James Bulger Murder: Public Inquiry

Debate between Jess Phillips and Edward Argar

Monday 25th March 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Henderson. At the outset, may I join right hon. and hon. Members in acknowledging the dedication and determination of Mrs Denise Fergus, James’s mother, in campaigning on this petition and successfully securing a debate on this hugely important matter through the Petitions Committee? Sadly, in this Chamber and in the main Chamber we are, on occasion, called upon to debate deeply sombre, traumatic and saddening matters, but it is right that we do so and that we cast that light upon them. I am grateful for the tone adopted by all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken; it is appropriate that this debate has been conducted in that manner.

I pay tribute to Denise Fergus for her and her family’s tireless and dignified campaign to obtain justice for her son James, who was so cruelly taken from her in February 1993 when he was just two years old. We have heard from the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Sir George Howarth) about the circumstances, which to this day remain shocking and harrowing. No one can fail to be shaken by them still, even after the passage of time.

The murder of James was a crime that rightly shocked the nation and continues to do so. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), highlighted the harrowing images on CCTV. I recall seeing those images when I was still at school, many years ago. I recall the dreadful inhumanity—the evil—that we all realised had taken place. I remember not just the horrendous events themselves, but the shock that they were carried out by two 10-year-old boys.

I am grateful for the recognition in the course of this debate that many of the decisions made in the context of the case were made by independent bodies: the Crown Prosecution Service, the sentencing judge and the Parole Board. I will turn to that point in a moment. As has been said, Thompson and Venables were released in 2001 on the recommendation of the Parole Board, subject to a lifelong anonymity order granted by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, to which you quite rightly drew our attention, Mr Henderson.

Thompson has remained in the community on life licence without further offence. However, Venables has twice been recalled to custody and subsequently convicted of further offences involving the possession and sharing of illegal images of children: first in 2010, when he was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment, and then, having been re-released on the direction of the Parole Board in 2013, again in 2018, when he was sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment. Since Venables became eligible to be considered for release on life licence, following recall, the Parole Board has found on three successive occasions, most recently in December last year, that it remains necessary on the grounds of public protection that he remain confined to custody.

Against that background, I think anyone could well understand the concerns surrounding the first release decision in 2001 and, specifically, understand and appreciate the call for a public inquiry. However, although I fully appreciate the significant concerns that have been expressed and the strength and sincerity of feelings on the issue, I am afraid that I am not today in a position to announce a public inquiry. I appreciate that that will be disappointing to those in the Public Gallery, as well as to Opposition Members. If the right hon. Member for Knowsley considers it helpful, I am open to meeting him and his hon. Friends to have a further conversation about the matters that we are debating.

As hon. Members have highlighted, the then Government commissioned the Omand review, which was published on 23 November 2010. The review did not question the decision that the Parole Board made in recommending Venables’s release in 2001, based on the evidence at that time. The review looked in considerable detail at the management of Venables and made detailed recommendations to address the shortcomings in supervision that had marked some of that period. The subsequent period of supervision, from 2013 to 2017, was consistently tight; in fact, it was the means by which the further offending came to light and a successful prosecution could subsequently be mounted.

I fully understand why the nature of that further offending gives rise to significant concerns as to whether the decisions to release Venables were defective. It may be helpful if I briefly provide a little more explanation about how the Parole Board determines whether prisoners serving life or other indeterminate sentences are released. For any offender sentenced to life imprisonment, a minimum period for that imprisonment is set for the purposes of punishment and deterrence. After the minimum term has been served, by law the prisoner may continue to be detained in custody only so long as their risk requires it—in other words, unless the prisoner’s risk can be effectively mitigated and managed in the community by means of the obligations and restrictions of a post-release licence.

Where it issues a release direction, the Parole Board is concluding that the probation service and partner agencies, taking account of the powers that arise from a post-release licence, have the means to mitigate remaining risks and so prevent the public from being exposed to undue risk. Obviously any such decision involves a judgment, and regrettably the Parole Board can never be completely certain that any prisoner it releases will not reoffend. When the Parole Board determined in 2001 that Thompson and Venables were safe to be released, it took account of risk assessments and reports provided by various professionals. By the time of their release, each had completed their minimum term.

When Venables was recalled to custody in 2010, the then Secretary of State for Justice, Jack Straw, asked Sir David Omand, the former permanent secretary to the Home Office, to undertake a comprehensive review of the management of Venables and set the terms of reference for that review. A version of the review was published in November 2010; I say “version” because, as hon. Members will be aware, it was redacted to comply with the terms of the court anonymity order. The redacted version is available on gov.uk.

In his review Sir David noted that Venables had been detained at Red Bank secure unit, run by St Helens Borough Council. During his time at Red Bank, an allegation was made about an incident involving Venables. I am aware of the press reports speculating about the nature of that incident, but I have seen no contemporaneous official account of it. I appreciate that this will potentially be frustrating for those listening, but I therefore believe that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the basis of the press reports alone.

[Jess Phillips]

I do not think anybody here would expect that; we are not judge and jury in this building. However, as the Minister said, Jack Straw was the last person to ask for a review. If, as the Minister has outlined, he cannot commit to a full public inquiry, is there not a case for another review to look into not only Red Bank, but the period of further mistakes since 2010? All we have currently is a review covering 2001 to 2010. Surely there were errors made post that period that need some transparency.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. At the risk of potentially damaging her reputation, let me say that I have huge respect for her; I did a lot of work with her when I was the victims Minister and she held the role of shadow safeguarding Minister. I appreciate her point. Without prejudice to any decision made, I have made the offer to meet with the right hon. Member for Knowsley. I am happy to have a conversation; I hope the hon. Lady knows from our previous interactions that I do not like to raise expectations that I cannot meet, so I do not intend to do that, but I will have a conversation with the right hon. Gentleman.

The Home Office asked an experienced former prison governor, Arthur de Frisching, to look into the incident at Red Bank. It appears, some years after the event, that no formal reason was found to publish a report into the incident at the time. St Helens Borough Council observed in a public comment that all allegations had been thoroughly investigated, but no copy of that could be found in the archives of either the Home Office or the Ministry of Justice. While the terms of reference for the review began with the preparations for the release of Venables, Sir David stated that he had found nothing in the material that he considered to cast doubt on the fundamental judgments made by the Parole Board at the time that the statutory release test was deemed to be satisfied.

Venables was recalled when police officers, having arrived to escort him to a new address on account of concerns for his safety, caught him trying to remove the hard drive from his computer. That led to an investigation, which resulted in his first conviction for downloading and sharing illegal images of children. In Sir David’s report, he made a number of recommendations designed to strengthen the future management of Venables and indeed of Thompson. Those recommendations recognised that the primary responsibility for supervising Venables lay with the probation service, working closely with the police and other relevant agencies under the statutory MAPPA arrangements. In Venables’s case, that meant the key actions to manage his risks being discussed and agreed at formal meetings attended by senior representatives of the probation service and police services, as well as other highly qualified specialists such as psychiatrists.

When Venables was re-released in 2013 at the direction of the Parole Board, the board set the robust licence conditions that it considered necessary to enable the probation service and its MAPPA partners to manage him effectively, mitigate his risk and help to protect the public. There was now a clear difference between the way he had been managed in the period from 2001 to 2010, as covered by the Omand review, and the way he would be managed from 2013 onwards.

It is deeply regrettable that Venables was discovered in 2017 to have been once again downloading and sharing illegal images of children. However, unlike in 2010, his offences were quickly discovered as a direct result of the monitoring and supervision that had been put in place, and there were immediate consequences, with his return to custody. As I have set out, the Parole Board has now concluded three times that Venables remains too high-risk to be released on life licence. For his most recent review, my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary submitted an overarching Secretary of State view recommending that Venables remain in prison on account of substantial concerns over his risk of reoffending and the risk of harm to the public.

I will endeavour to respond to the specific questions from the right hon. Member for Knowsley with as much information as I can, because I believe that that is important. Before I do so, I note that the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and for Bootle (Peter Dowd) have highlighted, in their different ways, the impact that such matters can have on victims’ trust in the system. As a former victims Minister working with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley and others, I saw that at first hand. That transparency, that trust and that engagement are central to building the confidence of those who are or have been victims of crimes in the system.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley talked about notifications—or the lack thereof—of breaches. My understanding is that the supervising agencies concluded, based on a number of those breaches, that the threshold for recall to custody was not met; a recall therefore did not take place. The notification comes where a recall takes place, so because the probation officers and others did not deem the threshold for recall to have been met, there would not have been a notification. However, I am happy to take that point away and reflect on it further. The hon. Lady and I were on a Bill Committee in which we looked at the victims code, notifications and victim liaison officers; I am very happy to have another reflection on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

The context in which I addressed that was the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley about notifications and thresholds. Those previous breaches—where, cumulatively, there is a breach and another breach—may not bring about a recall, but a probation officer managing the case will look at all those cumulatively in judging whether, when a further breach occurs or anything along those lines, there is a pattern of behaviour. I am wary of speculating on the individual decision making of an individual probation officer, because I will not know what factors they will have taken into account in an individual case, but they do consider those matters.

There were five specific questions raised by the right hon. Member for Knowsley. I will try, in so far as I can, to give him some answers, or more information than perhaps is already out there. First, he asked about the evidence presented at the trial. The police and Crown Prosecution Service, which are independent of Government, will have put all relevant evidence to Preston Crown court that they believed was material to securing a conviction when Venables and Thompson were tried for James’s murder.

The specific question of whether particular pieces of evidence should have been presented to the court, and what was or was not is, I am afraid, a matter for the police and ultimately for the prosecution lawyers in building that case on how they determined what evidence to present to secure the conviction they wanted to secure. That would be a matter for the CPS. With the caveat that I recognise and put on the record the independence of the CPS’s decision making and how it conducts the case, I am of course happy to highlight the points made here today to the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, who, as hon. Members will be aware, have oversight of the CPS.

[Jess Phillips]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir George Howarth]

Will the Minister give way?

[Edward Argar]

I will give way to the hon. Lady and then the right hon. Gentleman.

[Jess Phillips]

I apologise if this was what my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley was going to say. We all know the CPS has to build the best case for getting a conviction, and some things will get left out and some things will not. But when the sexual element is left out in a court case, how can the public be certain that it is taken account of in a parole hearing? If the sexual crimes had definitely featured in the court case, the sexual crime element would have been part of the consideration in parole; that is the disconnect that we are concerned about.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. As I say, the decisions on what to include are ultimately down to the prosecuting counsel and prosecuting lawyers from the CPS, but I will touch on those aspects when addressing a further question posed by the right hon. Member for Knowsley in a moment.

Victims and Prisoners Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Jess Phillips and Edward Argar

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff North, and the hon. Member for Rotherham. Having set out the rationale behind our new clause, I will confine myself to addressing the amendments subsequently spoken to. I am grateful to Opposition Members for amendments that seek to ensure that before making a victim information request, the authorised person is satisfied that the victim has been informed of their rights in relation to the request for their personal records, and the rights of the victim are outlined in the victim information notes. I will turn briefly to some of the broader points made by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Rotherham at the end.

The purpose of the Victims and Prisoners Bill is to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system. The proposed clauses will ensure that law enforcement requests for victim information do just that. They will be further supported by the code of practice, but as we—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Rotherham—have made clear, we must seek to strike an appropriate balance while not compromising the right to a fair trial. The statutory code of practice will contain guidance on how to carry out the duties outlined by the legislation. That will include best practice around making requests and informing victims. The police must have due regard to the code when making requests.

Alongside the code of practice, we have developed a notice for law enforcement to use to inform victims about any requests for their personal records. This notice has been designed to ensure that law enforcement can meet their legal obligations regarding informing victims, outlined in the new duties. The code of practice will recommend authorised persons to use this notice. To accompany the notice, we have also developed a Q&A that law enforcement should provide to victims alongside the notice to enable them to understand the terminology and what is actually being asked for. That will include answers to common questions that victims and survivors might have, as well as information regarding their rights. It will be clear in the code of practice that it is best practice to use this notice and to provide the associated guidance to victims.

The resources above will ensure that victims are suitably informed of their rights and of the request. Officials will work closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to ensure that the police are fully aware of, and trained in, their responsibilities under the legislation with respect to ensuring that victims are aware of their rights.

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

I am not sure how many rape cases the Minister has personally handled, but as somebody who has handled thousands, I have to say that if the police just check a box by saying to a victim in front of them, “We’re going to have to ask for your medical records and any other counselling records,” she is likely to say, “Okay, okay,” without having any understanding of or guidance on exactly what that means.

Will the police, following this ABC guide, say, “If you have ever said anything about your sexual behaviour, completely separately from the fact that this person raped you, it will be used against you in court”? The police will not sit down with a rape victim and talk at length through exactly what might be used. The police do not know, for a start. Also, victims do not know what is in their counselling notes: they do not see them or have them. I want to put a burst of reality into a theoretical argument.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, who knows whereof she speaks, having worked extensively in this area. We believe that this is the appropriate approach. Our code of practice will ensure that victims are made aware of their rights and that the police are aware of their responsibilities under the new duty, including the responsibility to inform victims. We will publish the wording of the draft code of practice during the Bill’s passage, prior to its conclusion in this House and the other place, to enable colleagues to comment.

I turn to the specific points made by the hon. Member for Rotherham. I reassure her that new clause 4 will in no way replace the requirements of the Data Protection Act 2018, which will continue to apply for lawful processing once the police receive the material from a third party. The code makes it clear that the Act imposes additional legal requirements, over and above those in the code, and that when police make a request they are required to take those requirements into account to ensure that the processing of the data is compliant with the Act.

More broadly, may I gently push back on the argument that this is routinely asked for? The whole purpose of the clause is to ensure that it is asked for not routinely, but in specific circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely agree. So much attention is given in our country to who exactly the perpetrators of sexual abuse are, but it is often not based on data. We need to know where our children are safe. I want to know where my children are safe. I just want to know where the best places are for me to allow them to go— institutions, for example. No one is asking for it to be historical; we are all asking for today to be the point at which we say, “This is the standardised form, like we all have an NI number. If you see child abuse, this is the form you fill in and the information goes into a national data source.” It would not be that onerous.

I commend all my hon. Friend’s work and support her new clause 6.

[Edward Argar]

It is important at the outset to highlight IICSA’s hugely important work on this issue. When any large inquiry conducts its work, it remains for the Government, whatever their complexion, to be the arbiter and decide which recommendations to accept, rather than automatically accepting all the inquiry’s recommendations.

I know that a lot of thought has gone into the Government response. That is evidenced not least by the nudges from the hon. Member for Rotherham at various points to say, “So when is it coming?” Although I appreciate her frustration, the length of time reflects the amount of thought and consultation across Government because it goes to the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, about the breadth of the organisations and Departments involved.

New clause 6 reflects recommendation 1 in the final report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. In the Government response to the report and its recommendations, as the hon. Member for Rotherham said, we set out an extensive programme of work, including our response to the recommendation of a single dataset on child sexual abuse.

As set out in our formal response, we accept that robust data collection on the scale and nature of child sexual abuse is critical to underpinning and driving a more effective response to child sexual abuse. We have made a number of improvements on data collection. Crucially, we will make further improvements to performance data.

The Department for Education is driving forward an ambitious agenda to improve the use of data in safeguarding and children’s social care and will deliver a report to Parliament in the summer. It will set out ways to improve information sharing between safeguarding partners—as required by the Health and Care Act 2022, which I had the pleasure of taking through this Committee Room, among others, at length—and, crucially, how that data will be better brought together. It may not go all the way to what the hon. Member for Rotherham would want, but I hope that it will give her a degree of reassurance. I know that she will interrogate the report carefully when it is published.

The Department for Education will also publish the first part of its children’s social care data strategy at the end of the year. It is working to develop it with the sector and experts to deliver a statement of strategic intent and, crucially, a road map that sets out the departmental vision for children’s social care datasets and how they can be brought together. The Department is also learning best practice from local authorities and others on how they are using existing child exploitation data to inform future practice through predictive analytics.

The Home Office is another key element of the picture. It funds the independent Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse, with which I know the hon. Member for Rotherham is familiar. The centre produces a report on the scale and nature of child sexual abuse and trends in official data. The Home Office is also working with the Office for National Statistics to improve data collection and granularity on child sexual abuse.

At the policing end of the lens, we are working with the police to drive improvements in the collection, analysis and use of data on child sexual abuse and exploitation, including factors such as ethnicity data and how forces record data for the annual data requirement consistently. The Home Office is funding dedicated child sexual abuse analysts in every policing region to help to bring this data together; funding the tackling organised exploitation programme to bring together local, national and regional data so that it can be shared and interrogated to help police uncover exploitation; and a national policing vulnerability knowledge and practice programme to improve policing’s overall response to vulnerability and to identify and promote best practice between forces.

In addition, the Home Office works with police forces to improve the consistency with which, and the way in which, they record data for the annual data requirement. For example, through the national data quality improvement service computer-assisted classification programme—now there’s a mouthful—we are working to improve and refine the identification of child sexual abuse crimes in police-recorded crime data consistently across police forces and datasets.

The Government continually add to and develop a suite of analytical outputs according to guidance from the code of practice for statistics. As part of that effort, we added additional variables into the criminal court outcomes by offences data tools in 2017, to include identifiers such as the ethnicity of defendants, and subsequently updated age variables to provide greater detail. The Government remain committed to bringing child sexual abuse further out of the shadows. We know that, as the shadow Minister said and the hon. Member for Rotherham has campaigned on since she was first elected in 2010, child sexual abuse is under-identified and under-reported, and in the past was under-recorded and under-reacted to by the police, if I can put it that way. That is why one of our core objectives is to see year-on-year increases in the volume of police-recorded crime for such offences and in the volume of successful charges.

The Government are also determined to provide proper support to all victims and survivors and to deliver real and enduring change. That is why we are working to strengthen the collection of data and how it is used, the consistency in that respect and the ability to pool or share data to increase awareness of child sexual abuse. Crucially, we need to understand what is working to respond to and address it and—to the hon. Member for Rotherham’s point—seek to prevent it where possible.

The Government’s position is that we are meeting the spirit of the inquiry’s recommendation through the numerous improvements that I have set out and enunciated for the Committee, and we will continue to drive further improvements to police performance data. We will endeavour to continue to engage with victims and survivors, child protection organisations, the hon. Member for Rotherham, I suspect, and Professor Alexis Jay in her work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for her amendment, and to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley. I say this in a nice way: the shadow Minister has not nothing that I have not heard from her before, as I think she acknowledged in her remarks.

The amendment would prevent the sharing of victims’ data between organisations and individuals providing services under the victims code and those enforcing immigration laws. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley knows, that is a matter for the Home Office, but of course we are all one united Government, so I am responding as the Bill Minister, but I highlight my gratitude to the Home Office for the input that it has provided today.

The Government are fully committed to protecting all victims of crime, regardless of their immigration status. We are also duty-bound to maintain an effective immigration system, to protect our public services and to safeguard the most vulnerable from exploitation because of their insecure immigration status. Immigration enforcement will always seek to protect and safeguard any victim before any possible enforcement action is taken. Indeed, the Home Office routinely helps migrant victims by signposting them to legal advice to help them regularise their stay.

It is important to remember that every case is different and that an insecure immigration status does not automatically mean that somebody will be detained or removed. The decision on what may be the most appropriate course of action is based on many factors that require a full assessment of the individual circumstances. Evidence of vulnerability is an essential part of that assessment and is necessary to ensure effective safeguarding plans to protect victims from harm.

There can on occasion be benefits to sharing information, such as preventing perpetrators of domestic abuse from using a person’s insecure status against them as a means of coercion and control. But I note the counter point put by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, and the hon. Member for Rotherham. According to Home Office figures, of the 211 migrant victims of domestic abuse referred by the police to immigration enforcement between April 2020 and March 2021, none has been detained or removed as a result of that referral.

With regards to support services, the Government are clear that victims of crime are victims first and foremost, and must be able to access support, regardless of their immigration status. There is no mandatory requirement for victim support services to disclose the personal data of victims to immigration authorities; nor is data routinely requested from such services for the purposes of maintaining immigration control.

[Jess Phillips]

I just gently point out the reason that I think nobody has been detained or deported in that period. It is because there is nowhere to detain them; there is no space in the detention estate.

[Edward Argar]

I take the hon. Lady’s point, but I would say “or removed” as a result of that referral. Support is provided to migrant victims of domestic abuse in the UK through our destitution domestic violence concession, which enables victims who have entered the UK on a partner or spousal visa to access public funds for three months, which can be used to fund safe accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I will make two points again. First, the data sharing and what is required of the officers is clear. If an action is not taken subsequently to detain or remove someone, that does not mean that the officer was wrong in sharing the information; it is not necessarily for them to make that judgment. Secondly, on the hon. Lady’s request, I am happy to ensure that the Immigration Minister, who is probably on his feet in the House at the minute, is made aware of her point.

[Jess Phillips]

He is aware.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

It is good that the Minister is referencing European human rights law, which parts of the Bill seek to undermine. It is good to see that he does not want to dissociate from this part of that law.

I cannot bear to hear the excuse that this is going to take more time. The first case of a murderer who was given parental responsibility was raised in this House in 2016 by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) in a debate on what was then the Prisons and Courts Bill—if anyone can remember that—before Parliament was prorogued, which was then blocked. It was promised that the issue would be put into that Bill in 2016, which fell at an election; it was then promised that it would be put in the Domestic Abuse Bill, which then again fell because Parliament was prorogued. After the harms review in 2019, we were promised that it would be coming down the line. I am sorry, I cannot sit here and hear “This needs more looking at.” We have been looking for years.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister, but I will go on to explain why I believe the drafting is not necessarily appropriate. I assure her that there are no plans to prorogue or dissolve Parliament in the immediate future that I am aware of.

I would also like to make clear that the courts do have the power to seriously restrict the exercise of parental responsibility when it is in the child’s best interests. I heard the points made by the shadow Minister in respect of that process. I draw hon. Members’ attention to the recent Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Re A, regarding parental responsibility. In that judgment, the President of the Family Division confirmed that Parliament has already given the court the power to empty a father’s parental responsibility of all content and prevent them from making any future applications to the court, regardless of the marital status of the parent or how parental responsibility was acquired. Courts can and do make use of that power when it is appropriate to do so, but crucially, they are able to do so considering all the unique circumstances of the individual case, with the child’s best interests at the heart of their decision. The new clause potentially would remove that ability. However, I take the shadow Minister’s underlying point about how retraumatising and traumatic going through the family court in that context can be.

As I said earlier, I have huge sympathy for the aims of the amendment, particularly in respect of the processes and procedures that bereaved families have to go through in order to achieve the result they desire. We are committed to taking action to address this issue, as the Lord Chancellor has unequivocally set out. In response to the Ward family’s calls for reform, we have asked the Family Procedure Rule Committee in the interim to make the court process less time-consuming and more straightforward for families applying for special guardianship orders and other orders to restrict the exercise of parental responsibility in these or similar circumstances. The committee is actively considering what changes can be made to deliver that. Also, as of 1 May, the Government have extended the scope of legal aid for making special guardianship orders. That means that in private family proceedings where an individual wishes to become a special guardian, they can receive legally aided advice and representation to help them do that, subject to a means test.

I agree that there is more that can and should be done. That is why we are actively working on what changes could be made to the law on parental to rectify the position that the Ward family have highlighted through their campaign, while avoiding unintended or perverse consequences from those changes. We need to fully consider the recent Court of Appeal judgment in the Re A case as part of that.

I am very concerned about the risk that an automatic suspension of parental responsibility could be deemed to breach the child’s rights under articles 6 and 8 of the European convention on human rights, potentially leading to legal action or undermining what we are all trying to resolve here with minimal legal challenge. It is better that we take the intervening months to carefully consider what is the right approach in the light of that judgment, and return—hopefully swiftly—with a fully drafted and carefully considered proposal that guarantees the core principle of the Children Act that the family court should always have the best interests of the child at heart, but that also seeks to address the underlying point, the underlying intention, of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge.

This new clause has, as I hope everyone can agree, an entirely noble and uncontroversial aim. We all have huge sympathy for families in these circumstances and want to do as much as possible to support them. I am happy to work with the hon. Lady on this if she so wishes. I will repeat the words of the Lord Chancellor, which set out the Government’s position:

“It should be presumed that when one parent murders another, denying their child…a loving parent, they should not have the right to make decisions on that child’s life.”

I have to say in response to the final point made by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge, with whom I tend to agree—not all the time, but a lot of the time—that on this, I disagree with her. Voting against the new clause is not a vote for doing nothing or a vote to reject a solution that works. It will be a vote for taking the time to get it right.

Victims and Prisoners Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Jess Phillips and Edward Argar

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

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

I wonder whether, potentially before Report, the breakdown of the number of killings of women in their homes deemed to be manslaughter, rather than murder, could be provided to the Committee. Is there an impact assessment that we could see on the disproportionate use of manslaughter charges in cases such as domestic homicide?

I am afraid to say there are lots of problems with the way that we tier crimes. For example, if a person murders someone in their own home, the starting tariff is 15 years; if a person murders somebody with a knife they have taken out of the house, the starting tariff in our country is 25 years. At the moment, 70% of women who are killed are killed in their homes. With this Bill, we should not be creating another two-tier system in which the killing of women simply is not as important.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I do not think anyone is suggesting what she suggested in her final sentence. She is right to highlight the tariff difference, which is reflective of something that Parliament decided it wished to do, recognising that it would create a disparity in the tariffs, in the light of the Kinsella murder. Parliament was cognisant of that. Whether that should be looked at is a perfectly reasonable point. In that context, I pay tribute—as I know the hon. Lady would—to the Goulds and Deveys for the campaign they are undertaking on the issue, and to the Killed Women campaign more broadly. Wherever this lands, they are provoking an important public debate on this very important issue and the disparity between whether a knife is taken to the scene of a crime in a public place or is already there.

I will be cautious on the hon. Lady’s specific question about the statistics, because I do not know whether that level of granularity is available, but I will take that away and look. If the data is recorded in a way that answers her question and is publicly available, I will be happy to share it with her.

Finally, the new clause would remove the discretionary referral power, which would allow the Parole Board to send a case directly to the Secretary of State without taking a first-instance decision or, in this instance, directly to the Court of Appeal. The intention behind this route of referral is to allow the Parole Board to refer a case where, for whatever reason, it is unable adequately to make an assessment of risk and so cannot make a robust decision. I recognise that the Justice Committee, as referred to by the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge, has also raised concerns about this route of referral, and we are carefully considering the issues raised and the broader point of the Justice Committee in its very swift—for which we are grateful, and I know the Lord Chancellor is grateful—one-off inquiry into part 3 of the Bill.

In subsequent debates, I will outline what we believe is the most appropriate route of referral and why we do not believe that the Court of Appeal is the right route. We believe that that remains the upper tribunal, but that is addressed specifically in subsequent amendments and clauses. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her amendments and new clauses, but I am afraid that at this stage we must resist them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

Clause 35 reflects the views of the root-and-branch review by amending the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 to create a top tier cohort of indeterminate-sentenced offenders who have committed some of the most serious crimes and whose release from prison will be subject to additional safeguards. In the same way, clause 36 amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to create a top tier cohort of fixed-term offenders. As the clause applies to offenders serving determinate sentences, murder is not included in the list of offences for referral, as life sentences are mandatory in all murder cases in any event. The top tier therefore consists of offenders serving sentences for murder, rape, certain terrorism offences, or causing or allowing the death of a child—again, as I have alluded to, this reflects the root-and-branch review’s approach.

The clauses contain a new power for the Secretary of State for Justice to intervene in the release of the most serious offenders, providing for a second check by taking or retaking release decisions. Once a prisoner has been referred to the Parole Board to decide whether they are safe to be released, there are two routes by which such decisions may come before the Secretary of State. First, the clauses contain a provision that will allow the members of the Parole Board to refer a top tier release decision to the Secretary of State, instead of making a decision themselves. They can do so for any reason that they consider appropriate, including if, for whatever reason, they are unable to adequately assess risk in a particular case. The Secretary of State would then make a decision about release for that offender. We expect that this power will be used in very rare cases only.

[Jess Phillips]

I welcome the fact that the Minister thinks the power will be used only in very rare cases. When assessing the risk, what will the Secretary of State have that the Parole Board does not have? Is the Secretary of State imbibed with some great risk-assessment power that the Parole Board and all the people on it are not?

[Edward Argar]

The Secretary of State will have information from the Parole Board and the Parole Board’s view but, ultimately, we believe it is right that the Secretary of State is accountable to the public in such cases. We therefore believe that that is the appropriate route by which someone who is accountable, and to whom I suspect the public would look in the most serious cases, can ensure public protection where the Parole Board feels that it is unable to do so.

[Jess Phillips]

I will not trouble the Committee too much longer. I am not sure that a public mandate allows me, as somebody elected by the people, to be somebody with expertise in risk management. I am, but that is nothing to do with the mandate that I got from the good people of Birmingham, Yardley. What I am trying to get at is that few people in this place have done more than the Secretary of State for Justice to remind people about the separation of powers between the judiciary and Parliament. Few people are greater advocates of that than our current Lord Chancellor, and I wonder why we are now leaning on a public mandate to assess risk, rather than on what we have always done before.

[Edward Argar]

The shadow Minister says “what we have always done before”, but the powers and the approach—the so-called separation of powers—are relatively new, and I believe came in under the last Labour Government. If I recall correctly, the Home Secretary under previous Conservative Governments in the ’80s and ’90s had a number of the relevant powers. I take her point, but it is not how this has always been done; it is a relatively new innovation—that is not to say it is a bad one, but I would exercise a degree of caution about whether it is from time immemorial. We have the principle of a separation of powers, of course, but in this space, historically, there has always been a lack of clear delineation—for want of a better expression—in such matters.

Clauses 35 and 36 also allow the Secretary of State to call in a top tier case if the Parole Board has directed release. Around 1,900 top tier cases come before the Parole Board each year and, on average, the board directs release for about 650 of those offenders. In any top tier cases in which release has been directed, the Secretary of State may decide to call in the case and, by doing so, quash the decision of the Parole Board. The Secretary of State will then retake the decision as to whether that offender should be released. If a case is not called in, the decision of the Parole Board stands and the Secretary of State is required to give effect to that release decision as soon as reasonably practicable in the circumstances.

For either of the two routes, the Secretary of State will make a decision about whether the offender is safe to be released by applying the full release test, as set out in clauses 32 and 33, based on all the evidence and advice before them. If the Secretary of State decides that the offender should remain in prison, they must notify the prisoner of the reasoning behind their decision and of the prisoner’s right to appeal. We will turn to that right of appeal in the debates on later clauses.

The new power provides an additional safeguard to the release of the most serious offenders, an issue that particularly affects public confidence in the parole process. Victims are often anxious about whether a prisoner who caused them harm is released, out of concern not only for themselves and their families but for the wider public. Allowing the Secretary of State to apply an additional check and balance to such decisions will help to ensure that those who present the highest risk to the public remain in prison.

The board will continue to risk assess offenders in the same way that it does now, independently of the Government, and will continue to make the final decision about release for most parole-eligible offenders. The board does that difficult job well in the vast majority of cases. However, in the few cases where it is necessary, clauses 35 and 36 will allow the Secretary of State to intervene to provide additional scrutiny to release decisions and to further bolster public confidence in the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

Clause 47 amends schedule 19 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which governs the membership and operation of the Parole Board. The clause makes important changes to the Parole Board’s membership and leadership. Let me begin by confirming that subsection (10) means that any changes in respect of the chair of the Parole Board do not impact on the appointment or functions of the current chair, Caroline Corby. She has led the board well since her initial appointment in 2018, and the Ministry is grateful to her for her effective leadership in this high-profile and, at many times, challenging role. She will step down as chair in October next year, and it is at that point that the functions of the chair as set out in the clause will come into force.

I now turn to the specific provisions of the clause. Subsection (3) increases the statutory minimum number of Parole Board members from five to seven. In practice, the board, of course, has many more members than that, and its current membership stands at about 300. I take this opportunity to thank the board’s members more broadly for the difficult, but crucial work they do in keeping the public safe from harm.

The Government are increasing the minimum membership of the board for two reasons. First, to make the position of vice chair a statutory role, which is necessary because of the changes the clause makes to the chair’s functions. Secondly, as we touched on when considering clause 46, to require the board to include a law-enforcement member in its core membership. The requirement for a law-enforcement member is in clause 47(4), with a definition of the role in the proposed new section (2A) to be inserted into the Criminal Justice Act 2003 by clause 47(5).

The overall effect will be for the Parole Board to be made up of a minimum of seven members: a chair, a vice chair, a law-enforcement member and four other statutory members, one of whom must have judicial experience, one must have knowledge of probation, one must be an expert in prisoner rehabilitation and one must be a psychiatrist. Requiring the board to have access to that range of expertise as a minimum will ensure that risk is assessed as effectively as possible and that offenders are released only when it is safe to do so. The board will remain free to recruit members from other fields and to appoint independent members, as it deems appropriate.

[Jess Phillips]

With regard to risk and its assessment, I cannot help but notice, from my many years in the field, that one of the greatest risks on prisoner release is that to women and children, usually those related to the prisoner and/or those they resettle with. I wonder why there is no expertise specifically on understanding that sort of risk—specialist expertise in domestic or sexual violence.

[Edward Argar]

I set out key—for want of a better phrase—broad categories of skillsets in terms of judicial experience, probation and psychiatry, but I did say that the board remains free to recruit members from other fields and to appoint independent members it deems appropriate. In the context that the hon. Lady sets out, the board might well deem it entirely appropriate to appoint someone with that sort of expertise to sit on particular cases.

Victims and Prisoners Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Jess Phillips and Edward Argar

Committee stage
Thursday 6th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood for her amendments 76 to 79. As they would all amend clause 29, which focuses on the reporting function of the independent public advocate, I will address them together.

Collectively, the amendments would remove the requirement for the Secretary of State to instruct the IPA to issue a report; would require the IPA to report to Parliament rather than the Secretary of State, and to do so either periodically or at specified time periods; would remove the Secretary of State’s discretion over how to publish the advocates’ report; and would remove the ability for the Secretary of State to omit material if they consider it to be contrary to the public interest or to contravene data protection legislation.

Before I take each of those points in turn, providing clarity on our intention behind the drafting, I want to reiterate that I fully endorse the underlying principle of transparency and the ability of the IPA to highlight the experience of victims, call out issues and make recommendations that hold public authorities to the proper standard. I wholeheartedly believe in the importance and value of reports produced by those in a position to speak with authority on the experiences of victims, because they are a tool not only for getting to the truth, but for learning and for seeking to avoid the repetition of particular events or experiences. That is clearly illustrated in Bishop James Jones’s report.

I turn to amendment 76. The intention behind clause 29(1) is to provide an oversight role for the Secretary of State whereby reports are issued once requested, so the Secretary of State can ensure that the advocates produce reports only during periods when there are no active criminal investigations into the incident or ongoing inquiry proceedings. If the advocates issued a report during those periods, there is a risk that the content of the report would prejudice or undermine the conclusions of any legal investigatory processes.

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

I think Parliament has pretty well-defined ways to ensure that things are not discussed in Parliament or called for in Parliament when they could create a problem of sub judice. That exists already, so I suggest that that concern is not a founded one.

[Edward Argar]

I gently say to the shadow Minister that while those processes exist, they are—as we have seen from admonitions from Mr Speaker—not always adhered to by right hon. and hon. Members, who on occasion are called to order for straying into sub judice matters on the Floor of the House. Although a process exists by which the Speaker can rule and can admonish, it is not universally the case that all right hon. and hon. Members will fully adhere to that without having to be called up by the Speaker. We need a degree of caution with respect to legal proceedings, particularly as we are seeking not only transparency but justice for victims and survivors. I would be very wary of anything that could even potentially prejudice that.

The Secretary of State can ensure that IPA reporting occurs only during appropriate periods in the aftermath of an incident. I reassure the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood that if the advocates wish to produce a report when it has not been requested, they can still contact the secretariat and consult with the Secretary of State. Of course, any such requests will be properly and fully considered. Although I understand and appreciate the desire for advocate agency in the reporting function of the IPA, I believe that the current drafting of subsection (1) will ensure that that is balanced against the need to consider the wider context of any report’s content.

Turning to amendment 77, I reassure hon. Members that under the clause, the Secretary of State must publish any report that they receive from the advocates. It is our intention that those reports be published as swiftly as possible, notwithstanding previous comments. When it is most appropriate for the reports to be laid before Parliament or referred to the relevant Committee, I reassure hon. Members that they will be.

However, as was alluded to just now, there may be instances when it is more appropriate for the report to be published through other means, especially if it is an interim progress report. Having the advocates report to the Secretary of State ensures that discretion can applied in deciding on the most appropriate method, whether that is laying a report before Parliament or publishing it on the IPA or gov.uk website. Again, that depends on the report’s content and nature, and other proceedings. If the report is published on a website, it will be publicly available, and can still be discussed in Parliament in a debate secured by the usual means.

I want to clarify that our clauses do not prohibit reporting at any of the points set out in amendment 78, or indeed sooner, if the Secretary of State makes a request. It is likely that while an incident is active, the Secretary of State will request an annual report from the IPA, and a report after the conclusion of an incident.

[Edward Argar]

I gently ask the right hon. Lady to let me make a bit more progress. She may not be so confident when I have finished; we will see. As I previously stated, if the advocates wish to report when they have not been requested to, they can raise that with the secretariat, which will then consult the Secretary of State, who will consider any requests carefully. The inclusion of provision giving the Secretary of State discretion allows for the required flexibility when it comes to the frequency of reports.

[Jess Phillips]

As I rise to my feet, news is emerging that the courts have forced the Government to give in to Lady Hallett on the covid report, and to reveal something that they went to court to try to hide. One can understand concerns about what may get hidden. Also, during this Committee, we have debated an amendment on sex offenders changing their names. There is a Government report on that issue that has never been allowed in public or in front of Parliament. Even Committee members who are seeking to debate it have not seen it. I am sure the Minister understands that the discretion of Government Departments is not something that we—certainly not I or the public—feel we can always rely on.

[Edward Argar]

I will make a couple of points. First, in my view there needs to be a degree of discretion, as there always has been under Governments of both the hon. Lady’s party and ours. That has generally always been the approach. Secondly, I want to gently clarify a point about what the Paymaster General said. That court case was not about hiding anything; it was about clarifying the lines and the boundaries of the inquiry, what is and is not admissible material, and getting a definitive court judgment, which we now have. I gently correct her point.

[Jess Phillips]

Mmm-hmm.

[Edward Argar]

She may take a different view, as of course she is entitled to, as a matter of debate.

[Jess Phillips]

I do.

[Edward Argar]

Amendment 79 would remove the Secretary of State’s discretion over how to publish the advocates’ reports.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

In the accounting of whether there is a risk, is there anything that would ensure that, for example, evidence is taken by the Parole Board from the family courts? There is a problem in that the family courts do not speak to the criminal courts—it happens all the time. A finding that somebody had committed rape could be found in the family court but not in the criminal court. I worry; for example, with children’s services—if there were children involved, would that be taken into account by the Parole Board? I do not think it is in any way a fair to say that an assessment of the risks posed—of any minimal threat to anyone, when we are considering domestic and sexual violence—could only come from the police, because so few women come forward.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the point she makes, and I understand that she is getting at how widely one draws out what is relevant and useful information pertinent to decision making. I appreciate the point she makes about some factors not currently being explicitly taken into consideration under the provision. On that specific point of law, I hope she will allow me either to write to her or revert to her before the Committee concludes.

With subsection (5)(c), the requirement is then to consider the prisoner’s behaviour, even in prison or on licence, while serving the sentence. The decision maker must review the available evidence—for example, from probation officers—as to whether the prisoner has complied with all the demands made of them. There is a link to subsection (5)(f), which considers the impact of any rehabilitative interventions, such as therapeutic treatment or engagement in education, and their effectiveness in reducing the prisoner’s risk to the public.

I have already mentioned subsection (5)(d). Subsection (5)(e) covers the assessment the decision maker must make in respect of what licence conditions might be imposed if the prisoner is suitable for release, and what the likelihood of the prisoner complying with them is. Subsection (5)(g) requires the decision maker to take account of any submission made on behalf of the prisoner as to their suitability for release. An account must also be taken of any submission from the Secretary of State, which may include their view on the risks posed by the prisoner.

As we have discussed at length, it is vital that we put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system. For that crucial reason, subsection (6) says that when assessing the level of risk that the prisoner may pose to the public in general

“the decision-maker must in particular have regard to the protection of any victim of the prisoner.”

In that context, my interpretation of the requirement on the board to take all relevant evidence into account—as I said, I will write to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley if I have misinterpreted this—is that if relevant material is held by another authority, it can still be obtained on behalf of the Secretary of State and considered. I hope that she will allow me to confirm that to her in writing.

The criteria set out in subsections (5) and (6) are comprehensive and undoubtedly assist the decision maker in assessing risk; however, it is not an exhaustive list of criteria. That is confirmed by subsection (9), which clarifies that the decision maker is not limited in the matters to be taken into account when assessing a prisoner’s risk. The Government consider it necessary to be transparent and clear when it comes to making very important public protection decisions that have significant consequences for the public, victims and prisoners. The high threshold for release and the criteria by which risk is assessed must therefore be there for everyone to see and understand. We are satisfied that the clause codifies the release test used by the Parole Board, and the board advises that it could be a welcome clarification for it of the factors that its members already take into consideration.

Victims and Prisoners Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Jess Phillips and Edward Argar

Committee stage
Thursday 6th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Maria Eagle]

My hon. Friend is completely correct. She will know from her own constituency experience of representing those caught up in the Birmingham pub bombings how dangerous and awful it is, not only for the families involved. We are talking intergenerational, here. Many of those still active in trying to get more accountability in respect of Hillsborough were barely born—sometimes not even born—at the time it happened. They are daughters, sons and other relatives who were not even alive. And the effect is not just on families intergenerationally; it is felt across communities.

The damage that Hillsborough has done to faith in the police in Liverpool since that time has been enormous, and it is intergenerational. It was not the Merseyside police—it was South Yorkshire police and the West Midlands police. That does not just go away. Some 30,000 people turned up at Anfield on the 20th anniversary of the disaster. That is why the Hillsborough Independent Panel was set up; that is why we were able to get it set up. The rest of the country was amazed that, 20 years on, 30,000 people would turn up to the service. It would have been more, if they had let more in. I was there on that day. I was not surprised to see what we saw on that day.

In two years, the Hillsborough Independent Panel unravelled the lies of ages. By publishing the documents and its account of what had really happened, it was able, incontrovertibly, to lay to rest all those lies and slurs and to elicit a heartfelt apology from the then Prime Minister David Cameron—who I think was a bit shocked when he read the report and saw what had happened.

We must not let this happen again. The issue is about torpedoing cover-ups as well as helping families. It is about stopping things from going wrong. As a lawyer, I know that the only way Hillsborough could have been stopped from getting as bad as it has got would be to have stopped it from going wrong in the first place. I believe that creating a mechanism through which transparency and truth can be focused on at an earlier stage and be told at the beginning is the way to stop things from going wrong. The legal system does not always appear to be able to do it, and I believe that the Hillsborough Independent Panel-type process is the way in which we can do it.

I unequivocally welcome the Government’s commitment, but I urge the Minister and the Government to have more ambition for what can be achieved through the process. It should not just be signposting to get immediate help in the aftermath of a disaster for those caught up in it; it should be about nothing less than us preventing things from going wrong in the aftermath, as a society looking after and supporting those caught up through no fault of their own in such disasters. It should be about ensuring that the organs of the state do not use taxpayers’ money and their capacity to be defensive—that appears to be infinite—to prevent themselves from facing up to the truth of what has happened.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful, as ever, to the right hon. Lady not only for her campaigning on behalf of her constituents and others, but for her ministerial career—the roles she held as Minister for Children, Minister for Northern Ireland and at the Ministry of Justice. What runs through that is her commitment to ensuring that those who are vulnerable, or who do not always have agency or a voice, are heard, and that their interests are respected and reflected in the actions of Government. I pay tribute to her. I also pay tribute to Lord Wills for not only his work but his evidence, as well as the meeting that the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood and I had with him previously.

I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her new clause 15. It would fundamentally alter the structure and operation of the IPA by establishing a permanent independent public advocate. She and I probably fall on opposite sides of the debate about a standing or an ad hoc IPA. She rightly highlighted the pros and cons on both sides of that debate. She falls on one side, and I fall slightly more on the other. I suspect that we may yet return to that debate.

There are many possible models for an IPA. The clauses in part 2 of the Bill introduce an IPA that reflects the model we consulted on in 2018, with the responses we received to it. We have heard from victims that a swift deployment of the IPA to provide support in the immediate aftermath is vital. Our view is that the IPA as proposed in the Bill achieves that, while balancing the need to be mindful of public funds and the right process to be followed after a major incident.

New clause 15 would establish a permanent IPA that could determine independently of Government that an event is a major incident. As has been previously set out, we do not think that a permanent body is necessary, given the rarity of the events in question for which the IPA would be deployed. Furthermore, we believe it is right and proportionate that the Secretary of State, who is accountable to Parliament, decides what a major incident is and when to appoint an IPA.

Should individuals disagree with the Secretary of State’s decision in respect of a particular incident, I would expect my fellow right hon. and hon. Members to make full use of their positions to hold the Government to account through urgent questions and similar means of bringing Ministers to the Dispatch Box.

[Jess Phillips]

I appreciate what the Minister is saying. I cannot foresee any incident involving even one death, certainly not one involving multiple deaths, after which pressure would not be brought to bear on the Secretary of State to do that. In essence, we are asking victims to do the work in the aftermath—they have to get in touch with their Members of Parliament and immediately start pushing. Their family has just been blown up or their kid has been shot, and we are saying that, first and foremost, they have to become political activists to get their Member of Parliament to represent them to the Secretary of State, rather than providing a place for them to go in that circumstance—which feels kinder.

[Edward Argar]

I do not think that is in any way what is being suggested; the hon. Lady misunderstands. Our view is that the accountability for making that decision should rightly sit with the Secretary of State, not with another party.

The right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood takes a different view. I respect her perspective and understand where she is coming from. She rightly acknowledged that there were pros and cons to both approaches. She believes that the pros of a standing advocate outweigh the cons. I find myself on the other side of that argument and I suspect we might return to it. A decision by the Secretary of State could in extremis be challenged through the court system, but we do not envisage that being necessary.

The IPA will be supported by a permanent secretariat; the Ministry of Justice has already allocated funding for that. Clause 25, which we will turn to, provides for an effective system of support for the IPA by making provisions for a secretariat and remuneration. We therefore consider that that aspect is duplicative in the amendment tabled by the right hon. Lady.

I turn to the definition of a major incident and the specific points that the right hon. Lady has included. Again, we do not believe it is necessary to include additional considerations in the Bill. Given the unpredictable nature of the incidents in question, the definition of a major incident is purposefully broad—one might say “permissive” in this context—and further detail can be set out in a policy statement, as I mentioned earlier, while providing a degree of flexibility given what might be a subjective decision and the nature of the circumstances. That will ensure that the Secretary of State has maximum flexibility to appoint an IPA to respond to a wide range of incidents.

Defining a major incident as proposed in the new clause could arguably require a finding of fact or a pre-judgment of cause before the IPA could be deployed, especially regarding proving a failure in health and safety or regulation. Again, there is a risk that that could cause delays in the support of the IPA reaching the victims as well as presenting wider legal issues for the IPA. We believe that the definition in clause 24 as it stands is the right one for primary legislation, but, as I have said, I will provide additional detail through a policy statement and will work with the right hon. Lady on that if she so desires.

I turn finally to requirement two, which the IPA, as the right hon. Lady envisions, would need to meet before supporting victims. That would necessitate the IPA gaining the support of 50% plus one of the bereaved and injured. I sympathise with the intention to involve victims in the process—I take the point about agency and trust. However, I cannot see how that might work in practice without potentially, in the immediate aftermath of an incident, delaying the deployment of the IPA. That would cause concern.

In the immediate aftermath, it is unlikely that all eligible victims could be easily identified and surveyed to ascertain whether they would want an IPA to be deployed. They might not even be in the right place mentally or emotionally to be able to engage with such a question. Furthermore, the number of victims might change over time, and people might withdraw their consent, so the quorum approach is not the best way to address the issue.

Victim engagement, agency and a sense of empowerment are, as the right hon. Lady says, vital. Those are good things, but they will not achieve what we seek: in the aftermath of a major incident, to carry the trust of people that the IPA is on their side. Although I understand its intent, our concern is that the new clause is not the best way to achieve that.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

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

Victims and Prisoners Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Jess Phillips and Edward Argar

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.

[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 ---

[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 ---

[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 ---

[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 ---

[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 ---

[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]

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 ---

[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 ---

[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 ---

[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.

Victims and Prisoners Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Jess Phillips and Edward Argar

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th July 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Argar]

I reassure the hon. Lady that if she allows me to develop my point a little, I will address her specific JSNA point before I conclude.

As the hon. Lady will be aware, we published our victims funding strategy last May. I am pleased that that was published, not least because I set it in train back in 2018 when I was last a Minister in the Department. I am pleased that it has seen sunlight. The strategy provides a framework for how agencies should work together to best resource the victim support sector. Within it, there is 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. The duty to collaborate in the Bill, which the hon. Lady touched on, is clear that relevant agencies must work together to ensure that services that meet local needs are commissioned and provided for.

Clause 13(3) requires relevant authorities to have regard to any assessment of the needs of victims that they have already carried out when preparing their joint strategy. We will be issuing statutory guidance to accompany that duty. That will set out clear expectations for how the duty should be carried out, as well as good practice, including around data and consistency of data. The guidance will set out that relevant authorities are expected to explain in their joint commissioning strategy how they have had regard to the relevant needs assessments, and how commissioning decisions meet those needs.

I understand the points made by the hon. Lady, both in her opening remarks and in her interventions. I share her view that support services have to be commissioned in line with, and reflect, genuine need. That is why we have created the duty. To a degree, it reflects the duty created under the Health and Care Act 2022 for integrated care boards and integrated care systems in that context. We should allow local flexibility in the services that are offered but seek to avoid duplication and gaps where multiple agencies commission the same service in some spaces and nothing is commissioned in others. It is a cornerstone of the duty that local needs must be assessed and considered. For those reasons, we do not believe that the amendment is required to clearly state that a joint needs assessment must be considered, but I have a few more remarks to reassure the hon. Lady.

Subsection (1B) of amendment 89 would require the Secretary of State to provide a statement every three years on the current support available for victims of domestic abuse, including the volume of provision, levels of need and investment. The Department receives regular monitoring returns from PCCs and the support services that we commission. The returns include data that indicates how many victims are seeking support, and provide insight into demand and levels of need across England and Wales, which informs national commissioning decisions.

We are committed to improving our understanding of need and the impact of funding at a national level. To do that, we have introduced core metrics and outcomes to be collected from all victim support services that are commissioned through Government funding streams as part of the victims funding strategy. We will also establish an oversight board to monitor them.

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

The trouble with the data that the Minister is describing is that it will not be all the data in a local area if it just comes from a PCC, because the vast majority of community-based services for victims of domestic and sexual violence come from a local authority. Unless that data is all pulled together with a joint needs assessment, the Minister, up here in this ivory tower, will get only a tiny fraction of the reality.

[Edward Argar]

The shadow Minister highlights one of the issues that we grappled with in the course of drafting the victims funding strategy. I pay tribute to the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for her work in trying to grapple with this issue as well. I am talking about trying to get an understanding of what is provided in a given locality, not just from the money provided by central Government—we can track that and see what is commissioned—but through local authorities and, in some cases, although I suspect it is not a huge amount, elements of NHS service provision.

[Jess Phillips]

Not enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I will not test your patience in that way on a Tuesday morning, Mr Hosie.

The duty to collaborate will further improve our understanding of both local need and the services commissioned for victims of not only domestic abuse but sexual abuse and other serious violence offences. The publication of the joint commissioning strategies will give valuable insight into the levels of service that victims are receiving in each police area across England and an assessment of how areas are making improvements against local objectives or key performance indicators. An oversight forum will then scrutinise those strategies, assess how well the duty is executed nationally, share best practice and help to devise plans for improvement.

A national statement every three years focused solely on domestic abuse would not in itself hugely build on the understanding that the Secretary of State already has through existing mechanisms or necessarily better help local areas to understand need. The strategies published under the duty to collaborate will instead provide information of the type, or a large amount of it, that the hon. Member for Rotherham is asking for—that is, on the volume of provision, levels of need, and investment—for not only domestic abuse but sexual abuse and other serious violent offences more broadly, and with the important local context that is useful for commissioners. I therefore encourage the hon. Lady not to press the amendment to a Division, as the Secretary of State will in effect have access to all the information that she asks for. However, although I am—

[Jess Phillips]

Will the Minister give way?

[Edward Argar]

I give way to the shadow Minister, but let us hope she does not dissuade me from what I am about to say.

[Jess Phillips]

I do not wish to dissuade the Minister. In my local area, there is a “by and for” service that is run specifically for Afghan women, that is completely funded, usually, by the will of volunteers, and that is dealing every year with hundreds of cases of Afghan women who are victims of domestic abuse, and it does not get its funding from any of these sources. How will the Secretary of State know that that is an issue?

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady did not quite succeed in dissuading me from what I was about to say, which is that although I am unable to accept the hon. Member for Rotherham’s JSNA amendment at this time, I will reflect very carefully on its import and what she said, and particularly on the words of the Domestic Abuse Commissioner in the oral evidence we heard, and in the context of the points made by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Yardley and for Rotherham about the challenges in understanding service provision when that is not funded through a national or a public funding stream.

I cannot commit further than that, but I will commit to reflecting very carefully, between Committee stage—as this is a carry-over Bill, we will have a few months—and before it returns to the House on Report, on the points that the hon. Members and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner have made very eloquently.

[Sarah Champion]

I apologise for testing your kind patience, Mr Hosie. While the Minister is in a reflective mood, I hope he will also reflect on the financial and time commitments that might be placed on organisations, and try to ensure that we get the data we need with the lightest of touches. I am grateful for his movement on the issue, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I understand entirely—I am a firm democrat and I will fight for democracy—but I am afraid the idea that very marginalised groups of people with very little resource could launch a campaign to spark public interest in, say, Lincolnshire to get the 19% of people who voted in the PCC election to change the balance is for the birds. I say that as someone who has tried to do it. I am not entirely sure that PCCs can truly be accountable to their electorates on the issue. If we are seeing gaps, surely it is Parliament’s responsibility to deal with them.

[Edward Argar]

I was going to make the point that, sitting alongside local accountability and local tailoring, we also have—as the hon. Lady will know, and for want of a better term—a national approach. The context is slightly different, but we have the rape and sexual abuse support fund, for example, which is nationally commissioned. With RASAF, we seek to fill gaps in provision and ensure there is a geographical spread.

I will turn to individual services in a moment, but in any locality a PCC might say, in relation to the point made by the hon. Member for Rotherham, “I have limited resources, so I will put them where the greatest number of victims are in my area.” However, a small number of victims might not be covered by that, because they are a small number in that locality. That is why we have the national approach sitting alongside to ensure that there is national provision in a number of areas.

[Jess Phillips]

On the idea that there is anywhere in our country where victims of domestic abuse are small in number, let me say that the national average is 19% of all victims of crime, and domestic abuse represents the highest volume of any crime in our country where calls go to the police. I do not expect the Minister to have the data to hand, but I would like to see a PCC’s office that is spending 19% of its budget on this.

[Edward Argar]

I will see whether I can get that data. On the hon. Lady’s point about the figure of 19%, she is right to highlight the horrifying prevalence of that crime, which often goes unnoticed because of the nature of reporting and the nature of the crime. Moreover, there are particular groups within the figure and within the cohort of victims, for example minorities. A PCC might take the view that in a locality a particular group might need specific trauma-informed services, which, given their choice of resource allocation, might not have been catered for. That is why we seek at national level to try to address such issues with direct funding grants and with agreements that we reach, for example through the RASAF.

Our role as Government is to set the expected standards for the approach to commissioning of victim support services. At a macro level, we have done that through the victims funding strategy, which clearly sets out the expectation for commissioners to put victims at the centre of commissioning. We wholeheartedly agree that commissioners should consider a range of different services, including specialist women’s community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence support, and that they should choose to commission services that best fit the needs of their population.

Let me turn to the specifics of the amendment. I am in agreement on the importance of commissioners drawing on the expertise of providers of victim support services when preparing and revising their joint strategies. That is why clause 13(2) specifically requires relevant authorities to consult with persons who represent the interests of victims, providers and other expert organisations. We would expect them to consult with providers of specialist services for female victims of domestic abuse and sexual abuse, as well as “by and for” services in the children’s sector, to name but a few more. However, we do not consider it proportionate to list in legislation organisations with which commissioners must consult, which would risk resulting in a hierarchy of services or unintentionally omitting organisations providing valuable and important services.

In addition, we intend the accompanying statutory guidance to set out that local commissioners should consider engaging with a range of providers that reflect the types of service required in their area, such as women-only services, when considering their statutory duty to consult persons appearing to them to provide relevant victim support services and other appropriate persons. Guidance will also support commissioners by recommending standards and processes for that consultation. We are engaging with both providers and local commissioners as we develop that guidance so that we can reflect best practice, and I would be very happy to work with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley to explore how guidance may further support commissioners in fulfilling their obligations to reflect the views of providers, and those who support victims, in their joint-commissioning strategies.

I reassure the hon. Lady that the Government are fully aware that domestic abuse and sexual violence disproportionately impact women and girls. Beyond the Bill, in February 2023 we published a revised strategic policing requirement, which includes violence against women and girls as a national threat for policing to respond to. In 2021, the Government published a new and ambitious cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy to help to ensure that women and girls are safe everywhere. That includes a new full-time national policing lead on violence against women and girls, DCC Maggie Blyth, who I have had the privilege of meeting; I know that the shadow Minister meets her regularly as well. She is now in post and is doing an excellent job in the role.

We have awarded £125 million through the safer streets fund and the safety of women at night fund to make our streets safer for women and girls. We have contributed up to £3.3 million to fund the roll-out of Domestic Abuse Matters training to police forces. That includes funding the development of a new module to improve charge rates. The Government are also taking targeted action against sexual violence, including through the 24/7 rape and sexual abuse support line, which offers free, confidential emotional support for victims and survivors.

I therefore encourage the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley—I do not know whether she is persuadable—not to press her amendment to a Division. The duty to collaborate focuses only on commissioning bodies, as they are best placed to meet the objectives of our duty. In the Government’s view, the Bill already includes provision for engagement with providers, such as providers of specialist women’s services for domestic abuse and sexual violence, underpinned by the statutory guidance that will be produced.

New clause 19 would place a duty on relevant local authorities to commission specialist women’s community-based domestic abuse and sexual violence support services for victims in accordance with need. It would also require the Secretary of State to define in regulations “specialist community based services”, after agreeing that definition in collaboration with the violence against women and girls sector, and to set out in regulations how providers will be regulated.

We do not fully share the hon. Lady’s view about the extent to which local authorities should be required to fund particular types of community-based services; again, that goes to the point underpinning my earlier remarks about it being a local decision for which local authorities would be accountable. In our view, it is for local commissioners to determine what services to fund, noting the additional national strand of direct funding alongside that. That determination will be based on their assessments of the needs of their local populations, knowledge of available services and their understanding of those services and their provision. Our concern is that the approach set out in the new clause risks excluding or minimising the importance of some of the other service types that commissioners could consider for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence. As drafted, the new clause could risk creating a hierarchy.

On overall funding, we believe that the right approach to setting funding levels continues to be through the spending review process, rather than individual pieces of legislation. That allows Government and individual Departments to outline priorities and respond to changing circumstances; allows the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider a range of funding requests and pressures, recognising the finite amount of taxpayer money available to any Government; and allows those priorities to be considered in the round.

I hasten to add that I am not in any way questioning the importance of these vital services. I have had the privilege of visiting a number of them, both as Under-Secretary of State and in my present role. I have seen at first hand the amazing work that they do. They often go above and beyond the resources that they have available, in their own time and with their own resources, so passionate are those who work in this part of the sector to assist to the best of their ability those who need their help. That is one of the reasons that we have included ringfenced funding in our grants to PCCs for community-based services for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence.

In allocating money to PCCs, there is always a balance to be struck. Many PCCs, I know, would prefer a greater proportion of their funding to be unringfenced and to be used entirely at their discretion within those broad parameters. We think that we have struck the appropriate balance, with them having a degree of discretion, but with some ringfenced funding to address particular needs.

[Edward Argar]

I suspect that when we reach that clause, we will debate that exact point. However, to pre-empt what I will say about that clause—I shall say this briefly before you call me to order, Mr Hosie—the reason is that ISVAs and IDVAs have a particular, evolving and developed professionalism that gives them a particular locus within the criminal justice system. It is quite right that we cannot issue guidance to judges, because they are the independent judiciary, but through this approach to ISVAs and IDVAs we can seek to give the judiciary greater confidence in the professionalism of those roles. We thereby hope to see the judiciary being more willing to utilise them in the court process. That is my rationale, but we may debate that point when we come to the relevant clause.

New clause 19 also highlights the importance of legal advice for victims. The Government asked the Law Commission, as part of its work on the use of evidence in sexual offence prosecutions, carefully to review the law, guidance and practice relating to the trial process in prosecutions of sexual offences, an issue in which I know the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley takes a close interest. That will include consideration of whether independent legal advice and representation would be beneficial where personal records are sought, or more widely for the trial process.

On setting out how providers are to be regulated, we do not want to take a prescriptive approach in legislation. Local commissioners regularly review the services they commission to ensure high standards of victim services and will set relevant and tailored quality standards in their agreements with local providers. I suspect that a degree of the debate here is around where the line lies between prescription and a permissive approach.

As I have said in response to similar amendments, we have allocated a substantial amount of funding for domestic abuse and sexual violence victims and survivors, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to victims of these crimes. We are making it clear to commissioners and funders that they should consider the value and role of specialist-based support services when assessing local need to inform the distribution of funding, but ultimately local commissioners are best placed to determine how those services should be provided locally. On that basis, I gently encourage the shadow Minister not to press her amendment to a Division.

[Jess Phillips]

I will respond to some of what the Minister has said. His charming hope that all commissioners are absolute experts in this is not one that I share. I have been a commissioner on a local authority, and I think Birmingham remains probably the only part of the country to commission sexual violence services as part of its sexual health commissioning, and sexual and domestic abuse services as part of its substance misuse commissioning. The reason is that I was the commissioner and I am an expert in this.

In our evidence session, the woman from Rape Crisis said that she could not think of any specialist Rape Crisis services being commissioned by mental health services in our country. There is this idea that commissioners all have a total understanding of specialist domestic and sexual violence services. I have a plan for someone who works in the service to become a commissioner in every service, to ensure that that happens, but given the failure of my ability to influence Bury St Edmunds Council to have someone from women’s aid services elected to it, I will struggle. I do not think we can argue that commissioners know best. I have watched them know very little about anything to do with this topic. They are not specialists. They need to be told what specialisms they have to provide.

On hierarchy, I totally agree about the paradox that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham pointed out. I want there to be a hierarchy. That is what I am saying: I am asking for a hierarchy, where specialist services are placed at the top and generic support services are just that.

I will not press the amendment to a vote, because I genuinely believe that we can get to an agreement on this issue prior to Report. I totally believe in the Minister’s will to do that. I say gently, though, that evidence from the Domestic Abuse Act shows that if we do not write these provisions into legislation, local authorities will just take refuge accommodation in-house and it will become completely non-specialist—it has been staffed by men, for example. We did not get this written into the Domestic Abuse Act, but I would really like the words “women” and “women’s specialist services” to exist somewhere in the Bill. Although I will not press the amendment to a vote today, I stand ready to make this argument again later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Victims and Prisoners Bill (Seventh sitting)

Debate between Jess Phillips and Edward Argar

Committee stage
Thursday 29th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Argar]

Amendment 53 would place in the victims code a requirement to inform victims of their right to access pre-trial therapy, and require the CPS to annually review the implementation of its pre-trial therapy guidance. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for provoking this debate by tabling the amendment.

It is vital that victims get the support they need to cope and recover from the impact of crime, and pre-trial therapy is a hugely important part of that. The hon. Member for Lewisham East commented on the number of complainants and victims who withdraw from a case—the technical phrase is victim attrition; it is not the best phrase in the world—or do not see it through. A variety of reasons and a range of factors sit behind that. Lack of therapeutic support may not be the only one, but it is undoubtedly one of them. I am aware of instances where victims have mistakenly been advised not to seek the therapeutic support they need and to which they are entitled while they are involved in a criminal justice process. That should not happen, and I am again grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham for raising that.

The first part of the amendment would require the victims code to include a specific requirement on all criminal justice agencies to inform victims of a right to pre-trial therapy. I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady to a degree that there are already many provisions in the Bill and, indeed, beyond it to make victims aware of how they can access pre-trial therapy. What came through in her remarks is that the challenge is not the obligations in the Bill or other legislation, but how they are operationalised and pull through into the experiences people have when interacting with the system.

The Bill already includes the code principle that victims should be able to access services that support them, including specialist services. The code itself includes the detail that those services can include pre-trial therapy and counselling, and we are introducing a new duty in the Bill on certain criminal justice agencies, including the police and the CPS, to raise awareness of the code and the rights within it. None the less, I am open to considering how we can make information relating to pre-trial therapy clearer in the new victims code, as it is critical that practitioners do not, even inadvertently, deter victims from seeking the support they need.

As hon. Members will be aware, we have committed to consult on an updated victims code after the passage of the Bill, and as I have said on previous occasions, I am happy to work with the hon. Member for Rotherham and others on the Committee on the new code. We have put out an indicative draft, which is almost a pre-consultation consultation, but that allows the flexibility for hon. Members and others to reflect back their thoughts on it.

[Jess Phillips]

As a point that may be interesting as we try to get this right established is that when I ran a rape crisis counselling service, this was not particularly an issue. Something has happened—something chilling—in the last eight years that means it is now a pressing issue. It was never the case, and rape crisis counsellors would always just make very sparing notes. Something has gone wrong, and in trying to move forward we should do a piece of work on where it started to go wrong.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady brings to the House and this Committee a huge amount of experience from having worked in this sector and seen changes to it, and an interest that she has maintained since being elected to the House—at the same time as I was—and through her shadow ministerial roles. She is right; it is important that, if things have changed, we seek to understand the genesis of and the reasons for that change, and how to address it.

Victims and Prisoners Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Jess Phillips and Edward Argar

Committee stage
Thursday 29th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Edward Argar]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley.

[Jess Phillips]

I hear the good words in the Minister’s explanation, but I am still not entirely sure exactly what will happen. Are we going to get local forums to make it better if it is bad? That does not seem enough to me to ensure compliance or any change from the situation we have at the moment.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister. I will come on to how this will work in practice, but I suspect hon. Members may wish to return to it in their contributions to their amendments. I give way to the hon. Member for Rotherham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

I just wonder what would happen if we were discussing a school in my constituency—let us say my own children’s school—and Ofsted just got to say, “Yeah, you’ve just got to hope for the best, really. Let’s just hope for the best, with a little bit of improvement.” There are no powers; this process does not go anywhere. I am not sure that I can see how there is any gumption behind any of these particular improvements, other than just, “They’ll respond”.

[Edward Argar]

As I say, our experience is that the Victims’ Commissioner—I suspect that this is by virtue both of the office itself and the strength of personality of all three Victims’ Commissioners—has tended to be successful in obtaining the information they need to do their job and shine a light on particular issues or individual system challenges. Therefore, we do not believe that it is necessary or proportionate to alter their powers further in the way that has been discussed.

We intend for the Victims’ Commissioner to have access to relevant compliance information collected and shared under clauses 6 to 9, both via national governance forums and through the duty on the Secretary of State to publish compliance information. That may not go the full way, but I hope it goes some way to reassuring the hon. Lady that the Victims’ Commissioner will have access to information on the code. We do not believe that additional powers to collect such information are required.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. As I say, I am looking at how we might do this, so I am not in a position to make firm commitments to her, other than that I will bear what she says in mind when we get to the point of being able to do something like this. She made a sensible point and, typically, in doing so she also suggested a possible solution.

Accessibility is hugely important. The code, however brilliant it may end up being, is of limited value if people cannot access it to understand it and know how it relates to them. We know that victims not only need to know about the code, but need to understand it. We recognise the importance of that. We are considering carefully how we can ensure that everyone who needs to understand it can do so. I am happy to work with the hon. Member for Rotherham. My meeting agenda over the summer and in September is getting longer and longer, but I am always happy to spend time with her to discuss such matters.

The hon. Lady’s new clause 5 would also give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations prescribing that criminal justice bodies must signpost victims to appropriate support services and must receive appropriate training, including from specialist domestic abuse services. It is absolutely right that victims should be signposted to appropriate support services. Right 4 under the code contains an entitlement for victims to be referred to support services and to have such services tailored to their needs. Through the new duty on criminal justice agencies to take reasonable steps to make victims aware of the code, more victims should be aware of their entitlements.

I turn to training. Agencies already deliver training on the code to their staff to ensure that they are confident and comfortable sharing it. For example, the national policing curriculum uses interactive and group training methods to deliver training in as impactful a way as possible. That is regularly reviewed and updated as necessary.

[Jess Phillips]

I do not have the data, and I do not expect the Minister to have it at his fingertips, but does he know how many police officers have actually had that training? Less than 50% have been trained on what coercive control is, for example.

[Edward Argar]

The hon. Lady slightly pre-empts my answer. If that information is centrally held, I will endeavour to get it and write to her with it.

I am also pleased that the College of Policing has developed the Domestic Abuse Matters programme, which has already been delivered to the majority of forces. It was developed in conjunction with SafeLives and with input from Women’s Aid.

In addition, the CPS will work with specialist support organisations to develop bespoke trauma-informed training on domestic abuse to help prosecutors to understand the complexities that victims experience in those crimes. Information on domestic abuse and how to recognise the signs and provide support is also available to HMCTS staff. To increase the impact that the training agencies already deliver, we are using statutory guidance to set out advice regarding appropriate training so that staff working with victims are confident in how to share the code sensitively and effectively at the right time for the victim.

We are confident that for both training and accessibility, statutory guidance under the existing code awareness duty is the most flexible and effective approach. It can set standards while allowing agencies to tailor it for the different needs of agencies, staff and victims, and it can be kept up to date more easily, which enables us to take a continuous improvement approach. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley is right to make the point that we can have fantastic guidance and training, but the key thing is to ensure that it is engaged with and that practitioners take the training on board and—I have used this dreadful word a few times—“operationalise” it in their day-to-day work. It is right that independent agencies have the expertise to decide how best to design and deliver training, rather than the requirement sitting with the Secretary of State. We already have provisions in the Bill and additional measures to address the aims of new clause 5, so I encourage the hon. Member for Rotherham not to press it to a Division.

New clause 11 would place a duty on all agencies with victims code responsibilities to monitor and report on compliance, and a duty on the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament. I am grateful for the debate we have had, and I absolutely agree that we must monitor and report code compliance information. That is vital to understanding whether victims are getting the service they should. As I mentioned in our debate on a previous group of amendments, in 2019-20 only 23% of victims and 22% of the public were aware of the code, and only 45% of victims felt that the police and other criminal justice agencies kept them informed. That is why the Bill already legislates for new duties on code awareness and compliance in clauses 6 to 11. We therefore consider that new clause 11 is already covered by the existing provisions.

Victims and Prisoners Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Jess Phillips and Edward Argar

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Argar]

I mentioned operational partners, and in this context, that refers to partners in the criminal justice system, such as the prosecution authorities, the police and others. I take the hon. Lady’s point about the wider stakeholder and sector support. If she allows me to make a little progress, we will see if it reassures her sufficiently.

Turning to amendments 51 and 52, amendment 51 seeks to ensure that persons who have experienced adult sexual exploitation are explicitly referenced in the definition of a victim. Adult sexual exploitation could be considered to consist of numerous criminal acts, some of which include human trafficking, controlling and coercive behaviour, causing or inciting prostitution for gain, controlling prostitution for gain, and rape and other serious sexual offences. I reassure hon. Members that adults who have been subjected to such criminal conduct are victims under part 1 of the legislation and under the victims code. My concern is therefore that the amendments would duplicate the existing coverage of the definition of a victim of crime. Again, the definition is deliberately broad to avoid inadvertently excluding a particular group or victim through being overly prescriptive.

Amendment 52 is intended to create a definition of adult sexual exploitation. Acts that can constitute adult sexual exploitation are, again, already covered by a number of existing offences.

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

While they are covered by a number of different offences, much like domestic abuse, there is no charge or crime of domestic abuse, yet the Government felt it important to define domestic abuse in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 for all the same reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham tried to point out: it is currently written nowhere in any Government guidance, or any strategy to tackle adult sexual exploitation. That is what the amendment is intended to address.

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She may well push me in a slightly different direction, but I am always a little cautious of seeking to read across a precedent in one piece of legislation to a range of other areas. There may be occasions when it is universally applicable, but in other cases I would urge a degree of caution.

We have yet to see unequivocal evidence that a single definition or approach would better achieve delivery of our commitment than the current approach. However, I am happy to discuss it further and work with the hon. Member for Rotherham, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff North, and others between Committee stage and Report. As is the nature of the Committee stage, the amendments were tabled a few days ago—last week—and inevitably, when something significant is suggested, it is important to reflect on that carefully. I intend to reflect carefully on the points that have been made. I will not pre-empt the conclusions of my reflections, but I will engage with the hon. Member for Rotherham, and the shadow Minister if she so wishes, to see what may be possible between Committee stage and Report. On the basis of that commitment to engage, I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham and the shadow Minister might, at this point, consider not pressing the amendments to a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Argar]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley for raising this important issue and for referring, as the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood did, to pre-legislative scrutiny. I hope to have given Committee members some encouragement that on occasion I agree to changes, and perhaps to a different approach from that in the original draft of the Bill.

As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley set out, her amendment 54 would extend the definition of a victim in the Bill explicitly to include families impacted by the death by suicide of a loved one as a result of domestic abuse. In her remarks, the hon. Lady quite rightly went wider than that, highlighting investigatory issues and broader prosecutorial issues. I have—as, I suspect, does every member of the Committee—huge sympathy for the families in the position that she set out. Before I turn specifically to the impact of her amendment, and I wish to touch on some of the support available for them,.

The Ministry of Justice provides police and crime commissioners with grant funding to commission local, practical, emotional and therapeutic support services for victims of all crime types, based on their assessment of needs. The Department for Health and Social Care has committed to publishing a new national suicide prevention strategy later this year and is engaging widely across the sector to understand what further action can be taken to reduce cases of suicide. The strategy will reflect new evidence and national priorities for suicide prevention across England, including actions to tackle known risk factors and targeted actions for groups at particular risk or groups of concern. An additional £57 million is being invested in suicide prevention by March 2024, through the NHS long-term plan.

I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of the issue. With regard to her amendment, we are not convinced that explicitly extending the definition of a victim of crime in the Bill and the code is the right approach to appropriately support the families. Part 1 of the Bill specifically sets out how victims who have suffered harm as a direct result of criminal conduct are treated by and supported to engage with the criminal justice system. Our view is that that group is largely covered by the Bill’s definition of the bereaved family of a person who has died, including by suicide as a direct result of domestic abuse, which is captured by clause 1(2)(c):

“where the death of a close family member of the person was the direct result of criminal conduct”.

In the context, domestic violence is criminal conduct. I appreciate—this is potentially where the nuance lies, and why the hon. Lady might be pushing for greater clarity—that that will be fact-specific for each case in the circumstances. It is a complicated area and each case will be complicated but, as I say, we believe that clause 1(2)(c) captures this.

I know that we have discussed the need for clarity and awareness about entitlements among victims and agencies. As I am sure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley is aware from her shadow ministerial role, the Government are consulting on and clarifying the position in the domestic homicide review to formally recognise this cohort of victims. With her permission, I will gently encourage her not to press her amendment at this point, but in the context of the broader work being done I hope she will allow me, in the short term, to write to her with greater clarity on our interpretation of clause 1(2)(c)—she may wish to challenge that in the future, of course; she is entitled to—and to see if we are able to factor in the broader work being done before we reach Report.

[Jess Phillips]

I thank the Minister. I would absolutely welcome it if he wrote to me and the Committee about exactly how clause 1(2)(c) encompasses what I seek, so that those families have an opportunity. It is good when Ministers say things in Committee that we can use to ensure that families get support. I will withdraw the amendment at this stage. I am not always especially keen on the Government, but the level of progress in the area of hidden homicides, certainly under the previous Home Secretary, is to be admired. I do not think that the Government are without concern on the issue of suicide in cases of domestic abuse. Thanks to what the Minister says, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Phillips]

Does the Minister agree that if this was written into primary legislation and it did not happen, a victim who sought to challenge that would have a case in law to do so, and would not otherwise?

[Edward Argar]

I will turn to non-compliance and why we believe that the approach that we have set out in the clause is the right one. I suspect that Opposition Members may take a different view, but after making a little progress, I will hopefully address some of their points—whether or not to their satisfaction.

Victims and Prisoners Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Jess Phillips and Edward Argar

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Edward Argar]

I was about to come to that point, so the hon. Lady’s intervention is prescient.

All of the speeches that we have heard have acknowledged that the behaviour that is being referred to is often criminal, even the low-level behaviour. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff North said that if something is thrown in the direction of an individual or if plants are trampled, that would be criminal behaviour. It may not be charged as such, but it would still entitle people to those rights under the code.

Dame Vera’s key point was about who decides what criminal behaviour is, how we ensure that people know that those rights are available to them and that the service providers acknowledge that those individuals are entitled to those rights. The behaviour we have heard about is included, but we do not believe that including it in the Bill in this way is the right approach to address the issue, to raise that awareness and to ensure that people can access the rights that are already there. However, I will turn to that in just a second. The right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood again managed to pre-empt an element of what she thought I would say in my speech, and she is not inaccurate in her presumption.

A point was raised about the previous Lord Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton. My only reflection on that is that, first of all, in my recollection—the right hon. Lady is right that this is going back a while—the articles cited an unnamed source and Government sources. We on both sides of the House have experience of how that can work. That is not official policy, but I will mention, on official policy, that that Lord Chancellor confirmed the content of the draft Bill and the full Bill, so it is not accurate to suggest a U-turn. It was the same Lord Chancellor who confirmed what we are debating today as what he wished to see in legislation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud raised a number of points. We do not believe that a lack of legislation is the challenge here. We believe that there are key aspects, which the hon. Member for Cardiff North rightly highlighted, about raising awareness and the different public authorities and bodies engaging in a concerted manner to tackle the problem—treating it seriously and suchlike—but we do not believe that putting something in the Bill is the right way to raise awareness and to change those behaviours.

My hon. Friend raised some particularly distressing cases that have recently been on social media. I tread warily because I am not a lawyer—I am looking at one or two of the lawyers across the room—but she is right to say that trespass is a civil offence. I want to be careful, because I do not know the details of each of those incidents, but it is quite possible that a number of those incidents reported on social media may well have encompassed elements that were criminal in what was done. However, as a non-lawyer, I am cautious about saying that with any certainty, without knowing the details of the cases. Again, in those cases where there was an element of criminality, those individuals would be encompassed under the provisions for support under the victims code and in the legislation.

As Dame Vera alluded to, a significant number of individuals who have been harmed by antisocial behaviour are already defined as victims under the Bill. The definition as drafted covers a huge range of antisocial behaviour: where the behaviour itself is a criminal offence, such as criminal damage; where the behaviours, when taken together, constitute a criminal offence, such as harassment; or where a civil order has been breached, thereby incurring criminal penalties. In essence, where the antisocial behaviour amounts to criminal conduct, victims harmed by that behaviour can already benefit from measures in the Bill.

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

I was going to intervene on the Minister earlier, when he kept saying that we should not put this in the Bill, to ask, “Why?” If it is already included, why not write the words down?

[Edward Argar]

First, we do not need to do this in the Bill—the points that the hon. Lady makes are essentially two sides of the same coin. I will turn to this in more detail, but we are seeking to be permissive in the breadth of the definition, rather than prescriptive by naming individual groups. Again, that risks causing the effect that she does not want: if we name A, B and C, does that create a hierarchy, and if we miss out D—as this place occasionally does—are we suddenly excluding something unintentionally? We have sought, by criminal conduct and victims of crime, to include as broad a definition as possible. A vast majority of individuals who are sadly victims of antisocial behaviour will be effectively victims of a crime.

The challenge, which I am happy to work with Members on both sides of the House on, is how we can ensure that we address Dame Vera’s key point—in my view, we would not do this on the face of the Bill—which is who decides and how we empower individuals to say, “Police may not have proceeded with it, but I know this is a criminal offence, so I wish to access these services and have a right to do so.” We need to address that key point. I am not sure if that is best done through legislation, but I am happy to work across the House to address that issue.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Jess Phillips and Edward Argar

Report stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I was not expecting to be called, Madam Deputy Speaker, but here we are. I want to tell a little story about my dad. My dad often rings me and tells me the things I should say in Parliament—I am not entirely sure any of you are quite ready for it, but I want to tell a story about my dad. He was born in the war, and they were given a council house by the Attlee Government—my dad could lecture us on it for weeks! He was given a council house, which his very Conservative parents bought in the 1980s. My granny, unbelievably—a lovely, generous woman—was a massive Thatcherite. She bought her council house in the 1980s, and that council house stands in my constituency. It is worth around £120,000.

My dad went on to get an education—a free education—and he moved into an area of Birmingham that was not very trendy at the time. He stayed there, I was born there, and my brothers lived there. All through our lives we watched that area get a little bit trendier, and the price of my dad’s house, which he bought for £30,000, went up and up and up. He didn’t particularly do much work—he likes to woodwork in his garage, but he has not done much. His house is probably worth around £700,000 now, and it was £30,000 when he bought it.

If my dad were here today, what he would say to hon. Members, and what he will almost certainly say to me, because he watches it all, lurking on Twitter, is that he does not deserve to keep his wealth for his children at any greater rate than the people who live in the council house that his parents bought on Frodesley Road in Sheldon. Yet today, the people who live in my constituency and the council house that my granny bought, to try to get a better life, will subsidise the care of my father, who has a £700,000 house that I do not need to inherit. I’m all right. I’ve got quite a good job. It is totally unacceptable that that is the situation we are putting almost all my constituents in, compared with constituents in Chipping Norton, for example, or the constituents of other hon. Members who have stood up and spoken. My constituents will largely be left with nothing. They will not be grateful.

[Edward Argar]

I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will try to cover some of the main themes that have emerged from today’s debate. I am grateful for the debate we have had today. The vast majority of what is contained in the Bill is exactly what the NHS said that it wanted and needed, and it is the right legislation being brought forward at the right time, to drive forward those priorities highlighted by the NHS in its 2019 consultation. The Bill drives forward integration not only within the local NHS within a region, but also greater integration with a local authority. It provides the foundations on which we can continue to build, as we move forward with greater integration of health and social care services that are designed to work around the individual, rather than in institutional silos.

Despite misleading claims by campaigners—and, indeed, by some Opposition Members—the Bill does not privatise the NHS. The NHS will always be free at the point of delivery. It has been in the hands of the Conservative party longer than it has been in the hands of any other party, and the Conservative party has put in place record investment in terms of resources in our NHS. What we propose in the Bill continues to build on that. Government Amendment 25 on ICBs is clear: ICBs are NHS bodies. They have always been NHS bodies in our proposals, and we have put in place provisions regarding conflicts of interest. Just to make sure, and given the misleading claims about private involvement, new clause 25 puts beyond doubt that ICBs are NHS bodies and must act in the best interests of the NHS. It is an amendment that is much stronger and much more effectively drafted than the alternatives put forward by the Opposition, because we believe in putting this question beyond doubt.

On the ICBs and ICPs, we have sought to be permissive rather than prescriptive, giving those local systems, within a national framework, the flexibility to deliver what they need to deliver for their local areas, which they know best.

I have been happy to accept amendments 102 and 114. I will continue to reflect on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker); in the nicest possible way, I suspect that—rightly—he will not go away. The former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), set out very clearly the case for his amendment 114, which I was happy to accept, and the importance it places on patient safety.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) has done a huge amount of work in this space—I pay tribute to her—and she is right: we will look very carefully in the statutory guidance at how we can emphasise that. I fear that my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) was not in her seat when I paid tribute to the work that she had done previously, but I put that on the record too.

On new clause 49, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), a distinguished former Care Minister, made the point extremely well that this is a significant improvement and step forward on where we currently are in respect of tackling the social care challenge.