Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar ExcerptsTuesday 9th February 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 View all Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 129-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (4 Feb 2021)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendment at page 29, line 14 are consequential on the removal of Clause 35.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. He has covered much of the area with which I am concerned in these sensible probing amendments. The next amendment, Amendment 20, which talks about piloting polygraph tests in this area, deals in effect with the same concerns.
My understanding of the position that the Government are advancing is that we are now concerned only with England and Wales because they deleted the Scotland and Northern Ireland provision that was there before. In effect, they are applying the principles in the Offender Management Act 2007 on polygraph tests. Therefore, the first question is: should one put a polygraph condition into the licence conditions of a terrorist offender? As I understand it, a polygraph condition is that the offender has to agree, if asked, to a polygraph. Will it be automatic that such a condition will be imposed for terrorist offenders? What will be the basis on which such conditions will be imposed?
We on this side are very keen that the authorities should have every reasonable tool that they can to try to prevent terrorist offenders, including those who are released on licence. I am keen to probe whether this particular provision contributes to that. As I understand it from the Government’s proposal, the purpose of the polygraph sessions that will be included in the licence condition will be only to monitor the offender’s compliance with the other conditions of his licence or improve the way in which he is managed during his release on licence.
In relation to the first of those two—monitoring compliance with the other conditions of his licence—does that mean that it will be used to see whether he is in fact complying? If he fails a polygraph test, could that be a basis for recalling him to prison on the basis that he has failed to comply with the other conditions of his licence? If it is the Government’s intention not just to rely on the failure of a polygraph test before recalling an offender to prison, where is that reflected in the statute or in the Bill?
In addition to those questions, to what extent is the Minister worried that, if somebody passed a polygraph test, it would lead the authorities not to make further investigations about an offender’s possible breaches of compliance of the conditions of his licence? Additionally, in relation to the second purpose of polygraph testing—namely, to improve the way in which he is managed during his release on licence—can the Minister give us some examples of what that would mean in practice?
Can I deal with the legal use of the answers to polygraph tests? Section 30 of the Offender Management Act 2007—this has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—says that evidence of
“any statement made by the released person while participating in a polygraph session; and any physiological reactions of the released person while being questioned in the course of a polygraph examination”
cannot be used against that released person for any offence. In answer to my question, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, can the Minister confirm whether that means that those two things can be used in relation to proceedings against somebody else? It would appear from Section 30 of the Offender Management Act 2007 that they could be. Can they be used on their own for recall proceedings, or are recall proceedings simply an administrative act—in which case, the question of whether they can be relied on alone to justify a recall arises?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, in responding to the amendment and the various points put to me, I will bear in mind and seek to avoid falling into the trap of being one of those “pesky lawyers” that, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, reminded us, still exist.
In that regard, let me turn to the substance of the amendments, particularly Amendment 19 put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This amendment seeks to amend Section 30 of the Offender Management Act, which relates to the use of polygraph evidence in criminal proceedings. I understand that the noble Baroness and others may have concerns that evidence gathered from the conduct of polygraph examinations could be used against a third party in a criminal trial. I know that we covered this yesterday in the Domestic Abuse Bill, but I want to take a moment to record my thanks to those in my department who arranged the learning session for a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Faulks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I understand that they found it helpful and informative, which perhaps indicates that those sessions could be used more often. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the Committee that it is neither the intention nor the effect of the polygraph testing provisions of the Bill that they will be used in criminal proceedings against third parties.
In response to the specific point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, we do not harbour any desire to go further than the provisions in the Bill.
Polygraph examinations are now well established as a risk management tool in England and Wales. They have been used successfully, as the Committee has heard, with sex offenders since 2013. In the context of terrorist offenders, which I acknowledge represents a different cohort, they are—if I can put it this way—an additional tool in the toolbox. They will be used, to respond to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, where it is necessary and proportionate to do so as part of the assessment of the risk offenders pose in the community while on licence and how that risk can best be managed.
As I made clear to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, yesterday in the Committee sitting on the Domestic Abuse Bill, Section 30 of the Offender Management Act makes clear that
“any statement made by the released person while participating in a polygraph session; and any physiological reactions of the released person while being questioned in the course of a polygraph examination”
may not be used in criminal proceedings in which that person is a defendant. While that section does not expressly provide for such information to be precluded from use against others in criminal proceedings, which is what this amendment seeks to achieve, I do not believe the amendment to be necessary.
This is because, although there may be circumstances where information obtained through the polygraph test relating to a third party can be passed from probation to the police to make further investigations, the polygraph material would not be suitable for use as evidence in its own right against a third party. Any allegation against a third party would ultimately need to be tested in court. The court would have to consider, among other things, whether the polygraph evidence was admissible in such other criminal proceedings and the effect of the hearsay rule. While that would ultimately be a matter for the judge in the particular case, noble Lords will appreciate the great difficulties that would be presented by the hearsay rule.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said that sex cases are different from terrorism cases. He is of course right, but he was also right to say that what is presented by terrorism cases is a difficult and challenging task. That is why, to use my earlier metaphor, this is another tool in the toolbox which we would like the services to have available to them. In that regard, I can assure Members of the Committee that polygraph testing will not replace any other risk assessment tools or measures, it is an additional source of information that would otherwise not be available. On that basis, I would invite the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to withdraw the amendment as it is unnecessary.
I turn now to Amendments 19A and 19B, which are tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The amendment to Clause 35 would require regulations relating to the conduct of polygraph examinations to be subject to the affirmative procedure. Perhaps I may remind the Committee that we have already tabled our intention to remove Clause 35 from the Bill, alongside Clauses 33 and 34 dealing with the introduction of polygraph testing as a licence condition in Scotland and Northern Ireland, as part of our efforts to secure legislative consent from each Administration. We covered this in the first sitting of the Committee. It does not reflect a change in policy for England and Wales. As I have said, we firmly believe that polygraph testing is an additional and useful tool.
In that regard, polygraph examinations will be used to monitor compliance with licence conditions based on what has happened and will not ask about future behaviour. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who put to the Committee an example of the type of questions that might be asked. She was right to frame those questions in the past tense. A polygraph examiner might ask, for example, “Did you enter those premises?”, if that was something which had been prohibited by the licence conditions. The question would not be, “Are you going to enter the premises next week?” The questions look at what has happened and past behaviour rather than future intent. They are not used as a way of trying to catch offenders out, but as a measure to identify the extent to which the person on licence is complying with the conditions of the licence.
Although I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, reminded the Committee, that giving evidence in court can be a stressful experience, it was interesting to note that he pointed out that we have provided special measures for vulnerable witnesses in the Domestic Abuse Bill. As I understood it, he used that as an example of a case where we recognise that giving evidence can be stressful. Of course, we have also provided for the polygraph examination of the perpetrators of domestic abuse in that Bill. Just as it is in the Domestic Abuse Bill, it is also here; it is an additional tool in our toolbox.
I come to a question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which I think was repeated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton: if a person who is subject to a polygraph examination “fails” a question, can they be recalled immediately? There are two parts to the answer and let me give both. First, what do we mean by “failing”? We use the term as a form of shorthand, and the Government factsheets use it because they are written in what we hope is plain English so that members of the public can understand them, but it is not the correct professional term. The correct terminology that is used by examiners in reports is whether there is a significant response or no significant response. That more nuanced term makes it clear that we are not dealing with a question of passing or failing here; rather it is about whether the examination results indicate that the response has been truthful or not.
That is why, coming to the second part of the question, we do not recall offenders to custody on a significant response in itself. In answer to the question put to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that is not in the Bill, but it is firm policy. Therefore, “failure”, a term that the Committee will now appreciate is a form of shorthand, does not by itself or by default trigger a recall. Where it is safe to do so—for example, with the addition of new licence conditions—the offender can continue to be managed in the community. However, if a disclosure is made which indicates that the risk has escalated beyond the point where the offender can be managed safely in the community, they can be recalled to custody.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not adding my name, which I put down to speak but not on a particular group. Yet again, I find myself as the only person taking part in the debate who is not a lawyer. I shall come back to that later.
In layman’s terms, I joined the Zoom call on polygraph testing last week, to which other noble Lords referred, and it was extremely useful. I thank Heather Sutton from the probation service, Professor Don Grubin and others for laying it on because it explained to me what polygraph testing is. They explained straightaway that a polygraph is not a lie detector but an additional tool to enhance the safe and effective risk management of offenders and could not be used as evidence.
I did, in fact, ask why sex offending was used as the only precedent for using polygraphs on terrorists. I think that I sort of understood the response, which was that it was a question of denial. That is what they sought to find out. It was a very useful teach-in session.
That is why I am slightly puzzled that we are discussing these amendments. As I said, I am not a lawyer. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, reminded us that law can be a gift that keeps on giving. We were reminded of that only at the weekend. We heard from three Liberal Democrats. I think they all said—the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, certainly did—that you cannot use a polygraph test as evidence. If you cannot use it as evidence against the specific person against whom you have done the test, surely by implication it cannot be used as evidence against somebody else. My noble friend the Minister specifically pointed to hearsay. It seems that we are slightly arguing about angels on the head of a needle: it will not be used, so why on earth are we arguing about it? This was presented as a probing amendment, but it seems to be probing something that we do not really need to probe
The point of polygraph testing is that, as an additional tool, we would get away from the case of Usman Khan at Fishmongers’ Hall, who had convinced his mentor, Jack Merritt, that he was de-radicalised. Jack Merritt believed in him and his redemption, and Usman Khan killed him. Surely we should use these additional tools if they have any substance or credibility. From what we heard in the teach-in last week, polygraph testing has some credibility.
Let us please back the use of an additional tool until proved otherwise, because frankly we are dealing with something that I guess probably none of us in this Chamber or on this call understand. We do not understand why somebody would get into an aeroplane, train for months in the United States and then fly that aeroplane into the twin towers. We do not understand suicide bombers. We do not understand the radicalisation that takes place in these people, so surely we should give the Government every tool they can possibly have. I certainly back them on this.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the question put to me by my noble friend. As I said, that is precisely what the Government seek to do: to provide an additional tool for the management of these offenders. The point he made regarding deradicalisation is, if I may say so, very perceptive. It is a difficult part of the overall structure we are putting in place in the Bill, as we have in other legislation.
I am delighted to hear that my noble friend found the teach-in session helpful. I am particularly grateful to him for putting on record the names of the people who presented it. I know that they put a lot of work into putting it together.
The only point I would respectfully disagree with my noble friend on is one that I had cause to point out to another Member of your Lordships’ House—I think last week. One must really stop apologising for not being a lawyer. I think my noble friend did it twice. I pointed out last week that what is regarded as a cause for apology in this House is generally regarded as a badge of honour everywhere else. The question put to me by my noble friend exemplifies how this is a matter for lawyers and non-lawyers.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, at the briefing by the MoJ, I was one of those who volunteered—at some point when we are able to travel again—to undergo a test, because I would like to experience what it is like. I sound a note of caution about the use of private—sometimes confidential but certainly private—sessions. They are terrific and helpful, but only so far; I do not believe that they can take the place of public debate. I could respond at some length to the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, but it would be outside the scope of the amendment. The purpose of scrutiny and its place in the development of legislation mean that it must be undertaken in public. I do not mean to sound too pompous in saying that, but it is something that I believe very profoundly.
The Minister apologised for being a pesky lawyer, but I think that being a pesky lawyer or an activist lawyer is a badge of honour. I disagreed with the comment of my noble friend Lord Thomas that people would not want to apply polygraphs in criminal proceedings. I can imagine that there are a lot of situations when people in court think that they would very much like to apply a polygraph to some witnesses—but that is by the by. I have told myself that I would not take up too much time with this response, because we have a lot of amendments to get through.
Inevitably, perhaps, this turned into a more general debate. On the specific amendment, we are told that it is unnecessary, and that what one might take—I cannot think of the right term— from a polygraph would be unsuitable for use in court, because it would be hearsay. I shall have a look at that after today, but I think that there is a little bit of circularity in all that. Certainly, in the real world, the questions that might be asked would, I am sure, provide material for the police, if not the prosecution—but that is a common-sense response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wish either that this group had been grouped with the previous group or that I had spoken in the previous group, as we seem to be going over the same ground. Can I also push my luck, at the invitation of the noble and learned Lord, as an out and proud non-lawyer and wonder out loud whether lawyers feel somewhat threatened that there might be a machine more able to tease out whether someone is telling the truth or not, or even to tease out a disclosure, than a lawyer? I do not believe lawyers need to worry. I feel this group and the previous one turned into an extension of the teach-in. But I shall press on.
Amendment 20, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to which my noble friend has added her name, calls for a review of polygraph testing on terrorist offenders based on a pilot scheme. I take a slightly different view to my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Marks, probably because they are pure Liberal Democrats, unlike me, who am contaminated by 30 years’ experience as a police officer.
Yesterday, in discussion on the use of polygraph testing in the Domestic Abuse Bill, the Minister talked about how polygraph tests were used. I join other noble Lords in saying how helpful the teach-in on polygraph testing provided by the Ministry of Justice was, and I thank the ministry for it. In that presentation, if I recall correctly, we were told that the tests are 80% to 90% accurate, on the basis of tests carried out on sex offenders. The tests measure physiological changes that occur if someone is trying to think of a wrong answer about an experience they have had in the past. People usually instinctively think of the truthful answer before they offer a dishonest alternative, and this produces physiological changes that the tests pick up. The evidence suggests a dishonest response cannot be used in court, and it is not used to recall someone to prison, but it might prompt further investigation by the police. Failing the test is not a replacement for any other form of risk assessment.
From the notes I made at the time, which take me back to giving evidence in court as a police officer, polygraph tests also prompt disclosures that might not otherwise occur. If such a disclosure indicates the subject has breached their licence conditions or is a threat to the public, this can result in prison recall. In short, disclosures can result in immediate sanction, but failing the test can only lead to further investigation.
Although polygraph tests have been used on a large number of sex offenders and have, therefore, been thoroughly evaluated, it will be more difficult, even with a pilot, to evaluate use with terrorists, as there are far fewer of them. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford mentioned the right to silence, recalling what we were told in the teach-in. The difference here is that these are convicted offenders on licence, who have no right to silence. However, the science is the same whether we are dealing with sex offenders or terrorists, and polygraph tests are useful where there is a pattern of behaviour rather than a single act. It is, therefore, anticipated that their use in terrorism cases will be similarly effective. There has already been considerable experience of using polygraph tests and evaluating the results, somewhat at odds with the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. But in agreeing with the noble and learned Lord, I think that it is true to say there has been very limited, if any, experience of using polygraph tests in connection with terrorism offences.
I feel sure that the Government will use polygraph testing with terrorists and, as we will hear in a later group, those subject to TPIMs, on a trial basis, as they intend to do in relation to domestic abuse. But the opportunities to evaluate their effectiveness with terrorists will be more limited, because, as I said, the numbers are considerably smaller. I am sure the Minister will say whether I got that right.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, on the face of it the purpose of this amendment, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is to provide for a pilot of polygraph testing for terrorist offenders in the UK and for a report to be prepared and laid with a recommendation on commencement before the provisions are commenced. I appreciate, however, that the debate has gone a little broader than that, and I will try to respond in my remarks to all the points put to me. I should say at the outset that I am impressed by the note-taking ability of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which has obviously not diminished with time. I hope that the notes which he took are consistent with not only what he was told at the meeting, as I am sure they are, but with what I said on the previous group and what I am going to say on this group as well.
Polygraph examinations have been used successfully in the management of sexual offenders by the National Probation Service since 2013, following an initial pilot. Offenders involved in the pilot stated that, although they did not like being tested, for many it helped them modify their behaviour and comply with other licence conditions. While I therefore respectfully agree with the comments of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf and Lord Morris of Aberavon, that we are on a learning curve, we are in fact someway up the curve, if I may put it in those terms. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, was right to remind us of Clause 35(1), which provides for regulations in this context. The breathalyser is a good example, as put before the Committee by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, of how we must always in the criminal justice field avoid being shy of using technology where it is available. The question is how it is to be used; it is in that context that I come to the questions put to me by the Members of the Committee.
Having put that provision in place for sexual offenders, the independent evaluation of mandatory testing on sexual offenders carried out by the University of Kent produced extremely positive results. As the Committee is aware, we have since rolled out polygraph testing in that context. We must therefore be wary of two things. First, we must be wary of the trap of saying that because something might or might not be used in “The Jeremy Kyle Show”, it should form no part of the criminal justice system. “The Jeremy Kyle Show”, which I think has now stopped, can look out for itself. My concern is to ensure that we have proper provisions for polygraph testing in the criminal justice system.
The second thing we must be careful of, if I may respectfully say so, is not to fall into the trap of thinking that anything which comes from the United States of America is inherently suspect in the criminal justice field. I would gently point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the American Polygraph Association’s standards are those of an international professional association for polygraph examiners. That association carries out research and provides accredited training for examiners. It also provides mandatory professional development training, which all examiners must complete every two years to maintain their accreditation. Its standards are used by examiners across the world, and the Government want to ensure that those standards are maintained for examinations conducted on terrorist offenders.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the amendments at page 94, line 15, page 94, line 29 and page 94, line 41 are consequential on the removal of Clause 33.
“(b) in paragraph (a), for “that Act” substitute “the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a further consequential amendment to section 23A of the Terrorism Act 2000 needed as a result of Clause 1 of the Bill.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 42 to 65 inclusive and to Amendments 69, 71, 72, 74 and 76. I make four very short points. First, the hour is late and getting later. Secondly, these are all technical and consequential amendments. Thirdly, we have placed an explanatory note for each of them, which I am sure Members of the Committee will have looked at. Fourthly, I propose to set out in a letter, which I shall place in the Library, a more detailed analysis of the admittedly somewhat arcane and, in many cases, technical and consequential nature of these amendments. I hope that in those circumstances, I can draw my remarks to a close there. Obviously, if noble Lords have specific questions, I will attempt to answer them now, but otherwise, I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, since requests to speak after the Minister are delivered to the Deputy Chairman of Committees by forked stick, perhaps I might comment on the earlier group concerning the review. Mr William Shawcross’s report on compensation for Libyan-backed terrorist atrocities in Northern Ireland was discussed on Monday. It was received by the Government last May but not published, as we have discussed. I hope that any review or report in the field that we have been discussing will not similarly be kept clutched to the Government’s bosom.
I have considered the government amendments to this schedule, and I am satisfied that they are consequential to amendments to legislation made necessary by this Bill and do not contain in themselves any questions of principle. I would not be surprised, given the complexity of the Bill, if other amendments emerged in the course of time.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
The only amendment I would like to mention is Amendment 60, which amends Section 250 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 so that, according to the explanatory statement,
“the Parole Board will set the licence conditions for all prisoners to whom section 247A of that Act applies (restricted eligibility for early release) whose release is directed by the Board.”
Is this dealing with licence conditions where there is no right to early release or with licence conditions where there is a right to early release? If so, what is the effect of the amendment? It is the only amendment in this group that looked as if it might be doing something substantive. If the Minister would like to write to me, I will quite understand.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Paddick. In response to the specific point put to me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in one sentence, the change is needed to ensure that there was clarity over the authority for setting licence conditions for terrorist offenders, whether serving standard, determinate, extended or other sentences. I shall include an explanation of the amendment in my letter. I hope that satisfies him; if he wants any further information, I would of course be happy to provide it.
“Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (c. 6)
2A_ In section 44(2)(e) of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (provisions subject to review by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation), for “Schedule 1” substitute “Schedules A1 and 1”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amends the list of terrorism legislation which is subject to review by the independent reviewer to include the new Schedule A1 inserted into the Sentencing Code by Schedule 1 to the Bill.
“(i) Part 3 of that Schedule, except as mentioned in subsection (3)(hb);(ia) Part 4 of that Schedule;”Member’s explanatory statement
This is consequential on the amendment at page 44, line 11.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar ExcerptsMonday 8th February 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 124-VI(Rev) Revised sixth marshalled list for Committee - (8 Feb 2021)
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for tabling these amendments and spotting this loophole in the Bill. It is good to have this debate today. As she has said, marital rape can happen in a country where it is not illegal locally, and we would then not be able to prosecute the offence here in the UK. Nobody in this Committee wants that situation. I hope the Government will confirm that they either accept her amendments, or accept that she has identified a very serious loophole and bring in their own amendments on Report.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bertin has, as she has explained, tabled an amendment which seeks to ensure that UK citizens who commit marital rape in countries where such behaviour is not criminal may be prosecuted in the UK. Such countries are thankfully in the minority. We of course want to prevent any exploitation of more lax laws on marital rape elsewhere.
I hope that the Committee will allow me a moment to put these amendments into context so that we can understand the legal architecture that we are talking about. Schedule 2 contains amendments to various enactments to provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction over certain offences under the law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Together with provisions in the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill currently before the Northern Ireland Assembly—it gives extraterritorial effect to the new domestic abuse offence in Northern Ireland—and Clauses 66 and 67, it ensures that the UK complies with the jurisdiction requirements of Article 44 of the Istanbul convention. That article requires the UK to be able to prosecute criminal conduct set out in the convention when that conduct is committed outside the UK by one of our nationals or by a person who is habitually resident here. Part 1 of the schedule covers England and Wales and deals with cases under Sections 1 to 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, where the victim of the offence is aged 18 or over. Parts 2 and 3 cover Scotland and Northern Ireland on a corresponding basis.
In keeping with the normal principles of extraterritorial jurisdiction, there is a requirement that a prosecution for one of the relevant sexual offences—which includes rape—may be brought in the UK only where the offending behaviour is also an offence in the country where it happens. That is called dual criminality, which respects the notion that generally it is inappropriate for the criminal law of state A to be applied to conduct that occurs in state B where that conduct does not offend the law of state B. In most circumstances, the dual criminality requirement is not a barrier to prosecution because serious sexual offences against adults are likely to be criminal in most other countries. However, it could mean that, in some circumstances, UK authorities would not be able to prosecute someone for a marital rape committed outside the UK if such behaviour is not included in or exempt from the equivalent offence in the other jurisdiction. As it stands, the Bill applies a dual criminality requirement for the relevant sexual offences committed outside the UK by UK nationals and UK residents. My noble friend’s amendment would remove the dual criminality requirement for UK nationals, but not for UK residents. As explained by my noble friend, and by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, the effect of this would be that the UK could prosecute UK nationals who commit marital rape against adult victims in countries where such behaviour is not criminal, but could prosecute UK residents who commit marital rape of adult victims abroad only if the behaviour is also criminal in the country where it is committed.
In principle, that is the right approach, as the link to the UK is stronger where the offending behaviour is perpetrated outside the UK by a UK national, rather than by a non-UK national ordinarily resident in the UK. Existing law already makes that distinction with regard to extraterritorial sexual offences where the victim is under 18. The amendments extend only to England and Wales and, as my noble friend identified, one would need to alter the drafting if they were to go further. However, I do not want to focus on the drafting issue. I am grateful to her for raising this important issue and possible lacuna in the Bill. Marital rape is abhorrent behaviour, and I agree that we should consider carefully the case for amending the Bill to cater for it. But—it is an important but—as the extraterritoriality jurisdiction provisions are UK-wide, we need first to consult the devolved Administrations to ensure a consistent approach across the UK. To that end, I respectfully invite my noble friend to withdraw her amendment on the clear understanding that we will give this matter serious and sympathetic consideration ahead of Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, shall we see if we have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, on the call? I do not think we do, sadly, in which case I call the Minister.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, seeks to strike out—alone among the clauses in the Bill—Clause 69. I will endeavour to persuade him, and the rest of the Committee, that this clause, like others, can play an important part in protecting victims of domestic abuse. Right at the start, however, I join the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in thanking those at the MoJ who provided the presentation made to them. This was a very good example of how that sort of interaction—what one might call a learning session—can help everyone when we debate these matters in Committee.
Clause 69 allows the Secretary of State for Justice to introduce mandatory polygraph examinations as a licence condition for offenders convicted of a relevant domestic abuse-related offence. The relevant offences have included, until now: murder, specified violent offences, and the controlling or coercive behaviour offences set out in the Serious Crime Act 2015.
Polygraph examinations are already successfully used in the management of sexual offenders supervised by the National Probation Service. The clause extends the use of testing to include—in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—high-risk domestic abuse perpetrators: those who have been released from custody having served a sentence of 12 months or more and are on licence.
The polygraph testing is used to monitor an offender’s compliance with other licence conditions, such as those restricting contact with their victim, requiring the offender to notify the probation officer when they form new relationships, or prohibiting entry into an exclusion zone; for example, around their victim’s home. It is also used to monitor dynamic risk factors such as alcohol or substance misuse.
I will try to respond to a number of questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, but if I miss any out, I undertake to write to him after reviewing the Official Report.
The policy underpinning these provisions does not allow offenders to be recalled to custody for failing a test. I use the word “fail” being cognisant of the fact that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we are not talking here about failing in the normal sense of the word. Indeed, I think the noble Baroness explained her approach to polygraphs as being somewhere between a yes and a no; that might be applicable to the polygraph itself. The clause does, however, enable offenders to be recalled for making disclosures during testing which, when considered with other evidence, suggest that the risk can no longer be managed in the community.
The offender can also be recalled to custody if he or she refuses to take the test or tries to trick it in some way; for example, by controlling their breathing. However, in response to the questions put to me, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that disclosures made voluntarily by the offender during the polygraph examination may reveal that they can no longer be safely managed in the community. Those circumstances would also lead to a return to custody. The important point to bear in mind in that regard is that that is no different from a situation in which an offender makes such disclosures without the polygraph licence condition.
Polygraph testing can be required as part of the licence conditions imposed on an offender following their release from custody. It can be imposed only where it is deemed necessary and proportionate to the risk posed. Importantly, in its report on the draft Bill the Joint Committee did not object in principle to extending polygraph testing to domestic abuse offenders; it sought assurance on two issues.
First, it sought an absolute assurance that no statement or data derived from a polygraph test would be used in criminal proceedings. The Joint Committee acknowledged that this appeared to be the effect of the draft Bill. In that regard, the provision in Clause 69 must be viewed alongside the existing provisions relating to polygraph testing in the Offender Management Act 2007. Section 30 of that Act provides unequivocally that any statement or any physiological reaction made by an offender during the polygraph session may not be used in criminal proceedings in which that person is a defendant.
To be clear, however, this does not preclude information derived from a polygraph examination being shared with the police, who may decide to use the information to conduct further inquiries. If, as a result of those inquiries, the police obtain other evidence that suggests that an offence has been committed, charges may be brought against the offender.
The second concern raised by the Joint Committee was that polygraph testing should not become a substitute for careful risk analysis—a point that, I think, was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I assure the Committee that the use of polygraph examinations will not replace any other risk assessment tools or measures, such as the multiagency public protection arrangements—MAPPA—but will provide an additional source of information that would not otherwise be available.
The evaluation of the pilot mandatory polygraph testing for sexual offenders concluded that offender managers found polygraph testing very helpful. To date, 5,000 tests of that type have been carried out on 2,249 offenders, and 1,449 tests have resulted in the offenders making significant disclosures that led to either a refined risk management plan or recall to custody.
With regard to the qualifications of those carrying out the examinations, I assure the Committee that they are carried out by qualified and experienced probation officers who have completed three months’ residential training to become accredited polygraph examiners, and all polygraph examinations are quality assured by an independent external provider.
However, while the use of polygraph examinations is tried and tested, as I have said, in the context of the management of sex offenders, the Government accept that domestic abuse perpetrators represent a different cohort of offender. That is why we are committed to piloting the provisions in Clause 69. I draw the Committee’s attention to the commencement provisions in Clause 79, which expressly provides for such piloting; we will begin this as soon as is practicable after Royal Assent.
We intend to run a three-year pilot in the north of England, involving about 600 offenders. Half will be subject to testing and half—the control or comparison group—will not. The Cambridge Centre for Evidence-Based Policing, in collaboration with the University of Cambridge, will conduct an independent evaluation of the pilot, and only if the results were positive would we roll out testing across England and Wales. In response to the specific question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in conjunction with his Amendment 191, I am happy to commit that the Government will lay a copy of the evaluation report before both Houses prior to any decision on wider rollout, enabling noble Lords to consider the findings in full. I hope that that is helpful in response to his question.
Given the benefits that we have seen with the use of polygraph testing to help us to manage the risk posed by convicted sex offenders, I apprehend that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, now sees the merit, at least in principle, of analysing the question of whether we can use the same procedure with regard to serious domestic abuse perpetrators. Indeed, last week, we heard calls for the more efficient and effective use of technology to protect victims of domestic abuse—Clause 69 does just that.
With the repetition of the point that I will go through the Official Report, because there may be one or two questions that I have not directly answered but which deserve and will get a written answer from me, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his challenge to Clause 69, which I commend to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I am afraid that we have had no luck getting in contact with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, it might be most efficient for me to do just that. I will add it to the list of questions and respond in writing.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
This amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, would add a new clause to the Bill to provide lifetime press anonymity for survivors of domestic abuse. It reflects similar protections for survivors of sexual assault enshrined in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said. It prevents identifiable details being published online or in print and creates a new offence for breaching this anonymity.
This issue has risen up the agenda because stories are published in which victims and survivors of domestic abuse, as well as family members and children, are named. When these stories then make their way on to websites, victims have no anonymity but the people who choose to make comments do have anonymity.
Apart from the protection for survivors of sexual assault enshrined in the 1992 Act, I believe the Serious Crime Act 2015 grants anonymity to and protection for victims of female genital mutilation, and the Modern Slavery Act 2015 grants anonymity to victims of any human trafficking offence. If I am right, that is three examples of anonymity given to three categories of victims. If the Government are not enthusiastic about this amendment—which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said is a probing amendment—no doubt they will explain in their reply why they consider that survivors of domestic abuse do not require the same protection as survivors of sexual assault, victims of female genital mutilation and victims of any human trafficking offence.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I hope I can be relatively brief in my reply—not because the point is not important, nor indeed out of a lack of respect for any of the contributions we have just heard, but because there is a single and critical point, fundamental to the administration of justice, which lies at the heart of this debate.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, explained, this probing amendment is designed to protect the identity of complainants in domestic abuse cases by the automatic application of reporting restrictions from the point when the allegation is made. Although the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred us to Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights, I dare say that the principle of open justice goes back much further than that. We are all familiar with the adage that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. That statement, with which we are all familiar, I am sure, recognises that automatic reporting restrictions of this kind are an exceptional interference with open justice. Therefore, we make those reporting restrictions available only when there is a real need to do so.
The most familiar precedent is in relation to complainants who allege that a sexual offence has been committed against them. In those circumstances, there is a clear justification for preventing the reporting of the complainant’s identity, because there is an overriding need for anonymity to be guaranteed from the outset so that victims of a type of offence that still carries considerable stigma are emboldened to come forward and tell the police. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, says, there are a couple of other such other examples in the law, but each of those is an exception to the general rule. We must be very careful, I would suggest, to limit those exceptions to cases where it is demonstrably required. Therefore, while I listened with care to the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and his personal and, if I may say, moving testimony, we do not consider that, as a matter of generality, domestic abuse cases in which no sexual offence has been committed fall into the same category such that they require automatic protection in the same way.
However, as a number of noble Lords identified, that does not mean that victims of domestic abuse should be denied anonymity where they both request and need it. The courts have discretionary powers to impose, on application, reporting restrictions prohibiting the naming of a witness, where the court is satisfied that being identified would diminish the quality of that witness’s evidence. I suggest that there is sufficient discretion before the courts to meet cases where reporting restrictions are required. To go further would be an unjustifiable interference with the extremely important principle of open justice.
I hope, therefore, given that this is a probing amendment —and while of course I am always willing to discuss anything with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment at this stage.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I realise this is a tricky subject to legislate on, but I think there is a problem and we need to fix it in some way. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, for their largely sympathetic comments. I heard the Minister say that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. In that case, I would like him to go, perhaps, one of these days, to the High Court and see what is happening in the spy cops inquiry, where Judge Mitting—or rather the Met—is giving anonymity to many police officers who have committed crimes. Therefore, it does seem to me that somehow there is justice for some and not for others. I will, of course, withdraw the amendment now, but I still think this is a problem and that there has to be some way of sorting it out.
Baroness Bertin (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 161 and thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for tabling it and for being so tenacious. It is an honour to speak after the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. We cannot on the one hand spend years putting together a great Bill like this that says to victims, “We hear you; we are there for you; we want to help you escape”, and on the other hand stand by and allow those same victims to be potentially charged £150—an extortionate amount for many people—for proof of that abuse.
Domestic abuse does not discriminate. You can be a victim of abuse whether you are rich or poor. Unfortunately, while this fee remains, it does and will discriminate against poorer victims. Many of them will go without legal representation, many will return to an abuser and many will be seriously injured or worse as a result of being unable to access the legal remedies that are supposed to keep them safe. I know that the Department of Health has a fair amount on its plate right now, but it should endorse this small change to the Bill. It could have an immeasurable impact on people’s lives when they are at their most vulnerable.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for raising this matter—I am tempted to say “again”, but of course I should really say “again and again”. The list of engagements which he set out was impressive, and I fear I may not be able to provide satisfaction to the noble Lord where so many of my illustrious forebears have already failed. If I can put it this way: what he has said this evening has only increased my resolve to try to sort out this issue, not only because it is plainly an important matter to be addressed, as so many have said, but because it means that I will escape the horrid fate of being added to the noble Lord’s list.
The Government, as will be clear from what has been said by my forebears and what I have just said, wholeheartedly agree that vulnerable patients should not be charged by doctors for evidence to support them in accessing legal aid. That being the case, we are sympathetic to the spirit of this amendment. The issue requires further consideration ahead of Report for the reasons I will briefly set out. While I cannot commend this amendment to the Committee today, I will be looking at it in detail between now and Report. I should also take the opportunity to point out a couple of technical issues with the amendment, which I hope will also be helpful.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was able to meet with the Minister for Prevention, Public Health and Primary Care and representatives from the British Medical Association ahead of today’s debate to discuss the issue. I think it fair to say that everyone who attended this meeting was seized fully both of the issue and of its importance. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, we do not want to do anything to prevent or discourage victims of domestic abuse coming forward, and that includes questions of cost. That said, it is fair to say that there was some anecdotal evidence at the meeting which pointed to this perhaps being a diminishing problem, particularly since, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London reminded us, the BMA issued advice to its members last year that they should not charge for this service, advice which they recently reinforced.
Following that meeting, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, graciously undertook to provide what evidence he had of this being a continuing issue so that we could consider the matter further. We look forward to receiving that evidence and continuing our discussions. However, as matters stand this evening, we remain to be persuaded that this issue needs to be resolved through primary legislation.
The position is that GPs can provide services in addition to NHS contracted services. They are classified as private services, for which they have the discretion to charge the patient. Letters of evidence to access legal aid is one such private service. It is therefore up to an individual GP practice to decide whether a charge should be levied and, if so, what it should be. However, as I indicated, as part of the 2020-21 contract agreement, the BMA recommended to all GPs that a charge should not be levied for letters of this kind. That is a welcome recognition by the BMA that, as was said, vulnerable patients with limited means should not be expected to pay for such letters. We recognise and commend the vast majority of GPs who are following that guidance, but it is a non-binding recommendation. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned, we are informed of anecdotal examples where patients can be charged up to as much as £150 for that evidence.
As I said, I should make a couple of observations about the drafting of the amendment, although I recognise that these can be readily addressed in a further iteration of it. First, as currently drafted, the amendment refers to
“providing a letter … for the purposes of regulation 33(2)(h) of the Civil Legal Aid (Procedure) Regulations.”
That regulation was amended by later civil legal aid procedure regulations in 2017, so there is now no such regulation as presently referred to in the amendment. That is something that could be addressed in further drafting, and I respectfully suggest that it is.
Secondly, the amendment relies on the definition of a “general medical services contract” in Section 84 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which applies to England only. I assume that that is the case because, as the noble Lord is aware, the health service is a devolved matter in Wales and therefore this issue is a matter for the Welsh Government. I thought that it was worth making that point clear as well.
I return to the main point, on which, if I may respectfully say so, we have heard a number of very cogent speeches. I have not yet mentioned the contribution of my noble friend Lady Bertin, which was equally forceful. The Government remain committed to exploring options around this issue with the medical profession to ensure that vulnerable patients are not charged, and I would welcome the noble Lord’s continued help in this regard. In particular, once he has been able to provide what evidence he has of GPs continuing to charge victims of domestic abuse for these letters, we will be happy to have further meetings with him ahead of Report.
I hope that in the meantime he will feel able to withdraw his amendment, but he can rest assured that I have it ringing in my ears that I will face a similar amendment on Report if we cannot satisfactorily resolve the matter before that stage. I commit to working with him and to doing all I can to reach that satisfactory conclusion.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken—the noble Baronesses, Lady Bull and Lady Bertin, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London—for their support. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for his very careful and considered response. It was very welcome.
The noble Lord made reference to the meeting. It was a very good meeting. We actually had four Ministers from three departments on Zoom—I have never had that before—so in that sense I was very pleased. Clearly, Ministers are taking this seriously, and I appreciate that very much.
Obviously, the technical issues can be ironed out. I am not a draftsman, but I am sure that we can get that sorted out. We have been raising this issue since 2016. The negotiations have been going on for a very long time, but we do not seem to have gone beyond the fact that everybody is against it, no one wants to do it, but no one wants to do anything about it. We have not moved on much from that position today.
As I said, I hope that I will not have to push the amendment to a vote at a later stage. I hope that I can work with the noble Lord to resolve this issue but, if that does not happen, we will divide the House. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for bringing this much-needed amendment to the House and recognising that the changes that have occurred in the past few decades, since the widespread introduction of mobile phone technologies and social media coverage, have irreversibly changed the way in which we communicate. The inherent dangers of the misuse of that communication have become increasingly prevalent. As the noble Baroness said, we are living our lives online, and today’s debate is into its ninth hour.
As a former teacher of media studies, I taught my students that the medium is the message—but, like many of my colleagues, I had no idea at that time how exploitative the medium would become. The key element to this amendment is that the Bill as it stands does not do enough to ensure that survivors of technology-facilitated abuse have sufficient protection in the criminal law. Threats to share intimate or sexual images and films are an increasingly common tool of coercive control that can have enormous negative impacts on survivors of abuse. While the sharing of intimate and sexual images without consent is a crime, threatening to share is not, leaving survivors of this form of abuse without the protection of the criminal law.
During my reading for this topic, I was powerfully moved by a key report, Shattering Lives and Myths, by Professor Clare McGlynn and others at Durham Law School. This was launched at the Supreme Court last year, and it sets out the appalling consequences to victims of intimate images being posted without consent on the internet. Nearly half of the victim-survivors the researchers spoke to had experienced threats to share nude or sexual images and videos without consent. While many of these threats were followed by non-consensual sharing, there must be a recognition that threats to share such images can in and of themselves have significant life-threatening impacts.
The domestic abuse commissioner designate has also supported this addition to the law, saying:
“The threat to share an intimate image … is an insidious and powerful way that perpetrators of domestic abuse seek to control their victims, and yet the law does not provide the protection that is needed. Threats to share these images play on fear and shame, and can be particularly dangerous where there might be multiple perpetrators or so-called ‘honour-based’ abuse is a factor. What’s more, the advent of new technologies enables perpetrators to make these threats even where such images do not exist, but there is no clear criminal sanction for this behaviour.”
Lack of support leaves victim-survivors isolated, often attempting to navigate alone an unfamiliar, complex and shifting terrain of legal provisions and online regulation. There needs to be a recognition in the Bill that image-based sexual abuse is a sexual offence, and an adoption of a comprehensive criminal law to cover all forms of image-based sexual abuse, including threats.
The Domestic Abuse Bill is the most appropriate vehicle to make this change: victims and survivors would benefit almost immediately, and it would help them in preventing further abuse and getting away from their perpetrator. This amendment can close that gap in the law, and I urge its support in this Committee.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will start with the point made by my noble friend Lady Bertin. It is of course late; I am conscious of that. But I have to say that it is worth staying up late to hear the debate we have just had, with the quality of the contributions to which we have all just listened. Therefore, I will take a little time—I hope not too long—to respond to the debate, because this is obviously a very important issue.
I listened with great care to the way in which the amendment was presented and explained by the four noble Baronesses who proposed it. My noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes explained in detail how the threat to disclose such images can lead women to give way on matters that are of the utmost importance, whether that be contact with children or telling the perpetrator where they are now living. The story of Natasha that she shared was powerful and was added to by the stories of Rachel and Alison, which we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. It is right to say, as my noble friend Lady Morgan put it, that this is an issue essentially of timing and not necessarily of principle. I will come back to that point a little later.
Domestic Abuse Bill
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar ExcerptsWednesday 3rd February 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 124-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (3 Feb 2021)
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I can be very brief in the light of what the two previous speakers have said on this amendment.
The purpose of this group of amendments, and a later group, is simply to provide consistency of protection for victims and survivors of abuse, across both the family and civil courts. These amendments would replicate in the civil courts protections that the Government already agree are needed in the family court. This seems an exceptionally reasonable ask. We support the aim of and reason for the amendments, as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. I will be interested to hear from the Government why they have chosen to draft the Bill with this distinction between the courts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, explained, these amendments seek to bring the procedure relating to special measures in civil courts in line with the provisions in family courts. We agree with the fundamental aim set out by the noble Lord: to ensure fair proceedings, meaning proceedings that are fair not only to the parties but to witnesses.
In that context, the Government’s starting point when considering the experience of vulnerable witnesses in the civil courts stems from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which published its interim report and recommendations in April 2018. The inquiry recommended
“that the Ministry of Justice provides in primary legislation that victims and survivors of child sexual abuse in civil court cases, where they are claiming compensation in relation to the abuse they suffered, are afforded the same protections as vulnerable witnesses in criminal court cases.”
As the inquiry put it, this was to ensure that victims and survivors of child sex abuse can provide the best evidence in civil court cases.
While the Government had some sympathy with the recommendation, we also agreed that the issues raised by this recommendation needed further consideration, including whether it was right in principle to extend the protections to other vulnerable witnesses. The Government therefore sought expert help from the Civil Justice Council, which was asked to consider the vulnerability of parties and witnesses in civil actions, not just in relation to claims arising from sexual assault or abuse but more widely. The Committee will be aware that, after extensive consultation and expert input, the Civil Justice Council published its report in February last year. It conceded that there was no single or coherent set of rules in the Civil Procedure Rules dealing with vulnerability in the same way as there was in the Family Procedure Rules.
In this context, we must remember an important point, to which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, alluded. Civil cases, by their nature, have the potential to cover a much broader range of circumstances where there is no prior close connection between the parties; for example, where a victim is suing an alleged perpetrator of sexual abuse or in an action against the police or an employer where abuse is alleged. Of course, I take on board the noble Lord’s examples of cases where the parties may be corporate but, none the less, there are individual witnesses who are victims.
Having considered the matter, and in relation to special measures, the Civil Justice Council report did not go as far as recommending that it should be enshrined in primary legislation. Rather, it was felt that it was best left to the flexibility of court rules since—this is an important point—judges in civil proceedings already have inherent powers to order the provision of special measures under the Civil Procedure Rules when it is considered necessary. However, the Government took a slightly different view, taking the recommendations that came from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which I have already mentioned.
As the Civil Justice Council report highlighted, vulnerability in the civil courts is not limited only to victims of domestic abuse. Some people may have mental or physical conditions that render them vulnerable and hamper their access to justice. Others, as with victims or survivors of abuse, may be vulnerable solely by reason of the subject matter of the proceedings before the court. This, as the report suggested, may affect their ability to participate in proceedings or give their best evidence.
We want to avoid—this is a risk—unnecessarily prolonging cases because of satellite litigation which revolves around the granting of special measures where the case is not contingent on vulnerability. At the same time, as I said, we need to ensure that the justice system is fair—that is, fair for all. Therefore, we must be careful to focus this provision on only the circumstances in which it is needed.
Even though the approach is different in civil courts, judges in civil proceedings already have inherent powers to order the provision of some special measures under the Civil Procedure Rules when it is considered necessary. I hope that this goes some way towards addressing the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which was shared by the other two speakers in this short debate; I acknowledge their contributions, of course, but I think it is fair to say that they largely agreed with the approach taken by the noble Lord. In that context, the Civil Procedures Rule Committee continues to examine the issues faced by vulnerable witnesses in civil courts.
While we want to ensure parity between each jurisdiction, we also need to build in allowances for the differences—and there are differences—between them. This is why the provisions in respect of cross-examination and special measures in civil cases differ from those in family proceedings.
In the light of my discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others, and in the light of all the contributions in this short debate, let me say—in clear terms, I hope—that we very much appreciate the arguments raised in relation to fairness and the concerns around availability of special measures for those who will need them in the civil courts. We will consider this issue carefully ahead of Report and continue to listen to arguments. Of course, I remain open to discussion with both the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others.
In the light of that confirmation and undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, first, let me say how grateful I am to the noble Lords who spoke.
It was interesting to hear my rather dry opening supplemented by the personal experience of the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in courts in Australia. She made the valuable point that, generally speaking, litigants and witnesses are not used to being in court—it is a new experience for them and this adds to their concern, which is of course amplified in the case of vulnerable witnesses and parties. She also gave the interesting and important example of family farms giving rise to very personal disputes, where there is often a background of abuse. I am bound to say that, in my years of practice on the Western Circuit before doing more of what I do now, disputes about family farms were endless. They are to be taken into account. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his support as well.
The Minister has given a considered response and ultimately made an undertaking to me and others. I am grateful for the way he has dealt with the amendments. However, I am bound to say that nothing I heard from him justifies the distinction to be drawn between the protection afforded in family proceedings and the protection available in civil proceedings. I got the impression that he understands the reasons why we have disputed that distinction.
I do not accept that a system based on the Civil Procedure Rules for protection in civil proceedings is anything like as good as a system based on statute, as the arrangements in family proceedings will be following this Bill. If a statutory arrangement is good enough for family proceedings and is applicable as appropriate for those, I would suggest that it is appropriate for civil proceedings as well. Nor do I accept that there is a realistic prospect of satellite litigation arising regarding the availability or withholding of special measures. That seems most unrealistic and, in any event, even if it were realistic, it would be no more realistic in a set of measures based on legislation than it would be presently in a set of measures based on the uncertain application of the rules of court. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to further engagement. I regard this as a very important issue, and I will of course speak to him, as no doubt will others, between now and Report in the hope of achieving agreement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, in a broader context. On the particular issue in this group, I have listened very carefully to the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. The noble Lord talked about a risk assessment before cross-examination if someone has a history of abuse. Presumably he is referring to somebody with a history of abuse but whose convictions are spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, talked about repeat offenders. Repeat offending is very common when it comes to domestic abuse, but I wonder whether a perpetrator with a history of abuse, a repeat offender, is less likely to have spent convictions or cautions.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is an important piece of legislation that allows offenders to move on from their previous offending, but my understanding is that if a court decides that justice cannot be done without the conviction or caution being taken into account, the court can take account of a spent conviction. This potentially means that a court could prevent cross- examination of a victim of domestic abuse if it decided that a spent conviction or caution was relevant.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s understanding of the legislation as it is. We have no objection to the Government’s amendments in this group.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will begin with the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, so ably spoke, and will then turn to the government amendments, which deal with various technical and drafting changes to the same clause.
As has been explained to the Committee, Amendment 114, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, would remove a qualification of the automatic prohibition on cross-examination in family proceedings by those convicted of, cautioned for or charged with specified offences, and their cross-examination by the victim or alleged victim. The removal of this qualification would mean that spent convictions and cautions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 would continue automatically to trigger the prohibition, irrespective of how old they may be or how circumstances might have changed. I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is a very important provision. It enables a line to be drawn and people to move on.
It is in that context that, at the moment, the form of the Bill is that spent convictions and cautions should automatically trigger the prohibition only where evidence in relation to the conviction or caution is admissible in relation to the current family proceedings. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, reminded us, and as the Government fully acknowledge, the damage caused by domestic abuse may often last for decades, sometimes a lifetime, and well beyond the point at which a conviction or caution is spent. One must also consider the point made by my noble friend Lady Redfern, that the court process is daunting, especially for victims of abuse. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is right to test the adequacy of Clause 63 in guarding against cross-examination which remains inappropriate despite convictions or cautions being spent. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will have been moved by the personal testimony of my noble friend Lady Newlove, when she explained the effect that such cross-examination can have.
However, the Government believe that Clause 63 provides adequate protection in such circumstances. We must bear in mind that the automatic prohibition on cross-examination is also triggered where a protective injunction is in place—that is the force of the new Section 31S—or where prescribed evidence of domestic abuse is provided to the court; that is the force of the new Section 31T. Moreover, and of greater importance here, given the sometimes more historical nature of abuse, is what we intend should become Section 31U of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. This is an important provision, which provides context against which the noble Lord’s amendment should be considered.
New Section 31U is in deliberately broad terms and provides for a wide discretion to meet the particular facts and circumstances of the case before the court. It enables the court, either in response to an application or of its own motion, to prohibit cross-examination where it would diminish the quality of evidence or cause significant distress, so long as to do so is not contrary to the interests of justice. Any such direction will remain in place until the witness is discharged, unless it is revoked by the court in specified circumstances; for example, if circumstances have materially altered. Therefore, to answer the point made by my noble friend Lady Newlove, we consider the Bill sufficient in cases of spent convictions, because that provision enables the court to impose the ban if it appears to the court that the two conditions in new subsection 1(b) are met. That provision would therefore also deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, concerning cases of past injunctions or restraining orders. New Section 31U is a very broad provision that enables the court to respond to the facts of a case and ensure that a suitable order is made. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that it is important that the court has this ability, for the reasons that I have set out, under new Section 31U. I hope that this gives the Committee, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, what they sought, which, according to my note, was clarity and assurance. I hope that I have provided both.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes a minor drafting change.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, we support this amendment for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, as amplified by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, my noble friend Baroness Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale.
This amendment recognises that in cases involving domestic abuse, just as in any litigation, engagement between the parties is not limited to conducting the case, giving evidence, cross-examining witnesses and making submissions to the judge. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, pointed out that the inadequacy of arrangements that govern cross-examination alone make such arrangements difficult to justify.
There is often a need for the parties to consider and discuss the conduct and progress of the case, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, pointed out. That is usually done through their advocates. Yet when the parties are perpetrator and victim of domestic abuse, and are unrepresented, the need for engagement can become an occasion for intimidating behaviour or bullying of the victim by the perpetrator. That need not even be deliberate, though it often is. Even if intimidation is not explicit in court, it may be effected by implied threats of what might happen later, or even by fear on the victim’s part—even if without justification —of what might happen later.
As discussed in earlier groups, the mere presence of the parties together in court can cause distress, intimidation, or trauma to victims. The outcome can be that victims are deterred from bringing proceedings at all. The experience of the proceedings can be grossly traumatic, to the extent of causing lasting harm, and just outcomes can be made that much more difficult to achieve. So, it is completely right that the court should be able to prohibit engagement by a party that unduly distresses the victim in the way set out in this amendment, whether that engagement be direct by the perpetrator or indirect through others. Yet, if the parties have no means to engage at all, there may be opportunities missed for resolving conflict or, at least, for making the issues clearer and enabling the court to achieve safer outcomes.
In cases where the parties are not represented, it is obviously sensible for there to be provision for representation to be arranged. As the amendment proposes, that should involve, in appropriate cases, the instruction of a court-appointed lawyer—not just for the perpetrator but for the victim as well. That is what the amendment proposes and I firmly believe it is right to do so. For my part, I believe that justice would be best done by ensuring that full legal aid is available for both parties to domestic abuse proceedings throughout those proceedings, which often last through several hearings, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, my noble friend Baroness Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, have said. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, also highlighted the real risk of deterring litigants from bringing or pursuing proceedings once they are under way, by the absence of arrangements for representation.
This amendment does not go as far as we would like, but I know many noble Lords believe that full legal aid for both parties should be the outcome. Meanwhile, it would fill an important gap by preventing intimidation of victims by perpetrators during the course of proceedings, while keeping the door open to engagement between lawyers, which may smooth a path to resolution.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has explained, this amendment —to which my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern has added his, if I may respectfully say, very weighty name—seeks to expand the scope of the prohibition of cross-examination provided for in Clause 63 by prohibiting the perpetrator from engaging directly or indirectly with the victim during proceedings where that engagement would cause them significant distress. It goes on ultimately to provide for the potential appointment of a legal representative, chosen by the court, to represent both parties to ensure a fair process in the interests of justice in such cases. I can assure the Committee, in particular in response to the points made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and others, that because this amendment has been supported by the Magistrates’ Association, we have given it very careful consideration.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, explained, I am as every bit as concerned as her, and indeed the noble Lord who is proposing the amendment, to ensure that domestic abuse victims are adequately protected in the family courts. It is for that reason that the Government are already taking decisive steps to act on the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Harm in the Family Courts, in response to which we published our implementation plan in June 2020.
The Bill contains various measures designed to protect domestic abuse victims in family proceedings and across the other jurisdictions. In that context, I bear in mind the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale: the human impact that domestic abuse has, and that it can require some bravery to go to and appear in court in those circumstances, a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Therefore, within the court environment, our provisions on special measures made it clear that the victims of domestic abuse and other parties or witnesses are eligible for special measures such as a screen during proceedings, where the court is satisfied that the quality of their evidence is likely to be diminished due to their vulnerability. In that context, on the point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, regarding the position of children, Clause 3(2) provides that any reference in the Bill to a victim of domestic abuse
“includes a reference to a child who … sees or hears, or experiences the effects of, the abuse, and … is related to A or B.”
Therefore, the Bill is structured very much with victims of domestic abuse, who may include children, firmly in mind.
It is not entirely clear from the noble Lord’s amendment whether the intention is that “direct or indirect engagement” during proceedings be confined to the court setting, by which I mean what goes on in the courtroom itself, or extend more widely for their duration, as set out in debate by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. There is often a need for what my noble and learned friend called personal and direct contact between parties in such proceedings. In that regard, one must bear in mind that under Part 3 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, the court can make a participation direction. That can include the use of special measures, which are a series of provisions to help a party or witness to participate or give evidence in court proceedings. That is a range of measures available both to parties and witnesses to enable them to participate in an appropriate manner.
Beyond that, the courts have a range of protective orders, such as non-molestation orders and restraining orders, that can be made to protect victims when they are not within the confines of the court building. In addition, when introduced by the Bill, domestic abuse protection orders can be used to protect victims of domestic abuse outside the courtroom during proceedings. That is because the DAPO brings together the strongest elements of the existing protective orders into a single comprehensive and very flexible order that we believe will provide more effective and longer-term protection than the existing protective orders for victims of domestic abuse and their children. I underline the point that there may be circumstances in which children are also victims. So, for example, if children are giving evidence inside court, special measures may well be applicable and the prohibition on cross-examination may also apply.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for setting out the rationale for these amendments. As he said, I deferred my comments on the particular point of an advocate’s duty to this group because his amendments directly raise that issue. I am grateful to him for the discussions we had about this matter, as indeed we have had about several matters arising from the Bill.
Amendments 122 and 127 would have the same effect in relation to a qualified legal representative appointed by the court to conduct cross-examination in family and civil proceedings respectively. It is the Government’s intention that such a court-appointed representative is not responsible to any party. They are, in effect, appointed by and responsible to the court in relation to their conduct of the cross-examination, having regard to guidance issued by the Lord Chancellor in connection with this role under what we intend should become Section 31Y(1) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984.
As I think the noble Lord, Lord Marks, accepts, the amendments would alter fundamentally the representative’s role by making them responsible to the party who has been prohibited from carrying out such cross-examination. While the tabled amendments contain safeguards to counter the resulting tension between being responsible to the prohibited party on the one hand and needing to protect domestic abuse victims on the other by requiring the representative to have regard to protective directions issued by the judge, this does not affect the Government’s view that, as a matter of principle, the representative who has been appointed by the court should not be responsible to the party. That is particularly the case when that party could have, but has not, appointed his own lawyer. Had he done so, a court-appointed lawyer would not have been required and the lawyer appointed by him would have owed him a duty.
Therefore, the Government do not want this to become a client-lawyer relationship. The advocate is appointed for only one function: to ensure that the best evidence is obtained fairly from the witness in cases where the party is prohibited from conducting the cross-examination by themselves. Altering this and introducing such a relationship between the party and the advocate would, in the Government’s view, be a mistake.
The rules pertaining to the advocate scheme will be set out in statutory guidance and relevant procedural rules. Consistent with what I have been explaining to the Committee, the focus will be on ensuring that the function of a cross-examination is carried out—that the witness is questioned on the evidence that they have provided. Before these provisions are commenced, we will work with relevant stakeholders to develop and finalise statutory guidance, to be issued by the Lord Chancellor, for the appointed legal representatives to assist them in discharging this role. We will work with the appropriate rule committees to develop suitable court rules and practice directions to provide a clear structure and process for the operation of these provisions.
For those reasons, we take issue with the proposal in the amendment. Although I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said about SIAC and court-appointed advocates there, those are completely different circumstances and there is no read-across from SIAC to these provisions. The way that the Bill is set out reflects the Government’s deliberate intention and the clauses have been designed with this in mind.
The framework for the provision of publicly funded legal representation is set out in the LASPO Act. While I have listened carefully to the arguments made on this point, both today and in previous discussions, I do not agree that we should mix the different purposes of LASPO and these clauses as has been proposed. As anticipated by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I refer to the review that I mentioned in the last debate.
Amendments 123 and 128 relate to the provision of legal aid. Legal aid is available for family cases where there is evidence of abuse, subject to domestic violence, or child abuse evidence requirements, and the relevant means and merits tests. We have expanded the acceptable forms of evidence and removed all time limits on providing that evidence. As I have said, we are also reviewing the means test. The Government are clear that victims of domestic abuse must have access to the help that they need, including to legal aid. The review of the means test is assessing the effectiveness with which that test protects access to justice. As I said in the last debate, we are specifically considering the experience of victims of domestic abuse. I will not repeat the other points I made in that context in the previous debate.
However, legal aid may also be available through the exceptional case funding scheme, where a failure to provide legal aid would breach or risk breaching the ECHR or retained enforceable EU rights. As I have explained, the Bill includes provisions that give the court a power, in specified circumstances, to appoint a publicly funded legal representative to conduct cross-examination. Where a prohibition on cross-examination applies, the court would first consider whether there are alternatives to cross-examination and invite the party to appoint a legal representative to conduct the cross-examination. In circumstances where the party does not, the court considers whether it is in the interests of justice so to appoint. Therefore, publicly funded legal representation is intended to conduct the cross-examination, but not to go beyond it. That is the sole reason why the advocate is appointed.
In that context, we must appreciate the need to protect against unnecessary expenditure of public funds or alteration of the legal aid regime without a wholesale and proper examination of the ramifications of doing so. In circumstances where this provision for a publicly funded advocate is put in the Bill for a limited and specific—if I can still use that phrase—purpose, it would be wrong in principle for us to conduct a review of legal aid provisions in Committee.
I fear that I may not have been able to persuade the noble Lord, as I was not able to persuade him earlier, of the merits of the Government’s approach. I am sure he will tell me that I have not, but I hope that I have been able to explain the Government’s approach and thinking on this issue. In those circumstances, I invite him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, unquestionably the Minister—to whom I am very grateful, for both his engagement and his considered and careful response—is right about one thing, which is that he has not convinced me of the difference in responsibility to the client between court-appointed advocates and normal lawyers. I accept that the role of legal representative would be altered by my amendments, and that is all to the good.
One point made by the Minister can be considered in a way that he did not. It is a precondition to the appointment of a legal representative by the court that the client or party who would have conducted the cross-examination, but for the prohibition, should have been given the opportunity to instruct his own lawyer. That lawyer would have had full responsibility to the client in the normal way—full duty of care, answerable in negligence and everything else. Generally, Members of the House will appreciate that the reason that that condition is not often met—in other words, the client does not appoint a lawyer—is lack of funds, not that he or she, usually he, does not wish for the lawyer to have a responsibility to the client. There is very little distinction to draw between the two cases, apart from the fact that the rich client gets the lawyer and the poor client has a court-appointed lawyer.
The Minister referred to the safeguards that I built into the amendments in their directions to the judge—
“such directions as the Court may give to protect the witness from significant distress or to prevent the quality of the witness’s evidence from being diminished.”
There may be further room for discussion about those directions and the guidelines within which cross-examination by a lawyer with a responsibility to the client could take place. I will carefully read the guidance that he mentions by which court-appointed lawyers will conduct their cross-examinations.
I completely reject the Minister’s explanation that SIAC involves different issues, as a justification for removing the responsibility. It is precisely because SIAC special advocates and their appointment involve different issues that the responsibility is removed. I explained that in opening. That point does not seem to have been treated with full understanding.
Of course I will withdraw this amendment to enable further review. The point about legal aid is one of accessibility. We know that there is a review under way and I accept that we should not be reviewing this question in Committee, but the problem is one of evidential and financial accessibility. Until both parties can be represented in domestic abuse proceedings, it is difficult to see that proper representation will be achieved. With those points, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has explained, these amendments intend to bring the provisions relating to prohibition of cross-examination in civil courts into line with the provisions on the same measure in family courts. As the noble Lord explained, we have covered some of the questions of principle already in earlier groups. He indicated that he was therefore going to be brief—as he indeed was—and I hope that both he and the Committee will not take it as any disrespect if I am equally brief in response, given that we have canvassed the points of principle already.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, described herself as a “support act”, an appellation with which I respectfully but firmly disagree. She spoke eloquently in an earlier group of her personal experience of seeing how court procedures operate in cases involving domestic abuse, and her contribution to this short debate has been equally valuable. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, will forgive me if I gently point out to her that she should not apologise for not being a lawyer. What is apparently, based on my short time here, a repeated cause for apology in this House is generally regarded as a badge of honour everywhere else.
Turning to the substance, let me explain that the approach we have taken in civil cases differs from that taken in family proceedings for good reasons. The clause dealing with banning cross-examination of vulnerable parties or witnesses stems from the report by the Civil Justice Council, to which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, also referred, and which I spoke about when commenting on the amendments to Clause 62.
The council recommended that the prohibition of cross-examination by a self-represented party should be extended to cover civil proceedings, thereby ensuring some parity with the criminal and family jurisdictions. Importantly, however, the Civil Justice Council cautioned that the ban or prohibition should not be absolute: rather, it should be left to the court’s discretion, given that, as I explained in an earlier group, the civil and family jurisdictions are very different as regards the types of cases, with the civil jurisdiction having a much wider range. As I also said earlier, those cases can have a much broader range of circumstances, where there is no prior close connection between the parties, as there would generally be in the family courts. We have therefore tailored our approach to allow for those differences, which is why the provisions in respect of cross-examination in the civil jurisdiction differ from those in family proceedings. I hope that that explains my thinking to the noble Lord, Lord Marks.
In response to points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Fox of Buckley, I say it is important that two things are fundamental. First, it is important that protection is available to all witnesses who need it—this was the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. In response to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the court will of course look at all circumstances in that regard. The overriding concern is to ensure that justice is done in the particular case, which is why leaving it to the discretion of the judge in an individual case to decide when a ban is necessary is based on an unlimited range of factors, including, obviously, the views of parties to the proceedings, any past convictions or the behaviour of parties during the trial. That is how we suggest this matter is best resolved.
Having said all that, I respectfully say that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has put forward, as one would expect from him, a cogent and well-argued case for his amendment. As such, while we consider that the approach taken in the Bill in relation to the civil courts is well founded, and certainly not—to use a word adopted earlier in this debate—illogical, I hear the arguments he put forward and undertake to consider these amendments further ahead of Report. I will continue to listen with interest to any arguments made by him or others in this regard. Therefore, given this undertaking, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, once again, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has proved herself much more than a support act. I say to her and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that there is a crying need in these legal debates for experience from outside the law to inform our debates and bring the lawyers down to earth.
Many noble Lords may well have formed the view that the differences between the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and me are arcane legal arguments, in some senses—but we can only have those arcane arguments in a relevant way if we have real-world experiences to back them up. Some of these will be ours, but the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, not only clearly demonstrated how the principles that apply to cross-examination in civil proceedings also apply in family proceedings; she also graphically described the personal experience of witnesses in court proceedings. I challenge anyone to explain why that experience differs between the two types of proceeding, where witnesses are, or are liable to be, victims of domestic abuse and are vulnerable.
Although I greatly valued the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, I do not agree with her that this legislation or these and other amendments overstate the significance of vulnerability or trauma, when the evidence is serious and extensive of how deep vulnerability can go, how serious the trauma can be and how long-lasting it can be as a result of domestic abuse. That is the reason why the Government have brought this Bill; it is why it is widely welcomed around the House and the reason for the protections that are afforded to witnesses and parties in court proceedings.
I come to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, who frankly accepts the differences and parallels between us in respect of cross-examination in cases of special measures. I do not accept that a discretionary system in relation to the prohibition of cross-examination is an acceptable substitute. One of the principal reasons for this is that a party or witness has no assurance that there will be a prohibition in a discretionary case. She—or, in some cases, he—is totally reliant on judicial discretion having regard, as the Minister says, to all sorts of other factors, including previous convictions and all the circumstances of the case, in relation to knowing whether a prohibition of cross-examination will be extended. This means that such a witness or party is exposed to the risk that there will be direct cross- examination, which they may well be unable to face.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his undertaking that he will consider these amendments further; I know that that undertaking is given with every intention that he will do so. I and others remain completely open to discussing these amendments with him and refining them if necessary, but we hold the basic belief that vulnerable witnesses need protection from direct cross-examination on exactly the same basis in civil cases as is to be extended in family cases. Saying that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 124.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, there has been a varied response to the Bill. What has come out of it is that nothing is as simple as it might appear in situations of the kind described. The somewhat harrowing example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, underlines that.
As we have heard, Amendments 130 and 130A seek to change the presumption that it is in the welfare of a child to have unsupervised contact when one parent has either a domestic abuse conviction or court proceedings against them. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, told us that she does not like presumptions and that we need to consider all the circumstances—that has certainly come out of this afternoon’s debate.
As we know, the presumption of the courts is that it is in the welfare of the child for both parents to have access now, everything else being equal. However, when one parent is accused of abusing or has abused the other parent or the child, or they are subject to a Crown prosecution case, everything is most decidedly not equal. We have discussed enough times during the course of the Bill just how difficult and stressful a domestic abuse situation can be for a child, who can be used and abused as a pawn between warring partners. And it can get far, far worse than that.
Several noble Lords used statistics to back up this argument. Mine come from the charity Refuge, which, in partnership with a Sunday Mirror journalist, conducted an investigation which found that, between 2004 and 2019, 63 children were killed at the hands of a domestic abuse perpetrator who had contact with their children after being convicted of a serious criminal offence. Refuge reports that the actual figures of child harm are even higher, with many children dying from other causes, such as neglect. This is the danger of under- estimating the risk that perpetrators can pose to their children. It does not apply to all perpetrators, of course; many who have committed domestic abuse against their partners are different altogether with the children—a point another noble Lord made.
We should also consider how previous matters are taken into consideration. In particular, my colleague and noble friend Lord Marks gave an example of a previous situation in which domestic abuse took place, perhaps in a previous life. But domestic abuse still figures in that situation, so if an alleged perpetrator has a previous domestic abuse conviction, it would be better to be safe than sorry.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, moved Amendment 130A, as an amendment to Amendment 130, which takes matters a little further to include fact-finding hearings in the family courts, which most commonly concern domestic abuse. In such hearings, it is for the person making the allegations to prove that they are true. The judge considers on the balance of probabilities whether the allegations are true or not. The presumption in Amendment 130 is therefore extended while the hearings take place. I think it is better that, where there is a previous conviction, even with another partner in a different situation, it is still far better to be safe than sorry.
I hope that the Minister will be minded to consider these amendments carefully and, if necessary, make changes to make them a little better on Report.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has explained, Amendment 130, formerly in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, seeks to make it clear that the presumption that parental involvement furthers the child’s welfare cannot apply where there is evidence of domestic abuse. It also seeks to prohibit unsupervised contact for a parent awaiting trial or on bail for domestic abuse offences or where there are ongoing criminal proceedings for domestic abuse.
Amendment 130A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, extends this. It seeks to prohibit unsupervised contact for a parent pending a fact-finding hearing in family proceedings or where domestic abuse is alleged or is proven—either in such a fact-finding hearing or as the result of a criminal conviction for a domestic abuse offence.
Before proceeding, I hope the Committee will forgive me if I make two overarching points. First—and I say this respectfully, given my short time in this House—the debate we have just had shows the value and importance of Committee stage. A number of contributors have listened to and considered the points that have been made and, on occasion, have changed their position. There is nothing wrong with that. If I have one regret—and again I say this respectfully—it is that our PR means that the value of these Committees is not as well understood outside this House as it is within it.
Secondly, in the last debate, the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, made the point that what seems an arcane legal matter to lawyers—and perhaps to others in this Chamber—is improved by real-world experience and examples. In this debate, contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, have done just that. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that anecdote is not evidence and that we must have research. I will come to this issue later in my remarks. Hearing the case of an eight year-old girl unlocking the front door to catch a bus to get to her father’s house is a powerful example. The image of a child saying his last words to a fireman in a smoke-filled attic will stay with me, and rightly so. It reminds me that, although we are debating words on paper, they have consequences in the real world. I am sure that many, if not all, noble Lords will feel the same.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the aims of these amendments, and I agree that more needs to be done to ensure that the courts take proper account of the impact that domestic abuse can have on children’s well-being and safety. To that extent, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that we should seek to remove stress from children, in so far as we can. That was why, late last year, following the recommendations from the Expert Panel on Harm in the Family Courts, the Government launched a review on the presumption of parental involvement. Importantly, the panel did not call for immediate legislative change. Instead, it recommended a full review. They were right to do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said and as noble Lords will be aware, this review is under way. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, it will give us important data, research and a considered analysis.
The review will focus on the presumption—and its exception—and the impact on children’s welfare of the courts’ application of these provisions. It will allow us to build a stronger evidence base and ensure that any changes brought about as a result are rooted in a solid understanding of the effect of the presumption and the associated evidence on child welfare. It would therefore be premature to amend the legislation relating to the presumption, including Section 9 of the Children Act—as proposed in the amendment—before gaining the in-depth evidence from the review.
It is worth highlighting that the current legislation on the presumption makes it clear that it should be disapplied where there is risk of harm to the child. This means that the risk of harm from a parent perpetrator of domestic abuse should already be taken into account by the courts. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, reminded us, Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 makes the child’s welfare paramount. It should also ensure that courts consider the risk of a child suffering harm, or further harm, when deciding on any aspect of the child’s upbringing.
Some noble Lords asked how contact between a child and a parent who has committed domestic abuse, or against whom it has been alleged, could ever be in the best interests of the child. The short answer is that this is not an easy question, but it is for the courts to decide in each case, taking into account all the evidence presented to them. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has vast experience in this area. She gave us an example of such a possible case. She also made an important point about judicial training, which we shall come to in a later group.
In addition to my general point that this issue is catered for in the current statutory architecture, there are two further problems to which the amendments would lead. First, domestic abuse is only one of many circumstances which may impact on a child’s well-being and safety. By expressly referring to it, these amendments could be seen to give domestic abuse prominence over other valid considerations which the court should take into account in deciding whether such an order would be in the best interests of the child—for example, other sexual or violent offending, or a history of or allegations of child abuse. I say this without downplaying in any way the importance and effect of domestic abuse.
Secondly, as a number of contributors have said, the second part of the amendment would lead to an automatic ban. The court could not exercise discretion. If we legislate to create automatic bans on a particular form of contact, there may be concerns that we are not allowing courts to take sufficient account of whether there are risks to the child in the particular circumstances of the case. Risks and rights must be weighed carefully, allowing courts to assess each case on its merits. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, gave an example where, on the facts of the case, a court might want to permit contact.
Other noble Lords, who are not lawyers, have also contributed to this debate. My noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge summarised it very well—so much so that he led the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to tear up his speech. This must be a rare, if not unique, occurrence. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said it was “likely” that the court would reach such a conclusion. This is the point I am making: it may be likely, but we should not force the court to do so. We should not remove the court’s discretion. Ultimately, the court should make the decision, based on all the facts of the case. Furthermore, it is not clear from the terms of the amendment whether such bans, if they prevent unsupervised contact following a conviction or finding of fact, would or should be capable of being lifted or modified if the risks in an individual case materially change. I respectfully agree with my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes when she said that she was not persuaded that the amendment was necessary, and that it might have unintended consequences.
I also agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull: that nothing is as simple as it first appears in this area of the law. There are risks on all sides in this area, so to speak. There are risks of contact and, as my noble friend Lady Altmann reminded us, there are risks in preventing contact as well. I therefore suggest to the Committee that the approach in the current legislation, which was identified and explained by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, with, if I may respectfully say so, her customary clarity, is the correct one.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Bertin and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who have spoken to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. The amendments relate, as has been said, to a number of different aspects of the family courts. I hope it will be convenient for the Committee if I take each amendment in turn.
I turn first to Amendment 131, tabled by my noble friend Lady Bertin, which, as she says, is a probing amendment. It recognises the crucial role of refuges in supporting victims of domestic abuse and their children. I must thank my noble friend for her time in being willing to discuss with me this amendment, and indeed others.
The amendment raises two important issues. I will first address that of the disclosure of the residential addresses of refuges. Existing legislation and family court procedural rules allow parties to apply to withhold their address and that of their children from other parties. There is therefore no requirement for those engaged in family court proceedings to disclose their address. During family court proceedings, when adequate information about the location of a child is not known to the court, the court can order any person who may have relevant information to disclose it. In those circumstances, details of the child’s address and who they are living with are disclosed only to the court, not the other parties, in the first instance. The court then determines how that information should be used. Where there are allegations of domestic abuse, the court can and does hold that information as confidential. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that this was of critical importance and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said it was essential, and I do not dissent from that.
Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause would prevent the service of a court order at a refuge’s residential address. I fully appreciate that victims living in a refuge are fearful for their safety, and that receiving or witnessing the service of an order at a refuge could be very distressing. In that context, I take on board the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that one must bear in mind the position of other occupants of the refuge as well. In that context, therefore, the two cases illustrated by my noble friend Lady Bertin are concerning.
However, I am clear that there are contexts in which the court may need to serve an order on a party at the refuge they are staying in, and where not doing so may pose unintended risks to the safety of children involved in family law proceedings. For example, there may be a concern that a child might imminently be taken out of the jurisdiction. The welfare of the child is of key concern in family court proceedings. Where the courts have urgent welfare considerations, they must be able to take swift action to locate the child. We must not risk impeding the court’s ability to act immediately to safeguard a child by limiting the addresses at which an order can be served.
As my noble friend has outlined, the courts may already direct bespoke service arrangements based on the facts of a case. The Family Procedure Rules 2010 allow for court orders to be served at alternative addresses, such as the refuge office address, if that is suitable. Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, pointed out, it may not always be suitable. As such, I am confident that the important outcomes sought by my noble friend are already provided for in existing legislation and court procedure.
I should add in this context that the Family Procedure Rules, as I have said, allow for parties to apply for their contact details to be kept confidential from other parties. But even where such an application has been made, parties retain responsibility for ensuring that any form or document they submit to the court does not contain the information they wish to keep private. We have to consider in this context documents received from other people, such as medical reports or financial statements. It is difficult, if not impossible, for court staff to check all documents submitted to the court for any unintentional—I emphasise unintentional—disclosure of contact details.
Therefore, given that background, I submit that the proposed clause is unnecessary and, perhaps more importantly, would bring with it some obviously unintended, but very real, potential risks to some of our most vulnerable children. Existing legislation and rules allow for the protections sought through this amendment. But we recognise that, as we have been told in a number of cases this evening, concerns have been raised in individual cases before the courts. The Government are committed to protecting vulnerable victims of domestic abuse, and of course this extends to those residing in refuges in particular. We actively work with members of the judiciary, who are committed to exploring whether and how existing procedures and guidance could be strengthened to ensure that those residing in refuges are protected.
Before I turn to the next amendment, I once again thank my noble friend Lady Bertin for raising this issue, both by way of this amendment and in her discussions with me on this matter. It is clear that, across the Committee, we share the same aim—the only real question is how we best achieve it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has explained, Amendment 132 seeks to place a duty on courts to share information relating to victims or those at risk of domestic abuse, and imposes an obligation on the family court to consider making a barring order where information shared by another court identifies that court proceedings may be being used to continue abusive behaviour towards the victim.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the aims of this amendment, and I agree that better information sharing, in particular between the family and criminal courts, on the issue of domestic abuse is important. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was kind enough to acknowledge that there were some drafting issues with this amendment. Indeed, there are such issues, and therefore I hope the Committee will find it helpful if I reply on the questions of principle and not on points of drafting.
The Government are actively considering what more can be done to improve the sharing of information between civil and criminal courts dealing with family proceedings, including through the development of integrated domestic abuse courts, which will be piloted later this year and seek to progress family and criminal cases in parallel. I hope that goes some way to meeting the concerns expressed this evening by my noble friend Lady Newlove.
In particular, I draw to the Committee’s attention the recent amendment to the Criminal Procedure Rules, which comes into effect on 5 April. This will impose a duty on parties to criminal proceedings to alert the criminal court to any related family proceedings, and it encourages the exchange of relevant information with a court dealing with those proceedings. We consider the issue of information sharing between the jurisdictions to be more appropriately addressed through procedural rules, rather than in primary legislation, because the court processes are somewhat technical in nature, I am afraid—and, of course, one has to bear in mind the often technical nature of management information systems.
Alternatively, there is also the issue here of judicial guidance, where the court has a discretion over what information should be shared and with whom. I assure my noble friend Lady Verma that, in that context, the position particularly of women from minority communities, who may be more affected by the sometimes siloing nature of our court processes, is kept very much in mind. How to access support and manoeuvre one’s way through the system once one is in it is of central importance in this context.
I move on to the related but separate issue of the use of Section 91(14) orders under the Children Act 1989, often referred to as “barring” orders. The amendment proposes that the family courts are placed under a duty to consider such an order where it appears, based on information shared by another court, that cases are being brought by a perpetrator of abuse as a means to carry on their abusive behaviour.
The noble Lord is right to raise the issue of perpetrators using the family courts as a means to continue their abuse, highlighted in the report by the Ministry of Justice’s expert panel on harm in the family courts, published in June last year. The sad fact is that domestic abuse perpetrators do sometimes use the courts as a way of perpetrating their abuse, often bringing their victims back to the courts repeatedly, which, obviously, can be retraumatising. In our response to the report, the Government committed to exploring how we could further clarify the availability of Section 91(14) orders in the family courts to further protect victims of domestic abuse.
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord would place a duty on courts to consider making a Section 91(14) order, but only where relevant information has been shared by another court. We are determined that courts should never be used as a forum to perpetrate further abuse. In that context, I am clear that further clarification is indeed required to the law on barring orders to ensure that the use of Section 91(14) is available to parents and children to protect them where further proceedings would risk causing them harm or further abuse. The evidence suggests that these orders are currently underused in circumstances involving domestic abuse and that they could be an effective tool to further protect victims and survivors.
In answer to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend Lady Newlove as to when we will come back with further thoughts on this matter, the short answer is: before Report. Therefore, I thank the noble Lord for drawing attention to this matter, which we are actively considering. We are considering what more can be done to ensure the effective use of Section 91(14) orders in domestic abuse cases. As I have said, we will consider this issue carefully ahead of the next stage of the Bill.
I turn now to Amendment 133, on training for judiciary and other professionals in the family court. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, said that this amendment was the most important of the group. I am tempted to agree, though that is not in any way to undermine the importance of any other amendment. To use a word that I think was used by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, training is critical in this area.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, first and foremost, I offer my sincere thanks to my noble friend Lady Newlove, the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Wilcox, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for the clear case they have submitted today before the Committee on why the offence of non-fatal strangulation is necessary. All the matters that we have discussed today are important, but this may well be the most important. In that context, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not acknowledge each of the contributions individually, both because of time and because, if I may say, many of the contributions were to the same effect. I will seek to respond to the substantive points made without always a personal reference; I hope I will be forgiven for that.
I must, however, make a personal reference to my noble friend Lady Newlove. I join with others in paying sincere tribute to her for the way in which she has promoted this issue. She explained how non-fatal strangulation can be terrifying and the effects long lasting. As the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, said, it is often used as a method of control and, to adopt the phraseology of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, there is a real and visceral effect. I also mention in particular the personal and very moving speech by my noble friend Lady Bertin, with her mention of some circumstances very close to her.
As noble Lords will have noted, there are two amendments on non-fatal strangulation before the Committee. Amendment 137 would have general application: it would apply to all cases where non-fatal strangulation or suffocation has occurred, including cases where non-fatal strangulation or suffocation featured as a factor during a domestic abuse incident. By contrast, Amendment 138 creates the same offence, but the application is limited to cases of non-fatal strangulation or suffocation where this occurs in a domestic abuse context. The maximum penalty for the new offence in each proposed clause is the same—that is, on conviction or indictment, seven years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both.
I am aware that the proposal to create a stand-alone non-fatal strangulation offence stems from campaigns conducted last year by the Centre for Women’s Justice and We Can’t Consent to This. Specific clauses to create a new offence were tabled in another place, although they were different to those before us today. Those proposed clauses were, however, withdrawn on Report in the other place and were not put to a vote.
Before setting out the Government’s position on this matter, let me start by saying that we entirely sympathise with and fully understand the strength of feeling. We unequivocally support the intention behind these amendments and have given a firm commitment to legislate for a new offence of non-fatal strangulation. I hope that, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London explained, this will indeed lead to a reduction in the appalling details that we may have to hear in the future. In answer to my noble friend Lady Redfern, that would be a stand-alone offence.
Several contributors have mentioned the position in other jurisdictions. It is right to say that Australia, Canada, New Zealand and several states in the USA have created a non-fatal strangulation offence. Those offences have been cited by the two groups that I mentioned as offering a basis on which any new offence in England and Wales could be modelled. Those stand-alone offences, however, differ across those jurisdictions. Some apply widely but are dependent on certain factors being met, such as the victim not giving consent, or the act causing them to lose consciousness. Other variations of the offences are narrower in scope, in that they are restricted to instances of strangulation that occur in a domestic abuse context. Those offences are not without criticism. Some people claim that they are too broad and can capture behaviour that is not intended to harm and should not be criminalised.
It is also worth pointing out that the offences in those jurisdictions have not been placed on the statute book without significant prior review to assess their impacts on other areas of law. In addition, most of those legislative measures tend to be accompanied by a package of non-legislative measures—for example, programmes for seeking to change perpetrator behaviour, toolkits for the police to assist in identifying non-fatal strangulation cases and guidance for agencies to support victims of non-fatal strangulation.
I also draw the attention of the Committee to the current law and how non-fatal strangulation is currently captured. Such behaviour can be captured, depending on the seriousness of the crime, under offences ranging from common assault and battery to attempted murder. However, in addition to those offences, there are others that can cover non-fatal strangulation and suffocation. For example, it can be part of a pattern of behaviour amounting to an offence of controlling or coercive behaviour under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015. Additionally, a specific offence under Section 21 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 makes it an offence to attempt to choke, suffocate or strangle any person, or to choke, suffocate or strangle a person in an attempt to render that person insensible, unconscious or incapable of resistance. That offence also requires there to be an intention by the perpetrator to commit another indictable offence.
It is that range of offences that initially led the Government to believe that the law was sufficient in covering the diverse circumstances and levels of seriousness that may be involved in non-fatal strangulation cases. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, set out, one would not want to create a stand-alone offence if it were not necessary to do so. However, we have now been persuaded that this may not be the case.
We are also aware of claims of evidential difficulties in prosecuting any allegation of strangulation, particularly if there is no—or insufficient—evidence of injury, not even reddening or minor bruising to the skin. Further, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, pointed out in relation to the Section 21 offence, there is the additional requirement for evidence that another indictable offence had been intended, and that may create difficulties.
Our concern had been that the same difficulties would apply to any new offence, as there would still be a requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt that a serious offence was intended. We have also been concerned about the risks associated with creating a new offence and that it could limit the circumstances covered and create additional evidential burdens when compared with existing offences.
More importantly, as was pointed out by a number of contributors, non-fatal strangulation is relevant to and found in, but plainly not limited to, domestic abuse circumstances. Although I understand and accept that it is more likely to occur in a domestic abuse setting, it is nevertheless the Government’s position to ensure that if we create a new criminal offence, it applies equally to all parts of society, does not create any loopholes, or conflict or impact on other parts of the legal framework.
I turn now to the detail of the amendments: as drafted, both are deficient and could not be accepted by the Government. Importantly, both amendments seek to create a new offence to criminalise conduct that is already unlawful. In addition, the proposed maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment for conviction or indictment is problematic—the level of the penalty needs careful consideration. Our main concern here is that seven years exceeds the maximum penalty for serious offences such as GBH, when the injury caused by non-fatal strangulation may be significantly less than the injuries that amount to GBH.
There are other significant problems. The amendments do not deal with the element of consent, do not consider any exemptions and do not provide explanation of how they would work with, and alongside, the current legal framework. The amendments are also limited to a person’s breathing, or blood circulation, or both, being impeded manually—by hand or through the use of an aid. We are, however, aware of offences of this nature where a person’s breath or blood circulation has been impeded in other ways, such as the use of other body parts—a knee placed hard upon a neck, for example—or, simply, using bodyweight.
As noble Lords will have seen in the media over the weekend of 9-10 January, the Government have now committed to creating a new offence of non-fatal strangulation, for which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, characteristically generously, was thanking Ministers. It will be important, however, to ensure that any new offence is proportionate—I hear the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and I will come back to it—allows for more prosecutions to be brought and for convictions to be secured. There is a number of legal and technical issues to be addressed for this to be achieved that are not addressed by the amendments as currently tabled.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, as has been said, rightly pointed to some of these issues on Second Reading, and we should not underestimate the challenges of getting this right. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for passing on the later comments from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. I can say, particularly given his reference to Professor David Ormerod, that officials have already taken up the offer of meeting the learned professor. They have had initial discussions with him and will continue to have such discussions, which I am sure will be extremely useful.
As I am sure noble Lords will agree, it is important for any new offence to work in practice and not pose difficulties for other parts of the law. In creating any new offence of non-fatal strangulation, the Government will have to consider several factors. Let me set out just four. First, the Government will have to consider whether the behaviour should be captured through a single offence or through two offences to capture lower-level and more serious cases of non-fatal strangulation. Secondly, we have to define the term “strangulation and suffocation,” and consider whether any terminology about serious harm requires definition. Thirdly, although I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, we have to consider the issue of consent—when consent becomes invalid is a notoriously thorny legal issue. Fourthly, we have to consider the application of public policy exemptions, such as for some sports or medical treatments.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we on these Benches fully support Amendments 139, 140 and 145, in the names of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and others. The issues addressed in these amendments have been raised in the other place by my honourable friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, Jess Phillips, and others during the Bill’s consideration there.
The amendments, as noble Lords have heard, are modelled on existing law and should not cause the Government any trouble whatsoever; I look forward to the Minister’s response. My noble friend Lady Kennedy explained the problems women face when they have killed a partner, having been the victim of abuse for years and years and then find themselves in the dock. The amendments seek to address that and reflect the realities of domestic abuse.
Everybody has been very complimentary about the Bill—it is a very good Bill, long overdue and we wish it success—but to become really effective legislation, it must incorporate these amendments or government amendments with the same intent. It is reasonable to afford the victims of domestic abuse who act in self-defence, often in their own homes, reasonable protection. They are compelled to defend themselves, having suffered years of abuse. As my noble friend Lady Kennedy reminded us—we have heard it many times before—on average, two women a week are killed by their partner or former partner. That is an horrific figure.
Amendment 139 would provide domestic abuse survivors with the same legal protection as householders have in cases of self-defence. Members have referred to such cases. Amendments 140 and 145 are modelled on Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and would give victims of abuse a statutory defence where they have been compelled to offend as a result of experiences of domestic abuse.
We have heard excellent speeches in this short debate from all noble Lords, particularly from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I endorse all the comments of noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Bradley, in particular, made a compelling speech. He raised the issue of mental health, its effect on women prisoners and the need for proper context to be taken into account when deciding to prosecute cases. I look forward to the response from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. If he cannot accept these amendments, I hope he will tell the Committee that he understands the issue and will go away and reflect on it, and maybe come back on Report.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I first offer my sincere thanks and appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for outlining the case for these amendments. In response to her early comments, I can assure her that I have indeed listened to her and benefited from discussing these matters with her, both outside the Chamber in advance of today’s proceedings and in listening to her most diligently this evening. She has considerable experience in this area of the law.
In effect, these amendments seek to create two new defences: first, a defence of reasonable use of force by victims of domestic abuse who, in self-defence, react to violence from an abusive partner; and, secondly, a new statutory defence for victims of domestic abuse who commit a criminal offence. While in tonight’s debate the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, focused on the first of those defences, I have had the benefit of discussing both issues with her. I have read briefings on both and therefore hope that my reply will meet the points she has made inside and outside the Chamber. None the less, I will take each amendment in turn, because they raise different issues.
Amendment 139 is on the reasonable use of force. The Government are aware that what is being sought here is an extension to the current provisions to enable victims of domestic abuse to have the same level of protection as those acting in response to an intruder in the home. I am aware that the proposed new clause stems from a campaign by the Prison Reform Trust seeking to clarify the degree of force that is reasonable under the common law of self-defence where the defendant is a survivor of domestic abuse. It has been suggested by the Prison Reform Trust that the common-law defences are unsuitable in the context of domestic abuse.
In that context, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Hamwee, explained, the amendment seeks to build on existing provisions in Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, with the intention that, as with householders, the degree of force used by the defendant would have to be “grossly disproportionate” rather than simply “disproportionate” by reference to the circumstances that the victim believed them to be, and to take into account other factors set out within Section 76. It has been suggested that this would fill a gap in the law.
Let me start by saying what I hope does not need to be said, given the terms of the Bill and what has been said in Committee on this and previous occasions. The Government recognise the harm suffered by victims of domestic abuse. Several defences are potentially available in law to those who commit offences in circumstances connected with their involvement in an abusive relationship, including the full defence of self-defence. In addition, the broad definition of domestic abuse in the Bill should assist, I hope, with identifying and clarifying the wide-ranging and pernicious nature of domestic abuse, and alerting all those involved in the criminal justice system to it.
It is worth mentioning at this point that the courts—by which I mean the judges—have developed the common-law defences and their relationship to domestic abuse. We should perhaps pay tribute to the judges for having recognised the nature and impact of coercive and controlling behaviour in the application of the criminal law and in sentencing, as well as in family and civil law. It is sometimes the case that the courts are quicker, more nuanced and more flexible in developing the common law than Parliament can ever be in introducing, by their very nature, more rigid and narrowly drawn statutory provisions. For fans of the common law, of which club I am an enthusiastic member, that is an important point to bear in mind.
There is also a need to balance recognition of the abuse suffered and its impact on the victim with the need to ensure that, wherever possible, people do not resort to criminal behaviour. The Government believe that the balance is currently reflected in the law, which continues to evolve and which aims to strike the right balance between those factors.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank the House for the opportunity to ask this question, which applies to all these amendments but particularly to Amendment 139, to which my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb is a signatory. She was unfortunately unable to take part in this debate.
My noble friend would have referred to the fact that the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill allows blanket legal protections for undercover police and informants. The forthcoming overseas operations Bill creates similar new protections against prosecution for military personnel acting overseas. The Government have fought intensely for these protections against prosecution for the police and the military; they have fought against many attempts in your Lordships’ House to reduce or check these protections. In that context, how would the Minister explain—having granted such broad protections to the police and military, even in cases of fundamental wrongdoing—why the Government should refuse what are comparatively far more limited legal defences for survivors of domestic abuse, particularly with such well thought-out and well drafted amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for that question. I do not wish to be thought flippant in any way, but the short answer is that the situations are different, and therefore you have different considerations and different legal results. However, if she will permit me, given that I am not personally acquainted with that sort of detail—certainly of the overseas operations Bill—to respond to her this evening, I will add to my reply in writing.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister. I have two questions which rather puzzle me. First, he talked at length about praising judges for how they can quickly and flexibly adapt the common law of self-defence to new cases and how beneficial it is for it to be dealt with in that way, rather than with rigid primary legislation. Can he therefore explain why Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 was thought necessary?
Secondly, the Minister talked about the option to retreat in domestic abuse cases. Referring to the two scenarios that I spoke about from personal experience, I certainly had the option to escape out of the flat—luckily it was a ground-floor flat—when somebody was trying to break the front door down in the burglar scenario, but when my abusive partner had me up against the kitchen wall, I had very limited options to retreat. I cannot see how the option to retreat is more valid in the burglar situation than it is in the domestic abuse situation. Perhaps the Minister can help me.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for those questions. First, Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act dealt with a specific circumstance, whereby Parliament considered that that instance ought to be reflected by way of a specific statutory defence. The question for this evening is whether there is a suitable read-across into the matters we are discussing. For the reasons I sought to explain, I suggest that there is not.
Secondly, as to the option to retreat, I hope I made it clear that I was not saying that there is always an option to retreat in domestic abuse cases; I was making the point that there is generally very little option to retreat in the householder case. Again, that is an instance where you cannot simply read across to the domestic abuse case. I hope the noble Lord is content with those responses, but I am very happy if he wants to take those points up with me hereafter so that we can discuss them.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I understand the points that the Minister has made about the common law developing—that is inherent in it—but, like my noble friend, I want to pursue the point about flexibility. If the courts were that flexible—I suppose this is a rhetorical question—would we be moving and speaking to these amendments?
The proposed new clause in Amendment 140 is modelled on—but, I accept, does not completely repeat—the provisions of Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act, referring to “the person’s circumstances”. As far as I am aware, I have not received the briefing from the Prison Reform Trust, but does the Minister accept that the remarks of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, go very much to the point about a person’s circumstances? The Minister referred to concern about misuse. At Second Reading, I think I made the point that if there is misuse we should be looking at the misuse, not at not applying a defence which should be a good defence in general.
Finally—again, I suppose this is rhetorical—with regard to the balance, and we are for ever searching for the right balance, does the Minister agree that, given the fast-developing understanding of domestic abuse and its impact, civil society will likely pretty quickly, in parallel, be developing its ideas about what is the right balance?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for those various questions. On the issue of the person’s circumstances, I hope I set that position out in my reply. Perhaps it is the sort of point I could set out to her in writing in a couple of paragraphs, if she would not mind.
We are concerned when defences may be being misused; I made it clear that there are some concerns with the victims of slavery defence in that context. On the last point, which I think the noble Baroness accepted was somewhat rhetorical, she is certainly right that we always seek a balance. The point she makes that the law must keep up with the expectations of civil society is a profound one; it is, indeed, one of the big advantages of the common law. I am sure, therefore, that the issues raised by these amendments will continue to be discussed. The question before the Committee this evening is whether the legislature should provide for explicit statutory defences in these terms. For the reasons I have sought to set out, in my opinion, it should not.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I should tell the Committee that I turned a page too soon in my opening address on these amendments. I did not have the chance to really lay out the second of the statutory defences I am promoting, in Amendment 140.
I regret that I used the term “read-across,” because there are always lawyers who will use language literally. Of course, I did not mean it is an absolute read-across to talk about a householder as distinct from a victim of abuse, but the gravamen is the same. The core of it is about somebody put in fear in the place they want to feel safe: their home. I cannot think of any domestic homicide where I have represented a woman who has killed her partner or ex-partner that did not happen within a household—a place where she was hoping to feel safe but did not, and where experience had taught her to feel fear and terror.
I am afraid I have to say to the Minister that some time, I will take him by the hand into a women’s prison and have him sit down and listen to the accounts of women, by asking them to look him in the eye and tell him their stories. They are so often there because of childhood abuse, having been brought up in abusive households and with direct experience of partner abuse. We could almost empty our prisons without them having women who are there because of their mental health. They are not mentally ill for no reason; almost invariably, it is because of the kind of abuse we have heard about in the debates on this Bill.
I say this respectfully, but the Government are again falling into the trap of saying there are nice victims and bad victims, or of saying: “We will change the law for the good, conforming victims but not for the victims who somehow transgress”. These are the victims who, in the end, defend themselves because they are so in terror for their lives, who are so in fear of a partner that they commit a crime—carrying the drugs from A to B or hiding them in their sock drawer, for example. All I am saying is that there is a double standard in this debate: as soon as you move to that which involves crime and a woman, or anybody who is abused, is in the dock, then suddenly your compassion for the issue of domestic abuse somehow dissipates.
I am very concerned that there is not enough real consideration of the toll of abuse: we are moving into the field where somebody ends up transgressing the law but it is really because of what they are experiencing. If a psychiatrist were to speak to this Committee, they would tell noble Lords that when somebody has experienced fear for their life—we have heard about it in relation to strangulation—and thought “I am going to die at the hands of this person”, and then suddenly smells that level of fear again, in the air, in those circumstances they might take a knife and defend themselves, or take a heavy weapon and hit somebody fatally on the head. The test of “reasonableness” or whether the force was “disproportionate” has to be read in the context. That is why I am saying that it would have to be “grossly disproportionate” for it not to afford a defence of self-defence for somebody who has experienced long-term and serious abuse.
What we are seeing here are the very double standards that are so often experienced by victims of abuse and by women. It goes back to the nature of law and its patriarchal roots. It is about saying that, yes, women who are abused deserve all our compassion but if they overstep the mark, they do not.
Our prisons are full of women who have had these experiences—indeed, I have acted for women who have ended up killing a partner. They do not do it because they suddenly want to wreak vengeance; they do it in exactly the circumstances of the householder who feels in absolute terror for their life.
The failure to make those links and to understand this may be because one has not spent enough time sitting in a cell with people who are coming up for trial. I can tell the Committee that that is the circumstance, and if you can afford, because the Daily Mail demands it of you, to lower the standard of reasonableness and be more flexible for a householder—as indeed you should—then that kind of flexibility should be available to those who have been experiencing long-term abuse.
I ask that the noble Lord look again at the double standard that is operating here. It is partly, of course, because Governments always want to play the law-and-order card and do not want to be seen to be soft on people who commit crime. But very many of the women who end up in prison did what they did because they were under the coercion and control of somebody else, and were absolutely in fear of that person. I really regret the response I have received from my friend, the noble Lord. I ask him to take his great lawyer’s skills and go back to the drawing board again, because he is missing something very important here, which is about justice for women. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, with great regret, and I am really disappointed in the ministerial response.
Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction) (England) Regulations 2021
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
That the Regulations laid before the House on 8 January be approved.
Relevant document: 42nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, this draft instrument prevents enforcement agents—bailiffs—attending residential premises in England to execute a writ or warrant of possession except in the most serious circumstances. The instrument applies to enforcement action in England. It has been in force since 11 January and will expire at the end of 21 February. I refer to my interest as set out in the register.
The instrument renews the restrictions on enforcement agents carrying out evictions that were in place between 17 November 2020 and 11 January 2021. This will ensure that we continue to protect public health during this national lockdown, at a time when the risk of virus transmission is very high, and avoid placing an additional burden on the NHS and local authorities. The instrument continues to provide for exemptions from the ban in cases where we consider that the competing interests of preventing harm to third parties or taking action against egregious behaviour are sufficient to outweigh the public health risks.
The exemptions are as follows. The first is where the claim is against trespassers who are persons unknown. The second is where the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of: anti-social behaviour or nuisance; false statements; domestic abuse in social tenancies; substantial rent arrears, equivalent to six months’ rent; or where the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of the death of the tenant and the enforcement agent attending the property is satisfied that the property is unoccupied. The instrument contains a requirement for the court to be satisfied that an exemption applies on a case-by-case basis. This will ensure that there is a clear, uniform and transparent process for establishing whether an exemption to the ban applies.
As noble Lords will appreciate, this legislation is an extension of the previous ban on the enforcement of evictions in all but two respects. The first difference is that we have redefined the exemption for “substantial rent arrears” to mean arrears of more than six months. The definition in the previous instrument was arrears of more than nine months, not including any arrears that had accrued since March 2020. We have made this change to balance the impact of the ongoing restrictions on landlords with the need to continue to protect tenants. Because of action that the Government have taken as a result of the pandemic to protect renters, we expect that most cases that will fall within this exemption will relate to possession claims that began before the six-month stay on possession proceedings commenced in March 2020. In those cases, landlords may have been waiting for more than a year without rent being paid.
The second difference between this instrument and the one it replaces is that it permits writs and warrants of restitution to be enforced. These orders are issued in cases where a person who has been evicted from premises re-enters those premises illegally. It is therefore appropriate that they be excluded from the ban.
The regulations will be in place until the end of 21 February. We are considering whether and, if so, how to extend them, including how long any such further extension should be in place, and will provide more details as soon as possible.
It is important to ensure that our approach remains proportionate and strikes the right balance between continuing to protect tenants and ensuring that landlords can access justice. On 8 December last year, during the debate on the previous statutory instrument, concern was raised that the Government had not gone further to protect renters and support landlords, many of whom are individuals. The Government believe the best way to support landlords at this time is to provide support to tenants to enable them to continue to pay their rent, and have provided an unprecedented package of financial support which is available to tenants. This includes the fact that, in April 2020, we increased the local housing allowance rate to the 30th percentile of local market rents in each area to help prevent people getting into financial hardship. It also includes an increase of nearly £1 billion in additional support for private renters claiming universal credit or housing benefit in 2020-21, which will benefit over 1 million households, including those in work. Claimants will gain on average an additional £600 this year in increased housing support.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions recently announced that the increase to local housing allowance rates in April this year will be maintained in cash terms in 2021-22, even in the large number of cases where the 30th percentile of local rents has gone down. The continued investment in local housing allowance will support claimants in the private rented sector to manage housing costs. That is on top of the other provisions in place, which the House will know of, to help businesses pay salaries, with the furlough scheme extended to April and the welfare safety net boosted by billions of pounds. In this context, the Government have made £180 million available to local authorities and discretionary housing payments to help renters with their housing costs. All that is critical factual background when considering this statutory instrument.
We continue to require landlords to provide tenants with six months’ notice before eviction in all but the most serious cases until the end of March. That means that most renters served notice now can stay in their homes until June 2021, with time to find alternative accommodation. The six-month stay on possession proceedings put in place at the start of the pandemic could only ever be temporary.
The new court rules also respond to the pandemic and will be reviewed. These include a requirement for cases from before 3 August last year to be reactivated by the landlord and subject to a new review hearing at least four weeks before the substantive hearing. There is a need for landlords to provide courts and judges with information on how tenants have been affected by the pandemic—if that information is not provided, an adjournment will be made. There is a new review stage at least 28 days before the substantive hearing so that tenants can access legal advice, and all enforcement agents must provide a minimum of 14 days’ notice before enforcing an eviction. That is on top of new listing prioritisation arrangements which have been introduced by the judiciary.
Further, we are piloting from early this month a new mediation service to support landlords and tenants in seeking to resolve disputes before a formal hearing takes place. That will be free to use for both landlords and tenants, if it is considered at a review that the case would benefit from mediation and the parties so agree.
Our approach strikes the right balance between prioritising public health and supporting the most vulnerable renters, while at the same time ensuring that landlords can access and exercise their rights to justice. Landlords can action possession claims through the courts, but evictions will not be enforced except in the most serious cases. This SI strikes the right balance, and I therefore commend the regulations to the House.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, in this short debate I feel I have been assailed from all sides. I have been attacked for not giving enough protection to renters and challenged for not giving sufficient thought to landlords. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, said that I would satisfy no one—that may be the story of my life. I bear in mind the point made by my noble friend Lord Naseby that housing never was an easy job. It is certainly less easy when you are in the middle of a global pandemic and even more difficult when you are actually a Minister in the Ministry of Justice.
The experience of being castigated from all sides, however, has been ameliorated by the cogency, force and evident passion of many of the contributions to this debate. But the fact that I have been challenged from all sides is important. I am not making the simple, perhaps simplistic, point—attractive though it would be to do so—that the fact that both renters and landlords consider they have cause for complaint shows that we have got it about right. That would be superficially attractive, but it would not necessarily follow.
What does follow is the point that this is not a simple issue. It is not just a question of focusing on the position of renters or landlords, or even a question of focusing on renters and landlords. We also need to bear in mind the position of others, including neighbours, for example, who have a right to be protected from anti-social behaviour or nuisance. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, who said that this is not a matter of ideology. It is rather, as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said, a matter of balance. This statutory instrument, as I have explained, seeks to balance those interests against an ongoing pandemic and, as I said in my opening remarks, in the light of the various financial support mechanisms that the Government have provided both for renters specifically and for people more generally.
It is against that background that I turn to the regret amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I sincerely thank him for his warm words and I am sure that we will work together, both in and out of the Chamber, on this and other matters.
However, there have been no broken promises. On the point made by the noble Lord, and repeated by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Uddin, because of measures taken in response to the pandemic, we calculated that it would be unlikely that a case would have yet reached the enforcement stage where a landlord had initiated possession proceedings as a result of rent arrears that had begun to accrue since the start of the pandemic.
First, the Coronavirus Act 2020 provides that landlords must give tenants longer notice periods before starting possession proceedings in the courts, apart from in the most egregious cases. Previously, two weeks’ notice was required, and between 26 March and 28 August last year, three months’ notice was required. Since then, landlords have been required to give six months’ notice where arrears are less than six months, and four weeks’ notice where the arrears are at least six months. We also take into account the amount of time it takes possession proceedings to progress through the courts, and the new arrangements that are in place to deal with the resumption of cases following the resumption of possession proceedings at the end of September.
Importantly, at each stage of the process the tenant is provided with time in which to seek advice or make alternative arrangements. If we were to consider a hypothetical case, where a tenant has rent arrears that only started to accrue since the pandemic began, that case will have been affected by the requirement for longer notice periods, the six-month stay on possession proceedings and then the need to follow due process in the courts. When we assess it, it is unlikely that such a case would yet have reached the enforcement stage.
There could, however, be cases where landlords have been waiting to recover possession orders where the rent arrears began to accrue before March 2020. In such cases, where there are very significant rent arrears, we consider that those landlords ought to be able to enforce those orders. But even in those extreme cases, where a court decides that an exemption to this instrument applies, and taking into account one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, bailiffs will not carry out an eviction if they are made aware that anyone living in the property has Covid-19 symptoms, is self-isolating or has been identified as clinically extremely vulnerable.
I now turn to the regret amendment put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, whose experience and knowledge in this area must be acknowledged by everyone in this debate; they are certainly acknowledged by me. Despite the fact that she is not pushing her amendment to a vote, I have to say that, with respect, the terms of the amendment do not meet the issue which faces the Government, and which the statutory instrument seeks to deal with.
The terms of the noble Baroness’s amendment state that it is regrettable that the statutory instrument does not
“link protection from evictions automatically to the extension of restrictions in place to address the COVID-19 pandemic”,
which is a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. It would be wrong to make such an “automatic” link—to use the word in the amendment—because policy in this area should not operate on an automatic basis. It would be wrong for a number of reasons. When assessing the issue of protection from evictions, it would mean that we would look only at the existence of restrictions resulting from the pandemic, which would be to look at only half the picture. It would mean that we would not consider that those restrictions have changed, and no doubt will change further over time. It would mean that we would overlook the help that has been made available and remains available to renters specifically and to people generally. It would also mean ignoring the protections that we have built into the system, and, as my noble friend Lady Altmann reminded us, taking no account of the interests of landlords, who also deserve consideration. Many landlords depend on the rent that they receive for their sole income; if no rent comes in, they can be placed in a precarious financial situation. Over and above all of that, linking protection from evictions automatically to the existence of Covid-19 restrictions assumes a correlation, and indeed a causation, where neither might exist. By contrast, the statutory instrument seeks to find and maintain a balanced approach, taking all matters into account.
I will write to noble Lords whose comments I have not been able to refer to specifically. In the time that I have left, I will pick up on a couple of the main points which were put to me during the debate, beginning with the limited-time nature of this statutory instrument and what my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth called the “bi-monthly ritual” of this SI. I would always be grateful for any opportunities to come to your Lordships’ House for an interesting debate, but I accept in principle that we may wish to raise our eyes and look for a longer period. That is difficult in the midst of a continually changing pandemic, but we will do our best. We are looking at the future and, if we can, we certainly will.
As to the loans scheme, which was put to me by a number of noble Lords, the problem is that any loan scheme must have affordability criteria, which may make it tricky for those most in need to access. With a loan, you must be able to get it and then you must be able to pay it back. We believe, therefore, that the best way to support people in need is through the existing welfare system that provides ongoing support, and that is what the extensive pack of economic support is doing. In that context, the increasing of the local housing allowance rate to the 30th percentile is extremely important.
My noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and other noble Lords asked about the change from nine months to six months. The rent arrears exception has been redefined to cases with rent arrears that are greater than six months because that is proportionate, given where we are in the pandemic, given the other protections in place and given the support that has been put in place for renters specifically and for people more generally. It is a question of balance, and that is where we consider the balance is best struck. We anticipate that most of the cases in which an exemption applies will involve a significant level of rent arrears that predate the pandemic and where landlords may have been waiting over a year without rent being paid.
I hope that I have replied to the main points that were put to me in this debate. I am conscious of the limited time that I have had to reply. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, asked a very specific question about the Traveller community. I hope that he will forgive me for not dealing with it now, but it would perhaps be more appropriate for a housing Minister to respond on that point.
We consider that the balance that this statutory instrument has struck is the appropriate one. It provides tenants with protection from eviction and provides landlords in appropriate cases with the ability to recover sums due. Therefore, I commend this instrument to the House.
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar ExcerptsTuesday 26th January 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 View all Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 129-I Marshalled list for Committee - (21 Jan 2021)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes references to offences in the Space Industry Act 2018 from Schedule 17A to the Sentencing Code (serious terrorism offences). References to those offences will instead be inserted on their commencement by Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020 (see the amendment at page 108, line 11) so that they are dealt with consistently by the Sentencing Act 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, I hope that the Committee will allow me to take a moment to thank the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for their very warm words of welcome, which I appreciate.
Amendment 1 is a minor technical amendment that removes references to offences in the Space Industry Act 2018 from Schedule 17A to the Sentencing Code, which deals with serious terrorism offences. References to those offences will instead be inserted, on their commencement, by Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020 so that they are dealt with consistently by that Act. I beg to move.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I understand from the Minister that this is a minor amendment. I too welcome him to his position. He has been very helpful to me both on this Bill and on the Domestic Abuse Bill, with which we are dealing almost simultaneously. I have a couple of minor questions for him. First, what would happen if this amendment were not put in place? How would that have affected the position, and what could the consequences have been? Secondly, what level of consultation has he done externally to ensure consistency in Sentencing Codes and parliamentary Acts?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the words of the noble Lord. To answer his two questions, I say that this is essentially a tidying-up matter because of the different pace of legislation going through Parliament at the moment. The question of what would happen if this amendment were not made is an interesting one. At the very least we would be left with inelegant legislation, and I know from my previous incarnation that inelegant legislation is bad for Parliament but very good for lawyers, so let us try to make it as elegant as we can while we are at it. Much of the consultation on this matter preceded my involvement in this Bill and indeed my introduction to this House, but I am aware that there has been very significant consultation. Of course, if the noble Lord wishes to raise any particular points with me, my door is always open to him.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments at page 53, line 44, page 95, line 4 and page 95, line 37 are consequential on the removal of Clause 34.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 3, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 73, 74 and 75. I will also signal my intention to propose the removal of Clauses 33, 34 and 35.
Clause 33 was intended to provide explicit provision so that Scottish Ministers might impose a polygraph condition as a licence condition for specified released terrorist offenders. Clause 34 was intended to provide explicit provision so that the Northern Ireland Department of Justice might impose a polygraph condition as a licence condition for specified released terrorist offenders. Scotland does not currently have express provision for polygraph testing, but Scottish Ministers have broad powers to set licence conditions under Section 12(1) of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. Northern Ireland does not currently have express provision for polygraph testing, but the Department of Justice has broad powers to set licence conditions under Article 24 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 and Rule 3(2)(e) of the Criminal Justice (Sentencing) (Licence Conditions) (Northern Ireland) Rules 2009.
Through discussions on the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly on the provisions of the Bill, it became apparent that while this clause would enable a fully comparable UK-wide approach to polygraph testing on licence, pursuit of this provision in Scotland and Northern Ireland was not strictly necessary and could result in Scottish and Northern Irish Ministers withholding their consent for the Bill. The Government remain of the view that polygraph examinations are a useful additional tool in supporting the effective management of terrorist offenders, and we hope that the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly will see the demonstrable benefits of its introduction in England and Wales.
This Government will continue to legislate on reserved matters but, as an expression of our respect for the existing powers of the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly in relation to the setting of licence conditions, and as a demonstration of this Government’s reasonable approach to those discussions, we have now agreed to remove the provision on the clear understanding that, should this Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland Assembly or a future one change its view on polygraph testing, it will be able to implement the measure without additional legislation being required.
Clause 35 was intended primarily to provide supplementary provisions to Clauses 33 and 34 that would restrict the circumstances in which the devolved Administrations could impose mandatory polygraph examinations as a licence condition for certain terrorist offenders. As a result of the removal of Clauses 33 and 34 from the Bill, Clause 35 is no longer needed. The clause was intended to ensure that regulations could be made to ensure that polygraph conditions were confined only to those offenders’ licences where it was necessary and proportionate to do so, to ensure standards for the examinations and that appropriate records and reports kept in relation to testing were consistent across the UK. Polygraph examinations are already carried out on sexual offenders in England and Wales. The conduct of those polygraph examinations is governed by rules made under Section 29(6) of the Offender Management Act 2007. Amendments 2, 3, 17, 18, 21 to 26 and 75 are consequential on the removal of Clauses 33 to 35.
Amendment 73 is necessary to ensure that the measures that permit introduction of polygraph testing in a licence condition for terrorist offenders in England and Wales are commenced two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Previously, when explicit provision was sought and set out for Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as for England and Wales, we had agreed that the provision should be commenced via regulation to allow sufficient time to develop the relevant infrastructure in those jurisdictions. As explicit provision is no longer made for those jurisdictions through this Bill, and polygraph testing is already used by the probation service for sex offenders in England and Wales, the same delay is not now required. As such, the usual commencement of two months after Royal Assent is appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have many reservations about the value of polygraph tests. They rely on measuring several physiological processes—pulse rate, blood pressure, perspiration and so on, the changes that may take place in the course of questioning. However, the emotional and physiological responses recorded may arise from such factors as simple anxiety about being tested or fear of being judged deceptive, or a host of things—perhaps the state of one’s digestion after food. There is an inherent ambiguity in the physiological responses. The reluctance to use polygraph evidence is precisely because the response may mimic the response expected of a person seeking to deceive.
What is meant by “failing” the polygraph test? Failing the test means exhibiting a certain physiological response to a question. What is truth? The examiner cannot know whether that response means that the answer is a lie. However, there is no punishment for failing the test—whatever that means—or for exhibiting that response. That does not breach the terms of the offender’s licence. The individual will not be returned to prison. Alterations may, however, take place in the conditions of his licence, and those could be onerous.
The irony is that, in the course of questioning, the person being questioned may provide information truthfully that will have an adverse effect on him. He has not failed the test because his body does not react to his telling the truth, but he has provided information that may lead to his punishment. He has of course lost his right to silence, a right first developed in the late 17th century as a check to arbitrary rule. It has been regarded over centuries as fundamental to the fairness of the criminal law in this country and in the common-law countries all over the world.
Faced with the terrorist atrocities that we have seen in this country, the loss of the right to silence may seem a worthwhile price. Obviously that is not the immediate view in Scotland, nor in Northern Ireland. Let us face the dilemma: the proposals for England and Wales do not involve imprisonment for a lie but possible imprisonment for telling the truth or, since it is mandatory to answer the questions, even for remaining silent. Faced with legal and moral issues such as this, the drafters of the Domestic Abuse Bill, which is proceeding this week here also, as the Minister will know, decided that it was appropriate to proceed with a three-year pilot before finally rolling out the use of polygraphs generally in that field. Why is a different approach taken in this concurrent Bill?
It is interesting to note that the case studies in the MoJ memorandum on these proposals indicate that the information provided led to warrants being issued and physical evidence obtained in the offenders’ respective homes to contradict what they had said. However, there is no indication how often that has occurred or how many times such activity has proved nothing, and nothing has come of it. Will the Minister deal with that in his reply?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I too have considerable doubts about the reliability of polygraph material. This series of government amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, indicate some degree of shambles on the part of the Government. They are withdrawing the polygraph provisions for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Had they consulted the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive prior to the initial publication of the Bill, they would have seen what the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive had to say about them.
In the light of what was said by those two Governments, why did the UK Government introduce these provisions? It is plain from what the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, is saying that the Scottish and Northern Irish Administrations do not want them. There is a reference to the various provisions that might allow them to introduce them as licence conditions. However, neither of the Administrations have indicated that they want these powers, so why on earth were they introduced in the first place and when was it that the UK Government decided to respect those views? If they did not consult those two Administrations before, why not?
Separate to that, on the use of polygraphs, what advice have the Government sought from police forces in England and Wales? To what extent would those police forces be confident about using polygraph testing?
Moving on, the effect of Amendment 73 would be that Clause 32, which sets out the conditions for polygraph testing for terrorist offenders in England and Wales, would come into force two months after Royal Assent rather than by regulations. Why have the Government reduced the degree of scrutiny available to the introduction of polygraphs by removing the need for regulations? Separately, what provisions are available in the Bill to stop the use of polygraphs if they prove to be ineffective?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for setting out their various points. I turn first to those made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. On the effectiveness of polygraphs, as I said in my introductory remarks, they are used elsewhere in English law in relation to sex offenders. There is therefore a body of evidence as to their utility. On what “failing” means and the consequences of failure, it is important to remember, as I think the noble Lord appreciates, that offenders who are subject to testing cannot be recalled to custody for failing a polygraph test. They can be recalled for making disclosures during the test that reveal that they have breached other licence conditions, or that their risk has escalated to a level at which they can no longer be managed safely in the community.
On the right to silence and other Human Rights Act rights, I am sure that the noble Lord will recall that during the course of the sex offender pilot of the polygraph system, an offender challenged the imposition of testing on Article 8 grounds, but that was rejected by the courts. No further challenges have been made since then and we are therefore confident that this is compliant with the Human Rights Act and the rights contained therein.
On the remark that there is to be no pilot scheme, I will make two points. First, this is not the initial use of polygraphs in English law because they are already used in connection with sexual offences. Secondly, it is unlikely that there will be sufficient numbers of relevant offenders to carry out a pilot that would produce meaningful results.
I turn to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. It is rather odd to be accused of presiding over a shambles when we have actually listened to the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly in our discussions with them. On whether police forces are able and ready to use polygraphs, they are of course already being used in circumstances related to sexual offenders. Therefore, this testing is not entirely new to them. The regulations that will govern polygraph testing have been set out and we do not think that it will be an ineffective tool.
I hope that I have responded to the various points raised. If noble Lords feel that I should provide further information on any of them, they know that we will of course continue to have discussions about these matters.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment at page 53, line 41.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Thomas, have explained their thinking behind the amendment to replace “exceptional” with “significant” to give more discretion to the judge. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, in any event a judge will explain the reason for finding exceptional or significant reasons for reducing a sentence.
My questions are for the Minister. What does he believe are exceptional circumstances, and what exceptional circumstances would justify a lesser sentence? In what circumstances would such lesser sentences be appropriate?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, explained, this amendment seeks to amend and change the circumstances in which a sentencing court could impose less than the 14-year minimum term for a discretionary life sentence imposed in a serious terrorism case by changing the circumstances from “exceptional” to “significant”. I respectfully agree with the noble Lord that the logic of his amendment would also apply to Clause 4. However, I respectfully disagree over whether such an amendment is appropriate.
The purpose of Clause 11 is to ensure a consistency of approach when sentencing those convicted of serious terrorism offences. It would not be appropriate for a court to be able to impose a life sentence with a lower minimum term for a serious terrorism offence other than where there are exceptional circumstances. If the circumstances of the offence and offending are such that the court imposes a life sentence, and unless there are exceptional circumstances, there should be no possibility of the offender being released earlier than someone given a serious terrorism sentence. That is what Clause 11 achieves.
By contrast, the amendment would remove that consistency, so that the court could consider a wider range of circumstances when setting the minimum term in a discretionary life sentence than when doing so for a serious terrorism sentence, although all other circumstances would be the same. While I accept that there is a distinction, in that the prisoner serving a life sentence may be considered for release only after the minimum term is served, it would be unprincipled for him or her to be released earlier than a counterpart serving a serious terrorism sentence.
A number of questions were asked about “exceptional circumstances”. That is a principle already established in sentencing legislation. It is used, for example, in connection with minimum terms that can apply to certain firearm offences. I must respectfully decline the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for a Minister to gloss from the Dispatch Box what “exceptional circumstances” might or might not be. It is a phrase used elsewhere in statute and known in law. Those are straightforward English words and it would not be appropriate or even helpful for me to gloss them on my feet at the Dispatch Box.
By contrast, I respectfully point out to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that as far as my research has indicated—I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong—there is no existing “significant circumstances” principle in sentencing legislation. Therefore, if accepted, the amendment would create an entirely new test, which in our view is unwarranted and likely to lead to litigation, which cannot be in our interests as parliamentarians in passing this Bill.
As far as the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is concerned on judicial discretion, we are really talking about the extent of the judicial discretion and whether the test should be “exceptional” or “significant” circumstances. The question is not to the existence but to the extent of judicial discretion. As part of the Government’s recent White Paper, A Smarter Approach to Sentencing, we have committed to changing the criteria for other minimum terms for repeat offences to reduce the occasions on which the court may depart from the minimum custodial length.
For those reasons, I do not consider the amendment to be necessary or appropriate, and I respectfully invite the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken, and to the Minister for his response. However, I am bound to say that I found it disappointing. He is absolutely right to state that “exceptional” has a clear meaning in law and is used elsewhere. It was to that meaning that I alluded when I said that the use of “exceptional” puts the judge in a straitjacket. It is for that reason that my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford is right to seek a little more latitude, because the sentence is so long and the circumstances may be very varied.
The Minister did not deal with the point that the circumstances can relate not only to the offence but to the offender. They may cover a very wide range. Therefore, it is our position that more discretion is called for. He is right that it is the ambit of the discretion with which this amendment is concerned. I invite him to reconsider it. While he does, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, about the benefits of pre-sentence reports. They are, and always have been, when available, important in the context of sentencing generally. They are a sophisticated tool, bringing before a court matters that may not be known to the sentencing judge in the absence of a detailed report on the background and motivation of an offender, and their potential to be rehabilitated in future. In not requiring such a report, which covers all the matters mentioned in this amendment, Parliament would be taking a retrograde step and excluding elements that may be important in determining the length of any sentence or extension period.
The amendment complements Amendment 6 that I introduced earlier, by giving the judge not only increased discretion in passing sentence, but also the material on which he can correctly and sensibly exercise that discretion. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who described such a report as a very healthy safeguard. I urge the Government to accept the amendment for that reason. It is a question of giving the sentencing court the material upon which to make an informed and sensible decision from everybody’s point of view.
Finally, I commend the words in the amendment that provide for a review of the workings of the clause, including the amendment. I fear that we are legislating in some haste in relation to the Bill, and a review of how it is working, particularly this clause, would be extremely helpful.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for introducing this amendment, although I hope to persuade him that it is in fact misconceived.
The amendment deals with Clause 16, which relates to an increase in the extension period for terrorism offenders aged under 18. As my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton said a few moments ago, I am sure it is common ground across the Committee that when dealing with such young adults one has to have the greatest care and consideration. Having said that, as my noble friend Lord Robathan reminded us, this is a matter of public safety. I respectfully endorse nearly all the comments that he made; I say “nearly all” because, in a debate where so many lawyers are speaking, I understand the temptation for someone who is not a lawyer to say that they are “only a layman”, but my noble friend is not “only” anything. With that slight quibble, I respectfully take on board everything that he said.
The amendment would require the pre-sentence report to take account of the offender’s age and consider whether options other than an extension period of eight to 10 years might be more suitable than an extended sentence of detention. The amendment would also require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament each year on the effectiveness of increasing the maximum extension period of the extended sentence of detention from eight to 10 years.
The nature of an extended sentence is that it comprises a custodial term and an extension period for the purposes of public protection, as defined in Section 256 of the Sentencing Code. The effect of the amendment would be fundamentally to alter the nature of the sentence by proposing an alternative to that extension period.
The amendment is also not necessary and, I say with respect, perhaps misunderstands the provision. I assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, that the clause simply provides for a new maximum licence period of 10 years in serious terrorism cases rather than the current eight. This is not mandatory; it is available for use at the court’s discretion, and it will remain possible to apply a licence period of any length between 12 months and 10 years.
For a youth offender to receive an extended sentence for a serious terrorism offence, the court will be required to consider a pre-sentence report. I therefore agree to that extent with the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, about the utility of such reports. In preparing the pre-sentence report, the youth offending team officer will always consider the offender’s age and circumstances in order to recommend an appropriate sentence. The Bill does not change the way in which pre-sentence reports are done.
However, time spent on licence is crucial for both monitoring and managing offenders in the community as well as giving them the opportunity to change their behaviour. Therefore, providing the courts with the option of imposing a longer period of supervision on licence for the most serious terrorist offenders is an important element and component of the Government’s efforts to protect the public from the risks that terrorist offenders pose while enabling a longer period to support rehabilitation.
In that context, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I am not in the business of throwing red meat to anyone or anything, be it dangerous dogs or the tabloids. This, however, is a proper and proportionate response to the very significant danger that some offenders present. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, so I call him.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, there is a strong connection between the Domestic Abuse Bill and this Bill to the extent that both lie on my desk and I have the honour and privilege of dealing with both in your Lordships’ House. However, they present very different issues. I do not want to talk too much now about the Domestic Abuse Bill, but the structure of that Bill, which encompasses both civil and criminal consequences, is very different—indeed, I might say vastly different—from the subject matter of this Bill, which is extremely serious terrorism offences. If the noble Lord has any particular comments on the interrelationship between the two Bills, I am dealing with them both, as I say, and I am very happy to speak to him further about that. However, that is my response on the particular point that he has raised. My respectful suggestion to your Lordships’ Committee is that the analogy, while tempting, is false.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has participated in this short debate. I am very grateful to those who have supported my position, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. Although he did not intend to, I think the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, also supported my position but was very keen to establish how clear-eyed he was. I do not think that people like myself—who are saying that, before a court sentences someone who is under 18, it should have the benefit of a pre-sentence report that asks the question, “Having regard to the person’s age, are there better ways to provide public protection?”—are necessarily that starry-eyed.
I was very hopeful that the Minister would persuade me that I was wrong, but I am not sure that he fully grasped the nature of the amendment. Section 255(1) of the Sentencing Code says that an extended sentence of detention for someone under 18 is available, while Section 255(2) says that the pre-sentence report requirements apply as they normally would in relation to sentencing someone under 18. My proposal is not to change the basis of the sentence; it is to say that, in that pre-sentence report, the pre-sentence reporter should have regard to the question of whether there are alternatives that could provide better public safety. If there are, the pre-sentence reporter should refer to them and the judge should take them into account.
I also agree strongly with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that in an area like this it is useful for the Secretary of State to consider how well or badly a particular sentence is going so that they consider what should happen to it in future.
I very much hope that the Minister will consider what I have said about what the actual import of my amendment is, because he appeared to be dealing with an amendment that had a different import. I very much hope that he will reconsider his position. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, explained, Amendments 11, 13 and 14 are intended to retain the current release provisions for under-21s sentenced to an extended determinate sentence for a serious terrorism offence. As has been mentioned, the Fishmonger’s Hall and Streatham attacks revealed the devastating consequences of releasing terrorist prisoners too early. In the Bill, we are changing the release arrangements for all offenders convicted of serious terrorism offences to ensure that the most dangerous and serious terrorist offenders serve their full custodial term, essentially for two reasons—first, to reflect the severity of their crimes but, secondly and perhaps more importantly, the intention to preserve lives.
The amendment seeks to draw a distinction in release policy between those aged over 21 and those younger. However, the Bill will introduce changes to release for both adult and youth offenders sentenced for serious terrorism offences. The extended determinate sentence already operates in the same way for adults and youths in every other aspect, and because the nature of the offending and the threat posed is so severe, these changes should align with that pre-existing approach.
For those aged under 18, instances of terrorist acts occur, although, thankfully, they are rare. I shall come back to that point later. Among those under-18s are some who are capable of extremely serious offending and present a real threat to the public. They are the dangerous few youth offenders that these provisions aim to capture. This measure, therefore, is about offenders who have been deemed dangerous by the court. That also means that, when sentencing the offender to an extended determinate sentence, the judge would have already taken into account age and other relevant factors.
In that context, I turn to the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. As to the possibility of change, one has to remember that this measure is about public protection and applies only to the most serious young offenders who have committed terrorist offences that carry a maximum sentence of life and have been deemed dangerous by the court.
We are alert to the point on prisoner management and have carefully considered it. There are a number of programmes within prison to make sure that the sentences proposed here do not adversely affect prison management within the institution. Although, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, correctly said, the prisoner is likely to end his sentence as an adult, the fact is that even when sentenced at the time, the nature of the offences mandate the sort of sentence we now propose.
As to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on radicalisation in the prison system, there are, as my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart pointed out, a number of interventions in the prison system designed to prevent radicalisation. They are extensive. I will not go over the points that he made earlier but I repeat and endorse them. As I said—I said that I would come back to this point—the number of young offenders in this regard who have been radicalised in prison is extremely small. We are alive to the noble Lord’s point, but do not believe that that is a reason not to proceed in the way in which the Bill is currently drafted.
Finally, and only because I wish to reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that I read all his amendments with extreme care, these seem to be technically defective, given that the wording is to be added after the close of quotation marks and, on the face of it, would appear to apply only to new Section (2A)(iv), and affect only the provisions related to service personnel. However, I hope that I have approached his amendments on their merits. For those substantive reasons that I have set out, I respectfully invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw or not move his amendments.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, for the careful way in which he dealt with my amendments. I fully accept and am guilty of the technical error he identified. He was kind to deal with the merits of the three amendments. I very much hope that the Government will reflect on what I and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said because it is a considerable mistake to treat the under-21s the same as those who are 21 or over, particularly with regard to public safety. We will return to this matter at a later stage. With the leave of the Committee, I will withdraw my amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
This is a significant debate. There are two circumstances that one has to consider. First, when one is dealing with a terrorist prisoner who is over 21, should the Parole Board, in the circumstances set out in Clause 27, have the power to direct early release? As I understand it, the effect of the Bill is that in certain specified circumstances early release is not possible for over-21s. Although it is hard, we are dealing with very dangerous situations. I am not sure that we would object to that, but I would like it to be clear: are we dealing in this amendment with the possibility of early release? If we are, then apart from those who are under 21 at the date of conviction, we would not wish to change the provisions of the Bill.
The second situation is where what the Parole Board is being asked to do is to either determine or advise on what the release conditions should be for somebody who is going to be released in any event. In those circumstances it would seem sensible for the expert risk assessors to determine not whether they should be released but what the conditions should be. I would be interested in the Minister’s views on both situations I have posited: one where we are dealing with early release, the other where we are dealing with conditions only.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, in this amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, whose experience in this area is profound, proposes replacing Clause 27 with an amended set of provisions. Certainly as I read them, their effect—and to deal immediately with the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton—is to provide that all prisoners subject to an extended determinate sentence or a serious terrorism sentence would be eligible for relief by the Parole Board at the two-thirds point of their custodial term. In concept, therefore, this is similar to the intention tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, which he referred to— we will come to it shortly—as he opposes Clause 27 standing part of the Bill. With this amendment, the noble Baroness goes further: to replace Clause 27 with a new provision. If I may say respectfully, the noble Baroness is correct to identify that without Clause 27 there must be some replacement provision included to provide the legislative authority to release those sentenced to the new serious terrorism sentence.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) (V)
My Lords, we have had interesting debates on both this and the previous group. In closing the previous group, the Minister said that the proposed lack of involvement of the probation service in this particular group of prisoners was a consequence of the sentencing structure and was not a reflection on the Parole Board itself. I understand the point he has made, but what has been said repeatedly on both groups is that there is expertise in the Parole Board. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer asked whether there were two elements here. One is the possibility of early release, while the second is a point raised again just now by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about the conditions of release for a prisoner who has served their whole term. I do not understand why that level of expertise should not be accessed when considering these types of prisoners.
I shall make a couple of other brief points which are different from those which have been made by other noble Lords. They arise from briefings that I have had from the trade unions. The Prison Officers’ Association believes that removing hope from prisoners puts its staff at risk. It is a point that the association makes repeatedly and is an important one to feed into this debate. The second point has been made by the National Association of Probation Officers—that is that the workload of probation staff working on the ground in prisons is so high that they are not managing to deliver to their required standards. They are being allocated around 70 prisoners each. I understand that the Minister has talked about these various programmes, and I know that we are talking about a very extreme group of prisoners. Nevertheless there is the practical working position of prison officers, probation staff and others in prisons to consider in trying to make these institutions work and to reduce recidivism when prisoners are released.
Even so, both the group of amendments we are speaking to now and the previous group illustrate the potential for changing the Bill to bring the Parole Board back in. That would reduce the potential risk to the public.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the Committee will appreciate that there is a significant overlap between this and the previous group. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and indeed no other participant in this debate, will regard it as discourteous if on some occasions I take as read, as it were, points that I made in the previous debate. If the Committee finds it helpful, I propose to say a few words about each of the clauses and schedules to which objection has been taken and then come back to address some of the particular points raised by participants in the debate.
Serious Criminal Cases Backlog
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, by 2010 the system did 150,000 jury trials a year with about 47,000 waiting, about 30%. The median period between crime and court disposal was 240 days. By the time the pandemic started in March last year, jury trials were down to 100,000 a year with a median delay of 305 days, so fewer trials and longer waits. Now there are 54,000 cases awaiting a jury trial and rising. No one can blame the courts for Covid. The judges, court staff, defence and prosecutors have done bravely and well but the Ministry of Justice has overpromised and underdelivered. It said that there would be 200 Nightingale courts in which jury trials could be done; there are 20. Some 600 people in the last seven weeks have got Covid, from judges to court staff. There is no systematic testing. We have not made the necessary changes to preserve jury trials. What is the target for getting the backlog down and how is it going to be achieved?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord fails to put this information in context. In the Crown Court, prior to the Covid pandemic hitting in March last year, the outstanding caseload was 39,000, which was well within the range of 33,000 to 55,000 over the last decade. Immediately before the pandemic hit, we had increased the number of sitting days in response to an incoming demand on the courts. He will be aware that we have taken various steps to ensure that delays are minimised. However, I agree with him on one point: that we should pay tribute to the judges, magistrates, jurors, witnesses, victims, lawyers, court staff, CPS staff and, if I may say so, MoJ officials who have made a monumental effort to deliver justice in very challenging times.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]
With respect to the answer just given by the noble Lord, the Secretary of State’s response last week was complacent and lacked urgency. The four chief inspectors of probation, police, prisons and the CPS came together to produce a joint crisis report, expressing their grave concern about the “unprecedented and very serious” backlog of Crown Court trials—54,000-odd cases with trials scheduled into 2022—and the disastrous effects of these delays on victims, witnesses, youth offending teams, defendants and prosecutors. As long ago as July last year Caroline Goodwin, then chair of the Criminal Bar Association, pleaded with the Government to
“get serious and open up 50 more buildings and focus on criminal trials.”
Now many more are needed, along with much more funding to stave off collapse. Yes, efforts have been made and in difficult circumstances, but why the self-congratulation? Where is the urgency? What are the Government now going to do?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that there is no complacency whatever. In fact, in September we published a crime recovery plan to which members from all groups involved in the criminal courts contributed. That plan was put together after significant consultation and collaboration. It is now being implemented. We now have more rooms for jury trials. We have plexiglass to enable social distancing and are using Nightingale courts including, I am pleased to say, St George’s Hall in Liverpool, where I first saw justice in action. We are exceeding the goals in the plan. The target was 250 courts safe for jury trials by October; we have exceeded that number and are improving the position yet further.
Lord Garnier (Con) [V]
I warmly welcome my noble friend from the next-door chambers to mine in the Middle Temple, both to this House and to his place in government. Will he accept that the £250 million in court recovery money mentioned in the Answer to the Urgent Question is not new money but reannounced expenditure? Does he also agree that it might be more useful if we were told how many courtrooms were not being used at all, compared to the limited number of Nightingale courts in operation that cannot anyway deal with dangerous defendants on remand in custody —for example those on charges of homicide or rape?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the MoJ has invested record amounts. There was an investment of £142 million to improve courts, tribunals, buildings and technology. That was, in fact, the single biggest investment in court estate maintenance for more than 20 years. Of course we will build on that, but it would be fair to say that everybody is doing their best in extremely challenging circumstances.
Lord Woolf (CB) [V]
My Lords, any backlog in the criminal justice system is worrying because it results in delays, and delays breed delays and result in injustice. They must not be allowed to fester because of the damage they can do to the justice system as a whole. This backlog is especially worrying because of its scale, its subject matter and because it is no doubt substantially due to Covid. What is required is a concerted effort to tackle the backlog and stop it festering and growing further out of control. There needs to be a plan to which all the criminal justice agencies sign up, including the Government, the judiciary and prosecution and defence lawyers, properly resourced to tackle the backlog as a matter of urgency. The Minister seems to suggest that there is such a plan. If so, when does he expect to see an improvement in the current situation and how is the plan being implemented?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, there is such a plan. I refer the noble and learned Lord to the answer I gave a few moments ago about the crime recovery plan that we set out in September last year. He is certainly correct: there is an old adage that justice delayed is justice denied. We are working very hard to make sure that there are no greater delays than those necessarily caused by the circumstances in which we are living.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
I draw attention to my interest on the register as the Anglican bishop for Her Majesty’s prisons. The backlog of cases has a serious impact on offenders, victims and witnesses. On top of this, projections from the Ministry of Justice show that the prison population is expected to jump to almost 100,000 in 2026, which adversely affects prison staff as well as prisoners. Does the Minister agree that resources could be better spent on police-led diversion work and community-based provision, which could start now?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, when looking at the criminal justice system, I agree that it is mistake just to think about courts, sentencing and prisons. One has to look at it in a broader and wider context. To that extent, the points that the right reverend Prelate makes are well made.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there is clearly no quick fix for a backlog of this magnitude, but will the Government consider extending to other witnesses the existing provisions under Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act? These currently enable vulnerable witnesses to record their evidence and be cross-examined away from the courtroom at an early stage before trial. That recording can be replayed later at trial, with the result that evidence is not forgotten and footfall at court is usually reduced when the case finally gets to trial.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point. This Government have taken a number of steps to ensure that vulnerable witnesses can give evidence in that way. Indeed, noble Lords will be aware of provisions that build on that in the Domestic Abuse Bill, which is going through Parliament at the moment. To take that point further would, I think, require more careful consideration, but I would be very happy to discuss that with the noble Baroness in due course.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend and the Government please understand the toll that unacceptable delays in the criminal justice system takes on even provenly innocent individuals? I know from personal experience that delays in both the trials and sentencing of those who make false accusations can drive people to consider suicide. Sadly, I know of other cases where individuals did take their lives.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is of course correct that delays in the criminal justice system can affect not only the defendant but others involved, including victims and witnesses. The listing of cases is ultimately a matter for the judiciary, not the Executive, so I am limited in what I can say. However, I can confirm, for example, that at the moment the majority of cases where a defendant is in custody have been listed for trial before July 2021.
Lord Pannick (CB) [V]
My Lords, are the Government considering two possible steps that would help to reduce the unacceptable backlog of cases in the Crown Courts? The first is to reduce the number of jurors to, say, seven, making it easier to ensure social distancing in court rooms, and the second is to allow defendants who are legally represented to choose trial by judge alone in some categories of cases where juries are currently required?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, trial by jury is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system in this jurisdiction. With the support of Public Health England and Public Health Wales, we have made adjustments to more than 290 court rooms and jury deliberation rooms so as to facilitate trial by jury. Reducing the size of the jury is therefore unlikely to free up an additional amount of space for jury trials, and it would also require primary legislation. As to the other point that the noble Lord makes about trial by judge alone, that would, I think, require a significant change in our criminal justice system, and therefore very careful consideration would be required before embarking on that change.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, unfortunately, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. I will pause a moment or two for those who wish to escape the Chamber and those who wish to come in.
Anti-Semitism: University Campus Incidents
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Excerpts(3 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an honour to make my maiden speech. It is a privilege to do so from this somewhat virtual Front Bench. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for initiating this short but important debate.
I begin with a series of thank yous. While traditional, they are no less heartfelt. I thank Black Rod and the Clerk of the Parliaments for their help and advice, and the doorkeepers, who, in the short time since my introduction, have helped me find my way when I was lost, and my iPad when it was lost. I am also grateful to my introducers: my noble friend Lord Faulks, a previous holder of my ministerial position; and my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, who, since I first met him at university, has devoted his talents to the governance of this magnificent city—and now also the country.
As this is my maiden speech, I hope noble Lords will permit me to speak to the question a little more personally than might otherwise be expected. Four generations ago, my family came to this country, seeking refuge from hatred abroad and the hope of a better life. Like many families, then and now, education and, in particular, going to university and getting a degree was my family’s way out of an economic if not physical ghetto.
We were fortunate to come to a genuinely tolerant and welcoming country. The late Lord Sacks of blessed memory, already invoked by several speakers, would surely have contributed his wisdom to this debate as he enhanced so many deliberations of your Lordships’ House. He used to say that this country is, in the traditional phrase, a “malkhut shel chessed”: a kingdom of kindness. I hope that my deviation from English in that sentence complied with the rule found in paragraph 4.39 of the Companion, being both, if a Minister is still permitted to use this phrase, limited and specific.
The importance of ensuring that our universities are free, so far as possible, from the scourge of anti-Semitism is something to which the Government give, as any Government must, the highest importance. I said “so far as possible” deliberately, because I recognise that, as we fight against all forms of discrimination, the battle against anti-Semitism may never be finally won.
While this country is indeed a kingdom of kindness and of tolerance, we must be on our guard against anti-Semitism. That especially applies to universities, which play such a crucial role in our cultural and intellectual life. Universities should be at the forefront of tackling anti-Semitism, which manifests itself both as religious hatred and as racism. Their duty is to ensure that higher education is a genuinely fulfilling and welcoming experience for all.
The fight against racism, against antisemitism, is reflected in my own family’s history and in my choice of Tredegar. In the latter part of the 19th century and the first couple of decades of the 20th, Jewish immigrants were drawn to south Wales and Tredegar by a thriving economy based on coal and generally found there a tolerant and welcoming society—a shared love of, we might say, the Hebrew Bible. The fact that both the largely Methodist local community and the Jewish immigrants were, in the terminology of the day, nonconformists. But shortly before midnight on 19 August 1911, a mob began to roam the streets of Tredegar. Over the ensuing hours, what started small turned into an anti-Jewish riot, resurrecting a racism most had thought long dead. In the middle of the riot, my great Uncle Jack was born and became the first in the family to gain a title. He was also known as Jack the riot baby. My family remembers that riot precisely because it was so unusual. Tredegar was overwhelmingly a community that gave immigrants a home, so much so that my paternal grandfather grew up trilingual—a remarkable combination of English, Yiddish and Welsh.
I am a Minister in the Ministry of Justice. This debate, and the characteristically thoughtful contributions of many noble Lords, highlights three important features of what justice means and ultimately what a just society is. To illustrate those three qualities and, although I sit in your Lordships’ House as a Lord temporal and not a Lord spiritual, I again turn to the writings of Lord Sacks. Lord Sacks recounted the first recorded conversation between the Almighty and one of the patriarchs. It is a famous bargaining session between God and Abraham. God is determined to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham is equally determined to save them. Like any good lawyer, he bargains God down, from his opening bid that the presence of 50 righteous people would justify mercy. Eventually God agrees that if there are even 10 righteous people living in those cities, then the cities will be spared. I take three points from that story. First, as Lord Sacks explained, justice is the supreme virtue. Abraham’s question to the Almighty, to which there was no answer because there is no answer, was this: shall the Lord of all the earth not do justice? That question had no answer because justice is at the heart of a civilised society. Justice and the rule of law enable people of all backgrounds, and of different beliefs and of none, to live together under the law and in harmony.
The simple reason why antisemitism is wrong—and this goes for all forms of racism—is because it is unjust. That is why this Government expects higher education providers and their leaders to take a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism. Providers must have procedures in place to ensure that they comply with the law. Where providers have failed in their duty to investigate and adjudicate complaints about antisemitism fairly and consistently, as my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, have mentioned, that is unacceptable. Universities and other higher education providers are independent and autonomous, but their independence and autonomy does not mean they are unaccountable. It means that they are responsible for the management of their own affairs and for meeting their duties under the law—including those relating to freedom of expression and equalities. It has been extremely disappointing to hear that some providers have failed in their duty to have robust policies and procedures in place. This is unacceptable and must cease; it is simply unjust, and justice is the supreme virtue. That is the first point I take from the story.
The second point is this: when it comes to the hard work of creating a society based on justice, all can contribute. The Almighty was prepared to have a debate with a mere mortal about what justice required. We, then, can surely find it within ourselves to debate with each other. So, in my work as a Minister in your Lordships’ House, my door will always be open to everyone. Debate with others, with whom you might disagree, is not only good manners. Thoughtful and tolerant debate is the way to achieve the most just society that we can.
Racism is the antithesis of debate. An anti-Semite does not want to hear what you say; when anti-Semitism goes unchecked at a university, it means a young person’s voice is silenced. I therefore welcome the report’s recommendation that providers adopt the working definition of anti-Semitism set out by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. Indeed, when I was at the Bar I authored a legal opinion commending that definition. This Government have taken decisive action in encouraging its adoption; since October, when the Secretary of State for Education wrote to all providers in England to encourage them to adopt it, at least 27 additional institutions have done so.
I shall make two other points. First, in urging providers to adopt this definition, as my noble friend Lord Pickles explained, the Government are not impinging on their autonomy; it is their decision how to fulfil their duties under the law. However, if institutions do not demonstrate that they are taking their responsibilities seriously, we will consider going further to ensure that all providers are tackling anti-Semitism. Secondly, this Government support free speech. The right to discuss all kinds of issues, including those that might be uncomfortable or even offensive to some, is an integral part of higher education. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, to that extent. However, freedom of speech protections can never justify a lack of action from providers in confronting racism and anti-Semitism on campus. That is my second point from this story: the importance of debate.
The third point is an insight from my father. The people whose presence might save the cities are not described in the biblical text as being merely “righteous”; they are referred to as righteous people “living in the city”. Living a good life is not just being a good citizen; it means playing your part in society and in the life of the nation, as my family has always sought to do. More than this, a just society is one which makes room for all. A society built on justice is an inclusive society. As a Justice Minister, I will seek to play my part in building a society based on justice and the rule of law, because that is a society to which everyone can contribute. Universities are the place where young women and men start to make their own independent way into society. Racism of any kind will not be tolerated anywhere in society; it is especially important that it is drummed out of our universities. That is my third and final point: a just society is an inclusive society—a society in which anti-Semitism has no place.
I again congratulate the noble Baroness on raising this important question and will write to noble Lords, with a copy placed in the Library, on those contributions which the time allotted for my maiden speech did not allow me specifically to respond to. I welcome the findings of the CST’s report. Many institutions have provided strong support to Jewish students, who also benefit, as has been mentioned, from the sterling work of the University Jewish Chaplaincy. However, the report demonstrates that, despite all our efforts over many years, anti-Semitism persists in our higher education system. The number of anti-Semitic incidents in our universities has become a real cause for concern. Therefore, we again call on leaders across the sector to do more to ensure a zero-tolerance approach is now taken.
I know from my family’s history, with its roots in Tredegar, that universities have great potential to change lives for the better. I feel sure that universities are serious in their commitment to tackling racism, which includes anti-Semitism, but much work remains to be done.