Joint Enterprise (Significant Contribution) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 2nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. Like her, I represent a constituency where, sadly, we do experience knife crime and death by knife crime. I always visit the families that are victims of knife crime to try to share their pain at what is a horrific experience.

I ask the Minister to recognise the importance of the issue and the burden of the argument that has been put forward by those of us who strongly support this Bill. I hope he will be prepared to have discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside and the promoters of the Bill to see whether it is necessary to table any amendments in Committee. I do not want to hear warm words that, at some indeterminate point in the indefinite future, there will be a proposal coming forward to deal with what we all acknowledge to be a wrong. We have been down too many cul-de-sacs before, and this is an opportunity. Let us take the opportunity to right a wrong in our criminal justice system.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Sheerman]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. What is going on? There is a feeling at the moment that junior Ministers will not take interventions, which is against the whole spirit of a Friday open debate. What is the matter? All I want to know is whether the Minister is content with the joint enterprise situation at the moment. Will he please tell the House that?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. It is the decision of the person who is on their feet as to whether or not they take an intervention. The Minister has decided not to.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to drag you into the debate; I am simply requesting a procedural clarification.

The Minister has just said that the Government are unable to support the Bill in its current form. In other words, they are not supporting it today. It is procedurally correct, is it not, that the Government could allow Second Reading and then delay any Committee proceedings until after the consultation on the Law Commission’s proposals and its examination of the issue overall, and amendments could then be tabled? If the Government fail to do that, it is difficult to see—unless they are committing themselves to introducing legislation—whether there is a serious or imminent proposal to reform the law in this instance.

I just wish to clarify that, because a great many people watching the debate will be confused by the process that we are going through. The opportunity is still there for the Government to allow the Bill’s Second Reading, thus bringing forward a reform that they may well wish to support at a later stage.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The case that the right hon. Gentleman has just stated is correct procedurally, but after the Minister has finished his speech I will call Kim Johnson, with the leave of the House, to see what the Member in charge of the Bill wishes to do.

[Gareth Bacon]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Section 8 of the 1861 Act is intrinsically linked with other inchoate offences such as those specified in sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007: intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence, encouraging or assisting an offence believing it will be committed, and encouraging or assisting offences believing one or more will be committed. It is also linked to section 44(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, which makes similar provision to that contained in section 8 of the 1861 Act, but in relation to summary only and triable either way offences.

Of key concern, however, is the fact that the proposed change to section 8 would place a requirement on the prosecution to identify the precise nature of a defendant’s role in aiding, abetting, procuring or counselling the commission of the crime committed in order to prove that the defendant had made a “significant contribution” —a threshold that does not currently need to be met. This change could lead to difficulties in securing a conviction and therefore bringing offenders to justice, even when there is significant evidence that the defendants did participate in the crime, simply owing to evidential difficulties in trying to establish the precise role that each party played—that is to say, whether they were a principal offender or an accessory—and how much weight should be given to those roles in terms of their “significant contribution”, which is not defined.

It is also unclear whether this change was actually intended, as the Government believe that the stated intention of the Bill is to clarify, and not to amend, the law on secondary liability. An additional concern is that no definition has been provided on what is to be determined by “significant contribution”. Without such a definition, that would mean that a perpetrator’s contribution to an offence could be determined differently, with the bar being either lower or higher depending on the assessment undertaken by the specific jury in question. In effect, there may be no real parity in such assessments, which in turn could lead to appeals on the basis of how a significant contribution to a crime has been assessed when compared with other such cases. That could result in an incoherent framework and would jeopardise the certainty of the law.

I am conscious of the time, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside again for her Bill, but the Government must oppose it for the reasons that I have outlined.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Edward Argar)]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 21—Information relating to victims: service police etc.

Government new clause 22—Meaning of “major incident” etc.

Government new clause 23—Appointment of standing advocate.

Government new clause 24—Publication of reports.

Government new clause 25—Part 2: consequential amendments.

Government new clause 26—Imprisonment or detention for public protection: termination of licences.

Government new clause 37—Restricting parental responsibility where one parent kills the other.

New clause 1—Re-sentencing those serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection—

‘(1) The Lord Chancellor must make arrangements for, and relating to, the re-sentencing of all prisoners serving IPP sentences within 18 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) Those arrangements must include arrangements relating to the establishment of a committee to provide advice regarding the discharge of the Lord Chancellor’s duty under subsection (1).

(3) The committee established by virtue of subsection (2) must include a judge nominated by the Lord Chief Justice.

(4) A court that imposed an IPP sentence has the power to re-sentence the prisoner in relation to the original offence.

(5) But the court may not impose a sentence that is a heavier penalty than the sentence that was imposed for the original offence.

(6) In relation to the exercise of the power in subsection (4)—

(a) that power is to be treated as a power to re-sentence under the Sentencing Code (see section 402(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020);

(b) the Code applies for the purposes of this section (and, accordingly, it does not matter that a person serving an IPP sentence was convicted of an offence before 1 December 2020).

(7) In this section—

“IPP sentence” means a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 or a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of that Act (including such a sentence of imprisonment or detention passed as a result of section 219 or 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006);

“original offence” means the offence in relation to which the IPP sentence was imposed.

(8) This section comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause would implement the recommendation of the Justice Committee’s 2022 Report that there should be a resentencing exercise in relation to all IPP sentenced individuals, and to establish a time-limited expert committee, including a member of the judiciary, to advise on the practical implementation of such an exercise.

New clause 2—Appointment of an advocate to represent IPP prisoners’ interests—

“(1) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, establish a list of advocates to further the interests of prisoners serving imprisonment for public protection (IPP) sentences.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Secretary of State may set out minimum qualifications for any person to be appointed as an IPP advocate.

(3) A person may only act as an IPP advocate if the Secretary of State considers that the following conditions are satisfied—

(a) they have had appropriate experience or training or an appropriate combination of experience and training;

(b) they are of integrity and good character; and

(c) they are able to act independently of any other person who is professionally concerned with the qualifying prisoner’s continuing imprisonment.

(4) The Secretary of State may pay to, or in respect of, such a person—

(a) amounts by way of remuneration, pensions, allowances or gratuities, and

(b) sums in respect of the expenses of the IPP advocate.

(5) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument; and an instrument containing regulations made under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.’

This new clause, and new clause NC3 would allow the Secretary of State to appoint a number of independent advocates to act on behalf of over-tariff prisoners sentenced to imprisonment for public protection.

New clause 3—Functions of an IPP advocate—

‘(1) Any IPP prisoner who has exceeded their minimum tariff period is entitled to ask for the assistance of an IPP advocate.

(2) An IPP advocate may not provide legal services or advice to an IPP prisoner.

(3) An IPP advocate may—

(a) visit and advise an IPP prisoner at the facility where they are imprisoned;

(b) subject to subsection (2), appear before the Parole Board on behalf of an IPP prisoner;

(c) visit and advise an IPP prisoner who has been released on licence.

(4) For the purposes of this Act, “IPP prisoner” means a person sentenced to imprisonment for public protection under the Criminal Justice Act, or any successor Act.’

This new clause sets out the functions of an IPP advocate. They will not provide legal advice, but will provide practical advice, support them at the Parole Board and on release.

New clause 4—Parole Board: victim personal statement—

‘(1) It is the duty of the Parole Board to ensure that victims are offered the opportunity to give their views in the criminal justice process by making a personal statement.

(2) Where a victim has opted-in to the Victim Contact Scheme, the Parole Board must record whether the victim has been offered the opportunity to provide a personal statement to the Parole Board before it makes a decision relevant to the victim.

(3) The Parole Board must report annually to the Secretary of State on the data recorded under subsection (2) and on its compliance with the duty under subsection (1).

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of any reports received under this section before Parliament within 15 days of receipt.’

This new clause would place a duty on the Parole Board to ensure that victims are offered the opportunity to give their views in the criminal justice process and require it to report to the Secretary of State on its compliance with that duty.

New clause 5—Duty to develop a single core data set of victims of child sexual abuse—

‘(1) The responsible authority must make arrangements to develop a shared, single core data set concerning victims of child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation in England and Wales.

(2) In accordance with subsection (1) the responsible authority must direct children’s social care and criminal justice agencies to collect consistent and compatible data which includes—

(a) the characteristics of victims and alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse, including—

(i) age,

(ii) sex, and

(iii) ethnicity,

(b) the factors that make victims more vulnerable to child sexual abuse or exploitation, and

(c) the settings and contexts in which victims have experienced child sexual abuse or exploitation.

(3) The responsible authority must ensure that the data is published each month.

(4) For the purposes of this section, the responsible authority is—

(a) in England, the Secretary of State; and

(b) in Wales, the Welsh Ministers.’

New clause 6—Assessment of numbers of independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisors, stalking advocates and specialist support services—

‘Within six months of the passing of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must—

(a) make an assessment of the adequacy of the number of independent domestic violence and sexual violence advisors, stalking advocates, and specialist support services in each region of England and Wales, having regard to the population in each region, and

(b) publish that assessment.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make an assessment of the adequacy of the number of ISVAs, IDVAs, stalking advocates and specialist support services in each region of England and Wales.

New clause 7—Improving accessibility and awareness of the Victims’ Code—

‘(1) In preparing the draft of the victims’ code under section 2, the Secretary of State must take all practicable steps to ensure that the code is fully accessible to all victims and to promote awareness of the code among those victims and associated services.

(2) For the purposes of this section the Secretary of State must by regulations prescribe—

(a) that criminal justice bodies must signpost victims to appropriate support services, and

(b) that appropriate training is delivered to staff in criminal justice bodies, including by specialist domestic abuse services.

(3) The steps taken under subsection (1) must include steps aimed at ensuring that victims who—

(a) are deaf,

(b) are disabled,

(c) are visually impaired, or

(d) do not speak English as their first language,

are able to understand their entitlements under the code.’

This new clause seeks to ensure that the victims’ code is accessible to all victims and associated services.

New clause 8—Access to services for victims with no recourse to public funds—

‘(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any other enactment, a victim of domestic abuse who—

(a) has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom which is subject to a condition that they do not have recourse to public funds,

(b) requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom but does not have it,

(c) has leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom given as a result of a maintenance undertaking,

is entitled to be provided with services in accordance with the victims’ code.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision that is consequential on this section.

(3) For the purposes of this section—

“domestic abuse” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020;

“victim” has the meaning given by section 1 of this Act.’

This new clause would ensure that victims of domestic abuse who do not have recourse to public funds are still entitled to be provided with services in accordance with the victims’ code.

New clause 9—Meaning of “honour-based abuse” —

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument define the meaning of “honour-based abuse” for the purposes of section 1.

(2) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must carry out a consultation about—

(a) what conduct should amount to “honour-based abuse” for the purposes of section 1, and

(b) any definition of the meaning of “honour-based abuse” proposed by the Secretary of State.

(3) In carrying out a consultation under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) organisations that appear to the Secretary of State to represent those who have an interest in the meaning of “honour-based abuse” for the purposes of section 1;

(b) any other persons that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’

New clause 10—Sewage Illness Victim Compensation Scheme—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations provide for a compensation scheme for victims who have suffered harm as a direct result of criminal conduct in relation to sewage and waste water.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must—

(a) provide for the payment of compensation to people who have become unwell as a result of bathing in water contaminated by sewage,

(b) make provision in relation to the medical evidence required to support a claim for compensation under the regulations.

(3) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’

New clause 13—Duty to co-operate with Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses—

‘(1) The Commissioner may request a specified public authority to co-operate with the Commissioner in any way that the Commissioner considers necessary for the purposes of monitoring compliance with the victims’ code.

(2) A specified public authority must, so far as reasonably practicable, comply with a request made to it under this section.

(3) In this section “specified public authority” means any of the following—

(a) a criminal justice body, as defined by subsection 6(6),

(b) the Parole Board,

(c) an elected local policing body,

(d) the British Transport Police Force,

(e) the Ministry of Defence Police.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this section so as to—

(a) add a public authority as a specified public authority for the purposes of this section;

(b) remove a public authority added by virtue of paragraph (a);

(c) vary any description of a public authority.

(5) Before making regulations under subsection (4) the Secretary of State must consult the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses.

(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’

This new clause would place a duty on specified public authorities to co-operate with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses.

New clause 14—Major incidents: duty of candour—

‘(1) In discharging their duties in relation to a major incident, public authorities and public servants and officials must at all times act within their powers—

(a) in the public interest, and

(b) with transparency, candour and frankness.

(2) If a major incident results in a court proceeding, official inquiry or investigation, public authorities and public servants and officials have a duty to assist—

(a) relating to their own activities, or

(b) where their acts or omissions may be relevant.

(3) In discharging the duty under subsection (2), public authorities and public servants and officials shall—

(a) act with proper expedition;

(b) act with transparency, candour and frankness,

(c) act without favour to their own position,

(d) make full disclosure of relevant documents, material and facts,

(e) set out their position on the relevant matters at the outset of the proceedings, inquiry or investigation, and

(f) provide further information and clarification as ordered by a court or inquiry.

(4) In discharging their duty under subsection (2), public authorities and public servants and officials shall have regard to the pleadings, allegations, terms of reference and parameters of the relevant proceedings, inquiry or investigation but shall not be limited by them, in particular where they hold information which might change the ambit of the said proceedings, inquiry or investigation.

(5) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) shall—

(a) be read subject to existing laws relating to privacy, data protection and national security,

(b) apply in a qualified way with respect to private law and non-public functions as set out in subsection (6), and

(c) not be limited by any issue of insurance indemnity.

(6) The duties in subsections (1) and (2) shall be enforceable by application to the relevant court or inquiry chairperson by any person affected by the alleged breach, or the court or inquiry may act of its own motion. Where there are no extant court or inquiry proceedings, the duties may be enforced by judicial review proceedings in the High Court.’

This new clause would require public authorities and public servants and officials to act in the public interest and with transparency, candour and frankness when carrying out their duties in relation to major incidents.

New clause 15—Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal: life prisoners—

‘After section 32ZA of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 insert—

“Referral of release decisions to Court of Appeal

327ZAA Referral of release decisions to Court of Appeal

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a prisoner is serving a life sentence imposed in respect of an offence specified or described in section 32ZAB (the “relevant sentence”),

(b) the Parole Board is required to make a public protection decision about the prisoner under section 28(6)(b) or 32(5A), and

(c) the public protection decision relates to the relevant sentence.

(2) Where the Parole Board has made a decision in a case to which this section applies—

(a) the Secretary of State may refer the decision to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or

(b) a victim may apply to the Secretary of State to request that the prisoner’s case be referred to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal.

(3) Within [30 days] of an application being made under paragraph (2)(b), the Secretary of State must—

(a) exercise the power under subsection (2)(a) and refer the prisoner’s case to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or

(b) provide to the victim a written statement explaining why they have decided not to exercise that power.

(4) This section applies in relation to a prisoner whose sentence was imposed before, as well as after, this section comes into force.

(5) But nothing in this section affects the duty of the Secretary of State to release a prisoner whose release has been directed by the Parole Board before this section comes into force.

(6) In this section, “public protection decision” has the meaning given by section 28ZA(2).

327ZAB Offences for purposes of Court of Appeal referral

(1) The offences specified or described in this section (for the purposes of section 32ZAA) are—

(a) murder;

(b) manslaughter;

(c) an offence under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime 10 and Victims Act 2004, where a child has died as a result of the prisoner’s unlawful act;

(d) an offence specified in any of paragraphs 41 to 43 of Schedule 18 to the Sentencing Code (specified terrorism offences other than inchoate offences);

(e) an offence that is not an inchoate offence and was determined to have a terrorist connection, within the meaning given by section 247A(7A) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003;

(f) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape);

(g) an offence under section 5 of that Act (rape of a child under 13);

(h) an offence under section 6 of that Act (assault of a child under 13 by penetration);

(i) an offence under section 8 of that Act (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity);

(j) an offence under section 47 of that Act (paying for sexual services of a child) against a person aged under 16;

(k) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 (asp 9) (rape);

(l) an offence under section 18 of that Act (rape of a young child);

(m) an offence under section 19 of that Act (sexual assault on a young child by penetration);

(n) an offence under section 20 of that Act (sexual assault on a young child);

(o) an offence under section 21 of that Act (causing a young child to participate in a sexual activity);

(p) an offence under Article 5 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1769 (N.I. 2)) (rape);

(q) an offence under Article 12 of that Order (rape of a child under 13);

(r) an offence under Article 13 of that Order (assault of a child under 13 by penetration);

(s) an offence under Article 15 of that Order (causing or inciting a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity);

(t) an offence that—

(i) is abolished, and

(ii) would have constituted an offence referred to in paragraphs (a) to (s) if committed on or after the date on which it was abolished.

(2) A sentence in respect of a service offence is to be treated for the 35 purposes of section 32ZAA as if it were a sentence in respect of the corresponding offence.

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) “service offence” means an offence under—

(i) section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006,

(ii) section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, or

(iii) section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957;

(b) “corresponding offence” means—

(i) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales within the meaning of that section;

(ii) in relation to an offence under section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, the corresponding civil offence within the meaning of that Act;

(iii) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, the civil offence within the meaning of that section.

327ZAC Powers of the Court of Appeal

(1) On a referral of a prisoner’s case under section 32ZAA, the Court of Appeal may—

(a) direct the Secretary of State to release the prisoner on licence as soon as is reasonably practicable in all the circumstances including, in particular, the need to make arrangements in connection with any conditions that are to be included in the licence, or

(b) decide that the prisoner should remain confined and direct the Secretary of State accordingly.

(2) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must have regard to whether there is no more than a minimal risk that, were the prisoner no longer confined, the prisoner would commit a further offence the commission of which would cause serious harm.

(2A) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must consider—

(a) any statement made by the Parole Board as to the reasons for its decision,

(b) the evidence considered by the Parole Board in reaching its decision,

(c) any representations made to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State, by a victim, or on behalf of the prisoner,

(d) any transcript made of a Parole Board hearing in respect of the case.

(3) No judge shall sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of a reference under this section in respect of a sentence they passed.”’

New clause 16—Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal: fixed-term prisoners—

‘(1) After section 256AZB of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 insert—

Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal

256AZBA Referral of release decisions to the Court of Appeal

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a prisoner is serving a fixed-term sentence imposed in respect of an offence specified or described in section 256AZBB (the “relevant sentence”),

(b) the Board is required to make a public protection decision about the prisoner under a relevant provision of this Chapter, and

(c) the public protection decision relates to the relevant sentence.

(2) Where the Parole Board has made a decision in a case to which this section applies—

(a) the Secretary of State may refer the decision to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or

(b) a victim may apply to the Secretary of State to request that the prisoner’s case be referred to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal.

(3) Within [30 days] of an application being made under paragraph (2)(b), the Secretary of State must—

(a) exercise the power under subsection (2)(a) and refer the prisoner’s case to the criminal division of the Court of Appeal, or

(b) provide to the victim a written statement explaining why they have decided not to exercise that power.

(4) This section applies in relation to a prisoner whose sentence was imposed before, as well as after, this section comes into force.

(5) But nothing in this section affects the duty of the Secretary of State to release a prisoner whose release has been directed by the Parole Board before this section comes into force.

(6) In this section—

“corresponding power of direction” , in relation to a relevant provision, is the power of the Board to direct the Secretary of State to release the prisoner, for the purposes of which the public protection decision is made (see section 237B);

“public protection decision” has the meaning given by section 237A(2);

“relevant provision” has the meaning given by section 237B.

256AZBB Offences for the purpose of Court of Appeal referral

(1) The offences specified or described in this section (for the purposes of section 256AZBA) are—

(a) manslaughter;

(b) an offence under section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, where a child has died as a result of the prisoner’s unlawful act;

(c) an offence specified in any of paragraphs 41 to 43 of Schedule 18 to the Sentencing Code (specified terrorism offences other than inchoate offences);

(d) an offence that is not an inchoate offence and was determined to have a terrorist connection, within the meaning given by section 247A(7A);

(e) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (rape);

(f) an offence under section 5 of that Act (rape of a child under 13);

(g) an offence under sections 6 to 51 of that Act;

(h) an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 (asp 9) (rape);

(i) an offence under section 18 of that Act (rape of a young child);

(j) an offence under sections 2 to 11 of that Act against a mentally disordered person, as defined by section 17 of that Act;

(k) an offence under Part 4 or Part 5 of that Act;

(l) an offence under Article 5 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1769 (N.I. 2)) (rape);

(m) an offence under Article 12 of that Order (rape of a child under 13);

(n) an offence under Part 3 or Part 4 of that Order;

(p) an offence that—

(i) is abolished, and

(ii) would have constituted an offence referred to in paragraphs (a) to (o) if committed on or after the date on which it was abolished.

(2) A sentence in respect of a service offence is to be treated for the purposes of section 256AZBA as if it were a sentence in respect of the corresponding offence.

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) “service offence” means an offence under—

(i) section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006,

(ii) section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, or

(iii) section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957;

(b) “corresponding offence” means—

(i) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales within the meaning of that section;

(ii) in relation to an offence under section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955, the corresponding civil offence within the meaning of that Act;

(iii) in relation to an offence under section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957, the civil offence within the meaning of that section.

256AZBC Powers of the Court of Appeal

(1) On a referral of a prisoner’s case under section 256AZBA, the Court of Appeal may—

(a) direct the Secretary of State to release the prisoner on licence as soon as is reasonably practicable in all the circumstances including, in particular, the need to make arrangements in connection with any conditions that are to be included in the licence, or

(b) decide that the prisoner should remain confined and direct the Secretary of State accordingly.

(2) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must have regard to whether there is no more than a minimal risk that, were the prisoner no longer confined, the prisoner would commit a further offence the commission of which would cause serious harm.

(3) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Court of Appeal must consider—

(a) any statement made by the Parole Board as to the reasons for its decision,

(b) the evidence considered by the Parole Board in reaching its decision,

(c) any representations made to the Parole Board by the Secretary of State, by a victim, or on behalf of the prisoner,

(d) any transcript made of a Parole Board hearing in respect of the case.

(4) No judge shall sit as a member of the Court of Appeal on the hearing of a reference under this section in respect of a sentence they passed.”’

New clause 17—Monitoring compliance—

‘(1) All agencies with responsibilities under the victims’ code have a duty to monitor and report how relevant services are provided in accordance with the victims’ code.

(2) In accordance with the duty in subsection (1), the agencies must provide an annual report to the Secretary of State on their assessment of their compliance with the code.

(3) The Secretary of State must make an annual statement to the House of Commons on the delivery of services provided in accordance with the victims’ code.’

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make an annual statement on compliance with the victims’ code.

New clause 18—Compliance with the code: threshold levels—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, issue minimum threshold levels of compliance with each right of the victims’ code.

(2) If a minimum threshold is breached by an organisation in a particular area, the Secretary of State must commission an inspection of that body with regard to that breach.

(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, lay before Parliament the report of any such inspection.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set minimum threshold levels of compliance with each right of the victims’ code.

New clause 19—Non-disclosure of victims’ counselling records (No. 2)—

‘(1) Subsection (3) of this clause applies where—

(a) in connection with any criminal investigation, access to records of a victim’s protected confidence in a counselling setting is sought (whether pre- or post-charge), or

(b) in any criminal proceedings records containing a protected confidence are to be served as evidence or disclosed by the prosecution to the defendant.

(2) In this section—

“protected confidence” means a communication made by a person in confidence to another person when the confidant was acting in a professional capacity providing counselling, psychological or mental health services;

“victim” has the same meaning as in section 1 of this Act.

(3) Permission for access to, service or disclosure of records containing a protected confidence may only be granted by the court.

(4) The court must direct that access should not be granted, or evidence should not be served or disclosed, if the court finds that doing so would disclose a protected confidence.

(5) Subsection (4) does not apply if the court finds—

(a) that the information is of substantial probative value, and

(b) that the public interest in disclosure substantially outweighs that of non-disclosure.

(6) In making a determination under subsection (5)(b), the court must take into account—

(a) the need to encourage victims of sexual offences to seek counselling,

(b) that the effectiveness of counselling is likely to be dependent on the maintenance of the confidentiality of the counselling relationship,

(c) the public interest in ensuring that victims of sexual offences receive effective counselling,

(d) that the disclosure of the protected confidence is likely to damage or undermine the relationship between the counsellor and the counselled person,

(e) whether disclosure of the protected confidence is sought on the basis of a discriminatory belief or bias, or

(f) that the adducing of the evidence is likely to infringe a reasonable expectation of privacy.’

New clause 27—Compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal (No. 2)—

‘(1) In accordance with section 2(3C), the Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, establish a body to administer the compensation scheme for victims of the infected blood scandal.

(2) The body created under this section must be chaired by a judge of High Court or Court of Session with status as sole decision maker.

(3) In exercising its functions, the body must—

(a) have regard to the need of applicants for speed of provision, simplicity or process, accessibility, involvement, proactive support, fairness and efficiency;

(b) involve potentially eligible persons and their representatives amongst those in a small advisory board, and in the review and improvement of the scheme;

(c) permit the hearing of applicants in person; and

(d) have an independent appeal body which will reconsider decisions of the scheme referred to it.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about the body established under this section.

(5) For the purposes of this Act, a victim of the infected blood scandal means any infected or affected person whom the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry, as laid before Parliament on 19 April 2023, recommends should be admitted to a compensation scheme.

(6) This section comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.’

New clause 28—Report on impact on victims of the UK’s reservation in respect of Article 59 of the Istanbul Convention—

‘(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the impact on victims of the UK’s reservation in respect of Article 59 of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (“the Istanbul Convention”).

(2) The report laid under subsection (1) must contain—

(a) an assessment of the impact on victims of domestic abuse,

(b) an assessment of the impact on the children of such victims, and

(c) an assessment of the merits of implementing the measures necessary for compliance with article 59 of the Istanbul Convention.’

New clause 29—Mandatory training—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations require certain police officers and employees of the Crown Prosecution Service to receive training in respect of violence against women and girls.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must—

(a) make provision about the content of mandatory training, including training on the impact of trauma on victims of violence against women and girls, and

(b) make provision about the persons for whom this training is mandatory.

(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.’

New clause 30—Victims of specified offences: data-sharing for immigration purposes—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for ensuring that the personal data of a victim of a crime as specified in subsection (3), that is processed for the purpose of that person requesting or receiving support or assistance related to the crime, is not used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.

(2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for ensuring that the personal data of a witness to a crime as specified in subsection (3), that is processed for the purpose of that person giving information or evidence to assist the investigation or prosecution of the crime, is not used for any immigration control purpose without the consent of that person.

(3) The crimes referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are–

(a) domestic abuse as defined by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021,

(b) an offence under any of sections 2, 2A, 4 or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or section 42A (1) of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001,

(c) an offence under any of sections 1, 2 or 4 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015,

(d) an offence under Part 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, or

(e) such other offences as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to the Data Protection Act 2018 shall not apply to personal data processed for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2).

(5) For the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State must issue guidance to those persons mentioned in subsection (10) about the effect of subsections (1) and (2).

(6) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise any guidance issued under this section.

(7) Before issuing or revising guidance under this subsection, the Secretary of State must consult–

(a) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner,

(b) the Victims’ Commissioner,

(c) the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, and

(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(8) Subsection (7) does not apply in relation to any revisions of the guidance issued under this section if the Secretary of State considers the proposed revisions of the guidance are insubstantial.

(9) The Secretary of State must publish–

(a) any guidance issued under this section, and

(b) any revisions of that guidance.

(10) The persons mentioned in subsection (5) are—

(a) persons who are victims of or witnesses to the crimes in subsection (3),

(b) persons from whom support or assistance may be requested or received by a victim of crime in England and Wales,

(c) persons providing support to, or conducting investigations or prosecutions with the support of, witnesses of crime in England and Wales,

(d) persons exercising any function of the Secretary of State in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality and,

(e) persons exercising any function conferred by or by virtue of the Immigration Acts on an immigration officer.

(11) A person exercising public functions to whom guidance issued under this section relates must have regard to it in the exercise of those functions.

(12) For the purposes of this section–

“consent” means a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the individual’s wishes by which the individual, by a statement, signifies agreement to the processing of the personal data;

“immigration control” means the exercise of any functions of the Secretary of State and of immigration officers under the Immigration Acts within the meaning of section 61 of the UK Borders Act 2007;

“support or assistance” includes the provision of accommodation, banking services, education, employment, financial or social assistance, healthcare and policing services and any function of a court or prosecuting authority;

“victim”, in relation to a crime, means the particular person who appears to have been affected by the crime, and their dependent, where that dependent is also affected by the crime.’

New clause 31—Duty to notify school safeguarding lead of domestic abuse incident—

‘(1) The police must notify the designated safeguarding lead or officer of a child’s school of any incident that meets the criteria in subsection (2).

(2) Those criteria are that—

(a) the police have attended an incident of domestic abuse, and

(b) the child is a child of an adult party involved in the incident.

(3) A notification under this section must occur before the start of the next school day following the incident.

(4) In this section, “domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.’

New clause 32—Victims’ rights in relation to data—

‘(1) The UK GDPR is amended as follows.

(2) In Article 21 (right to object), after paragraph 1, insert—

“(1A) The data subject shall have the right to object, on grounds relating to his or her particular situation, at any time to processing of personal data concerning him or her, or a third party where that party is a child for whom they have parental responsibility, which is based on points (a) to (f) of Article 6(1), including profiling based on those provisions, if exceptional circumstances apply

(1B) The exceptional circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1B are—

(a) that the processing of the data was connected to, or reliant upon, conduct which could reasonably be suspected to constitute a criminal offence, or

(b) that the processing of the data was connected to, or reliant upon, conduct which could reasonably be considered as being intended to cause harassment, alarm or distress to the data subject or another living individual.

(1C) The Secretary of State may by regulations subject to the affirmative resolution procedure prescribe other exceptional circumstances where the right to object mentioned in paragraph 1A applies.”

(3) In Article 17 (right to erasure (“right to be forgotten”)), after paragraph 1(c), insert—

(ca) the data subject objects to the processing pursuant to Article 21(1A).”’

This new clause would allow victims of third party harassment to request the deletion of any personal data which was gathered or held as part of activity which could be considered criminal conduct – preventing third party reporting from causing ongoing distress to victims.

New clause 33—Commissioner for Victims: enforcement of victims’ code—

‘(1) The Commissioner for Victims (“the Commissioner”) may investigate a complaint that a person to whom the code of practice under subsection 2(1) of this Act applies has failed to carry out their duties under the victims’ code.

(2) Where the Commissioner upholds a complaint under subsection (1), the Commissioner may—

(a) recommend action to rectify the breach of the victims’ code, or

(b) impose a fine on the person who has failed to comply with the victims’ code.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision in connection with this section.’

New clause 34—Funding for domestic abuse services: review—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of this Act being passed, conduct a review into the level of funding and provision for domestic abuse services.

(2) The review must, in particular, consider—

(a) counselling and advocacy services, and

(b) refuges in the UK.

(3) Upon completion of the review, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report setting out—

(a) the findings of the review, and

(b) the action that the Secretary of State proposes to take in response to the review.’

New clause 35—Experiences of victims of domestic abuse in the criminal justice system: review—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of this Act being passed, conduct a review into the experiences of victims of domestic abuse in the criminal justice system.

(2) The review must consult, in particular—

(a) victims of domestic abuse who have been through the criminal justice system, specifically ensuring that views are sought from women with protected characteristics, and

(b) organisations, both inside and outside of the criminal justice system, who represent victims of domestic abuse.

(3) Upon completion of the review, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report setting out—

(a) the findings of the review, and

(b) the action that the Secretary of State proposes to take in response to the review.’

New clause 36—Data collection in relation to children of prisoners—

‘The Secretary of State must collect and publish annual data identifying—

(a) how many prisoners are the primary carers of a child,

(b) how many children have a primary carer who is a prisoner, and

(c) the ages of those children.’

New clause 38—Free independent legal advocates for rape victims—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must develop proposals for a scheme to give victims of rape access to free, independent legal advocates available in every police force area in England and Wales.

(2) For the purposes of this section—

“independent legal advocate for rape victims” means a person who is a qualified solicitor, with experience working with vulnerable people, who provides appropriate legal advice and representation to individuals who are victims of criminal conduct which constitutes rape.’

New clause 39—Duty to inform victims and families of the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme—

‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 36, insert—

“36A Duty to inform victims and families of the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme

(1) The Secretary of State must nominate a Government Department (“relevant body”) to inform victims and their families of their rights under the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme, and such information must include the type of sentence and the time limit for application, and advise that applications must be made to the Attorney General.”’

New clause 40—Unduly lenient sentences: time limit—

‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 3, paragraph 1, at end insert “, subject to paragraph 1A.”

“(1A) The time limit of 28 days shall be extended in exceptional circumstances, where the relevant body has failed to inform the victim and families of their rights under the Unduly Lenient Sentencing Scheme.”’

New clause 41—Independent legal advice and representation for victims of rape and sexual assault—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must establish a Sexual Violence Complainants’ Advocate scheme (“the scheme”).

(2) The scheme must provide free legal advice and representation to victims of rape and sexual offences in England and Wales.

(3) The scheme must—

(a) provide legal advice to victims in relation to requests for access to their personal data;

(b) provide victims with advice on their rights under the Victims’ Right to Review scheme, and assist them with making requests under that scheme;

(c) provide legal advice to victims in relation to sexual history applications under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999

(d) provide legal advice to victims in relation to complaints made to justice agencies

(e) provide legal advice to assist victims to negotiate fully informed consent to access to their personal data; or

(f) subject to subsection (4), provide legal representation of victims in relation to the police, prosecutors, or court, where that representation is necessary to prevent irrelevant or excessive material being accessed.

(4) Section 3(f) is limited to those circumstances in which a complainant has rights of audience, including hearings on disclosure of third-party materials where a court chooses to invite participation by a complainant under Criminal Procedure Rules 17.4-17.6

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision about the scheme”’

New clause 42—Statement on report of Infected Blood Inquiry—

‘(1) Within 25 sitting days of the publication of the final report of the Infected Blood Inquiry, the Secretary of State must make an oral statement to the House of Commons responding in full to the recommendations of the report, including—

(a) how victims of the infected blood scandal will be able to access compensation, and

(b) what steps will be taken to establish a body to administer the compensation scheme.

(2) In this section, ‘sitting days’ means days on which the House of Commons sits.’

New clause 43—Victims of major incidents: registration of death—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a relative to provide information in the connection with the registration of the death of a person who was a victim of a major incident, even if an investigation is conducted under Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

(2) Regulations under this section must—

(a) amend form 13 in Schedule 2 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Regulations 1987 as follows—

(i) add an additional section, entitled “victims of major incidents”, to include the name, qualification and usual address of the relative,

(ii) provide for the signature of the relative to be given under the statement “I certify that the particulars given by me above are true to the best of my knowledge and belief”, and

(b) provide that the relative may provide these details during the five day period beginning with the day on which a registrar completes the form.

(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision consequential on this section.

(4) The power to make regulations under subsection (3) may (among other things) be exercised by modifying any provision made by or under an enactment.’

This new clause would enable a relative of a person who has died in a major incident to have their details included in the registration of the person’s death.

Amendment 160, page 1, line 7, at end insert—

“(aa) witnessing criminal conduct,

(ab) having subsequent responsibility for care because of criminal conduct,

(ac) experiencing vicarious harm due to criminal conduct.”

Amendment 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where a person has entered into a non-disclosure agreement that has the effect of preventing that person from speaking about behaviour that may be criminal misconduct.”

Amendment 2, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where the person has experienced, or made allegations that they have experienced—

(i) sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, or

(ii) bullying or harassment not falling within paragraph (i).”

Amendment 5, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where the person has experienced adult sexual exploitation.”

Amendment 7, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where the person is the child of a person posing sexual risk to children.”

This amendment would include children of a person posing a sexual risk to children (that is, paedophiles (including perpetrators of offences online), suspects or offenders) as victims.

Amendment 27, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where the person is a victim of honour-based abuse (see section [Meaning of “honour-based abuse”]).”

Amendment 28, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where the person has suffered harm as a direct result of criminal conduct in relation to sewage and waste water”

Amendment 33, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where the person has experienced anti-social behaviour, as defined by section 2 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2014, and the conditions necessary for an ASB case review under section 104 of that Act have been met.”

This amendment would include victims of anti-social behaviour in the definition of a victim.

Amendment 144, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where the person is a victim of the infected blood scandal, as defined in section (Compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal)(5) of this Act.”

Amendment 147, page 1, Line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where the person has suffered significant harm as a result of, and knows or knew of any other victim of, criminal conduct.”

This amendment would include those who suffer from vicarious trauma after a crime in the scope of the Victims Code.

Amendment 157, page 1, line 16, at end insert—

“(e) where the person has experienced child criminal exploitation;”.

This amendment would include victims of child criminal exploitation in the definition of a victim.

Amendment 148, page 1, Line 16, at end insert—

“(3A) For the purposes of this section, it does not matter whether the criminal conduct happened within the United Kingdom or elsewhere.”

This amendment would explicitly require that victims do not miss out on support as a result of the crime affecting them being carried out outside the UK.

Government amendment 34.

Amendment 8, page 2, line 5, after “that” insert—

“no report of the conduct has been made to a criminal justice body and that”.

This amendment aims to ensure that a person could meet the definition of a victim without needing to make a report to a criminal justice body.

Amendment 6, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(c) “adult sexual exploitation” means conduct by which a person manipulates, deceives, coerces or controls another person to undertake sexual activity.”

This amendment creates a statutory definition of adult sexual exploitation.

Amendment 158, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(c) “child criminal exploitation” means conduct by which a person manipulates, deceives, coerces or controls a person under 18 to undertake activity which constitutes a criminal offence;”.

This amendment provides a definition for the term “child criminal exploitation”.

Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) should be provided with information from all state agencies with responsibilities under the victims’ code, including the NHS, to help them understand the criminal justice process and beyond, including grant of leave or discharge.”

This amendment would extend the principle that victims should be given information about the criminal justice process to explicitly include the NHS, in order to bring mental health tribunal decisions in line with the rest of the criminal justice system.

Amendment 10, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

“in a language or format that they can understand;”.

Amendment 11, page 2, line 23, at end insert—

“and should be provided with appropriate support to communicate these views;”.

Amendment 12, page 2, line 23, at end insert—

“and with all state agencies with responsibilities under the victims’ code, including HMCTS and the NHS when considering leave or discharge;”.

This amendment seeks to ensure that the NHS and HM Courts and Tribunals Service are included when victims have a right to be heard in the justice process, bringing mental health tribunals decisions in line with the rest of the criminal justice system.

Amendment 3, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) The victims’ code must make provision in relation to people who have experienced, or made allegations that they have experienced—

(a) sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, or

(b) bullying or harassment not falling within paragraph (a).

(3B) Provision under subsection (3A) must include—

(a) provision relating to the enforcement of non-disclosure agreements signed by such victims, and

(b) provision about legal advice and other support for such victims in cases where they are asked to sign, or have signed, a non-disclosure agreement.

(3C) In this section—

“non-disclosure agreement” means an agreement which purports to any extent to preclude a victim from—

(a) publishing information about a relevant complaint, or

(b) disclosing information about the relevant complaint to any one or more other persons;

“misconduct” means—

(a) sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, and

(b) bullying or harassment not falling within paragraph(a);

“relevant complaint” means a complaint relating to misconduct or alleged misconduct by any person.”

This amendment would require the victims’ code to include specific provision for people who have experienced, or made allegations that they have experienced, sexual abuse, sexual harassment or sexual misconduct, or other bullying or harassment.

Amendment 13, page 2, line 25 at end insert—

“(3A) In accordance with subsection (3)(e), the victims’ code must include provision requiring that—

(a) all victims of child sexual abuse, including online-based abuse, are entitled to compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme,

(b) victims with unspent convictions, whose offences are linked to the circumstances of their sexual abuse as a child, are entitled to compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, and

(c) victims of child sexual abuse may apply for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme within a 7 year period of whichever of these two dates is the later—

(i) the date the offence was reported to the police, or

(ii) if the offence was reported whilst the victim was a child, the date the victim turned 18.”

This amendment would provide that all victims of child sexual abuse (CSA), including online, are entitled to compensation under the CICS and that those with unspent convictions directly linked to the circumstances of their abuse can access compensation. It would also extend the period by which victims can apply.

Amendment 14, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) The victims’ code must—

(a) require criminal justice bodies to take all reasonable steps to identify and record any change of name by a perpetrator, and

(b) require criminal justice bodies to inform a relevant victim when a perpetrator changes their name.

(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A)—

“perpetrator” means a person whose conduct or alleged conduct results in another person being a victim as defined by section 1 of this Act;

“relevant victim” means a person who becomes a victim as a result of the perpetrator’s conduct.”

This amendment would require criminal justice bodies to monitor name changes of perpetrators and inform victims of any name changes.

Amendment 15, page 2, line 25 at end insert—

“(3A) The victims’ code must make provision about pre-trial therapy for victims, including—

(a) a requirement that all criminal justice agencies inform victims of their right to pre-trial therapy, and

(b) a requirement that the Crown Prosecution Service annually review their pre-trial therapy guidance and its implementation.”

This amendment would include in the victims’ code a requirement to inform all victims of their right to access pre-trial therapy, and require the CPS to annually review the implementation of pre-trial therapy guidance.

Amendment 29, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) The victims’ code must make provision about support for victims of burglaries.

(3B) Provision under subsection (3A) must include a requirement that a victim of a burglary must be visited by a police officer.”

Amendment 142, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) The victims’ code must include provision requiring that all victims of the infected blood scandal, as defined in section (Compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal)(5) of this Act, are entitled to compensation.

(3B) Subject to subsection (3C), compensation must be administered by a body established for that purpose by the Secretary of State under section (Compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal).

(3C) The Secretary of State must ensure that an interim compensation payment of £100,000 is made within one month of the passing of this Act in the following circumstances—

(a) where an infected victim died as a child or died as an adult without a partner or child, the compensation payment should be made to their bereaved parents (split equally if separated);

(b) where an infected victim has died and there is no bereaved partner but there is a bereaved child or children (including any adopted child), the compensation payment should be paid to the child or children (split equally); and

(c) where an infected victim has died and there is no bereaved partner, child nor parent but there is a bereaved full sibling or siblings, the compensation payment should be paid to the sibling or siblings (split equally).”

Amendment 143, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) Within one month of the passing of this Act, the victims’ code must make specific provision for a bespoke psychological service in England for victims of the infected blood scandal, as defined in section (Compensation for victims of the infected blood scandal)(5) of this Act.”

Amendment 146, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) The victims’ code must include provision about therapy and other support services for victims who are children.

(3B) Provision under subsection (3A) must include—

(a) a requirement that support must be provided to such victims within one month of a request for support being made,

(b) provision relating to the types of support to which such victims are entitled,

(c) minimum standards for the quality of support to which such victims are entitled,

(d) a requirement that support should be available to such victims—

(i) throughout the criminal justice process, and

(ii) after that process has been completed.”

Amendment 159, page 2, line 25, at end insert—

“(3A) The victims’ code must provide that, where a victim has signed a non-disclosure agreement relating to criminal conduct to which they have been subjected, nothing in that agreement may prevent them from accessing services to which they are entitled under the code.”

Amendment 26, page 2, line 34, at end insert—

“(5A) Regulations under subsection (4) must make provision for a person to be able to obtain free of charge, on request, a transcript of a trial in which the person was involved as a victim.”

Amendment 156, in clause 6, page 4, line 38, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must publish and implement, in consultation with the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, a strategy for providing training on the impact of crime on victims and on victims’ rights for relevant staff of the following organisations—

(a) the Police

(b) the Crown Prosecution Service;

(c) probation services;

(d) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office;

(e) health and social services;

(f) victim support services

(g) maintained and independent schools and colleges of further education; and

(h) such other bodies as the Secretary of State deems appropriate.

(1B) The Secretary of State must review and update the strategy published under subsection (1A) every three years.”

Government amendments 35 to 46.

Amendment 4, in clause 12, page 10, line 22, at end insert “(d) stalking.”

Amendment 16, page 10, line 22, at end insert “(d) modern slavery.”

This amendment would extend the duty to collaborate to include victim support services for victims of modern slavery.

Government amendment 47.

Amendment 149, page 10, line 40, at end insert—

“(10) For the purposes of this section, the relevant authorities for a police area, as defined in subsection (2), must together conduct a joint strategic needs assessment.

(11) The Secretary of State must provide a National Statement every three years on support for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence, including—

(a) volume of provision at the time at which the National Statement is provided,

(b) levels of need, including a breakdown of demographics, including victims with protected characteristics, and

(c) levels of investment in services.

(12) In preparing a National Statement under subsection (11), the Secretary of State must have regard to the joint strategic needs assessments prepared under subsection 10.

(13) The Secretary of State must ensure that sufficient funding is provided annually to ensure that the relevant authorities, as defined in subsection (2), are able to commission relevant victim support services, as defined in subsection (4).

(14) The Secretary of State must provide sufficient funding to enable ‘by and for’ services to deliver services to, and to increase the capacity for delivering services to, victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence.

(15) In this section, “’by and for’ services” means services which—

(a) are designed for and delivered by those that share the same protected characteristic(s) as the victims they are intended to serve, and

(b) provide services to Black and minority ethnic, LGBT+, deaf or disabled victims and survivors of domestic abuse.

(16) The Secretary of State must issue guidance in relation to this section about—

(a) the production of Joint Strategic Needs Assessments by the relevant authorities,

(b) the identification of victims’ need and of gaps in provision by the National Statement,

(c) the principles which must be followed in the application and allocation of funding,

(d) the conditions under which “by and for” organisations that do not have specialism in domestic abuse service provision may be eligible to apply for funding.

(17) In preparing guidance under subsection (16), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) “by and for” organisations working with victims of domestic abuse and of violence against women and girls,

(b) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner,

(c) the Commissioner for Victims,

(d) the Children’s Commissioner.”

Government amendments 48 to 52.

Amendment 155, in clause 15, page 12, line 3, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “responsible authority”.

Amendment 17, page 12, line 5, at end insert “(c) independent stalking advocates.”

Amendment 154, page 12, line 5, at end insert—

“(1A) For the purposes of this section, the responsible authority is—

(a) in England, the Secretary of State; and

(b) in Wales, the Welsh Ministers.”

Amendment 19, page 12, line 5, at end insert—

“(c) any other specialist community-based services relevant to the criminal conduct .”

Amendment 18, page 12, line 12, at end insert—

“(c) “independent stalking advocate” means a person who provides a relevant service to individuals who are victims of criminal conduct which constitutes stalking.”

This amendment ensures that the Secretary of State must also provide guidance around stalking advocates, in addition to guidance about ISVAs and IDVAs.

Amendment 20, page 12, line 12, at end insert—

“(c) specialist community-based service” means a person who provides a relevant service to individuals based on a protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010 or the specific nature of the crime faced by the victim.”

Amendment 21, page 12, line 13, leave out “or (b)” and insert “, (b) or (c)”.

Amendment 22, page 12, line 16, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

“(4) Guidance under this section about service providers under subsection (1) must include provision about—

(a) the role of such providers;

(b) the services they provide to—

(i) victims, including (where relevant) victims who are children or have other protected characteristics, or

(ii) persons who are not victims, where that service is provided in connection with a service provided to a victim;

(c) how such providers and other persons who have functions relating to victims, or any aspect of the criminal justice system, should work together;

(d) appropriate training and qualifications for such providers.”

Government amendment 53.

Amendment 23, page 12, line 28, leave out from beginning to “must” and insert— “The service providers listed in subsection (1)”.

Amendment 24, in clause 22, page 18, line 26, at end insert—

“(d) is satisfied that the victim has been informed of their rights in relation to the request.”

Government amendments 54 to 56.

Amendment 25, page 20, line 23, at end insert—

“(d) including a full statement of the victim’s rights in relation to the request.”

Government amendment 57.

Amendment 145, page 22, line 21, at end insert—

“44F Requirements for training in respect of victim information requests

(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations require certain persons to receive training in respect of victim information requests.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must—

(a) require authorised persons to undertake training relating to the making of victim information requests, including on the meaning of “reasonable line of enquiry”,

(b) require certain employees of the Crown Prosecution Service to undertake training in respect of victim information requests, including training in the appropriate use of material obtained through such a request,

(c) require persons who provide services to victims and who may receive victim information requests to undertake training in relation to those requests,

(d) make provision about the content and delivery of the training required.

(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

Government amendments 58 to 99, 150 and 100.

Amendment 152, page 35, line 28, leave out Clause 36.

Government amendments 101 to 112.

Amendment 153, page 38, line 10, leave out Clause 37.

Government amendments 113 to 135, and 151.

Government motion to transfer Clause 51.

Government amendments 136 to 141.

There is a lot of pressure on speakers for this debate, and I would be grateful if people could be conscious of that, particularly on the Front Benches. I am unlikely to impose a time limit from the start, but it would be helpful if those on the Front Benches also gave some consideration to that.

[Edward Argar]

It is a privilege to open this debate and bring the Bill to the House for Report. This important Bill has been long called for by Members across the House, and in progressing it we are delivering on our manifesto. Its central mission, and indeed that of this Government, is to ensure that victims are not just spectators in a criminal justice system, but are treated as participants in it. Victims tell us that they want to be treated fairly, properly, and with dignity. They want clear, timely, accurate information, and the opportunity and help to make their voice heard. The Bill aims to do just that. It will amplify victims’ voices, ensure that they get the high-quality support they deserve, and make services more joined up better to support them. By putting the overarching principles of the victims code on a statutory footing, we will send a clear signal about the service that victims can expect. We will place a new duty on criminal justice agencies to promote awareness of the code so that victims are better informed. The Bill will also create an independent public advocate to speak up for those involved in major incidents such as the Grenfell or Hillsborough tragedies. It will deliver further safeguards to the parole system to protect the public.

Those are critical reforms, and in the spirit in which we conducted Committee and Second Reading, I take this opportunity to thank the Opposition and all Members for their constructive engagement. Although there may be areas on which we disagree, in some areas we were able to work constructively together. I particularly wish put on record my gratitude to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for her determination and engagement with a variety of amendments and issues, and for the depth of that engagement. Even where we were not able to agree, I am grateful for the tone and manner in which the debate has been conducted thus far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Kevin Brennan, the House can see how many Members are standing. The first few to be called should not be thinking about speaking for longer than six minutes. That limit is very likely to be reduced. I do not want to put the mockers on people intervening on one another—it is a debate—but please be mindful that it will eat into other people’s time.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name and will refer to others. The Opposition acknowledge the significance of the Bill, but even if the new Government amendments that the Minister has just outlined are adopted, we cannot escape the reality that the Bill nevertheless remains a skeletal framework that requires substantial enhancement. For too long—over a period of eight years and an octet of Justice Secretaries, which is an average of one per year—the promise of a comprehensive victims Bill has been dangled before us, yet still we are here trying to fill in its gaps. That provides little comfort for the victims of crime across the country.

Having picked up the Bill since it was considered in Committee, I wish to pay tribute to my colleagues who worked on it through that stage and did all the heavy lifting: in particular, my predecessors on the Front Bench, my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) and for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), who is in her place on the Back Benches. I also pay tribute to those who have engaged from the Opposition Back Benches, including my right hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and my hon. Friends the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). I also thank those who have tabled amendments for consideration today, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). That really shows the amount of interest in the Bill right across the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am introducing a six-minute limit from the very beginning.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Given the time available, I will concentrate on some specific aspects of this very important Bill.

I welcome the approach taken by the Minister and by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State, whom I am delighted to see on the Front Bench. Their constructive approach has improved the Bill considerably. I am particularly grateful to them for having taken on board, in a large number of aspects, the Justice Committee’s pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Victims Bill, as it then was, and our September 2022 report on imprisonment for public protection sentences. They have moved and I very much welcome that. I particularly appreciate the efforts the Lord Chancellor has made personally to engage with me and members of my Committee.

It is worth saying that IPP sentences remain a blot on the justice system—not my words, but those, dare I say it, of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. We want to try to remove that blot as much as possible. We need not rehearse the history. Whatever the intentions, the scheme did not have the desired effect. Indeed, it had the effect of creating real injustice to such an extent that this House, with cross-party support, abolished IPP sentences as long ago as 2012. What we did not do was remove the sentences retrospectively, so we now have a situation where there are still some 2,600 people in prison with indeterminate sentences that we as a House think are not appropriate and do not work. The noble Lord Blunkett, the author of the scheme, said in another place, “I got it wrong” and that we need to put it right. Against that honesty from the author of the scheme, I hope the House will reflect that we ought to grasp the nettle.

There have been major changes, and we should recognise the Government’s good intent, in relation to the licence situation. As the Minister observed, these go beyond our recommendations. I appreciate that, and it will make a major change for very many prisoners. Our Committee took evidence from more witnesses than for any other inquiry and published a report of some 62 pages about how the licence provisions were setting people up to fail. Because they had a lifelong sword of Damocles over their head, their rehabilitation was inhibited. Indeed, we heard compelling evidence about the negative impact on their mental health and ability to reintegrate into society.

Reducing the wait for a lifelong licence to be removed from 10 years to three, with the extra possibility after two further years, is a major reform, and I am grateful for it, particularly as there are more people who have been recalled to prison on their licences than there are those serving their original sentences. That is important but, with all due respect to the Government, I do not think it goes far enough, which is why I want to persist, if possible, with my new clause 1—and, in setting out the reasons for doing so, to address the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) from the Opposition Front Bench.

This is not about an immediate opening of the prison gates. I can understand people’s perfectly proper concerns about public protection, not least because many of those incarcerated on these sentences will have suffered real mental deterioration while in prison, as the indefinite nature of the sentence gives them no hope, and so will potentially be in a worse state, in terms of public protection, than when they went in. It would be unfair and unrealistic to pretend that new clause 1 would lead to the immediate release of every person in this situation. It is much more considered and modest than that, and would set up a process whereby an independent panel would advise on how best to embark on a resentencing exercise. That is an unusual thing, but the existence of the IPP sentences, without any retrospective change, is an unusual thing, too.

This was recommended to us as the logical option by the noble Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, a former Lord Chief Justice. Against the background of his eminence, I think the new clause warrants better consideration than we have yet had. If new clause 1 is not supported in this House tonight, I very much hope that the other House will look at it again and that the Government will continue to engage on it, because it would not lead to an immediate release of anybody. It would, though, set in train a process to enable everyone to be given a determinate sentence. That seems to me only fair and just, and I hope that we can look at that going forward. It cannot be just or accord with our sense of fairness that we should have people serving sentences in some cases 10 years in excess of their tariff, which is out of all proportion to the sentence that the judge at the time thought was appropriate for the index offence, as we call it.

There are other important parts of this Bill—which I am afraid I do not have time to touch on—that I also welcome and hope will be taken forward. In particular, I welcome the changes to parole, which are a much more balanced set of measures now than they were when the Bill was originally brought forward. I know that the Lord Chancellor and the Minister have acted personally to improve the Bill in that regard. I thank them for that, but I ask them still to reflect upon the position on IPP sentences.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the SNP Front Bencher.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Justice Committee, of which I recently became a member. I look forward to working with him.

As this Bill covers most of the devolved competences, I will confine my observations—you will be pleased to hear, Mr Deputy Speaker—to new clause 27, tabled by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), and explain why the Scottish National party will be supporting it. It should be noted that over 140 Members, of every political affiliation represented in the House, have signed it, which shows the strength of feeling. Since Sir Brian Langstaff considered the issue of compensation, many of us have had concerns about the Government’s sneaking out written statements at recesses or even before Prorogation, which does not give Members the opportunity to ask questions of the Government and the Cabinet Office on the Floor of this House. We have heard the phrase, “working at pace”. I referred a couple of weeks ago to moving at a snail’s pace, but I am starting to think that the tortoise, from the old story about the race with the hare, would already have lapped the Cabinet Office in dealing with this issue. That is a real frustration.

--- Later in debate ---

Justice delayed is justice denied. We need to remember, when considering this issue tonight, that four victims continue to die every four days. If that does not demand quick and immediate action from the Government, nothing will. However, if they believe for one second that delaying compensation will save money, they are completely and utterly wrong, because no money will be saved by delays. Court cases involving the survivors of this scandal will resume within three months of the findings of the inquiry being published, and legal costs will be added to what the Government will pay. Infected blood survivors should be considered not as entries on a spreadsheet, but as people whose lives have been torn apart—people who have been denied opportunities and whose livelihoods have been destroyed. That is why I and my hon. and right hon. Friends will support new clause 27 tonight.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Dame Maria Miller, who has six minutes.

[Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

Let me start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Minister for the constructive way in which he has engaged with the Bill since its Second Reading. In the interests of time, I will confine my comments to the two amendments that I have tabled, which have cross-party support and to which I think the Government are listening intently.

Amendment 1 would recognise as victims people who have been silenced by non-disclosure agreements. Those people are victims by virtue of the very fact they have been silenced, not knowing if they can talk to anyone without incurring legal consequences. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 already deems the use of NDAs to be unlawful when there are allegations of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct in publicly funded universities, and my amendment is intended to do the same in other spheres. Some individuals making such allegations are already treated by the Government as needing protection in law; my amendment would merely apply what is seen as essential legal protection in universities to everyone.

Unfortunately, despite two warning notices issued by the Solicitors Regulation Authority alerting solicitors to NDA misuse, one in three solicitors’ firms are still apparently unaware of the issues. I therefore think it is time to act through legislation to change a culture which, seven years on from #MeToo, continues to see it as acceptable for those in the legal and human resources professions to use devices that are so destructive to the individuals concerned. The United States, Canada and Ireland have already legislated in this regard. I listened carefully to the Minister’s opening remarks, and I definitely heard a door being left wide open to a change in the Bill. I hope we will see measures to outlaw this bad practice sooner rather than later, because the time to leave it to the regulators is past; that has not worked.

I thank Rape Crisis for helping me to draft new clause 19, which concerns access to counselling records. Rape and sexual abuse are traumatic crimes and survivors need to gain access to therapy, but frontline services are reporting that survivors are being deterred from accessing support because records are routinely requested by the police and trawled through, often unnecessarily. A recent review showed that nearly a third of 342 requests for survivors’ records contained requests for counselling records, and nearly a third of those requests related to victims’ reliability or credibility rather than aiming to establish the facts of the incident involved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for his intervention. I was going to come to his particular amendment and say how much I agreed with him. It speaks to the work that we have both undertaken in Government on the victims code and on making sure that the structures can provide practical delivery and support for victims. These amendments speak to that, and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister about how this approach will be taken further and how it can be strengthened.

I welcome new clause 43, tabled by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), with whom I have had the privilege of discussing her concerns. She has been a strong champion of this cause and I pay tribute to her and in particular to the families she has worked with and chosen to represent on this issue. Our hearts break for parents who want to register the death of a loved one but have been prevented from doing so because coroners’ inquiries and other processes have been taking place. We need to find ways to address this, and I would press the Government to look at this with a degree of conviction and also of pure compassion for those family members so that we can find a way to work through this.

I shall conclude in the interests of time. We could say much more about the numerous new clauses and amendments, but I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will listen to our concerns and comments so that we can work collectively to provide support for victims through the new clauses and Government amendments. Victims of crime have waited a long time for this legislation and it is important that we do everything to stand by them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will now go to a five-minute limit.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I wish to speak in respect of Government new clause 37. I welcome the fact that the Government have finally changed their mind, despite telling us for so long that Jade’s law could not be done. I would like to pay tribute to Jade’s parents, Karen Robinson and Paul Ward, to their friend Edwin Duggan and to Jade’s siblings for their tireless campaigning and the bravery and tenacity they have shown in what is an incredibly tough situation. On 26 August 2021, Jade, aged just 27, was brutally killed by her estranged husband Russell Marsh. On 12 April last year, Marsh was given a life sentence with a minimum of 25 years in prison. Despite these distressing circumstances, Jade’s family was horrified to learn that they face the prospect of continued contact with the man who murdered their daughter. Despite his appalling actions, Russell Marsh, who shared four children with Jade, still retains parental responsibility under law.

The law as it stands allows a parent convicted of the murder of the other parent the power on issues such as where the children go to school and whether they have passports, holidays abroad and medical treatment. These matters often end up in the family court. We can only imagine how traumatic this must be for the families going through this. After having already suffered the unimaginable pain of losing their daughter in the way Jade’s family have, the current process compels them to face their daughter’s killer and acts as a constant reminder of their darkest moments. In cases where the convicted parent showed long-running obsessive and controlling behaviour prior to their imprisonment, the current process effectively grants them the means to continue the control and coercion of the victim’s family in the same way that they did with the victim. It can be extremely traumatic for children to know that the person who killed their mother knows so much about their lives, particularly in cases where the children witnessed the murder. With the introduction of Jade’s law, no longer will perpetrators with a history of abusive behaviour be able to force controlling and psychological abuse upon the victim’s family from inside their prison cell.

That is why Jade’s family and friends have been campaigning to automatically suspend the parental responsibility of a parent found guilty of murdering their child’s other parent. The onus is currently on the family to prove why Marsh’s parental responsibility should be revoked or restricted, whereas Jade’s law will mean that parental responsibility will be automatically suspended in such circumstances, thereby shifting the onus, with the substantial review process that the Government outline in their amendment, to ensure that the suspension of parental responsibility is in the child’s best interests.

Last year, Edwin Duggan started a petition to put Jade’s law on the agenda, collecting more than 130,000 signatures. Since then, parliamentary colleagues and I have pushed the Government to make Jade’s law a reality. We secured a Westminster Hall debate when the petition surpassed 100,000 signatures, and I thank the Minister, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), for engaging with us. I thank Labour colleagues who helped with the campaign, including my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips).

Unfortunately, as I understand it, the Government amendment does not include provision to apply Jade’s law retrospectively, as there will be a duty on the Crown court to make a prohibited steps order only when sentencing an offender. Will the Government look at further steps to ensure that people, like Marsh, who have already been convicted of murder within the specifications of Jade’s law are made subject to it? This campaign sprang out of the injuries and injustices faced by Jade’s family, and it is only right that Jade’s law puts it right for them and for other families.

I conclude by reading a statement issued by Jade’s parents after their daughter’s killer was sentenced:

“Jade was the sunshine in our lives, she was the glue that held us all together. She was also a devoted mum who would do anything for her children, a much-loved friend, daughter, sister, aunty, niece and granddaughter. Jade’s whole life was ahead of her, and her death has left a void in all our lives.”

Sadly, it is too late for Jade. But her children, and others in the same situation, still have their whole lives ahead of them. We owe it to them to ensure that the system is on the side of victims. I am pleased that the Government have finally come to terms with the injustice of the current process.

Violence Reduction, Policing and Criminal Justice

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Commons Chamber

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

Every day since 7 October, news from Gaza and Israel becomes yet more painful to watch, even for those of us who can choose to look away. While the horrific attack on Israeli citizens by Hamas was appalling, the response by Israel’s military is devastating the lives of ordinary people in Gaza. My party has heard the testimony of several Welsh-Palestinian families who have lost relatives in Gaza. Aymen Aladham, an IT consultant in Swansea, has told us how in three separate air strikes in Gaza last month he lost 18 members of his family. The pain and anguish people such as Aymen must be experiencing now is beyond imagining.

Those who survive must seek shelter in a diminishing number of places. Half of all Gaza’s homes are damaged or destroyed. Universities and schools are under frequent attack. We are witnessing in real time the complete collapse of vital infrastructure to support human life, include power lines and water desalination plants. One doctor describes how hospitals in Gaza are now practising medieval-style medicine, with premature babies huddled together to keep warm because their incubators no longer work, and doctors operating on patients without electricity or anaesthetic. In what perversion of international law can anyone justify turning a hospital into a battlefield? That must end. The UN Secretary General has said that

“in the name of humanity”

there needs to be a ceasefire now.

It is clear that humanitarian pauses alone are not enough. First, the facts on the ground render them invalid. The UN agency for Palestine has said that communications in Gaza will start to fail as of tomorrow when telecommunications companies run out of fuel to operate their data centres and major connection sites. Without reliable communications, people will not know when the current four-hour pauses in the bombing begin, or indeed when they can begin to undertake the perilous journey across Gaza without access to fuel.

Secondly, a pause as opposed to a ceasefire presumes and makes accommodation for the resumption of violence, which means more children dying, more homes destroyed, and more lives ruined. A pause is a tacit endorsement of the position that more bombs and bullets are the answer to this crisis. Rather, we should be reaching for a political solution using diplomacy and dialogue. That can happen only with a full and immediate ceasefire. Not only would this stop needless deaths of Palestinians, but it would of course allow for the safe release of the hostages captured by Hamas.

Last week, Plaid Cymru tabled a motion in the Senedd calling for an immediate ceasefire. I am pleased to say that the motion passed with 11 Labour MSs and one Liberal Democrat MS joining our calls for peace. Some people here may doubt the strength of the Senedd’s call for a ceasefire but, together, nation after nation can make a powerful statement for peace, and Westminster now has the opportunity to join Wales. We can show the innocent civilians in Gaza and the families of Israeli hostages who are desperate for their safe return that we stand with them. We can tell the world that antisemitism is intolerable and that Islamophobia is intolerable. These are the voices that need to be heard when we use the ability of this place, which is great, to amplify a call. It is in that spirit of unity and peace that I urge colleagues from across the House to support the amendment today.

Finally, to those who say that this amendment has been tabled for political reasons, I say that they are doing that thing that belittles us in the eyes of many of our constituents: we are talking about party political interests. We all have constituents who believe firmly that a ceasefire is the only and the right way forward. It is our duty in this place to enable their voice to be heard, and I shall be supporting amendment (h).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I apologise, but in order to get the last seven Members in, we will have to drop the time limit to four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I associate myself completely with the remarks of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne). I had not originally intended to speak in this debate, but given the appalling slaughter and suffering in the middle east and the ongoing tragedy in Gaza, I have to do so. As the Member of Parliament who brought forward the motion to recognise the state of Palestine, which was approved in the House on 13 October 2014, I am often a target for those who do not believe in peace or a two-state solution.

In the context of the then Home Secretary’s sowing of division and hate, it is interesting that hon. Members have referred to Remembrance Sunday, when I was moved and overwhelmed by the words, some of which I would like to share, of the Roman Catholic priest Father Marc Lyden-Smith. He said that although Remembrance Sunday is a time when people wear red poppies—a well-established tradition—he had for the first time seen someone wearing both a red and a white poppy. When he asked why, their reply was, “Red is for remembrance and white is for peace.” I found that very thought-provoking. Our hope in remembrance is grounded in peace, a peace that so many have given their lives for. We must remember that peace looks forward to what we are trying to build: justice, harmony, wellbeing and the opportunity for all to flourish.

The most powerful part of Father Lyden-Smith’s sermon was towards the end, when he reminded us that

“Jesus said: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’. He did not say: ‘Blessed are those who won the war, those who had sufficient resources and advanced weaponry to crush their enemies’. He said: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers’—those who work to build a world of peace. We can all be peacemakers.”

We can all work towards bringing about peace internationally. We should let today be a wake-up call for us all, on both sides of the House, to work for peace and, when we pray every morning before the session starts, to work for reconciliation, understanding and harmony. That begins in this House, in our communities, in our homes, in our families, in our friendship groups and especially in our hearts.

Today, I will vote for a ceasefire. I will vote for peace. I will vote for a state of Israel and a state of Palestine to live side by side in peaceful coexistence. The horrors, death and destruction that we witness daily on our TV screens are a breeding ground for hate; but if we are ever to secure peace, and a lasting peace, we cannot be driven by hate. I vote for a ceasefire and I call on all hon. Members, but particularly the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, to use their platforms and positions of authority not only to secure humanitarian aid amid the horrors we see in Gaza and have witnessed in Israel, but to work every day towards a lasting peace and the safety and the security that all people in Israel and Palestine deserve.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will call the Front Benchers for the wind-ups no later than 6.40 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you will know, this has been an extraordinarily difficult day for many Members in this House, but for me this is the most difficult day I have had to endure in my parliamentary career. We are now over a month on from the atrocious attacks by Hamas on 7 October, and we were all right to utterly condemn those attacks. But ahead of the votes that we are going to take in a moment, I wanted to let the House know that today I lost my first family member. The reason why this is important is that I have spoken about how they are in a church in Gaza City, and they did not, I am afraid, die from a bomb; instead they died perhaps from lack of food, perhaps from dehydration. Their health deteriorated in the last week, and they could not get to the hospital they needed.

Today I wanted to vote for peace. I wanted to vote for a two-state solution, because that is the only way that these horrors will never be seen again. I wanted to vote for getting Hamas out of Gaza, and for those reasons I wanted to vote for an immediate bilateral ceasefire, so that families like mine, but also families in Israel, do not have to endure this anymore. I urge colleagues from all sides to bear in mind that this is more than just party politics right now. I have been so disappointed by language I have heard today, and the Prime Minister earlier suggesting that we were not on the side of Israel—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Deepest condolences from the House, but this is clearly not a matter for the Chair. We will let the comments that you have made stand. Thank you—[Interruption.] No, please, resume your seat. This is not a matter for the Chair—[Interruption.] No, please resume your seat. We have expressed our deepest condolences, but this is not a matter for the Chair, and therefore not a legitimate point of order during this debate.

It is time for the Front Bench contributions. I call Mr David Lammy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I give way to my right hon. Friend.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I would like to advise David Lammy that I will be calling Chris Philp at 6.51 pm.

[Margaret Beckett]

With apologies, may I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who raised the question of what the difference is between use of the word “ceasefire” and an end to violence, that I fear there is a most unfortunate difference, and that is why I never use the word “ceasefire” and will not be voting for a motion that includes it? That is because, tragically, to some people, calling for a ceasefire means that Israel should stop fighting but not that anybody else should—and that is not a point of view that I could support. I wholeheartedly support the excellent amendment (r) tabled by Labour Front Benchers.

Prison Capacity

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

As always, my hon. Friend makes a robust point. It is not right that the British people, having suffered the crime in the first place, should then have to pay for the privilege of locking people up for longer at a cost of £47,000 a year. We will send them back. The only people who will try to block it—who will try to block rapists, murderers and grievous bodily harmers—will be the Labour party. And we know that because they have tried to do so already.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Last but not least, I call James Sunderland.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

May I thank the Lord Chancellor for his pragmatic statement? I also thank the prisons Minister for his engagement over the weekend. I really welcome progress with IPP sentencing, on which I have a clear constituency interest, but what I really want to ask about is custodial sentences of less than 12 months being suspended. Is there a presumption that those needing to pay a debt to the community will do so in the very communities in which they offend?

[Alex Chalk]

What an excellent point to end on. It is critical that where a community is offended against, the offenders make that community whole—in other words, that they do the work, whether it is scrubbing graffiti, clearing wasteland or planting trees, in the community to try to atone for their guilt and to repair some of the damage they have done. I am delighted that, increasingly, police and crime commissioners are working together with local probation services to identify the stuff that needs doing in their community so that when defendants go straight, they also look after the community that they have wronged so badly in the first place.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement and for answering questions for just a minute short of one hour and 20 minutes.

Before we move on to the next statement on transport, may I make an announcement? Wendy Morton is pulling the debate on knife crime this evening. We have another two statements to go, which could easily take us to 8.30 or 9 o’clock. I think she has sensibly made the decision that we should have that debate at another time, and I hope that that can be facilitated as soon as possible.

His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

I am sorry, but I think that I might be starting to stretch Mr Deputy Speaker’s patience. I will be happy to follow up with the hon. Gentleman separately if he would like to do so as an alternative.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North talked, quite rightly, about the impact on families. That works in both directions—the effect on the children and what can be an adverse childhood experience, and the effect on the prisoner. Then there is the importance of having family time and family support, and the difference that that can make on release. I pay tribute to Lord Farmer for the work that he has done in that area. We have done some work on improving the maintenance of family ties, but I bring here today the good news that we are working on some data-linking in order to understand the extent and nature of these issues more closely.

We know overall that the efforts of our dedicated staff are working. The proportion of prison leavers in employment six months after release has more than doubled in the two years to March 2023, from 14% to more than 30%. Since 2010, the overall reoffending rate has decreased from 31.6% to 24.4%. As of February 2023, our transitional accommodation service had supported more than 5,000 prison leavers who would otherwise have been homeless across the initial five regions. Of course, there is still a huge amount more to do, but it is clear that we are making significant and important progress. The Government will always value and invest in His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service. Our prisons must be and will be a safe place in which to work, where staff are provided with the right support, the training and the tools to empower them to do their jobs. I look forward to a continued dialogue on this matter with the Committee and others beyond this debate and the report.

In closing, let me repeat my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst for securing the debate, and to all who have contributed today. I commend the estimates to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The final brief word goes to Sir Robert Neill.

Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 3rd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Simon Fell]

With the leave of the House, I am incredibly grateful to friends—hon. Members on both sides of the House—for their support and valued contributions on the issue. Many have contributed on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading, so I thank them all for the insight and passion that they brought to the debates. As constituency MPs, we all know people who have been affected by the issue, as has come out time and again.

I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), who passed responsibility for the Bill to me on his elevation to the Whips Office. He also kindly led the Committee stage ably and with real insight. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) has been a supporter of the cause in and out of office and I am grateful for his presence today—his passion for the subject is clear.

My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) is similarly passionate and experienced on the issue. In fact, she may be the only MP—this may be a parliamentary first—to have lobbied to be on a Bill Committee. I am incredibly grateful for that. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made a thoughtful speech about the importance of giving people on release access to employment. His point was well made and, I hope, well heard.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke powerfully about the challenges offenders face on release and the injustice of people being given the opportunity to stand on their own two feet again but not being able to take that opportunity because structural barriers are in their way. I think one of the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who I look down on from here, is so dry is the amount of hot air that emanates from him. [Laughter.] However, he made some serious points about why the Bill will make a difference on reoffending, which is what we all want.

Turning to those on the Opposition Benches, I greatly appreciate the thoughtful and contributory approach of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and hope that when the Bill reaches the Lords it will be considered in a similar way. I should also thank the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who has been incredibly supportive through this process. His presence at the Dispatch Box is a real comfort. I know he is passionate not just about this part of dealing with the challenges faced by those being released, but about trying to get to the bottom of and improving the wider structural issues which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East mentioned. I also thank his incredible team at the Ministry—not least Robyn, who has been a huge support to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington—and the Clerks in the Public Bill Office, whose guidance has been a great help.

I also thank my constituents who have spoken to me about this issue, as well as charities—not least Sam Julius and the team at Nacro who have campaigned so much on this issue—chaplains, faith groups, and third sector organisations including Switchback, the Community Chaplain Association, Release Mates and the Well Communities in Barrow, all of which have supplied case studies, and, more importantly, work day in, day out with offenders to get them on their feet following release against incredibly difficult odds. I hope the passing of this Bill will make those odds just a little bit better.

Finally, I thank my good friend Lord Bird, who has agreed to shepherd this Bill through the other place if—or when—it passes here today. He is the founder of The Big Issue and a passionate supporter and campaigner for social justice, and he knows more than most why this issue matters. The Bill is in good hands.

This small Bill will, I hope, make a very big difference. I thank Members from across the House for their support.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

May I say that it is a particular privilege for me to be in the Chair to hear the Third Reading passed as a young Simon Fell was formerly a researcher of mine.

Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 2nd December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Eastwood]

Absolutely. These organisations are fully prepared to help people to reintegrate into society. Finally on Timpson, I have talked to people who work in its high street shops, and they do great work in this area. The only thing that they do not train offenders in is key cutting—for obvious reasons.

We have mentioned that Fridays are busy days in prison, which often results in delayed release. There is a higher volume of prison leavers, and those going to court are prioritised over those due for release, leading to later releases. There is less time to contact support services, as has been mentioned. That can lead to homelessness, which has a special impact on women and young people. Women are held, on average, 63 miles from home, but many are held 100 miles away or more. Eleven per cent. of children in custody are held over 100 miles from home, and 35% are held more than 50 miles away.

Services in the community may offer reduced services on Fridays, and reduced or no services over the weekend. That means that the window for prison leavers to obtain support from those services is incredibly limited on a Friday. Delays can mean that those people cannot access the support they need. That obviously leads to an increased risk of reoffending and sets them up to fail. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West alluded to, everyone should be given a second chance. We do not want people to fail and go back into the prison system. The high number of releases on Fridays puts unnecessary pressure on services, especially on bank holidays, which we have not mentioned. If someone has a Friday release and the Monday—or, on certain special occasions, Tuesday—is a bank holiday, the prisoner is left to their own devices and at risk. That needs to be taken into account in this Bill.

In conclusion, we need to support the Bill to help those who genuinely want to re-engage with society, to enable them to access the support available and to reduce the risk of reoffending due to lack of support and, therefore, reduce pressures on criminal justice services, so that they can adequately support more people. Finally, I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness on presenting this Bill. He has my full support.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The shadow Minister has indicated that she would like to speak next, and I am more than happy to comply with her wishes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I agree. Indeed, I started off by saying that we support the Bill. Not only do we support it today, but we have been supporting it since last year, when we tabled an amendment on this.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Has the shadow Minister completed her speech?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

indicated assent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

In which case, I call Mr Baynes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Fell]

With the leave of the House, I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to this debate and supported the passage of this Bill. In particular, I recognise the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who spoke with righteous fury about youth offenders and the many injustices they face in the system. His passion is well felt. My hon. Friends the Members for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood), for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for Southend West (Anna Firth) spoke about the power of a criminal justice system that works to turn people’s lives around. That is absolutely the objective we should be aiming for. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury for the evocative term “Muscle Pit”, which is unfortunately stuck in my head for the rest of the day.

The hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) on the Opposition Front Bench spoke gracefully about why these measures matter, and I thank her and her party for their support. My hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), for Leigh (James Grundy) and for Gedling (Tom Randall) showed compassion and fairness in what they said; their contributions in this place are always marked by those qualities. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) could, I am sure, have spoken for much longer on this subject. Her passion is heartfelt and her experience is long, and what she brings to this area makes her a credit to the House.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt)—there he is, right behind me—spoke with passion about tackling homelessness. He is absolutely right, and I hope these measures will go some way to achieving those ends. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his kind and thoughtful words at the Dispatch Box, and thank him and his team at the Ministry of Justice for their graciousness in affording me time to learn about the subject, to kick around ideas with them and to talk about the issues that the Bill seeks to tackle. Their passion to improve the system is heartfelt and real, and it burns very bright indeed.

I owe a debt of thanks to the hon. Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), who passed this Bill on to me. Truly, he is the Pete Best to my Ringo, but I am incredibly grateful to him. The Bill will make a real difference, and I am grateful to everyone who has contributed and spoken on it, and for the support from both sides of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Congratulations, Mr Fell, on your achievement.

Anonymity of Suspects Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Friday 28th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The hon. Gentleman invites me to respond. I simply point out that I made it clear when speaking in favour of my Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (Amendment) Bill that I was talking about increasing the access from 8% of English land to 30%. I am sure that there will be plenty of space for all that wonderful nature to flourish, as it should.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Pass on.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Yes, we must pass on to the important subject of the anonymity of suspects. My interest in this subject arose because I attended a meeting of a relatively new organisation called Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform at about the time that I was preparing the private Members’ Bills that I might put forward for this Session. I was impressed by what was said at that gathering because, essentially, it is a campaign by people who have been falsely accused and whose lives have been completely wrecked as a consequence.

I will read what Sir Cliff Richard said to the meeting. As hon. Members will recall, he is Britain’s all-time biggest selling male artist with, I think, 22 million singles sold. He said:

“I am pleased to support the new pressure group Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform... Being falsely accused myself and having that exposed in the media was the worst thing that has happened to me in my entire life. Even though untrue, the stigma is almost impossible to eradicate. Hence the importance of FAIR’s campaign to change the law to provide for anonymity before charge in sexual allegations and hence my continued work with FAIR in the future. Had this proposed change in the law been enacted when the police decided to raid my apartment following the allegations of a fantasist, the BBC would not have been able to film this event, name me, (even though the South Yorkshire Police had decided not to) and so plunge my life and those close to me into fear and misery.”

Lawfare and Investigative Journalism

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I thank him for informing the Table Office in advance of the case he intends to raise in his debate, which, I understand, is not sub judice. However, I remind all Members to be mindful of the sub judice resolution and to be careful to avoid raising any issues that could prejudice any future legal proceedings or those currently before the courts.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

On 20 January, a number of us MPs initiated a debate on the use of lawfare by oligarchs and undemocratic states that seek to suppress free speech and scrutiny of their activity. The Ministry of Justice took up the question and has promised new legislation, and I am glad to see the new Minister about to lose his departmental virginity in this debate—it will not hurt; I will be gentle.

Today, I will speak about another outrageous case of lawfare that centres around the former Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev. He was the autocratic ruler of Kazakhstan for three decades. His time in office was characterised by repression, torture and other human rights abuses. He was ousted from power in 2019, but remains a significant influence in the country. He was more or less able to anoint his successor as president, and met Vladimir Putin even after leaving office.

During his 29-year rule, Nazarbayev won elections with claimed results of more than 90% of votes cast, and the capital city was even renamed after him in 2019. The term “rigged dictatorship” comes to mind. As long ago as 1999, the western press aired concerns about assets held by Nazarbayev and his associates. In that year, The New Yorker reported that Swiss officials had found a bank account worth $85 million that was intended for the Kazakh Treasury, but was in fact held by Nazarbayev—$85 million, which turns out to be small change. Three years later, Nazarbayev’s critics in Kazakhstan accused him of hiding $1 billion in oil revenue in offshore accounts.

Now, the Nazarbayev Fund Private Fund, an ostensibly charitable organisation, and a related firm, Jusan Technologies Ltd, have between them started a lawfare campaign against four news bodies, including three based in Britain, which are the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, The Daily Telegraph and openDemocracy. The supposed provocation for that action was the news bodies’ reports on Nazarbayev and his associates, which revealed several ambiguities and a lack of transparency around his charitable foundations.

First, the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, a non-profit investigative news platform, published an investigation into charitable foundations set up during Nazarbayev’s rule. It revealed that companies connected to those charitable foundations and to his relatives had received bail-out and loan funding from his Government.

One such case involves the St Regis Astana, which is a hotel in the Kazakh capital that opened in 2017. The company that owns the hotel, the Turion Investment Group, has included among its shareholders Nazarbayev’s daughter and son in law. The hotel project was built with the help of a loan of $85 million from a state-owned development bank, which even the current President Tokayev conceded has become

“the personal bank of a select group of people representing financial, industrial, and construction groups.”

Let us remember that that is supposed to be a state bank.

In the early 2000s, Nazarbayev’s Presidential Affairs Department joined two Kazakh firms in developing a resort on the Turkish coast where Nazarbayev reportedly spends his own holidays. One of the private firms involved was owned by three businessmen who had previously handed cash to Nazarbayev’s university fund. In another instance, two of Nazarbayev’s foundations owned a landscaping business that received $6.5 million in Government contracts between 2012 and 2018.

After those revelations, openDemocracy covered the story and asked the simple question of whether an autocrat’s riches were being allowed into this country without due scrutiny. It was talking about Jusan Technologies, a firm that is incorporated in the United Kingdom and has nearly $8 billion in gross assets, yet had only one member of staff in the UK in 2020.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Daily Telegraph then collaborated to investigate Jusan Technologies. It appears that its registered office at the time was a brass-plate address shared with hundreds of other firms. Its assets have been held in several sectors, including banking, telecoms and retail, and in several countries, from Luxembourg and the UK to Kazakhstan itself. Until recently, it was controlled by three organisations, including the Nazarbayev fund via an intermediary organisation.

The Nazarbayev fund is allegedly run for the benefit of educational institutions in Kazakhstan and stipulates in its charter that Nazarbayev cannot benefit personally from the fund. Yet he remains the chairman of its executive body and has the power to change its rules. It is not clear why a fund ostensibly for education and the benefit of the Kazakh population needs assets in banking or retail.

The fund is also connected to senior Kazakh politicians. Nazarbayev’s former Deputy Prime Minister, Yerbol Orynbayev, was a director of Jusan Tech and owned 4.6% of the company. Moreover, the investigation shows that the First Heartland Jusan Bank, the largest asset owned by Jusan Technologies, has received more than $2 billion in bail-outs from the Kazakh Government. This is a company that has paid out $430 million in shareholder dividends in recent years. An oligarch married to one of Nazarbayev’s relatives owns 20% of the bank. It appears to be steeped in Nazarbayev’s influence.

While Jusan Technologies itself has now changed its ownership structure—it did so shortly before the reports were first published—the new structure is, if anything, even more opaque. The new owner is a non-profit organisation based in Nevada, a jurisdiction the secrecy laws of which have been criticised in the past, including in respect of the Pandora papers. That non-profit is owned by another non-profit, whose president is the chief executive of the Nazarbayev fund as well as Nazarbayev’s former Education Minister.

Frankly, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you are confused by this extraordinary cat’s cradle of different and interlocking organisations, you would not be alone. It is designed to be confusing and designed to be difficult to understand and opaque. Creating organisations of this level of opacity and complexity is not easy, but it is always done for a reason. In this case, the most likely reason is to conceal the extent of Nazarbayev’s control of this web of assets and wealth.

To come back to the point about lawfare, all the news outlets did was ask legitimate questions and try to shine a light on some apparent irregularities and the opaque nature of Nazarbayev’s foundations. They did not even make any allegations of impropriety or money laundering in the articles for which they are being attacked, yet they are now facing potential legal censure. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism and The Daily Telegraph alone have received three threatening legal letters in four months telling them to retract their claims and apologise, and a case has now been filed in the High Court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on securing this debate and on making a fantastic speech. He has been a passionate and effective campaigner on the growing problem of egregious strategic lawsuits against public participation—SLAPPs—and has argued, along with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), for urgent action to stop these abuses.

I want to raise the case of Dmitry Leus, a UK resident of Russian-Turkmen origin, who is threatening libel action against Chatham House because of his inclusion in its excellent report, “The UK’s Kleptocracy Problem.” Leus was a Russian banker, convicted of money laundering in Russia in 2004, who arrived in the UK on a Cypriot passport. He has donated to the Conservative party and chaired his local Conservative association. He tried to donate £500,000 to the foundation of the then Prince Charles, but the donation was spurned when the charity learnt of his conviction. In July my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) said in this House that Leus is “absolutely dependent” on the Russian security services.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. This is an intervention so it will have to brief.

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

Yes, I will be very brief.

Since coming to Britain, Leus has tried to make us believe that his conviction was overturned, but this is untrue: it was struck off his records so that he could engage in business. After seven months of increasing demands, and due to the costs of defending the case—estimated at some £500,000 before trial—Chatham House has been forced to agree to his meritless claim and excise the report of all mentions of Mr Leus.

Does the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) agree that this case appears to be yet another example of a powerful, wealthy Russian abusing the British legal system through lawfare to muzzle important research in the public interest?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I was extraordinarily generous.

[Mr Davis]

I thank the right hon. Lady for drawing the attention of the House to that case. I do not know the substance of it, but the fact is that these cases are best resolved transparently and in public, with fearless reporting, not with repression of free speech. Oligarchs will often bring these claims as they know their opponents will, as in this case, have to back down either through the threat of bankruptcy or because they become bankrupt as a result of the operation, and it is a good example of this problem.

That is why the Government earlier this year found that some journalists

“no longer publish information on certain individuals or topics—such as exposing serious wrong-doing or corruption—because of potential legal costs.”

That also applies to some newspapers and some organisations whose job it is to expose this sort of information.

With every letter and every stage of legal action, organisations like the Bureau of Investigative Journalism must divert resources and attention away from public interest reporting and towards defending themselves against bogus or trivial claims. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has a small team, with just a few dozen staff. To defend itself, it has been forced to divert much of its reporting team and senior management, as well as significant financial resources, to dealing with these legal threats.

This kind of lawfare is a potentially existential threat to investigative journalism, and that is precisely what the claimants in these cases intend. These proceedings are not initiated to prove the organisations wrong—the oligarchs know that the organisations are right—but rather to financially and psychologically exhaust them into retraction. What Nazarbayev wants is to import into the UK the contempt for free speech shown in Kazakhstan during his three-decade rule. As the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) pointed out in his intervention, Nazarbayev is bringing to Britain what he imposed on Kazakhstan and we cannot allow that. This should offend the sensibilities of anyone who values a fair and equal justice system, as well as those who rightly appreciate the value of public interest reporting.

It is of some reassurance that the Government intend to reform the law around SLAPPs, but we must move more quickly. I say that directly to the Minister, who is an old friend of mine over the years; I am very pleased he is in his place and in the Department as he will do a fantastic job, but I say to him that we must move more quickly. There is no time to waste when even now we have oligarchs using SLAPPs to curb free speech and evade justice in our country. One of our ex-colleagues, Charlotte Leslie, is facing such a case at the moment. We as Members of Parliament have parliamentary privilege and so can speak without the threat of libel action, but that privilege brings with it a duty to speak up for those who cannot speak for fear of punishment by the likes of Nazarbayev.

In the wake of the war in Ukraine, the Government swiftly introduced sanctions on those with links to the Russian regime, making it harder for them to use our country as a money-laundering venue. It is high time that we applied that same urgency and purpose to addressing the damage that oligarchs are doing to our justice system and our free-speech values. For too long, we have facilitated oligarchs’ dirty money and corruption in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

The hon. Member is exactly right. There are a variety of other mechanisms that we could use. We could give judges the right to strike down egregious cases early. We could even look at the prospect of providing legal aid for journalists pursuing bona fide public interest issues. There are a variety of issues, and we should address all of them. This country is the global home of justice. Our justice system is admired around the world, but, if we are not careful, it will be corrupted, undermined, manipulated and abused by SLAPPS and people using SLAPPs.

I ask the Department and the Minister to take action, or to tell us that they will take action. Brits are rightly proud of how our legal system is a model for the world. If we are to ensure that that remains the case, we must act, and act soon.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I welcome the Minister to his new position.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 28th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Second Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, Part 3 (Public Order), HC 331/HL 23; Fifth Special Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, Part 3 (Public Order): Government Response to the Committee’s Second Report, HC 724; Fourth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Part 4): The criminalisation of unauthorised encampments, HC 478/HL 37; Sixth Special Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, Part 4 (Unauthorised Encampments): Government Response to the Committee’s Fourth Report, HC 765; Sixth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Parts 7 and 8): Sentencing and Remand of Children and Young People, HC 451/HL 73; Eighth Special Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Parts 7 and 8): Sentencing and Remand of Children and Young People: Government Response to the Committee’s Sixth Report, HC 983; Letter to Baroness Williams of Trafford regarding the Draft Statutory Guidance for Police on Unauthorised Encampments and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, 17 November 2021; Letter from Baroness Williams of Trafford relating to Part 4 (Unauthorised Encampments) of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, 13 January 2022.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged in Lords amendments 59 and 60. If Lords amendments 59 and 60 are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Clause 7

Duties to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 2.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 70, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 72, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 114 to 116, Government motions to disagree, and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 141, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 142, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 3 to 57, 59, 60, 108 to 113, 117, 147, 153 and 154.

[Kit Malthouse]

I propose first to talk about some of the key changes made to the Bill in the other place as a result of amendments brought forward by the Government, then to turn to the Lords amendments with which, sadly, the Government disagree for various reasons.

The Bill as passed by this House already included a number of significant measures to tackle violence against women and girls, and we have added to them during the Bill’s passage in the Lords. Lords amendments 13 to 15 make it clear in the Bill that domestic abuse and sexual violence are included within the meaning of the term “violence” for the purposes of the serious violence duty. It was always our wish that the serious violence duty should be all-encompassing, but following representations by Baroness Burton and others who were concerned to emphasise its importance, we are happy to agree to this being included in the Bill. The accompanying statutory guidance, which will be subject to public consultation, will make it clear that local areas, in drawing up their strategies to prevent and reduce serious violence, can and should include measures to tackle domestic abuse and sexual violence based on their local assessments.

With regard to Lords amendments 34 to 55, on Report in this House the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), reiterated the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the provisions of the Bill relating to the extraction of information from electronic devices are accompanied by strong privacy safeguards. These Lords amendments deliver on that commitment. Among other things, they add a new clause setting out the conditions that must be met in order for a device user to be treated as giving agreement to the extraction of information. These changes will increase victim confidence and ensure that the individual’s right to privacy is respected and placed at the centre of all investigations.

Lords amendment 56 will create new offences to criminalise recording images of, or operating equipment to observe, a person at a time when they are breastfeeding, without the person’s consent or reasonable belief that they consent. On Report, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) made a powerful case for introducing such offences. Although at that time we made it clear that the Law Commission is currently reviewing the law in this area, we do believe that this amendment will ensure that parents are protected from non-consensual photography and can feel safe to breastfeed in public, ahead of the publication of the Law Commission report later this year.

Another compelling argument was made on Report last July by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who is sadly not in his place, to address concerns that the time limit for bringing prosecutions for common assault or battery involving domestic abuse is unfairly short. Currently a prosecution for common assault or battery must be brought within six months of an offence occurring. However, victims of domestic abuse may often, understandably, take some time to report an offence, leaving the police and the Crown Prosecution Service with little time to conduct an investigation and prosecute the offender. In some instances, the time limit has expired before the victim even approaches the police. To address this issue, Lords amendment 57 will extend the time limit for commencing a prosecution for common assault or battery involving domestic abuse so that the six months runs not from the date when the offence occurred but from when it is formally reported to the police through either a witness statement or a video recording made with a view to use as evidence. A prosecution must be commenced within an overall limit of two years of the offence. This amendment will make a real difference to victims of domestic abuse and stop perpetrators hiding behind an unfair limitation on victims’ ability to seek justice.

Lords amendments 59 and 60 will ensure that the police’s processing of personal data in non-crime hate incident records is made subject to a code of practice issued by the Home Secretary. The amendments will address concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), also sadly not in his place, in this House and by Lord Moylan and others in the other place by bringing parliamentary oversight to this process. The College of Policing is currently responsible for producing non-statutory hate crime operational guidance. The Government’s statutory code of practice, once in effect, will replace the relevant section of this guidance on non-crime hate incidents. The college’s guidance will remain in place until the new code enters into effect. When drafting the code, the Government will work closely with policing partners, including the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, to make sure that it will respect the operational importance of recording non-crime hate incidents to help to keep vulnerable people and communities safe while balancing the need to protect freedom of expression.

Let me turn to the Lords amendments that the Government cannot support—at least, not in their current form. Lords amendment 70 would require the Secretary of State to establish a review of the prevalence of, and the response of the criminal justice system to, the offence of administering a substance with intent under section 61 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003—commonly known as spiking. The Government share widespread concern about the offence that has prompted this amendment, whether spiking of drinks or spiking by needles, and we are taking the issue extremely seriously. I particularly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for bringing forward his recent ten-minute rule Bill on this issue. Everyone should be able to enjoy a night out without fearing that they will be a victim of this dreadful crime.

In September 2021, the Home Secretary asked the National Police Chiefs Council to review urgently the extent and scale of needle spiking. It is clear from what the police have told us that this behaviour is not exclusively linked to sexual activity and that it demands a response that goes beyond the criminal justice system. We have therefore tabled our amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 70, which is drafted more broadly than the Lords amendment and is not linked to any specific offence. It will require the Home Secretary to prepare a report on the nature and prevalence of spiking and to set out the steps that the Government have taken or intend to take to address it. In this context we are also exploring the need for a specific criminal offence to target spiking directly, as my hon. Friend recommended in his ten-minute rule Bill. The Home Secretary will be required to publish this report and lay it before Parliament within 12 months of Royal Assent. In preparing the report we will want to take into account the findings of the current inquiry by the Home Affairs Committee. This approach addresses the concerns that prompted the Lords amendment but in a way that enables the Government to consider the issue in the round.

Lords amendment 72 seeks, in common parlance, to make misogyny a hate crime. Hon. Members may be aware that in December last year, at the Government’s request, the Law Commission provided recommendations on the reform of hate crime laws. Looking very carefully at this issue, it found that adding sex or gender to hate crime laws may prove “more harmful than helpful”, as well as “counterproductive”. The principal reason is that it could make it more difficult to prosecute the most serious crimes that harm women and girls, including rape and domestic abuse. Obviously such an awful unintended consequence is not the intention of those who tabled the amendment in the other place. As such, the amendment seeks to exclude certain offences where the risks to their prosecution are acute.

The Law Commission looked at every possible model and unfortunately also found the one proposed in the amendment unsatisfactory. Time is short and I do not want to dwell on all its problems, but the review identified that to reflect sex and gender in some offences but not others would make the law very complex and imply that very harmful excluded offences such as rape are less serious, would result in tokenistic coverage of many misogynistic crimes, and would create new inequalities in how different groups are protected by hate crime laws.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. As everybody can see, the Lords amendments are in three groups. Please speak only to the Lords amendments in group 1 and do not stray into groups 2 and 3, as there will be opportunities to speak about those Lords amendments later.

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his speech. He comes late to this party—he was not part of the Committee stage—and he has done well to catch up at this point.

We believe parts 3 and 4 of the Bill represent a power grab that bans peaceful protests and compounds inequalities, which is why we voted against the Bill in its entirety on Third Reading, but we also think that this Bill is a huge wasted opportunity. With crime up, prosecutions down, victims losing faith and criminals getting away with their crimes, there has never been a more crucial time to get to grips with law and order. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have urged the Government to use this opportunity to move further and faster to tackle the epidemic of violence against women and girls.

Time and again, however, this Government have failed to act with the urgency that this epidemic requires. During the passage of the Bill, the Government have already rejected minimum sentences for rape and stalking, our plan to make street harassment a crime and our plans to protect victims with proper legal advice, but we still have time tonight, thanks to our friends in the other place, to make some changes. I urge the House to consider two Lords amendments in this group that the Government are rejecting that would make a real different to women’s lives.

I will start with sex for rent. Lords amendment 141 introduces a new offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation. There are few things more horrific than someone using their power as a landlord or an agent to get sex. Predators advertise sex for rent blatantly. We can see in internet searches hundreds of adverts offering rooms or beds for free to young people, usually women, in return for sex. I understand the Government saying that they are going to look at this and potentially act at some point in the future, but women are being exploited all over the UK now and they cannot wait for another long Government consultation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) has pointed out—the Minister needs to talk to Shelter to understand this better—the impact of the pandemic means that more people, especially women, are facing financial hardship, which is making them vulnerable to this vile exploitation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Members should stand only if they want to take part in debate on the first group of amendments, not the second or third groups. We are time-limited, so perhaps Members could focus on the duration of their speeches as well as on the content, to give an opportunity for other Members to take part.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

As a woman who is perennially in a hurry and terribly impatient, I will ensure that my contribution is blissfully short. There is much in the Bill that I feel encouraged about. As hon. Members might expect, as Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, I will focus specifically on those areas that affect women.

Inevitably, I will always say to the Government that they have missed opportunities, that they have not gone far enough and that more could have been done. I very much feel that the Bill could have done more, but I very much welcome the amendment on voyeurism and breastfeeding, which was put forward by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and has been accepted by the Government. That is a step in the right direction for women. I also welcome Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 70 on spiking. I am the first to acknowledge that spiking is not necessarily a gendered crime, but in many instances it is, and we know that young women in particular fall victim to it. Although there are concerns around spiking for robbery, for other forms of violence and abuse and, indeed, in some cases, just for entertainment, a massive proportion of it is about taking sexual advantage—usually of women.

As hon. Members might expect—it was inevitable—I turn to amendment 72 on misogyny. Consistency is important, so I have always said that I would accept and welcome what the Law Commission recommended in its review. However, if we are to go to its recommendations on misogyny and the complications that it rightly highlighted—this is an incredibly difficult area—we should also look at public sexual harassment, which it has also said should be a specific crime.

I started by saying that I am a woman in a hurry, and I am. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister’s comments on what the Government are planning to do on public sexual harassment, but this feels like a missed opportunity. I look for confirmation on whether the specific legislative vehicle—this looks very much like one—will be the victims Bill or something tailored to PSH, because this absolutely matters. If we are to start tackling the cultures that underpin violence against women, we must look at the cultures that mean that some men think it is okay to harass women on the street and on public transport.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. To help those people who have asked about the noisy protest and the right to protest, that is in group 3, not group 1 or 2.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I will keep my comments to Lords amendments concerning the extraction of information from electronic devices. To be clear, it is not that the Scottish National party does not have views about everything else, and it is certainly not that we do not care; it is because provisions on those other matters are applicable to England and Wales only.

The Scottish Government have been working with the UK Government to refine the draft code of practice for the data extraction provisions to account for Scotland's interests. The UK Government have confirmed that the draft code of practice would not be finalised until after the Bill attains Royal Assent to ensure that it is fit for purpose. They have also confirmed that the data extraction provisions will not be commenced in Scotland until the code of practice has been finalised. The Scottish Government are therefore content that the arrangements for the code provide sufficient scope for Scottish input.

We are generally content with the Government amendments, which improve the powers by, for example, starting to define an “agreement” to a digital search, but some are concerned that they do not go far enough to protect privacy rights and access to justice. Digital strip searches are now a common tool for the police and, as Big Brother Watch has said, experience tells us that policy changes and guidance are not enough.

What is required is clear statutory change and retraining. I urge the Government to ensure that that is in place before they consider the widespread use of digital strip searches.

In Scotland, we have concerns about amendments 39, 40 and 44. That needs some further discussion with the Scottish Government. In English law, all children are children until the age of 18, but that is not the legal position in Scotland. The age of legal capacity in Scotland is 16. It certainly does not feel right to us for a nearly-18-year-old to have no say in whether their phone is taken from them and its data extracted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am just thinking about protecting a bit of time for the Front Benchers, so if I put on a four-minute time limit, we can hopefully get a few more Members in.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

I would like to speak in support of the Government and against making misogyny a hate crime, as suggested in Lords amendment 72. It is safe to say that everybody understands the strength of feeling about adding sex and gender to hate crime laws—as I do, not least, from my mailbox—and this debate has shown that. However, I feel unable to support the amendment in the light of the Law Commission’s conclusion in its independent review of hate crime laws in December last year. It said that such a step would potentially

“prove more harmful than helpful, both to victims of violence against women and girls, and also to efforts to tackle hate crime more broadly”—

the Law Commission’s words, not mine. It specifically noted that adding those characteristics may make the prosecution of crimes disproportionately affecting women and girls, such as sexual offences and domestic abuse, much more difficult.

That issue arises because establishing whether a hate crime has occurred would require additional proof to be demonstrated in court. The Law Commission notes, by contrast:

“It might be practically difficult to prove a sex or gender-based aggravation in the context of VAWG crimes that usually take place in private”.

As a result, the Law Commission notes:

“We are particularly concerned about the potential for this to make some sexual offence prosecutions more difficult”.

We should not put this in the “too difficult” box; it will just work against women and girls who are the victims.

The Law Commission subsequently recommended against adding these characteristics to the law. Given those and other potential unintended consequences, as we have heard, organisations responding to the consultation support the Law Commission’s review in opposing these characteristics being added to the law.

It is also worth Members noting, when they come to their decision today, that the Lords amendment seeks to mitigate the most serious risks identified in what I have spoken about by excluding certain offences from any hate crime designation, including sexual offences and domestic abuse. However, the Law Commission similarly identified that such models would not be helpful, noting that this would then make the addition of the characteristics largely “tokenistic”—the Law Commission’s words, not the Minister’s—by excluding the most serious offences that frequently harm women and girls. It also noted that the exclusion of these offences risks suggesting that they are, by default, less serious or not rooted in misogynistic hostility, and would treat sex and gender unequally to other characteristics in the scope of hate crime laws.

I therefore share the Law Commission’s concern that adding sex and gender to hate crime laws in any form could prove unacceptably counterproductive and work against women and girls.