Prisons and Courts Bill (Third sitting)

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Committee Debate: 3rd Sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 29th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Michael Tomlinson]

I have listened carefully to the Minister and am grateful for his considered response to my amendment. All I ask is that when Lord Farmer’s report is widely disseminated, he does not close his mind to the possibility of the amendment’s wording being in the Bill. Obviously that will depend on timing. At present I am content not to press the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

‘(e) provide for the wellbeing and healthcare of offenders, including treatment for drug and alcohol misuse and assuring access to continued relevant support upon release.

(f) liaise with the Probation and other relevant services to ensure coordinated rehabilitation of offenders.’.

This amendment ensures that it is within the purpose of a prison to ensure offenders receive the appropriate physical and mental healthcare, as well as necessary rehabilitative support upon release.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 12, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

‘(da) maintain and promote physical and mental health of prisoners.’.

This amendment requires the purposes of prisons to include the wellbeing of prisoners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The amendment concerns the wellbeing and healthcare of offenders, the relationship with bodies such as probation and the co-ordinated rehabilitation of offenders. Despite reforms, the evidence is clear that the physical and mental healthcare we offer our prisoners still needs to be addressed. The purpose of prisons is undoubtedly to protect the public, rehabilitate and keep prisoners safe and prepare them for a life outside the institution. I welcome the inclusion of those concepts in this part of the Bill. However, it seems to be an obvious omission not to recognise specifically prisoners’ healthcare needs, both mental and physical. Equally, although the need to prepare offenders for life outside of prison is stated in the Bill, there seems to be somewhat a lack of foresight when it comes to expressing how prison should ensure a smooth transition into our communities by liaising with external organisations.

Let me inform the Committee of the statistics on healthcare: prisoners are 12 times more likely to suffer a personality disorder and 16 times more likely to suffer from psychosis; 10% to 14% of prisoners suffer a major depressive illness; two out of three have a personality disorder; seven out of 10 have alcohol abuse issues; and a third have a drug addiction on entry. I shall raise hepatitis C specifically under a later amendment.

The Government’s own regulator on the standard of healthcare in prisons, the National Guideline Centre, which is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, said last year that it had become clear that healthcare provision in prisons was typically poorer than in the general community and not sufficient to meet prisoners’ needs. If we do not recognise that most basic of obligations, healthcare in prisons is likely only to slide. That in turn will mean a risk of significantly worse outcomes, both for offenders in prison and those leaving prison. By not recognising the need for a prison to cater for the basic needs of its inmates, we will continue to fail to address key issues that contribute to criminal and disruptive behaviour inside and outside prisons, which of course will only burden the state further in the long run.

The amendment would add new paragraph (f) to proposed new section A1 of the Prison Act 1952; that relates to the need for prisons to look outwards as well as inwards, to properly reintegrate offenders back into communities. The Bill indicates that it is entirely within the prison that an inmate will become proficient in skills and learn to deal with demands in the way that reintegration requires. The reality is of course very different. A prison must liaise with a plethora of organisations across the public, private and third sectors to ensure that offenders have the best possible chances of reintegrating. New paragraph (f) would ensure that that reality was reflected in the Bill.

I recognise, of course, that clause 1 could become a list as long as my arm; however, I feel that the two relatively modest additions in the amendment would reflect the necessity and reality of the way modern prisons function, which is not, of course, in isolation. I will not press the amendment to a vote now, but I hope that the Government will give it proper consideration and a full response.

[Mr Gyimah]

The Government are very aware of the serious challenges that mental health, drug and alcohol issues pose for offenders and the prison system. The Ministry of Justice is committed to working closely with my colleagues at the Department of Health, NHS England and Public Health England, to help to provide the right support and healthcare in prisons.

There is already a statutory underpinning to the health of prisoners; ensuring that prisons are safe is already one of the aims contained in the statutory purpose. Our duties under the Human Rights Act 1998, which, as I have said already, incorporates the European convention on human rights, are also relevant to prisoner wellbeing and healthcare. For instance, under article 2 we must take active steps to prevent suicide and self-harm in custody. Under article 3 prisoners must be detained in conditions compatible with respect for their human dignity and not be subjected to distress or hardship that goes beyond the suffering inherent in detention; the article also requires that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, prisoners’ health and wellbeing should be adequately secured.

There are also already many processes and protections in place in prisons to protect prisoners’ health. For example, health needs assessments help to ensure that accurate information is available on the provision of healthcare needed in each prison; and we are introducing new training for prison staff, including awareness training on supporting prisoners with mental health issues, so that governors and staff better understand the mental health issues of the prisoners they are helping to support.

As set out in the National Health Service Act 2006 as amended by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and regulations, healthcare in English prisons is commissioned directly by NHS England. That is important because it is right that healthcare in prisons should be delivered by clinical experts. Governors do not have the qualifications or the capability to make clinical decisions about patients, so it is right that responsibility for those decisions should lie with those professionals who can ensure that patients receive the best care.

Governors are already under a legal duty, under prison rule 20, to work in partnership with local healthcare providers to secure access to the same quality and range of services as the general public receive from the national health service. Part of that involves making sure that governors facilitate access to the healthcare provided by NHS England, including giving security clearance to the right people and providing escorts to appointments. However, as set out in the Government’s “Prison Safety and Reform” White Paper in November 2016, we want to go further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

I thank the shadow Minister for her points; I will make a couple of brief points in response. I agree that the level of violence—particularly violence related to the use of new psychoactive substances such as spice and mamba—is too high. In September, we rolled out a new drug test for psychoactive substances—the first and only such test in the world—so we are aware of the issue and we are dealing with it.

We are all aware that prisons are difficult places with some very difficult people to manage. The question is whether we need provision in the Bill to manage these issues. I contend that we need effective practice. When it comes to mental health, for example, we should ask whether processes work well in every prison and whether our prison officers are properly trained to identify how people present when they have mental health problems. I spoke to one of the people who works in our prisons about these issues, and they said that when a prisoner has a mental health problem or is considering taking their life, they enter a dark place and seek to cover their tracks and not really show what is happening internally. These are issues that we really need to train people on the ground to deal with.

I suggest that the amendment be withdrawn. This is about effective practice on the ground. We are alive to these issues, and we will get to grips with them by empowering governors to work closely with the agencies that matter, rather than by adding another list to the Bill.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I thank the Minister for his comments. I note that he referred exclusively to NHS England. Healthcare is devolved in Wales; prisons are not. That in itself raises the question: to what degree are we consistent in our approaches, and does this issue really need to be raised?

Others eloquently made the point that mental health problems and alcohol and drug addictions are so significant among the prison population that their treatment is surely critical to both rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. The Bill refers to prisons aiming to

“maintain an environment that is safe and secure.”

That does not seem to fully reflect the gravity of the situation, which we need to respond to. I hope that the Government will consider that. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 12, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, at end insert—

‘(da) maintain and promote physical and mental health of prisoners.’—(Yasmin Qureshi.)

This amendment requires the purposes of prisons to include the wellbeing of prisoners.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 1, page 2, line 12, at end insert “and

(b) steps taken in relation to meeting health targets specified by the Secretary of State on—

(i) blood borne viruses, and

(ii) substance abuse,

including the provision of testing and treatment for hepatitis C.”

This amendment ensures that the Secretary of State’s annual report on prisons includes targets on blood borne viruses and substance abuse and analysis of whether they are being met.

This probing amendment seeks to create an obligation on the Secretary of State to include in the annual report on prison governance an analysis of progress in meeting health metrics on blood-borne viruses and substance abuse, including the provision of testing and treatment for hepatitis C.

Hepatitis C is a blood-borne virus affecting the liver that can cause fatal cirrhosis and liver cancer if untreated. Around 214,000 people are chronically infected with hepatitis C in the UK. Around 90% of cases arise through injecting drug use, although there are other potential causes including overseas medical care, tattooing and receipt of a blood transfusion in the UK prior to 1991. People are able to live without symptoms for decades after infection, but untreated cases can lead to severe liver problems. Liver disease is one of the five big killers in the UK, and the only one of those where mortality is rising, and hepatitis C is the third most common cause of it.

Why are prisoners particularly at risk? Hepatitis C disproportionately affects disadvantaged and marginalised communities, and around half of people who inject drugs are estimated to have the virus. With around a third of the people in prison having injected drugs, rates of hepatitis C infection are particularly high among prisoners. A 2012 study from Scotland estimated rates of hepatitis C among prisoners to be almost 20%, and we might expect that rate to be similar in other prisons. Offering testing and treatment for hepatitis C is therefore a highly effective way of contributing to prisoners’ rehabilitation; indeed, by allowing them to focus on improving their health and wellbeing it is often found that they are better placed to address other issues contributing to their offending, such as substance misuse. It is also essential that this is carried out if prison governors are to meet the commitment to improve health outcomes.

In October 2013, the UK Government agreed to implement blood-borne virus opt-out testing in prisons. Testing rates for hepatitis C in prisons have improved as a result, rising from 5.3% in 2010-11 to 11.5% in 2015-16. That figure is still too low, however, and progress needs to be made on fully implementing the opt-out testing policy.

The prison environment is an ideal one in which to test and treat people who lead chaotic lives and may not have previously been in contact with healthcare services. With new oral drug treatments becoming available in recent years, which have considerably shorter treatment durations and markedly fewer side effects than previous treatments, the opportunity to treat people in prison is greater than ever before. Achieving a cure for hepatitis C can be a trigger for long-term addiction recovery and help people to take control of their lives. Offering treatment for hepatitis C can therefore be an important step in helping to prepare prisoners for their release.

I prepared that speech with the help of the Hepatitis C Trust, and I would very much like to hear the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

This is a probing amendment concerning a duty on the Secretary of State to include as part of her annual report to Parliament the steps taken to meet targets on blood-borne viruses and substance abuse.

Healthcare in prisons is provided by NHS England, which already uses health and justice indicators of performance and other data to report the performance of substance misuse services and blood-borne viruses. Those data inform NHS practice in commissioning and providing healthcare to prisons. For example, Public Health England, NOMS and NHS England introduced opt-out testing for blood-borne viruses for people in prison in the first national partnership agreement published in 2013. Full implementation across the whole adult prison estate in England is planned by the end of the 2017-18 financial year.

Data on the offer and uptake of testing and referral for treatment are measured through the health and justice indicators, which are based on information provided directly by healthcare teams in prisons to NHS England and shared with Public Health England. Additionally, data on people treated for substance misuse in prison and in the community are collected by Public Health England through the national drug treatment monitoring system.

Using those data, under the programme of co-commissioning that the Government are implementing, prison governors will be able to work with NHS England to commission healthcare services that meet their individual prison’s needs. That, of course, can include elements that provide testing and treatment for blood-borne viruses and substance misuse. I hope I have provided sufficient assurance to the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd that placing this requirement on the face of the Bill is unnecessary, as a programme of work is already under way in this area.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Mr Gyimah]

We have had a full and detailed debate on clause 1. It will not surprise hon. Members to know that in drafting the clause, the Government thought long and hard about what it should contain in view of the fundamental changes it makes to the current legislative framework.

The clause reforms the framework of the prison system, providing aims for the system as a whole to unite behind, clarifying the role of the Secretary of State and sharpening accountability. It modifies the Secretary of State’s overarching responsibility for prisons, removing the outdated duty to superintend prisons. The clause also reforms and modernises the Secretary of State’s accountability to Parliament for the performance of prisons. It replaces the existing archaic requirements to report on operational detail, such as hours of work completed in each prison and number of punishments, with a requirement to account to Parliament for the extent to which prisons are meeting the statutory purpose created by the clause.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

We have raised our concerns about the issues we think are important and should be covered in the clause. We hope that the Minister will reconsider some of those things on Report.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector and Inspectorate of Prisons

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out “a” and insert “an independent”.

This amendment ensures the person appointed as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons has the necessary independence from Government and associated bodies.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 15, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert—

‘(1A) Before Her Majesty makes an appointment under this section, the Chair of the Justice Committee of the House of Commons shall recommend for Her Majesty’s consideration an appropriate person who in its view could satisfactorily carry out the functions of the Chief Inspector by moving a name on the floor of the House.”

This amendment provides that the Justice Select Committee should make a recommendation on the appointment of the Chief Inspector of Prisons.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

At the moment, there is no statutory obligation for the person appointed as Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons to be independent of Government and associated bodies, and I think we would all agree that it is essential that the chief inspector of prisons is independent. There are provisions in the Bill to empower prison governors to deliver on extra responsibilities, so it is more important than ever that independent chief inspectors of prisons are able to scrutinise and hold prison governors, as well as the Ministry of Justice, to account in a way that is beyond any question of bias.

We already have the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which in legislation is clearly stated to be just that—independent. In the Police Reform Act 2002, through which the IPCC was created, there are stringent tests precluding candidates with particular backgrounds, which might bring into question their independence, from becoming a chairman or member of the commission. The Government must recognise that that imposed, and legislated for, distance between any appointee to the IPCC and a body that that person might investigate is required also for senior prison inspectors. The inspectorate is already advertising itself as an independent body. Surely now is the time to enshrine this common-sense policy in law, both transparently and explicitly.

I will not press the amendment to a vote at this stage, but I hope that the Government will give a detailed answer explaining why they have not chosen to include this wording in the legislation and whether on reflection they might be amenable to a more specific and stringent statement.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

We support any attempt to ensure the independence of the inspectorate from the Government, so we support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It is right, I am sure everyone will agree, for the chief inspector of prisons to be beyond any doubt in relation to the independence of his role and of his judgment. It seems to me that this should be stated explicitly in the Bill. Amendment 15 would make changes to the appointment procedure. That would put what is proposed into effect and on to a robust footing. There would then be no doubt in that respect. I have some difficulty in understanding the Minister’s response, particularly in relation to the explicit use of the terminology of independence. None the less, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 15, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert—

“(1A) Before Her Majesty makes an appointment under this section, the Chair of the Justice Committee of the House of Commons shall recommend for Her Majesty’s consideration an appropriate person who in its view could satisfactorily carry out the functions of the Chief Inspector by moving a name on the floor of the House.”—(Yasmin Qureshi.)

This amendment provides that the Justice Select Committee should make a recommendation on the appointment of the Chief Inspector of Prisons.

Prisons and Courts Bill (First sitting)

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from the Prison Officers Association, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons, the prisons and probation ombudsman and the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. Before I invite the witnesses to introduce themselves, I remind the Committee that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed to: this session finishes at 11 o’clock.

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

I take this opportunity to declare an interest as the chair of the cross-party justice unions and family courts parliamentary group.

[The Chair]

That is noted, thank you. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?

Joe Simpson: Joe Simpson, assistant general secretary of the Prison Officers Association.

Nigel Newcomen: I am Nigel Newcomen, the prisons and probation ombudsman.

Rachel O'Brien: Rachel O’Brien. I lead the work of the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce on prisons.

Martin Lomas: And Martin Lomas. I am the deputy chief inspector of prisons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

Q Mr Simpson, I would like you to comment on professionalisation. We are consulting with the trade unions on the creation of 2,000 new senior positions across the estate, where they will be able to work at band 4 level in such jobs as self-harm prevention or mentoring, earning up to £30,000 a year. How could that help retain senior staff and professionalise the workforce?

Joe Simpson: I used to do that as a prison officer; I did not need promotion for that. It was part of my role and what I was paid for, but the service has long depended on prison officers and prison staff volunteering to do that extra work with no pay and no pay rise. Some 70% of prison staff have not had a decent pay rise in five years. That is when you get problems in the Prison Service. They feel forgotten and as though they do not count. With the 2,000, why not train the rest of them in that and make the Prison Service a truly professional service?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Q I think I am correct in saying that the level of turnover among prison officers is something like 12%.

Joe Simpson: Yes.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Could you tell us something about the impact of that degree of change? The underlying impact is that their salary is for ever starting at the lower level. Also, there is now regional variation in salaries. What is the impact of that—I have visited HMP Berwyn and I will be going to HMP Liverpool next week—on recruiting outside of south-east England?

Joe Simpson: In areas with high unemployment, you will get people wanting to be prison officers because it is paid work and they will want to be in work. The high turnover is not just down to salary; it is also about when people come in and see the reality of prison life. It is all right talking about when you go to the school; I attended Newbold Revel and went straight to HMP Strangeways, and that was a big eye-opener for me.

In fact, when the door closed behind me for the first time, the hairs on the back of my neck stood up. I nearly put my keys in and left—I didn’t. The high levels of turnover are for the simple reason that prison officers no longer feel safe in our prisons. Why would you want to come to work and earn £21,000 to be spat at, assaulted, have excrement and urine thrown over you, and be physically and verbally abused? No other profession would put up with that.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Q Is the training perhaps not preparing new recruits? Would it be possible to adapt the training to prepare new recruits better for the reality of prison work?

Joe Simpson: I think you could get a training programme that will get them ready for prison life and for working in prisons, but they also have to go into prisons and work there. When I first started, I went into Durham prison for three weeks. I came back, did the rest of my training and then went into Strangeways. When I was at Strangeways, I had what I called a “buddy officer”, and I worked with him for 12 months. If I had a problem working there, I went to him to ask a question and he answered it. He was with me all the time. That no longer happens: because of the pressure on getting prison officers into prisons and getting a regime going in prisons, that is no longer there. I think that would help.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Q May I ask one general question to everyone on the panel who might be able to respond? The Bill is proposing the purpose of prisons. What would you feel about including health, substance abuse and addictions while people are in prisons as a possible fundamental purpose?

Rachel O'Brien: Two of the purposes—if you are talking about progression—imply that you have to address the fundamentals, including mental health and drug use. In terms of holding governors to account, it speaks to a flaw in the prison reform agenda more widely, which is that this is only a part of people’s journey—for some people, a very short part of their journey.

If you are in prison for a matter of weeks, there is very little that even the best governor and staff can do, even with some of the training support. We know that deaths peak the week after custody, so the key that is missing is the integration question. How do we hold governors to account for something they ultimately do not own? What role within that is there for local authority substance misuse organisations, NHS providers and the CLCs? There is a need to look across the journey in the Bill and the wider reform agenda.

Martin Lomas: There is a balance to be struck. Who could object to an objective of supporting and promoting mental health and wellbeing? The issue is, how do you define them? What does “wellbeing” mean, for example? There needs to be a certain clarity about that. Another argument is, where do you draw the line? One of the advantages of the purposes as they are currently stated is that there is clarity about them. They are punchy, specific and particular. We could perhaps stand having another couple, but there is a point at which they stop being purposes and start being standards. It is really a question of balance.

Nigel Newcomen: I certainly endorse that. On, for example, the fourth purpose—

“maintain an environment that is safe and secure”—

I cannot imagine an environment that is safe and does not have adequate mental health provision, an adequate approach to healthcare and, indeed, a decent environment. Unless I have misunderstood what is intended in the list of four purposes, I think most of the suggestions you just made would be encompassed within them. I am with Martin in assuming that if we have an endless list, you lose some of the prescription, direction and sentiment that is intended.

[Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)]

Q This question is probably as much for Martin Lomas or Rachel O’Brien as it is for the rest of the panel. The Bill enshrines the idea of rehabilitation and reform for the first time. In my constituency there is a category D prison, North Sea Camp, and I have seen how difficult that can be. Do you think that that is a symbolically important gesture, but also that it will make a practical difference across the prison estate? Is it something that you welcome as a whole?

Martin Lomas: That it is clearly articulated that the purpose of an institution is to help rehabilitate and reform the individuals that are sent there? I think that is pretty fundamental and empowering, and brings clarity.

Certainly, as an inspectorate, we are committed in the Bill to take account of the purposes of imprisonment, although our criteria—the expectations, as we refer to them—are independent and separate. When we were formulating our expectations, we saw resettlement, as we term it, as fundamental, one of four interconnected features of a healthy prison: safety, respect, activity—work, in other words—and resettlement. So yes.

Rachel O'Brien: I agree. Out there, there is a need to define some of that. What we do not need is a long list of a hundred items. When we talk about wellbeing, it is not far off, and there is lots of evidence to show that you can measure that. So it should flow through to the leadership models. For example, what are new group directors for? That is going to imply a whole new partnership approach with this core purpose at its heart.

It comes back to staff, as well. Too often it is people like me that get to do the nice stuff. I do not get spat at; I do not have the uniform; I have keys but I do not have to have that authority. Staff are being pushed into a role in which they are doing only the authority side, and lots of other agencies are doing what I call “the nice bits”. It may not be brilliantly funded. I would argue that, when we look at the core workforce, that is the core job. Yes, they still need to have that authority, but all the dynamic security tells us that it is about relationships they have; it is spotting that flame in someone that can be enhanced. If you do not have enough people or time, it is hard to do that. So I would slightly push out people like me and really focus on the core workforce.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Q Rachel, a moment or two ago, you were taking about what the prisoners themselves have to offer in this. I know that the RSA has spoken about things such as rehabilitation culture—I think “rehabilitation capital” is the phrase that is used by the prisons. Can I pick up on that and, in a general sense, ask you whether you think the Bill incorporates that sort of culture and those sorts of measures in the way you would like to see?

Rachel O'Brien: I am slightly nervous of the new HMPPS defining this thing. We know a lot about wellbeing: for example, we can measure people’s ability to make good decisions and their self-confidence—all sorts of things that are prerequisites for the resilience they will need going forward. We are working with a high-security prison at the moment to develop a community-wide strategy. The outcome is going to be great. It is about thinking about, in a very closed system, how you have a better relationship with the outside world, family and so on. Actually, it is about the process of engagement with those prisoners, when they are talking strategies and tactics. They would not necessarily agree to do desktop publishing, but they will do it because they are producing a newsletter to communicate. It is that kind of approach, and you can measure people’s progress—partly because they will tell you and partly because you see it. It is that kind of approach that we need to replicate. Prisons need to be able to do things themselves rather than outsource them, because that is how staff can get those really valuable relationships.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Q Nigel Newcomen, you mentioned the dichotomy between supply reduction and demand reduction. There are aspects of this Bill that deal with supply reduction per se. To what degree do you and other members of the panel feel that the demand reduction aspect is sufficiently considered within the Bill?

Nigel Newcomen: As I said, I impute from the purposes onward that some of the balances that we have been struggling to put across to you are required are implicit in the Bill’s structure. Demand reduction is a necessary partner of supply reduction. If you have only one, you are going to have only part of the solution. It is essential to have supply reduction, both for phones and for drugs, but you equally have to have work to mitigate the demand and the need for those illicit goods. Without that balance, I think we are on a hiding to nothing. There is nothing in the Bill that I can see that precludes that balance.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Q Would you be prepared to suggest additions to the Bill that might make it less implicit and more explicit?

Nigel Newcomen: I am not sure I can think of any. It just seems to me that, unless we are misinterpreting it, the supply reduction issues are necessarily going to be balanced if you want a purposeful, rehabilitative prison. It is implicit that you have to do both. You cannot simply attempt to reduce supply if demand is insatiable.

Martin Lomas: I agree with that, but I would also make the point that there has to be a balance. One goes with the other. I make the observation that it is not perfect. How much is enough? We often report quite positively on some of the demand-side work that we see taking place within institutions, notwithstanding some of the other issues around it. In contrast, when we inspect we survey prisoners and one of the questions we ask is, “How easy is it to get drugs in this prison?” and although I cannot remember the exact statistic, the increase in positive responses in recent years has been striking. We comment on that routinely in our reports—that quite a lot of prisoners are telling us it is easy to get drugs in. Some of that will be over the wall, some will be an interpretation of the question around, for example, the diversion of prescribed medication, which is also an issue. So it is a complex problem and there has to be a balance. Questions of quantity will always be difficult to determine absolutely, but a balance is what is needed.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Mr Simpson, what do you think?

Joe Simpson: On the demand side, the Prison Service has been very successful. When I joined, the drug of choice was cannabis; then, when they started mandatory drug testing, it went from cannabis to heroin and cocaine, for the simple reason that they stay in the body a lot less than cannabis. But we just punish prisoners; if they get a positive MDT, they are punished and that is the end of it. We are not doing anything to say to them, “Why are you taking it?” Why don’t we turn around and start educating them about the drug issue, rather than just punishing them? As long as we punish them, nothing is going to change, because they still want that drug; they will still want it inside.

As long as people are coming into prison and bringing it in—the supply side of it—they do go hand in hand. We have to stop the supply but we also have to start to reduce the demand as well, because if we reduce the demand, the supply will stop coming in because people will no longer want it.

How do we do that? When I was at Holme House we had a successful drug treatment wing there. We turned it on its head: it was run by the prisoners. They looked after everything; they made sure everything was clean and took over the duties of the prison officer. The prison officer was still there; we were still there supervising it and it worked. Then all of sudden, because we ran out of money, it went. We reduced the demand and then, once the money stopped, the demand went back up, because there was nothing there to get prisoners to take charge of their lives in prison. That is what is missing.

Rachel O'Brien: It is an interesting question, in terms of responsibility. I would raise a concern about that being just on the governor, not going any wider. It is interesting to ask about the responsibility to reduce demand and how you might show that. The other parts of the Bill that are important concern education, employment and health commissioning, because ultimately if we do not have more people working, more people getting the treatment they need, the supply will respond to demand. For me, a key question is whether that commissioning going to be more local, more sensitive and more productive. Many prisoners will tell you that they are either in their cell most of the time or they are doing another level 1 catering when they have done four as they have moved around the system. The intention, not so much as reflected in the Bill, but in the education strategy and so on, is to actually look at more progression for people.

Again, it comes back to the fact that a prisoner will tell you exactly how they want to progress, but what if that is not available? I really worry that while what is in the Bill looks like a decentralisation of commissioning, I am not clear that that is actually what is going to happen.

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

Q I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am still in receipt of fees from the Treasury Solicitor for providing legal services to the Ministry of Justice and the Parole Board.

Nigel, I want to follow up on your point about the statutory purposes listed in proposed new section A1. There are four purposes set out and you said that an endless list would be unhelpful for professionals and for the inspectorate. Can you say a bit more about why you think that the current drafting hits the nail on the head and strikes the right balance?

Nigel Newcomen: I did not quite say that the current drafting hits the nail on the head. I said that an endless list would, I think, be unhelpful; I think Martin made the same point. If you are going to have a set of overarching purposes, they need to be relatively discrete, something managers can focus on and, in Rachel’s words, could run through a stick of rock. If it is an endless list, that is a very big piece of rock. This needs to be a means of gaining clarity for the organisation and the institution.

I said in passing, I think, that the word “decency”, for example, was missing. It may be that there are bits of drafting that may be attended to as the Bill goes through. I think a relatively discrete statement of purpose and set of aims is useful. All experience of business management and organisational institutional change is predicated on having a relatively limited set of outcomes that you are seeking to achieve. I think these are pretty good and discrete statements. They could probably be improved, but I do not think I would like to see the list get that much longer.

Prisons and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Warman]

Q But these are the greatest challenges for digital inclusion full stop, are they not? This is not a unique problem for justice.

Jenny Beck indicated assent.

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

Q What is very interesting about this discussion is that we seem to have become very polarised in favour and against. It strikes me that perhaps we need to take a step back and look at the other considerations that need to be brought in to make this effective and not a risk in terms of justice outcomes.

If I may, I will make this slight comparison. I used to be responsible for teaching through video non-traditional A-level subjects—through the medium of Welsh, as it happens—to widen their accessibility, to 15 secondary schools in Wales. Of course, we constantly had the check of the results and seeing how the students who were being taught by video performed in comparison with the conventional teaching method. There is great potential in technology, as is being discussed, but I think there are issues in relation to the vulnerable and there are age—generational—issues as well, without beginning to touch on the nature of technology in some of our rural areas.

What worries me, and what I would like your opinion on, is how we bring this in and have the checks and balances to assess the research—whether there are different outcomes to justice in terms of this—and that this is not a headlong rush into technology in which some participants will actually suffer or there will be unjust results because of it. This cannot be polarised; it has to be something that we discuss as we go along.

Professor Susskind: I accept that it cannot be polarised. You obviously invite people along who are likely to take a position, and my position is a position of change. I have been involved with this for 35 years, suggesting that technology should be used more in the court system. I cannot say for a second that anyone has ever been rushing in; it has been a very slow, arduous and sometimes painful process.

I travel the world, have spoken in more than 40 countries and visited courts. We are, in this country, falling behind other courts, so we cannot be accused of rushing in. I fully agree, however, that to jump ahead in a foolhardy way would be silly. I am simply pointing out, and will say again, that in the context of civil law the current system is inaccessible, unaffordable and unintelligible—full stop. It seems to me worth at least introducing some of these new procedures to offer access to people who would otherwise never have had it. I do not find that contentious; in fact, on civil, I do not think I have been hearing great opposition to it.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Q Forgive me, but what would the checks be as we change from one very well established and familiar system to a new system? What will be the checks from day to day that they are operating properly?

Professor Susskind: Are we talking about the civil system or the criminal system? Because if we are talking about the civil system, I have to come back at you. You say that it is a very well established system, but my view is that it is a system that suffers from very serious difficulties.

The last research was shown to suggest that 1 million people every year have justiciable entitlements and do not, or cannot, pursue their rights in the civil justice system. We have vast numbers of litigants in person who really struggle to understand the system. If our system was great just now, I would be very hesitant about saying we should replace it with technology.

If this is taking a polar position, I am happy to take one—we have a civil justice system just now that is inaccessible for the overwhelming majority of citizens. I want to say to you that it is surely worth introducing, for some low-value claims, a new way of offering access to judges and then monitoring it very carefully—maybe that is the point you want a response on. I think it is vital that we do ongoing research. The point is well made that we need to understand the impact as we go along and we need be willing to change direction.

As for the evolution of technology in the private sector and the public sector, we are not architects. You cannot design the finished building and say, “Here is what it is going to look like.” It is a bit of a journey. If you are hesitant about starting the journey because we do not have the checks and balances in place—we need to have the checks in the place. I think you will find that most leaders, both in the public and private sector, have a sense of direction and say, “Let’s start this together, monitor carefully and ensure we are delivering the benefits.” It seems to me that the option of saying, “Let’s not change at all because we cannot be certain how it is going to unpack,” is not an attractive one. The discussion we should be having is how we ensure, with all these new technologies, that we are monitoring their impact, and that there is an appropriate hand on the tiller when it seems it is taking us in different directions.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Q Could you recommend what form that should take?

Professor Susskind: I am bound to say this, because in part I am an academic by background, but I think we need to move beyond anecdote. I can tell you what I heard in the court room that I visited—it was nothing like what was heard over here—but actually, what each of us says as individuals is less important than engaging serious researchers to undertake attitudinal surveys and surveys of people who have been through the process. That is the kind of work that we have seen someone like Hazel Genn at UCL doing over the decades—understanding why people go to the law, how they feel when they have been through the process and whether they have confidence in the system.

I have been strongly advocating, even for the civil system that I have recommended we introduce, that we should not rush in. We should think big, but start small. We should start small, monitor, evaluate, undertake serious academic empirical research, report back, invest where things seem promising and be prepared to accept if developments do not work out. We do not have the evidence yet so we have got to kick-start it somewhere. This, for me, is a call for an incremental—the technology would say an agile—modular step-by-step approach. If I was getting the sense that the Government were advocating a big bang—one single system, architect in advance—I would be very critical of that, but that is not the approach being taken.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Q I was hoping we might move on to clause 47—the cross-examination in family justice. I was hoping to ask Polly from Women’s Aid, who is sat very patiently, one or two questions about this. Polly, could you give us a sense of the harm caused by victims being cross-examined in person by alleged abusers in the family courts?

Polly Neate: It is hard to overstate how harmful it is, actually; it is genuinely traumatising. In particular, it makes it very difficult for the family courts to play the role they should play, which is to put the child’s best interests first, when usually the mother of the child is not able to advocate adequately because she is being questioned by somebody who has put her through abuse—sometimes, years of abuse.

The other thing that is really important to understand about this—this is what is worrying about judges’ understanding, if I may say so—is that domestic abuse is not all about incidents of physical violence; it is all about control, and coercive control. The family courts are being used, if you like, as an arena for perpetrators to continue to exert the control over their partner or former partner, and in particular they are using child contact proceedings as a way of continuing to exert that control.

So it is not only that the person might be overtly abusive towards the survivor in the court, although that happens unfortunately. It is also that there are like trigger words and almost code words that a perpetrator can use when talking to the victim, which will mean something to her that is extremely traumatic but to anyone listening it would not necessarily appear to be abusive, on the face of it. That is why we say that the practice just has to be banned, because as an onlooker you cannot necessarily tell the meaning of what is being said between those two people, particularly—this often happens—after years of abuse and coercive control of all kinds, and psychological control in particular.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right. I was delighted that we were able to say that Wellingborough will have one of those new prisons. We have just opened HMP Berwyn in Wrexham, which is operating well already and will help us to deal with overcrowding. The new prisons will also ensure that we are able to attract and retain prison officers in places where offenders can be reformed.

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

I rise to speak as chair of the cross-party justice unions parliamentary group. As the Secretary of State mentioned, HMP Berwyn opened its doors and accepted its first men last week, but how can she condone paying newly recruited prison officers in north Wales £8,000 less than new recruits in south-east England?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am determined to ensure that we recruit the right number of officers right across the country. In the south-east, where costs are high and where there is much competition for highly skilled individuals, we have specific issues with recruiting and retaining people. However, the 2,000 new more senior roles that I mentioned are available right across the country, and people in HMP Berwyn will be able to apply for them with that extra training and get that extra pay.

Prisons

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow such an informed and powerful speech by the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson). I should declare that I am co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group and the family court unions parliamentary group.

The Ministry of Justice cites three key objectives that underpin the operation of the Prison Service: to hold prisoners securely, to reduce the risk of prisoners reoffending and to provide

“safe and well-ordered establishments in which we treat prisoners humanely, decently and lawfully.”

Wales has four jails, housing 3,436 inmates—4% of the total prisoner population in the joint legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. On Monday, I visited HMP Berwyn, the brand-new prison in north Wales, which is due to open next month. With places for 2,106 men, this so-called super-prison will increase Wales’s capacity for housing prisoners by over 50%.

Plaid Cymru continues to have several concerns about the prison, especially the massive strain it will place on North Wales police, which is expected to face extra staffing costs of £147,000 a year as a direct result. At a time when the already underfunded police force is stretched, with limited resources and tight budgets, I must question why it is acceptable to expect a local force to foot the bill for a UK Government project. That super-prison is designed first and foremost to meet the needs of north-west England, not those of north Wales, yet the Government insist that North Wales police is responsible for covering the cost of policing that facility.

My reservations about this Government’s prisons policy should not be mistaken for any kind of criticism of the dedicated staff who work in the criminal justice system. I thank operational supervisor Peter Buffel, who was an excellent guide and advocate for the ethos of HMP Berwyn. I was struck by a strong sense that the staff—both experienced prison personnel and new recruits—were looking forward to contributing to a worthwhile social facility. Two prison officers were forthcoming in explaining that they had moved from posts at other prisons specifically because of the quality of the new-build estate at HMP Berwyn and the prison’s innovative, exciting offender management objectives. Those reasons are important. I am sure that we will be following the prison’s progress closely.

However, I ask the Minister once again to ensure that we have the correct staff in terms not only of experience and skill, but of language, because HMP Berwyn is in close proximity to some of the most Welsh-speaking regions in Wales. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to assure the House that appropriate provisions, including the hiring of Welsh-speaking staff, will be made to enable the prison to operate effectively bilingually. Will the Minister confirm that NOMS will work with HMP Berwyn to draw up an institution-specific Welsh language plan?

While Wales has the ability to set much of its own health and social policy, the criminal justice system is still dictated by Westminster, which of course prioritises the needs of England. If Wales is truly to help people reintegrate into society and to prevent reoffending, those powers must be devolved to the Welsh Assembly. I have a request: this Government are supposedly committed to decentralisation and if the Minister and the Secretary of State are committed to reducing reoffending, will they once again consider the devolution of the criminal justice system? At the very least, will the Minister respond to the Silk commission’s requests that a formal mechanism be established for Welsh Ministers to contribute to policy development on adult offender management, and that a feasibility study of the devolution of the prison and probation services is undertaken?

Access to Justice

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Rob Marris]

My hon. Friend is entirely right and anticipates what I am going to say. There is, as he will know as a distinguished lawyer, an exceptional case fund, which was established to help people such as survivors of domestic violence to get free legal assistance. The Independent, which admittedly is a newspaper and not the Ministry of Justice, reported in 2015 that from April to December 2013 there were 617 applications to the exceptional case fund—that will be for all of England and Wales—and eight were successful. In the three-month period from April to June 2015, five out of 125 applications were successful. The people applying are some of the most disadvantaged in society and face some of the most grievous personal circumstances.

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

Legal aid has been eroded particularly, perhaps, for victims of domestic abuse, and many now have to present their cases in the family court. Regardless of recently announced Government proposals in relation to abuse of process, surely domestic abuse victims must have their own lawyers in family courts to avoid abuse by proxy.

[Rob Marris]

The hon. Lady is—

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Lee]

I recall answering the hon. Lady’s question at the last Justice Question Time, and my point was that the cause of this is very complex. I am very much aware of the suicide list, and we know that we have had an increase in the number of suicides this year, particularly in the women’s system. One case in the north-east, that of Michelle Barnes, is particularly shocking. The hon. Lady can be assured that I am looking closely at it, but there have been others. In dealing with this, I am not only trying to work on a women’s strategy that can be brought forward in the new year, but looking at offender mental health across the entire prisons system.

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

Will the Minister commit to work with devolved Governments to ensure funding for third sector organisations such as the North Wales Women’s Centre, which supports women in the criminal justice system as an alternative to prison?

[Dr Lee]

I have already met Claire Sugden, Northern Ireland’s Justice Minister, and I intend to meet Justice Ministers from the other devolved regions. I am very happy to discuss those issues with them.

Policing and Crime Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Commons Chamber

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.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 54—Powers to seize invalid travel documents.

Government new clause 55—Anonymity of victims of forced marriage.

Government new clause 56—Licensing functions under taxi and PHV legislation: protection of children and vulnerable adults.

Government new clause 57—Powers of litter authorities in Scotland.

New clause 3—Digital Crime Review—

“(1) The Secretary of State shall have a duty to provide for a review of legislation which contains powers to prosecute individuals who may have been involved in the commission of digital crime in order to consolidate such powers in a single statute.

(2) In the conduct of the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to the statutes and measures that he deems appropriate, including but not limited to—

(a) Malicious Communications Act 1988, section 1,

(b) Protection from Harassment Act 1997, section 2, 2a, 4, 4a,

(c) Offences against the Person Act 1861, section 16, 20, 39, 47,

(d) Data Protection Act 1998, section 10, 13 and 55,

(e) Criminal Justice Act 1998, section 160,

(f) Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, section 30(1), (3),(5),(6), 78(5),

(g) Computer Misuse Act 1990, as amended by Serious Crime Act 2015 and Police and Justice Act 2006,

(h) Contempt of Court Act 1981,

(i) Human Rights Act 1998,

(j) Public Order Act 1986, section 4, 4a, 5, 16(b), 18,

(k) Serious Organised Crime Act 2005, section 145, 46,

(l) Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006, section 48,

(m) Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2014, section 32, 34, 35, 36, 37,

(n) Protection of Children Act 1978,

(o) Obscene Publications Act 1959,

(p) Crime and Disorder Act 1998, section 28, 29-32,

(q) Criminal Justice Act 2003, section 145, 146,

(r) Communications Act 2003, section 127, 128-131,

(s) Data retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, section 4,

(t) Sexual Offences Amendment Act 1992, section 5,

(u) Counter Terrorism and Security Act 2015,

(v) Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, section 33(5), 29(6),

(w) Criminal Damage Act 1971, section 2,

(x) Sexual Offences Act 2003, section 4, 8, 10, 62,

(y) Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, section 43,

(z) Magistrates Court Act 1980, section 127,

() Suicide Act 1961, section 2(1) as amended by Coroners and Justice Act 2009,

() Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, section 63,

() Theft Act 1968, section 21, and

() Criminal Law Act 1977, section 51(2)

(3) It shall be a duty of the Secretary of State to determine for the review any other statute under which persons have been prosecuted for a crime falling under section 1 of this Act.

(4) In the conduct of the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with any person or body he deems appropriate, including but not limited to—

(a) the Police,

(b) Crown Prosecution Service,

(c) judiciary, and

(d) relevant community organisations.”

New clause 4—Surveillance and monitoring: offences—

“(1) A person commits an offence if the person—

(a) uses a digital device to repeatedly locate, listen to or watch a person without legitimate purpose,

(b) installs spyware, a webcam or any other device or software on another person’s property or digital device without the user’s agreement or without legitimate reason,

(c) takes multiple images of an individual unless it is in the public interest to do so without that individual’s permission and where the intent was not legitimate nor lawful,

(d) repeatedly orders goods or services for another person if the purpose of such actions is to cause distress, anxiety or to disrupt that person’s daily life,

(e) erases data remotely whilst a digital device is being examined by the police or any other lawful investigation,

(f) monitors a digital device registered to a person aged 17 or less if the purpose of that monitoring is to obtain information about a third person,

(g) monitors any other person’s digital device if the intent of the monitor is either to damage or steal data from that person, or

(h) creates a false persona on line without lawful reason if the purpose of such a creation is to intend to attempt to defraud, groom, impersonate or seriously damage the reputation of any other person.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsections (1)(a) or (b) is liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or a fine.

(3) For the purpose of subsection (1)(a) “repeatedly” shall be deemed as on two occasions or more.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(d) is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory limit.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsections (1)(e), (f), (g) or (h) is liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months.

(6) The Secretary of State shall introduce restrictions on the sale of spyware to persons under the age of 16 and requests all persons who are purchasing such equipment to state their intended use of such equipment.”

New clause 5—Digital crime training and education—

‘(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Home Department to ensure that each Police Service shall invest in training on the prioritisation, investigation and evidence gathering in respect of digital crime and abuse.

(2) It shall be the responsibility of the Home Department to ensure that all Police services record complaints and outcomes of complaints of digital crime and abuse.

(3) It shall be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to publish annual statistics on complaints and outcomes of digital crime and abuse.”

New clause 6—Offence of abduction of a vulnerable child aged 16 or 17—

“(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence if, knowingly and without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, he or she—

(a) takes a child to whom this section applies away from the responsible person; or

(b) keeps such a child away from the responsible person; or

(c) induces, assists or incites such a child to run away or stay away from the responsible person or from a child’s place of residence.

(2) This section applies in relation to a child aged 16 or 17 who is—

(a) a child in need as defined in section 17 of the Children Act 1989; or

(b) a child looked after under section 20 of the Children Act 1989; or

(c) a child housed alone under part 7 of the Housing Act 1996; or

(d) a child who is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm subject to section 47 1(b) of the Children Act 1989.

(3) In this section “the responsible person” is—

(a) a person with a parental responsibility as defined in the Children Act 1989; or

(b) a person who for the time being has care of a vulnerable child aged 16 and 17 by virtue of a care order, an emergency protection order, or protection from section 46 of the Children Act 1989; or

(c) any other person as defined in regulations for the purposes of this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both such imprisonment and fine; or

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years.

(5) No prosecution for an offence above shall be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

New clause 10—Prevention of child sexual exploitation and private hire vehicles—

“(1) The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 47(1) insert—

“(1A) A district council must carry out its functions under this section with a view to preventing child sexual exploitation”.

(3) At end of section 48 (1) insert—

“(c) a district council must carry out its functions under this section with a view to preventing child sexual exploitation”.

(4) Section 7 of the London Cab Order 1934 is amended as follows.

(5) After section 7(2) insert—

“(2A) Transport for London must carry out its functions under this section with a view to preventing child sexual exploitation.””

(6) Section 7 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(7) After section 7(2) insert—

“(3) The licensing authority must carry out its functions under this section with a view to preventing child sexual exploitation.””

This new clause would place local authorities under a duty to consider how they can prevent child sexual exploitation when they issue licences for taxis and private hire vehicles.

New clause 13—Grooming for criminal behaviour: offence—

“(1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—

(a) A has met or communicated with another person (B) on at least two occasions and subsequently—

(i) A intentionally meets B,

(ii) A travels with the intention of meeting B in any part of the world or arranges to meet B in any part of the world, or

(iii) B travels with the intention of meeting A in any part of the world,

(b) A intends to say or do anything to or in respect of B, during or after the meeting mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) to (iii) and in any part of the world, which if done will—

(i) encourage,

(ii) persuade, or

(iii) intimidate

B with the effect that B commits a criminal offence from which A will,

or intends to, profit.

(c) B is under 16, and

(d) A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over.

(2) For subsection (1)(b)(iii) to apply, A does not have to profit directly nor be the sole beneficiary of a criminal offence committed by B.

(3) In subsection (1) the reference to A having met or communicated with B is a reference to A having met B in any part of the world or having communicated with B by any means from, to or in any part of the world.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both,

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.”

New clause 14—Grooming for criminal behaviour: prevention orders—

“(1) A court may make an order under this section in respect of a person aged 18 or over (A) where—

(a) A has committed an offence under section (Grooming for criminal behaviour); or

(b) the court is satisfied that A’s behaviour makes it necessary to make such an order, for the purpose of protecting one or more persons aged 16 or under from being encouraged, persuaded or intimidated by A into committing a crime from which A intends to profit.

(2) A chief officer of police may by complaint to a magistrates’ court apply for an order under this section in respect of a person who resides in his police area or who the chief officer believes is in, or is intending to come to, his police area if it appears to the chief officer that—

(a) the person has committed an offence under section (Grooming for criminal behaviour); or

(b) the person’s behaviour makes it reasonable to make such an order, for the purpose of protecting one or more other persons aged 16 or under from being encouraged, persuaded, facilitated or intimidated into committing a crime from which others will, or intend to, profit.

(c) the person has acted in such a way as to give reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary for such an order to be made.

(3) An application under subsection (2) may be made to any magistrates’ court whose commission area includes—

(a) any part of the applicant’s police area, or

(b) any place where it is alleged that the person acted in a way mentioned in subsection (2)(b).

(4) A grooming for criminal behaviour prevention order (GCBPO) that includes one or more requirements must specify the person who is to be responsible for supervising compliance with the requirement who may be an individual or an organisation.

(5) Before including a requirement, the court must receive evidence about its suitability and enforceability from—

(a) the individual to be specified under subsection (1), if an individual is to be specified;

(b) an individual representing the organisation to be specified under subsection (1), if an organisation is to be specified.

(6) Before including two or more requirements, the court must consider their compatibility with each other.

(7) It is the duty of a person specified under subsection (4)—

(a) to make any necessary arrangements in connection with the requirements for which the person has responsibility (the “relevant requirements”);

(b) to promote the compliance of the GCBPO subject with the relevant requirements;

(c) if the person considers that the GCBPO subject—

(i) has complied with all the relevant requirements, or

(ii) has failed to comply with a relevant requirement,

to inform the prosecution and the appropriate chief officer of police.

(8) In subsection (7)(c) “the appropriate chief officer of police” means—

(a) the chief officer of police for the police area in which it appears to the person specified under subsection (1) that—

(i) the GCBRO subject lives, or

(ii) one or more persons aged 16 or under as mentioned in subsection (1)(b) lives;

(b) if it appears to a person specified under subsection (4) that the GCBPO subject lives in more than one police area, whichever of the relevant chief officers of police that person thinks it most appropriate to inform.

(9) The subject of a GCBPO, in addition to any specific restrictions and requirements detailed within the order, must—

(a) keep in touch with the person specified under subsection (4) in relation to that requirement, in accordance with any instructions given by that person from time to time; and

(b) notify the person of any change of address.

These obligations have effect as requirements of the order.”

New clause 15—Sentencing guidelines review: children—

“(1) With an year of the day on which this Act is passed the Sentencing Council must conduct a review of it sentencing guidelines as they relate to crime against children and crimes where the victim is a child.

(2) The Sentencing Council must publish the findings of its review and lay a copy of that report before Parliament.

(3) In conducting this review the Sentencing Council must consult—

(a) the Secretary of State for Justice,

(b) and any other bodies it thinks relevant.

(4) For the purpose of this section “child” has the same meaning as in section 105 of the Children Act 1989.”

This new clause would require the Sentencing Council to review the sentencing guideline for offences committed against children.

New clause 16—Soliciting via telecommunications order: applications, grounds and effect—

“(1) A chief officer of police may by complaint to a magistrates’ court apply for an order under this section (a “soliciting via telecommunication order“) in respect of a telecommunications service provider if it appears to the chief officer that a phone number (“the relevant phone number”) administered by a telecommunications service provider is being used for the purposes of advertising a person’s services as a prostitute.

(2) The chief office of police may make an application under subsection (1) only if the relevant phone number has been advertised in the chief officer‘s police area.

(3) Such an order requires the telecommunications service provider to take all reasonable steps to prevent calls to the relevant phone number being connected.

(4) It shall be an offence for a telecommunication service provider to fail to comply with terms of an order issued under this section.

(5) An organisation found guilty of an offence under subsection (5) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine no greater than £50,000.”

This new clause would enable the police to request that a magistrate issues an order to mobile phone providers that they block a number if that number is on cards advertising prostitution and create an offence if they fail to comply with a fine of up to £50,000.

New clause 18—Cruelty to persons under sixteen: penalty—

“(1) The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 1(1)(a) leave out the words “ten” and insert “fourteen.””

To increase the maximum tariff for child cruelty from 10 years imprisonment to 14 years.

New clause 33—Police observance of the Victims’ Code: enforcement—

“(1) The Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 5(1B) omit paragraph (a) together with the final “or”.

(3) After section 5(1B) insert—

“(1BA) Subsection (1C) of this section applies if a written complaint is made to the Commissioner by a member of the public who claims that—

(a) a police officer

(b) a police service employee other than a police officer

(c) another person determined under section (1BC)

has failed to perform a Code duty owed by him to the member of the public.

(1BB) For the purposes of subsection (1BA) a Code duty is a duty imposed by a code of practice issued under section 32 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (code of practice for victims).

(1BC) The Secretary of State may by regulation amend the categories of person identified in subsection (1BA) as the Secretary of State thinks fit.”

(4) In section 5(4A), after “(1A)”, insert “or (1BA)”.

(5) In section 6(3), at the beginning insert “Except as provided in subsection (3A)”.

(6) After section 6(3), insert—

“(3A) Subsection (3) shall apply in relation to a complaint under section 5(1BA) as if for “a member of the House of Commons” there were substituted “the Commissioner”.”

(7) In section 7(1A), after “5(1A)”, insert “or 5(1BA)”.

(8) In section 8(1A), after “5(1A)”, insert “or 5(1BA)”.

(9) After section 10(2A), insert—

“(2B) In any case where the Commissioner conducts an investigation pursuant to a complaint under section 5(1BA) of this Act, he shall send a report of the results of the investigation to—

(a) the person to whom the complaint relates,

(b) the principal officer of the department or authority concerned and to any other person who is alleged in the relevant complaint to have taken or authorised the action complained of, and

(c) the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses appointed under section 48 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.”

(10) After section 10(3B) insert—

“(3C) If, after conducting an investigation pursuant to a complaint under section 5(1BA) of this Act, it appears to the Commissioner that—

(a) the person to whom the complaint relates has failed to perform a Code duty owed by him to the person aggrieved, and

(b) the failure has not been, or will not be, remedied, the Commissioner shall lay before each House of Parliament a special report upon the case.

(3D) If the Commissioner lays a special report before each House of Parliament pursuant to subsection (3C) the Commissioner may also send a copy of the report to any person as the Commissioner thinks appropriate.

(3E) For the purposes of subsection (3C) “Code duty” has the meaning given by section 5(1BB) of this Act.”

(11) In section 10(5)(d), for “or (2A)” substitute “, (2A) or (2B)”.

(12) In section 12(1), after paragraph (b) of the definition of “person aggrieved”, insert—

“(c) in relation to a complaint under section 5(1BA) of this Act, means the person to whom the duty referred to in section 5 (1BA) of this Act is or is alleged to be owed;”.”

New clause 34—Police, etc. provision for victims’ entitlement: framework—

“(1) The Victims’ Code (a code of practice issued under section 32 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (code of practice for victims)) shall include, but not be limited to, the entitlement of victims to receive as follows.

(2) A victim of crime shall be entitled to receive—

(a) accurate and timely information from—

(i) the police

(ii) such other agencies of the criminal justice system concerned with the detection and prosecution of the relevant crime and with the support of victims of crime as the Secretary of State deems fit;

(b) The police must ensure provision to victims of adequate notice of all relevant court and other legal proceedings, including information about decisions by and discussions between the police and other agencies of the criminal justice system relating to the person convicted of the crime concerned (“the perpetrator”), including—

(i) information about any prison sentence previously served by the perpetrator,

(ii) information about relevant changes to the perpetrator’s circumstances whilst on parole or in custody,

(iii) information about any crimes committed by the perpetrator outside the UK where the victim of the crime concerned is a British national,

(iv) access, where required, to adequate interpretation and translation services, and

(v) information about the direct contact details of the criminal justice agencies and individuals involved in the court or other legal proceedings concerned.

(3) During criminal justice proceedings, the police and other relevant agencies and authorities of the criminal justice system must ensure that victims of crime—

(a) are not subjected to unnecessary delay by any other party to the proceedings;

(b) are treated with dignity and respect by all parties involved; and

(c) do not experience discriminatory behaviour from any other party to the proceedings.

(4) Children and vulnerable adults must be able to give evidence to a court secure location away from that court or from behind a protective screen.

(5) The investigating police force concerned must ensure the safety and protection of victims of crime during proceedings, including but not restricted to—

(a) a presumption that victims of crime may remain domiciled at their home with adequate police protection if required; and

(b) ensuring that the victim and those accompanying them are provided with access to discreet waiting areas during the relevant court proceedings.

(6) All victims of crime shall have access to an appropriate person to liaise with relevant agencies on their behalf and to inform them about, and explain the progress, outcomes and impact of, their case.

(7) Witnesses under the age of 18 shall have access to a trained communications expert, to be known as a Registered Intermediary, to help them understand as necessary what is happening in the criminal proceedings.

(8) Victims of crime shall have access to transcripts of any relevant legal proceedings at no cost to themselves.

(9) Victims of crime shall have the right to attend and make representations to a pre-court hearing to determine the nature of the court proceedings.

(10) The Secretary of State must take steps to ensure that victims of crime—

(a) have access to financial compensation from public funds for any detriment arising from the criminal case concerned;

(b) are given the right to approve or refuse the payment of any compensation order made by a court against a person convicted of a crime against them;

(c) have reimbursed to them, from public funds, any expenses incurred by them in attending in court and in any related legal process, whether in the UK or overseas;

(d) have available to them legal advice where considered necessary by a judge in court proceedings; and

(e) are not required to disclose personal data in legal proceedings which puts their safety at risk unless specifically ordered to do so by a judge.”

New clause 35—Police etc. training: treatment of victims—

“(1) The Secretary of State shall publish and implement a strategy for providing training on the impact of crime on victims and victims’ rights for staff of the following organisations—

(a) the police

(b) the Crown Prosecution Service, and

(c) any other public agency or authority that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(2) The Secretary of State may also by regulation make provision for judges, barristers and solicitors involved in criminal cases involving sexual and domestic violence undertake specialist training.

(3) The Secretary of State shall publish an agreed timetable for the delivery and completion of the training required by this section.”

New clause 36—Establishment and conduct of homicide reviews—

“(1) In this section “homicide review” means a review of the circumstances a person aged 16 or over has, or appears to have, died as the result of a homicide and—

(a) no one has been charged with the homicide, or

(b) the person(s) charged has been acquitted.

(2) The Secretary of State may in a particular case direct a police force or other specified person or body or a person or body within subsection (5) to establish, or to participate in, a homicide review.

(3) It is the duty of any person or body within subsection (5) establishing or participating in a homicide review (whether or not held pursuant to a direction under subsection (2)) to have regard to any guidance and standards issued by the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses as to the establishment and conduct of such reviews.

(4) Any reference in subsection (2) to the Secretary of State shall, in relation to persons and bodies within subsection (5)(b), be construed as a reference to the PSNI or Department of Justice in Northern Ireland as may be appropriate.

(5) The persons and bodies within this subsection are—

(a) in relation to England and Wales—chief officers of police for police areas in England and Wales; local authorities; local probation boards established under section 4 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c 43); the National Health Service Commissioning Board; clinical commissioning groups established under section 14D of the National Health Service Act 2006; providers of probation services; Local Health Boards established under section 11 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006; NHS trusts established under section 25 of the National Health Service Act 2006 or section 18 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;

(b) in relation to Northern Ireland—the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland; the Probation Board for Northern Ireland; Health and Social Services Boards established under Article 16 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (SI 1972/1265 (NI 14)); Health and Social Services trusts established under Article 10 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (SI 1991/194 (NI 1)).

(6) In subsection (5)(a) “local authority” means—

(a) in relation to England, the council of a district, county or London borough, the Common Council of the City of London and the Council of the Isles of Scilly;

(b) in relation to Wales, the council of a county or county borough.”

New clause 37—Statutory duty on elected local policing bodies—

“(1) An elected local policing body must assess—

(a) the needs of victims in each elected local policing body’s police area, and

(b) the adequacy and effectiveness of the available victims’ services in that area.

(2) An elected local policing body must—

(a) prepare and consult upon an Area Victims’ Plan for its police area,

(b) having taken account of any responses to its consultation and any Quality Standard, publish the Plan in such a manner as sets out clearly how the identified victim needs will be met by the available victims’ services, and

(c) submit its Area Victims’ Plan to the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses on an annual basis.

(3) In this section—

“elected local policing body” and “police area” have the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, and “Quality Standard” means the standard published under section 49(1)(f) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.”

New clause 38—Duties of the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses—

“(1) Section 49 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (general functions of Commissioner) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (c) insert—

“(d) assess the adequacy of each elected local policing body’s Area Victims’ Plans submitted to the Commissioner under section (Statutory duty on elected local policing bodies) of the Policing and Crime Act 2016,

(e) make to elected local policing bodies such recommendations about submitted Area Victims’ Plans as the Commissioner considers necessary and appropriate;

(f) prepare a statement of standards (the “Quality Standard”) in relation to the provision of victims’ services;

(g) publish the Quality Standard in such manner as the Commissioner considers appropriate;

(h) review the Quality Standard at intervals of not more than five years;

(i) in preparing or reviewing a Quality Standard, consult the public, and for that purpose may publish drafts of the standard;

(j) assess the steps taken to support victims and witnesses in giving evidence;

(k) make such recommendations in relation to that assessment as the Commissioner considers necessary and appropriate;

(l) issue guidance and standards for the establishment and conduct of homicide reviews under section (Establishment and conduct of homicide reviews) of the Policing and Crime Act 2016.””

New clause 39—National anti-doping provisions—

“(1) Subsections (2) and (3) apply to—

(a) all athletes participating in sport in the UK who are members of a governing body of sport or an affiliate organisation or licensee of a governing body of sport (including any clubs, teams, associations or leagues);

(b) all athletes participating in such capacity in sporting events, competitions or other activities in the UK organised, convened, authorised or recognised by a governing body of sport or any of its member or affiliate organisations or licensees (including any clubs, teams, associations or leagues), wherever held;

(c) any other athlete participating in sport in the UK who, by virtue of a contractual arrangement or otherwise, is subject to the jurisdiction of a governing body of sport for purposes of anti-doping; and

(d) any person belonging to the entourage of an athlete, whether or not such person is a citizen of, or resident in, the United Kingdom.

(2) An athlete is guilty of an offence if he or she knowingly takes a prohibited substance with the intention, or one of the intentions, of enhancing his or her performance.

(3) A person belonging to the entourage of an athlete is guilty of an offence if he or she encourages or assists or hides awareness of the relevant athlete taking a prohibited substance with the intention, or one of the intentions, of enhancing such athlete’s performance.

(4) A medical professional commits an offence if they proscribe a prohibited substance to an athlete and believe, or ought reasonably to believe, that the substance will be used by the athlete to enhance their performance.

(5) For the purposes of this section a “prohibited substance” is as defined by the World Anti-Doping Agency.

(6) Any person guilty of an offence under subsection (2), (3) or (4) shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both; or

(b) On conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both.

(7) UK Anti-Doping shall discuss the following issues with the World Anti-Doping Agency annually—

(a) the effectiveness of section 11 of the International Standard for Testing (athlete whereabouts requirements) and its harmonisation with EU privacy and working time rules and the European Convention on Human Rights;

(b) the effectiveness of the international work of the World Anti-Doping Agency; and

(c) progress on the development of a universal rollout of athlete biological passports.

(8) UK Anti-Doping shall submit the results of the annual discussions referred to in subsection (7) to the Secretary of State, who shall in turn—

(a) lay before both Houses of Parliament an annual report documenting—

(i) whether the athlete whereabouts requirements are effective in combating the abuse of drug-taking and in compliance with EU privacy and working time rules and the European Convention on Human Rights, and

(ii) the performance of the World Anti-Doping Agency in general; and

(b) determine whether the Government should remain a member and continue to support the World Anti-Doping Agency.”

New clause 41—Local Safeguarding Children Board: prevention of child sexual exploitation—

“(1) The Children Act 2004 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 14 after “children”, insert “and preventing child sexual exploitation, child abuse and child neglect.””

New clause 44—Modern technology: specialist digital unit (child abuse)—

“(1) The chief officer of each police force in Wales and England must ensure that within their force there is a unit that specialises in analysing and investigating allegations of online offences against children and young people.

(2) The chief officer must ensure that such a unit has access to sufficient digital forensic science resource to enable it to perform this function effectively and efficiently.”

New clause 46—Anonymity for victims who have private sexual photographs and films disclosed without their consent with intent to cause distress—

“(1) Section 2 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert—

(c) an offence under section 33 of the Criminal Courts and Justice Act 2015.”

New clause 47—Compensation for victims who have private sexual photographs and films disclosed without their consent with intent to cause distress—

“(1) Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (9), insert—

“(9A) The court may order a person guilty of an offence under this section to pay compensation to the victim of the offence, under sections 130 to 132 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

(9B) Compensation under subsection (9A) may be awarded for (among other things) any anxiety caused by the offence and any financial loss resulting from the offence.”

New clause 60—Duty to report on Child Abduction Warning Notices—

“(1) Each police force in England and Wales must report to the Secretary of State each year on—

(a) the number of Child Abduction Warning Notices issued;

(b) the number of Child Abduction Warning Notices breached; and

(c) the number of Sexual Risk Orders and Sexual Harm Prevention Orders issued following the breach of a Child Abduction Warning Notice.

(2) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report each year on—

(a) the number of Child Abduction Warning Notices issued in each police force in England and Wales;

(b) the number of Child Abduction Warning Notices breached in each police force in England and Wales; and

(c) the number of Sexual Risk Orders and Sexual Harm Prevention Orders issued following the breach of a Child Abduction Warning Notice in each police force in England and Wales

and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.”

New clause 61—Disclosure of private sexual photographs and films without consent and with the intent to cause distress, fear or alarm, or recklessness as to distress, fear or alarm being caused—

“(1) Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) after “disclose” insert “or threaten to disclose”.

(3) In subsection (1)(b) after “distress” insert “fear or alarm or recklessness as to distress, fear or alarm being caused”.

(4) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) It is also an offence to knowingly promote, solicit or profit from private photographs and films that are reasonably believed to have been disclosed without consent and with the intent to cause distress, fear or alarm, or recklessness as to distress, fear or alarm being caused”.

(5) Leave out subsection (8).”

This new clause clarifies and expands the definition of the offence of disclosing private sexual photographs and films without consent and with the intent to cause distress, also known as revenge pornography, so that it includes reckless intent. This new clause also makes it an offence to knowingly promote, solicit or profit from private photographs and films that are reasonably believed to have been disclosed without consent.

New clause 62—Meaning of “private” and “sexual”—

“(1) Section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3)(a) after “exposed genitals” insert “breasts, buttocks,”.

(3) Leave out subsection 4.

(4) Leave out subsection 5.”

This new clause expands the definition of “sexual” and ensures the disclosure of pornographic photoshopped images, posted with the intent to cause distress, fear or alarm or recklessness as to distress, fear or alarm being caused, are covered by the law.

New clause 67—Misconduct in public office—

“(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) the person is a public officer,

(b) the person wilfully neglects to perform their duty or wilfully misconducts themselves in the performance of their public duty to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public‘s trust in the office holder, and

(c) the person acts without reasonable excuse or justification.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable—

(a) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or, in relation to offences committed, to a fine, or to both;

(b) in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;

(c) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine, or to both.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a public officer is an officer who discharges any duty in the discharge of which the public are interested and includes, but is not limited to—

(a) executive or ministerial officers,

(b) police officer, including a police officer in a period of suspension and a former police officer doing part-time police work,

(c) constable,

(d) special constable,

(e) community support officer,

(f) employee of a police force with responsibility for the computer system of that police force,

(g) prison officer,

(h) Independent Monitoring Board member,

(i) nurse working within a prison,

(j) coroner,

(k) army officer,

(l) accountant in the office of the Paymaster General,

(m) Justice of the Peace

(n) magistrate,

(o) district judge,

(p) clergy of the Church of England,

(q) mayor,

(r) local councillor,

(s) employee of a local authority, and

(t) civil servant or other employee of a public body.”

This new clause seeks to codify the common law offence of misconduct in public office and prescribes a list of ‘public officers’ to which this offence shall apply

Government amendments 107, 108, 111 to 116 and 119 to 122.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I intend to speak to new clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, and 44, and I intend to press new clause 2 to a Division. The other new clauses are intended to test discussions that took place in Committee.

I note what the Minister said earlier in support of localism, but would cautiously remind him if he were still in the Chamber that although Wales is one of the four nations of the United Kingdom, it is the only one that has no responsibility for its police forces. The Governments of both Scotland and Northern Ireland are able to acknowledge the specific needs of their communities and direct their police forces to work effectively in response to those needs, but Wales must follow the policing priorities of England.

The four police forces of Wales are unique in the United Kingdom in that they are non-devolved bodies operating within a largely devolved public services landscape. They are thus required to respond to the agendas of two Governments, and to serve a nation whose people have the right to use either the English or the Welsh language. It should be noted that the Assembly’s budget already funds 500 extra police community support officers.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Does my hon. Friend, like me, find it peculiar that other services that are vital to Welsh communities, such as social services, education, economic and health—including mental health—are all devolved? Would it not greatly aid the coherence of public policy in Wales if this particular service were also devolved?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I understand that the very fact of having to work to, and be answerable to, two agendas is the reason our colleagues in the Assembly, and the four police and crime commissioners in Wales, are calling for the devolution of policing.

What I am describing contrasts starkly with the situation in Wales. Power over policing is due to be devolved to English city regions: Manchester and Liverpool, for example. The present approach to devolution has been criticised in a House of Lords Constitutional Committee report, published last month, which described it as piecemeal and lacking a coherent vision. I would strongly argue that the devolution of policing to Wales would benefit the people of Wales, and that they are ill served by the antiquated England and Wales arrangement, which, inevitably, is designed with the priorities of English cities in mind.

Our demographics are different in Wales. The need to maintain effective services in rural areas with scattered populations cries out for better consideration. The impact of tourism—populations rocket at bank holidays and in summer months—stretches resources to the limit. Abersoch, in my constituency, has 1,000 year-round residents, yet North Wales police have to deal with an influx of 20,000 visitors in the summer season. I went on patrol with officers last August, and saw that drunken behaviour meant that police officers had to focus attention on that one community, travelling for hours back and forth along country roads to the nearest custody cells 30 miles away. The current arrangement of policing in England and Wales is dominated by English metropolitan concerns, and fails to provide for Wales's needs.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

My hon. Friend is making very strong points. Only recently, the UK Government introduced centralised helicopter services for the police in England and Wales. That did not affect Scotland and Northern Ireland, because their police forces were decentralised. They kept their helicopters, but we lost ours in Dyfed-Powys. Ministers should not smirk; this affects lives in my constituency. The police force in Dyfed-Powys called out the helicopter on more than 40 occasions, and it was sent out on only a handful of them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This is not like you, Mr Edwards. If you want to speak, you are allowed to speak, but you cannot make a speech and get carried away and start pointing at the Minister. Let us try to keep it calm. If you want to raise any points, there will certainly be time for you to do so. We will not miss you out.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

But the question of resources and how those priorities direct them does indeed highlight again the fact that Wales has different needs, and those resources from central Government do get directed to those priorities which best serve England.

When devolution of policing to Wales was discussed in Committee, the Minister present referred to the Silk commission on devolution in Wales, which was established by his party in 2011 with cross-party membership. Part 2 was published in 2014 and recommended devolution. He made much at the time of the fact that there was no consensus on this recommendation as a result of the St David’s day process and “Powers for a purpose”.

Those involved in that process have told me it was little more than a tick-box exercise: if all party representatives liked it, the power was in the bag; if not, chuck it out, regardless of the implications for the governance and needs and, indeed, people of Wales. I note that in Committee Labour indicated a grudging support for devolving policing, albeit in the distant future: 10 years away. It seems pressure from Plaid is driving the accelerator. This is not a matter of jam tomorrow; we are living in hope of this today.

This opportunity is before the House here and now. The contents of future legislation and future amendments lack this certainty. If this House votes for devolution today, policing will be devolved to Wales, and the Government will then have to amend the Wales Bill accordingly at the very start of its journey. Indeed, surely, the Wales Bill deals first and foremost with constitutional matters, but here is our opportunity to make sure. I urge Labour to grasp the opportunity and support the National Assembly for Wales and all four police and crime commissioners in Wales and vote for the devolution of policing today.

New clauses 3, 4 and 5 relate to aspects of digital crime. I would note that these and new clause 44 are probing amendments. The Government state that resources are already provided to counter digital crime in the form of the National Cyber Crime Unit. I would respond that the National Cyber Crime Unit is relatively small, and that the national cyber security programme concentrates primarily on the security of businesses and infrastructure. Action Fraud addresses crime in relation to online fraud. The priorities are business, financial and serious crime, and do not cover the safeguarding of victims of abuse crimes such as domestic violence, stalking, harassment or hate crime.

The first of the new clauses proposes a review of legislation relating to digital crime and to consolidate the numerous Acts into a single statute. There are now over 30 statutes that cover online crime. Criminal justice professionals, including the police and CPS, believe this to be confusing at best and overwhelming at worst. Victims’ complaints are sometimes subject to delay, and there are times when officers are uncertain whether specific activities are criminal or not. The law has developed incrementally as technology advances, and there is an urgent need to codify and clarify the current situation. Consolidation will save police time and money. It will avoid duplication of officers on cases. Swifter action on victims’ complaints will reduce distress and anxiety.

As regards new clause 4, surveillance and monitoring highlights further issues against which there is currently no redress. The identification of these actions as offences will enable the police to counter activities that are evidently related to surveillance with intention to cause distress, and the law should respond appropriately.

New clause 5 addresses the need for training that is fit for purpose. Even in large police areas, fewer than 5% of officers and staff, including call and first response personnel, are trained in cyber-crime. Victims report being advised to go offline and not to use social media by officers. This defies modern communication media. It is equivalent to telling victims of harassment not to venture outside their own homes. The Home Office believes that training is a matter for individual forces, but in the absence of strong central leadership, this can only perpetuate present inconsistencies and variations from force to force. National training would help to raise the status of victims.

Finally, I turn to new clause 44, which calls for the establishment of a specialist digital unit to investigate online offences against children and young people. As I mentioned earlier, there is a real risk intrinsic in dependency on central units, although I acknowledge the work done by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. But, once again, children’s charities report to us that the scale of abuse of children online in terms of offenders, devices and images is leaving police swamped. There are delays in forensic analysis of devices—delays in some cases of up to 12 months. These delays pose risks to the safeguarding of children.

In Committee, the Minister mentioned the child abuse image database, and praised the accuracy of imagery interpretation and how it aids identification. It is of course to be commended that this database will take some of the load from individual forces. I would argue, none the less, that there is precedent for digital units on a similar model to domestic violence units as a means to ensure that all forces direct proper resources to this serious issue.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

I commend the hon. Lady for tabling these amendments. Importantly, she talked about the idea of a specialist digital unit within each police force. Does she agree that, if that were to happen, it would be imperative that this would feed back to some central database to ensure the work that was done in each of those individual units had read-across across the country?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Of course, what we need is the expertise of a central unit alongside the work on the ground that individual forces can do, and to ensure that we avoid the risk that the presence of a central unit results in a tendency to treat certain crimes as another agency’s problem. There is also—this is important at individual force-level—a need for specialist approaches to support child victims and their families.

Those are the amendments that I have chosen to discuss, and I reiterate that they are probing amendments, but in closing I repeat my intention to press a Division on new clause 2.

[Mrs Miller]

I rise to speak particularly on new clauses 3, 5, 44, 46 and 47, and note the advisement of the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) that her amendments are set out as probing amendments. Those five amendments tabled by both Liberal Democrat Members and Plaid Cymru Members all have a common theme: to call for reform in connection with the internet and the digital online world.

We all need to get our Government and Governments around the world to wake up to the extent to which crime and criminal activity has now moved online. Our laws are not giving victims the protection they need and our police forces face a revolution if they are to tackle the crime that they face now effectively in the future.

There has been a significant shift in the way people experience harm in this world. New clause 44, as the hon. Lady has set out, calls for the police to have special digital units to deal particularly with child abuse images. Many police forces in this country, including my own in Hampshire, have gone a long way to building up this sort of specialist expertise, but the new clause is an interesting piece of advice on which I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response, as well as the response on police training.

There are serious questions to ask as to whether the providers of online space are doing what they need to do to keep their communities safe. They have not only a corporate social responsibility to do that, but I also think an economic imperative, because it is their brand names that are tarnished, and rightly so, when their products are used for illegal purposes.

Another aspect is not particularly brought up in the amendments today, but I will mention it: the importance of the international implications of all these things. If we are to get a solution to the sorts of crimes that are being committed online in this new digital world that does not respect country boundaries, we need to have some buy-in from international Governments, too. I myself have met companies in the US, but we need to go further than that and see whether we can actually get the sort of action that we need on an international basis by perhaps looking to the United Nations, or indeed the youth part of the UN, to explore how we can get more effective laws in the future that are not constricted by international boundaries.

Our law is struggling to cope. These amendments recognise that. The real need to recognise that online crime is different is a battle that was won when this Government put in place the revenge pornography law a year or so ago. We have already seen 1,000 reports to the police and thousands more people using the revenge pornography helpline, yet two-thirds of those cases that have been reported to the police have seen no action because of problems of the evidence that victims have been able to give or indeed because the victims have withdrawn it. Again, the new clauses are picking up those issues and calling on the Government to consider again. New clause 46 calls for anonymity of victims. That was considered at the time the law was put in place, but the advice then was to wait to see how things progressed. The statistics suggest that now is a time to think again, as new clause 41, which also deals with compensation, also seeks to do.

The myriad amendments before us today show the level of complexity involved and the level of concern among hon. Members from at least three parties represented in the Chamber tonight—I am sure Labour Front Benchers would share in this, too—but I worry that they offer a piecemeal set of solutions. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd picked up on that. Surely what is needed is a wholesale review of the law, police training and the development of international support for digital providers to take seriously the importance of keeping their communities safe online. I support the spirit of these amendments, but I am struck by the need for a more comprehensive review, perhaps in the form of the digital economy Bill, which Her Gracious Majesty announced in the Gracious Speech only last month.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

My right hon. Friend will understand that conviction is not just about the offence in legislation or the precedent in case law; it is about the evidence that can be gathered and presenting that evidence to a jury. I am not in any way saying that we are perfect in this regard, and we could have many debates about how best to get convictions. As I said earlier, I would very much like to meet her, together with my noble Friend Baroness Shields, who has responsibility for the digital Bill in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, because I want to make sure that we are covering these issues and that we make it as easy as possible for the courts to get convictions. I do not accept that the answer is simply to create a whole new suite of offences that may confuse the law enforcement agencies and prosecutors. I want to discuss this with her and others to make sure we address these points.

New clause 44—I realise that I am darting about, but I am doing my best to get through my speech—is about a specialist digital unit. Again, we discussed this in Committee. The way operational policing decisions are taken is a matter for chief officers; it is not something on which the Home Office should legislate to say that every force should operate in such a way. That is down to chief officers locally and, of course, police and crime commissioners. [Interruption.] I am now coming to the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham.

I want to take new clause 6 and all the points about child protection together. We have had many debates about the issue of vulnerable young people and children, how best we can protect them and how to stop their going missing. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who, as her Front-Bench colleague said, has been such a pioneer in this area. When she talks, I know that she is talking common sense. The hon. Member for Rotherham and other Members will know that I am determined to tackle this issue, but I think we need to do it in the right way. That is why I have convened the round table in a couple of weeks’ time to look at the overall issue of child abduction warning notices. I am not convinced that a warning notice from the police in relation to a child abduction offence is necessarily the right way to make sure we protect such vulnerable young people. I want to consider all issues relating to child abduction warning notices—I think the hon. Member for Stockport has been invited to the round table, but if not, I now extend an invitation to her—and to look at everything we are doing in this area and at ensuring we have the right tools in the armoury for the law enforcement agencies, because it is so important that the police are able to use those tools and to protect young people with the right tools for those young people.

I am extremely conscious of the time and that I need to leave a moment before 9 o’clock, so I will now sit down. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will agree the Government new clauses and amendments, and that they will not press their own.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Just to close the debate, I must first ask why, given that we have had devolution in Wales for 17 years, Wales is being treated differently in terms of policing from the other nations of the United Kingdom and, indeed, from the English cities? Secondly, the policing needs of Wales are different. Our experience of centralising and sharing specialised services, such as the police helicopter, has shown that such services are drawn inevitably eastwards and away from the rural areas where we most need them. Finally, I would strongly argue that the absence of consensus is now a historical issue. There is consensus in Wales for Wales policing—for policing to be devolved to Wales. There was consensus on Silk, then not on “Powers for a Purpose”, but there is consensus in the Welsh Assembly and among all four police and crime commissioners.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Court Closures

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing the debate and echo the comments of many colleagues today, especially those made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen). This is a particularly significant issue for Wales and for my constituents in what is a largely rural constituency. I want to put on record that I am the co-chair of the justice unions and family courts parliamentary group.

Wales is witnessing a gradual yet steep decline in access to justice. Fifteen courts were closed across Wales during the 2010 to 2015 Parliament, and since the 2015 election a further 14 have either closed or are under discussion today. The closure of Dolgellau magistrates court in my constituency, for example, means that cases will need to be transferred to Caernarfon or Aberystwyth. The issue of inadequate public transport in Wales is well documented, but Members will understand that a journey from Dolgellau to Caernarfon or out of county to Aberystwyth is not simply a matter of waiting for the next bus to turn up. Of course, who would not be concerned at the prospect of defendants and witnesses travelling to court together on the same bus, possibly for a matter of hours? For my constituents in Dwyfor Meirionnydd and many people across Wales, it would become impossible to reach any magistrates court for a 9.30 am start. Closures will also have a severe impact on staff, who face either redundancy or significantly longer journeys to work. Consideration must be given in these circumstances to staff who have caring responsibilities, or to those who are disabled, for whom continued employment could well become untenable.

The Government defend themselves by claiming that courts are underused, but I have been told by credible sources that court cases are being moved to skew the figures and justify closing some courts. If the justification is not the lack of demand, it is the need to save money, which will effectively result in the cost of providing justice being passed from the state on to the individual engaging with the justice system, whether as an offender, a witness or a victim.

In fact, such a transfer of burden is a long-running strategy for the UK Government. Most notable and, arguably, most controversial are the restrictions on legal aid. When Sir Hartley Shawcross opened the Second Reading debate on the Legal Aid and Advice Bill in December 1948, he said that it would

“open the doors of the courts freely to all persons who may wish to avail themselves of British justice without regard to the question of their wealth or ability to pay.”—[Official Report, 15 December 1948; Vol. 459, c. 1221.]

Legal aid was meant to put an end to legal rights being luxuries beyond the reach of ordinary citizens. The UK Government’s restrictions roll back those important steps towards social justice. The new restrictions pass on the cost of justice from the state to the individual and, unfortunately, that means that many people simply cannot afford to access justice, whether their court is within geographical reach or not.

The closure of courts in rural Wales will also have a profound impact on a person’s ability to conduct their business through the medium of Welsh. The consequence of court closures and the reduced availability of legal aid, including the reduction in legal aid contracts awarded to local solicitors, will continue the trend of small independent legal firms becoming unviable and subsequently being forced to relocate or close down altogether. In strong Welsh-speaking parts of Wales, that will make it impossible for residents to access legal services, obtain advice or legal counsel, or conduct their business in the language of their choice—which, I remind the House, is their right.

The Welsh language should be an essential consideration in deciding whether to close courts and I am pleased that the Government belatedly agreed to carry out their duty of completing a Welsh language impact assessment. However, Welsh speakers should not be forced to mount campaigns to ensure that these assessments, which the Government are legally required to carry out, are completed. I regret that it took so long for the Government to do that in this case, although I am glad that it has been done.

Returning to the issue of court access in rural areas, I have a background in teaching through video conferencing. I used to be the director in charge of teaching through video at Grwp Llandrillo Menai and we talked to a number of secondary schools throughout Wales. I have a particular interest, therefore, in efforts to increase access to justice through the use of technology, particularly video technology. Given the swathes of court closures and the particular problems they will cause in rural parts of Wales, allowing hearings to take place remotely might well be welcome.

Technology has great potential if its strengths and weaknesses are properly considered. I note, however, the eight conditions set out by Lord Leveson’s review of efficiency in criminal proceedings in January 2015. He considered those conditions to be prerequisites for remote hearings. The first seems obvious, but is in fact crucial: the equipment used and the audio and visual quality should be of a high standard. Given that the connectivity infrastructure in my constituency, along with that in vast swathes of rural Wales, is even poorer than the transport infrastructure, will the Minister outline what consideration is to be given to the quality and reliability of that infrastructure in those areas where courts are to be closed?

I hope especially that proper attention is given to Lord Leveson’s recommendation that a committee of criminal justice professionals be charged with identifying best practice for hearings conducted via video link, not only to maintain the gravitas of the court environment but, more importantly, to ensure that justice outcomes via communications technology are consistent with those in a conventional face-to-face environment. That is very important; one would be very concerned if the use of different means of communication produced inconsistency of results.

I recognise that there are general and serious concerns around the use of alternative buildings to ensure that access to justice is maintained, even if we may on occasion be able to use video technology. There are particular concerns about the Lord Chief Justice’s suggestion that pubs and hotels could be used; proper consideration must be given to the nature of the issues being discussed and resolved. I am of the view that when concerns about suitability can be tackled, and if certain criteria can be met, the use of alternative public buildings should certainly be considered before the closure and removal of courts to distant locations. In the case of Dolgellau, the Meirionnydd council chamber would require little adaptation, and offers such facilities as parking and translation equipment. It is also nearer the police station, whose cells are used for court purposes when necessary, than the present grade II-listed court building. I strongly urge the Minister to consider that alternative as a physical court location, rather than leave my constituency, which covers 843 square miles and includes eight sizeable towns, with no court facilities whatever.

I remind the Minister that since 2010 the UK Government have already closed 15 courts across Wales, and a further 14 courts are now to close their doors. I urge the Minister to listen to what is said today, and to reconsider the proposal to close these further courts, especially if we can find alternative sites in those areas where public transport militates against defendants, witnesses and victims’ travelling elsewhere with any sort of ease. I would strongly urge that alternative arrangements are made.

I will close by quoting Jeremy Bentham, who in 1795 said:

“The statesman who contributes to put justice out of reach…is an accessory after the fact to every crime”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

What I can say is that the 10 has now been reduced to nine, and there are offers in place for some of the remaining courts. Others have had genuine difficulties because of joint occupation with other parties. We hope to transfer the remaining courts to the Homes and Communities Agency, which is dealt with by the Department for Communities and Local Government.

The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) spoke about her personal experience. I was sorry, as I am sure were other colleagues, to hear about the assault that had taken place on her. I very much take on board the points she makes about domestic violence. I emphasise that we are improving the system by which witnesses and victims give evidence. At the moment, they have to go to court and go through a terrifying experience. With a video conferencing facility, they can go to a place that is closer to their home and in much more pleasant surroundings, rather than the awesome and austere environment of a court.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (William Wragg) for his comments confirming that this has been a genuine consultation. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) made a very powerful speech, raising an important point about digital infrastructure. I take on board what he says. We will certainly be making sure that the infrastructure is in place to support the court reform programme.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) spoke about low-level offences, such as TV licence offences. He sought assurances that perhaps they could be dealt with in courts that are closer to the area. Our thinking is that such low-level offences can probably be dealt with online where people plead guilty, which is the majority of cases.

The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd gave a very powerful speech, raising concerns about access to justice. I assure her that we are very mindful of rural areas and want to make sure we get this right. My constituency has a rural element to it, so I know where she is coming from.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The Minister mentioned alternative arrangements for eight courts. Can he provide more detail on that?

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not provide detail on the provisions for eight separate courts at the Dispatch Box now, as time is pressing. I am happy to write to her later in more detail and I will certainly do that.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), a very good friend of mine, made a passionate speech. He wanted an assurance that justice would not become more stressful. As I said in relation to the comments made by the hon. Member for Wakefield, we hope the experience will be a lot better for people. We hope they will not have to travel as far and that modern technology will assist them in giving evidence in a closer and more convenient location.

The hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) made a heartfelt speech, in which she referred to technology. I assure her we will deal with the £700 million in a very careful way and make sure we get it right.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) raised concerns, in particular in relation to his local court. He has been passionate in defending his local court, but the consultation received only three responses about it from his local community. I give him credit for wanting to keep the court open, but the fact that there were three responses speaks for itself. I am pleased that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) welcomed the need for reform, and I take on board what he said, but we will have to agree to disagree, as I said.

In conclusion, I thank all hon. Members, particularly the two who secured this debate. This is a major undertaking by the MOJ, and we will do our best to ensure we have a fit-for-purpose justice system. Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish you, hon. Members, the Clerks and, most importantly, all the people who ensure that this place continues to operate, especially the security services, a happy Easter.

Policing and Crime Bill (Third sitting)

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Mike Penning]

Nothing would happen if we were not doing this. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. We are starting to drive this. An inter-ministerial group on that specific issue was formed during the last Government. It still sits and it will push on with this. I do not think that the amendment is necessarily the right vehicle, but I agree that we must push it forward. Otherwise, the health and social services will be knocking at the door, saying, “We’ve got nowhere else to go,” as we often hear.

I used to experience that when I was in the fire service, and it still goes on. I have been stationed with the police when it has happened. It is usually at 4 o’clock on a Friday afternoon. Social services phone up saying, “We haven’t seen Mary or Johnny. Would you go round and check on them over the weekend?” The answer must be “No, that is your legal responsibility, not ours.” I know that that is a development of what we were talking about, but it is exactly what goes on: “Would you go in and open up for them?”. It is a difficult area, but one that we must touch on.

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

All the areas in which we are talking about collaborating with police forces are devolved in Wales. I suggest that somewhere along the line, thought needs to be given to how such collaboration will work in that unique situation.

[Mike Penning]

We have discussed that with all the devolved Administrations. This proposal refers to the concordat within England, because obviously that is devolved, but I do not think that any devolved Administration would not want to do what we are discussing. They might have a different mechanism for implementing it, but nobody wants somebody with a mental illness episode to be treated any differently from someone with a broken leg or other physical injury; hopefully we have moved on from that. That is what we are trying to do.

The shadow Minister has made a point on a couple of occasions about co-responding. This is not just about rural communities—thank goodness London is now doing co-responding through a pilot. I served in areas that were quite rural areas and in areas, like the M25, that could not be described as rural—it is more like a giant car park at most times. For one reason or another, the other emergency services often did not arrive for some time.

We want to save lives. That is part and parcel of what the emergency services do. Co-responding is critical to that, as is moving on, in training terms, way beyond some of the things that we have discussed today. For instance, in Hampshire, the service was desperate to get the necessary qualifications to give fluids by IV. We know from Afghanistan and Iraq that that saves lives.

I understand the theme, but I do not agree with the amendments, because I think that they are unnecessary. Sadly, yet again, I will oppose them.