Serious Crime Bill [Lords]
Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the support he has shown for the National Crime Agency. I think that the agency is on the right track. There is always more that can be done, but the NCA is obviously building up its operations and capabilities. One crucial difference between the NCA and SOCA is the way in which the NCA operates with police forces around the country. There is also a clear intelligence hub at the heart of the NCA, which means that operations are being focused on the most harmful threats. In every case, a decision is taken on whether it should be a collective operation, an individual force operation or an NCA operation, and on what assets should be brought to bear in those operations.
I shall talk about those aspects of the Bill that will strengthen our ability to get hold of criminals’ assets, as that forms an important part of the work that is being done. Criminals want to make a profit out of their activities, and the more we can do to disrupt them and to access that money, the better. Of course, there is always more that can be done. Parts 1 to 4 of the Bill deal with ensuring that we are able to give the NCA and other agencies the powers that they need to bring offenders to justice, to deprive them of the proceeds of crime and to prevent them from engaging in further criminality. Under this Government, asset recovery has been stronger than ever before. We have recovered around £746 million of criminal assets. We have returned some £93 million to victims, and denied the use of £2.5 billion-worth of assets that have been frozen by the courts. However, we can and must do even better.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I fully endorse the provisions of the Bill that will make it easier to attach assets resulting from criminal behaviour. The Home Secretary referred earlier to pensioner scams, of which there have been many in my constituency recently, as well as in other parts of north Wales and in Cheshire. Sometimes we have the Cheshire police, the Greater Manchester police and the North Wales police all investigating the same crime. Surely we need better co-ordination if we are not to waste effort in such an unproductive way.
Mrs May
The way in which the National Crime Agency operates involves a decision on how best to deal with any particular organised crime group that comes to its attention. The agency works with individual police forces as well as with the regional organised crime units to ensure that assets are being used as effectively as possible against the organised crime groups. I am not saying that a situation such as the one the right hon. Gentleman describes could never happen, or that different forces are never involved in investigating the same crime. However, before the NCA came into being, we set up an organised crime co-ordination centre to consider precisely that issue. We do not want anyone to slip through the net, but we also do not want police officers operating against an organised crime group to be put in danger because of the operations of another force. There might be more work to be done in this regard, but there is now a much greater ability to co-ordinate, particularly through the regional organised crime units.
Mrs May
I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend says about this later and the detail that I am sure he will fill in. We are addressing the whole question of the risk that an individual may face from female genital mutilation in the new offence of failing to protect a girl from the risk of FGM. It is important that those who have responsibility for these young girls and are aware of what might be happening recognise that they need to do something to ensure that the individual is not at risk and is not put through FGM. I look forward to hearing the arguments that my hon. Friend will advance later in relation to his point.
Part 5 of the Bill includes another child protection measure in making it an offence to possess so-called paedophile manuals—material that contains practical advice on how to commit a sexual offence against a child. It beggars belief that such things actually exist, but regrettably the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, a command of the National Crime Agency, has seen a number of examples. That being the case, it is right that we act to outlaw the possession of such material. In doing so, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), who has campaigned assiduously on the issue.
If there are other gaps in child protection legislation, we are determined to take the necessary action to safeguard those at risk of harm. That is why last month my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that we will amend the Bill to make it an offence for an adult to communicate sexually with a child. Many hon. Members have supported the campaign by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and I pay tribute to them for highlighting this gap in the law.
Before leaving this part of the Bill, I confirm that we will table amendments in Committee to strengthen the protection afforded to the victims of domestic abuse. As the House knows, over the summer the Home Office ran a consultation seeking views on whether a specific offence was needed to criminalise coercive or controlling behaviour in intimate personal and family relationships, and 85% of respondents agreed that the law in this area needed to be strengthened. With over 1 million calls for assistance to the police each year for domestic abuse-related incidents, but only 78,000 prosecutions, it is clear that the criminal justice response to domestic abuse is woefully inadequate. The new offence will provide an additional charging option where there is a pattern of non-violent controlling conduct, the cumulative impact of which can be no less traumatic for the victim.
Mrs May
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me the next sentence.
I am aware that a number of hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), have campaigned for the introduction of such an offence. I pay tribute to Members who have brought this important matter to the attention of the House. Does the right hon. Gentleman still wish to intervene?
Mrs May
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the interest he has taken in this subject and the way he has pursued it.
Finally, the Bill will close a gap in our current legislation in relation to terrorism. Clause 72 extends the reach of the UK courts so that those who prepare or train for terrorism abroad can be prosecuted should they return to this country. As the House is aware, a significant number of UK nationals or residents have travelled to Syria and Iraq to take part in the conflicts in those countries. We face the very serious threat that those fighters may seek to return to the UK and carry out attacks or radicalise people here. Extending extra-territorial jurisdiction for the offences in sections 5 and 6 of the Terrorism Act 2006 will bolster our law enforcement agencies’ ability to protect the public—but we will need to do more. Later this week, the House will have the opportunity again to debate the wider provisions of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, which is designed to disrupt the ability of people to travel abroad to fight and to counter the underlying ideology that feeds and supports terrorism. Given the immediacy of this threat, we will bring forward amendments in Committee to provide for the provisions in clause 72 of this Bill to come into force on Royal Assent.
Before I conclude, I want to advise the House of one further amendment that we will bring forward in Committee. The use of unauthorised mobile phones in prison poses a significant threat to prison security, as well as affording prisoners the opportunity to continue engaging in serious and organised crime while serving their sentence. While significant effort is put into tackling this problem within prisons, physically detecting handsets, let alone SIM cards, is clearly challenging given the ease with which they can be hidden. We need to find a more cost-effective way of denying prisoners the use of mobile phones. Our amendment will therefore confer a power on the civil courts to require mobile network operators to disconnect unauthorised mobile phones in use in prison.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) who has brought a great deal of expertise on cybercrime to the House. As we approach the last 12 weeks before Parliament must be dissolved, some might have thought that the temperature would rise. However, we have a crime Bill that will pass through the House of Commons not unchallenged by the Opposition, but with their support and that of all the other parts of the United Kingdom. That is a recognition of the fact that we are dealing with very serious issues on which there is common ground. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate and support the Government’s agenda, with the caveats expressed by the shadow Home Secretary in such a constructive way. I am not quite saying that peace has broken out, but it is good to see Parliament working together on an issue of such importance.
This would be a Christmas tree Bill, but we have passed Christmas and are now in the new year—I am not sure what the parliamentary term is for so many different parts of the Home Office’s agenda put into one Bill.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee earlier reminded us that we are within about 12 weeks of breaking off for the next election. I am in the happy position, as he also reminded us, of not standing at the next election, so I hope I can speak with a touch of objectivity. That said, the debate so far has been interesting and, for a change, it has provided more light than heat and there has been very little political bickering. Everyone who has spoken has accentuated certain points in this wide-ranging Bill in different ways—interesting ways, and no doubt sincere ways, too.
It is a great pleasure to follow my fellow Welsh Member, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), and I am aware of the work he has done, with other Members, on the subject he addressed. I am pleased that it seems likely that the matters for which he has been pleading will come to fruition. In my experience, however, civil servants are always more difficult to persuade than Ministers—a common experience that we all share, I am sure.
I by and large welcome the Bill and believe that the provisions on confiscation orders, for example, will be helpful to the courts, making sure, as was said earlier, that crime does not pay. That is so, particularly in the more straightforward cases in which the courts exercise their power to determine the extent of the defendant’s interest in a property. There remain, of course, rights of third parties to intervene and claim proprietary rights and so forth, but in the round I think the provisions are quite well drafted and I suspect that they will be used more often than the Government assume. The default provisions are welcome, too, and may well persuade a defendant to pay up rather than serve a substantial extra sentence.
The Bill is a good example of legislation having been improved by its passage through the other place. During its stages there, the Government conceded a number of amendments, which have arguably made it a better piece of legislation. One example was the Government amendment to the provisions in clause 44 relating to being part of an organised crime group. When the Bill was first announced in June this year, the Government couched these provisions as a mechanism that would
“send a clear signal to discourage corrupt and complicit professionals and others who provide the materials, services, infrastructure, information and other support that organised crime groups need.”
It was evident from the start that this aspect of the Bill was one that the Government were keen to highlight for various reasons.
However, organisations such as the Law Society voiced their opposition to the original wording, and made the point that the way in which the mens rea of the offence was drafted was too broad and could, in fact, catch individuals who were unintentionally caught up in a situation. The Government accepted the recommendation of the Law Society’s money laundering taskforce to change the mens rea from “reasonable cause to suspect” to “reasonably suspects”—in other words that the individual had participated in an organised crime group. That is to the good, for sure.
As the noble Lord Bates said in the other place:
“In Committee, noble Lords were concerned that ‘reasonable cause to suspect’, as an objective test, could capture the unwitting or naive and that there might be instances where the ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ became clear only with the benefit of hindsight. In providing for a threshold of ‘suspects’ without qualification”
in the amended Bill, it
“certainly deals with the concerns about inadvertently capturing the naive or unwitting.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 2014; Vol. 756, c. 143.]
That acceptance by the Government is important not only in its own right but as an example of accepting the advice of experts. I find it reassuring in light of the furore about joint enterprise charges relating to murder. Although it is slightly tangential, it is still relevant. The serious disquiet of many senior members of the judiciary and of the Justice Select Committee is, it seems to me, good evidence of that.
I shall, however, concentrate on part 5 of the Bill, which I believe contains the most progressive measures. Clause 65 introduces an offence of child cruelty, and, crucially, does so by balancing physical with psychological harm. I am pleased that the Government have seen fit to recognise the debilitating impact that psychological abuse can have on children, which was mentioned a moment ago. I shall say more about the principle that psychological harm can be every bit as damaging as physical violence when I explain why I wholeheartedly support the Government’s proposal to insert an offence of coercive control at a later stage.
Organisations such as the Children’s Society fear that the Bill does not do enough to protect victims of child neglect and cruelty, because the Government have not taken the opportunity to amend the definition of a child to include everyone under 18. We often pay lip service in recognising that lacuna in the law, which has already arisen in many other pieces of legislation since I have been a Member of Parliament, and we all say sincerely that we need to do something about it. I am sure that amendments will be tabled in Committee to address what is an all-important issue.
As Members in all parts of the House know all too well, both the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the Children Act 1989 define a child as a person under the age of 18. However, the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, which provides legal protection for children from abuse and neglect, defines a child as anyone under 16. As a result of that discrepancy, 16 and 17-year-olds are not afforded the same protection as those younger, in spite of the fact that last year 1,110 of them were recognised as children at risk of significant harm and were subject to child protection plans. Furthermore, in 2014 Ofsted reported 40 serious incident notifications from local authorities relating to 16 and 17-year-olds, and, distressingly, 25% of victims of forced marriages fall into the same age bracket. Those young people need our protection, but, in the other place, the Government would not accept the need for the Bill to be amended to give them the same legal protection from cruelty and neglect. I hope that they will see fit to change their mind during its Commons stages.
I welcome clauses 68 to 70, which result from Government new clauses that were passed in the other place. Female genital mutilation is a scourge on any society that allows the practice to continue—and that includes our own communities here in the United Kingdom, where too many young girls are forced to undergo an horrendous procedure from which they will never fully recover. I pay tribute to Members of the other place for passing the new clauses, which introduce, severally, an offence of female genital mutilation, an offence of failing to protect girls from the risk of it, and FGM protection orders, as well as—crucially—anonymity for victims of this shocking crime.
The other place backed the new clauses, which is something that it does not do lightly. What is more, it did so with the support of scores of outside groups and organisations, not to mention that of the public at large. That is really no wonder, given that, according to a study compiled by Equality Now and City university, nearly 137,000 women and girls in England and Wales are affected by FGM. We owe it to young girls from communities that still employ this barbaric practice to do all that we can to ensure that they do not fall victim to the same fate.
Let me now say something about the proposed new clauses introducing an offence of coercive and controlling behaviour in the context of domestic abuse. In the other place, peers such as my noble friend Lord Wigley and Baroness Howe discussed how the Bill might be amended and used as a mechanism to strengthen the law covering domestic violence. They tabled an amendment which argued that, for the purposes of the Bill, domestic violence was considered to be a serious offence. During wider debate on the amendment, peers discussed the need to give greater protection to victims of domestic violence that is psychological and coercive.
I must declare an interest. Last February, I introduced a 10-minute rule Bill that would give statutory underpinning to the cross-Government definition of domestic violence, which is
“any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. The abuse can encompass, but is not limited to: psychological; physical; sexual; financial; and emotional”.
In fact, the Association of Chief Police Officers got there before the Government: it has employed that working definition for some time, which is another reason for it to be enshrined in statute. As I said when I introduced my Bill, it is not currently a legal definition. Gaps in the current legislation allow perpetrators of psychological, emotional and financial abuse to continue their abuse without facing recourse for their actions.
The principal gap in the law is the fact that coercive and controlling behaviour is not currently an offence in the law of England and Wales. My Bill, which also sought to close that gap, received cross-party support. I am grateful for the support of the hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), who is now the Solicitor-General; the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan); the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr Leech), for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell); the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier); the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn); and my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams).
Over the summer, the Home Office launched a consultation on whether to strengthen the law on domestic violence, which included discussion of whether an offence of coercive control should be introduced. I understand that the consultation received more than 700 responses. On 18 December last year, the Home Secretary published a written ministerial statement which confirmed that a new offence of coercive control would be introduced now, and I welcome that move. Clearly the devil is in the detail, but I am sure that the proposal is well intended, and that, given proper scrutiny, the right measure will be on the statute book.
At present, in the absence of any laws relating specifically to domestic violence, conviction rates in England and Wales are depressingly low, and the crime is still under-reported. Research conducted by my office established that, in American states where specific domestic violence laws have been adopted, conviction rates are impressive. It is understood that in England and Wales, in the five years leading up to 2011, only 6.5% of domestic violence cases reported to the police resulted in convictions. That is an appalling statistic. In contrast—and according to a slightly different measure—studies compiled in the United States have reported a 39% incarceration rate in Brooklyn, New York, and a one-third conviction rate in North Carolina. Evidently, adopting stronger, specific domestic violence laws could have a real impact in England and Wales as well. Moreover, the overall incidence of domestic abuse of this kind has fallen dramatically in the United States: according to commentators, it is about 30%.
I hope that we shall be able to enact such a provision, although it would require extensive police training. The police would need to learn how to investigate the new offence, and how to recognise the behaviour involved. I hope that, if I am nominated to do so, I shall be able to discuss the issue in greater depth during the later stages of the Bill. However, I welcome the Government’s intention to introduce the provision.
All in all, the Bill has many good aspects. It needs proper scrutiny and it needs to be strengthened, but it goes in the right direction.
Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (Business of the House)
Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Brokenshire
My hon. Friend will know that proposed legislation is always given due consideration. No Government embark on fast-track legislation lightly. There is a pressing and urgent need to bring into force the Bill’s measures, to ensure that capabilities that are used day in, day out are maintained and that there is no risk to what are essential facilities for our policing and other enforcement agencies.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Why was there no discussion with parties other than the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Conservatives, even on Privy Council terms? For heaven’s sake, if there is an urgency, why keep most of the Opposition in the dark? It is absolutely disgusting, disgraceful and undemocratic.
James Brokenshire
We have engaged on the purpose and nature of the Bill and there have been discussions across the House. Clearly, there will be an opportunity this afternoon to talk through the issues and consider the Bill. I hope there will be a consensus across the House about the importance of the issues and the need to ensure that we have the legislative framework—the back-up—so that our police and law enforcement agencies can continue to do the job they do today in the way that they have hitherto done it.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am very concerned about this rush to legislate because, as we all know, if one legislates in haste, one may well repent at leisure. We are told that there is some urgency. While accepting that at face value, I do not think that limiting our debating time in such a savage way is appropriate.
The Minister, with support from the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), said that the Bill is a continuation of the status quo. It is not. Even at a cursory glance, I found two reasons why that is inaccurate. First, at present, public authorities and public bodies are able to gain access to data for a broad range of reasons. Section 37 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 requires judicial authorisation before local authorities can access communications data. That requirement is absent from the Bill.
Secondly, clause 5 extends the definition of a “telecommunications service”. The explanatory notes to the Bill state that the new definition covers companies that provide
“internet-based services, such as webmail”.
That means that internet service providers—even those based overseas and, hence, outside the UK’s jurisdiction—will be compelled to grant access to data. That is unprecedented. I have no doubt that there will be other examples when we have all had something like an adequate opportunity to look at the draft legislation.
In all honesty, I am appalled at the way in which Parliament is being ridden over roughshod. I repeat the point that I made earlier: the Minister could have come to the minority parties on Privy Council terms and included us in the discussions. It is all very well waving a hand and saying, “It is extremely urgent—security demands it,” but I do not accept that for one minute. I am in this place to scrutinise legislation, not just to listen and be rolled over by it.
Child Abuse
Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
As I indicated in response to the right hon. Member for Blackburn, the panel may well look at the question of record keeping. It is right that there are certain processes in place, as I also indicated in my earlier response. One of the issues we are dealing with is that, over the years and the time period we are looking at, a number of different approaches to record keeping were taken by Government Departments. It is, I think, best practice to identify what has happened to particular records when they are identified, but the practice of what is done has varied over time. That is one of the aspects that we will obviously need to consider.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I very much welcome the announcement of the panels of inquiry, but may I ask the right hon. Lady a specific question about a north Wales matter? Some 18 months ago, Mrs Justice Macur was appointed to look at the Waterhouse inquiry, specifically to see whether its remit was too narrow and whether there was evidence of wider sexual abuse. She completed her work in July last year; since then, there has been silence. Will the right hon. Lady look into that matter, and advise the House when the findings will be published?
Mrs May
I am very happy to do that, and to write to the right hon. Gentleman about the outcome of my inquiry. In relation to certain matters in north Wales, I am obviously aware that Operation Pallial, a criminal investigation, is also taking place. That may be affecting the issue, but I will certainly look into it.
Syrian Refugees
Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The vast majority of Syrian refugees want to be able to return to their homes and live in peace. Under the scheme, we will be offering a temporary residence here in the UK, but we will consider each individual case as the situation in Syria evolves.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Will the Home Secretary kindly confirm that asylum seeker status and refugee status are entirely different things in international law? Will she also confirm that she will liaise closely with the Welsh Government on resettlement?
Mrs May
I am very happy to liaise closely with the Welsh Government, and any opportunities or support that they can give on the relocation of individuals who come to the UK as a result of this scheme will be welcomed. There are different types of status for individuals. We will consider the matter further, but we currently propose that these individuals will be given temporary residence here, but with access to the labour market and other benefits in the same way as refugees would have.
UNHCR Syrian Refugees Programme
Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am proud to be a signatory of today’s motion. A few months ago, Plaid Cymru voted against military action in the wake of the suspicions over the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons. If an attack had gone ahead then, we would not have seen the relinquishing of the chemical weapons. I should also add that since that decisive debate and vote, Iran has been persuaded to enter talks on its nuclear programme. For the first time in years, there appears to be a better prospect of some agreement. I am not naive about this, but there are signs of progress. Only time will tell whether I am right, but President Rouhani shows strong signs of being willing to engage with the rest of the world. The avoidance of military intervention last year undoubtedly helped to create the space for that to happen. However, I must express disappointment that Iran is not at the table at Geneva II. None the less, there is a growing consensus that those talks are now Syria’s only hope, and we must not lose sight of their importance. Journeys to peace are seldom without their roadblocks, and there are certainly no shortcuts. To be utterly fair to the Government, they have led the way in appealing for and sending aid to Syria, as today’s motion notes.
Diplomacy is the only way to end the bloodshed in Syria. Of course we understand that there are no quick-fix solutions and that many different factions are now involved in the fighting. We wish to see a ceasefire agreed at the current talks in Geneva, and I urge the UK Government to do their utmost to convince the regime and the opposition’s main backers to bring their influence to bear.
The UK has been one of the largest financial donors of humanitarian aid, and that is most welcome. The Government should also commit to being generous in the numbers of refugees. The Prime Minister has rightly described the situation in Syria as the greatest refugee crisis of our time. We all know that a resettlement programme is the only means of offering a durable solution for the most vulnerable who struggle to survive in the harsh conditions of the region.
The UNHCR programme focuses on the most vulnerable. About 30,000 people are being helped, which is a mere fraction of the estimated 4 million refugees who have fled Syria into neighbouring countries. Vincent Cochtel, director of the UNHCR’s Europe bureau, said:
“From the perspective of the refugee it would make a hell of a difference.”
By that he means signing up to the scheme. He went on to say:
“The big picture is that there are 2.4 million Syrian refugees. When you zoom down and take a country like Turkey, it has taken 700,000 refugees, while the 47 countries that make up the rest of Europe have only taken 70,000 refugees. That gives you an idea of the scale of the problem.”
Bob Stewart
Talking of countries that could help, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be nice to see other countries in the middle east open their borders and take in refugees and give more money to support those poor people who have to exist on the borders of Syria?
Mr Llwyd
Of course in any refugee crisis, if somebody’s suffering can be alleviated nearer home, it is always better to do that than displacing them to a country further away. I fully agree with that. I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to consider the UNHCR scheme. I have heard what the Secretary of State has had to say on the matter, and there is some force in her argument, but I cannot understand why we are not part of the scheme. The all-pervading hysteria about migration of any sort seems to have clouded the issue. Surely humanity should dictate what we all do. When I questioned the Home Secretary earlier on, I made the point that the refugee status under international law is entirely different and should in no way be affected by the toxic debate about migration, to which we are all being subjected by the media. As one who does not have any nightmares about the UK Independence party or about Farage and that bunch, I add that Wales has a long and proud tradition of welcoming people from around the world. I urge the Government to involve the Welsh Government in this most important of policies. Plaid Cymru has in the past called for Wales to be taken into account by the Migration Advisory Committee, which develops policy. The committee works with Scotland and Northern Ireland but, for some reason, not Wales. I hope that there will be a change in that policy shortly.
I urge the Government to continue to pursue a diplomatic solution and I hope that they will bring further pressure to bear on Russia in the talks. I know that such things are going on and it is fairly obvious and trite for us to state that they need to, but it is right that we should detail them. We all realise, I am sure, that Russia is key to persuading Assad and his supporters to reach some form of reasonable compromise. It is possible that the current round of talks will produce consensus between Russia and the United States on what the next steps towards peace should be.
Today’s statement is very welcome as far as it goes, but despite all the speeches so far I am still unclear about why the Government cannot commit fully to the UNHCR’s resettlement programme. The Government have been sending humanitarian aid, but it is now urgent to ensure that there are safe corridors in that troubled country so that aid can be sent to where it can be effective. That question was touched on by the Home Secretary earlier, and I think it is crucial that that should happen.
In the spirit of the consensus that seems to be developing on all but one or two issues, I hope that we will not divide on the motion today but will move forward with a consensual approach. I hope that the Government will keep everybody fully informed of progress over the coming weeks and months.
Stalking
Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I, too, commend the opportunity to speak in this debate, and congratulate those who secured it. This is an immensely important issue, and those of us in the House this afternoon will agree that more often than not, we do not spend enough time focusing on many of the challenges associated with the horrific issue of stalking, the impact it has on victims, and the processes that victims endure on their journey through the criminal justice system. I pay tribute, as all speakers have, to the work of Harry Fletcher and Laura Richards of Paladin national stalking advocacy service, and that of many others.
I would like to consider the experience of the victim. As co-chair of the all-party group on victims and victims of crime, I have been exposed to all sorts of horrible stories relating to stalking and other crimes, which have shone a spotlight on the process that individuals must go through, in addition to the personal suffering, trauma and emotional distress. It will not surprise the Minister to hear me say that I have long believed that victims’ voices should be at the centre of the criminal justice system, and I pay tribute to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for supporting the work of the all-party group.
It is clear from everything we have heard today that the voices of stalking victims are not represented effectively in the criminal justice system. The issue is not just about going to court, but the entire process: engagement with the police, how cases are treated, the thoroughness of investigations and whether complaints are taken seriously. It is fair to say that the process is ad hoc. There is not enough consistency and victims are being let down. It is excellent that new stalking laws are in place, but it is clear to all of us that much more needs to be done to assist victims properly.
To focus on the level of victims’ dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system process and with the professionals in it, I shall refer to the briefing from Paladin. Laura Richards produced a study that revealed the deep dissatisfaction felt by victims of stalking and the secondary victimisation that occurs—a very important point—when reliving the trauma of horrific experiences. We hear time and again about victims’ lack of confidence in the long judicial process, which does not acknowledge their emotional distress. Stalking is life-changing for victims, and the injustice has numerous psychological and physical aspects that affect their ability to engage and function socially. Irrespective of whether there has been a physical assault, there is psychological and emotional trauma.
Offenders are treated in a totally different way from victims. We need balance and fairness, and we must focus on fairness for the victims. I think the point has already been made this afternoon that victims tend not to report to the police after one or two incidents, but after the hundredth incident. There are many experts on this subject. We know that perpetrators are serial offenders, that they are persistent and malicious, and that they inflict as much psychological damage as possible and, in the worst cases, physical damage and the ultimate harm. The offending is relentless, but the system—the police interventions, the criminal justice system, the whole process—does not know how to address these issues. Much of it is down to how an officer responds on the scene or interacts with victims in the first instance. The situation is dreadful and something has to change.
Paladin is very good at providing victims’ anecdotes and comments. As ever, it is the victims’ stories that will make us sit up and listen and understand the extent of the trauma.
Mr Llwyd
The hon. Lady is a real fighter for victims and has done a lot of work in this area, and I respect her for that.
We would not have got this far without the evidence of witnesses who had suffered at the hands of perpetrators. I am talking not only about the victims, but sadly about families who have suffered bereavement because victims have been offended against several times and ultimately murdered. Without their bravery and emotional guts in giving evidence, we could not have got this far, so I am very interested in the hon. Lady’s remarks.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the first time, and I hope it will not be the last.
I rise to speak about a particular issue that follows on from what the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) said about the need to hear victims’ voices in this debate as we evolve the way in which we address stalking within our society. I shall speak about my personal experience of these issues. I thought long and hard about whether it was appropriate to do so and came to the conclusion that it was—even though some might accuse me of abusing my position as an MP in putting these issues to Ministers—because of the concerns I have as someone currently experiencing some of these behaviours.
Before I do that, I want to add my personal tribute to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd)—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says “10 out of 10” from a sedentary position, so I thank him for that. I am in awe of the work he has done through the independent inquiry into stalking. I add my heartfelt thanks, too, to people such as Harry Fletcher and Laura Richards for their work. In three short parliamentary years, we have seen a powerful advocacy process, with the independent inquiry and changes made to the law. That has, for me, been phenomenal. It is a test for all of us to see whether we can match that.
A year ago, when I was part of the shadow Home Affairs team, I was honoured to work on the changes to the legislation. Never in a million years did I think I would have to know the details of this legislation so thoroughly to deal with something that was happening to me. I was particularly struck at the time by the importance of bringing the victim’s voice into these issues and the need to create an offence in legislation that looked not at the particular behaviours of the offender, but at the experience of victims and the impact the offence had on them.
I was struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne)—only nine out of ten for my pronunciation this time—said about obsession, how society should regard the impact of one person fixating on another and what that might mean for the people involved. Impact matters because much of our criminal justice system nowadays is about watching and waiting. The hon. Member for Witham spoke about that, too—that we can see that someone might be at risk, yet we look for escalation. The impact on an individual changes that conversation. The individual voice needs to be heard not just in sentencing, but in the prosecution, in trying to address these issues and trying to understand the risk that someone might face. Having spoken to victims of a whole range of different types of stalking, I know just how important it is for their voice to be heard. A lot of stalking is about control; it is about silencing someone. It is crucial that we now have legislation that makes victims’ voices part of the prosecution process.
Like many other Members today, however, I am concerned that, a year on, we may not be making as much progress either in prosecuting or in changing the culture, which is what the legislation was designed to achieve, so I want to add my voice to those encouraging the Minister to look at not just what he can do with the police, but at what can be achieved by colleagues across government in dealing with some of these challenges.
Before the legislation was drafted, figures suggested we were looking at about 120,000 cases a year, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock that that understates the amount of pressure and the number of cases that need to be dealt with. I agree, too, with the comments of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan)—I am sorry she is no longer in her place—about learning the lessons from Scotland and using this legislation, now that we have it, to prosecute people effectively.
The work of Paladin is truly transformative. I encourage the Minister to go and sit with Paladin, to listen to the cases, go through them and hear about the experiences people are having, now that the legislation is enacted. It is not just the volume of cases that is important because we need to be able to address the different kinds of issues and different kinds of behaviour that come up and their impact on victims.
I would particularly encourage the Minister to sit with the independent advocates. I have worked with one of those advocates not just in supporting victims of stalking generally, but in respect of my own case after my experiences. I cannot over-emphasise how important it is to have such a person with you. However strong someone is, this kind of behaviour is distressing; it is designed to take out of people the fight and the fortitude that might help them to deal with the problem themselves. The independent advocates are vital. We have been talking about the work done by Harry and Laura and others with the legislation, but we also owe them a debt of gratitude for putting in place a support process for victims. We must ensure our police are able to work with that, and Members have highlighted the low take-up of police training on these issues. It is crucial that the police understand the new legislation and how to enforce it.
I must tell the Minister that my personal experience of this and my experience over the summer of trying to support people who were being victimised online has been very mixed. That is reflected in the conversations I have had with the police and those in the criminal justice system; there was a lack of awareness about the powers they now have and the nature of this crime, such as the concepts of escalation and control and how to respond to them. I am talking here about practices such as treating incidents in isolation, issuing lesser cautions, and minimising behaviour rather than addressing it and thereby keep victims safe. That lack of training leads to a lack of understanding of just how serious this issue can be.
I must also put on record my concern about the increasing evidence that police forces are moving away from the DASH—domestic abuse, stalking and honour based violence—risk assessment in respect of domestic violence. I am exceedingly troubled by that as a constituency MP who has used that assessment method myself in working in particular with women who are victims of domestic violence. As somebody who has been a victim of stalking in a non-domestic violence case, I am also concerned about the lack of training and understanding of what such behaviour could mean.
I have spoken previously about Caroline Criado-Perez receiving 50 rape threats an hour. We did not know whether they were coming from one person, 50 different people or several different people. Each incident would require a different level of risk being applied based on the person involved. I have to be honest with the Minister: an understanding and comprehension of that range of scenarios was not there within the police force. I believe this kind of training will help police forces understand the different levels of risk people might be facing, and help to prevent, rather than just monitor, these offences.
I also recognise that the training of the police is only 50% of the story. I am deeply distressed by the delay in the CPS picking up this issue and understanding its role in making sure this legislation is effective.
Mr Llwyd
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech, and it is very interesting to hear her personal perspective.
This morning I was interviewed on a radio programme. The interviewer said, “Well, let’s be fair: it’s only been 12 months since the law’s come in, so you can’t really expect the police to be au fait with it just now.” I replied, “When I was a law student we were expected to know new laws within a month of their coming in, so that’s no possible excuse.”
Stella Creasy
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and he will have heard the voices of other victims. People have said to me, “The only reason there is police interest in your case is that you are a high-profile person.” I think that is an honest assessment, and I have said that that should not be why there is interest in any case.
We heard from the family of Clare Bernal and the Clough family during the inquiry, and Sam Taylor, who was a victim of stalking, is an amazingly inspiring woman for her fortitude in dealing with this. The police need to understand the range of behaviours and identify the different types of risk people face.
I will talk about online activity shortly, but first I want to point out that victims must also be asked about what they think should happen. When people are under this sort of pressure, we should not flinch from saying that the impact on the victim is paramount. Therefore, if someone is distressed, that is reason enough for the police to act and the CPS to be involved.
We also recognise that insufficient resources are put into this. There is a fear that we might open the floodgates, but if there are floodgates to be opened, we need to address that. That is one of the challenges we face.
I feel I can add a little insight in terms of online forms of behaviour, and I am very mindful of the fact that 50% of stalking cases involve both online and offline behaviour. That is part and parcel of modern life because we now spend our lives both online and offline. Our freedoms are involved in that, too, and, as I have said, stalking and harassment is about curtailing people’s freedoms and inciting distress in them, and therefore making it impossible for them to lead their lives as before. I direct the Minister to the work of Claire Hardaker, at Lancaster university, who is trying to understand online harassment and stalking. She was recently commissioned to do such research, and it would send an incredibly powerful message if the Home Office looked at it.
In my own case, the difficulties the current legislation has in dealing with the world online became powerfully obvious. The legislation refers to a “course of conduct” or a consistent type of behaviour, and the question is whether the same metrics for that course of conduct can be applied to the online and offline environments. When the Opposition were scrutinising the legislation, we tried to get the Government to think about a list of types of behaviour that we, the CPS and the police might be looking out for, because we recognised that as life evolves and people have a life online and a life offline it is important to ensure that we are not missing particular types of behaviour.
Although the legislation refers to sending e-mails, it does not even begin to deal with the very different types of behaviour that occur in the social media that are now so much part of the modern world, such as the ways in which and ease with which people can be contacted, and the ways a victim can express concern and displeasure about the messages they are receiving and behaviour they are experiencing. My concern is that the attempt is being made to apply the “course of conduct” test to the online and offline worlds in a similar way. There is the sense that if someone is experiencing serious alarm or distress online, it is somehow less serious. Instead, we need to understand that, if that person is experiencing such pressure, and if it is coming from someone whom they have told—whether online or offline—they do not want to have contact with, we should not see it as being any different.
The course of conduct deadlines need to be updated for both the CPS and the police, so that the different ways in which the online world works are recognised. One example is the different time periods relating to a course of conduct. Offline, we might be talking about a contact period of days or even weeks; online, an hour is a long time. Both Caroline and I experienced people setting up accounts in order to send us rape and death threats, causing us harassment and severe distress. We publicly said that this was causing us severe distress, and they had their accounts suspended, although they started new ones. However, the question whether each incident is seen as a separate course of conduct, or something that took place over the course of an hour, cannot be dealt with under the current legislation. That example makes a powerful case, which my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has also made, for cyber-awareness within the police force—for understanding that these are the ways in which online behaviour works.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I congratulate all Members on both sides of the House who have spoken in this thoughtful and well-informed debate. I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who not only has the privilege of representing one of the most beautiful parts of north Wales, but has done sterling work with the all-party group on stalking and harassment to bring the offences into law. He gave a powerful introduction to the debate.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who is no longer in her place, made some important points about the role of the courts, the sentences handed out and the need for better training. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) made some useful comparisons with the situation in Scotland, which I think we can all learn from. She also made a powerful plea to recognise stalking for what it often is: a version of violence against women, in particular, which we must not tolerate.
The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) talked about the personal suffering of victims. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) outlined clearly what she suffered as a result of what is—let us give it its proper name—online stalking. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), in a short but useful speech, pointed out the manipulative behaviour of many perpetrators and how convincing they can be. She also referred to the need for relationships education in schools to tackle the problem, a point I will return to in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made an important point about the role of the justice unions group in highlighting the issue. We often hear Government Members telling us what they think is wrong with trade unions, but we should also hear about their important work in such areas. I also congratulate those who worked hard to get the offences on the statute book: not only the all-party group, but my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and my noble Friend Baroness Royall, who campaigned for that relentlessly.
However, it is not enough just to put an offence on the statute book; it must also be enforced. We have heard clearly this afternoon that the law is not being enforced properly. The freedom of information request passed to Paladin, which was referred to earlier, showed that from 25 November 2012, when the law came into force, to the end of June this year 320 people were arrested for stalking offences. That was all. Of those, only 189 were charged. That is very worrying because unless there are lots of spurious complaints—no one is arguing that there are, least of all me— there must be a real problem with the training of the police and Crown Prosecution Service, which needs to be addressed. It is even more worrying when we look at the completed cases—I accept that there are few at the moment. In those cases completed by the end of June, six people received custodial sentences, and 27 were dealt with by means of a community disposal. I want to make it clear that, except in very exceptional cases, community sentences are not appropriate to deal with stalking. Stalking wrecks lives, it damages people psychologically, it affects their physical health, and it affects their social well-being. Stalking is not something that takes place at a distance. Stalkers enter people’s homes, they get into their workplaces, and they go to the places where they socialise, so a victim of stalking cannot feel safe in any aspect of their life.
Stalkers often issue threats. What is more, half of those threats are carried out. In that sense, stalking behaviour is a strong predictor of future violence. It is even stronger in cases of very serious violence, with 40% of domestic homicides following stalking behaviour that has gone unchecked. In dealing with stalking, therefore, we are not just helping today’s victims; we may be preventing serious violence and often homicides in the future.
Mr Llwyd
The hon. Lady is making a powerful and a fresh point. I should like to inform the House through her that there are many criminal psychologists in the UK who are able to treat these people. They say that roughly 95% are treatable and can be turned away from this obsessive behaviour. That adds to the point that the hon. Lady makes.
Helen Jones
The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which I will come to in a moment when I talk about prevention.
The appalling feature is the huge variation between the arrest and prosecution rates in police forces. Some examples have been given, but let me touch on a few more. Northumbria force arrested eight people and prosecuted seven. Powys arrested three and they were all prosecuted. The Met arrested 132 people, but only 71 were prosecuted. That is profoundly unsatisfactory. Whether victims receive justice should not depend on where they live. We cannot have a postcode lottery in law enforcement, and that, I am afraid, is what we are seeing at the moment. Part of the reason for that seems to lie in the failure to train police and Crown prosecutors adequately.
The National Policing Improvement Agency has produced a 20-minute online package of training—very little in itself—but up to the end of June only 27% of eligible officers had seen that package. The rates of training vary hugely among police forces, even neighbouring forces. In Greater Manchester, for example, 5,000 officers had seen it; on Merseyside, only 76. In my own area of Cheshire, it was 57. One can see a similar process with the CPS. Training has begun only this autumn, nearly a year after the law was put on the statute book.
I do not blame the front-line officers or the prosecutors for that. The blame actually lies squarely with the Home Office, which has to admit that if it cuts police numbers, as it has, there is less time to take officers off the front line for training or to update their skills, and that if it cuts 25% of the CPS’s budget, the CPS has to manage its caseloads differently and there is less time to develop training packages or to let people take time out for training. That is what we are seeing, and it is time that the Government started to take it seriously.
Another factor that needs to be clearly stated is that stalking is largely a crime against women. Yes, there are male victims and they suffer just as much as anyone else, but 80% of stalkers are men and 80% of victims are women. As such, it has to be seen as part of the continuum of violence against women—because stalking is violence. It is psychological violence that can spill over into physical violence, and it is part of the same perspective of harassing women and preventing them from speaking out, as we have seen online recently, and treating them as though they have no right to an opinion but are there merely to be controlled.
That is why I say to the Minister that although it is nice to see him here—he is a very good Minister—it would have been even better to see the Minister responsible for this area, who is the Minister for Crime Prevention, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). The Minister we have here is responsible for immigration; his colleague, who is not here, is responsible for antisocial behaviour and violence against women and girls. He is fast becoming the Scarlet Pimpernel of the Home Office. We see him in Committee and he disappears halfway through the debate; today, for a debate on his own area of responsibility, he is not present. The Government have to take this issue far more seriously than that.
The root cause of this sort of behaviour is an attitude prevalent in some sections of our society that, sadly, sees women as objects to be controlled and manipulated—as people who should not have an opinion of their own and do not control their own destiny. That is why the Government must not only deal with this crime but look at how to prevent it. They must consider having a proper, and compulsory, package of sex and relationships education in schools. I am sorry that they rejected our amendment to the Children and Families Bill to make it compulsory, because without teaching young people from the start that this sort of behaviour is not the norm and is not acceptable, we will never solve the problem.
The second plank of prevention, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd suggested, is in mental health services. There is no doubt that a small minority of stalkers are psychotic, and there is evidence that some might have a personality disorder, so their first contact with the criminal justice system ought to trigger a mental health referral. Mental health treatment will not be suitable for everybody, but there ought to be an assessment to see whether it is the appropriate way forward before someone’s behaviour spirals out of control and perhaps into violence.
The third thing we would like the Government to do is to make sure that sentencing guidelines are updated, because they have not been updated since 2008, and that police officers and Crown prosecutors are trained to ensure that the law is enforced. We cannot say to the victims of this crime, “You must simply put up with it”, or, “It’s not very serious.” We can no longer keep saying that there is no action we can take. This is the 21st century, not the 19th, and nobody should be subjected to this behaviour without the right of redress.
The Government have done the right thing by putting this law on the statute book in response to the campaign but, given that most victims face 100 incidents of stalking before they even report it, it is not lack of evidence that is preventing this crime from being prosecuted; it is lack of training and lack of will, and that is what we have to address. I hope that the Minister will be able to encourage us that the Government are moving towards doing so, because, to be frank, women in this country—and it is largely women who are affected—deserve better than to be told that this is behaviour that they just have to put up with. It is not, we will not and it needs to be addressed.
Mr Harper
I will come on to the guidelines issued by the CPS, but that matter to some extent depends on the details of individual cases. Normally, decisions are based on how realistic a prosecution is and what evidence there is, as well as the public interest test. I do not know whether different prosecution rates relate to the ability of the police to put cases together, or whether some forces are more likely to make arrests than others. Without looking at the information, I simply do not know the answer to the question.
An advantage in the devolved criminal justice landscape —the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock referred to the experience in Scotland—is that police forces in England and Wales could look at the Scottish example to see what lessons can be learned. The systems are of course different and not directly comparable: the criminal justice legislation is different and, for example, harassment legislation has not been put in place in Scotland. We should, however, look at whether different parts of the UK are doing things better, and if they are, we should happily learn from them. That is a benefit of devolution of which we should take advantage.
Mr Llwyd
As I would expect, the Minister is trying to engage constructively in the debate, which is how he always deals with these matters. I suggest that another contributor to the variation in prosecution levels is, sadly—I am a great supporter of the police, and I come from a police family—that some police officers are under-charging under the old 1997 Act, because it is far easier to do the paperwork and get rid of it.
Mr Harper
I defer to the right hon. Gentleman’s detailed knowledge of this area. One purpose of the College of Policing is to have consistency in training and to share best practice. To be fair, this is about ensuring that police officers, as well as the CPS, have the necessary knowledge and understand what works and is successful. The College of Policing can help share best practice, which is one advantage of having set it up. The Government will keep that under close scrutiny—the Home Secretary takes this area very seriously—and we will take steps if it does not succeed.
It is important to talk about victims and their experience of the criminal justice system. We have consulted on a revised victims code to give victims clearer entitlements. It was published at the end of October, and will be implemented next month. It includes information on the victim personal statement, which lets victims explain the impact of the crime on them. That will be of particular benefit in stalking cases, where much of the issue relates to the emotional and psychological impact of the offence on the victim.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow made that point strongly. She spoke about seeing the powerful effect on victims of advocates’ listening to them explain their cases. Enabling the voices of victims to be heard is clearly very beneficial. My hon. Friend the Member for Witham, who is in her place, made exactly that point. I know that she has worked on and published this year a report called, “Rebalancing the Scales”. She edited it, and the foreword was by the Lord Chancellor. The chapter on stalking, which was prepared by the ubiquitous Harry Fletcher and Laura Richards, highlighted the voices of victims and their experience in the criminal justice system, an area on which I know my hon. Friend has campaigned.
Mr Llwyd
The generous words to me with which the Minister began his speech actually made me shiver. I will be around for a while yet to create a nuisance, so do not think I am going to ride off into the sunset just now. To be fair, the Minister has engaged thoroughly with this debate. I am pleased with his response and I am sure we can pore over the detail in the coming days.
The debate has been characterised by its being of the highest standard, and we have had six Back-Bench speeches of the highest calibre—well researched, well thought out, thought provoking, and each with a different slant. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), despite being a little thrown by the sudden appearance of the High Speed 2 Bill, referred to Harry Fletcher, Laura Richards and Paladin, and we all thank them for the work they have done. She also referred helpfully to the national helpline, and I pay tribute to her for her work to get us this far.
The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) also referred to Harry Fletcher and Laura Richards, and, interestingly—and very importantly —she was able to draw comparisons between the current law in England and Wales and the law in Scotland. That showed that numerous things need to be put right, and highlighted some of the issues about which we in this Chamber—and beyond, I am sure—are concerned. She stood her ground. She was nearly blown away by Madam Deputy Speaker asking her to speak for longer than she intended—one of those unusual quirks of this place. I have to say that it has never happened to me, for obvious reasons.
The hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) made a wide-ranging, thought-provoking and well-researched speech. I know of the work that she has done with victims. It was important for her to take that angle, because the victims are why we are here and why the law was introduced. She referred to the empowerment of victims, the need for police and crime commissioners to get involved and the need to redress the balance. I am sure that all those issues are appreciated fully by Members on both sides of the House. I thank her for her contribution.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) made an impassioned and well-grounded speech, some of which was based on personal experience. We are all concerned on her behalf. She also referred to the need for victims’ voices to come to the fore. Crucially, she referred to Clare Bernal and Sam Taylor, two of the cases considered in the evidence-based report produced by the Committee. Without their help, and the help of others, we would not have got this far. She raised the challenge of online behaviour, which the Joint Committee will be looking at next, and the need to deliver on a promise we made a year ago. She is absolutely right and I can put it no better than that.
The hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) made a short but well-thought-out speech that introduced matters not considered previously. For example, relationship education in schools is crucial.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), in a typically well-researched speech, referred to the need for a national strategy. He is absolutely right. We will need two: one for Wales and one for England. He made an important point about the speed with which the Offender Rehabilitation Bill is jetting through the House. We are reminded of the saying about legislating in haste and repenting at leisure. He also raised legal cuts and other points—all of which are different aspects to this problem.
This has been a useful debate. We have had a positive response from the Minister. He is not in his comfort zone, but no one would have thought so from the way he dealt with his brief. Twelve months ago, we brought in the law based on evidence that was presented to us by experts and people who have suffered themselves, not least those who have lost loved ones in horrible incidents. This is the time to pay them back for the bravery they have shown. We need to get our act in order. I am sure that with Members on both sides of the House working together we will succeed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that 25 November 2013 will mark the first anniversary of the new laws on stalking coming into force; is concerned at the lack of progress made on training of criminal justice professionals in the new laws, particularly in the police and the Crown Prosecution Service; and recognises the impact this is having on the confidence and wellbeing of victims of stalking.
Home Affairs
Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs May
I recognise the problem that my hon. Friend identifies as one that affects many communities up and down the country. I am pleased to say that in numerous places we have already seen the police taking a more robust approach in dealing with these particular issues. I encourage the police to do that when they are faced with these problems which, as my hon. Friend says, cause considerable concern to local residents.
This Bill aims to give people much greater control over the services that are meant to help them, but which have often in the past been operated for the convenience of those delivering them. The Bill will change that situation.
The Bill tackles another aspect of antisocial behaviour: irresponsible dog ownership. It will extend the offence of being in charge of a dog that is dangerously out of control to apply to any location.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
In looking at the problem of dangerous dogs, can we be more careful this time round, because the last time we attempted this performance, it was a bit of a fiasco and we ended up with bad legislation? The right hon. Lady is right to highlight this issue as a pressing need, but we need to be very careful about how we frame this legislation.
Mrs May
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says—that it is important in introducing legislation to look carefully at what its impact might be. The clauses relating to dangerous dogs are limited in number. They extend the ability to deal with dangerous dogs into private places. Sadly, we have seen a number of cases where individuals, and particularly children, have been attacked by dogs in the family home. The current legislation does not cover that, but the Bill will enable us to do so. We will, of course, look carefully at the drafting to make sure that the provision is as effective as everybody would want it to be.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). I did not agree with everything she said, but her remarks about banking structures were made with great authority and knowledge, I am sure—and the word “oligopoly” will serve us all well when we do crosswords.
Some comment has been made about how the Queen’s Speech was not widely leaked, but having read it, we can see that there was not a great deal to leak. It was a very thin Queen’s Speech—the thinnest I have seen in my 21 years in this place. I wonder why that is, because for the past months we have been treading water as Members of Parliament, dealing with insubstantial debates, Opposition days and lots of less than vital legislation. However, there are some good things in the speech; I would like to refer to one of them.
The legislation being introduced to allow sufferers of mesothelioma whose employers cannot be traced to gain compensation is a positive step forward. This group of people has been let down for far too long. It is right that we should do everything possible for them to receive reparation, in many cases fairly urgently. However, it is rumoured that under the proposed scheme claimants will receive about 30% less than the standard for asbestos-related cancer, were it the subject of other litigation. Two thirds of what someone is entitled to is probably better than nothing, but justice dictates that they should get 100%, especially as I understand that the scheme is to be funded by the insurance sector, which of late has hardly been on its knees financially.
We might compare the proposed scheme with that which Plaid Cymru Members established in the mid-1970s during the tenure of the Labour Government. As a price for our support to keep that Government going, we insisted on compensation for miners and quarrymen. I am proud that we did that, but it involved a Government-backed scheme. In essence, the Government are taking a positive step forward, but let us look at the detail, to ensure that we do right by the people who are suffering.
There is much to be regretted in this Queen’s Speech, such as compulsory price tendering for legal aid. I declare an interest as a former solicitor who practised in legal aid cases and who also did legal aid-funded work at the Bar. I am not given to hyperbole often, and I do not know whether hon. Members realise this, but the current proposals will mean the disappearance of thousands of solicitors’ firms from the high street. These are firms whose expertise we have always relied on, and they are often family firms that do things gratis for people who call in. They will be taken over by larger firms that are not full of legally qualified people. There will be a devastating effect in some areas, especially in rural, smaller towns, where firms will disappear overnight.
The reason is quite obvious: the Government’s proposals are a race to the bottom. The Government confidently expect that any tender for work would have to be 17.5% lower than current legal aid rates. However, legal aid rates have been pegged for the last eight or nine years anyway, so lawyers who practise legal aid are not, in truth, fat cats. There are one or two silks who do extremely well, but I can assure hon. Members that most people—both those at the Bar and solicitors who largely rely on legal aid work—will never retire with a massive pension or be fat cats. To be honest, they may well end up as rather scroggy moggies.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that having only four firms for the entire Dyfed Powys area would mean not only devastation for the many family firms he has mentioned, but inaccessibility and a lack of choice for clients?
Mr Llwyd
That is absolutely right. The Government’s proposal will quite obviously mean that the client will have no choice. It will lead to a paralegal system, with people coming out of the conurbations to try to deal with tens of cases in one day, taking notes roughly and then reporting back, and then eventually somebody will turn up for the trial or whatever. That concerns me greatly. The whole idea of a fixed fee for a trial or plea worries me as well, because there will inevitably be problems. It is a race to the bottom.
There is a further important point to be made about the Welsh language provision we routinely have in Wales. Members might not know this—I have practised in Welsh courts myself—but any trial can be conducted through the medium of the Welsh language, whether a jury trial, a civil matter or a case in the magistrates court. That is as it should be. Welsh has equal status with English in Wales—again, as it should be. That provision and the work that the Courts Service has done over the last couple of decades will disappear overnight. There will be a great deal of anxiety and turmoil in Wales over that. I regret to say that if the Government go ahead with this proposal, they will be directly responsible for damaging the Welsh language and culture and the services available to people in rural and semi-rural areas. That will happen not just in Wales but in England—although I am thinking in particular about the problems of north and mid-Wales.
There are some Bills in the Queen’s Speech that will not enhance the UK’s international standing. Although previously trailed, the fact that the 0.7% of GDP meant for international development will not now be enshrined in legislation is an unfortunate step backwards.
Today we have largely been discussing the impact of the immigration Bill. In parts, the proposed Bill is very unfortunate. Let me explain why. We need to move away from scaremongering and put in place measures to protect domestic workers and prevent employers from undercutting the work force by paying less than the minimum wage. We all know that the agencies are doing that. However, all too often the Government use immigration as a scapegoat, in an attempt to distract us from their failure to create enough meaningful jobs and secure economic recovery.
I would argue that I live in a nirvana in north Wales. [Interruption.] I see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), laughing. He does not live too far away. Where he lives is also quite a nice place, although not quite to the same degree as Dwyfor Meirionnydd. However, let us not go down that route just now. I obviously know my area intimately. I will be perfectly honest: over the past few years I have had one or two complaints from individuals who have said, “Why are these people from eastern Europe working in hotels?” They asked why such people are doing this or that. I told them why: because very often local people are not prepared to do that work. They are not prepared to work the long or unfriendly hours.
I can speak with some authority on this matter. A local college in Dolgellau has an excellent reputation for catering courses, among other things, yet none of its students is going into the local hotel industry. They are just not interested. Instead, several well-meaning, hard-working young people have come in from various eastern European countries to do that work. They are putting in the hours and some of them, to their credit, are even learning Welsh. They are working hard and doing the stuff that local people do not want to do. I have yet to see any evidence of a so-called benefits scrounger and have not come across the problem. In my view, benefits tourism is a ridiculous concept. I see the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire grinning at that. We have heard about the 40,000 people claiming when their children are not even resident in the UK, and I understand that point—
Mr Llwyd
Perhaps not.
Much of the debate on immigration is dictated by the drumbeat of the United Kingdom Independence party. Why should we spend hours discussing this issue, just because Farage and his bunch think that they are on a roll? There was one council election in Wales last week. It was on Ynys Môn—Anglesey—and UKIP stood in every ward. It did not take a single seat, however. Plaid Cymru took four times as many seats as Labour, and the Conservatives failed to win even one. The Lib Dems, God bless them, took one.
Andrea Leadsom
I want to make it clear that this legislation has nothing to do with UKIP; it has everything to do with fairness for the people of this country who pay their taxes day in and day out and who do not see why someone who has never contributed should come here and use our services. What does the right hon. Gentleman have to say to that?
Mr Llwyd
I heard the hon. Lady make that point in her speech, and I did not agree with everything that she said. That was one of the points that I was unsure about, and I am equally unsure about it now. We must look at the issue carefully, but we need to detoxify the debate. We need to forget about UKIP, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, and get stuck in and have a sensible, cool-headed, factually informed debate. We would do our constituents a great service if we were to adopt that approach. That is probably what the hon. Lady is saying and, to that extent, I agree with her.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that we should simply forget about the cost of all that welfare? A lot of taxpayers—hard-pressed, as we all are at the moment—want us to think carefully about those costs, particularly when the money is going out of this country to children who have never been here.
Mr Llwyd
If the hon. Lady had listened, she would have heard me say that I agree with the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire on this issue. I am not saying we should forget about it—[Interruption.] No, I am not. I understand that money is short, and I did not say that at all. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) has completely misunderstood what I have said, but I do not think that anyone else has done so. I did not say that, but I am saying to her and to everyone outside the House that we need to detoxify the debate and sit down and discuss this issue in a clear-headed, proper manner. We must not dance to the UKIP tune at any time, now or in future.
A number of pieces of proposed legislation in the Queen’s Speech seem at first glance to be driven more by ideology than by common sense. I am particularly interested in the rehabilitation revolution, as it is known. We heard earlier that the probation service had recently acquired a gold medal for the excellence of its service. Now, however, we see evidence that those who have been in prison for 12 months or less are the cohort most likely to reoffend. That is something that we have all known for a long time, yet that cohort has never fallen within the ambit of the probation service’s work. It is little wonder, therefore, that those people reoffend, and something needs to be done. Not a great deal is being done to rehabilitate those people in prison, and once they are out, they are left without any assistance at all. On that, I agree with the Government.
My solution would be simpler, however. It would be to extend responsibility for those people to the probation service. They are the experts. They have been described today by the Secretary of State today as having “expertise and professionalism” and making “a vital contribution”. If that is so, why on earth do we have to bring in the privateers? Was G4S’s performance at the Olympics so brilliant that we now have to bring the company into the probation system?
Nick de Bois
I am grateful to a fellow member of the Justice Select Committee for giving way. He has just suggested that we try to have a sensible debate about this matter. Focusing on privateers is completely erroneous. For example, he knows well the St Giles Trust, a registered charity that does superb work on reforming and rehabilitating people. He must surely agree that this must not become a debate about privatisation.
Mr Llwyd
I often respect the views of the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that we debate issues in a constructive manner when we meet on the Justice Committee. Yes, of course there are people in the voluntary sector who can do this work, but I am concerned that many of those smaller entities will be unable to carry the capital risk, and that most of the work will go to G4S, to Serco and to all the rest of the robber barons who will be jumping in. They will be listening to this debate and eagerly awaiting their chance to enter the sector. I hope that they make a better job of it than they did of the Olympics; otherwise, we will have to get the Army in to do it.
I accept what the hon. Gentleman says; the third sector—the voluntary sector—does an excellent job. He and I recently visited a third sector institution up in Liverpool, Adelaide House, which is doing an excellent job. To the credit of the previous Government and this one, it is being funded directly, and that is absolutely right. Yes, there is a role for the voluntary sector, and if it is to expand into this area to do such work, I would have fewer objections. However, I question its capability and capacity to handle the capital risk involved.
I welcome the draft Wales Bill, as far as it goes. It will transfer powers over elections to the Welsh Government, introduce fixed five-year terms for the Assembly and overturn the ban on dual candidacy for Welsh elections. I must, however, express my profound disappointment that there was no slot in the Queen’s Speech for a full, proper government of Wales Bill. The pressing need for such legislation is quite obvious. As I am sure hon. Members will know, the Commission on Devolution in Wales, chaired by Paul Silk, recently published its first report, on the financial powers of the Welsh Assembly. It received broad cross-party support. It recommended that the Welsh Government should have control over minor taxes as well as job-creating levers and borrowing powers, so allowing the Welsh Government to raise and invest money in Wales’s public services and infrastructure, thereby improving the economy. The Silk report recommended that those levers be devolved as soon as was practical. Lest we forget, this Government have been effectively treading water for the past nine months or so, and have failed to bring forward any really important pieces of legislation. All things considered, there is surely a case for a legislative slot for such an important vehicle. We are already falling behind, and time is of the essence.
In the absence of a new government of Wales Bill, we as a party have drawn up our own list of Bills that we would like to see debated. That includes Bills devolving to the Welsh Government control over justice and policing, transport and energy powers and job-search functions. We also believe that we should introduce what we describe as an economic fairness Bill. Central to these proposals is our justice and policing (Wales) Bill, which would establish a separate legal jurisdiction for Wales, to correct the anomaly that Wales is at present probably the only country in the world that has a legislature, but no legal jurisdiction of its own to serve it. There is already a very substantial corpus juris establishing itself in Wales that does not have a jurisdiction to serve it, and the need for one is now urgent. It is becoming more pressing month by month.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Speaking as a fellow MP representing Wales, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has costed those proposals and, if so, whether he could share those costings with the House today?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman deals with that intervention, I remind the House that the Chairman of Ways and Means has indicated that if each speaker contributed 12 or 13 minutes to the debate, that would allow all Members to get in without imposing a time limit. We are getting close to needing a time limit, so perhaps those who have already spoken could exercise some self-restraint in not intervening, which would enable the right hon. Gentleman to conclude his remarks.
Mr Llwyd
I accept what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you have probably saved me from having to answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question.
As I do not have time to deal with that particular query, let me say that the dangerous dogs Bill is welcome, but that we must scrutinise it very carefully. Other measures in the Queen’s Speech are clearly welcome, too, but as always, the devil is in the detail.
I looked at The Independent earlier today, and saw that its front-page banner headline was “Coalition adrift as key policies go missing from Queen’s Speech”. That might be the reason for its being a bit thin, but there are measures that we can all build on, improve and take forward. I hope, however, that the toxic debate about immigration will not dominate wider debate of the Queen’s Speech. I conclude on that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you for admonishing me in time.
Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]
Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hanson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because that is the point that I am making. Where is the Northern Ireland Office in this? Are discussions taking place with the political parties in Northern Ireland to resolve the situation? A number of parties and their representatives have different views, such as the hon. Member for East Antrim, representatives of Sinn Fein and my hon. Friend himself.What discussions are taking place with those parties to resolve that situation? The situation is still in play, and when Royal Assent is achieved, the Serious Organised Crime Agency will not operate in Northern Ireland. That is of regret to the Minister and to me. More importantly, the Justice Minister, David Ford, said that blocking the new crime agency is a “mistake” that could have serious implications for the police. He stated:
“There is a real danger if it does not go ahead there will be very significant costs to the police both in terms of time and finances and that we will have an inferior response to the serious organised crime that we face”.
The police are understood to share the Justice Minister’s concerns, and the Minister needs to reflect on them. I will not oppose the new schedule, but I hope that he listens to what has been said and comes back to the House at an early opportunity to say how he will bring forward negotiations to conclude the matter.
New clause 2, which is in my name and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, seeks a review, 12 months after Royal Assent, of the functions and operation of the National Crime Agency, particularly in relation to its governance structures. We had a full debate on that in Committee and I will not repeat those points today because of the limited time available. The Minister knows, however, that we think there is an alternative model to governance in which the NCA does not just report directly to the Home Secretary. Will the Minister consider whether in 12 months’ time, following Royal Assent, we could review how his model has operated? If it operates well and has been good and effective, fine; but if not, can we review it? A formal review is the purpose of new clause 2, including the
“operational and governance arrangements between the UK Government, the Department of Justice…and the Scottish Government with particular reference to asset recovery”.
I will not touch on asset recovery now as we will discuss it in a later debate, but there is a big hole in the Bill on that issue and how it fits into a UK structure. A review 12 months after Royal Assent, as demanded by new clause 2, would simply require the matter to be considered in detail.
Amendment 3, which is in my name, concerns giving political oversight to decisions made by the director general of the NCA in response to international requests for assistance, and for consideration of an international response to emergency situations. Under clause 7, the director general can decide to examine the provision of assistance to a country or territory outside the British Isles. Subsection (3) states:
“The Director General may provide assistance to…a government in a country or territory outside the British Islands…if the government, or the body, requests assistance”.
My amendment would simply mean that that should be with the support and agreement of the Home Secretary, and I tabled it for two reasons.
First, there may be countries that request or are looking for support from the National Crime Agency but about which the Government of the day might have concerns. Let us suppose, for example, that the Syrian Government or the Zimbabwean Government asked for help and support from the NCA, . Those are politically difficult issues that Ministers would want to have oversight of because Ministers are ultimately accountable to the House for the operation of the NCA. A system that allows the director of the NCA to agree that help and support can be given on request or by decision, but that ultimately the Minister, Home Secretary or a delegated Minister has oversight of and understands and agrees, would be helpful. When I was a Minister I agreed on many occasions to police forces sending people overseas to help with a range of activities. It is important that Ministers have such oversight, even if they do not ultimately have a veto.
I also tabled amendment 3 because I am concerned that officers may be in danger in certain countries and, again, Ministers are ultimately accountable to this House. In future, the National Crime Agency director may well have NCA officers in Afghanistan, Mali, Nigeria or Iraq—who knows? It could be any country in which the NCA is providing assistance or has been requested to do so on matters of serious organised crime. When officers go into areas of danger, political oversight is important as a Minister will ultimately be accountable in the Chamber if things go wrong.
I welcome amendment 4. I proposed it in Committee and it has been brought back by the Minister in a slightly amended form: the word “will” has been replaced with the word “must”—such is the Government’s wish to grab hold of the Bill and not let anybody amend it word by word, even though the principle is the same. However, I welcome the fact that I did not entirely waste my time in Committee, and that the measure was accepted by the Government.
I understand where my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is coming from with his amendments as we had a full debate in Committee. I will not, however, be able to support the amendments to remove clauses 12 and 13, but if he wishes to make his case I am sure the House will listen. I think we need clauses 12 and 13 to ensure that the police and the National Crime Agency police do not have the rights that the removal of those clauses would give them.
Since the Committee stage, I have heard concerns from police officers about the automatic transfer of officers from forces to the National Crime Agency without consultation. I would welcome the Minister considering those concerns in due course and reflecting on them as part of our deliberations.
I am not convinced that new clause 3 is the best way forward, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject it. That is not because we do not want the matter resolved; we are not rejecting the review or the idea of examining those issues, but rather the immediate solution given by the Minister for an affirmative order. If the Minister does not withdraw the new clause—I suspect he will not—he may face a vote in the House.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I am in the rather strange position of wanting to support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), but I will not steal his thunder and will be as brief as possible. In particular, I agree with amendments 95 and 102. As we know, clause 12 would prohibit unions from instigating a strike affecting any officers working for the National Crime Agency who have operational powers. That would include the director general of the NCA, and it would give power to the Home Secretary to take civil action against any person or persons who might call, or incite, such a strike.
The Government seem to regard the serious-minded people who will be working in this field as little less than children who might run off on a whim and call a strike for no reason at all. The quality of those people does not indicate that that is the kind of thing they would do, but I do not think they should be deprived of rights that most workers are accorded. It is only right and proper for the Government to take a respectful approach to those workers and allow them the negotiating rights and further rights that most people have. Clause 12(4) goes as far as allowing the Home Secretary to seek an injunction restraining a threatened strike by National Crime Agency officers holding operational powers. I believe that such provisions are retrograde and hope that hon. Members will support amendment 95 that would delete clause 12 in its entirety.
I am equally opposed to the provisions in clause 13, which would allow the Home Secretary to pass regulations determining the pay, allowances and other terms and conditions of National Crime Agency officers designated with operational powers, including the director general of the NCA. Amendment 102 would delete the clause in its entirety.
Clause 24(2) would allow for the contracting out of all functions of fines officers. The clause also makes provision for the costs of collecting compensation, fines and other financial penalties to be recovered from other offenders. I share the concern of groups such as the Public and Commercial Services Union that the Bill would allow a crucial element of enforcing sentences to be privatised. That would mean private companies being in charge of carrying out quasi-judicial functions, such as making deductions from benefit orders and making attachment of earnings orders. That is a privatisation too far.
Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] (Programme No. 2)
Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Browne
I will give way in a moment. I do not want to get too far off the beaten track, but I think that under the previous Government and under this one there has been a presumption that scheduling business—with a few provisions made for financial legislation, for example—is a sensible way to conduct our deliberations in this House. This is not a debate about whether the procedures of the House have changed; it is about the programme motion for this Bill.
Mr Llwyd
I just wish to make the point that there is no unanimity across the House that every piece of legislation should be programmed. I was a Member in the early ’90s, before the hon. Gentleman was elected to this House, and under the Conservative Government of that time programming was used rarely indeed and things seemed to work out all right.
Mr Browne
I was not wishing to get off the beaten track, and I did not say that there was unanimity in the House. There may be Members who want to debate the motions and business before the House until 5 or 6 o’clock every morning, and they are perfectly entitled to take that view. All I am saying is that we have come to a reasonably settled collective agreement that some sort of timetabling of legislation gives clarity. The balance we are trying to obtain is between ensuring that clarity and providing sufficient scope for all the different points of view to be aired. That is why, as I say, we are making generous provision in this programme motion for this stage of the deliberations on this Bill. I am sure that the wider points that have been made have been heard by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and, indeed, by the shadow Leader of the House. They no doubt spend a lot of time deliberating these matters and can now spend more time considering the issues raised this afternoon.
I have an important and specific extra announcement to make, which relates to the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment. The Government will also introduce a supplementary programme motion if the cross-party talks have concluded—either with or without agreement—to allow debate of Leveson-related amendments on the second day of business on this Bill. On that basis, both coalition parties will support the programme motion, having had the assurances that I have just delivered at the Dispatch Box, and will support the supplementary motion. I hope that we will now get on and debate the many important issues addressed in this Bill and in the amendments already tabled by right hon. and hon. Members.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The debate is quite important, because we all know the importance of getting the post-Leveson scene right. Mention has been made of the cost, the time involved, and the great care that Lord Justice Leveson took over the inquiry. We, as a minority party, were never part of the all-party talks, although the official Opposition have kept us in the loop, to their credit. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) said, we should be kept in the loop, which would be perfectly fine.
On the programme motion, of course, we are not part of the foul waters of the usual channels.
Mr Llwyd
The foulest in Europe, apparently—and that is why we are not part of them, probably.
On a serious point, even with the amended timetable we are still pretty well limited in terms of discussing Leveson, and we know that there are many opinions within the House on the Front, Back and middle Benches, on what we should do next. One thing is certain: the people out there demand that we get this right and, if we do this in this piecemeal, last-minute, eleventh-hour way, it will be an ignominious start to any proceedings on getting Leveson right.
I echo what was said by the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and I agree with many things that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said. We do need to have sufficient time to debate this issue. The right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) said that we could dispense with programming if we want to be in the Chamber until 5 am or 6 am on every Bill. That is patently nonsense, because in the 1992 Parliament that happened occasionally when the Maastricht treaty was debated, but not all the time. There are some Bills that require greater debate and scrutiny, but the flexibility to provide that is missing from all of this. That is extremely unfortunate because, with the best will in the world—with the benign Government we have now and any Government who may follow—the Executive are riding roughshod over us. This is not what Parliament is meant to be.
Violence against Women and Girls
Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is a pleasure to follow such a fine speech from the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), and I also commend to others a reading of what the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said earlier in her moving, sensible and informative speech.
Last year, I had the privilege of chairing the parliamentary inquiry into stalking law reform, which resulted in the creation of a new law a new law on stalking. I declare an interest, as I am a practising barrister, having practised for many years in the fields of crime and domestic violence. I have seen many lives ruined by domestic violence.
Early in 2011, I became aware of the limitations of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which eventually gave rise to the parliamentary inquiry. The panel drew its membership from both Houses of Parliament and from across the political spectrum. We considered the adequacy of the existing law and, over the course of six months, took written evidence and held five oral evidence sessions during which we sought the views of practitioners, legal experts, campaign groups and victims of stalking.
The panel concluded that the existing law was not fit for purpose and, in February last year, we published a report with recommendations on how legislation and practices should be improved. Within a month of our report’s publication, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would be implementing our main recommendations, and new clauses to that effect were passed by both Houses within a staggering 11 days. I only wish that changing the law were routinely so easy.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman has an honourable record on these issues. What does he think about the Welsh Government’s proposals to introduce a Bill on domestic abuse and violence against women? Does he agree that such a Bill would provide an opportunity to take concrete action on this issue?
Mr Llwyd
I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that the Welsh Government are proactive on these issues, and I am delighted to hear that they are taking action, because this problem is as prevalent in Wales as anywhere else. I am grateful to him for making that point.
As of November last year, stalking is a named offence in the law of England and Wales. The new law is split into two sections, which have been added to the Protection from Harassment Act—namely, a section 2A offence, punishable by up to 51 weeks in prison or a fine, as well as the section 4A offence, which involves stalking that prompts fear of violence or serious alarm or distress. This latter offence is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine, and is triable by either a Crown court or a magistrates court.
We felt that it was of utmost importance for the new law to take note of the fact that threats to the safety of those suffering stalking are not always physical. I do not want to enter into a debate about etymology, but I would argue that violence is not always physical. The “Oxford English Dictionary” defines violence as
“treatment or usage tending to cause bodily injury or forcibly interfering with personal freedom.”
It is in relation to that last part of the definition—forcibly interfering with personal freedom—that stalking can be considered an example of violence. Last year, the Association of Chief Police Officers also reviewed its definition of domestic abuse and, thankfully, it now takes account of controlling and coercive behaviour as well as of more immediate and obvious bodily harm.
Some forms of violence against women, such as stalking, are unfortunately more subtle than others, since they involve a pattern of behaviours which, taken alone, might seem innocent, but which take on a terrible significance when viewed over a period of time. Taken out of context, sending someone flowers or always being at the same events might not seem like threatening behaviour, but for a victim of stalking, every such incident can induce feelings of anxiety, panic and acute distress.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the survivors of stalking, and their families, who gave evidence to our inquiry and also acted as ambassadors for our campaign. Tracey Morgan, Claire Waxman and Sam Taylor gave us an insight into the sheer horror that stalking can wreak on people’s lives. Tricia Bernal and Carol Faruqui spoke bravely about the murder of their daughters, Clare and Rana, by their stalkers. John and Penny, the parents of Jane Clough, also gave evidence to our inquiry. Jane was murdered by her former partner, but only after he had raped her on nine separate occasions. When the man who was to go on to murder her was charged with those nine counts of rape, and four counts of common assault, the court made the disastrous decision to grant him bail, during which time he followed Jane and killed her.
That is why we recommended that there should be a presumption that anybody charged with a serious violent or sexual offence should not be bailed except in the most exceptional circumstances. We also recommended that judges and magistrates should take account of previous offences as serious acts of aggravation. Raping, like stalking, is characteristic of obsessive behaviour that is likely to escalate if it is not stopped and treated. That is why it is essential that criminal justice professionals are made aware through mandatory training about the patterns of behaviour that make up these crimes.
This motion focuses on educating the generations to come about the realities of violence against women, so as to prevent it from happening in the future. That is to be applauded, of course, but we must also tackle the prevailing attitudes. In earlier debates, we highlighted the need for a domestic abuse, stalking and harassment risk assessment—or DASH—tool. I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers has been running a trial in Hampshire for officers, but it is not sufficiently widespread.
I would welcome any information on how many individuals have been convicted under the new stalking offences. I would also welcome an update on the Government’s intentions in respect of improving victims’ advocacy. Some of the campaigners I met over the course of our inquiry have written to me expressing concern that not enough is being done. I know the Minister will pass these questions and concerns on to his colleagues. I repeat again that training must be rolled out for all police officers, to hammer home the message that the psychological impact of these crimes is considerable.
This law will be a step in the right direction towards ensuring that women are not subjected to violence without the perpetrators being punished. We must protect women and give them redress. This is urgently needed.