Victims and Prisoners Bill (Tenth sitting)

Jess Phillips Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Argar]

I will be brief. These amendments are part of a collection of minor and technical amendments that have been tabled across the Bill to ensure that consistent terminology is used in relation to data protection. These changes are primarily for the purposes of clarifying the provisions and ensuring that they work as intended; they do not constitute a policy change and are not intended to have substantive effects. The amendments in this group make changes to clause 12 to remove the term “disclosure” and insert

“within the meaning given by section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018”,

to ensure consistency with existing legislation.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

That is absolutely fine. The amendment seems fairly minor, so knock yourselves out!

Amendment 29 agreed to.

Amendment made: 30, in clause 12, page 10, line 37, at end insert

“within the meaning given by section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018”.—(Edward Argar.)

This amendment and Amendment 29 give “processing” of information the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018. Processing includes disclosure and other uses of information, so there is no need to refer separately to disclosure.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 12, page 10, line 37, at end insert—

“(8A) Collaboration under this section may include the co-location of services in accordance with the Child House model, as defined by the Home Office guidance entitled “Child House: local partnerships guidance”, published 6 September 2021.”

This amendment would include within the duty to collaborate the use of the Child House model, described by the Home Office guidance as “a multi-agency service model supporting children, young people and non-abusing parents, carers and family members following child sexual abuse”.

The purpose of the amendment is to promote the establishment of child houses as part of the relevant authority’s duty to collaborate in the exercise of its victim support function. Although the Bill seeks to collaborate between commissioners, it does not provide the firm direction needed to enable the joint multi-disciplinary service provision that makes such a difference to child victims. By rolling out the child house model, we can ensure that children are provided with both therapeutic support and support to navigate the criminal justice process all under one roof.

Too many children face a lack of support after experiencing sexual abuse. Young victims seeking justice are faced with extremely distressing delays in the justice system, as waiting times for child sexual abuse cases have surged in the past few years. Ministry of Justice data shows that the average number of days between a defendant in child sexual abuse cases in England and Wales being charged and the criminal trial starting rose by 43% in four years. That is from 276 days in 2017 to 395 days in 2021—a lot of time in a young life. For children already suffering with depression or post-traumatic stress disorder as a consequence of the abuse, the drawn-out process of waiting for a trial to start and end can be extremely distressing and compound the significant mental health impacts of the abuse.

In 2020, the Office for National Statistics found that around half of child sexual abuse cases did not proceed further through the criminal justice system, citing one of the reasons as being that victims worried that the process would be too distressing. Going through a police investigation and prosecution as a victim is often described as inherently traumatic—think of that for a young child. That is because during the process of a police investigation and trial, a child or young person often has to retell the experience of abuse multiple times, usually in an environment that is unfamiliar, intimidating and confusing.

NSPCC research found that support for child witnesses varied depending on location and that only a small minority were ever offered communication support through a registered intermediary. NSPCC analysis of freedom of information data revealed that in 2020-21, only 23% of the 119 local authorities that responded across England and Wales said they provided dedicated support for young victims in the form of independent and specially trained advisers. Research shows that children face an inconsistent network of agencies and services after experiencing sexual abuse. Instead, we could use the approach of a child house.

A child house provides a child-centred model in which the agencies involved in supporting young victims, including healthcare, social care, children’s independent sexual violence advisers—CHISVAs—the third sector and police, all provide co-ordinated services in an integrated, child-friendly environment. It is literally under one roof, and that supports children to give their best evidence. Currently, there is only one child house in England and Wales: the Lighthouse in London. They would love Members to go and visit them. It is a fantastic place and just a tube ride away—do go and see it.

In 2021, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime was commissioned to evaluate the Lighthouse. As part of its research, children were consulted on their experiences. MOPAC found that the model addresses concerns that children who reported sexual abuse often face—that is, multiple interviews with social workers, the police and other professionals. Children who had used the Lighthouse complimented the care and respect they received from the staff. Being able to go at their own pace with choice and control was described as valuable. Children emphasised the positive impact that the homely atmosphere had and said that the environment was created by the little things, such as being offered a hot drink and police officers not wearing uniforms.

One child spoke about their experience to the NSPCC, saying—I slightly paraphrase: “Looking back on the Lighthouse, even though obviously I wish I hadn’t had to go there, I think they just made the experience of having to go there a lot less harder than it had to be…And yeah, I did feel like almost loved there. I guess looking back I didn’t realise at the time how easier things were made for me with the Lighthouse being there.”

The child house model has been recommended by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, the Home Office, NHS England, the Children’s Commissioner for England and the Government’s own tackling child sexual abuse strategy, as well as the British Medical Association. Despite those endorsements and a wealth of evidence that supports the effectiveness of the model, the Bill does not address the fragmented support landscape currently faced by children. I ask the Minister to listen to all the evidence, use the opportunity in the Bill and commit to rolling out the brilliant model of child houses across the country. We really can demonstrate what a difference that would make to all child victims.

[Jess Phillips]

I rise to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and remind the Committee that the Children’s Commissioner mentioned the Lighthouse what might be a record number of times; I am sure that Hansard would tell me one way or the other. The experts are telling us that the approach works and I have some experience of the alternative—when cases fall apart and children are completely unsupported. That still happens in the vast majority of cases, I am afraid, so I support the amendment.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful, as ever, to the hon. Member for Rotherham for the amendment, which would include within the duty to collaborate the use of the child house model. Co-located, child-centred support services, including those delivered in accordance with the child house model, do excellent work in supporting child victims of crime. Like other Committee members, I recognise the work done by the Lighthouse. I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work done by Dame Rachel de Souza, the Children’s Commissioner, and her deputy Ellie Lyons, in campaigning for and highlighting the rights and needs of children.

The Government recognise the importance of the co-located child-centred support service, which is why we provided £7.5 million towards a pilot of the UK’s first child house, in Camden. Following that, we have published guidance for local partnerships that wish to introduce similar models for child victims in their area. The duty to collaborate aims to facilitate a more strategic and co-ordinated approach to commissioning and to improve the strategic co-ordination of services, so that all victims get the timely and quality support that they need.

The legislation requires commissioners to collaborate when commissioning services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent offences. As we discussed this morning, it allows for flexibility for local commissioners to decide what services will best meet the needs of their population; that could include commissioning co-located services, exactly as the amendment suggests.

Listing in legislation the sorts of services that commissioners may or must consider is, I fear, slightly over-prescriptive—this goes back to the debates we have had about a number of amendments. I repeat what I said in those debates: it would risk excluding some of the other excellent service models that local areas may also want to commission, although I do not in any way diminish the huge impact that the child house model clearly has.

The duty also requires commissioners to consider any assessment of the needs of children when preparing their joint commissioning strategy. Statutory guidance will support commissioners in doing this, encouraging the co-production of services where appropriate and linking to the “Child House: local partnerships guidance” document. As the original draft Bill already allows local commissioners to adopt the approach where appropriate, we believe that it strikes an appropriate balance. I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham might be persuaded to agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I just want to draw a comparison between services—for example, in the health service—that we fund and do not expect to get to crisis point. The best example I can ever think of is diabetes services. Imagine if the scheme in our country was that 10% of all people who have diabetes could access insulin and the other 90% could access insulin only at the point that they were about to die. That is the current situation with community-based services in domestic abuse services. If you fund crisis, you get crisis. If you fund prevention, you get prevention. That is simply the case at the moment.

We ration provision. We literally have a form for it, called the DASH—domestic abuse, stalking, harassment and honour based violence—risk assessment. A DASH risk assessment will be undertaken and you will be given a score—almost like, “How good is your domestic abuse?” We will come to some of these issues when we debate independent domestic violence advisers. From that score, a decision will be made about what sort of service you can access—not you, Mr Hosie; rather what sort of service “one” can access. I have seen DASH risk assessments where a woman has been hit repeatedly with a brick in the face and was not given a high risk of harm on her risk assessment. To be given a high risk of harm on a risk assessment, someone basically has to be at imminent risk of death. It is a bit like high risk in children’s social care; in the vast majority of the country, a parent basically has to have a knife to the child’s throat for the case to reach the threshold for any sort of children’s social services care.

Imagine if people got that kind of level with diabetes and we said, “You can have the insulin. There may be a service for you, but not necessarily,” and to everybody else who we could avoid elevating to the risk level of having been hit around the face with a brick, we said, “Go on this waiting list. Come back later. We’ll manage you in the community,” which basically means, “Go away until he knocks on your door 17 times with a machete and even then we won’t consider you high risk of harm.” Those are literal cases that I have handled.

I speak in absolute support of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. I also want to make a broader point about funding. The Justice Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny report said that around £40 million, if not more—I think that figure is correct, but I am more than happy to correct the record if I have got it wrong—is being allocated to legal aid access for people who do not like their parole decision. The Minister has stood up a number of times today and said that the way to get money is by going to the Chancellor and doing it through the financial systems, which of course was not the case in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, because the money was allocated for the refuge assessment. The only money that is being allocated in this Bill is something that can be accessed by, for example, murderers but not by the people they would go on to murder.

[Edward Argar]

I fear that this is one area where I may not be able to bring the hon. Member for Rotherham with me. I will try but I suspect I may be out of luck on this one. I am grateful to her for the amendment and for the opportunity to debate this important matter.

To the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley about the Parole Board, my recollection of what the Committee and the assessment looked at was not additional new money being made available in the way she suggests for part 3 but not for part 1, but a recognition of the cost implications of those changes based on the current entitlements to legal aid and the way the process works.

[Jess Phillips]

The point stands.

[Edward Argar]

I take her point, but I add the nuance that it is not a case of new money being allocated. It is an assessment of the consequences of a legal entitlement that would exist in those circumstances.

To speak to the broader point, I agree with the hon. Member for Rotherham on the importance of sufficient funding for victims’ services and ensuring that, where we can, we also provide funding to commission services on a multi-year basis. That was one of the key pillars of the victims funding strategy. That reflected what I, when I was last doing this job, was told by the sector, and what the hon. Lady will have been told as well, about the challenge of small, short-term pots of money—a situation that results in a number of key staff spending most of their time not delivering the service but writing bids to try to collate enough to meet the financial needs of that service. The funding strategy recognises and reflects that, so the Government do recognise that, where possible, that should be the approach adopted.

Outside of legislation we are more than quadrupling funding for victims’ services—as a basket, as it were—by 2024-25. That funding is up from £41 million in 2009-10, and includes an additional £6 million per annum through this spending review period, which is provided directly to police and crime commissioners and ringfenced for domestic abuse and sexual violence services in response to increased demand. Through the Bill, we are creating a statutory duty on PCCs, integrated care boards and local authorities in England to collaborate when exercising their victim support functions for victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent crimes. That will mean that support is better co-ordinated and more effective. Collaboration should also improve use of existing funds.

Monitoring of local need and provision provides Government with valuable intelligence and insights. To improve our understanding of demand and the impact of the services we fund, we have introduced through the victims funding strategy a core set of metrics and outcomes that are being collected across Government. The reality is, however, that this information is used to inform decisions made through the spending review process, which continues to be the right approach to setting Government budgets, as it recognises that there is a finite amount of taxpayers’ money and there are finite funds.

I would gently argue that individual Bills setting funding requirements in an unco-ordinated way is not the most appropriate or effective way to consider Government spending and prioritisation of funding in the round. I was going to say, “as a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury,” but I only did that job for 11 days—maybe that still counts. I would nevertheless argue that considering funding in the round during the spending review process is the right approach. Continued flexibility is required when considering funding levels, and I do not believe that fixing funding in primary legislation is the right approach in that context. I fear I may not carry the hon. Member for Rotherham with me on this one occasion, but it was worth a try.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I do not have much more to say, as I made most of my comments around clause 12 in its entirety when moving amendment 80. We recognise the good intention of the provision, but feel it has some way to go to not just be words on goatskin, which is what I am always concerned about. Words on goatskin are all well and good, but when it comes to how this legislation acts in people’s lives on the ground, I think it still has some way to go—but the intention is obviously one that we would support.

[Edward Argar]

I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Strategy for collaboration in exercise of victim support functions

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

Both amendments seek to ensure that the strategy for collaboration takes into account victims’ needs. Amendment 87 would require the relevant authorities to begin the strategy of preparing an assessment of victims’ needs. That must include a specific requirement to assess the need of child victims and those with other protected characteristics, who are particularly vulnerable and must be subject to additional considerations by the relevant authorities. It is a logical place to begin and, as I stated when arguing for the joint strategic needs assessment, it would fail to be an effective collaboration if needs were not evaluated to begin with.

Amendment 88 would require the relevant authorities to consider the needs assessment when putting together the strategy to collaborate. Some partnerships may do that once the Bill is passed, but we must ensure that every region has the same standards and processes so that the needs of all victims, and particularly child victims, are met across the country. The amendment would enable the strategy to collaborate and be more cost-effective and ambitious when fulfilling the duty the Minister wants it to achieve.

[Jess Phillips]

I do not have much to say other than that I entirely support the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful, as ever, to the hon. Member for Rotherham for her amendment, which would require the relevant authorities in a police area in England to assess the needs of victims in their area and then take that assessment into account when devising strategies under the duty to collaborate. I already touched on that when debating an earlier amendment, so I will seek not to repeat myself—at least not too much—although, I am afraid that some of the arguments will be the same.

The Government agree that needs assessments are vital in informing local commissioning decisions, and relevant local needs assessments that indicate the needs of victims already happen regularly as part of good practice. The Ministry of Justice provides police and crime commissioners with grant funding to commission practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of all types of crime in their local areas. In order to achieve that and to know which services are required, PCCs are expected to carry out needs assessments that will allow them to target the funding and ascertain the level of need and demand in their area.

There are also several other needs assessments that local commissioners carry out, which give an assessment of the needs of victims. They include, but are not limited to: the serious violence joint strategic needs assessment, which indicates levels of serious violence and the volume of victims in an area; the public health joint strategic needs assessment, carried out by local authorities and health and wellbeing boards, which sets out social care and public health needs; and safe accommodation needs assessments, which give an indication of the number of domestic abuse victims requiring safe accommodation in an area.

We have been clear with commissioners in the victims funding strategy that needs assessments are a central pillar of commissioning victim support services. To do that, the victims funding strategy sets out a clear expectation that commissioners carry out regular needs assessments using all the data required to commission appropriate services for victims in their areas, including victims with tailored needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I entirely endorse and support the amendment. As someone who was in charge of fundraising for a small community-based organisation, I know that the amount of money wasted getting in human resources experts is significant. It happened to me on a number of occasions: it would roll around to December and people would be put on notice just before Christmas—because of the financial year, staff can be given three months’ notice at Christmas, which is always a really cheerful thing to have to do as a boss of one of these organisations.

I also point out that the problem has been exacerbated by the current delays in both the policing and the court-based systems. That adds a new flavour for domestic abuse community-based services or sexual violence community-based services. Yesterday, I was interviewed by police in a case. Hilariously, the police officer said to me, “Are there any dates you might be on holiday?”, and I said, “Well, I’m going away in August,” and I thought, “Hope springs eternal—it will be August 2025 before I see the inside of that courtroom.”

The situation is that a victim could come forward, go through the process with the police and the charge could take a year, let alone the court time taking another two years. The lack of continuity of even the same service, let alone the same person, still being in place because of the way short-term contracts in this space work is exacerbated by delays in the system. We have to skin the cat we have, and that cat is one of delay in this process. Three years from complaint to end on anything that would be seeing the inside of a Crown court is standard at the moment, so the very least we should seek to do is ensure that at least three-year contracts are provided in this space.

[Edward Argar]

We touched on a number of the elements that I am going to talk about when we debated amendment 83, which the hon. Member for Rotherham moved earlier, so I will be relatively brief. I agree with her on the importance of sufficient funding for victims’ services and ensuring that, where we can, we provide the funding to commission services on a multi-year basis.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, is right to highlight the challenges: not only the demand pressures on a charity or a service provider but the fact that those most experienced at meeting that demand and providing the service are often the people who have to sit writing the responses to the invitations to tender or bids. I say that as someone who, before coming to this place, was a trustee of an environmental-regeneration employment charity. The challenge is having certainty of income and also a diversity of income streams, so that the charity can insure itself against any one of them suddenly saying it will no longer provide funding.

It is absolutely right to highlight the fact that individuals invest not just money but time, and that the work is often done outside office hours because they are at work during working hours and spend their evenings doing it. I visited a project in north-west London a little while ago and had exactly that conversation with some of the trustees and the senior staff there. Without a degree of certainty on funding, where that is possible, the challenge is not only the effort of constantly bidding for it but the risk of losing good people who, however passionate and however much of a vocation it is for them, often want at least a degree of predictability in their lives so that they know they can pay their bills.

Amendment 84 seeks to ensure that commissioned services are given contracts or grants for a minimum of three years. As I just alluded to, I recognise the importance of sustainable funding for victim support services and how it can affect the reliability and consistency of services. We listened to service providers, who told us that single-year funding presented the biggest challenge to them in delivering support for victims, and we have already committed to multi-year funding, where possible, outside legislation. We have committed £154 million per annum of our victims budget on a multi-year basis across this spending review period, totalling a minimum of £460 million over three years.

Multi-year funding will allow for greater staff retention, opportunity for services to innovate and invest for the long term in the services they are able to provide, and— to the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley—allow victims to receive a greater degree of consistency and continuity in the support they need, particularly when they have begun to build up a rapport and trust with those with whom they are working. That is why we have put multi-year funding at the centre of our victims funding strategy, in which we reaffirmed that commitment and set out an expectation for all commissioners to pass multi-year commitments on to their providers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

Apologies for getting overexcited, Mr Hosie.

Amendment 81 is supported by London’s Victims’ Commissioner, Claire Waxman, and it is worth reminding the Committee that Claire started campaigning for a victims Bill in 2014 or 2015. I pay huge tribute to her for never giving up. The fact that we are here debating it is in no small part due to her campaigning. Amendment 85 is supported by the NSPCC, to which I am grateful.

Amendment 81 would simply require that the relevant victims are engaged and consulted when authorities prepare the strategy for collaboration. We must ensure that victims themselves are engaged in the strategic planning for victim support services, because they know best. Amendment 85 seeks to make it clear that we must ensure that organisations that provide support to child victims are similarly consulted. As I have already made clear, children have very specific needs as victims. There must be a link between recognising children as victims and the duty to deliver a strategy for collaboration in the exercise of victim support functions, to ensure that commissioners include support services for children when preparing their joint commissioning strategies.

Considering children’s support needs as distinct from those of adults is vital. It is crucial for commissioners to reflect children’s needs effectively when they prepare their joint commissioning strategies. It is especially key at a time when child abuse continues to rise. At least 500,000 children a year are estimated to suffer abuse in the UK, one in 20 children in the UK have been sexually abused, and an estimated one in five children have experienced severe maltreatment. Last year, for the first time more than 100,000 cases of child sexual abuse were reported. NSPCC freedom of information data found that police in England and Wales made nearly 700 referrals a day to children’s social services about domestic abuse in 2021, totalling 245,000 cases that year.

Recognition of children in the relevant authorities’ victims’ needs analysis is welcome, and I welcome what the Minister has previously said, but the relevant authorities must have a duty to consult the providers of children’s services to ensure that those services are included in commissioning strategies. Simply including children in the victims’ needs analysis is not enough to ensure that support is in place. NSPCC freedom of information figures demonstrate that many local authorities are not accessing readily available information about child victims of domestic and sexual abuse. When asked, 50% of local authorities did not have any records of the number of child victims who had experienced either sexual or domestic abuse in their area, despite their statutory obligations to undertake a joint strategic needs assessment to improve the health and wellbeing of their communities.

It concerns me that the Bill risks undermining the important recognition that child victims must come within scope of the Bill if the duty to deliver a strategy for collaboration in exercise of victim support functions—I would love it if it could be called something snappier —does not include a duty to consult the providers of children’s services. I hope the Minister recognises that risk and therefore accepts the amendment.

[Jess Phillips]

I completely support the amendment and just wish to say that although I and others will talk about the lack of available support services for victims of domestic and sexual violence more broadly, there is no group more populous and more poorly served than children. The idea that children’s services would not be included seems bizarre, and the argument has been eloquently put.

[Edward Argar]

I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham for her amendments, which would require the relevant authorities to consult victims who are or may be receiving support services when they prepare their strategies. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of Claire Waxman, whom the hon. Lady rightly mentioned. I have a huge respect for Claire Waxman. We do not always agree on everything, but she is a formidable and passionate campaigner in this space and she manages to do that and achieve results while being an incredibly nice person as well. She is incredibly successful in what she does and I wish her continued success—albeit perhaps not in every aspect, because sometimes she will push me a little too hard. We should all be grateful to her for her work.

Amendment 85 would require the relevant authorities to consult providers of support services for child victims, as well as victims directly, when they prepare their joint strategy. I will address the two parts of the amendment in turn. I agree that engagement with the providers of services for child victims can provide valuable insight into local decisions, including on how commissioning is likely to impact victims, communities and the capacity of organisations to provide support. Our view is that the Bill already meets that objective. Clause 13(2)(b) requires the authorities to consult

“persons appearing to the relevant authorities to represent persons providing relevant victim support services”.

I am happy to make it clear to the Committee that that includes the providers of services for child victims.

Furthermore, we intend for statutory guidance to set out in more detail how relevant authorities can ensure that child victims’ needs are met. That is intended to include how they can engage directly with victims if they consider it appropriate to do so, and take into account the views of providers and experts in the sector. I am happy for the hon. Member for Rotherham to give her thoughts on what that statutory guidance should contain, based on her work with the NSPCC and other organisations; as on other aspects of the Bill, I will work with her to see whether we can create something that works. Although I agree with the objective behind the first part of the amendment, we do not consider it necessary.

The second part of the amendment would require the authorities to engage directly with victims. I agree that they should take into account the views of victims when they prepare their joint strategy. That is why clause 13(2)(a) requires them to consult those representing the interests of victims and clause 13(2)(c) gives scope for them to engage directly with victims if they consider it appropriate to do so. Again, we intend for the statutory guidance issued under clause 14, which we will turn to shortly, to make that clear and set out in more detail the considerations that should be taken into account by the authorities when deciding who they should engage with, as well as our expected standards and process for consultation.

In addition, clause 13(3) requires authorities to have regard to any assessments of the needs of victims, including child victims, and the relevant victim support services that are available in the police area. The measures in the clause, taken together, ensure that the voices of victims and the expertise of victim representatives will be considered when the joint strategy is prepared. I do not believe that the second part of the amendment is necessary, given the extant clauses and subsections.

Amendment 81 would require the relevant authorities to consult victims who are, or may be, receiving support services when they prepare their strategies. I agree that is an important issue. Clause 13 already sets out that the relevant authorities—police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities in England—must consult persons who represent the interests of victims, those who provide relevant victim support services and other persons the relevant authorities consider appropriate. That not only requires consultation with those who represent victims’ voices but gives ample scope for the relevant authorities to engage victims directly when they consider it appropriate to do so. We intend for the statutory guidance issued under clause 14 to set out in more detail what commissioners may want to take into account when they consider their duty to consult, including how to engage with victims effectively and, importantly, in a trauma-informed manner.

Engaging with victims to better understand their experiences in accessing services is undoubtably beneficial to the improvement of commissioning and outcomes for victims. Alongside allowing for direct engagement with victims themselves, clause 13 requires the relevant authorities to consult persons who represent victims. That is because some victims may prefer to be represented by another body—an advocate, a campaigner, a charity or a service provider—and we believe the legislation should be flexible enough to allow for that. We do not want to disadvantage victims who do not have the resources, autonomy or confidence to speak up for themselves. We should also recognise that there are organisations that are experienced in taking views from a representative spread of victims, feeding back to commissioners, and ensuring those views are heard and are useful in the commissioning process.

I hope I have given the hon. Lady some reassurance that we believe the clause already covers what she seeks to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 13, page 11, line 19, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(b) any assessment of the victim support services consulted in carrying out their duty under section (12).”

This amendment would ensure that when preparing the strategy for collaboration, relevant authorities must have regard to any assessment of the victim support services consulted under section 12.

This is a probing amendment, which seeks to strengthen the strategy for collaboration by requiring relevant authorities to consider any assessments made under the duty to collaborate. Currently, clause 13 (3)(b) says that when preparing the strategy, relevant authorities must have regard to

“the relevant victim support services which are available in the police area (whether or not provided by the relevant authorities).”

As we have discussed, it is vital for victims’ needs to be considered, and that will take place under subsection (3)(a). However, the strategy must also take into account any review of support services that the relevant authorities may undertake under the duty to collaborate. That is key in preparing the strategy as it will help them to identify gaps in services and where local need for services is stronger.

We cannot simply suggest that authorities consider the support services available; we must ask them to be more ambitious than that. By requiring them to consider any evaluations of services, we can enable them to strengthen the options available for victims and ultimately improve the outcomes of the Bill. Wherever possible, we must ensure that the services available to victims are as strong as they can be. The best way to make that happen is by local partners taking into account local need. However, for that to take place consistently across the country, we must improve the wording of the clause so that all assessments of services are always taken into account.

[Jess Phillips]

I do not have anything to add to what has already been said. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for her amendment, which, somewhat like amendments 87, 88 and 89, would require relevant authorities for a police area to conduct a joint strategic needs assessment to inform the strategy for commissioning victim support services as part of the duty to collaborate. I am also grateful to her for highlighting that she has approached this as a probing amendment. I will respond to it in that vein, noting again the context of my previous comments about her broader calls for a JSNA.

The Government agree it is vital that relevant support services fit the local needs of victims, and that victims’ needs form the centre of any commissioning decision. Current systems are created so that commissioners place the victim at the heart of commissioning, enabling a bespoke approach rather than a one-size-fits-all approach set nationally.

PCCs are able to allocate the grants and funding supplied by my Department based on relevant needs assessments, which already happen as part of good commissioning processes. Those assessments enable PCCs to target funding into practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of crime, where it is most needed in their area. PCCs, local authorities and integrated care boards are also required to carry out a joint strategic needs assessment under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which should indicate the level of serious violence and the number of victims affected.

Both domestic abuse and sexual abuse are now considered forms of serious violence—and in my view, rightly so. Local authorities and integrated care boards also already carry out separate assessments that indicate the needs of victims, including the needs assessment under part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which sets out the needs of victims in accommodation-based services, and the JSNA that informs the public health and wellbeing strategy.

Clause 13(3) requires PCCs, local authorities and integrated care boards to have regard, when preparing their joint strategy, to any needs assessments that they have already carried out and that reflect the needs of victims. Statutory guidance will state that relevant authorities should then set out in their joint commissioning strategy how they have had regard to the relevant needs assessments and how commissioning decisions aim to reflect and to meet the identified need.

--- Later in debate ---

As ever, I try to provide an answer for the Minister. This measure seems a simple and straightforward answer, so I am very interested to hear his opinion of it.

[Jess Phillips]

I was the chair of the west midlands police and crime panel, so I suppose I will say that in that role I would have been more than happy to undertake this particular piece of work. The truth is that we count what we care about and we try to ignore everything else. If I were to think about all the different strategies and timeframes for schemes that were meant to be better for victims that I have come across in my 20 years in this area, I would say that they are just sitting on a shelf gathering dust and have meant absolutely nothing on the ground. It would be a very high number—more than the number of amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, but only just. The truth is that unless we have a proper scrutiny function, albeit from the Victims’ Commissioner nationally or through a local situation—as my hon. Friend said, she has basically designed a system that could work perfectly well—my worry is that we will get a lot of nice words saying, “Of course we are going to ensure that all our mental health services are trauma-informed.” It is just words; it does not mean anything on the ground. We need some level of scrutiny on specific outputs, key performance indicators, timeframes, what is improving and what needs to be improved.

This is not about criticism. Domestic homicide reviews, serious case reviews and all the systems we put in to scrutinise post-something terrible happening to somebody or some terrible crime have become a bit of a blame game that, at times, can freeze people into inaction. It should be a process of scrutiny for the good and the bad, for a genuine conversation and for Government to be able to say, “This doesn’t seem to be working. What needs to happen across the country for it to work?”, so I absolutely support the amendment.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham, as ever, for her amendments. Amendment 86 would require the relevant authorities to publish an annual report about the implementation of the strategy and their compliance with the duty to collaborate in the exercise of victim support functions. New clause 9 would establish a review of compliance with the collaboration duties in clauses 12 and 13 and add a layer of accountability to oversee the new duty by requiring police and crime panels to keep under review how the relevant authorities that provide services in their area are doing so in accordance with their collaboration duties under clauses 12 and 13.

I seek to reassure the hon. Lady that the existing requirements of the duty to collaborate will achieve a high level of transparency and the Government have a plan for an effective system of oversight for this duty, which I will set out. The relevant authorities—police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities in England—will already be under an obligation to publish, review and revise their commissioning strategies, including publishing any revised versions or revisions. This is to ensure transparency, as the strategies must contain information on how they consider they are fulfilling or intend to fulfil their duty under clause 12. We intend these strategies to be assessed by the national oversight forum, about which we have spoken previously in Committee and which was announced in our consultation response in 2022. This ministerial-led group will scrutinise the local strategies, assess the effectiveness of collaboration and how well the duty is executed. It will have an ongoing role in monitoring the performance and outputs of local strategies against the objectives that local areas have set.

Under clause 13, local areas must review and revise strategies from time to time so that they reflect the changing commissioning landscape and emerging local need. We expect strategies to be reviewed annually and revised fully approximately every four years. That is an expectation we will test in practice when we consult formally on the statutory guidance in due course. At the point of review and revision, the oversight group will have oversight responsibility to consider whether the next set of objectives set by local areas are ambitious and deliverable. I therefore contend that requiring an additional annual report as intended by amendment 86 is to a degree duplicative of the extant intentions under the clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

Yeah, I’ll do it.

[Jess Phillips]

We’ll do it.

[Edward Argar]

In that context, I will gently say—and this may be a little less consensual than what I would normally say—that one of the people on the group will be the relevant Minister, but I fear that Opposition Members may have a long wait before that will necessarily apply to them. They may take a different view. On new clause 9, I agree with the hon. Lady—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

Just until the next election.

[Edward Argar]

Not on that! I agree with the hon. Member for Rotherham on the importance of ensuring appropriate and robust oversight and monitoring of the duty to collaborate. I hope to reassure her that many of her proposals are satisfied by our existing clauses and the Government’s existing plans. Where we have taken a different approach from her recommendations, I will explain our reasoning.

The purpose of the duty is to create a framework that facilitates local collaboration and leads to more targeted and joined-up local commissioning that meets local needs. The measures we are introducing to achieve that are as framed in clauses 12 and 13. As I have said, we will be setting out plans for that clear system of oversight, which we think is essential to ensuring that it meets its aims. The details of that will be set out in statutory guidance. That oversight group will have an ongoing role in monitoring the performance and outputs of local strategies against the objectives that local areas have set. As I have alluded to, under clause 13 local areas must review and revise strategies from time to time.

I turn briefly to potential membership of that group, to put a little gloss on it that might help to inform any feedback the hon. Lady subsequently wishes to give. It needs to have a representative membership that represents and scrutinises the relevant authorities—police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities. Those people will need to have the right seniority to discuss and take decisions on issues relating to the three crime types included in the duty: domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent offences.

As well as Ministers and senior representatives from the relevant delivery authorities that have the ability to scrutinise local plans, it is important that we are able to bring different perspectives to the discussions. In the case of police and crime commissioners, that could include representatives from police and crime panels or, for example, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. We continue carefully to consider what representation may be required and I am open, as ever, to working with the hon. Lady on that.

The statutory guidance will set out clear advice on what form the national oversight structure will take and how the relevant authorities can participate and engage with it. I believe that this national oversight system will be effective, proportionate and less complex than alternative models. I am afraid I do not share the perspective that police and crime panels should take on oversight responsibilities to keep the relevant authorities under review in relation to the duty, and prepare and publish the annual report. I will set out my reasons and rationale for that.

First, the bodies that the hon. Lady would like police and crime panels to scrutinise are subject to different individual accountability arrangements. Under this duty, the Secretary of State will issue guidance to integrated care boards, PCCs and local authorities in relation to their collaboration duties under the Bill. While PCCs are scrutinised by those panels, and can be in respect of any of their functions, they, together with local authorities, are ultimately held to account at the ballot box—I suspect we would all hope to see higher turnouts in elections for those important offices, given the functions they perform, but it is of course the choice of our constituents as to whether they vote.

Secondly, it is important to stress that this is a joint statutory duty placed equally on police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities. Victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse and other serious violent crimes typically access a range of services across health, local authority services and policing provision. That is the primary reason why our duty to collaborate is a joint one.

Police and crime panels are rightly focused on scrutinising the relevant PCC on any decisions and actions taken in connection with the commissioner’s role—again, including this new addition to their obligations—but they do not have scrutiny powers over local authorities or integrated care boards. The proposed clause would therefore require going beyond the role, function and powers of the panels. It would also potentially infringe the independence and respective scrutiny arrangements of the other bodies under the duty. The Government currently have no plans to review the role and powers of police and crime panels or to change their remit.

I turn to the hon. Lady’s recommendation for police and crime panels to publish and prepare an annual report setting out

“how the relevant authorities are fulfilling their duties under section (12) and (13)”,

in particular how they are assessing the needs of victims, meeting the needs of victims and collaborating to represent the interests of victims. The new clause asks police and crime panels to publish that annual report setting out how relevant authorities are fulfilling their duties, in particular addressing those key points that I have highlighted. I would argue this additional layer of oversight is, again, not strictly necessary, given the extant obligation on these authorities to publish their commissioning strategies, and given the statutory duty for those strategies to contain information on how they consider they are fulfilling, or intend to fulfil, the collaboration duty under clause 12.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

The purpose of clause 13 is to improve how support services for victims are planned locally. Clause 13 requires the relevant authorities to undertake certain activities as part of their duty to collaborate, as set out in clause 12.

Police and crime commissioners, integrated care boards and local authorities within a police area are required, first, to prepare, implement and publish a joint local strategy, setting out how they consider that they are fulfilling, or intend to fulfil, their duty to collaborate in relation to victim support services. Crucially, by ensuring transparency and a better understanding of the aims and approaches of each commissioning area, the strategy will be expected to demonstrate how commissioning areas work together, what their approaches are to commissioning and how their decisions will meet the needs of their community.

Secondly, the strategy must be informed by certain activities, including existing assessments of victims’ needs—including children and those with protected characteristics —and the views of those representing the interests of victims and service providers, ensuring that strategies are developed with the necessary information and the right expertise. Importantly, more effective use of existing joint needs assessments should help to build an improved understanding of local need, and therefore more targeted commissioning activity and better decision making.

Thirdly, the strategy will be reviewed and revised from time to time so that it reflects the changing commissioning landscapes and emerging local need. By increasing collaboration, we expect that local strategies will lead to changes in commissioning processes, including reduced duplication through increased joint working; a common understanding of local need and effective provision; and transparency, including on how decisions are informed by consideration of needs assessments. As a result, victims should experience a more joined-up pathway, resulting in quality support enabled by better co-ordinated and targeted local use of resources and interventions, and timely support facilitated by better joining up so that victims can more seamlessly move between services.

Clause 14 requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance that will support PCCs, integrated care boards and local authorities in carrying out the duty to collaborate. It requires them to have regard to this guidance when discharging their duties under clauses 12 and 13. The guidance will cover topics such as how collaboration is expected to work in practice, information on strategy development and content, and how we expect areas to monitor the impact of the duty.

The clause also requires the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders, such as local commissioners and providers, when drafting the guidance, so that it is useful and reflects the operational reality. The clause is important because it ensures that commissioners are clear about what is expected of them and can carry out activity in a consistent way across England. We anticipate that persons who interact with the bodies subject to the duty will also look at the guidance to understand the expectations for the bodies. Following parliamentary passage of the Bill, we expect to formally consult on the guidance and plan for implementation as soon as practically possible. I commend that clauses 13 and 14 stand part of the Bill.

[Jess Phillips]

Clause 13 says that relevant authorities will collaborate on a strategy on aims and approach to commissioning, and that they must engage victims and those who represent victims; again, this must mean specialist service providers for victims—and by that, I mean that those service providers must be specialist. The clause also states that authorities must base their strategy on the needs of victims. We would clarify that this must be according to need. In order for areas to understand their local need, they must consider the volume of victims, the cohort and characteristics of victims, and the impact on victims. The authorities must have all that information, as a needs assessment can only truly be made if we know the facts first; otherwise, it is based not on any understanding, but on perception.

When it comes to gendered violence, the lack of data is a massive issue. It is an issue that is beyond the parameters of this debate, but as we make new law, as we are doing today, we should try to address it. Data is really important to how we do a needs assessment because, I am afraid to say, so much is missing. Take, for example, the outrageous lack of data accessible to fully investigate and comprehend the relationship between protected characteristics and gendered violence. The Femicide Census tells us that in 79% of cases where a woman was murdered by a man during the period of 2008 to 2018, the ethnicity of the victim was not recorded. Although the Office for National Statistics provides an analysis of homicide offences by “ethnic appearance”, the data is not broken down by gender. This must change. We need to make sure that when we are putting together strategies and needs assessments, they are based not on assumptions but on facts. I fear that the current data collection situation, both nationally and locally, does not allow for that process to be as good as it could be.

We are fine for clauses 13 and 14 to stand part of the Bill.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister, particularly for her comments on data. I may not quite be Mystic Meg, but I sense some possible future amendments or at least a debate on this matter when we reach Report stage. I am happy to engage with her on this in the interim, and I am grateful for her support for the clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Guidance about independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisors

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

In support of amendments 56 and 57, I say gently to the Minister that a one-time Back Bencher who is now Secretary of State for Justice introduced legislation that put stalking protection orders in place. That was undoubtedly based on a harrowing case he came across as the Member for Cheltenham. In my experience of working with him on stalking, he has always been a true and brilliant ally in this space, so I could imagine him moving the amendment. We could go back to him gently for his agreement to it.

One important thing to mention is that stalking is distinct from the crimes of sexual violence and domestic abuse. Normally, I am on my feet complaining that people do not understand that stalking happens as part of domestic abuse and that someone can be a victim of domestic abuse and coercive control but then, following separation, go on to be a victim of post-separation stalking. That is largely misunderstood by criminal justice agencies.

It is important to put stalking specialists into clause 15 because there are lots of cases where people are stalked by strangers, work colleagues and housemates. When we debated the Domestic Abuse Bill, an amendment tabled by Liberal Democrat members of the Committee was about whether abuse in a student house share could be considered domestic abuse. Stalking sits distinctly in many cases involving strangers, colleagues and house shares.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I want to highlight the brilliant point made by my hon. Friend, as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. Does she agree that children—girls especially, but boys as well—are often stalked, which is extremely frightening and scary for them, and that that also needs to be highlighted and addressed in the Bill?

[Jess Phillips]

Absolutely. For any hon. Member who has experienced stalking themselves—unfortunately, we are a prime category for some of this stalking behaviour—it will not come as a surprise that, from my experience, the first threat place that people go to is to antagonise me about my sons, where they go to school and that sort of information. Children are undoubtedly used, often completely unawares, as part of a pattern of stalking, creating further stress and multiple victims in that instance. Children are often targeted and used in circumstances to attack an adult. As somebody who has run IDVA and ISVA services—in fact, the organisation I used to work for now has specific stalking advocates—I know that stalking is distinct, specific and different. The element of post-separation domestic abuse, as well as the important fact that it is a stranger-based issue, makes the argument for the need for that specialism.

[Sarah Champion]

The Minister argued that IDVAs and ISVAs both engage with the criminal justice sector and therefore need to be recognised as such in the Bill. In my hon. Friend’s experience, is it the same for stalking advocates?

[Jess Phillips]

Absolutely. A case that I handled very recently was a post-separation issue, but was not at the relevant risk level. As I said earlier today, a person has to be at incredibly high risk of harm to be allocated an IDVA who will take them through the criminal justice system, or they have to be going through the criminal justice system.

In the case that I handled, a person broke up with somebody who, six months later, started turning up at her place of work. The victim then went to the police station and said, “This is my ex-partner,” but she could not point to any particular history of abuse or anything that had been criminal at the time. She said, “He’s now turning up at my place of work and sending me messages on Facebook,” but that is not at the level that will get anyone access to an independent domestic violence adviser. I immediately said, “Do you have a stalking protection order in place?” She said, “What’s a stalking protection order?” She had been to the police, but she did not have a specialist advocate with her, or even just somebody telling her what question to ask. She now has a stalking protection order in place, because she knows what one is.

There is a need for specialist advocacy in cases that will never breach the criminal space of domestic abuse or the risk level that would allow for an IDVA. That is very important, because those cases can still be criminal without ever touching the desk of one of those agencies. I therefore totally support my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, and I imagine that the Secretary of State for Justice may agree with us.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for amendments 56 and 57 and grateful to her and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, for this debate. The amendments would expand the Bill’s requirement for the Secretary of State to issue guidance on ISVAs and IDVAs so that it also included independent stalking advocacy caseworkers. Specialist stalking services, including independent stalking advocacy caseworkers, do vital work to identify risk and provide practical guidance and safety advice for victims. They can help victims to navigate the criminal justice system. The hon. Member for Lewisham East was right to highlight that this crime can affect children as well as adults, and we should not forget that.

The Government are committed to protecting and supporting victims of stalking. The hon. Member for Rotherham was right to highlight the huge impact that stalking can have and the trauma that can result, and the shadow Minister was adroit at gently reminding me of my boss’s views and work on this subject in the past. For example, the Government introduced stalking protection orders in 2020, and almost 1,000 were issued in the first 23 months. The Home Office also continues to part-fund the national stalking helpline, which is run by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, to which I pay tribute, and provided £160,430 between April 2022 and March 2023. We have also provided funding for police-led projects to tackle the behaviour of stalkers and thereby provide greater protection to victims. In May, we announced awards to 10 police and crime commissioners to fund perpetrator interventions, wholly or partly, between April 2023 and March 2025.

In the Bill, we have chosen to focus on guidance for ISVAs and IDVAs because the consultation highlighted that greater consistency and awareness of ISVAs and IDVAs was particularly needed, especially given the number now working across the sector. We believe that that can best be addressed through statutory guidance. I agree that independent stalking advocacy caseworkers, or ISACs—I may just stick to the full wording—are important and can be just as effective, but we are not yet convinced that Government intervention by way of statutory guidance is necessary on the basis of the evidence that we have seen thus far. We do not feel that there is the same pressing need to drive further awareness and consistency of the roles, given the degree of consistency that exists.

I am, however, open to working with the hon. Member for Rotherham—and with the shadow Minister if she wishes to join, as I suspect she might—to continue to reflect on and consider how and whether Government support to independent stalking advocacy caseworkers can be improved. But I also believe that it will be important to assess the impact and effectiveness of the guidance on ISVAs and IDVAs, subject to the passage of the Bill, before considering whether to extend it to other groups in the same format. As I say, I am happy to engage with the hon. Member for Rotherham in that respect.

On the point about hierarchy or the lack thereof, I reassure the hon. Lady that guidance for ISVAs and IDVAs should not be taken to indicate any sort of funding or other hierarchy of them over independent stalking advocacy caseworkers or any other type of specialist support. Funding decisions for different types of support are made by local commissioners based on their assessment of the local need, and the guidance on ISVAs and IDVAs will be explicit that there should be no presumption of a hierarchy when it comes to those funding decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

Previously, positions of trust were defined in legislation; that made sense and it future-proofed things. Members then went on to define the specific roles, which, at that point, were all statutory, public service roles. As time moved on, and the public sector tended to get taken over by the private sector, that part of the legislation no longer stood the test of time, so we had to amend it. By putting specialist services in the Bill, and hopefully the resulting Act, the Minister will future-proof it against what might happen. For example, we do not know how deepfake abuse will play out, or the other forms we have spoken about, such as fraud. By putting just specialist services in the Bill, any future need of victims will be catered for.

[Jess Phillips]

I rise to speak to new clause 18—is that where we are at? Yes, because Sarah spoke to all the provisions together. I will make some remarks too, although I imagine they are relatively similar. I should not have called her Sarah; I meant my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham—I apologise for using her name. I did not say “you”, but I did break that particular protocol. It has been a long day.

[The Chair]

Try sitting up here. [Laughter.]

[Jess Phillips]

In his remarks, the Minister said that consultation highlighted the need to define IDVAs and ISVAs, and that may well be true in the purest sense of what they were initially intended to be—certainly much more with IDVAs than ISVAs—which was about specific guidance. We had court-based IDVAs when we used to have specialist domestic abuse courts everywhere, and it is absolutely right that it becomes about the criminal justice system.

I have to say that ISVAs were not about the criminal justice system originally, and their services took a much more holistic approach. The term became what we called anyone who supports someone who comes forward about sexual violence and abuse. In domestic abuse services, of course, there were both; we had floating support, housing support and refuge support workers, as well as people who may be going through the courts, so it made sense to have a different name. That is just a potted history of IDVAs and ISVAs.

The consultation may have said that it was important to identify and define IDVAs and ISVAs and to ensure that criminal justice agencies—specifically judges and the courts—take them seriously. Who could disagree with that? However, if we were to consult any agency that runs IDVA or ISVA services, or domestic abuse and sexual violence services, not one of them would think that it should be exclusively about IDVAs and ISVAs. If we are going to lean on consultation in one regard, then the evidence here is that the sector is not against the definitions, but rather the narrowness of the definitions. Throughout the day, the Minister has talked about the danger of narrow definitions—I just point out that irony.

New clause 18 follows on from the previous debate about community-based, specialist domestic abuse services, which come in a variety of forms. Women and children seek support and help in different ways, including outreach support, floating support, formal counselling and support groups—the list goes on. By only formalising the IDVA models, we risk creating a tiered hierarchy and adversely affecting other models of community-based specialist provision. Once again, that then poses the risk of more generic services, or services that are run in-house.

What is to stop Birmingham City Council saying, “We have a load of ISVAs that work in our service. We are going to train a load of ISVAs and we will take any funding in-house”? I have great respect to Birmingham City Council—I was a member of the council for some years—but it is not a specialist domestic abuse service, and nor should it ever be trusted to be one. It is not independent; they are the people who run the housing; they are the people an ISVA will sometimes have to help a victim take to court—that happens quite regularly. Regarding Victim Support, with the greatest respect to it as an organisation, it is not a specialist sexual violence service, and yet, across the country, it does have ISVA services.

I find the creep towards the generic a worry. Actually, it is not a worry; it is a fact. I have seen it; it is happening, and it has been happening in a new commissioning environment for some time. I have outlined the evidence of the trend already, and the same warnings apply here. Crucially, victims with protected characteristics value and need access to holistic support and intersectional advocacy from organisations led by and for black and minoritised women and those providing specialist advocacy for LGBT+ and for deaf and disabled victims, and I also mentioned specialist services for victims of forces-based violence. Those organisations commonly sit outside the IDVA model but are crucial to the provision of support for such groups.

Another thing that worries me concerns allowing somebody to go into court, be that a family court or another civil court environment for non-molestation orders or other domestic abuse protection orders—there are various different orders, which are currently not worth the paper they are written on, but they exist, so let us pretend they are a solution. If someone does not have an IDVA qualification and is a floating community-based support worker from the local LGBT specialist support service, a judge will not allow that person into the court, because of the idea of that qualification. Also, how do we know that people do not call themselves IDVAs and ISVAs without the qualification? It is not like having a degree; it is a different thing. So there are some real dangers in this. I have seen these things happen. Even though I am qualified in this space, I was not allowed to sit with a rape victim in court recently, because I was not an ISVA. That seems like a—

[Sarah Champion]

Hierarchy.

[Jess Phillips]

It does seem like a hierarchy. Obviously, I won the argument on that, but that was what I was initially told. There are many examples of why this is a problem.

Studies have shown that disabled women are twice as likely to experience domestic abuse. They are also twice as likely to suffer rape and sexual assault. Yet, the charity SafeLives’s multi-agency risk assessment conference data shows that, nationally, only 3.9% of referrals are disabled victims. Disabled women are four times more likely to report abuse by multiple perpetrators and to experience abuse for longer. Disabled women are more likely to experience abuse by a family member than non-disabled women. Stay Safe East is a user-led specialist organisation supporting disabled victims, and its experience with clients mirrors those harrowing statistics.

Disabled victims may also face specific forms of domestic abuse or their circumstances or impairment being weaponised against them—for example, control of food or drink or medication, withdrawal of care, restricting access to disability equipment, restricting access to other professional advice or help, theft of benefits, and the threat that they will be put into care or have their children taken away from them. Those specific experiences and intersecting discriminations mean that organisations that can provide tailored and holistic care are crucial and wanted by victims. Likewise, in research by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, it was found that people wanted specialist services. Those services, such as Stay Safe East, are small—I do not want to speak out of turn, but I think four people work there, so it is not a big organisation. However, it is one of the only specialist domestic abuse organisations; those people are not all IDVAs, yet this is absolutely the specialist agency.

The new clause and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham are to try to ensure that judges and police forces—judges more so, but police forces too—will understand. They are quite rigid about who is allowed in, who is not and who they can take advice from. I really worry that we are about to undermine vast swathes of very professional and learned specialists just on the basis of a qualification they do or do not have.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to hon. Members for their amendments, and I will seek to respond to them all in turn.

Amendments 62 and 61 would expand clause 15 so that the Secretary of State would be required to issue guidance about specialist community-based services for victims, in addition to ISVAs and IDVAs. I understand the concerns that the clause’s focus on ISVAs and IDVAs alone could result in the Government being seen to place their focus on them above other forms of community-based support. I recognise that there are mixed views in the sector about that, and concerns have been expressed. Let me reassure the Committee that that is not the case and that the intention behind the amendments can be addressed through other means.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn now to new clause 18, which would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance about community-based specialist domestic abuse services, in a similar way to how clause 15 requires guidance for ISVAs and IDVAs. Again, I recognise the probably unparalleled expertise of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley on this issue, and I am grateful for the brief, potted history of the evolution of a number of these roles.

[Jess Phillips]

Under a Labour Government.

[Edward Argar]

I will refrain from biting—I almost did.

To help ensure that women and girls are safe everywhere, in July 2021, we published our cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy. That was followed by a cross-Government tackling domestic abuse plan in March 2022, investing more than £230 million of cross-Government funding into tackling this hideous crime, including more than £140 million for supporting victims and more than £81 million for tackling perpetrators.

Through the commitments set out in those strategies, the Government aim to transform how systems and society respond to violence against women and girls. That is in addition to the increased funding for support services and the increased numbers of ISVAs and IDVAs that I have already referenced. I hope that that demonstrates, to some extent, how we are taking action to further support the sector.

We have chosen a narrower focus for the Bill’s measures to issue guidance than new clause 18 would. IDVAs are a particular type of community-based specialist support service for victims of domestic abuse; our focus on them is in response to the victims Bill consultation. I know that, as the hon. Members for Rotherham and for Birmingham, Yardley set out, IDVAs are only one part of the domestic abuse support landscape, as they predominantly support high-risk victims. However, as I have said in relation to similar amendments, we do not believe that Government intervention through guidance issued about all community-based specialist domestic abuse services is the right approach.

The hon. Member for Rotherham said in our debate on new clause 19 that these services offer a vast range of support, including counselling, advice, advocacy and helplines. We want to get the balance right: we want Government intervention only when it is needed and will yield a positive benefit to support services. Our general approach is to set national commissioning standards and then allow local decision making by local commissioners. National guidance, such as the victims funding strategy and the national statement of expectations, sets standards but empowers commissioners to fund services of a quality and type that meet their local needs.

Our view is that additional guidance for ISVAs and IDVAs is necessary, given the growing number of roles and the lack of consistency. However, given the wide variety of roles within all community-based services, it is less clear what guidance about their roles, training and qualifications would bring, except possibly additional complexity and work for them. The key point is that ISVAs and IDVAs are particularly involved with the criminal justice process.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley highlighted the judicial discretion in this space and the approaches adopted by judges in their courts. I will not stray into that. Although we cannot direct or guide judges because they are quite rightly independent, we can improve their confidence in the professionalism and the work of ISVAs and IDVAs through this guidance, because of that particular intersection with the criminal justice process.

I always welcome further discussion with the hon. Member for Rotherham, as I hope I have made clear in the past few days, but I encourage her not to press the amendment to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I rise to speak to new clause 8, which is a slender amendment and my last, so I hope the Minister will look favourably on it.

For years, as we know from our debates in Committee, victims and survivors have faced a postcode lottery in support services, but access to sexual violence advocates, domestic violence advocates and stalking advocates varies hugely around the country. For the Bill to be successful, we need an accurate picture of what such services look like now. If we do not know where the gaps are, how will we fill them sufficiently?

The Domestic Abuse Commissioner has done excellent mapping work across the country and shown where the gaps are in provision for domestic abuse victims, but victims of all crime face patchy services. Support services differ greatly, depending on where in the country victims access them. As my hon. Friends and I have outlined, stalking advocates are crucial for women all over the country but are rarely accessible for most victims, even though they dramatically increase the chance of prosecution.

ISVAs and IDVAs provide crucial services, but if not all victims can access them, not all victims can have their rights met. The criminal justice system is incredibly difficult to navigate. An advocate is crucial for justice to be achieved and support to be received. I urge the Minister to accept that there are huge gaps in the provision available and, by accepting new clause 8, to require the Secretary of State to carry out a review.

[Jess Phillips]

It would be lovely to know how many ISVAs and IDVAs there are across the country, and what that means, because we also have hospital IDVAs who do not necessarily interact with the criminal justice system at all, but are responsive in accident and emergency. It would be lovely to know that, so I agree with new clause 8—I had ticked it off eagerly and could not see the number for a moment.

I have some real concerns about the clause standing part of the Bill, in particular about the hierarchy. I will not push the clause to a vote today, as I imagine that this is an area that will evolve. I want to see the professionalism of the sector that I worked for, but perhaps the professionalism of the job that I once had should include something about the levels of pay. I guarantee that writing the level of professionalism into a particular job title will not mean that anyone who does it breaches being paid more than £30,000 a year, if they are lucky. On one side, we want professionalism, but on the other side we are happy to allow a group of, frankly, quite low-paid women to do this very difficult work that we respect enough to write into our law. I have concerns about the clause as a whole, but I will agree that it can stand part for now.

[Edward Argar]

I will respond briefly to new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham, which seeks to require an assessment of the Secretary of State and that that assessment is published annually.

As the hon. Lady pointed out, understanding the needs of victims and the provision available to them is crucial to ensuring that future services are commissioned and designed to support victims adequately. However, that needs to be appropriately balanced to ensure that processes are not burdensome on the services themselves, which is routinely of concern to them.

Our approach recognises that the needs of victims, and the provision currently available, will differ locally. We therefore devolve responsibility for commissioning and funding to local bodies that can appropriately assess and consider local needs. That ensures a tailored approach to commissioning services for communities. I am pleased to reassure the hon. Member for Rotherham that there are already a range of mechanisms in place for monitoring victims’ needs and the provision of services.