Offensive Weapons Bill (Third sitting)

Louise Haigh Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Before I call the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters in the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to the timings in the programme order agreed by the Committee. For this session, we have until 12 noon. I would be grateful if the witnesses introduced themselves for the record.

Christopher Graffius: I am Christopher Graffius, director of communications and public affairs at the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, and I am a keen shooter.

Bill Harriman: Good morning. My name is Bill Harriman. I am director of firearms at BASC. I am also in my own right a forensic firearms examiner, and I am a keen collector of antique firearms.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

Q 169 The Minister has lost her voice, so I will start. Gentlemen, did you see the evidence we received on Tuesday from the National Crime Agency and the National Ballistics Intelligence Service?

Christopher Graffius: Yes.

[Louise Haigh]

Q Do you agree with it?

Christopher Graffius: No. I have read it and gone over it in detail, and—I am trying to think how one can say this nicely. One of the problems with rifles that are firing over 10,000 foot-pounds—in particular the .50 calibre, at which this legislation was first aimed—is that very few people have seen one, even fewer have handled one and fewer still have pulled the trigger on one, and there tends to be a lot of myth around them. I am afraid that much of what you were told was either misleading or inaccurate, and often it was quite ridiculous. May I give you some examples?

[Louise Haigh]

Please do.

Christopher Graffius: You were told—I am reading from the minute of the evidence—that the effective range was 6,800 metres. That is a nonsense. If you fired the rifle at 35°, the furthest the bullet could possibly reach might be that, but that is certainly not its effective range. Its effective range is more like 1,500 to 2,000 metres, or less than a third of what you were told. The effective range of a rifle is what an average, competent shot can hit a target at. You must remember that with something like the .50 calibre, out at 1,300 yards, which is less than a mile, the bullet drop can be 24 feet, so you are 24 feet off-target irrespective of what the wind will do to your shot.

You may be aware that the longest-ranged sniper shot in Afghanistan by a British soldier was about 1.5 to 2 miles. That was not done with a .50 calibre; it was done with a .338 Lapua, which would not be affected by the Bill. He missed nine times before he hit. Firing at those extreme ranges is incredibly rare and you have to be incredibly well trained to it; it just does not happen in civilian circumstances. In fact, the range at which a target shooter—a civilian target shooter—would shoot is 1,000 yards. The world championship in .50 calibre is 1,000 yards. You were told twice that.

[Louise Haigh]

Q I have the minutes here as well, and in fairness, the NCA said that the absolute maximum potential range was 6.8 km, but that the intent of that particular weapon was to immobilise light or medium-sized vehicles at a range of 1.8 km.

Christopher Graffius: Well, that is another problem with the evidence that you were given. Your witnesses went to great lengths to talk about things being extreme or military, but you must understand that many rifles that are not affected by the Bill can fire at those ranges, and that virtually every calibre in common civilian use started life as a military calibre. The most common rifle in civilian hands is a .308, which is the same as the 7.62 NATO—and I could go on. Virtually every calibre in civilian use began life as a military calibre, because that is where rifles are developed. They are then changed, given a sporting round and used in hunting or target shooting. That is another very important point.

A lot of what you have been told about the destructive powers of this rifle in military hands is because it is using ammunition that is illegal in this country for civilian use. The text of the Home Secretary’s letter to MPs says that their penetrative powers mean that with the right ammunition, they can penetrate body armour worn by soldiers. In this case, the right ammunition is incendiary and is designed to penetrate such targets. In civilian terms, that is illegal; what they use is target ammunition.

[Louise Haigh]

Q What would be the damage caused by using target ammunition with a weapon of this nature?

Christopher Graffius: I am not qualified to answer that, because I have never seen a vehicle or a person shot with one of those things. In civilian use, they are used for paper targets.

[Louise Haigh]

Q What would be the implications of the ban in the Bill? Why are you and your members so concerned?

Christopher Graffius: I am particularly concerned because it will take away a legitimate, lawful and safely conducted sport, at which we do particularly well in the world championships. It also establishes a principle in law, via muzzle energy, which could be used to threaten even more commonly used calibres. That could seriously damage shooting in the future.

[Louise Haigh]

Q Are you concerned about the numbers that we were given of the number of firearms that are stolen—that have already been stolen this year—and enter the illegal market?

Christopher Graffius: Yes, of course we are concerned about that. We want to prevent even one firearm being stolen from a legitimate source. I note their comments about the number stolen, but in terms of the nearly 2 million firearms in civilian hands, 204 is not a great many. That is something we are working on: we work with our members to ensure that they keep their guns securely, we issue advice to them, and we happily work with the police to achieve that aim.

[Louise Haigh]

Q Do you have any advice as to how we can reduce the numbers that are stolen and enter the illegal market? I understand it is a small percentage.

Christopher Graffius: I would advise you to let those who work with the certificate holders work with the police to minimise those thefts.

[Louise Haigh]

Q I note that you mentioned that you are a keen antique gun collector.

Christopher Graffius: No, I did not mention that.

Bill Harriman: That was me.

[Louise Haigh]

That was you, Mr Harriman. Sorry. Some 30% of the guns used in firearms offences last year were of an obsolete calibre. We discussed that with the National Crime Agency and the National Ballistics Intelligence Service on Tuesday. Do you think the laws relating to antique weapons can be improved to prevent that figure from being so high?

Bill Harriman: At the moment, the Policing and Crime Act 2017 is being implemented. The way to tackle that is not to prosecute based on whether or not something is an antique. That is going to be defined in law for the first time, which I think is very good; it gives a lot of clarity. I do a lot of cases where there is no clarity about whether something is an antique. You then need to go towards the intent of the person who alleges that his firearm is an antique, and then apply the second limb of the law—does he keep as a curiosity or an ornament? If he does not, it then drops into the section in which it would come normally, and in most cases it would be a prohibited weapon, which carries a mandatory five years. The law is being looked at now, and I think it is sound in its basic intent.

[Louise Haigh]

Q One of the suggestions we heard was that there should be a new offence of possessing components of ammunition with intent to manufacture, obviously because of the potential consequences of marrying that up with an obsolete calibre firearm. Would you have any issue with that?

Bill Harriman: I can think of none. Intent is very important, although hard to prove, I grant you. It is one thing to say that somebody has something, but it is what they are going to do with it that counts. Off the top of my head, I do not have a problem with that.

[Louise Haigh]

Q How many individuals and licences will be affected by the ban in this Bill?

Christopher Graffius: I think a very small number. We are probably talking about 150 rifles. The police, who have better records of licences, identified 129, but there will be more rifles than that, and of course that does not include Northern Ireland, which the Bill also covers. I warn the Committee against legislating on the basis that it is only a small amount. These people’s recreations and activities, which they have conducted perfectly safely and in accordance with the law, are important. I would hope that Parliament is here for everyone, and not for the majority over the minority.

[Louise Haigh]

Q Do you accept, though, that if these guns were to fall into the wrong hands, they would do a huge amount of damage?

Christopher Graffius: I do not accept that they would do more damage than anything else. All rifles in the wrong hands are dangerous. All rifles, even down to the lowly .22, would penetrate the body armour normally issued to police, which is an anti-stab vest. All rifles are dangerous. As I mentioned, that longest sniper shot was not even done with a .50 calibre; it was done with a .338 Lapua, which is not actually covered by the Bill.

[Louise Haigh]

Q Finally, is it just the energy value element that you object to? Do you have any issues with the bump stock part?

Christopher Graffius: I have no issues with the proposals in the Bill on bump stocks; I think you are quite right to do that. When it comes to the energy, though, there is no ballistic relevance to that energy limit. Indeed, it is quite possible that the rifle can be altered so it comes underneath that limit. If you try to legislate by limit, it may be possible to alter the rifle to comply with that.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

Q Mr Harriman, you said that you believe that instead of banning these rifles, we can better meet the concerns by specifying a high level of security. What would that mean?

Bill Harriman: One way I would always go at security is what people refer to as dispersion in separate units. You have the stock and the barrel in one steel cabinet, the bolt somewhere else—preferably in another room—and the ammunition somewhere else. You have to do three things to get the rifle, its component to make it function and the ammunition with which to fire it. I go back to what a Crown court judge said to me in, I think, 1991: security is a series of difficulties presented to a burglar. The more difficulties you present by dispersing things, the better the security is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Q You referred to the distances in shooting. As we heard in evidence on antiques, if somebody is going to steal weapons or buy them legally, distance is probably not an issue if they are going to use it to commit a shooting or a murder. We have heard that they are ending up being used to shoot and murder people. You have some issues in terms of recreational shooting, but what would you suggest we do differently, bearing in mind that the items are being stolen?

Christopher Graffius: First, I would want to say that you talked about illegal antiques, but no .50 calibre rifle legally held has ever been used in a crime in this country. I know that when that is said, people often refer to the rifle that was used by the IRA to snipe at British soldiers during the troubles. That was illegally imported from America; it was not legally held in this country. That is the first thing I would say.

The next thing I would say is that range is important. There has been an attempt to convince you that these things are somehow extreme, when lots of rifles that the Bill does not affect can shoot at long ranges. Range is not what makes a rifle dangerous. It is putting it in the wrong hands, and the bullet being fired at you.

You ask what else we should do. What we should do is strive to ensure that the licensing system works properly, that customs work efficiently and that illegal weapons are not imported into this country. You are probably aware that only 1% of the firearms used in non-airgun firearms crime are rifles. I am not aware of any prosecution for attempting to import a .50 calibre from overseas. I am not aware of any illegal discharges of .50 calibre. I really think that that is the wrong target.

If you look at illegal firearms crime, 42% of it is done with pistols and those were made illegal two decades ago. The vast bulk of firearms used in illegal crime is the stock that has been there for many years and illegal weapons brought in from overseas. I urge you to look at ways that you can improve our border controls against illegal importation, and police powers and resources to seize illegally held guns.

[Louise Haigh]

Q Can I just correct that, Mr Graffius? The NCA submitted to us that a .50 calibre weapon stolen in 2016 was fired and had its barrel shortened.

Christopher Graffius: I am aware of the case, but no one can be sure as to whether it was fired by the criminals. You do not clean a rifle after every shot, so there may be residue in the barrel from the last shot legally taken by the owner. So we do not know whether it was fired.

[Louise Haigh]

Q Given that its barrel was shortened, I think we can reasonably infer they were intending to use it. That would not have been done by its legal owner.

Christopher Graffius: Well, criminals shorten barrels on lots of long guns. I think they made a mistake in doing it on a .50 calibre, because the noise, the recoil and everything else would have been quite substantial—if they did fire it, but we do not know that.

Bill Harriman: I do not actually think they knew what they had stolen. Having spoken to the man who was unfortunate enough to have his gun stolen from his house, he believes that it was simply opportunist and they stole what they could carry away. They simply grabbed this thing. I think it was abandoned.

[Louise Haigh]

Q A rifle that was stolen in the same theft was used separately in another crime by the same individual.

Bill Harriman: I think it is illustrative that one was used and it was not the .50 calibre; it was a smaller one. These things are very large. They are not the sort of thing that you can tote around the streets very easily.

[Louise Haigh]

Q No, but there is an example of it falling into the wrong hands, which is really quite terrifying and is exactly why it features in the Bill.

Christopher Graffius: Many dangerous weapons from civilian, police and military sources have fallen into criminal hands. That is always worrying, and we must always work to stop it, but the .50 calibre that fell into criminal hands from a legal source was never used in the commission of a crime, and no other .50 calibre has, precisely because it is not well suited to be used in a crime. To give you an example, the average weight of a Steer .50 calibre rifle is 30 lb. My rifle, which is a .308—the same as the NATO rifle—can shoot well over 1,000 yards and weighs 8 lb with the scope.

Bill Harriman: To pick up on that, as a young man, in the days when I was in the Territorial Army, I used to complain bitterly about being made to carry the squad light machine gun, which weighed 22 lb—and that was running around with it.

[The Chair]

Q Gentlemen, is there anything that you wish to add—something that you would like to have been asked, but did not get the opportunity?

Christopher Graffius: No, I think we have covered everything, thank you.

Bill Harriman: Thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you very much. The acoustics in this room are quite difficult, so could everybody speak up? It is a long way for some of us to hear.

[Louise Haigh]

Q Thank you for coming to see us this morning. Baroness Newlove, could you describe your personal experience as a victim in the criminal justice system, and why that led you to campaign for victims’ rights and a victims’ law?

Baroness Newlove: The reason why I am so passionate is that I used to work in the court rooms—I used to take evidence down. When you go the other side, so to speak, and go through something personal, the way that you are treated certainly does not make you feel that the justice system is there to protect you. More importantly, my three daughters witnessed every kick and every punch to their father. They had to do cardiopulmonary resuscitation—he was choking on his own blood—and they were 12, 15 and 18. I then had to turn his life-support machine off, knowing full well that he had just got over stomach cancer, which nearly killed him, so you can imagine the trauma that we went through, and are still going through after 10 years.

I respected the court room, and still do respect it very passionately, but a lot went on around us. My daughters gave evidence and their clothing was removed. My sister took them to a VIPER—Video Identification Parades Electronic Recording—parade, which is just head and shoulder identification shots, and my sister was told to turn around and stand in the corner by defence solicitors. I think it is absolutely appalling. My children were asked to sit on their hands, and told, “Don’t fidget. If you want a break, let the usher know, but you’re not to cry.” Yet the defendants in the dock—aged from 15 to 18—were, I have to say, mollycoddled and coached. We had one adjournment for a dental appointment. In the court room there were no family rooms. It was a very volatile situation.

I didn’t have a vision for this, but when anybody says, “You really don’t know what it’s like,” I can assure you: I am a gobby northerner and I am still going through that criminal justice system. It saddens me today that I have people in my office crying, because of the lack of respect and dignity.

[Louise Haigh]

Q Would you say that that lack of respect comes from the whole criminal justice system at every stage?

Baroness Newlove: It can come from individuals or non-communication. It can also come from the system itself, where they are expected to behave in a certain manner and they are the last port of call to find out information. Through social media, I have known verdicts in the Royal Courts of Justice before the judgment was supposed to be public. I have three daughters who live in the north and I am having to coach and tell them that it is not what it seems.

I have just been on the radio about a rape case today regarding a victim of social media. She has been trolled and basically told, “I hope you do get raped,” because the case was acquitted, “and I hope you kill yourself.” For me, it is the whole process. It does not help when individuals do not make it easy for you to go and ask questions.

[Louise Haigh]

Q Could you explain to the Committee what your recommendations are for a victims’ law or victims’ bill of rights?

Baroness Newlove: With the victims’ law, I keep challenging, because it has cross-party approval, and it has been in the manifesto twice. For me, it is about the practical issue and not just legislation. Victims do not have legal rights; they have a code of practice. We have been told by legal people that that is up to persuasive guidance. That is not good enough in my eyes and it is not good enough for the victims that I see on a daily basis around the country. I want to ensure, also, that they have the same rights as an offender—not to take away the balance of the rule of law, but to give them the same rights, so that they have the communication, they know somebody they can speak to and they can get the right information. They are not always given the right information.

That is why I want to have a victims’ advocate, not to interfere with the adversarial system. It should be someone who is qualified and paid to do the job. Volunteers do a great job, but—no disrespect—you do not put a volunteer with a defendant in the dock. When they are convicted, you do not put a volunteer with a prisoner.

I am sorry, but if you are really taking victims seriously at this end of the criminal justice system, we need that qualified advocate to build a relationship from beginning to end so that even if they don’t go to court, there is somebody there who will take that pressure away—so that people are not feeling suicidal, as I did. That will also help them to get support and rehabilitation. We always speak about rehabilitation of offenders. What about rehabilitation of victims? They lose their education, welfare and homes, as I did. The issue is not just legislation, but the practical skills. If they need legal aid, I would urge the Secretary of State for Justice to give legal aid where it is necessary. That is a huge issue, I know, but it is a stepping stone and it is a work in progress. A law has to be put in place now to protect the rights of victims.

[Louise Haigh]

Q On the independent advocate proposal, how is Victim Support not filling that gap at the moment?

Baroness Newlove: As you know, police and crime commissioners now have the funding for victim services. Some areas have Victim Support as their agency; others have chosen to go with Citizens Advice or to make their own, such as Vera Baird has done with Victims First, and we have victim hubs along the way. That works fine, if it works well for victims. But some of the victims I have met actually on visits to PCCs have never been involved in the support services. While the police say they do their best, it is quite interesting to listen to victims where the police are not coming out.

For me it is about that advocacy; it is not about signposting and it is not about putting everything on the police’s shoulders. There has to be a professional in place. The framework I am looking at—working with Vera Baird and Martyn Underhill, who is looking at the advocacy role—looks at a court advocate, a mental health advocate and a general advocate. I am looking at a general advocate, who would be there to introduce themselves at the victim’s pace.

Victim Support is under austerity measures. It can work well, but there are gaps and I do not want there to be gaps. They can send volunteers to them, but, while they do a tremendous job and they are all of a set age, I want to have a professional, because it makes you feel that you are being put parallel to the offender.

[Louise Haigh]

Q I appreciate entirely what you say about it not just being about legislation, but in legislative terms, am I right in thinking that the key element is that right to a legal review from the Crown Prosecution Service and the police?

Baroness Newlove: Yes.

[Louise Haigh]

Q Thank you. Ms Longfield, your recent report on vulnerability identified more than half a million children who were so vulnerable that the state had to step in, and tens of thousands of children involved with gangs. Could you explain what your definition of vulnerability in this context is, and why these children are so vulnerable to exploitation by criminal gangs?

Anne Longfield: This is an area of work that I have undertaken; we have just moved into the second year and have published second-year statistics. I was concerned that there were vulnerable children who were carrying risks that often were invisible. We can see them when they come into contact with the state in care or child protection, but there are a raft of children who are carrying risk that we would all be concerned about if we knew, but who often are invisible. They become visible when they hit the headlines, but at that point, the crisis has already hit.

My analysis team has undertaken an extensive piece of work that looks at severe disadvantage, bringing together data from across public datasets in a comprehensive framework of vulnerability, with 40-odd groups. We are also doing further analysis on where there is multiple disadvantage and around particular family disadvantage. The idea is to get one set of understandings of vulnerability, but also get that to be recognised when look at how we reduce those risks.

We found that, actually, about 2 million children are living in high-risk households—that is, families who either have an addiction to alcohol or drugs, have a parent with severe mental health problems or have experienced domestic violence in the household over the last year. So there is significant risk. We have been quite conservative with these estimates; they do not look in any way to exaggerate.

As you say, of those 2 million, around just more than half a million are in the social services child protection and care system. We think that about 1.5 million are not getting any visible form of support. Some will get troubled families support of some kind, but we think there is a group in there who are not getting the early identification and support that they would benefit from to enable those problems not to escalate.

You mentioned the gangs figure; around 70,000 children self-identify as being in gangs. Of those, 30,000 are 10 to 15-year-olds. Many more know people who are in gangs. We think those statistics demand reference, not only because they are children who need support now, but to better understand the policy response, which needs to be multifaceted and long term and to start from birth.

[Louise Haigh]

Q Do you think the Government’s current policy response is sufficient?

Anne Longfield: The system we have at the moment does not see a child as a whole. One of my frustrations is that no matter how good a policy intervention in one Department is, it only fixes one set of symptoms; it does not look at the causes overall. Huge amounts of energy and effort—and sometimes distraction, I have to say—get taken up with particular initiatives that are in a health box, school box or crime box. Actually, none of us is as conveniently neat as that.

Human beings are complex; vulnerability affects every aspect of our lives and we know that it comes out in different ways. To really tackle the causes of vulnerability, we believe that there needs to be a joined-up approach nationally but importantly locally, too.

[Louise Haigh]

Q I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. It is a problem that every Government have struggled with—the Whitehall separation and the need for a whole-system approach. How do we crack that?

Anne Longfield: A recognition of the flaws in seeing it within segments in Departments is the first step. We also need a recognition of the divisions that are sometimes brought by different slices of money at the local level.

One of the things that I am really keen to look at is how we can maximise the potential of the new multiagency safeguarding arrangements coming into place now. They have got a year to develop their plans. They require the police, CCGs and children’s services all to be at the table. They are much stronger than the previous safeguarding arrangements. The guidance is very clear that the work has to be seen within the context of safeguarding. It is not just about the risk being carried by a child and family, but the wider risks to the community from violence, gangs and the like.

Within that, there is a distinct possibility of looking to a group of agencies that have clear responsibilities in an area. The mechanism has to look in the first instance at a risk assessment and coming up with a plan. Within that, they should be asked to come up with a 10-year plan that will reduce violence and risks in that area, which they can evidence over time. That is not as explicit as I am putting it at the moment, but it is a recommendation that I put forward that we believe would provide a mechanism to start to move beyond the short-term crisis response that so many areas are in.

[Louise Haigh]

Q How do schools fit into the new safeguarding arrangements?

Anne Longfield: There is now a requirement for schools to work together. It is much more explicit about that. Many schools that contact me are very worried about what they know is happening with the pupils in their schools. I have had some very good examples of schools that are doing positive work. A headteacher from alternative provision in Manchester is doing fantastic work. She believes that half of the pupils in her school are in gangs. She is doing it on her own. She is having to identify the problem, work it out and put forward measures that I think are very strong, but she has not had help or guidance with that.

The message to schools is that it is important that they are involved in this board and this area-wide activity and plan. For those new boards, it is important not only that they are informing schools what they are thinking, but that they are actively engaging with schools as part of the solution.

[Louise Haigh]

Q Finally, why do you think so many children are so vulnerable? Has the number of children who are vulnerable to exploitation by criminal gangs increased?

Anne Longfield: The fact of the matter is that we have not had this data before. I can only do this because I have particular powers that mean I can gather data and datasets from public bodies. I am in a position where I have an overview. My starting point is the child. I cannot say that there is an increase in totality. What we do know is that there are very concerning increases in various groups of vulnerable children. I would certainly say that an increased number of children are being marginalised, and I think the context of that marginalisation is becoming more and more concerning.

The children that have been marginalised are those who have been excluded from school and are outside the mainstream. There is new data today on the annual exclusion figures, which show a 64% increase over the past four years in the number of children excluded from school. It is 17% in the past year. Once they are outside that mainstream, they start to be in a system where they have fewer safeguards around them.

The safety net is gone. Three quarters of the children will be persistently not at school—there will be persistent absence. They are there, identified for those who wish to target them and prey on them. The children who are being pushed out or are falling out of the mainstream are increasingly marginalised. The stats show that. In terms of those that are in custody, 89% have been excluded from school. I could fill the next hour with those stats but I do not really need to because they speak for themselves. I am very happy to share them with you.

[Louise Haigh]

That is really shocking. Thank you both so much for giving evidence today. You have both provided really invaluable evidence. I should have said that at the beginning.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Q My question is for Baroness Newlove. You have made a very strong case about a professional—a paid advocate who supports victims. I just want to probe that a bit further. Were you talking about support for victims or victims’ families, and what do you think when it comes to qualifications? Would they be legal qualifications? Would it be counselling experience? Do you think there is a difference between being a paid advocate for people who are under 18 and one for those over 18?

I am assuming there is obviously a difference between the qualifications one would need to support victims of a different ages; but really I am trying to get a sense of what kind of person you would be looking for and, also, what their duties would be, in your experience. Would it be explaining what is happening in the court system? Not everyone will know. Would it be administrative help with filling out forms or giving advice on finances? I am trying to get a clearer picture of the case you are making, which I think is a strong case.

Baroness Newlove: Yes, everything you have said is a mixture of what we are looking at as the role; in fact, my team are doing a rapid assessment at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

So not a particularly strong view either way on those provisions. Thank you.

[Louise Haigh]

Q What do both of you think about mandatory minimum sentencing for children?

Anne Longfield: Where do I start? My starting point will always be prevention. I do not want kids to be in prison; I want them to be elsewhere and I do everything I can not to have them there. While they are in there, I acknowledge that some young people say it is the first time that they have felt safe. Those who work with them say that when they know that the average time they are in custody will be 14 weeks, all they can do is stabilise and move on. I want to have a system that can respond to individuals, so my instinct is not to go down the mandatory minimum sentences route but to look at individual cases.

Baroness Newlove: As Victims’ Commissioner, I have to say that victims tell me they want mandatory; only then will it be effective.

[Louise Haigh]

Q Can you reconfirm that your victims law and your recommendations about it were in the Conservative manifesto in 2017?

Baroness Newlove: It was across the party for a victims law to be produced in the manifesto, but I am independent as the Victims Commissioner. It is something I keep speaking about.

[Louise Haigh]

Q But there was a victims law promised in that manifesto.

Baroness Newlove: Yes, that was in the manifesto.

[The Chair]

Are there any more questions about the Bill? No. In that case, I thank the witnesses for coming. It has been a very useful session.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Paul Maynard.)