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.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Liz Saville Roberts.

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

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Dirprwy Lefarydd.

I rise to speak to new clause 11 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), and to support the amendments in the names of the right hon. Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald).

Immigrants have always played an integral part in the vitality of our communities, but we have been told, of course, that covid-19 changes everything. That prompts the question: does it change how we handle immigration as much as it does our approach to health and the economy? There has been some interesting mention of the value of the high-skilled jobs that we will expect from this immigration policy, but it is worth taking a step back and considering how things have changed under covid. I understand that 70% of people believe that the crisis has shown the key role of immigrants in running our essential services—the essential services that we have been clapping on the streets for many Thursdays; I think there is another clap here on Sunday—while 64% of people say that they now value so-called low-skilled overseas workers. We are now looking at who provides our services, and how, in a different way.

Surely what we have here is a hostile, inhumane immigration environment, and that is exactly what we should be questioning. Does such an immigration policy reflect the sort of society that we hope to be after covid-19? Plaid Cymru’s proposal in new clause 11 challenges how this Bill presents a radical change in UK immigration policy without allowing a thorough debate about the details of its replacement or the implications—although, as can be seen from the nature of the amendments, there is much concern about those implications. Before we legislate, we should have a proper comprehension of the following: the impact of discriminatory “no recourse to public funds” conditions; the impact of NHS charging; the merits of removing all fees for visas and citizenship applications; and the merits of devolving powers over immigration to our nations, recognising the different needs of the different nations.

Finally—crucially, in the current context—our new clause calls on the Government to investigate the possibility of granting citizenship to all health and social care workers who have given so much during this crisis. A former Government did the right thing and granted citizenship to the Gurkhas. Health and social care immigrant workers have been fighting heroically on two fronts. They have fought on our behalf against the virus; they are now facing having to fight a hostile environment in the Government’s immigration policy. The new clause would be a means to right that wrong; it would reflect the public mood, and I beg the Government to consider adopting it.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I support the Bill, which I believe will make our immigration system better, and fairer. Some hon. Members—today, and before today—have bemoaned the fact that the new points-based system will end freedom of movement. I heard the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) say so earlier this afternoon. In fact, there was no such thing as freedom of movement; the concept was an illusion, a chimera, apart from for those who were fortunate enough to live on the continent of Europe.

I benefited from the system—my wife is from Sweden, and for a while I lived and worked in Belgium—but it is a bad system, an outdated model, a discriminatory model, a system that works for Europeans but against the rest of the world. It is unfair. It discriminates against people who want to come here—people whom we want to welcome, people who help us build, run and support our country, who add value to our communities, contribute to our national debate and bring talent, expertise and drive, but who struggle to get entry purely because they are not from Europe. I am glad that we seek to replace that system today.

To those who are already here from Europe in this country, that have made it your home, that have raised families, invested, worked, lived and contributed to our society , we must repeat and repeat that they will always be welcome here.

Domestic Abuse Bill (Ninth sitting)

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 47, in clause 66, page 49, line 42, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State must issue separate statutory guidance on domestic abuse that also constitutes teenage relationship abuse and such guidance must address how to ensure there are—

(a) sufficient levels of local authority service provision for both victims and perpetrators of teenage relationship abuse,

(b) child safeguarding referral pathways for both victims and perpetrators of teenage relationship abuse.

(2B) The guidance in subsection (2A) must be published within three months of the Act receiving Royal Assent and must be reviewed bi-annually.

(2C) For the purposes of subsection (2A), teenage relationship abuse is defined as any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse, which can encompass, but is not limited to psychological, physical, sexual, economic and emotional abuse, including through the use of technology, between those aged 18 or under who are, or have been in a romantic relationships regardless of gender or sexual orientation.”

This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish separate statutory guidance on teenage relationship abuse. The statutory guidance would cover not just victims of teenage domestic abuse but extend to those who perpetrate abuse within their own teenage relationships.

This cross-party amendment addresses teenage relationship abuse. It would place a duty on the Secretary of State to issue separate statutory guidance on how to support teenagers who either experience or may display abusive behaviour in their relationships. To be clear, the amendment does not advocate lowering the age limit for domestic abuse or criminalising anyone. We have to acknowledge that domestic abuse is not like a driving licence or a coming of age, because we know that it does happen to people before they turn 16. The amendment acknowledges that teenage abuse is a reality, and calls for the production of separate statutory guidance and recognition that young people, whether victims or perpetrators, need special referral pathways and service provisions that are appropriate for them and for their age.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will greet the fact that this amendment would align English and Welsh legislation with safeguarding procedure in Wales, which presently acknowledges peer-on-peer abuse. That consistency of approach would be advantageous in enabling better service support to follow on from it.

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the hon. Lady for that excellent and very well-made point. If the Bill is to be as successful as everybody wants it to be, this amendment provides an opportunity to take early action to support and encourage young people away from a path that could lead to an abusive or an abused life. It is also very much in the spirit of much of the evidence we heard during our first sitting and much of what we have said in this room about recognising the impact that domestic abuse has on young people and the need to protect them from it throughout their lives.

The Bill in its current form defines domestic abuse as taking place between two persons above the age of 16—as I have said, we can recognise that people do not miraculously change when they are 16—and yet the evidence shows that to define it in those terms is to miss out vulnerable, troubled and an abused section of our young people who are unseen, unheard and, as a result, unsupported.

--- Later in debate ---

The second effect of the amendment would be to strengthen the status of the legislation by seeking to ratify the Istanbul convention, which this country signed eight years ago last week but has still not ratified. For so many women’s organisations in this country, that delay is inexplicable.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Given that this is a landmark piece of legislation, I am sure that many Members present share my concern about the fact that we are failing to ratify the Istanbul convention with it. Surely we should be taking the chance to do so through this amendment, as well as a measure we will be discussing tomorrow.

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the right hon. Lady, and absolutely agree. We have a number of opportunities in this Committee to ratify the convention through this Bill. It is an international women’s rights treaty that this country signed, yet it is one of a handful of countries that still has not taken the steps the convention demands. Recognising misogyny as a hate crime would go some way towards achieving the goals of the treaty.

I will step back for a minute to explain why we should record misogyny as a hate crime, and what exactly I mean by a hate crime. Hate crime is defined as criminal behaviour where the perpetrator is motivated by hostility, or demonstrates hostility, towards a protected characteristic of the victim. Intimidation, verbal abuse, intimidating threats, harassment, assault, bullying and damaging property are all covered. Hate crime law is rooted in a need to protect people who are targeted because of their identity, and is defined as

“Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on”

a protected characteristic. Currently, those characteristics are defined as disability, transgender status, race, religion and sexual orientation under the relevant sections of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and allow prosecutors to apply for an uplift in sentencing.

Where does misogyny fit into that and affect it? Women and girls from a black, Asian and minority ethnic background often experience hate crimes based on multiple characteristics, and if we do not take misogyny into account, we do not truly get an intersectional understanding of the crime. Sex was the motivation for more than half of the hate crimes women reported last year; age was the second most common, followed by race. Some women may be victims of a hate crime because of their ethnicity or religion, and also because they are women. Some 42% of BAME women aged 14 to 21 reported unwanted sexual attention at least once a month. Many women and girls with intellectual disabilities are also disproportionately subjected to street harassment and sexually based violence, for the dual reason that they are disabled and that they are women. Our laws have to protect them equally, and they cannot do so effectively while misogyny is a blind spot.

I have a personal theory. I suspect that all the women in this room are like me, and have always rejected the idea that they are not equal. That is how we come to be here: we do not accept the premise that we are not equal. I grew up in a household with three daughters, and had no reason to believe that we were not equal to anyone else. I have often had the opposite problem, actually. My confidence was taken for aggression that was not appropriate in a woman, because women are not aggressive, apparently. I remember once when the BBC was tackling sexual harassment problems among staff, it launched an assertiveness programme for women. I asked my boss if I could do this assertiveness programme. I could not understand why my colleagues all laughed when I came out. They asked, “How did it go?” I told them that when I asked, “Gordon, is it alright if I do this assertiveness programme?”, he said, “I wouldn’t dare say no.”

Many of us cannot understand how women come to be the victims of misogyny unless it actually happens to us. Although we might think that we are equal, we have all witnessed misogyny everywhere and been the victim of it. We might cope with it, but we have been the victim of it. Harassment and abusive behaviour are often linked to misogyny, which comes from deep-rooted contempt for women and the understanding that we should behave in a certain way, and the belief that if we do not do so, it is acceptable to slap us or abuse us.

I am sure we do not need a reminder, but if we did, Friday’s front page of a national tabloid newspaper reminded us all quite firmly: contempt for women, an in-built hatred, misogyny that says it is okay to slap us, bully us or harass us in the street because we are women.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

The Law Commission, in all its reviews, is incredibly thorough and of course independent. How long it takes is, I have to say as a Minister, sometimes a little bit frustrating, but that is because it is so thorough, so I cannot criticise the commission for that. I would prefer the commission to do its work so that we have a consistent body of evidence that I hope will enable the Government to draw conclusions as to the adequacy of the existing arrangements, and take steps from there.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I wonder by which instrument the hon. Member for Edinburgh West and I might seek to ask the Government whether they will be implementing any recommendations from the Law Commission.

[Victoria Atkins]

I confess that I had not given thought to that particular detail. Far be it from me to suggest to ingenious Back Benchers how they can hold the Government to account. As I have said, we have the Law Commission review under way, and when the commission has reported, we will, of course, in due course publish our response to that review.

Domestic Abuse Bill (Tenth sitting)

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Jess Phillips]

I once again stand here as the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham and the Member for Wyre Forest. I merely speak to the new clauses, although with considerable support from myself behind them. I believe they will wish to discuss them potentially more on Report and so I will withdraw from pushing them to a vote today. I have merely probed in preparation for that. All I would say is that what is happening currently is not working. Whose responsibility that is, is potentially of no mind to the general public. They think that we, in this building, should be sorting it out, but we are not currently assessing properly the marker of strangulation when it comes to homicide. The risk element of what is occurring in every one of our constituencies—how it can be used in a way to stop homicide rather than just being the obvious path towards it—is on all of us as policy makers who have to try to break that link. I am sure this probing will not go away any time soon. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Register for domestic abuse

“(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for the creation of a register containing the name, home address and national insurance number of any person (P) convicted of an offence that constitutes domestic abuse as defined in section 1 of this Act.

(2) Each police force in England and Wales shall be responsible for ensuring that the register is kept to date with all relevant offences committed in the police force’s area.

(3) Each police force in England and Wales shall be responsible for ensuring that P notifies relevant police forces within 14 days if they commence a new sexual or romantic relationship.

(4) A failure to notify the police in the circumstances set out in subsection (3) shall be an offence liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months.

(5) The relevant police force shall have the right to inform any person involved in a relationship with P of P’s convictions for an offence that amounts to domestic abuse as defined in section 1 of this Act.”—(Liz Saville Roberts.)

This new clause would require that any person convicted of any offence that amounts to domestic abuse as defined in clause 1 must have their details recorded on a domestic abuse register to ensure that all the perpetrator’s subsequent partners have full access to information regarding their domestic abuse offences.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 49—Monitoring of serial domestic abuse and stalking offenders under MAPPA—

“(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 325 (Arrangements for assessing etc risk posed by certain offenders)—

(a) In subsection (1), after ““relevant sexual or violent offender” has the meaning given by section 327” insert ““relevant serial domestic abuse or stalking offender” has the meaning given in section 327ZA;”

(b) In subsection (2)(a), after “offenders” insert “(aa) relevant serial domestic abuse or stalking offenders,”

(3) After section 327 (Section 325: interpretation) insert—

“327ZA Section 325: interpretation of relevant serial domestic abuse or stalking offender

(1) For the purposes of section 325—

(a) a person is a “relevant serial domestic abuse or stalking offender” if the offender has been convicted more than once for an offence which is—

(i) a domestic abuse offence, or

(ii) a stalking offence

(b) “domestic abuse offence” means an offence where it is alleged that the behaviour of the accused amounted to domestic abuse within the meaning defined in Section 1 of this Act

(c) “stalking offence” means an offence contrary to section 2A or section 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.”

This new clause amends the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides for the establishment of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (“MAPPA”), to make arrangements for serial domestic abuse or stalking offenders to be registered on VISOR and be subjected to supervision, monitoring and management through MAPPA.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The new clause calls for the creation of a domestic abuse register to ensure that greater and more consistent protection is provided for potential victims of domestic abuse from individuals who have a track record of abusive behaviour in relationships and whose potential for repeat violent actions warrants the threat of intervention.

A domestic abuse register would provide the vehicle for a shift in focus away from reacting to domestic abuse towards a more preventive approach. We know that repeat offending by perpetrators with violent and controlling histories of abuse is common. A 2016 report published by a Cardiff University professor of criminology states:

“Research demonstrates that the majority of male domestic abuse perpetrators are repeat offenders, with English research producing a figure of 83% within a six-year period.”

Data provided by the Metropolitan police to the London Assembly for its domestic abuse report showed that in the year up to September 2019, there were over 13,600 repeat victims of domestic abuse, and 21% of cases discussed at multi-agency risk assessment conferences in London in 2018 were repeat cases. This sobering fact warrants being addressed clearly in the Bill.

The domestic violence disclosure scheme, or Clare’s law, mentioned in a previous sitting, has been in place since March 2014. It is named after Clare Wood, who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend 11 years ago. It enables preventive action to be taken to protect potential victims of domestic abuse, but its use has been widely questioned by many domestic abuse charities such as Refuge. There are two elements to Clare’s law: the right to ask, which allows individuals or their families to seek further information about a partner’s past; and the right to know, in which the police offer to make a disclosure to an individual who they believe might be at risk through their relationship.

The Government’s 2019 review of the domestic violence disclosure scheme showed that only 55% of 7,252 right-to-know applications, and 40% of 6,196 right-to-ask applications, resulted in disclosures. Those are low percentages, and they give rise to the question: why are so many victims unwilling or unable to engage with the police? The same report revealed that seven out of 43 police forces made no right-to-ask applications in that year. That is problematic. Many abusers evade justice because the onus is on the individual to be suspicious about their new partner’s history. There is an implicit risk that if an individual is told that their partner has no record of domestic abuse, they might be reassured about trusting their partner, but it might be that their crimes were simply not recorded—in other words, that nothing was disclosed on asking.

Individuals with a history of coercive and abusive behaviour towards partners will seek out partners with whom they can repeat such behaviour. To speak plainly, it is predictable that their new partners will often not be people who will consider Clare’s law relevant to their immediate situation. Earlier, we referred to the fact that in a new relationship, people will not be receptive to asking whether their partner will do them harm, or to their mother asking that question of the police. They may very well not be receptive to the police knocking on their door to tell them this information. Although evidently Clare’s law is excellent in and of itself, it warrants our questioning its effectiveness. I am very interested in hearing what the Minister has to say about new clause 12, and about how they are considering how Clare’s law will work in future.

I hope all of us would endeavour to promote shifting the onus away from the victim to the perpetrator. That is precisely why a domestic abuse register is needed. New clause 12 demands that domestic abusers sign a register. This would ensure the wellbeing of victims, and place the responsibility on the offender—as they are on the register, they are of course a proven offender—and on the agencies that are meant to prevent abuse and protect victims from it.

The creation of a domestic abuse register would mean that perpetrators were monitored in the same way as sex offenders, paedophiles and violent offenders, which would allow the police to provide greater protection for victims via a similar process to that used in respect of the violent or sex offender register and the multi-agency public protection arrangements. New clause 49, which I support, proposes monitoring serial domestic abuse and stalking offenders via a register managed by MAPPA. However, importantly, senior police sources who gave evidence to the London Assembly raised concerns about the emphasis that the current register places on sex offenders over violent offenders. Before we shift more on to that mechanism, its effectiveness needs to be reviewed, because we could be looking to use mechanisms that are not proving effective. The point is echoed by the London Assembly, which agrees that a register could vastly improve the way that police officers are able to proactively track and manage the risks presented by the most dangerous perpetrators.

While it is, of course, welcome that the Bill strengthens existing powers with the introduction of domestic abuse protection notices and domestic abuse protection orders, which will give greater protection to victims, the onus remains on the victims, rather than the perpetrator or the authorities. A domestic abuse register would address that. It is not only political institutions, domestic abuse charities and campaigners that are calling for a domestic abuse register, but the very people who are affected by domestic abuse.

In closing, I will give one example. The mother of 17-year-old Jayden Parkinson called for such a register to be kept, in order to track the activities of domestic abuse offenders after her daughter’s former boyfriend, Ben Blakeley, brutally murdered her a day after she told him that she was expecting his first child. It emerged after her death that Blakeley was a serial abuser and had exhibited violent and controlling behaviour towards most of his girlfriends in the past, even pushing one of his former girlfriends down the stairs when she was seven months pregnant.

The case of Jayden Parkinson made it clear that the effective management of domestic abuse calls for a shift to greater proactive risk management. A domestic abuse register would place the onus on the most dangerous domestic abuse offenders to register with the police and to maintain up-to-date details, such as address and relationship status. I know that one of the police’s concerns is capacity—the numbers involved here. Surely, however, with a register and with the facilities enabled by technology, we would be able to reduce much of the pressure on the police in that respect. That would allow police forces to assess the threat posed by offenders in their communities and put in place the required level of proactive policing, or a lower level of monitoring through existing partnership arrangements.

Finally, there is a critical point to make. I referred to the London Assembly and the work being done by the Met, but that has only been done within some of the boroughs covered by the Met. We want a consistency of approach across England, across Wales, and across police forces, and, at the least, I would appreciate a comment from the Minister about a review of how consistency and the shifting of the onus on to the perpetrator and away from the victim can be managed consistently, across all forces and across England and Wales.

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

Diolch, Ms Buck. I will speak to new clause 49, if that is appropriate now, because it is grouped with the amendment.

Domestic abuse and stalking are the only crimes where a serial abuser is not proactively identified and managed. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the fantastic work of Laura Richards and others, for all their hard work, and their blood, sweat and tears, on new clause 49.

Hollie Gazzard was stalked and murdered by Asher Maslin. He had been involved in 24 previous violent offences: three against Hollie; 12 against an ex-partner; three against his mother; and four against others. Why was Hollie left at risk?

Kerri McAuley was stalked and murdered by Joe Storey. He broke every bone in her face. When she left him, he bombarded her with 177 calls. He had many convictions for abusing many women since the age of 14. Two women had also taken out restraining orders against him. Why were the risks not joined up?

Linzi Ashton was raped, strangled and murdered by Michael Cope. He had strangled two previous partners, but his repeated pattern of abuse towards women was not joined up. Why not?

Justene Reece took her own life. Nicholas Allen coercively controlled Justene and he stalked her relentlessly when she left him. Justene ran out of fight. Allen had been convicted for assault and harassment of other women. However, none of those offences were joined up. He was charged with coercive control, stalking and manslaughter after Justene died. Why?

We are currently in the middle of a global health pandemic, but we are also in the midst of another pandemic: the murder of women. These murders do not happen in a vacuum; these murders do not happen in slow motion. They drip, drip, drip over time on an escalating continuum. Since the lockdown began, 33 women and four children have been brutally murdered.

These offenders are not first-time offenders; no one starts with murder as their index offence. Currently, police rely on victims to report crimes and often it is the victims who are forced to modify and change their behaviour; they flee their homes and they disappear themselves in order to stay safe. This incident-led approach to patterned crimes such as domestic abuse and stalking must be stopped. Women are paying with their lives. It is clear that we need a cultural shift, through law, to ensure that the perpetrator is the focus, and that they must change their behaviour and take responsibility. Serial offenders should be the ones who are tracked, supervised and managed, not the victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd and the hon. Member for Pontypridd for speaking to the new clauses.

We agree with the underlying objective behind new clause 12. It is of course vital to have the right systems and processes in place to identify and manage serial perpetrators of domestic abuse, and it is unacceptable that a domestic abuse perpetrator—particularly a known convicted offender—should be able to go on to abuse further victims. We therefore recognise the need for robust management of those dangerous offenders. However, we consider that the outcome can be achieved more effectively and, importantly, more safely through other means. As for new clause 49, we consider that existing legislation already provides for the management of the serial domestic abuse and stalking offenders we are concerned about.

Deputy Chief Constable Louisa Rolfe, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead on domestic abuse, was clear in her oral evidence to the previous Public Bill Committee in October that better use of established police systems is the best way to grip dangerous individuals. She referred to the Bichard inquiry following the tragic deaths in Soham of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, which recommended that information about dangerous perpetrators should not be dispersed over multiple different systems. Her testimony was persuasive, and highlighted the fact that a new, separate register would introduce

“unnecessary complexity cost and, most importantly, risk.”—[Official Report, Domestic Abuse Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2010; c. 27, Q48.]

Furthermore, several witnesses at an oral evidence sitting of this Committee also questioned whether the creation of a new bespoke register was the right way forward. Suzanne Jacob made reference to the recommendations of the Bichard enquiry and Ellie Butt pointed to the vital importance of multi-agency working to manage the risk posed by perpetrators. In addition, Dame Vera Baird advised:

“It is probably better to think in terms of an institution that is already present…than it is to invent another separate way of recording the fact that they are a perpetrator.”—[Official Report, Domestic Abuse Public Bill Committee, 4 June 2020; c. 65, Q157.]

As the Committee will be aware, and as witnesses at the oral evidence sitting highlighted, the police already have systems in place for recording and sharing information about domestic abuse perpetrators. Offenders who have been convicted of stalking or domestic abuse-related offences are captured on the police national computer and, where appropriate, they will also be recorded on the ViSOR dangerous persons database, which enables information to be shared across relevant criminal justice agencies.

Section 327 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 already allows for those domestic abuse and stalking offenders who are assessed as posing a risk of serious harm to the public to be actively risk-managed under MAPPA. Individuals who commit offences listed in schedule 15 to the 2003 Act and who are sentenced to 12 months or more are automatically eligible for management under MAPPA category 2 when on licence. Those offences include domestic abuse-related offences such as threats to kill, actual and grievous bodily harm, and attempted strangulation, as well as stalking offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. When their licence ends, offenders can be managed under MAPPA category 3 if they are assessed as posing a risk of serious harm to the public. There is also discretion for other convicted domestic abusers who are assessed as posing a risk of serious harm to be managed under MAPPA category 3. Indeed, operational guidance makes it clear that this should be actively considered in every case.

The Government do, however, recognise the need to strengthen the use of current systems. Work is already under way to review the functionality of the violent and sex offender register, and the College of Policing has issued a set of principles for police forces on the identification, assessment and management of serial or potentially dangerous domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators. Work in this area will be supported by the provision of £10 million in funding for perpetrator interventions, which was announced in the Budget, to promote a better response to perpetrators across all agencies that come into contact with them.

The Bill also provides the police with an additional tool to help improve management of the risk posed by domestic abuse perpetrators. The police will be able to apply for a new DAPO that requires perpetrators who are subject to an order to notify the police of their name and address, and of any changes to this information. That will help the police to monitor the perpetrator’s whereabouts and the risk they pose to the victim. The Bill also includes the power for a DAPO to impose further additional notification requirements, to be specified in regulations that the court may consider on a case-by-case basis. The DAPO provisions include an express power to enable courts to use electronic monitoring or tagging on perpetrators to monitor their compliance with the requirements of the DAPO.

The aim of new clause 12 is to provide police with a statutory power to disclose information about a perpetrator’s offending history to their partner. However, Clare’s law already facilitates that. The domestic violence disclosure scheme relies on the police’s existing common-law powers, which are fit for purpose. The right-to-know element of the scheme provides a system through which the police can reach out proactively and disclose information to a person’s partner or ex-partner about that person’s violent or abusive offending history in order to prevent harm. As we have already debated, clause 64 places guidance for the police on Clare’s law on a statutory footing, which will help to improve awareness and consistent operation of the scheme across all forces.

I am very keen to emphasise—this is a concern that the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd has set out—that the burden should not be solely on victims. It is right that a victim can apply for a DAPO or can apply under the right-to-ask scheme, but the police can—indeed, are expected to—take the initiative in appropriate cases to apply for a DAPO or proactively make a disclosure under the right-to-know element of the domestic violence disclosure scheme, as I have just outlined. Given the views of the witnesses from whom we heard in oral evidence to this Committee and its predecessor, and the ongoing work to improve the systems and the MAPPA arrangements that I have set out, I hope hon. Members are reassured, and that the right hon. Lady will feel able to withdraw the new clause.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I thank the Minister for her detailed response. This is a probing amendment, which I am happy to withdraw. The only thing that I want to say comes from the London Assembly, and from cross-border issues arising within the boroughs of the Met. Dauntless Plus, which deals with 600 or so of the most dangerous repeat offenders in London, reaches 1% of repeat offenders. Present arrangements seem not to be achieving what I am sure we would all wish them to achieve. I hope the Minister will keep a close eye on their effectiveness in future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 17

Local Welfare Provision schemes

“(1) Every local authority in England must deliver a Local Welfare Provision scheme which provides financial assistance to victims of domestic abuse

(2) The Secretary of State must issue guidance on the nature and scope of Local Welfare Provision schemes and review this biannually in consultation with the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and other such individuals and agencies he deems appropriate.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must provide local authorities with additional funding designated for Local Welfare Provision, to increase per year with inflation.

(4) For the purposes of this subsection “domestic abuse” is defined in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020.”—(Christine Jardine.)

This new clause would allow victims of domestic abuse to access a local welfare assistance scheme in any locality across England.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I would like to apologise to the Committee in advance: as luck would have it, for the first time in two years of printing things too small for me to read, I do not have my glasses with me. Bear with me and I will do my best.

Domestic Abuse Bill (Fifth sitting)

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 10th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

Even though I have worked with the police force for years and I am sometimes critical of the police, I was genuinely surprised. The reality is that, if someone is a victim who is not at this moment at direct risk—nobody is holding a knife to their throat with a breach of this order; it might be a Facebook post or involve writing off to their kid’s school—my police force does not currently have the resource to respond really quickly.

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

Very briefly, I want to take the opportunity to describe the rural experience.

[Jess Phillips]

I am not suggesting that it is not—

[Liz Saville Roberts]

They are different in different ways. There is immense pressure in terms of population, but the rural experience is that there might well be a desired staffing level on the police of six to cover the whole of north-west Wales. It is physically impossible to reach people within the hour.

[Jess Phillips]

That is a deeply important thing. For my constituents, it would take four minutes to drive across if there was no traffic, so that is not such an issue. It will definitely lead to victimisation by different means. It also has to be added on to the police resource, for when they see a call and have an immediate issue they need to deal with, because the order has potentially been breached, and they are going to have to drive 50 miles.

I am not suggesting for a second that the police do not want to act on these calls. I think that they do. Every police officer I meet—this has definitely changed over the last 10 years—deeply cares about domestic abuse and wants their force to be brilliant at tackling it. I am just concerned.

What I do not want to happen with the DAPO is for it to have the same reputation as all the other orders among victims and victims’ organisations. All the other orders are basically, “Isn’t that nice? I’ve got this piece of paper,” apart from an occupation order, which is given vanishingly rarely. If we were to sit down with a group of victims, they would say, “What was the point of it?”. I do not want the DAPO to have that. The inclusion of abuse and the inclusion of criminality will go some way to allaying that fear, but without resource, it will be very difficult.

The Joint Committee clearly shared some of our concerns. Its report noted:

“Particular concerns were that the proposed new notices and orders did not ‘cure’ the difficulties seen in the operation of the current Domestic Violence Protection Notices and Orders and the practical workings of the DAPO scheme had not been considered, or funded, sufficiently.”

I give the Minister her due; that is from a year ago and a lot of consideration has gone into it since.

The Joint Committee also found that the use of the existing model of DVPNs and DVPOs—different in flavour, if not in name—by police forces across England and Wales a year after they were rolled out nationally was “patchy.” We are not just referring to breaches; this is about whether they are even given out. I am concerned about resources for dealing with breaches, but there is quite a lot of concern about resources for the orders being given out in the first place.

The Joint Committee noted:

“Numbers ranged from three DVPNs and three DVPOs in Cambridgeshire”—

where there is either no domestic violence, or they are not giving them out properly—

“to 229 DVPNs and 199 DVPOs in Essex”.

Bravo to Essex! The majority of forces submitted figures between 10 and 100.

The Joint Committee continued:

“A review of the police response to domestic abuse by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services”—

I noticed the Minister also struggled to say that earlier; it needs a better acronym—

“in 2017 found: ‘Many forces are still not using DVPOs as widely as they could, and opportunities to use them are continuing to be missed. Over half of the forces that were able to provide data—

that were able to provide data does not speak to many—

“on the use of DVPOs reported a decrease in the number of DVPOs granted per 100 domestic abuse related offences in the 12 months to 30 June 2016 compared to the 12 months to 31 March 2015.’”

Those comments speak to my concerns about the capacity of the police, rather than their desire.

I very much hope that the inclusion of the term “abuse” rather than “violence” will act to massively improve the numbers—I really hope that we are proven right on that—and that the act of criminalising has a similar effect on the uptake and usefulness of DAPOs. However, I seek from the Minister an understanding of how and at what intervals that will be assessed.

A number of organisations, from the perspective of both the victim and the perpetrator, have expressed concerns about the new scheme and the act of criminalisation. I am sure that some minds will be put to rest if a framework for review and possible action plans from the evidence of such reviews were put in place—the Minister has spoken about a two-year review in specific areas. For example, if there is limited use in a certain police force after a year and it is identified that that is because of training deficits—that is what it usually is—action plans could then be put in place to ensure a remedy.

Some concerns about the criminalisation element would certainly be allayed if we have an idea about exactly how the pilot is going to work and what actions will be taken to remedy any possible deficits.

There are two potentials. In one of the pilot areas, they may not do it well, and we could all say, “Maybe DAPOs don’t work,” and go and look at something else. Alternatively, pilot areas could put a lot of effort and resources in because of the very nature of being pilot areas. Fair play to all of them, but when we scale that up to the Metropolitan police, the West Midlands police or a police force in a completely rural area, for example, and the scheme is ongoing, there is a concern that we need to ensure that we are reviewing it constantly and pushing for it to work.

I want to the order to work, and the sector wants it to work. I could be glib about people rolling their eyes when an does not work, but that tells victims that the police do not care, even if that is not the case. If someone rings the police and they do not act on a breach, the view is, “It’s because they don’t care about me.” That will stop that person going forward again in the future. That demoralises the whole system, and we cannot have that.

I welcome the fact that domestic abuse protection orders may be applied for without victims’ consent—by the police, specialist agencies and third parties, with the consent of the court. That will end a process that can be very onerous on victims, both administratively and, much more keenly, emotionally. As the Joint Committee highlighted,

“the nature of domestic abuse is such that pressure not to take action against the perpetrator will often be overwhelming and it would significantly weaken the protective effect of the orders if only victims were able to apply for them.”

I cannot sing the praises of that enough.

I turn now to some of the concerns raised by police about the cost of the DAPO application. We welcome the Government’s assurances that no victim will have to pay any costs. I have seen incidences, in times of austerity, where local authority partnership boards moved from systems for application of civil orders, where there was no cost to a victim for application, to a system where victims have been asked for large sums to apply for various orders. Some were asked for thousands of pounds in fees to keep them and their children safe—or, as it turned out, partially safe. It is welcome news that there will be no cost to the victim in this new regime.

Currently, however, an application for a DVPO costs the police £205—admittedly, that is under the current system—and a contested hearing costs £515. In evidence to the Joint Committee, Rights of Women explained:

“the police will seek a costs order against the respondent, which will only be granted when the application is successful. It is unclear how many costs orders are made following applications for DVPOs, and, most pertinently, how much money is actually recovered from respondents when costs orders are made. The National Audit Office report from the summer of 2011 concluded that as much as £1.3bn was owed in court fines, prosecutor costs and other payments arising from court proceedings.”

I especially like the bit at the end of a court hearing, when we talk about the money. It is so academic, as hardly any of it will be paid, but I often enjoy that moment in court.

To date, police forces have not received any additional funding for DVPOs. Olive Craig, legal officer at Rights of Women, told the Joint Committee:

“the organisation had been told by police officers, victims, and frontline domestic violence support staff that one of the reasons they did not use these orders was because they were seen as ‘too expensive’.”

It has been the concern of many specialists that courts will not want to be seen as being draconian, so courts may be less likely to grant DAPOs in the first place, especially now, with the criminalisation element.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Gentleman raises a sensible point. There will be moments where an officer has to judge the situation as it is presented to her or him. We will be issuing statutory guidance and, as with the statutory guidance on the Bill, that will very much be in consultation with the commissioner and frontline charities.

These sorts of decisions have to be made regularly by officers. During the current crisis, officers are making decisions about whether they visit certain premises to check that people are okay and the potential impact of that. There will be difficult decisions, but we will very much engage with people in a transparent way to make sure that the guidance is in a good place before it is issued formally.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

A point that has been raised with me is that training in domestic abuse for junior police officers is often much more thorough than that which their senior officers have experienced, and that, as well as guidelines, specific training for those officers who will be making the decisions could be very useful.

[Victoria Atkins]

That is not the case with all senior officers. Deputy Chief Constable Louisa Rolfe, who is the NPCC lead on domestic violence, is a very senior officer and an absolute expert. I take the point that officers at different stages in their career will have different levels of experience and training. I am sure the guidance will help address that so that we have a wealth and diversity of experience in the decision-making process.