Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th December 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, in opening this important debate, I first express the Government’s warm thanks to all those who have contributed to this Bill’s engender, notably the many organisations and individuals who have responded to consultations or made representations, successive Lord Chancellors—not least the right honourable Sir Robert Buckland KC MP and the right honourable Dominic Raab MP—and many honourable Members on both sides in the other place who have worked to improve this Bill in its passage through Parliament.

I venture to suggest that most of the issues before us are not in essence party political. I trust and hope that the general direction of this Bill, which aims to enhance and protect the position of victims in the justice system in its widest sense, will command broad support across the House. We will, I anticipate, be mainly considering the means rather than the ends. I would like to say at the outset that my door is always open to any noble Lord who would like to discuss these issues in more detail as our debates proceed. In anticipating a full and constructive debate, I particularly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, on her re-appointment as the Victims’ Commissioner, and much look forward to her contribution to our work.

I turn then to substance and will take the main highlights of the Bill in sequence. Part 1 further enhances the positions of victims of criminal conduct—widely defined under Clause 1—in two main respects. One is the victims’ code and the other is victim support services. First, there are important improvements to the effectiveness of the existing victims’ code, which sets out what victims are entitled to expect from the criminal justice system, as last updated and improved by this Government in 2021. The principles underlying the victims’ code are now set in statute for the first time—that is in Clause 2. Clause 6 requires the police, the CPS and other criminal justice bodies to promote awareness of the code and to keep under review how victims’ services are provided. Clause 7 requires police and crime commissioners to oversee those victims’ services and to report their findings to the Secretary of State, who in turn must publish compliance information, so that all may see how their local area is performing. This combination of enhanced statutory duties on the one hand and significantly increased transparency on the other hand will secure that victims are aware of their rights and that the victims’ code is even more effective.

Secondly, on the important question of victims’ support services, Clauses 12 and 13 require the local police, local integrated care boards—namely, the National Health Service—and local authorities to collaborate to prepare and publish a strategy for delivering victims’ support services in their area as regards criminal conduct consisting of domestic abuse, sexual conduct or serious violence. They must assess the needs of their area and indicate whether they are met. Again, those strategies must be published.

In essence, this is an anti-silo provision. Experience shows that a number of agencies operating locally do not always join up sufficiently, and they certainly do not, on the whole, develop joint strategies. The provisions are designed to break down silos and to foster join-up and transparency. They should lead to better planning, better provision of vital services and the identifying and filling of any gaps.

On a related point, victims are sometimes discouraged from coming forward for fear of intrusive investigation of their personal lives. Clauses 24 and 25 now limit requests by the police to obtain information about victims from other authorities—for example, information relating to the victim’s health, notes of therapies, et cetera—which might be used to discredit the victim in court. Those requests must now be limited to what is necessary and proportionate. This aims to curtail what has sometimes been an intrusive investigative overreach in the past.

The measures on victims in general in Part 1 are underpinned by the enhanced role of the Victims’ Commissioner, whose reports must be laid before Parliament and whose recommendations relevant authorities must publicly respond to. Further powers of joint inspection by His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Chief Inspector of the CPS and Chief Inspector of Probation will further ensure that these measures take effect. In addition, there is the right of victims to go directly to the parliamentary ombudsman, rather than through their MP, as is the case at present.

All that reinforces what I hope your Lordships will see as a comprehensive effort to improve the position of victims, which is entirely in line with, and takes forward, this Government’s related work in recent years. That includes the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; the creation of the office of the domestic abuse commissioner, who, in the respected person of Nicole Jacobs, is already making a substantial mark; measures such as allowing pre-recorded cross-examinations so that the victim does not have to face the offender in court; the introduction of independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisers, about which the Bill provides further guidance in Clause 15; an increase in the money for victims’ support, which is now £140 million by 2024-25; and several other measures. No one who watched the dignified statements made by the family of Sarah Everard can be in any doubt of the importance of placing victims at the heart of our justice system.

That in essence covers Part 1 on victims. Taking the Bill in sequence, I move to a very specific victim situation: where one parent has killed the other. In response to calls for what has been called Jade’s law, Clauses 16 and 17 broadly provide that, where one parent is convicted of the murder of the other, the criminal court must, in most circumstances, make a prohibited steps order removing parental responsibility from the surviving, offending parent. The local authority, in whose area the child resides, must apply within 14 days to the family court to review that order. In other words, the last word will lie with the family court, which is bound to consider the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.

I have spoken so far of provisions that typically affect a single victim or a small number of victims. Part 2 of the Bill moves to the situation where we have multiple victims, where there has been a major incident, and noble Lords will of course have well in mind Manchester Arena, Grenfell, Hillsborough and similar cases. Part 2 creates what has become known as an independent public advocate, or IPA, appointed where groups, very often large groups, of victims are affected by a major incident. It has become only too apparent that in the aftermath of such incidents, victims have nowhere to turn, no one to give them information and no one to deal with their needs or answer their questions. These provisions fill that gap.

Following government amendments during the passage of the Bill, the Government will appoint a standing advocate to advise the Secretary of State on the interests of victims of major incidents and their treatment by public authorities and submit and publish annual reports. These functions include advising the Secretary of State on what sort of inquiry should be held. Where there is a major incident, the Secretary of State may further appoint the standing advocate or another appointed advocate to carry out the functions indicated in Clause 33, which are: to support victims in the aftermath of that incident, in particular in relation to any subsequent inquest or inquiry; to help them understand the actions of the public authorities; to ensure victims’ views may be taken into account; and to provide support or advice to them, communicate with public authorities on their behalf, and assist them to obtain access to documents.

The broad idea is that the advocate will not themselves carry on a legal activity but can help and guide victims as to their immediate needs, how to get advice and/or legal aid and what sort of processes to expect. They can answer their questions and help them get answers to their questions from the relevant public authority, as well as advise as to what questions need to be addressed or raised before any inquest or inquiry.

An important aspect of this is that in advising the Secretary of State on the treatment of victims by public authorities, the standing advocate will be able to hold public authorities to account in relation to the Hillsborough charter, which, as your Lordships know, was signed by the Government on 6 December as part of the Government’s response to Bishop Jones’ Hillsborough report. On that day, the Lord Chancellor made a Statement in the other place setting out the Government’s response, which I repeated in this House that evening. The charter sets out in detail how public authorities are to behave, in particular putting the public interest ahead of the interests of their own organisation. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, and many others in pressing for this reform—in particular, of course, the Hillsborough families, who have endured so much and whom I trust we all salute.

I come to Part 3 and Clause 40, inserted in the other place on Report, which provides for the setting up of a public body to administer compensation to yet another group of victims: those affected by the infected blood scandal. I understand that a Statement is being made in the other place at this very moment by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster-General, and I further understand that that Statement will be repeated in this House tomorrow by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. I think that in those circumstances, I should leave that matter there for the moment. I am sure we will return to it in Committee. I am also glad to tell the House that my noble friend Lord Howe will be assisting us on this aspect of the Bill.

I turn finally to the “prisoners” part of the Bill, Part 4, although I suggest respectfully that this part of the Bill is as much about victims as it is about prisoners. We should approach this part of the Bill from a victim’s perspective. This part has the following aspects. First, there is the public protection test, to be applied where the Parole Board is considering the release of a prisoner eligible to be released on licence. Under the existing law, which is in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, the Parole Board must be satisfied that

“it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined”.

Clauses 41 and 42 of this Bill strengthen that principle by providing that the public protection test is met only if there is

“no more than a minimal risk”

that, if released,

“the prisoner would commit a further offence … which would cause serious harm”.

Serious harm is defined as the commission of one of the serious offences listed in Schedule 18B to the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This approach effectively tightens up the public protection test to be applied both to recognise public concern and, as importantly, to protect future victims.

Secondly, Clause 44 introduces a new procedure for the release by the Parole Board of prisoners convicted of murder, unlawful child death, terrorism, rape or rape of a child. If the Parole Board directs the release of such a prisoner, and the Secretary of State considers that such a release

“would be likely to undermine public confidence”

and that the Upper Tribunal might consider that the release test was not satisfied, the Secretary of State may refer the case to the Upper Tribunal for a further judicial consideration of whether the release test is, in fact, met. We saw only three days ago that a double murderer, Lawrence Bierton, was released again and then killed for a third time, having been released on licence. This new mechanism is aimed at that kind of case to protect victims—notably future victims—and ensure public confidence in the system.

Other provisions affecting the Parole Board include the inclusion of persons with law enforcement experience on Parole Board panels and provisions that the chair of the Parole Board should not sit on individual decisions and that the latter is removable by the Secretary of State in the event of a loss of public confidence.

I turn now to IPP prisoners, dealt with in Clause 48. Noble Lords will know of the difficulties arising from those imprisoned under IPP sentences, which were abolished in December 2012. They were described by the present Lord Chancellor as

“a stain on the justice system”.

At the same time, this issue poses an acute conflict between, on the one hand, the situation of the individual prisoner and, on the other hand, the protection of the public.

Any Government have to focus on the risk to public safety and the risk to future victims. In broad terms, the total number of IPP sentences ever imposed was just over 8,000. The present situation is that approximately 1,270 prisoners have never been released, and almost all have now served their original tariff. The only reason they have not been released is that the Parole Board has determined, often on several occasions, that they are not safe to be released. However, if an IPP prisoner is released on licence, under the existing law 10 years must elapse before they can apply to the Parole Board to determine that licence. There are about 3,100 prisoners on licence in the community and a further 2,920 have been recalled to prison. Sadly, there are 23 prisoners in secure hospitals.

The effect of Clause 48 is fourfold. First, the period before which an offender may be considered for licence termination is reduced from 10 years to three years from first release. Secondly, that three-year period does not reset in the event of a recall, so even if recalled a prisoner may, as it were, bank those three years from the date of first release. Thirdly, after those three years there is a presumption that the licence should be terminated. Fourthly, even if the Parole Board rebuts that presumption and maintains the licence, it automatically terminates after a further two-year period if the offender can do a further two years in the community without being recalled.

I know that this sounds rather complex but, in broad terms, the result is expected to be that over the next couple of years or so, the licences of the majority of those who are currently in the community will terminate. Many will terminate as soon as this Bill becomes law. For many if not most of the recalled population, when they are next released by the Parole Board, their licence will terminate after two years if there is no intervening recall. For those still in prison who have never been released—admittedly, a most difficult group but one that includes many violent and sexual offenders—there is now a detailed action plan by HMPPS that is much more specific to each prisoner, overseen by a specific IPP progression board and involving an external challenge group. The latter consists of representatives of the families, some of whom I have met together with the right honourable Damian Hinds, the Prisons Minister at the time. The relevant prison authorities will work on a bespoke sentence plan for each remaining prisoner as well as supporting those on licence in the community. I hope that your Lordships will see this twin-track approach—additional support for the unreleased and a substantial relaxation of the licence arrangements for those in the community—as marked progress in this difficult area.

Finally on prisoners, Clauses 55 and 56 prevent whole-life prisoners marrying or entering into a civil partnership unless exceptional circumstances exist. This is in response to a recent case in which surviving families of the victim of a most serious murder were openly mocked by the convicted offender, who trumpeted his right to marry, causing distress to many.

In conclusion, I hope your Lordships will accept that this is a balanced Bill that substantially enhances the position of victims in our system. After all, any one of us may have been, or may one day be, a victim. I commend this Bill to your Lordships, and I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, on his magnificent maiden speech. I hope your Lordships will forgive me but, following a five and half hour debate at a relatively high level, I do not wish to close my door now, having previously said it will remain open, by being too definitive on the various points we have discussed.

I will take briefly three points. First, I will have to come back to the issue of legislative consent, and we will need to explore it further, given the inter-relationship between the various authorities and responsibilities. I acknowledge the existence of that issue. Secondly, on the impact assessment, about which certain comments have been made, I have gathered during the debate that it probably needs to be looked at again and perhaps revised and expanded. That is another task to be completed. Thirdly, I gather that at Report stage in the Commons the Government gave an undertaking that restorative justice would form part of further guidance to the relevant authorities when commissioning various services. At the moment, that is as far as I can take the issue of restorative justice, important though it is.

Having made those preliminary points, I also add a brief word on scope. The Bill does not deal with what could be described as purely operational decisions by the police, such as the failure to make an arrest or not turning up to a domestic burglary or something of that kind. That is for another way of complaint, through the police complaints systems. The Bill does not address the difficult problems victims experience simply because there is a backlog in the criminal justice system. That is for another day. It also does not address—and I do not think it would be in scope to address—certain points made in this debate about sentencing and how we come to sentence offenders.

The first group of points made is about Part 1 and victims, with the essential point being that the Bill does not go far enough. In the Government’s view, the Bill goes a very long way. It is not just a gentle nudge, as has been suggested; it is a tremendous shove in favour of victims. It combines real efforts to change culture, greatly improve transparency and give proper statutory duties to various bodies, including police and crime commissioners and others, to get this organised. It requires cross co-operation and involves further resources.

As I think I said in opening, we have quadrupled the money available to victim services over the last few years. I take entirely the points made by, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, that further clarification and development of these ideas could be very helpful. Others have said that bodies such as the Metropolitan Police, for example, would welcome further guidance, clarity and work on exactly how we can make this structure effective.

I think we all agree that we want to make an effective structure; the question is how to get there. At the moment, at least, to bring in a rather blunt statutory duty—in effect, a law giving victims further rights to sue and to bring in more lawyers, more legal proceedings and so forth—is not the right way to go, in the Government’s view. We do not want more satellite litigation. The real issue is how we effect cultural change.

How do we get there? The Government’s position at the moment is that this structure provides a very positive basis for effecting that much-needed cultural change, not least through the existence of transparency and, for example, the power of the Secretary of State to publish where local areas are on all these things and the powers of local police and crime commissioners to invigorate their local communities in all these respects. In the Government’s view, that is the way to go.

In relation to victims, there have clearly been many—perfectly understandable—references to particular kinds of victims, notably children. I briefly point out that child victims of crime and exploitation are encompassed within the Bill’s definition of a victim, and child criminal exploitation is in fact defined in statutory guidance for front-line practitioners in publications such as Keeping Children Safe in Education and Working Together to Safeguard Children. However, the point that we need to think very hard about is how we protect child victims, and it is certainly a point we should jointly further reflect on and consider.

Indeed, in relation more generally to women and girls in the justice system, victims of domestic violence, stalking, grooming and anti-social behaviour, and persons whose first language is not English, those are all examples of particular victims that we need to make sure are encompassed within our remit. Proper attention should be given to those particular kinds of victims. Those points are well made and, if I may briefly use an Americanism, will be taken under advisement.

In broad outline, that is the victims part of the Bill. As far as the IPA is concerned, the Government’s position is that this is a major advance, particularly the creation of a standing advocate who can advise the Secretary of State and, when appointed on a major incident, “look after” the victims. At the moment the Government do not think that it is useful to give this standing advocate a sort of roving power to conduct their own inquiries or demand their own documents and so forth, because of the risk—among other things—of real duplication in major inquiries such as Manchester Arena, Hillsborough or Grenfell. We already have very effective procedures. Bishop Jones’s inquiry was very effective; it was a non-statutory inquiry set up by the Government, and it got to the bottom of things. The Government are not convinced that we need yet another operator operating in this area.

I think that my noble friend Lady Sanderson asked about smaller incidents. Let us take an incident such as the Shoreham air disaster, where 11 people were killed. Leaving to one side the question of whether that was a major incident, in that example there was the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, a criminal case and an inquest. Do we really need yet another body investigating, demanding documents and imposing more costs on the whole system? The Government are not yet convinced, certainly at this stage, that we should go any further than we have gone in the Bill, which is already a very long way. That is the general position of the Government at the moment.

I listened very carefully to noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on the issue of parental responsibility and whether we should go further and include other cases. There are already procedures for effectively taking away, or at least hollowing out, parental responsibility that exist in family law in the family courts and the Government do not feel that we should go any further at the moment.

On infected blood, noble Lords will be able to ask questions of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe tomorrow when she updates the House on the Government’s position. I have no doubt that we will come back to that in the fullness of time in Committee.

On IPP prisoners, the present proposals, I hope and trust, will deal quite effectively with prisoners who are currently in the community and who have a prospect of being released—I think they will deal with that. I think that we all recognise that our real problem is the hard core of about 1,200 prisoners who have not been released. It is very important to say that the Government have not given up on those prisoners. In the last two years, 400 prisoners who had not previously been released have been released. There is very detailed work going on in the Prison Service; I am very happy to share with noble Lords more detail about that, if it is of use. It relates to particular sentencing plans for particular prisoners, so that they have an individual sentencing plan for further support in the community when they are released, and for a much more active IPP progression programme. So we are still working towards the release of these prisoners when it is safe to do so. The Government currently see that as a much more sensible and justifiable approach than the alternative of the re-sentencing exercise.

As noble Lords know, the basic problem with the re-sentencing exercise is that you are raising expectations that people will be released. But the people we are dealing with have been found not to be safe to be released, so how are we going to tackle that? Are we going to take the view, “We’ll just release them”? As in the case of Mr Bierton that I mentioned in my opening speech, do we say “We don’t care whether further offences are committed by these highly dangerous people, we’re just going to release them because that is what justice demands”? The Government ask: what about future victims? What risks are you taking; is it worth the risk; can you take the risk? The Government are not prepared to take that risk. But they are prepared to work very hard for these prisoners, to give them at least some hope of an eventual release. That is the Government’s present position on these issues.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, it is with the greatest respect that I intervene on my noble and learned friend. I genuinely congratulate him and welcome his personal and very human engagement with this problem, which I know he has wrestled with the whole time he has been a Minister—I think it is fair to say that it has always been on his agenda. But I add, in fairness, that the Prison Service releases daily people into the community who would be assessed as dangerous if the Government had the option of retaining them in custody. That is because they have reached the end of a definitive sentence.

It is a risk that we have learned to manage. It does indeed occasionally go wrong—of course it does—and there are future victims; the point made by my noble and learned friend is not empty. However, we manage it. The fact is that of these people we are discussing, very few committed crimes that were egregiously heinous or violent, compared to many others who have, before and since, being given determinate sentences that see them released into the community at the end of that sentence, if not earlier.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a perfectly fair debating point—and we are debating, so it is perfectly fair that he makes a debating point—but it is a debating point at the end of the day. The point is: are you prepared to take the risk of 1,200 dangerous people being released from prison? The Government are not prepared to take that risk. We can of course discuss it further, but I am just explaining what the Government’s position is: it is better to work with those prisoners to ensure that they are safe to release eventually.

That probably takes me on to the issue of public protection and related issues. First, perhaps I may clarify what seems to be a muddle that has arisen about the statement in the Bill that it is compatible with convention rights. The Bill is perfectly compatible with convention rights: it does not take away any convention rights at all. Section 3 of the Human Rights Act is a procedural provision only, which gives the court an—to use a neutral word—unusual power to reinterpret what Parliament has said in a manner that may not have been and probably was not Parliament’s original intention so as to render a particular provision compatible with the convention.

On the provision in the Bill disapplying Section 3, which at least one member of Sir Peter Gross’s commission thought we should get rid of, and on other parts of Section 3, Sir Peter himself recommended a rather complicated hierarchy of different ways of applying the section. It has been quite a difficult section to apply. Case law has gone all over the place over the years, although it has settled down more recently. It introduces uncertainty where the Government want to have certainty in this area: that this is the test for public protection for these prisoners, that is what Parliament has said, and that is the end of the matter.

If that was found to be incompatible with the convention in any case, hypothetically, the court would have to make a declaration of inapplicability, and Parliament would have to deal with it. But the underlying issue is the constitutional balance between the courts and Parliament. That is quite an issue, and it has not gone away, but that is how the Government understand this particular point.

As regards the question of the Parole Board and all the various provisions affecting it, it is worth making the point that when these very high-risk offenders are released, they live in the community. Who speaks for the people in the community who have to live with them? Are they represented at all in this system? The only person who can represent the interests of the community with whom released prisoners have to live is the Secretary of State. All we are doing is saying that if there is some doubt about the application of the public protection test, it is wise from the point of view of the system—

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble and learned Lord understands the irony of that statement, set against his statement that victims’ rights should not be put on a statutory, enforceable footing.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I am not sure that I entirely understood the noble Baroness’s point, but it is perfectly true that I am thinking—rather, the Government are thinking; I should not put it in personal terms—about the potential victims of people who have been released and the actual families of those who have suffered at the hands of the offender. We are simply saying that there might be some very high-profile cases where it is sensible for there to be a second judicial look. That is a very much modified position from the position originally in the Bill, but it is, I hope, a sensible one.

I have used up my time, but I hope that I have covered most things. I apologise to noble Lords whose specific points I have not met. Anyone is fully entitled to write to me or ask me questions and I will, of course, answer them. If I may just finish with the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, who was kind enough to say he was going to be kind to the Bill. Let us be kind to the Bill and—

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

It is very generous of the Minister to say, as he has done with other Bills, that we should write to him with concerns, but given that he said at the start of his response that he was going to take a high-level approach, it might be helpful if he were to write to all of us about the issues we have raised. There might then be a subsequent correspondence. However, if we are thinking about tabling amendments, rather than waiting for us to write and say, I think he has most of our questions.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I warmly thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I will ask my officials to go through this debate, identify at least the principal questions and see whether we can write to the House on the various points that have been made.

On that note, given the season of the year in which we find ourselves, we may not quite have reached

“Peace on earth, and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled”,

but I hope we have taken the matter forward. I beg to move.

Bill read a second time.

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they consider the bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 42, The Schedule, Clauses 43 to 62, Title.

Motion agreed.