Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 1
Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]]

I have looked at what this rushed and punitive Bill will do for Wales, and I have found it wanting. It will infringe our right to protest, worsen inequality and lead to a yet more unjust society. This Government are not interested in seriously tackling the underlying causes of crime. They would rather overlook the cycle of offending while clamping down on dissent. The Labour party’s U-turn from abject abstention to principled opposition within the space of one hour yesterday showed that its leaders also have scant regard for the consequences of the Bill.

The Government display yet again a wilful ignorance of devolution, and the Bill’s “designed by England, for England” approach will further aggravate the damage caused by the jagged edge of justice policy in Wales. It shows that Wales needs control over justice now more than ever, so that we can develop a holistic approach that interconnects with our health, education and social policies.

The Bill’s erosion of the right to protest is antithetical to Wales’s values. We have a proud history of protesting against injustice, from non-conformism to Chartism, the miners’ strike, Welsh language rights protests and the present-day independence movement marches. The right to make peaceful protest against iniquity is something that lies deep within our culture. The Bill will also entrench Wales’s status as a nation of incarceration. Wales has a higher imprisonment rate even than England, and one that disproportionately affects black people, who are imprisoned at six times the rate of white people in Wales. The Bill will criminalise more young people and increase the number of vulnerable women entering prison, yet still tolerate the circumstances in which women such as Wenjing Lin and Sarah Everard were killed, all the while doing nothing to address the structural problems of the justice system in Wales, faced with disproportionate cuts to court numbers and support services.

The current system is failing. We could do so much better in Wales if we had proper control over policing and criminal justice. We could deliver a more humane justice system—one that enables equality, dignity and social justice, and that would allow us to tackle the root causes of crime, promote community support, tackle gender-based violence, root out structural racism, give victims a fair voice and protect our communities by prioritising the complex task of rehabilitation over the tabloid policing Acts of punishment—and a fair and just Wales for all. This is the nation we can be not if, but when we give ourselves the chance.

Policing and Prevention of Violence against Women

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks—his point was well made. I, too, have been written to by many police officers expressing very similar sentiments from their own experiences. The point about not pre-judging is absolutely right. The police have operational independence. Obviously, as Home Secretary, I called for a report. I have now received that report, and an independent review is under way. It is right that we have that review, yes, for assurance purposes, but also to strengthen public confidence in policing and, obviously, for all Members of this House to hear the full facts of what happened in due course.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]]

I take this opportunity to extend my personal sympathy to the family and friends of Sarah Everard at this horrific time.

In June 2020, I proposed a domestic abuse register for the early identification of abusive men as a means of preventing death and injury. The Minister for Safeguarding rejected that, claiming that current systems for preventing violence against women were adequate. The National Police Chiefs’ Council also objected, on the grounds of cost and its capacity to manage such a register.

I sense that the Government now recognise that the current system is failing women and that a properly funded, staffed and supported register for serial stalkers and domestic violence perpetrators is urgently needed. How will the Home Secretary ensure that such new proposals and funding properly account for the different legislative landscape in Wales, so that women in Wales are not excluded from future protections, which I hope are on their way?

[Priti Patel]

I think this is an important moment for this House and for all colleagues when it comes to Domestic Abuse Bill measures, which have been extensively debated in the House. The right hon. Lady has clearly spoken about Wales and the authority and responsibilities there. We are absolutely working across the devolved Administrations, because we want consistency of approach.

It is right that we all work together to support women, and the Domestic Abuse Bill will absolutely do that. My hon. Friend the Minister for Safeguarding has worked extensively with all colleagues in the House on the issue that the right hon. Lady raises, but the fact of the matter is that we want that Bill to receive Royal Assent. It should do so very soon. We need that to happen to safeguard more and more women and give them the protection that they desperately need from their abusers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The scheme has only just been launched. I reassure the hon. Lady that we are working with all sorts of civil society organisations, and I have spent a lot of time in dialogues and roundtables with a range of representatives. Therefore, having just launched the scheme, which is a bespoke humanitarian route created for BNOs, we are absolutely looking at how we can ensure that the route works well. We are also engaging with non-governmental organisations and civil society to ensure that we do not miss people.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]]

Given that planning permission for the asylum seekers temporary accommodation at Penally in Pembrokeshire is due to run out at the end of March, can the Home Secretary confirm that the local community will this time be fully consulted on the camp’s future and that all new transfers to the site will cease in the intervening period?

[Priti Patel]

If I may, this is an important point that the Minister responsible for immigration compliance and the courts, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), touched on. I am so disappointed to hear that colleagues across the House are not supportive of asylum accommodation, when many local authorities fail to co-operate with the Home Office to identify sites in their constituency. Quite frankly, the hypocrisy of basically saying, “We don’t want asylum seekers here, send them elsewhere.” is simply not acceptable. We consult with everybody—I can assure the right hon. Lady—

UK Border: Covid Protections

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know that in Britain post Brexit we are clear in terms of the powers and decisions that we are able to undertake. That is, of course, effectively what the Government are now doing, and my hon. Friend has highlighted some clear areas where that change has now happened.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]]

The first covid case in Wales was recorded on 28 February last year, yet almost a year later the UK Government remain reluctant to follow the science wholeheartedly in relation to the health risks implicit in international travel. While today’s answer is insufficient, the Government’s measures will also be difficult to sustain in the long term. Given that health is devolved, what plans are in place for the UK Government and the Welsh Government to work together on a long-term plan to ensure that international travel is not again a threat to public health?

[Priti Patel]

If I may I will take the right hon. Lady back to January last year. She just mentioned travel measures, but travel measures were brought in in January last year. I am not going to run through again the various measures that have been undertaken. If I may say so, when it comes to the devolved nations, there is support and work in place, and calls take place on a near daily basis. It is absolutely right that we take a united approach to dealing with measures and restrictions, but also to tackling coronavirus. I absolutely urge Ministers across the four nations: if they have any particular issues in respect of joining up, speaking with one voice and being much more united, the Government’s door is well and truly open because that is exactly what we have been trying to do over the past 12 months.

Serious Criminal Cases Backlog

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I have such a choice to choose from! Yes, I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the legal profession and the judiciary for the work they have done in these difficult circumstances. To answer the question that his colleagues have put via him, we are opening up Nightingale courts. A total of 19 are open, with 36 additional courtrooms. We have already rolled out the cloud video platform to ensure that hearings can be done remotely, and we are ensuring that Crown court sitting days are not a limitation in this financial year, so we are doing everything we can to open up capacity in the criminal justice system. We are also considering whether we can extend operating hours, and I would be interested to hear my hon. Friend’s views on that, perhaps after today’s question. We are leaving no stone unturned to ensure that our capacity is increased.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]]

North-west Wales’s only justice centre, in Caernarfon, is equipped with small cells, consultation rooms without protective screens, and insufficient space for jurors in one of its two Crown courts. There has recently been a sharp rise in covid cases in the area, and those conditions pose a significant risk to everyone attending court. The chronic underfunding of courts and the covid-induced backlog of cases are combining to create a crisis of justice. Will the Minister therefore commit to developing a recovery strategy for courts in Wales, once the vaccine has significantly reduced the risk to staff and users?

Immigration Rules: Supported Accommodation

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend is right: the measures in this set of rules are only a first step. The asylum and immigration system has far more systematic and fundamental problems that cause it, unfortunately, to be abused on many occasions. We need to have fundamental legislative change and, as I said in oral questions just a few days ago, we intend to legislate in the first half of next year to make sure that the legal system is tightened up, so that it cannot be abused and we have a system that is fair to those who need protection, but firm on those trying to abuse it.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I, too, would like to thank the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for securing the urgent question. The treatment of asylum seekers already in the care of the Home Office is immensely significant and the Government’s shocking treatment of asylum seekers in Penally camp in Pembrokeshire contrasts with the heart-warming response of local groups who support them as they arrive in the community. Winter is upon us and it remains unclear whether the camp was ever used by the Ministry of Defence during the winter months in the past. The camp is located in a remote rural location, raising questions of whether the Home Office can provide duty of care services effectively. Given those questions, will the Minister commit to set a date for an inspection of the camp by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration?

[Chris Philp]

It is not for me to tell the chief inspector how to conduct his inspections and his affairs, but I would say that Penally has been set up in a thoughtful and careful way. We have had to use such emergency accommodation because during coronavirus the number of people we are accommodating has gone up very dramatically, from 48,000 to about 60,000, as the cessations or move-ons we would ordinarily do have been substantially reduced. In the case of negative cessations, they are currently paused entirely across the whole United Kingdom. So that is the reason why it is organised as it is. As I said earlier, if Members, and in particular local authorities and devolved Administrations, want to see the use of hotels and places such as Penally reduced, supporting the Home Office in procuring more dispersed accommodation is the way to do that.

Probate Registry Service

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Probate Registry Service.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies; I think it is the first time I have done so. I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate on the effectiveness of the Probate Registry. I put on record my declaration of interest, in that I am a practising solicitor and I am familiar with this area of practice.

This debate may appear rather niche—a minority interest in many respects—but probate and the administration of estates affect thousands of individuals and families up and down the country every year. This is not just something that is of interest to people such as myself, lawyers and accountants; as I say, it is of interest to families. We should also remember that there are around 500,000 deaths every year. I accept that not all estates will go to probate, but many of those 500,000 do, and therefore an awful lot of individuals and families get involved in the probate process and the administration of estates, whether directly themselves or through professionals such as lawyers and accountants.

There has been, I think, a degree of frustration and anger over the process in the last couple of years, and I am fortunate that I am in a position to bring this issue to a debate. I have been a solicitor for 30 years. For 28 of those years, I found the Probate Registry to be an excellent service. That is why today, in many respects, is such a great disappointment to me and why this is a debate that I would prefer not to be having.

Over those 28 years, the Probate Registry was always an efficient service. Probates were returned in a timely manner, consistent with the application timescale, and often within two to three weeks. Just as importantly, as practising lawyers, we had confidence that that would be the case—that the probates would be delivered in that timescale and therefore that we would be in a position to advise clients accordingly. If there was a problem, we always knew that it would be dealt with in a suitable timescale. If people had queries, the responses to those queries would always be dealt with constructively and efficiently by very helpful staff. Phone calls were answered and always in a reasonable timescale.

I would like today to give great praise to the Newcastle upon Tyne district probate registry, which has provided an excellent service to my firm and many others in the north of England over many years. I suspect that if other professionals were standing here today, they would cite similar experiences with other district probate registries up and down the country.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I have had contacts from solicitors in my constituency and I think it is important to illustrate how the current situation affects families. One family I heard of made an application in June, but probate was not received until late September—a wait of almost four months. During that time, they were required to spend £30,000 on repairs in relation to the deceased’s estate, and of course that was at a time when they did not have the funds to be able to afford that. That is not an isolated case. What I have been told by solicitors in my constituency is that when they made applications directly to Cardiff probate registry, they found that far more effective; they were very satisfied with that service. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that an unsatisfactory service is not good enough and needs to be addressed.

[John Stevenson]

I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s intervention. I agree with what she said and will come to the point that she was making about the sale of properties and how it is very important to get probate. It is interesting that she has heard from her local professionals and constituents about this very issue, which does affect a lot of families up and down the country and certainly in her constituency.

To go back to my point about the experience that I had in those 28 years, I would have rated the probate service overall as first class—something that a public service organisation should be proud of. Sadly, that is not the case now. I say to the Minister that unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, you are the fourth Minister with responsibility for this service whom I have been dealing with in a little over two years. I am sure Members would agree that we could have a debate just about the movement, the appointment, of Ministers and the timescales for which they are in office. That does not allow them always to get control or get on top of the issues that there are.

I have therefore experienced frustration on this matter over the last two years. I do appreciate that this Minister has inherited these issues, but at the end of the day it is still his responsibility to try to resolve them and improve the service. Sadly, two of his predecessors, in my view, did not really want to know, had not really grasped the issue and in many respects may not have been that interested. One at least had the honesty to confirm that there were problems and that he and the Department were trying to resolve them—I emphasise that that was pre-covid. At that time, I was aware that pressure was being applied by the Minister to try to improve the service and remove the backlog of applications. Sadly, that has not been achieved, and I emphasise that covid is not and should not be in any way an excuse, as the problems predate covid-19.

I can give real examples of what I am talking about. A member of staff can spend 40 to 50 minutes on the telephone waiting for a response to a query—I emphasise “40 to 50 minutes”. Even when an issue is raised, it is quite often not dealt with as quickly as it should be. As for updates, I will read directly from the response that we get on the website from the Probate Registry:

“Due to COVID-19, we are currently experiencing an increased demand on our service.”

I emphasise that actually it was pre-covid-19 that this was happening. The response continues:

“We will take longer to answer your call and to respond to your e-mail. Unfortunately, we cannot provide updates on case progression over the phone, e-mail and webchat.”

That is such a transformation from what used to happen, when people could do such things. For any service, one would expect to have the ability to get an update on the progression of one’s case.

Another example concerns an actual application for probate, which was submitted on 22 June. Probate was finally issued only on 10 September. That is 12 weeks later. In relation to another two applications, one submitted on 16 June and one on 29 June, probate was received only at the end of October. That is 17 weeks later. I repeat that it was 17 weeks—over four months—before probate was granted.

As for the quality of probate, errors are now creeping in in a way that would have been unimaginable previously. For example, a probate came back with the solicitor as the executor, rather than the person who should have been named on the probate. I accept that mistakes happen, but traditionally, people always received a perfect probate from the probate registry. That can cause serious problems, because people then have to go back and get the probate changed, which takes forever. Overall, we are experiencing a poor level of service compared with previously. If there was an alternative service, I am sure everyone would be using it by now. Sadly, we are not in that position; we have a monopoly service.

Such experiences are real. I am aware that other law firms are having similar experiences, as indeed are individuals. The obvious question is why there has been such a deterioration. The Government must take some responsibility for it. In their wisdom, they wanted to put up the charges for probate applications by a significant margin without giving it serious and sensible thought. In many respects, it was seen by many people as a tax rather than a payment for a service, because it was aligned to the size of the estate rather than the service that was being provided. Not surprisingly, that created a surge in applications, and not unexpectedly, the service was unable to respond adequately. Of course, the Government then realised that the increase in charges was inappropriate and did not proceed with it. They created a problem unnecessarily; they could easily have continued with the service as it was.

There was then rationalisation, which was an attempt to streamline the service by centralising it. It could be argued that that was a sensible use of resources, but clearly it has not worked out. As I have already mentioned, the performance of the district probate registries has been very effective in the past. We are now centralising the service, but it is not necessarily bringing about an improvement.

Finally, we have digitalisation. Again, there is not necessarily anything wrong with that, but does it actually improve the service? The Minister has written to me suggesting that there has been an improvement, which is true to a certain extent: it has improved the service from a poor position to a better one, but it is still not as good as it once was. From 2 November, the Government made it compulsory for professionals to use the digital service. The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners suggested that the roll-out of digital aspects should be delayed, but that advice was ignored. Yesterday, my law firm found that the portal did not work—I could not make that evidence up. The Government should have taken the advice of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners.

There are consequences to all this, such as family distress, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) mentioned. The administration of an estate can be a stressful and difficult time for families, especially when they have just lost loved ones. Gaining access to funds quickly is important, as not all families have money readily available, and they may need the probate to gain access to those funds. Then of course there is the sale of property and other assets, which can be lost or delayed. The sale or purchase of a property, as everybody knows, is already a very stressful experience. It may not be front-page news, but we must remember that this affects thousands of people and their families up and down the country in a real and meaningful way.

As I said, I have raised the matter with the Minister’s predecessors, and I wrote to the Minister on 23 September. I received a letter from his Department dated 27 October, which came by email on 5 November—nine days later. I suggest that he has a word with his Department about how to communicate with a Member of Parliament in a timely fashion. What is happening in the probate registry may be happening in the Minister’s Department as well.

In the letter, the Minister acknowledges that the service has a problem. He mentions that the timescale for digital cases has improved to between two and five weeks on average, which I accept is an improvement. I point out, however, that in the past paper applications were dealt more quickly. I am encouraged by his indication that additional resources are being allocated to reduce the backlog, but why was that not done a year and a half or two years ago? We were aware that there was an issue at that time. The Minister mentions the centralisation of the system, but to a certain extent I question the wisdom of that. I have also asked written questions.

The evidence is this: in 2018, it took an average of three weeks for a probate to be granted; it is now seven to eight weeks. In 2018, the probate registry had 156 staff; it now has 215. In 2018, the cost of the service was £5.7 million; it is now £7.5 million. Will the Minister explain how a service that now employs more people and costs more is delivering a poorer service? Will he explain how introducing new technology, which is meant to improve the service, has resulted in probates being issued in seven-plus weeks, rather than about three weeks under the old system? Does the Minister agree that that poor level of service is having an adverse effect on many individuals and families up and down the country, and that that is unacceptable?

Does the Minister accept that this is not a political issue—far from it—but an administrative issue, and that it is therefore incumbent on the Government to ensure that the service is provided properly for the people of this country? Will he confirm that he will seek the opinion of service users, either individuals or professionals, to get their views on the service and what improvements and changes can be made? Will he let the House know how he and his Department intend to improve the performance of the probate registry, and will he let Members know what he has done and what the expected improvements and the timescale are?

I was going to ask the Minister to take the Rory Stewart route—when he was Prisons Minister he made a commitment that if the service had not improved in the next 12 months, he would resign his office—but I think that would be grossly unfair to the Minister, because I appreciate that he has not been in office long. However, I ask him to make a commitment to the House that he will seek to improve the service significantly and quickly, because it affects an far more people up and down the country than we may think.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

It is, as always, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) for securing this debate on a topic that is extremely important for all the reasons that he has eloquently laid out. When families suffer bereavement, they expect the state to support them and act quickly as a matter of compassion. It is also a matter of practicality: as my hon. Friend said, there are often property matters that need to be dealt with quickly, and delays with probate make them more difficult.

I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend because, as he says, he has three decades’ experience of working in this area. Parliament is at its best when Members who have relevant direct experience—particularly current experience, as in his case—bring it to the House for the benefit of other Members and the whole country. I am grateful to him for bringing his experience to the House.

It is fair to say, as my hon. Friend laid out, that over the past two years there has been a significant change in the probate service, and there have been significant challenges and problems. This goes back to 2019, when two things happened that somewhat upset the probate applecart. The first was the very substantial fee increase, which was proposed and subsequently withdrawn. It caused a very substantial increase in the number of probate applications—I think they went up by 50%—as people tried to get them in quickly ahead of what they feared would be a very large fee increase. A year ago, the Government made it clear that that very large increase was not going to happen. None the less, it had a destabilising effect on the system when it was initially announced. Secondly, a new computer system was introduced a year and a half ago, and as is often the case, there were teething problems with it that led, particularly in 2019, to some very significant delays, which my hon. Friend referred to.

By the beginning of 2020, before the onset of the coronavirus, we had begun to recover and were offering better service. For example, in January and February this year, 44,113 grants were made, which was back to the 2018 level, before the various problems that I just described. Come January and February this year, we had got the probate system back to where it was before. Clearly, the coronavirus pandemic then struck and that disrupted operations, particularly in March, April and May. By July and August, we had got the output of the probate service back up—for example, in July, the average number of grants made each week, which is the key number we look at, was 5,400, which was around 9% above the five-year average. In August, we got it up to 5,700 a week, so we had gone up a little again to about 16% above the long-term five-year average. By the summer, therefore, the number of probate grants being issued had gone back up above the long-term average, which is an important milestone to reach. Consequently, waiting times have been getting better—not as good as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle or I would like, but they have got better.

For digital cases, the average waiting time was generally between two and five weeks and for paper applications it was between five and seven weeks. Paper applications take longer because they are harder to handle with social distancing. Solicitors must now make applications online, but I strongly urge individuals making their own probate applications to use the online service because it is much faster—a two-to-five-week turnaround time—and it is less error-prone, both by the user and by the probate service on handling the application, because everybody is using a common format and typing in material directly to the system. I strongly urge people to use the online system.

I have heard some examples of much longer waiting times than two to five weeks for digital or five to seven weeks for paper, and I am happy to look into the specifics of those cases if the hon. Member would like me to. I get a number of probate delay cases coming up in correspondence from constituency MPs. In more than half of the cases, where there are long lead times of 10 or 12 weeks, often there has been a mistake in making the application in the first place, or there is an outstanding tax matter from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or something like that. Using the digital system reduces those errors, so I repeat my previous plea to use that where possible.

In the last year or two, the system has been in transition to the new computer system and the new service centres that are supposed to provide a centre of excellence where things can be processed more quickly and efficiently. We are midway through that transition. Those have been established, but there is still some activity going on in the local registries, and the process of completing the transition has been effectively paused due to the pandemic. My hon. Friend asked about resources and observed that the number of people employed in the probate service has gone up from 156 at the end of 2018 to 215 in March this year, and the amount of money being spent has gone up from £5.7 million to £7.5 million. He asked, quite reasonably, why there are issues if extra money is being spent. The answer is that it is still a service in transition. My objective is to get through that transition as quickly as possible, first, to realise the savings that were originally promised but have not yet been realised because the transition has not been completed, and secondly, to deliver the faster and better service that was promised at the outset. I think we can all agree with those aims.

My hon. Friend asked for a commitment from me to work tirelessly to make the necessary improvements, and I am happy to give that categorical commitment this morning. I am grateful to him for not pressing me to make the Rory Stewart kamikaze pledge, but I do commit to doing everything possible to make the improvements. In that spirit, I was going to suggest, before my hon. Friend called the debate, that we meet officials to go through some of the points that he has raised and the work currently going on in the service. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) has a similar professional interest in this area, as an accountant, so I suggest that he join us to go through the issues in a little more detail. I would like to hear from Members with particular professional expertise, to make sure that I as the Minister, and the Ministry of Justice more generally, learn from the observations and experience of Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

One concern that has been raised with me relates to Welsh language wills. Will the Minister assure me that the new provision will be able to deal appropriately, according to the Welsh Language Act 1993, with people’s right to present wills in the medium of Welsh, and that that will be dealt with effectively?

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 5th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Yes, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. With his experience as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he knows the importance of these national security issues in the context of Northern Ireland. He is right, and this point about safeguards and oversight is precisely what I was about to come on to. It is about the rigorous and careful way in which the agencies operate and the focus that they attach to this, as shown in the response the commissioner provided in his 2018 report and equally by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal when it reflected on this.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Brokenshire]

I will give way, but this is probably the last time as I am conscious of time and of getting others in.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

In the 2018 report by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, one of the issues that raised concern was the sheer prevalence of human error. We are rolling this out to further Departments. Surely, we are also rolling out the potential for further human error.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Lady makes an important point about training and about ensuring that the high standards necessary here are applied. I would say to her that, equally, such focus needs to be applied to those who operate this regime in order to get this right because of the potential criminality that sits alongside it. There are obligations to report errors to the commissioner, and equally the commissioner will report on those too. Rigorous standards are necessary to ensure that criminal conduct authorisations are made appropriately and well, and the way in which that operates now and will operate for all agencies—whether the Security Service, policing or some of the other agencies—is subject to that clear oversight, and the Bill draws that out and makes it explicit.

As I have said, it is important to state that, in view of the restrictions on what can be disclosed publicly, the Government also recognise the importance of robust independent oversight. The authorisation of CHIS participation in criminal conduct is and will continue to be subject to this robust oversight of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The IPC—

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes).

I approach the Bill, as I am sure we all do, knowing that what is at stake is trust in our legal system and public consent for those agencies that we empower to protect us all. Given the provisions enabling criminality, sufficient scrutiny is therefore vital. It is right that the Government have sought to remedy the previous murky arrangements and bring clarity through legislation, but the Bill needs to be beyond reproach when it is enacted.

As hon. Members have already identified, the Bill with its ambiguity and its powers gives a legal power to individuals to commit crimes. That is rightly alarming to the public. The phrase

“authorised conduct is rendered ‘lawful for all purposes’”

on page 3 of the explanatory notes must be questioned and clarified. It is not sufficient to state that all public bodies are bound by the Human Rights Act to comply with the European convention on human rights; it must be set out in the Bill, for the sake of public confidence, that the very worst acts of violence, including sexual violence, torture and murder are not permissible. The Bill is looked at by all people, not just those to whom it applies. Confidence in our Government and in our institutions is significant.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree that explaining the Bill to the public is very difficult. We therefore need to have the safeguards that the right hon. Lady talks about, but the example that she just gave would not get through the authorisation stage, which is overseen by the commissioner at the moment. Does she think that there is another way of doing it, without having a long list of crimes and of what can and cannot be done?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

That is a very fair point, which we have discussed to a considerable degree. None the less, there is a public revulsion at the prospect of sexual violence, murder and crimes of that nature, which warrant being mentioned in the Bill for that very reason.

Equally profound and disturbing at first appearance is the power to grant authorisations, which will be given to organisations to decide for themselves internally, without judicial oversight and with limited redress for victims. It is quite extraordinary that there is no provision for how innocent victims of authorised criminal conduct might be compensated, which is surely to be expected in the Bill. I also believe—this point has already been well expressed, but I want to add my voice to it—that trade unions have legitimate concerns, given that covert surveillance has been undertaken in the past against entirely legitimate trade union activity in conjunction with criminal blacklisting.

While quick to quote the book of human rights, the Government have failed to quote chapter and verse of what is permissible and what is beyond the pale. Would the use of sensory overload or stress positions by agents constitute torture and be a violation of human rights? Would they then be criminally culpable? What guarantee can the Minister give that a future UK Government, or even this one, might not seek to legislate for derogations from the European convention on human rights? Given the horizon-spanning nature of the criminal conduct covered by the Bill, where is the threshold for authorising acts, such as phone tapping, that rightly concern the public? What does “proportionate” actually mean? If we do not define it, who does? By what algorithm do we assess the range of proportionality? Where is the shift and the mission creep there?

The Government have also empowered a range of organisations with this new authorisation of criminality, from the Environment Agency to England’s Department of Health and Social Care, but how do the Government intend to prevent creep by Government Departments and the erosion of law? What safeguards will the Government put in place within those Departments? Does the Investigatory Powers Commissioner have sufficient measures and capacity to deal in a timely fashion with the incremental increase in his workload?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the right hon. Member agree that it is all well and good having oversight after the effect, but there is a real danger that the authority providing authorisation before the effect is the same authority that is doing the investigation? We all have systems of tunnel vision when we are in the middle of something and are unable to see the wider aspect, and independence at the pre-authorisation stage is really important.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Professional intent, although very laudable in certain circumstances, in this instance could well lead to unpredicted circumstances, and possibly most undesirable ones.

The Bill at present is ill defined and explained, with a focus trained on selected specific issues, and it risks undermining the trust upon which the public agencies tasked with our defence depends. Many, including the Front Benchers of Her Majesty’s Opposition, have said that that will be discussed on Report and in Committee. It is very important, and will evidently be significant when we are able to table amendments and discuss the Bill in detail. However, consideration is down for Thursday week. There will be a Thursday afternoon for Committee and all remaining stages. That is insufficient for the level of scrutiny that a Bill of this seriousness warrants. I beg the Government to consider whether, in all honesty, that is the impression that they wish to leave on the international stage, on which we hope to lead in the rules-based dimension in the future.

Channel Crossings in Small Boats

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The hotel situation that my hon. Friend describes is a very short-term, temporary measure that was a response to the coronavirus epidemic. It is certainly not intended to be permanent, and we are in the process of making arrangements to unwind it as quickly as possible. On the asylum system and the legal loopholes, as I said, we are actively exploring legislative options to ensure that our system is tightened up and cannot be abused.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

This Government are militarising the humanitarian crisis, made worse by past military interventions in countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. The inconvenient truth, of course, is that Britain has long played the role of agitator, making worse global crises that destabilise regions and displace people. Wales has committed to becoming a nation of sanctuary. What will the Minister’s Department do to enable that, or is sanctuary not part of the Government’s vocabulary at present?

[Chris Philp]

Some of the largest source countries include Iran, Eritrea and Sudan—countries in which the United Kingdom has had no previous military engagement. On the question about being a nation of sanctuary, I have already pointed out that last year we made 20,000 grants of asylum and other forms of protection. We have resettled just a shade under 20,000 people under the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, and many more under the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme and the gateway scheme, and we have done the full number that we committed to under the Dubs amendment. That is clear evidence of this country’s commitment to compassion and to giving refuge. At the same time, we will police our borders.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 6th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that we just do not know what the picture is. If we were to do away temporarily with the “no recourse to public funds” condition, that would bring people forward, confident that they would not be penalised in any other way.

[Jess Phillips]

I absolutely agree. I agree not because it suits my purpose, but as someone with a vast amount of experience of handling cases of victims with no recourse to public funds, both as a support worker and as a Member of Parliament. My heart sinks when somebody tells me that they have no recourse, when I know there is very little I can do. That is when they come to me—someone who knows the different possible pilots that are happening. With the greatest respect to Members in this House, does everybody know how they would go about accessing exactly what was needed? Now think of Sue, who is at your local homelessness centre. The reality is that we will never know how many get turned away—that data will never be available—but by dropping “no recourse”, we can find out if it works.

As legislators, if we know something is a problem, we have a responsibility to address it. Our ideology should always be trumped by facts. I understand that often making law is complicated—seeing the consequences of this or the repercussions of that, the risks, benefits, checks and balances—but I think the Bill before us is quite simple. Today, we are making a law that tries to save people from domestic abuse.

New clause 25 would insert a non-discrimination clause to ensure that all are protected. If we stand here today and create a Bill that, not unintentionally or accidentally, but purposefully and wilfully excludes some from safety, we say that those people do not matter. We say that their life is not as important to us. In the votes today, we will be deciding whose lives are worth trying to save and how serious we are about trying to save them. Our new clause seeks to meet the Government in the middle. It is certainly not, as the Minister knows from the many amendments I tabled in Committee, necessarily what I always wanted, but it is an attempt to meet the Government in the middle. I simply ask that they walk toward us.

New clause 23 would expand an area where the Bill is very good—the duty on local authorities to provide accommodation-based services. This part of the Bill was hard won, and I will be thrilled to see it on the statute book, as it has the potential to put refuge services finally on a sustainable footing. However, 70% of domestic abuse victims do not receive services in refuge; instead, they are supported in community-based services. The victims in those services are often at highest risk of harm and homicide, and we want the same level of sustainability and strategy there as in refuge services.

I spoke last week to a brilliant community worker in Merseyside, who told me that their service, which has only four support workers, is currently supporting 776 complex domestic abuse cases. She had yet to receive any money from the announced covid-19 schemes, which would only last until October anyway. She told me how the easing of lockdown and the good and right national conversation about domestic abuse was massively increasing the numbers and the complexity of their caseload.

Our clause would place a duty on all relevant public bodies, not just local authorities, to do their part in commissioning domestic abuse services in the community. Every single health commissioner should have a duty to look at what domestic abuse services they can provide. Instead, as it stands, some A&E departments, such as those at the hospitals in Birmingham, have specialist domestic abuse workers on site, but the vast majority do not.  If public bodies are working with people, they are working with victims of domestic abuse. All should do their part.

The new clause would also ensure consideration for specialist groups catering for child victims, disabled victims, those working with perpetrators of abuse, LGBT victims, male victims and older victims, as well as services run by and for black and minority ethnic women, so that they have proper strategies in place to protect them. Groups such as Sistah Space in Hackney, which offers specialist services for black women, and Stay Safe East, which is one of only a tiny number of specialist disabled victims’ services, live hand to mouth, never knowing how sustainable their services might be. They rely on crowdfunding and fun runs to fund life-saving services.

I remember what it was like working in those services, drafting letters every January to put community-based staff on notice because we did not know, for example, whether our project catering for child victims or stalking victims would be funded after April. That is the reality for the vast majority of community services. The Bill recognises that refuge needs to be put on a sustainable footing. Bravo! It is absolutely brilliant. I think I said to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) that I might retire when that happened, but I will renege on that—sometimes even I do not tell the truth.

We must give the same attention to vital life-saving community services, which support the vast majority of victims in this country. One-hundred-and-twenty specialist community-based support services from all across our country wrote to the Government, and to all of us, to say:

“Our services have remained open during COVID-19—our staff have moved heaven and earth to make that so—ensuring we don’t let victims of abuse down. Now we look to you”—

the Government—

“to continue that commitment by pledging to recognise the huge contribution of community-based services in the Domestic Abuse Bill.”

Our new clause would do that.

In new clause 24, we seek, once and for all, to take decisive action to protect the lives of children who live with domestic abuse and have their cases heard in the family court. Between 2006 and 2019, at least 21 children were killed during contact with fathers who were perpetrators of domestic abuse. The Government’s report, released last week, states that many mothers explained how they fled the relationship with their father to protect their children, only to find that protection undermined or destroyed by the family court. The Opposition recognise that the Government, and especially the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), committed to a review of the pro-contact family court culture and how in some cases it endangers the lives and welfare of children. I have heard Ministers and Secretaries of State stand in the Chamber and cite the case of Claire Throssell, whose two sons, Jack and Paul, were murdered by their father after he was granted contact. We should not just say her name or think of her loss as some grisly exception when the Government’s own commissioned review shows that there is a systematic problem. We should act now to save lives and improve the safety of our country’s children while we have this Bill in front of us. At the very least, the Government should seek to ensure that their planned review is time-bound to conclude with the return of the Bill from the other place. If it is not, we could lose the legislative opportunity that is presented to us.

The argument to end the presumption of contact for proven violent perpetrators is, in my mind, made. There are already dead children—and I do not want to have to call for an urgent question to ask Ministers where we are with the review each time a new case of child homicide hits the media. I want us to act now, or at least to commit to a short timeframe of when and how the Government will act. I have no doubt that Ministers from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice understand the severity and importance of the issue and, like the Opposition, do not want to kick the safety of our children into the long grass.

Amendments 40 and 43 relate to the degree of independence afforded to the commissioner of domestic abuse. The Bill before us deviates from the precedent set for the Children’s Commissioner by requiring reports and advice to be submitted to the Home Office rather than Parliament. Our amendments would retain the statutory requirement for safeguarding considerations but remove the possibility of the Home Office interfering, putting on undue pressure, or, in reality, just delaying the commissioner’s work. Every commissioner who gave evidence to Parliament in consultation for the Bill supports this approach. We will not press these amendments to a vote today, but we are keen to see further debate on the commissioner once the Bill arrives at the other place.

We do not stand here today to fight a political battle. The Domestic Abuse Bill has all our fingerprints across its pages. Its very existence sends a message to the victims in this country that we can see them, and to the perpetrators, that we will not tolerate them. We tabled the amendments and new clauses because, as has been the case since the Bill’s inception many, many moons ago, we want it to be the best it can be and for it to ensure that, no matter who you are, where you come from, where you work or whether you need refuge or want support in your own home, here in this Great Britain, we want to help you, because that is the kind of country we are: one that leaves no victim behind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

I thank the hon. Lady; I am conscious that there are a lot of people. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle came to Kidderminster to meet with Natalie’s family. It was not a visit to tweet about afterwards, or to put out a press release; it was an incredibly private meeting with a grieving family to find out the effects of the appalling killing of poor Natalie Connolly. It was, frankly, an extraordinary afternoon, and I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for taking the trouble, and for all the work that she has done with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham. The Prime Minister has also been involved, and the Justice Secretary has worked incredibly hard.

In this House, we all know that it is an extraordinary privilege to be a Member of Parliament and to represent our constituents, but it is also an extraordinary privilege to be able to work with quite remarkable, extraordinary long-term parliamentarians. Working with the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham has been an experience the like of which I have rarely had. [Interruption.] It has been a privilege, not a peculiar experience. It has been truly remarkable to be able to work with somebody who has worked so hard for so many years standing up for women’s rights, and with some extraordinary achievements.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It is truly an honour to follow the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), given the work that he has done to prevent the rough sex defence, alongside the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). I welcome many of the Government’s new clauses and pay tribute to Members across the House who have worked constructively during the Bill Committee, and previously on the Joint Committee, to achieve that. Thanks to their efforts, the Bill now includes many landmark changes—frankly, too many for me to list in the time that I have. It is a pleasure for once to stand on this side of the House and welcome so many of them. I am sure that the whole House will join me in commending the outcome of what has been effective cross-party co-operation.

In that spirit, I urge the Government to take unequivocal action to guarantee that all victims of domestic abuse will be treated equally, and to afford them the same support and resources regardless of their immigration status. We were talking earlier about the evidence gap in relation to some victims, and how temporarily lifting the “no recourse to public funds rule” might provide the evidence required to address that gap, which seems to hamper the pilot project at present. How to find out exactly whom to target certainly seems to be an issue.

I add my voice to the call for further updates, especially on how the pilot scheme might achieve the ratification of the Istanbul convention, which I believe all Members present would very much welcome. I therefore urge the Government to support new clauses 22, 23, 26 and 27, which call for special attention to be paid to the exceptional circumstances migrant women face.

Amendment 46, in my name, would ensure that a representative for Wales would hold a seat on the commissioner’s advisory board to reflect the particular circumstances faced by women in Wales. Many of the services aimed at preventing and supporting people affected by domestic abuse are of course devolved, whether relating to healthcare, housing or social services. Specific Welsh legislation exists in the form of the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015. Much of the funding arrangements are already also devolved in Wales. With the role of the commissioner, it is important that the voice of victims of domestic abuse is heard. What I fear is that, as things stand, the voice of victims of domestic abuse in Wales will not be represented. It is important to remember that there are people who are at present experiencing the jagged edge of legislation, which will hold until Wales gains full legal jurisdiction. The designate domestic abuse commissioner has already done excellent work in co-operating with organisations in Wales—I commend Ms Jacobs for her hard work and her keen interest in the specific circumstances faced by Welsh women—but I beg the Minister to consider that the amendment would safeguard that relationship into the future, rather than being one on voluntary grounds.

Finally, my new clause 21 calls for the creation of a domestic abuse register to ensure that greater protection is provided for potential victims of domestic abuse from individuals who have a track record of abusive behaviour within a relationship and whose potential for repeat violent actions warrants proactive intervention. A domestic abuse register would provide the incentive for a shift in focus away from reacting to domestic abuse towards a preventative approach. We know that repeat offending by perpetrators with violent and controlling histories of abuse is common. Data provided by the Metropolitan police to the London Assembly as part of the Assembly’s domestic abuse report showed that in the year up to September 2019 there were 13,600 repeat victims of domestic abuse and that 21% of the cases discussed at the 2018 multi-agency risk assessment conference were repeat cases. One concern raised in Committee with regard to the domestic abuse register was the consequential increased bureaucratic burden it might place on police forces. Although I argue that cross-force technology offers opportunities, I respond in the spirit of compromise and urge the Government to support new clause 33, tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), as a way of improving the current situation, or even new clause 32.

We must take this opportunity to ensure that the Domestic Abuse Bill includes lifesaving measures to protect all victims of abuse. Recognising predictable perpetrator behaviour and addressing it is key to the Bill’s future success.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I want to speak, if I may, on new clause 28. I thought a consultant who wrote to me summed it up very well: “Of course, we recognise that the Bill is important in view of widespread psychological, physical and emotional sexual abuse of women.” That is a view we all share. However, new clause 28 relates to the enabling of access to abortions in abusive relationships and the effect of the new clause will be to lead the way to coercive abortions within the concept of abusive relationships.

The consultant continued: “From a clinical perspective, I cannot understand how there would be any confidence in detecting an abusive relationship on the basis of a telephone conversation or audio-visual interview. How can the clinician distinguish between a false claim of abuse in order for the women to access a home abortion and a genuinely abusive relationship in which the woman might well be coerced into having an abortion by a partner or other family members? As a consultant”—I stress that this is not my argument, but the consultant’s argument—“I would take any abusive relationship very seriously, as it may directly impact upon patient welfare and raise important safeguarding issues. Indeed, what would be the situation if the doctor believes in ‘good faith’ that a ‘home abortion’ is being forced on the woman as the result of an abusive relationship with the father? The presumption behind the new clause is that the woman wants an abortion, but is prevented from proceeding because of the abusive relationship. However, it is likely that in the context of an abusive relationship she is being forced to have the abortion by her partner. New clause 28 would enable access to such coercive or forced abortions in abusive relationships.” That is a very clear argument from a consultant working in the field about the dangers of new clause 28.