been enacted by the Law Commission through its work. They include the simplification and modernisation of the law through recommendations on codification, the removal of anomalies, and the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments. Its remit also covers the consolidation of legislation and the streamlining of overcomplicated law, as well as the formulation of new legal approaches to emerging high-profile social policy issues.

When determining what reforms to recommend, from time to time the Law Commission consults widely, taking views from judges, lawyers, Government Departments, the voluntary and business sectors and the general public, to help draw together new programmes of law reform that are then submitted to the Lord Chancellor for their approval before undertaking the work. It can also take on individual ad hoc projects referred by Government Departments.

Before the Law Commission decides to review an area of law reform, it considers them against certain criteria, including their importance or the extent to which the law is unsatisfactory and the potential benefits of reform. It considers whether the independent non-political organisation is the most suitable body to conduct a review of the law in that area. Lastly, it considers resources, so that full consideration is given to whether the valid experience of its commissioners and staff is engaged, whether funding is available and whether a project would meet the requirements of other work, if included as part of a programme.

It is fair to say that the Law Commission has a strong and well-founded reputation for considering immensely technically complex areas of the law, which can be significant for individuals and businesses. Its independence and commitment to open consultation is a key asset when trying to build consensus on sensitive issues across a broad range of different interests.

My right hon. and learned Friend rightly alluded to the economic value of the Law Commission’s work. In analysis undertaken by two independent economists in 2020, the figures are impressive. Its five largest projects over recent years have generated a net present value of more than £3 billion over 10 years. Even its most technical codification projects can save money. For example, the sentencing code reforms enacted in the Sentencing Act 2020 are estimated to generate savings in the justice system of up to £250 million over 10 years. The Electronic Trade Documents Bill, based on Law Commission recommendations, is an example of the Law Commission’s value and influence on Government business currently before Parliament. The impact assessment for the Bill estimates net benefits to UK businesses of £1.137 billion over 10 years when enacted. These are not insignificant sums.

Recommendations from at least four of its recent criminal law projects are currently in or about to be before Parliament. They include the protection of official data project, leading to new espionage offences in the National Security Bill; the modernising communications offences project, which has led to communications offences in the Online Safety Bill; the intimate image abuse project, alluded to by my right hon. and learned Friend, where the Government have publicly committed to partial implementation in respect of the sharing offences in the Online Safety Bill, reflecting the scope of that legislation; and the corporate criminal liability project, from which the Government have publicly committed to including a new “failure to prevent fraud” offence in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill.

On the implementation of the Law Commission’s work more generally, my right hon. and learned Friend has set out his concerns—if I can put it that way—that there can sometimes be unnecessary delays implementing its recommendations, and some may remain unenacted after publication. There are many reasons why some recommendations are not taken forward. Sometimes, there is a simple change of ministerial priorities or possibly, in recent years, of Ministers. There may be a lack of parliamentary time.

However, in addition to ministerial commitments, as he alluded to, a new parliamentary procedure was introduced for uncontroversial—if I may put it that way—consolidating Law Commission Bills. This procedure helps to reduce the time that this type of Bill spends on the Floor of the House, by providing for certain stages to be carried out in Lords Committee. That makes perfect sense where a Bill consolidates existing provisions without making substantive changes, and where that consolidation has been done by the experts at the Law Commission to accurately reflect the existing law passed by Parliament.

My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned Standing Order No. 59 and its procedures. I hear what he said, but any changes to Standing Orders would be a matter for the House to consider. He may wish to raise this matter with the Lord President of the Council, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), and I will ensure that her office is made aware of what he has said. The Procedure Committee may also wish to take a view on that. I am fortunate in that my Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), is a member of that Committee, so I am sure he will be able, in that capacity, to ensure that it is aware of the views that my right hon. and learned Friend has expressed today.

Implementation rates can, of course, vary wildly year on year, depending on a number of factors. It is not unusual for implementation to happen some time after the publication of final reports. If we look at implementation over the last 10 years since 2013, 61 projects have been completed but only 13, or 21%, have been implemented, although 22, or 36%, have been accepted by Government either in full or in part. In the last five years since 2018, 27 projects have been completed, with only one, 4%, implemented in full or in part, although 12 reports have been accepted either in full or in part.

The more recent statistics are reflective of the fact that the last five years, as I think right hon. and hon. Members will agree, have certainly not been typical in parliamentary terms, in relation to the nature of what this House has had to deal with—hence the vast majority of projects that still require further consideration before they receive a Government response. Looking over a longer period, the overall figures on the implementation of the Commission’s work are very impressive. In fact, between 1965 and 2022, 64% of Law Commission law reform reports were implemented, in whole or in part, with only 13% rejected or 5% superseded. Therefore, in total, about two thirds of all Law Commission recommendations have been implemented to date, with only a small fraction being explicitly rejected by Government.

Full details of the implementation status of all Law Commission reports—whether they have been implemented, are still awaiting a response or are in the process of implementation—will be set out in the next edition of the Government’s implementation report, which is currently being drafted and is expected to be published shortly. Until it is published, I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will accept that I cannot pre-empt the status of any particular project, but I know he will take a close interest in it when it is published.

Impressive though the overall implementation rate is, there is always room for improvement. One obvious and immediate opportunity might come out of the increased engagement that the Government will have in the formation of the Commission’s next, and 14th, programme of law reform. As my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware—he certainly should be aware—that is the result of the new funding and operating arrangements he introduced in 2020 as Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. They create a new model to give the Commission better financial stability during the year so it can better prioritise resources on established projects, while seeking new work. To facilitate that, the Commission now receives 100% of its funding directly from the Ministry of Justice. My right hon. and learned Friend has ensured that the Commission’s foundations in respect of its resourcing are sound and provide a solid base from which it can move forward.

The majority of the work that the Commission undertakes is in programmes of work submitted for approval to the Secretary of State for Justice, as its sponsoring Minister, every four to five years. The Commission recently announced that it had decided to extend the timetable for finalising the content of the programme in view of the Government’s focus on priorities for the remainder of this Parliament. Given the time remaining, it simply does not consider that now is the right time to establish a new long-term programme of work that would cover the next five years and beyond.

However, thanks to the new arrangements that my right hon. and learned Friend put in place, the work on it current and 13th programme, launched in 2017, can continue at pace, including on projects such as smart contracts, electronic signatures, automated vehicles, intermediated securities and modernising trust law. Others focused on the way in which the law works for the individual or businesses, such as on surrogacy, residential leasehold, unfair terms in residential leasehold, disposing of the dead, simplifying the immigration rules, employment law hearing structures, administrative review, museum collections and liability for chancel repair. I think that gives a sense of the breadth of the work undertaken by the Commission.

I am happy to report that the new model has already proven extremely successful since it was introduced, suggesting a fair degree of foresight on the part of my right hon. and learned Friend, allowing the Commission the flexibility to undertake more ad hoc work for Government, as well as the capacity to continue to work on any projects from its current 13th programme that are either yet to be started or completed. It is currently working at full capacity and is likely to remain so for some time. Given that the new funding model will rely on increased and proactive engagement between the Department and the Commission during its planning and development, more thought can be given to the prospect of implementation during the process.

The Commission has already consulted publicly on ideas for the projects that the 14th programme might contain, in addition to its own ideas on themes such as emerging technologies, the law following our exit from the EU, the environment, legal resilience and other ideas for simplification or codification of the law. It has continued to refine and develop those and all other ideas received since then. That in itself should present a much clearer picture to the Government of the likelihood of eventual implementation when they ask the Commission to take forward a piece of work in the new programme.

Let me end by reassuring my right hon. and learned Friend—my friend, indeed— that implementation will be a closely considered part of the approval process for the next programme of work, and that the Government still fully intend to agree a new programme with the Commission in due course, allowing it to build on its work to date and the strong foundations put in place by my right hon. and learned Friend.

Question put and agreed to.