Legal Highs

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) on securing this important debate. I recognise that hon. Members in all parts of the House feel genuine concerns about these matters and, in particular, we have all had constituents contacting us with their concerns about what has happened to their families, so the hon. Gentleman is right to bring the debate before the House.

I agree with hon. Members who have expressed concern about the term “legal highs”. That is not an abstract matter; it is quite important, because, as hon. Members have said, using the word “legal” implies safety, and that is a misconception. Therefore, I am keen to get away from the term “legal highs”, and I try not to use it myself, except to disparage it. I am particularly attracted to “chemical highs”, which I have been peddling recently, but there are other options, such as “untested highs” or “danger highs”. We need to find an alternative phrase that conveys accurately the fact that these substances are not tested and not approved, and are probably not safe. I want to get some consensus on that, although the newspapers are attracted to the phrase “legal highs” and it is difficult to move them.

This is a global problem and no country has solved it—it is important to say that. The review process, which is under way, considered experiences in other countries to find out what works and what does not work, and why it was right to do those things. It is not fair to characterise the Government as not having done much on this matter. We have been pretty active on it, but I stress that there is no obvious silver bullet that cures all the problems that hon. Members have correctly identified.

We recognised the emergence of new psychoactive substances and the trade as serious threats from the beginning and have taken multiple and decisive actions to address them. We consulted the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to inform the action plan published in 2012 to tackle the trade from all angles. We have improved the UK’s drugs early warning system to enable real-time information sharing on emerging drugs between health and law enforcement, the advisory committee and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. We also created the Home Office forensic early warning system to detect and monitor the emergence of those substances in the UK, inform our response in legislation and provide support to the advisory committee and UK law enforcement. We have introduced temporary drug control legislation so that, together with the advisory council, we have been able to take swift action to protect the public from emerging new substances that we know have the potential to cause serious harm.

As one colleague said today, we are in a race against the chemist. The reality is, as in the rest of the world, we are chasing behind what appears on our streets, almost on a weekly basis, from chemical laboratories that are outside our jurisdiction and outside our control. We have tried to be swift in identifying substances as having appeared. More than 350 new psychoactive substances and their derivatives are now banned in the UK, mainly through our use of generic definitions banning entire families of drugs and related compounds under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Bizarrely, we have even banned substances that do not exist, because we have anticipated where the chemist will go next.

As a result, the majority—about 80%—of new psychoactive substances seen in the EU for the first time are already controlled drugs in the UK. Working with UK law enforcement, including trading standards, to support the use of existing powers to disrupt supply in our communities and online, we have seen some successes. For example, a week of concerted action last November resulted in 44 arrests and, I think, 73 seizures, including large amounts of those substances.

We have issued guidance to local authorities on the use of existing powers. I will not pretend that those powers are comprehensive and that everything that is available is all that we need, but there are powers that have been used successfully by local authorities. The General Product Safety Regulations 2005, which should not be underestimated, have been successfully deployed in Northern Ireland. There is also trading standards legislation in relation to misdescriptions. If somebody markets something as bath salts or plant food, that is a misdescription and trading standards can take action on that basis. That might be more difficult if something is called “research chemicals”, but if it is wilfully misdescribed action can be taken.

[John Woodcock]

Is the Minister still actively considering our suggestion to allow the police and trading standards officers to confiscate first and then have the legal process? If he is not, will he explain why that is not a good route to go down?

[Norman Baker]

I will come to the steps that are being taken, but I want to stress at this point, since the hon. Gentleman has raised it, that a process is in place. We have appointed an expert panel based on the best brains in the country from various disciplines: law enforcement, those who have knowledge of drugs, those from the health regimes, those who understand the psychiatry of those who might use drugs and so on. The panel has been charged by me with finding the best way forward to minimise harms from those substances. That is its objective. It is therefore not for me to second-guess what the panel will come up with. The clear objective is to minimise harm, and I look to the panel for recommendations. I will come to the process in a moment. It would be wrong for me to rule anything in or out until the panel has had an opportunity to reflect and take professional advice as it is doing so. No doubt the hon. Gentleman’s points will be considered by the panel, along with everything else.

[Diana Johnson]

Will the Minister give us a time scale for when the review will report, because time is pressing in this Parliament?

[Norman Baker]

Time is pressing. I have been in post since October or thereabouts. The review panel was appointed in December and has almost concluded its work. I expect to have its final report on my desk in a couple of weeks’ time. The Government will reflect on the conclusions and we will publish our intentions shortly thereafter. That is our intention. I want to get a move on. There is no intention to delay matters. However, there is also no wish to end up with bad legislation that is rushed and might have unforeseen consequences. I stress that no country in the world has cracked the issue successfully. We have to look across the world at different practices to see what might apply best to our own situation.

[John Woodcock]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anne Marie Morris]

Will the Minister give way?

[Norman Baker]

I want to make progress, because a lot of points have been raised, then I will try to take one or two interventions.

I want to correct a point made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield. He said that the UK is the biggest market in the EU for these substances. I believe the shadow Minister said that as well. The advice I have received from officials is that the recently published preliminary results of the 2014 Eurobarometer study show that the UK was not the biggest market. There are three countries ahead of us: Ireland, interestingly; Spain; and France. It does not give me great satisfaction to say that we are fourth, but, for the record, that is what the latest survey shows.

[Anne Marie Morris]

My question concerns labelling. There might be mechanisms to deal with incorrect labelling, but if a label states, “Not fit for human consumption”, that is almost a “get out of jail” card. How will we deal with that?

[Norman Baker]

As I said, the expert panel is looking at a range of matters, including descriptions and how substances are promoted and sold. If they are wilfully misdescribed—if the label states “bath salts” and the substance is not bath salts—action can be taken. If the label states, “Not fit for human consumption”, that is no doubt accurate and therefore more difficult. I assure my hon. Friend that that is not the only way into the issue.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred in complimentary terms to the action of festival organisers. I want to say for the record that I wrote to festival organisers to ask them to take that action, so if he was implying that the Government was not taking action that would not be accurate. The festival organisers responded positively to the efforts that we made in writing to them. Indeed, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), wrote last year—successfully—and they took action as a consequence of his letter. We are taking action where we can on those important fronts.

Border Force has enhanced its capability to detect those substances—the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness made a point about ports—coming into the country with the introduction of new portable FirstDefender devices.

I absolutely take the point made by Members about prevention and education. I have given a strong steer to the expert panel that it should consider very carefully what can be done on education and prevention. I look forward to the panel’s recommendations on that particular front. Even so, in the meantime, our prevention message, especially to young people, that the products cannot be assumed to be safe has been consistent and clear. Our FRANK website messaging continues to be updated with information on the risks, consequences and harms of those substances, using the best and latest available information and advice.

We have researched user trends to inform further work on reducing demand, including online. In summer 2013, the Home Office ran targeted communications activity over the festival period to help to prevent the use of those substances and to raise awareness of their risks and harms. That was aimed at particularly 15 to 18-year-olds. With the media involved, we think that more than half of that age group got the message that we sent out last year.

There were 74,000-plus unique visitors to the campaign page on our website, and we saw an 84% increase in website traffic as a consequence. A survey of visitors to the website showed that our social marketing campaign has been effective in shifting attitudes and that a new campaign could achieve similar results, so we are planning to run similar activity again this summer.

We have worked with the Department for Education and UK law enforcement on guidance issued to schools so that drug education includes those substances, along with other harmful drug use, but I want to see what more we can do on that front.

[John Woodcock]

I thank the Minister for giving way a second time. To go back to the review, when he says nothing is ruled in or out and that he is looking abroad, does that mean he has not ruled out the option of licensing head shops, which I asked him about in my speech?

[Norman Baker]

I want to make it plain that I am not taking the decision to rule things in or out. I have given the panel a challenge to come up with what it believes to be the best way to minimise harms. It would be an odd remit if we started telling the panel in advance what it should conclude. It has looked at the various options; none is without problems. I think the hon. Gentleman refers to the New Zealand position, where having a regulated market has caused problems. There are problems in the US with the analogue system, which is potentially becoming a lawyers’ paradise, and there are problems in Ireland, where the trade has largely gone underground.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Norman Baker]

I have one more general point to make, then I want to pick up on some of the points made by Members. For the record, it is unfair and inaccurate to say that the Government has not been active in this area; we have been very active, including at the international level, with the adoption of new UN resolutions on the early identification of emerging substances, and with concerted action across our agencies. More recently, we have led the call for the international control of mephedrone. In fact, we are recognised as a world leader in dealing with that particular threat, and we have used our presidency of the G7 to deliver international action, and to promote successful engagement with source countries such as China and India on the challenges that we continue to face.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I support the Minister on that point. It is unfair and inaccurate to say that the Government have been doing little in this area. However, the young person who died at Glastonbury this weekend, and the one who died at the Boomtown festival in my constituency last summer, had taken ketamine, which the Government have banned. Banning things is important, but it does not necessarily protect young people.

[Norman Baker]

Sadly, that is true, and it is a well made point. I was horrified by the description from the hon. Member for Chesterfield of what was happening in his town. He listed some of the problems; one of the options that his council might look at is using the Government’s antisocial behaviour legislation, which has potential to deal with the consequences outside the shop. That is not the full answer, but it provides potential for the police and the council to come together to use existing powers.

[Toby Perkins]

I am happy to make that suggestion to the council. I am joined here by one of our councillors who has taken a leading role in this debate. I was going to respond to the Minister’s point about the council having a role under general product safety, and his suggestion that the enfeebled trading standards might use misdescriptions legislation. I hope that when he has finished his review—I appreciate that we have to be a bit more patient on that—we will be able to give local authorities a little more for their armoury, so that they can tackle this important issue.

[Norman Baker]

I hope that that is the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) was absolutely right to refer to the uncertainty about long-term consequences. The need to ensure that they are properly evaluated means that we should not rush into what might be the wrong answer, but should nevertheless try to ensure that we get the right answer as soon as possible. He was absolutely right to say that much more needs to be done on prevention—he said education was key, and I entirely agree. I also agree that there is a strong argument for having compulsory personal, social, health and economic education in our schools.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) listed some helpful initiatives taken in his constituency. I pay tribute to those who took that action, which was public-spirited and helpful. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) made some helpful suggestions, which I will pass on to the review panel. It has almost concluded its work, but those suggestions remain useful. I share the shadow Minister’s endorsement of and thanks to the Angelus Foundation for its superb work in the area; I am pleased to have been able to meet with people from the foundation on a number of occasions to discuss their work.

The shadow Minister referred to a number of issues, including information. I assure her that the expert panel that I have appointed has had a working group on the sharing of information and has also been identifying the need to ensure that it is shared with the health environment. We are therefore looking at information available from accident and emergency, to which she referred, and wider health service treatment. I expect recommendations in that area as part of the expert panel’s work. The hon. Lady also mentioned the National Poisons Information Service, which I assure her that the Home Office uses. The service is particularly important when we are gathering evidence for the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs; it informs ACMD’s advice and, subsequently, our decision on drug control. The service is used by and valuable to the Home Office.

On the figures for deaths, Members are right to draw attention to the increase to 68. For the record, that is 4% of drug-related deaths. Sixty-eight too many have died, but we must not take our eye off the ball: a lot more deaths from drugs have to be dealt with as well, whether they involve heroin, crack cocaine or other substances. I hope that that has been a helpful response to the debate. If there are any outstanding questions, I am happy to answer them individually.

Deregulation Bill

Norman Baker Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

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

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new schedule 1—Part to be inserted as Part 5A of the Licensing Act 2003.

[Norman Baker]

The effect of the new clause is to create a new light-touch form of authorisation for community groups or certain businesses, such as bed-and-breakfast accommodation providers, to sell small amounts of alcohol under the Licensing Act 2003—the new part 5A notice.

It may be helpful to the House if I first give some background and explain the problem that we are trying to solve with the new measure. Last year the Government carried out an extensive public consultation on various proposals in its alcohol strategy. This of course included our efforts to tackle alcohol harms. On that front we have already achieved much. For example, we have reformed the Licensing Act 2003 and introduced new tools and powers to make it easier for local police and licensing authorities to close down problem premises and crack down on alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder.

At the same time, the Government’s public consultation last year recognised that sometimes regulation can be excessive, even needless. No one wants to stop a responsible drinker enjoying a drink responsibly. The Government’s approach is all about balance. We want to free up the police and local enforcement agencies to tackle alcohol harms while giving them greater discretion to manage low-risk alcohol sales. The Government has also made it clear that it wants to cut red tape and pointless regulations, but I stress that that must not be at the expense of necessary safeguards against alcohol harms. This new measure is about striking that balance.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The Minister talks about alcohol harms, about which we are all concerned, but would not the new clause increase the consumption of alcohol rather than reduce it?

[Norman Baker]

I do not think that it will increase the consumption of alcohol; rather it will reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, and do so in a way that means that alcohol is consumed in low quantities and safely, as I will set out.

Our public consultation last year recognised that the existing alcohol licensing regime is a touch bureaucratic in some respects. For some small voluntary groups and bed-and-breakfast establishments, for example, the existing premises licences and temporary event notices regimes are pointlessly costly and burdensome. The restrictions and scrutiny are disproportionate for their low-level, low-risk needs. The first of these are the community groups with local membership, including charities and not-for-profit organisations, which carry out activities in local areas and wish to sell small amounts of alcohol at small-scale events throughout the year. I should confirm that alcohol provided as part of a ticket price or in return for a donation is usually defined in law as a sale.

We are thinking here of local groups, such as the women’s institutes or local residents’ groups, or the church choir that wants to offer a glass of wine to audience members in the interval, and other groups who hold occasional events, for example, lunches and plays at which they wish to provide very small amounts of alcohol to attendees. Such groups often operate from different venues in their local communities. Groups such as the women’s institutes, thriving church organisations and other local charities are not just about “Jam and Jerusalem”; sometimes they might also be about a glass of warm beer or chilled chardonnay. But refreshments aside, their wider activities are part of the fabric and lifeblood of thriving local communities, which I hope all in this House support. No one wants to tie them down with unnecessary bureaucracy if we can help it.

The existing options for an alcohol licence are often unsuitable in such cases. The cost of obtaining a single premises licence is between £100 and £1,900 a year, with an additional associated cost of obtaining a personal licence of approximately £75. Temporary event notices must be given each time and only a limited number—12 at the moment—can be allowed each year for the same premises to ensure appropriate safeguards against crime and disorder and public nuisance because they provide for larger scale, higher risk events.

The other group we looked at was small businesses that want to sell small amounts of alcohol in a similar low-risk environment as part of a wider service. We specifically have in mind providers of bed and breakfast or other similar overnight accommodation who may wish to offer a glass of wine or a beer to welcome their guests at the end of a long day’s travel or with an evening meal. Even if not charged for directly, this alcohol is in law a sale. The burden of a premises licence in such cases seems to many, including me, to be excessive.

We did consider options such as directly exempting such activity from the licensing process and consulted on other ideas such as greater local discretion on temporary event notices. However, the coalition Government is committed to tackling the harms that alcohol can cause, as I mentioned a moment ago, and recognises the need for important safeguards to guard against those harms and the risk of loopholes. We believed that creating a new tailor-made authorisation was the best option.

In the response to the public consultation on alcohol, we announced our intention to create a new authorisation called the community and ancillary sellers notice. This will be a cheaper, simpler and easier alternative to other types of authorisation, such as a premises licence or using multiple temporary event notices. Since that announcement, we have been working with colleagues across Government to develop the proposal. It has been designed to remove unnecessary licensing burdens and costs for community groups, and for some small businesses in the licensing process, so it is right that it should be part of the Deregulation Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I welcome this sensible deregulatory move. The Minister keeps referring to small amounts of alcohol. Will he define what that refers to?

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to help my hon. Friend. We are today looking at the principle of the establishment of the scheme, and it is perfectly proper that the detail of that should be subject to consultation, with Members of the House, the Local Government Association and others, and we will not take a firm view on that until the consultation has taken place.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I should be grateful if the Minister updated the House when he gets that. My wife and I have often disagreed on what a small amount of alcohol is. I would be grateful if, on behalf of husbands around the country, I could make her aware of the legal definition.

[Norman Baker]

I hesitate to intervene in the Perkins household as to what a small amount of alcohol might be. This is a proper matter for consultation. We need to take into account, for example, whether any alcohol consumed could in theory lead to disorder. We would not want that to occur under this regime. We also want to ensure that we do not encourage drink-driving, and so on. Those are the considerations that we will take into account, but we genuinely want to hear from those who respond to the consultation process what they regard as a small amount. It is the principle that we are concerned with today.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am terribly enthusiastic about the Minister’s general all-party, cross-party approach to getting rid of unnecessary regulation. I absolutely agree with him, but I have just come from a meeting of crowdfunders, who are really hurt by the fact that a Government who believe in deregulation have just introduced the regulation of crowdfunding through the Financial Conduct Authority, which is doing great harm to a growing industry.

[Norman Baker]

That is a bit off my beat, if I may say so. Obviously, the Government believes in regulation where it is appropriate, but it also believes in removing regulation where it is not appropriate, and that is a balance that it tries to strike in what it does.

Getting an authorisation under the new community and ancillary sellers notice will be simple and straightforward for eligible users and for the local licensing authorities. Users will fill out a simple form and send it to the council to notify it of their intentions to provide alcohol under the new notice. The fee, which we want to keep as low as possible, will accompany the notice. Under the provisions, business users or ancillary sellers will need to specify a single premises from which they will be making alcohol sales, and community groups will be able to name up to three premises at which they will be holding events under the notice.

Licensing authorities will be able to reject a notice where it is appropriate on grounds of preventing crime and disorder, preventing public nuisance, promoting public safety, or protecting children from harm.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I am interested in what the Minister has to say. Did the drinks industry contribute to the consultation, and was it enthusiastic about or resistant to the new clause?

[Norman Baker]

The drinks industry responded to the alcohol strategy. It would be astonishing if it had not done so. Obviously, its comments were taken into account, but so were the comments of others who were concerned, for example, about alcohol harms. As I mentioned a moment ago, we tried to strike the correct balance, ensuring that we do not encourage alcohol harm, while removing unnecessary bureaucracy where its removal has no adverse impact.

With regard to the notices, it is also worth pointing out that the local police and environmental health authority will also have a say. If they have concerns, they can say so before such a notice is given, and once an authorisation has been agreed, the notice may be revoked by a similar light-touch process.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

How will the law be tightened for holders of licences who sell alcohol to those who are under age, particularly for those who are persistent offenders?

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

Let me be clear that this is not an attempt to change the law relating to under-age alcohol sales. The requirements for alcohol sales that apply at present will apply in future. As I mentioned a moment ago, if we find that local police object and that individuals are taking advantage of the process in order to sell alcohol to those who are not entitled to it, obviously that will lead to the licence being revoked, and possibly to criminal action if the police and Crown Prosecution Service so determine.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Was there consultation with representatives of those who work in accident and emergency departments on Fridays and Saturdays and who have to put up with people who are seriously inebriated, and often injured, causing terrible problems for the staff?

[Norman Baker]

There was certainly an open consultation on the alcohol strategy generally. I am well aware of the link between alcohol and violence, as both matters are within my portfolio at the Home Office, but I must stress that this proposal is about very low levels of alcohol being consumed in controlled events and in certain circumstances involving, for example, church choirs and bed-and-breakfast establishments. That is a far cry from the problems we sometimes see on our streets on a Friday or Saturday night. I want to stress that alcohol harm and disorder would in no way be accelerated by this process; quite the reverse. We are simply taking a non-threatening, problem-free alcohol environment and simplifying the bureaucracy that surrounds it. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about these matters, but let me assure him that we take alcohol harm very seriously indeed.

[Mr Sheerman]

On that point—and it is a serious one, as those of us who have campaigned on the wrongful use of alcohol know—there used to be different laws for those who charge for alcohol and those who give it away for free, for example as an act of hospitality in commercial premises. Will that continue, or will it end under this scheme?

[Norman Baker]

As I mentioned a moment ago, if a bed-and-breakfast establishment offers alcohol to guests when they arrive, that is deemed to be a sale, even if an indirect one, because essentially it is included in the overall price of the overnight accommodation. That is how it is regarded in this legislation.

The provisions allow for other safeguards. Users of the new notice will be responsible persons for the purposes of criminal offences in the Licensing Act 2003, such as the selling of alcohol to children. That relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). As with other authorisations under the 2003 Act, the provisions in the Bill will be underpinned by more detailed regulation, on which the Government will consult.

We also intend such regulations to cover the amount of alcohol that can be sold. That relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge). We intend that a limit on the amount of alcohol that can be given to an adult within 24 hours will generally apply, or an average of that amount for adults attending a community event. Precise limits will be subject to consultation. We want the system to operate in a light-touch, practical way. Details, such as the level of the fee, the qualifying criteria—the types of community groups and the size of businesses, for example—and what discretion licensing authorities will have, will all be matters for regulation, most of which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, thereby giving Members full opportunity to take part in discussions and decisions. We are looking forward to working with key partners on the detail of the measure and are consulting publicly on this.

This is a radical new licensing authorisation that will help to achieve the Government’s aims of helping community groups and particular small businesses while at the same time maintaining important public health and public safety safeguards. I commend it to the House.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

The Minister was not with us in Committee and so might not be aware that we had many discussions on how best to characterise the Bill. Was it a rag-bag, a hodge-podge or the Christmas tree Bill to end all Christmas tree Bills? An hon. Friend of mine asserts that although it began as a Christmas tree Bill, it has grown and grown to the point that it now bears a closer resemblance to the Blackpool illuminations. New clause 5 is one such example.

However, given the nature of new clause 5, perhaps a cocktail Bill is a better metaphor. Perhaps it is a particularly strong Cosmopolitan—one that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. Or perhaps it is an Old Etonian, which I understand is a mix of gin, bitters and crème de noyaux—guaranteed to leave one with a crashing headache the morning after. That is because the Bill still contains nothing to tackle the cost of living crisis gripping this country, it is still focused more on removing burdens from Ministers and officials than on helping the people and businesses of this country, and it still contains grave attacks on workers’ rights and health.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity when he says that he is concerned about alcohol harm, but I cannot see that as being consistent with this clause, which liberalises alcohol sales and use. It is a deregulatory measure, not a regulatory measure. I am a regulator rather than a deregulator. I believe profoundly in the nanny state where it is going to protect lives, particularly the lives of young people and vulnerable people, as in the case of alcohol.

Britain has a very serious alcohol problem, with appallingly high levels of binge drinking reported only this week, when we were compared very unfavourably with many other countries. We are simply not taking the alcohol problem seriously. It is all very well to say, “Have a drink when you arrive at your bed and breakfast—a little tincture to warm you up for the evening and get you started before you have your bottle of wine with dinner later on”, but it encourages a more relaxed culture of alcohol consumption when we should instead be raising concerns about it. Alcohol liver damage has increased massively in recent years. We have seen rising numbers of deaths from cirrhosis of the liver. There is an enormous burden on the national health service, especially in A and E departments at weekends. I wonder what the British Medical Association and the unions representing the staff in those departments feel about this.

Oceans of cheap alcohol are still being sold in supermarkets and bought and consumed illegally by young people, often with the collaboration of older people. These things are still not being addressed seriously. Vast numbers of people are drinking under age. They are being hooked on alcohol young so that they will spend their lives drinking and making more profits for the drinks industry. I am not a spoilsport. I enjoy alcohol myself, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you may have observed, though not, I hope, to excess. Nevertheless, I am aware of its dangers. Making the culture more liberal and relaxed reduces rather than increases concerns about alcohol and makes us less likely rather than more likely to be self-controlled.

My most serious concern is about the thousands of babies born severely and permanently damaged by alcohol consumed in their mothers’ pregnancy. A more relaxed attitude towards alcohol consumption as regards Women’s Institute functions, going to bed and breakfasts and so on will do nothing to dissuade women who are seeking to become pregnant, or who are pregnant, from consuming alcohol.

The scientific research that I have mentioned in this House on a number of occasions shows that even small amounts of alcohol cause damage to babies. If one is drinking oneself, one is causing damage to oneself. Even an alcoholic has a choice about whether to drink, but an unborn baby does not have a choice as to whether its mother does so. This is very unfair on mothers, and on women, but we have to think about the children and what happens to them. We do not even have notices in every maternity clinic giving advice to women not to drink at all if they are seeking to conceive or if they are pregnant, yet apparently—I have not visited one recently—they all have warnings about smoking, which is less dangerous to foetuses than alcohol.

The alcohol culture is being fed into our general culture surreptitiously by the drinks industry. It is ever so nice and cuddly when it talks about these things, but it is actually talking about an addictive drug that causes terrible problems. Providing advice to all women from the age of puberty onwards about the dangers of alcohol to unborn children is absolutely crucial. Until the Government put on every drink canister a warning to women that they should not drink at all during pregnancy—accompanied by a symbol of a pregnant woman, as happens in the United States—I will not be satisfied and will continue to pursue the issue.

We need minimum unit pricing. It is possible, even now, to buy vast quantities of alcohol very cheaply, including 3-litre bottles of cider, in supermarkets. A simple unit price of 50 p per unit would be reasonable. It would have no effect on beer drinkers in pubs or on the average wine drinker, but it would stop oceans of very cheap alcohol being handed to children and others who abuse alcohol.

The Government have to wake up and take alcohol seriously. Although this liberalising measure is cuddly, nice and warm and we all like the idea of women’s institutes having a little wine in the evening—that is fine—what we are actually doing is encouraging more alcohol consumption rather than less, and creating a more relaxed environment and culture for the consumption of alcohol. That is a mistake, given Britain’s serious problem with alcohol.

[Norman Baker]

Let me respond first to the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). If he is going to judge the Government’s alcohol strategy, it is important that he does so in the round, rather than simply assuming that what we are discussing today represents its totality. The reality is that the Government has taken a number of steps to deal with alcohol harms and continues to do so.

The Home Office works in close conjunction with the Department of Health on these matters. We have made it easier for local police to close down problem premises. We have banned sales of alcohol below cost price. We are challenging the industry very firmly to make progress on the sorts of issues referred to by the hon. Gentleman, including the availability of high-strength, cheap 3-litre bottles of cider. I am also pushing the industry on how alcohol is promoted, particularly in supermarkets. We are taking a whole range of actions to try to deal with alcohol harms.

It is important, as part of a sensible strategy, to identify what the problems are and deal with them firmly, but we should not apply the same sledgehammer approach—if one may call it that—to an area where there is no problem, and there is no problem with a women’s institute offering someone a glass of wine. That is what today’s debate is about. The hon. Gentleman needs to judge the strategy in the round rather than assume that this represents its totality, as he appeared to do in his contribution.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

In all kinds of ways, Britain seems to resist imposing rules that seem restrictive, but in the end we are forced into them. I remember people opposing the wearing of crash helmets on motorcycles, while seat belts were not made compulsory here until years after other countries had done so. I also remember resistance to the breathalyser—it is only Barbara Castle who had a bit more courage and gumption to push it through—but now we recognise that drinking and driving is wrong. Is not the Minister just part of a long tradition of resisting change that will ultimately come about?

[Norman Baker]

I am in a long tradition of providing pragmatic answers to the problems that present themselves and of responding to them in a measured, rather than over-zealous, way. We have to remember that we have to take people with us—we need to win hearts and minds. I also think that Britain is less authoritarian than many other countries. Some countries appear to be happy for their Governments to direct their way of life more than we do, but people in this country do not like being directed by the Government of the day and it is right that we respect that healthy response.

Let me turn to the comments of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who, unless I am mistaken, does not appear to know that we actually did consult on the alcohol strategy, including a question on the ancillary sellers’ notice, which matured into the provision under discussion. It is not true to say that there has been no consultation on the strategy or the measure, because there has been a consultation.

[Chi Onwurah]

I did not say that there had been no consultation on the alcohol strategy; I said that no discernible alcohol strategy had come out of it and that the measures were not tabled in Committee or when the Bill was initially submitted.

[Norman Baker]

With respect, the hon. Lady said both things and the record will show that. There was a consultation, as part of the alcohol strategy, on a new, light-touch authorisation to reduce burdens on ancillary sellers of alcohol. That is what we are discussing this afternoon. It was consulted on, comments were fed back and they have informed the way in which we have taken matters forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins]

In my defence, I was opposed to what the previous Government did and I raised these matters with the then Secretary of State.

[Norman Baker]

I am almost tempted to say that that is a compliment, but that goes without saying and the hon. Gentleman has put it on the record for the benefit of the House.

The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central does not think that much is happening in terms of an alcohol strategy. Perhaps she has not noticed that her own local authority in Newcastle has introduced a late-night levy, which appears to be working rather well. I was very pleased to go there and join local councillors in launching it.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for giving way a second time, but once again his ascription to me of a lack of knowledge is not accurate. I am very familiar with Newcastle’s late-night levy. Indeed, I discussed it with the leader of Newcastle city council, Nick Forbes, only yesterday evening. In some ways, it is the burden of cuts on local authorities across the country and on the police that makes such levies necessary. In this case, it was businesses in Newcastle that wished to introduce it.

[Norman Baker]

Indeed they did, and I think they made a very wise decision and that businesses and the public in Newcastle will benefit from the Government’s sensible option of a late-night levy. I hope that other councils up and down the country will follow the example of the hon. Lady’s council and introduce such a levy, which not only helps deal with public disorder, but provides a necessary income stream to recognise the cost of disorder to a particular city.

I appreciate that the hon. Lady’s focus has been on the Deregulation Bill rather than on the subject of alcohol so she will not have had sight of all the issues, but she said that we have blocked the public health licensing objective. That is not true. The matter remains under consideration. The fact is that if she looks at the local alcohol action areas, she will see that they are being used as a pilot for what might be done for public health licensing objectives. I agree that there is a public health issue about alcohol that should be taken into account, but it is not as simple as it is sometimes made out. That matter is being taken forward under the guise of the local alcohol action areas introduced by the Government.

The hon. Lady mentioned fees, and I reiterate that they will be subject to consultation. She wondered whether local councils are out of pocket, and asserted that they are out of pocket as a consequence of handling the present licensing regime. Taking that at face value and assuming she is right for the purpose of this discussion, if that is the case, the introduction of a light-touch regime will divert people from what is—according to her—presumably a loss-making activity for local councils to one that is rather simpler and will therefore reduce the loss for local councils. That is the logic of her position, so I hope that she will welcome the measure on that basis. I confirm that it is subject to the affirmative procedure, so there will be a full opportunity for Members on both sides of the House to contribute to the discussion as the measure is taken forward in a sensible way.

Lastly, I can tell the hon. Member for Luton North that minimum unit pricing remains an option. It is on the radar—it has not been ruled out—and it will be particularly on the radar if the alcohol industry does not respond sensibly to the challenges made by the Government. I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Schedule 1

‘Part to be inserted as Part 5A of the Licensing Act 2003

“Part 5A

sale of alcohol at community events etc and ancillary business sale of alcohol

Conditions for permitted sales

110A  General conditions

(1) A sale by retail of alcohol is a permitted sale by virtue of this Part if—

(a) the community event conditions (set out in section 110B or in regulations made under that section) or the ancillary business sales conditions (set out in section 110C or in regulations made under that section) are satisfied in relation to it, and

(b) the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (5) below are satisfied in relation to it.

(2) The sale must take place on premises specified in a notice that complies with section 110D (a “Part 5A notice”).

(3) No counter notice under section 110J must have been given in relation to the Part 5A notice.

(4) The sale must take place during the period of 36 months beginning with the date when the Part 5A notice takes effect.

(5) The sale must take place between 07.00 a.m. and 11.00 p.m.

110B  Community event conditions

(1) The community event conditions, in relation to a sale by retail of alcohol, are the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (6) and any additional conditions set out in regulations under subsection (7).

(2) The sale must be made by or on behalf of a body that is—

(a) of a prescribed description,

(b) does not trade for profit, and

(c) meets any prescribed criteria.

(3) The sale must be ancillary to an event that—

(a) is taking place on the premises,

(b) is organised by the body by or on whose behalf the sale is made,

(c) has been advertised in advance, and

(d) meets any prescribed criteria.

(4) The sale must take place on the premises during the course of the event.

(5) The alcohol must be sold for consumption on the premises during the course of the event.

(6) The number of persons present on the premises at the time of the sale must not exceed 300.

(7) Regulations may provide for additional conditions prescribed in the regulations to be community event conditions.

110C  Ancillary business sales conditions

(1) The ancillary business sales conditions, in relation to a sale by retail of alcohol, are the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (5) and any additional conditions set out in regulations under subsection (6).

(2) The sale must be made by or on behalf of a body that—

(a) is of a prescribed description, and

(b) meets any prescribed criteria.

(3) The sale must take place on premises that—

(a) are managed by the body by or on whose behalf the sale is made,

(b) are of a prescribed description, and

(c) meet any prescribed criteria.

(4) The sale must be ancillary to the provision of goods or services to a person on the premises where the sale takes place.

(5) Except in prescribed circumstances, the alcohol must be sold for consumption on those premises.

(6) Regulations may provide for additional conditions prescribed in the regulations to be ancillary business sales conditions.

Part 5A notices

110D  Conditions for validity of notices

(1) A notice complies with this section if the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (10) are satisfied in relation to the notice.

(2) The notice must specify whether—

(a) the community event conditions (set out in section 110B or in regulations under that section), or

(b) the ancillary business sales conditions (set out in section 110C or in regulations under that section),

will be satisfied in relation to sales of alcohol on the premises in question.

(3) The notice must specify (for the purposes of section 110A(2))—

(a) in the case of a notice that specifies the ancillary business sales conditions, the set of premises to which it relates;

(b) in the case of a notice that specifies the community event conditions, no more than three sets of community premises, each of which must be wholly or partly in the area of the same licensing authority.

(4) The notice must be given, on behalf of the body by or on whose behalf the sale of alcohol on the premises would take place, by a person who is aged 18 or over and is concerned in the management of the body.

(5) The notice must be given to the relevant licensing authority, accompanied by the prescribed fee.

(6) Unless the notice is given to the relevant licensing authority by means of a relevant electronic facility, a copy of the notice must be given to each relevant person.

(7) The notice must be in the prescribed form.

(8) The notice must specify the date when it takes effect.

(9) The specified date must be at least 10 working days, but no more than 3 months, after the day on which the notice is given.

Where subsection (6) applies, the notice is treated as given only when that subsection is complied with.

(10) The notice must contain any other information that regulations require it to contain.

(11) In this Part, “relevant person”, in relation to any premises, means—

(a) the chief officer of police for any police area in which the premises are situated;

(b) the local authority by which statutory functions are exercisable in any area in which the premises are situated in relation to minimising or preventing the risk of pollution of the environment or of harm to human health.

110E  Special restriction on giving of notices

(1) This section applies where—

(a) a Part 5A notice is given on behalf of a body, and

(b) a counter notice under section 110J is given in relation to the Part 5A notice.

(2) No further Part 5A notice may be given in respect of any premises specified in the notice, whether on behalf of that body or on behalf of another body that is an associate of it, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the counter notice is given.

(3) However, the restriction in subsection (2) ceases to apply if the counter notice is revoked under section 110K or quashed by a court.

(4) For the purposes of this section, a body is an associate of another body if it would be an associate of the other body for the purposes of the Estate Agents Act 1979 (see section 32(4) to (6) of that Act).

110F  Date when Part 5A notice takes effect

(1) A Part 5A notice takes effect on the date specified under section 110D(8).

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if a counter notice is given under section 110J in relation to the notice.

(For the case where a counter notice is revoked or quashed by a court, see section 110K(2).)

110G  Acknowledgement of notice etc

(1) This section applies where a relevant licensing authority receives a notice that is, or purports to be, a Part 5A notice.

(2) The authority must give written acknowledgement of the receipt of the notice to the person who gave it.

(3) The acknowledgment must be given—

(a) before the end of the first working day following the day on which it was received, or

(b) if the day on which it was received was not a working day, before the end of the second working day following that day.

(4) If the licensing authority is of the opinion that the notice does not comply with section 110D, the authority must as soon as possible give to the person who gave the notice written notification of the reasons for its opinion.

(5) Subsection (2) does not apply where, before the time by which acknowledgement of the receipt of the notice must be given in accordance with subsection (3), the person who gave the notice has been given a counter notice under section 110J.

110H  Theft, loss etc of Part 5A notice

(1) Where a Part 5A notice is lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed, the person who gave the notice may apply to the relevant licensing authority for a copy of the notice.

(2) The application must be accompanied by the prescribed fee.

(3) Where an application is made in accordance with this section, the licensing authority must issue the applicant with a copy of the notice (certified by the authority to be a true copy) if it is satisfied that the notice has been lost, stolen, damaged or destroyed.

(4) This Act applies in relation to a copy issued under this section as it applies in relation to an original notice.

Objections and counter notices

110I  Objection to Part 5A notice by a relevant person

(1) Where a relevant person who is given a Part 5A notice is satisfied that allowing alcohol to be sold on the premises (or any of the premises) to which the notice relates would undermine a licensing objective, the relevant person must give a notice stating the reasons for being so satisfied (an “objection notice”)—

(a) to the relevant licensing authority,

(b) to the person who gave the Part 5A notice, and

(c) to every other relevant person.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply at any time after the relevant person has received a copy of a counter notice under section 110J in relation to the Part 5A notice.

(3) An objection notice may be given only during the period beginning with the day on which the relevant person is given the Part 5A notice and ending with the third working day following that day (“the three-day period”).

(4) The restriction in subsection (3) does not apply to an objection notice based on—

(a) things occurring after the end of the three-day period, or

(b) information that the relevant person was unaware of, and could not with reasonable diligence have discovered, until after the end of that period.

110J  Counter notices

(1) Where a relevant licensing authority receives a Part 5A notice, the relevant licensing authority may—

(a) give the person who gave the Part 5A notice a counter notice under this section;

(b) give a copy of the counter notice to each relevant person.

(2) Where the relevant licensing authority receives an objection notice given in compliance with the requirement imposed by section 110I(3), the relevant licensing authority must decide whether to give a counter notice (and, if it does so decide, give that notice) no later than whichever of the following is the earlier—

(a) the day before the date when the Part 5A would take effect (see section 110D(8));

(b) the expiry of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the objection notice is received by the relevant licensing authority.

(3) The power conferred by subsection (1) may not be exercised at any time after the Part 5A notice takes effect unless an objection notice under section 110I has been given, by virtue of subsection (4) of that section, in relation to the notice.

(4) The counter notice must—

(a) be in the prescribed form, and

(b) be given in the prescribed manner.

110K  Counter notices: revocation etc

(1) A relevant licensing authority must revoke a counter notice given under section 110J if—

(a) the counter notice was given in consequence of one or more objection notices under section 110I, and

(b) the objection notice or (as the case may be) each of them is withdrawn by the person who gave it or is quashed by a court.

(2) Where a counter notice is revoked or is quashed by a court—

(a) the counter notice is disregarded for the purposes of section 110A(3), except in relation to any time before the day on which it is revoked or quashed,

(b) the Part 5A notice takes effect on that day, and

(c) the relevant licensing authority must as soon as possible notify the person who gave the Part 5A notice of the date on which it takes effect.

Rights of entry, production of notice, etc

110L  Right of entry where Part 5A notice given

(1) A constable or an authorised officer may, at any reasonable time, enter premises to which a Part 5A notice relates to assess the likely effect of the notice on the promotion of the crime prevention objective.

(2) An authorised officer exercising the power conferred by this section must, if so requested, produce evidence of the officer’s authority to exercise the power.

(3) It is an offence intentionally to obstruct an authorised officer exercising a power conferred by this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(5) In this section “authorised officer” means—

(a) an officer of the licensing authority in whose area the premises are situated, or

(b) if the premises are situated in the area of more than one licensing authority, an officer of any of those authorities,

authorised for the purposes of this Act.

110M  Duty to keep and produce Part 5A notice

(1) This section applies whenever premises are being used for sales of alcohol which are, or are purported to be, permitted sales by virtue of this Part.

(2) The person who gave the Part 5A notice must secure that a copy of the notice is either—

(a) prominently displayed at the premises, or

(b) kept at the premises in the custody of that person or of someone who is present and working at the premises and whom that person has nominated for the purposes of this section (a “nominated person”).

(3) Where a copy of the Part 5A notice is kept in the custody of a nominated person (and not prominently displayed at the premises) the person who gave the Part 5A notice must secure that a notice—

(a) stating that the Part 5A notice is in the nominated person’s custody, and

(b) specifying the position held at the premises by the nominated person,

is prominently displayed at the premises.

(4) It is an offence for the person who gave the Part 5A notice to fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with subsection (2) or (where it applies) subsection (3).

(5) Where—

(a) a copy of the Part 5A notice is not prominently displayed at the premises, and

(b) no notice is displayed as mentioned in subsection (3),

a constable or authorised officer may require the person who gave the Part 5A notice to produce a copy of it for examination.

(6) Where a notice is displayed as mentioned in subsection (3), a constable or authorised officer may require the nominated person to produce a copy of the Part 5A notice for examination.

(7) An authorised officer exercising the power conferred by subsection (5) or (6) must, if so requested, produce evidence of the officer’s authority to exercise the power.

(8) It is an offence for a person to fail, without reasonable excuse, to produce a copy of a Part 5A notice in accordance with a requirement under subsection (5) or (6).

(9) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(10) In this section “authorised officer” has the meaning given in section 110L(5).

Supplementary

110N The relevant licensing authority

(1) For the purposes of this Part, the “relevant licensing authority”, in relation to any premises, is determined in accordance with this section.

(2) In the case of a Part 5A notice that specifies the ancillary business sales conditions or in the case of Part 5A notice that specifies the community event conditions in relation to only one set of premises, the relevant licensing authority is, subject to subsection (3), the authority in whose area the premises are situated.

(3) Where the premises are situated in the areas of two or more licensing authorities, the relevant licensing authority is—

(a) the licensing authority in whose area the greater or greatest part of the premises is situated, or

(b) if there is no authority to which paragraph (a) applies, such one of the authorities as the person giving the Part 5A notice may choose.

(4) In the case of a Part 5A notice that specifies the community event conditions in relation to more than one set of premises, the relevant licensing authority is—

(a) if there is only one licensing authority in whose area each set of premises is wholly or partly situated, that licensing authority;

(b) if each set of premises falls partly in the area of one authority and also partly in the area of another, such one of them as the person giving the Part 5A notice may choose.”’.—(Norman Baker.)

This amendment inserts the new Part 5A of the Licensing Act 2003 (see the explanatory statement to amendment NC5).

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.



Schedule 18

Legislation no longer of practical use

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

I beg to move amendment 58, page 157, line 11, at end insert—

‘Mining Industry Act 1920 (c. 50)

3A The Mining Industry Act 1920 is repealed.

3B In consequence of paragraph 3A, in Schedule 4 to the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, omit the entry for the Mining Industry Act 1920.

Mining Industry Act 1926 (c. 28)

3C (1) In the Mining Industry Act 1926, omit section 20 (which confers power on coal-mining companies to establish profit sharing schemes irrespective of the terms of their articles of association).

(2) The repeal made by sub-paragraph (1) is to have no effect in relation to any scheme still in existence that was established, and is being carried on, in reliance on the power conferred by section 20 of the Mining Industry Act 1926.’.

Cyberstalking

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) on securing this important debate and on communicating her thoughts effectively and convincingly. I welcome the constructive approach of the shadow police Minister. We have three parties in this debate, and all three speakers are in the same position: we want to deal with this serious matter carefully, sensibly and effectively. We all share the abhorrence that my hon. Friend expressed for the consequences of cyberstalking. The Government has an open mind as to how we take the matter forward. We are committed to tackling cyberstalking. If there are good ideas, from wherever they come in the House, we want to look at those ideas. We have an open door as well as an open mind on these matters. I hope that the shadow police Minister will take that in the constructive spirit in which it is meant.

Stalking, whether it occurs online or offline, is a serious crime that can have devastating and debilitating effects on those targeted, as my hon. Friend eloquently set out. It is a crime that the coalition Government takes very seriously. According to the independent crime survey for England and Wales for 2012-13, after the age of 16, stalking affects 4% of women and 2% of men a year. It can affect many people in many different circumstances—incidents of stalking can take place within the context of a violent relationship or after a brief relationship, and it can involve a casual acquaintance or a complete stranger.

Victims of stalking may be affected in many different ways. They may lose their home, their family, their friends and their job in a bid to escape a persistent, fixated stalker. The most extreme outcome may be homicide or suicide. Everyone has the right to feel safe and secure and to live their life without feeling threatened or intimidated, and without being spied on. Victims of stalking have those fundamental freedoms taken away from them.

Both my colleagues referred to legislation and to enactment, and it is right to deal with both aspects. I will deal with legislation first. The Government is absolutely clear that what is illegal offline is illegal online. Cyberstalking is simply a term that describes a way to stalk a victim—using the internet—and it is therefore covered by the legislation. If people behave online in ways that would be unacceptable in any other context, there must be consequences. In 2012, we introduced two new stalking offences, which by definition include cyberstalking. We are determined that those who engage in such reprehensible behaviour are brought to justice.

My hon. Friend made a powerful case that stalking online is, in some ways, more debilitating for the victim and more damaging than it might be offline. She drew the helpful and pertinent comparison between poison pen letters, which could be called the offline method of stalking, and online stalking, with its potential impact and the ability of the internet to makes things available to far more people. Online stalking can therefore be more damaging than offline stalking—she made that point powerfully, which law enforcement agencies and the Government need to take on board.

Cyber-smearing, as my hon. Friend called the practice, is indeed more serious than poison pen letters. She was also right to say that anonymity is more possible online than it is offline. That can be more threatening and give perpetrators the appearance of having more power than they have offline, where they may be identified. People may therefore behave more outrageously and unacceptably online than they would do otherwise. The Government treats online and offline crime equally as crime, but I personally accept her point that online stalking can be more serious. We have to reflect that fact in how we approach the matter. I am grateful to her for making the case.

In answer to one of the questions asked by the shadow policing Minister, data from the Crown Prosecution Service’s report on violence against women and girls, published in July 2013, indicate that up to June of that year 91 prosecutions had been commenced under the new stalking offences. The legislation is still of course relatively new, and we will continue to monitor its use closely and carefully to ensure that it is effective and appropriate. He also asked about the number of potential cases yet to be brought forward. Police-recorded crime figures from April 2014 will give a clearer picture of stalking, because it is now separated from harassment.

[Mr Hanson]

Does the Minister have any figures for the success rate of the prosecutions? How many have been translated into convictions?

[Norman Baker]

I mentioned that 91 prosecutions had been commenced, but I do not have the figure for whether the outcomes were successful. If I can rustle up that figure during the debate, I will give it to the Chamber. Otherwise, I am happy to write to the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend with that information.

Both the Members who have spoken in the debate rightly raised the issue of training. Legislation is not enough; it is only useful if it is effective and used, and if those who have the duty to act under it understand how it works and are sympathetic to it. The police, the criminal justice system, the front-line practitioners and industry all have a role to play in tackling the appalling crime of stalking, and we are working with them to increase awareness. For example, the Home Office has developed a one-day training course to improve understanding of stalking among those who come into contact with victims. The package was developed in partnership with Women’s Aid and the Paladin National Stalking Advocacy Service.

In addition, the College of Policing has developed a training package on stalking and harassment, which last year won the silver award for “excellence in the production of learning content” at the national 2013 e-learning awards. The training package is available to all police officers and staff. Furthermore, all newly qualified police officers—uniformed officers, investigators and public protection officers—are expected to complete it. It has been completed 48,000 times by the police since October 2012.

[Nadine Dorries]

Will the Minister confirm whether that is the same as the online package with the rather complicated name? I am afraid my notes have been taken away, but I have found a reference. Is his training package the same as that of the National Centre for Applied Learning Technologies, which 370 Bedfordshire officers have completed? Or is it a different package? If it is a different one, we need to have some harmony between the packages that are out there and what forces can access; otherwise, the picture presented is complicated. Does the Minister know whether those packages are the same?

[Norman Baker]

The terminology used by my hon. Friend was not what I used, but I will also check that point and come back to her with an answer. I was referring to a College of Policing package.

We have also developed a cyber-flag to enable forces to highlight crimes that have taken place online. The flag is running on a voluntary basis during 2014-15, and forces have been encouraged to start returning data to the Home Office. The flag will become mandatory in 2015-16. As time progresses, we will have a much clearer picture of what is happening than we did immediately after the enactment of the new offences.

I am pleased that in June 2013 the CPS made mandatory its e-learning package on prosecuting cyberstalking, non-cyberstalking and harassment. More than 1,300 lawyers have now completed that training, which is another aspect of the necessary involvement of the law enforcement agencies. For prosecutors to have appropriate guidance in place is also critical—a point made by the shadow Minister—and in June last year the CPS published guidelines for prosecutors on the approach that they should take in cases involving communications via social media. The guidance is absolutely clear that such communications are capable of amounting to criminal offences. We will continue to work with the police and other criminal justice agencies to ensure that all stalking cases are handled effectively and with due sensitivity.

I will now respond to one or two of the other points made. Garry Shewan and Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions, wrote jointly to all chief constables and chief Crown prosecutors to identify common issues, such as charging correctly, and how they could be more effective. So they have taken action as well. As I mentioned, the CPS published robust guidelines in July last year, and they set out how to tackle cases involving social media. It is also worth mentioning at this point that the Home Office is committed to ensuring that local police and crime commissioners are fully aware of such offences and of the victims. A series of focus groups is planned that will include giving victims of stalking an opportunity to share their experiences with police and crime commissioners. We are trying to cover all bases.

[Nadine Dorries]

To be helpful to the Minister, I remind him that one of the issues that I raised was the funding for the National Stalking Helpline. Will that be continued?

[Norman Baker]

Funding for the Suzy Lamplugh Trust has been ring-fenced until March 2015; decisions beyond that point, for reasons of the electoral cycle, have yet to be finalised. The helpline is also funded by the Home Office. I am keen to get certainty on funding not only for that but for all useful Home Office strands. Clearly, we have to consider what we can do sensibly, given the election period, so that we do not end up with varied and vital sources of funding drying up and leaving people out there who perform much good work, especially in voluntary organisations, high and dry. I fully understand the point made by my hon. Friend about certainty of funding—it is guaranteed until March 2015 for the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, but I am keen to see what we can do to give more certainty before the summer recess, if at all possible.

There is also a vital role for social media companies to ensure that they respond quickly and appropriately to incidents of abusive behaviour on their networks. We expect such companies to ensure that they have easy-to-use reporting tools and robust processes in place to respond promptly when abuse is reported and, if necessary, that individuals who do not comply with their acceptable use polices have their accounts suspended or terminated.

Online abuse and harassment affect young people, which my hon. Friend referred to. On 13 February, the Minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), chaired a meeting with social media companies, including Facebook, Twitter, and Google, charities and Members of Parliament to discuss what more might be done to protect young people online.

The purpose of the meeting was to hear from social media companies about the measures they have in place to protect children from abuse, threatening behaviour, or seeing something that may be harmful. MPs had the opportunity to challenge, ask questions and raise any concerns. We affirmed the position that social media companies should respond quickly to incidents of abusive behaviour on their networks and ensure that they have measures in place to protect users.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire said, some of the people who engage in such reprehensible behaviour use anonymity to cover up who they are and to avoid being brought to justice. Of course, sometimes it is complicated to identify who is responsible, but it can be done. She will no doubt be aware of one or two cases in which individuals have been successfully prosecuted. For example, the Caroline Criado-Perez case involving the bank notes issue resulted in two convictions. It is absolutely right that such matters are taken forward.

It is also true—the shadow Minister referred to this—that such crimes are relatively new. They did not exist when he arrived in Parliament, or indeed when I arrived in Parliament in 1997. Therefore, MPs and successive Governments, and those to whom we look to enforce legislation, whether the police, the CPS or others, have been on a learning curve to ensure that the legislation is correct. We are committed, and we are trying to ensure that our practitioners out there are committed, to putting in place procedures and methods to ensure that such crimes can be dealt with effectively and that those who are responsible are brought to justice. It is important to do that.

We are on a learning curve, because the legislation and the crime are relatively new. However, some of the measures I have spoken about indicate that we are taking the issue seriously and that we are making useful contacts and connections with those whom we expect to enforce the legislation out there.

Part of the matter relates to education and ensuring that young people in particular understand the need to be safe online. I am particularly concerned that—this is slightly beyond the point made by my hon. Friend —when people add something innocuous to Facebook or their website, it could come back to haunt them in 20, 30 or 40 years, which simply was not possible when we were their age. Therefore, young people need to be fully educated to understand the consequences and implications of the internet in a way that was not necessary for us when we were growing up.

All schools, including independent and free schools, must have a behaviour policy. E-safety teaching also applies in all schools. Education about online safety is important. The Government-funded Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, which is now integrated with the National Crime Agency, has issued advice on sexting and has produced material for teachers.

From September, children in primary schools will be taught how to use technology safely and respectfully, how to keep personal information private and where they can go for help and support. That is a useful development. Secondary school pupils will be taught a range of ways to use technology safely, responsibly and securely.

In addition, the Government has sent a clear message to schools that bullying, including cyber-bullying, is absolutely unacceptable. As I mentioned, every school is by law required to have a behaviour policy that includes measures aimed at preventing all forms of bullying among pupils. We have updated the advice to schools on bullying and cyber-bullying, setting out their legal duties, and the powers and the steps they can take to tackle it effectively. The Department for Education has given almost £3 million to organisations such as Beatbullying, the Diana Award, Kidscape and the National Children’s Bureau to provide state-of-the-art materials on cyber-bullying.

Regarding cybercrime more generally, we need to keep pace with the way in which crime is changing, and we are committed to improving our ability to tackle emerging issues. We are investing £860 million through the national cyber-security programme to improve our ability to detect attacks, develop world-class cyber capabilities and promote economic prosperity. That includes the creation of the national cybercrime unit, which is part of the National Crime Agency and will bring together law enforcement experts into a single unit to take the fight to the most serious offenders. As far as I am concerned, people who harass and destroy lives are serious offenders.

We have made progress, but there is more to do. In March, we updated the cross-Government action plan on violence against women and girls. It contains specific commitments to tackle stalking, including further action to raise awareness of that crime and continued funding for the national stalking helpline, which is a free national helpline that provides information and advice to victims of stalking.

More broadly, we will support effective local approaches to tackling violence against women and girls by providing local areas—through police and crime commissioners, local authorities and health care commissioners—with the information they need to deal effectively with crimes such as stalking.

Critically, we are committed to driving a culture change, both across society and in the response by front-line agencies. That is why, since 1 April, stalking and harassment offences are being reported separately in the police-recorded crime returns to the Home Office, allowing better assessment of how the offences are being investigated.

I will pick up on other points that I have not covered so far. My hon. Friend mentioned one particular incident, but she will of course understand that I cannot refer to ongoing cases.

I hope that I have misunderstood one of my hon. Friend’s points; it is not the case that an individual has to make 100 complaints to the police in every case before the police take action. As I understand it, the situation is that, often, 100 incidents occur before victims report matters to the police; I just want to be quite clear on that point. However, it is absolutely key that the police take matters seriously. To be honest, it has been a bit patchy in the past, and we have a challenge to drive up performance to the level of the best.

My hon. Friend is right to make the point that stalking, as well as being a reprehensible crime in itself, can be the precursor for something even more serious, such as physical attacks. Therefore, it is sensible, not just morally right, for the police to get ahead of cases early to identify those who may want to do something even more serious when they are banned from stalking.

I am confident that the important issue of malicious software being sent to gain control of a computer and access to a webcam will feature in the new information given to school children funded by the DFE. The capacity to use the internet maliciously is not well or widely understood, and it needs to be.

I think I have answered my hon. Friend’s point about funding. If there are any other issues about funding that she needs to follow through with me, I will be happy to do so subsequently.

To re-emphasise my point about online safety, guidance to digital safety is available online, and digital safety is included in the Home Office training package on stalking. Four sessions have been delivered to practitioners since February, and materials are available more widely.

I hope that I have gone some way to reassuring hon. Members that the coalition Government is absolutely clear that stalking, bullying, harassment and threatening behaviour are completely unacceptable. Regardless of whether such behaviour occurs online or offline, we are committed to putting an end to it. Online is a particular challenge, which we have grasped. All of us are on a learning curve, but we are determined to ensure that those responsible for such reprehensible behaviour are brought to justice.

If there are any outstanding points that hon. Members have raised but which I have not been able to deal with, I shall happily write to them with the information requested.

“Challenge it, Report it, Stop it”- Hate Crime

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

Today we are publishing our progress report on the coalition Government’s hate crime action plan. A copy will be placed in the House Library.

Hate crime can have devastating consequences for victims and their families, and can also divide communities.

In March 2012, we published “Challenge it, Report it, Stop it”, the Government’s plan to tackle hate crime, which brought together action by a range of Departments and agencies under three core principles: to prevent hate crime; to increase reporting and access to support; and to improve the operational response to hate crimes.

The Government committed to review the plan, to assess progress in delivering those actions and to ensure it addressed new and emerging issues. Today’s report provides an overview of our achievements since the plan was published and also highlights areas that have emerged or have continued to evolve, and what we will do to tackle those issues for the remainder of this Parliament.

We have made good progress in delivering our commitments to tackle hate crime and now have a better understanding of the types of hate crimes that are committed and where those crimes are happening. We have provided direct support to front-line professionals to help build victims’ confidence to come forward, and the police have improved the way they record hate crimes. We now have a strengthened legal framework which is already regarded as one of the most robust in the world in protecting people from hatred and bigotry.

However, findings from the crime survey for 2011-12 and 2012-13 highlight that hate crime is still significantly under-reported, with estimates of around 278,000 incidents each year, compared to the 42, 236 hate crimes that were recorded by police forces in England and Wales in 2012-13.

We are proud of the achievements this Government has made so far, but there is still much to do to confront the hatred and hostility that still exists in our society, and to tackle the scale of under-reporting. We will continue to work closely with a wide range of voluntary sector, community representatives and front-line organisations to drive forward work on this agenda.

Oral Answers to Questions

Norman Baker Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

14. What recent progress she has made on tackling violence against women.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

The coalition Government published our updated action plan on 8 March, setting out recent progress to tackle violence against women and girls. We have begun the national roll-out of the domestic violence disclosure scheme and domestic violence protection orders; commissioned Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary’s review into domestic abuse, and announced steps to ensure the recommendations are acted on; and criminalised forced marriage. We are continuing a robust programme to tackle female genital mutilation.

[Bridget Phillipson]

As the Minister is aware, the all-party group on domestic and sexual violence recently published a report on women’s access to justice, with a number of recommendations. I am grateful to the Minister for giving evidence to that inquiry. Will he set out what steps he will take to review our findings and to implement the recommendations?

[Norman Baker]

As the hon. Lady knows, I very much welcome that particular inquiry. She has considerable experience in this field, as I readily recognise. We are giving proper consideration to the recommendations, as she would expect, and we will make an announcement in due course. I very much welcome the work that has been done.

[Debbie Abrahams]

In Greater Manchester last year, over 10,000 more domestic violence incidents were reported to the police, which is a 21% increase on the year before; yet 29% fewer domestic violence cases were referred for prosecution. Will the Minister explain the reason for that, and what will he do about it?

[Norman Baker]

Let me first say that the Home Secretary and I share a concern about some figures that come out from individual police forces. That is why my right hon. Friend has written to chief constables and police force leads on domestic abuse, making clear our expectation as a Government that every police force will have an action plan in place by September to improve their response to domestic violence and abuse. It is important, however, to stress that three out of four cases of violence against women and girls do result in convictions.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Will the Minister update the House on what progress has been made towards involving general practitioners and other medical practitioners in exposing and bringing to justice those who engage in the horrific and despicable crime of FGM?

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to tell my right hon. Friend that there is good co-operation across Departments. The Department of Health is closely involved in the matter and the public health Minister in particular, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), has been very supportive of the efforts of the Home Office. My right hon. Friend will know that under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, anyone who has information showing that a child is at risk is required to inform social care or the police. He will also know that the Department of Health has taken steps to ensure that FGM cases are monitored in the health service so that we have a full picture by later this year.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

22. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Metropolitan police and the Mayor of London on securing the first UK prosecution for female genital mutilation? Will he update us on what progress has been made towards making it mandatory to share key information with all the relevant agencies?

[Norman Baker]

Obviously, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, I cannot comment on cases that are before the courts. I strongly support the efforts of the Director of Public Prosecutions to ensure that prosecutions take place, and the police forces who are taking the matter forward in a productive way. I mentioned a moment ago the action that the Department of Health is taking and she will be aware that guidance has been issued to schools by the Secretary of State for Education, so there is a joined-up approach across Government. The question of mandatory reporting will be considered by the Department of Health and others as the initiative unrolls.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the past month, two women in Hackney have been killed by violent partners, one with her 23-month-old child. Those women had talked to their friends about the risks that they faced. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that funding for organisations such as the Family Rights Group, which is based in Hackney, is not stopped by the Department for Education so that friends and family members, as well as potential victims, have somewhere to go?

[Norman Baker]

I am not familiar with the DFE funding, but I can tell the hon. Lady that the Home Office has allocated £40 million to deal with these important matters. I am deeply sorry to hear of the events in her constituency. We seek to learn lessons from each case. I remind her that we have introduced domestic violence disclosure orders and protection orders to help women in such situations.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Last year, 1.2 million women suffered from domestic abuse and 330,000 suffered from sexual assault. Does the Minister agree not only that those are terrible figures in themselves, but that the initiative to drive women’s rights across the world, which was announced recently by the Foreign Secretary, will stand a chance of gaining credence or traction only if we sort the problem out at home?

[Norman Baker]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that those are appalling crimes. There is a call to the police about domestic abuse every 30 seconds, which is a shaming statistic for our society. There is also a cost, which is obviously a secondary consideration, of £15.7 billion a year. We have to do everything we can, as the Home Office is doing, to get a grip on this matter. Colleagues in the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office are similarly concerned and are taking action within their portfolios.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

The shocking report on domestic violence by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary revealed that high levels of vacancies in domestic violence units and unsustainable case loads were leading to quotas being imposed on victims that were deemed to be high risk. Given that evidence, does the Minister accept that the Government’s hollowing out of the police force has resulted in the loss of specialist officers, inhibited the ability to pursue cases and, most importantly, left victims at risk? When will he accept responsibility for the Government’s actions, instead of blaming others?

[Norman Baker]

I am sorry to hear that contribution from the hon. Lady, because this is an issue that all Members of the House, irrespective of gender or party, feel strongly about. To politicise it in that way is not helpful. She talked about the police force, but she ought to remember that crime is down by more than 10% under this Government and that there are therefore fewer crimes to investigate. To imply that the police are unable to deal with this matter is simply not right. We attach a high priority to the matter. That has been made clear by the Home Secretary, by myself and by the action that the Government is taking.

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

5. What steps she has taken to prevent human trafficking for purposes of labour exploitation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

6. What recent progress she has made on tackling crime and antisocial behaviour arising from alcohol abuse.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

The coalition Government has overhauled the Licensing Act 2003, giving local areas stronger powers to deal with problem premises. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 will provide front-line professionals with powerful new tools to tackle alcohol related antisocial behaviour. We are also banning the worst instances of cheap and harmful alcohol sales, and we are working with 20 local alcohol action areas to reduce alcohol-related crime and disorder.

[Nick Smith]

Given strong evidence that a higher price for alcohol means less public disorder and better health, when will the Government do the right thing—as they have finally done with plain packaging—and introduce minimum unit pricing for alcohol?

[Norman Baker]

Minimum pricing is on the radar; it has not been ruled out and the matter is still under consideration. We are looking with interest at what is happening north of the border in Scotland, and helping the Scottish Government in its efforts.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the Minister update the House on how early morning alcohol restriction orders and the levy for late night licence holders are working to contribute to the costs of policing antisocial behaviour?

[Norman Baker]

I am very pleased by the roll-out of the late night levy, including in Newcastle, Cheltenham and elsewhere. I believe that Islington is next, and Chelmsford is showing an interest as well. We are looking at the responses from local councils on early morning restriction orders to see what feedback we have received, and we will amend the measures as necessary.

[Mr Speaker]

Some Members require heavier hints than others. Mr Simon Wright.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

16. Prince of Wales road in my constituency is the centre of Norwich’s night-time economy, and residents and councillors have launched a stakeholders forum to consider how to deal with the impact of excessive alcohol consumption in the area. The Minister has received a copy of the first report ordered by Councillor Ben Price. Will he join me in welcoming that community-led activity, and will he meet me and Councillor Price to consider how we can take forward the report’s recommendations?

[Norman Baker]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work with his local councillors on this important matter. I welcome the community strategy document he mentions and would be happy to meet him and Councillor Price.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

8. What assessment she has made of the level of illegal drug use in the UK.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

11. What assessment she has made of the level of illegal drug use in the UK.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

Drug use in England and Wales has fallen to its lowest level since records began, in 1996. The number of heroin and crack cocaine users in England has fallen below 300,000 for the first time since 2004-05. Drug-related deaths in England and Wales have continued to fall over the last three years. Numbers successfully completing drug treatment free of dependency in England have risen since 2009-10.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I congratulate the Government on their success in reducing the use of certain drugs, but we are still not recording the use of many drugs, particularly legal highs. Given that we are seeing a fall in cannabis use but there is a great deal of evidence of an increase in legal high cannabinoid use, does the Minister not agree that if we want to protect our young people, we need to record all the drugs they are taking, including legal highs?

[Norman Baker]

I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend’s question and I agree that many of the chemical highs or new psychoactive substances—the so-called legal highs, although I prefer not to use the word “legal” because that implies that they are both legal and safe and some are neither—can be more dangerous than other drugs that people recognise as dangerous. There has been a decline in drug use among young people, but he is right to draw attention to that aspect. I established an expert panel on it late last year and I look forward to receiving its recommendations shortly.

[Mr Ellwood]

Drugs are often produced and sold by international crime gangs. What is the Minister doing to work with the international community to protect this country from the illegal movement and sale of drugs by such gangs?

[Norman Baker]

I am happy to say that in the cross-governmental serious and organised crime strategy, we work in partnership with countries where drugs are produced and transported, as well as with the wider international community, to disrupt the organised criminal networks that distribute drugs. Our approach is to build political will and practical capacity to tackle high priority criminal groups. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), takes this matter very seriously.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What discussions she has had with her ministerial colleagues on implementing the recommendations of the joint royal colleges’ report “Tackling FGM in the UK” published in November 2013.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

The coalition welcomed the joint royal colleges’ report published last November. The Government is committed to eradicating female genital mutilation and is taking action in each of the areas recommended in the report. As part of our strategy, eight Departments have signed a cross-government declaration reaffirming our commitment to protecting current and future generations of girls from this abuse, and each Department is doing what it can to eradicate the practice in the UK.

[Gavin Shuker]

Given that the Minister accepts that both strong political leadership and joint working are essential to tackle the problem, will he give me an assurance that he has met the Secretary of State for Education to discuss the matter?

[Norman Baker]

I have certainly been in correspondence with the Education Secretary, and I have met on more than one occasion the relevant Education Minister. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Education Secretary has now written to schools, which is a very helpful development.

[Lyn Brown]

I am a little concerned to hear that answer, given that the Minister talked about good co-operation across all Departments. Given that the survey quoted by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children reports that one in six teachers is unaware that FGM is a crime and that 68% are unaware of any guidance from the Government on what to do if they suspect a pupil is at risk, can the Minister assure the House that he will meet the Secretary of State for Education, discuss this very important issue and report back to the House on what agreements they make on how to tackle this despicable crime?

[Norman Baker]

I agree with the hon. Lady that it is a despicable crime. That is why we take it so seriously not just in the Home Office but across Government. I refer her to the cross-government agreement I mentioned in my original answer, which has been signed by eight Departments, including by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), on behalf of the Department for Education. We are in regular contact on these matters across Departments and will continue to be so.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to interdepartmental working and a multi-agency approach, but does he not agree that until more perpetrators are brought before our courts and convicted, the elders and parents in the communities in which these atrocities take place will not take the law seriously?

[Norman Baker]

It is a matter of some regret, in my view, that there have been no successful prosecutions since the practice was outlawed in 1985. I am delighted that there are now two cases pending, although obviously I cannot comment on matters before the courts. What I can say is that in my view there is certainly a willingness on the part of police forces, the Director of Public Prosecutions and others to ensure that where the crime is perpetrated, those responsible are brought to justice. The DPP wrote to me and the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims earlier this year with a suggestion for a particular change that might be enacted to try to make prosecutions more likely and more successful. We are looking at that suggestion now.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

12. What progress she has made on reducing abuse of the student visa system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

21. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of existing legislation for tackling child sexual exploitation.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

The coalition Government remains committed to ensuring that all necessary legislation is in place to tackle child sexual abuse. I welcome the hon. Member’s recent inquiry into this issue. I am reassured by the inquiry’s conclusion that there was no evidence to show that justice could not be served owing to the lack of a specific child sexual exploitation offence. The inquiry report made a number of wider recommendations which are now being actively considered.

[Sarah Champion]

There are currently 16 pieces of legislation that use the term “child prostitute”. I have spoken to young people who have been victims of child sexual exploitation, and they say the expression makes them feel dirty and complicit. Will the Minister commit to introducing a process to remove this term from the law?

[Norman Baker]

I am very sympathetic to that suggestion. Children who are sexually exploited, whether for commercial or other reasons, should not be referred to as prostitutes. They are victims. We will consider references in all legislation and guidance as opportunities arise, as well as considering carefully the wording used in any new legislation or guidance.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

T2. There were at least 68 deaths from legal highs in 2012, with more likely in 2013 and 2014. It is simply madness that children can walk into a shop and buy these harmful products. I know that the Minister has launched a review of legal highs—he referred to it earlier—but given that people are dying as a result of consuming these products, when can we expect meaningful action on this issue?

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

There has already been a great deal of meaningful action, including a month of action from police forces, which resulted in the successful seizure of products, and a number of arrests and prosecutions. I have also issued guidance to local councils on how they can deal with these so-called “head shops”, which has led to successful interventions to seize more material, so we are in fact taking strong action. I hope that the review panel, which will report very shortly, will recommend even stronger ways to tackle these chemical highs. However, we must not get this out of perspective, because the number of deaths from what we might call “traditional drugs” is still very high, and we need to concentrate on that.T5. Early one Sunday in September 2011, Bedfordshire police deployed 200 officers to free 24 people who were being kept in slavery, some of whom had been there for more than 20 years. Such operations are very expensive. In order to encourage the police to undertake more of them, what are we doing to make sure that they are refunded from the often considerable assets of the slave traders?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Anybody would agree that it is absolutely wrong that somebody who has been involved in a crime such as slavery should be allowed to keep their money. I am determined that this Government will give law enforcement agencies and others all the powers they need to get that money back. I also give this message to the slave masters: if you are involved in the disgusting and hideous trade in human beings, be under no illusion that this Government will find you, prosecute you and lock you up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

T7. In tackling the scourge of legal highs, may I urge the Minister to look at the work that Thames Valley police and Milton Keynes council have been doing to rid our communities of these substances? I have seen many distressing cases in my surgery of bright young people having been dragged into a downward spiral because they have had easy access to these drugs.

[Norman Baker]

I welcome the steps being taken in Milton Keynes by Thames Valley police. I know that they raided the central Milton Keynes market and seized various chemical high products when young people were spotted using pills and powders that they thought had been bought from market stalls. That is a good example of what can be done with existing legislation. We have also banned hundreds of these substances as we have found them, but there is more to do, which is why I have set up this expert review panel.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

It has been found that 86% of people on tied visas have had their employers keep their passport, and that 62% of them have received no salary at all. This Government changed the visas arrangement to ensure that domestic workers were tied to a single employer and could not change. Will this Government now reverse that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The criminalisation of the drug mephedrone, once a legal high, resulted in a 300% increase in its use in my area. Will the Government look at the practical new approach that is being tried in New Zealand, whereby the responsibility for the safety of legal highs is being placed on those who profit from the sale of them?

[Norman Baker]

The answer is that an international comparator study has been undertaken, and that includes talking to countries that have a whole range of different approaches, including New Zealand, Ireland and Portugal. We are assessing what works best with the object of minimising the harm from drug use.

Domestic Violence (Police Response)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) for the opportunity to debate this important topic. Members have referred to the review of domestic abuse by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary commissioned by the Home Secretary, which has brought the matter into sharp relief and raised serious questions for the police in particular. I pay tribute to hon. Members from all parties who have spoken in the debate for their worthwhile and thoughtful contributions. I will do my best to respond to each of the points raised.

I think that we can make progress and turn a corner, to pick up the last point made by the Opposition spokesperson; I think that we are turning the corner. One reason is that there is unanimity within this House that domestic abuse and violence must be tackled more seriously than they have been, particularly in the past 20 or 30 years and before that. We must consider it differently, and the HMIC report helps us in that regard.

Domestic abuse is a sinister way of undermining the trust that those in close relationships place in one another. It ruins lives and, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) pointed out, it can affect children significantly as well. As we know, in the worst cases it can lead to death. Domestic abuse happens every day in homes across this country. In most cases it goes unreported, which makes it difficult to know exactly how many people are affected. The crime survey for England and Wales estimates that 1.2 million women were victims of domestic abuse last year, and 77 women were killed by their partners or ex-partners.

We can take some comfort, I suppose, from the fact that that is the lowest number of intimate partner homicides since 1998, but in my view and, I am sure, that of everybody in this Chamber, one such death or loss of life is too many. I think that I speak for my colleagues not just in the Home Office but across the Government when I say that I am determined to see a society in which violence against women and girls is not tolerated, people are able and encouraged to speak out, their concerns are taken seriously and no woman or girl must suffer domestic abuse.

One or two Members have said that every 30 seconds, a victim of domestic abuse summons up the courage to call the police. When a victim reaches out for help, it is vital that the police are equipped to respond effectively and sensitively to help end the cycle of abuse, which in many cases will have been going on for years, as Members have correctly said. That is why, in September, the Home Secretary commissioned HMIC to review the police response to domestic abuse across all 43 forces in England and Wales, following a series of reports on individual domestic homicides by the Independent Police Complaints Commission that caused the Home Secretary concern that the police were not doing all that they could to safeguard victims.

As has been mentioned, on 27 March, HMIC published its findings, which made for depressing reading. The review was thorough and rigorous and showed, frankly, that the police response is not good enough and is failing victims. Crucially, it is clear that the priority that police and crime commissioners have given on paper in their crime plans to tackling domestic abuse is not in many cases, or even most, translating into operational reality.

Although the main findings have been referred to, it may be helpful if I reprise some of them. First, on leadership, the report highlights that poor management and supervision in the police fail to reinforce the right behaviours, attitudes and actions among officers. It also highlights that some officers lack the basic skills and knowledge necessary to engage confidently and competently with victims of domestic abuse. HMIC found that many chief constables and their top teams still focus more on volume and acquisitive crime reduction than on domestic abuse. Leadership on the issue is simply not present.

HMIC also identified many examples of officers who work tirelessly to keep victims safe, sometimes with little support from their wider force. I wanted to put it on the record that such people exist and are doing their best. However, there are also officers who have shown a poor attitude towards victims and failed to treat them with the empathy that they deserve. That is simply not good enough. It is clear that the police must change how they respond to victims of domestic abuse.

At nine focus groups that HMIC held with 70 victims, the majority of participants had experienced poor attitudes from responding police officers. They felt that they had been judged and not taken seriously. I was horrified that one victim told inspectors she had overheard officers dismissing her report:

“Last year one officer came out and his radio was going and I heard him say ‘It’s a DV, we’ll be a few minutes and we’ll go to the next job’. And I thought—thanks a lot, that’s my life.”

That is a significant and harrowing example of what is happening. I was also disturbed to read the account of a victim in Manchester whose 13-year-old daughter was asked to act as a language interpreter for officers investigating allegations against her father. There is no excuse for those attitudes from police officers, and chief constables must act immediately to stamp them out.

It is that failure to see domestic abuse as the serious crime it is that is stopping officers responding effectively. Basic evidence collection that could help to support a prosecution to bring a perpetrator to justice simply is not happening. The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) referred to the failure to take such basic steps as capturing photographic evidence. I have been concerned about the fall-off in referrals by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service, so I was particularly worried to see that HMIC has exposed a wide variation in the number of arrests for domestic abuse crime. The arrest rate is anywhere between 45% and 90%. The report also draws out wide variation in cautioning and reveals that some forces are even routinely using restorative justice in domestic abuse cases. I am clear—I put it on the record—that if there is enough evidence to caution, there is enough evidence to charge.

HMIC also carried out a file review of 615 actual bodily harm cases connected with domestic abuse. Photographs of injuries were taken in only half the cases, and in 30% officers’ statements lacked important details about the crime scene or the victim. The Government has spent £1.4 million on body-worn cameras to help officers gather evidence at the scene. Yet HMIC has revealed that body-worn cameras are not routinely available for officers attending domestic abuse situations. Those unacceptable failures to gather evidence effectively mean that opportunities to stop perpetrators in their tracks are being missed and victims are left suffering. As the HMIC report makes clear, the police need to build the case for the victim; they should not expect the victim to build the case for the police.

HMIC has exposed similar weaknesses in police action to safeguard victims. Risk assessment tools can be seen as tick-box exercises that are slavishly followed by officers who do not have the skills to tailor their response to the situation in front of them. A third of all victims surveyed by HMIC felt no safer as a result of police intervention. In more than half the cases that HMIC looked at, there was no evidence of safety measures being considered. Police officers must understand that they have a responsibility to make victims safer, not just while they are on the scene, but once they have closed the front door and gone on to the next call. Chief constables need to take urgent action to make significant changes to front-line policing so that victims are protected and perpetrators brought to justice.

I am encouraged that the majority of chief constables have signalled their commitment to deliver lasting change in response to the HMIC review. Some forces have already taken action to address the issues that HMIC highlighted. Merseyside police identified a problem with the initial evidence collected by officers in domestic abuse cases and trained 1,500 front-line officers to improve their investigation skills. HMIC found that Lancashire constabulary has made domestic abuse “everyone’s business” and delivered an excellent service for victims in partnership with independent domestic violence advisers. That is commendable. It also shows that the police can improve their response.

That is particularly important given that some police leaders have suggested that the problem is wider than the police service and extends to other front-line agencies. It is of course true that all such agencies have a critical role to play, and we are taking steps through our violence against women and girls action plan to improve the response of all front-line professionals. However, domestic abuse is a crime and is accordingly core police business. The report is about police performance and it identifies police failures. Police leaders can and should work to address HMIC’s findings because that can and must make a difference to victims’ lives.

Some senior police officers have said in response to the findings that they cannot deliver better standards without more resource. Indeed, the hon. Member for Warrington North suggested likewise. I want to be clear: this is not about extra resource for the police service. This is about the police changing their culture and getting basic policing right, such as collecting evidence that ought to be collected and dealing with victims as they ought to deal with them. Improving how they listen to victims and getting the basics of investigation right are not to do with resources.

[Helen Jones]

The Minister is absolutely right that there have to be changes in culture, but does he not accept that to achieve that—the understanding among front-line officers about some of the realities of domestic violence and the improvement of call handling—there must also be an investment in training and equipment?

[Norman Baker]

I will come on to training, but the issue is too serious to digress into—dare I say it—a normal debate about resources for the police. The reality, to deal with that quickly, is that we have seen a reduction in crime of around 10% since 2010, which means that fewer crimes are being committed and the police have more time to investigate those that have been committed, even with fewer police officers than previously. Also, significant investment under my colleague, the Policing Minister, such as digitalisation in the police service, is freeing up a great deal of officer time by removing paperwork. Opposition or Government Members may think that this is a matter of resources, but I genuinely believe that it is not; it is about attitudes and practice in the police—as well as training, to pick up on the hon. Lady’s point.

[Helen Jones]

I am sorry, but I cannot allow that to go by without comment. Changing a call-handling system to enable call handlers to identify repeat victims, for example, is not a question of attitude; it is a question of having the right system in place, so that they can immediately check whether they have a repeat victim calling.

[Norman Baker]

It is a question of both, because if people are not taking domestic abuse seriously, they are not interested in tracking repeat matters, which was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark).

[Mr Newmark]

I do not mean to undermine the Minister, but training is about more than simply an attitude; one has to invest, which means some real money, perhaps a reallocation of resources. He is absolutely right, there has been a fall in crime and I have seen that locally in Braintree, but as we are saving money, I would like to see some reinvestment made to address specific recommendations, such as those which I made in my speech, which include better technology and better training, so that we get a change not only of mindset, but in the education of the police as to what domestic abuse is really about.

[Norman Baker]

I want to pick up on that point and approach it logically. Body-worn cameras, for example, have been an investment, but they are not being used as they ought to be, so there is also a matter about how the police deal with the technology that they are given. In addition, I confirm that the College of Policing—a good innovation introduced by the Government—will deliver better training in such matters within their resources. It is prioritising what it wants to do on domestic abuse, which is something that we are dealing with on a number of fronts, as I will explain.

Responding to domestic abuse is and must be seen as a core part of the police’s job. I want the priority to be in practice, not only on paper. HMIC has found that the coalition Government’s introduction of directly elected police and crime commissioners and the establishment of the College of Policing, which I have just mentioned, are two significant changes that will make a difference in supporting forces and in holding them to account. Change, however, must be driven by police at all levels. The report is an opportunity to make a real and lasting difference. Chief constables need to take personal oversight to ensure that things happen. We need leaders to recognise and reward officers who are working hard to improve the reality for victims of domestic abuse.

The Opposition spokesperson suggested—she said “gently”—that the Home Secretary should have made a statement as soon as the HMIC report came out. I want to put it on the record, however, perhaps as a Liberal Democrat rather than anything else, that the Home Secretary has been absolutely rigorous and determined to make progress on domestic violence since 2010—the whole House recognises that—and even more so subsequent to the report. On day one of the report’s publication she produced a written ministerial statement, she wrote to all colleagues in the House of Commons and she wrote to all chief constables and police force leads, making it clear that her expectation, in line with HMIC’s recommendations, was that each force will have a plan in place by September to improve its response to domestic violence and abuse.

The Home Secretary has committed to chairing a national oversight group to lead immediate improvement. She has not delegated that to me or to officials; she will lead it herself, and I will serve on that group with her. The group has a clear and specific mandate to monitor delivery against each of HMIC’s recommendations, so people’s feet are being held to the fire. The group will bring together the organisations that must make change with experts on domestic abuse, and it will sit for the first time shortly. The Home Secretary will issue quarterly reports on progress. The coalition Government will ensure that those important recommendations do not become yesterday’s news. They are live issues to be continually monitored, and progress must be pursued.

My officials are already working on delivering the actions for the Home Office that were identified by HMIC. The Home Secretary has advised chief constables that she will mandate the collection of performance statistics on domestic abuse by the police, which several colleagues mentioned, and work to build victim satisfaction into the picture so that we can meaningfully monitor progress to deliver improvements. We will also review the domestic homicide review process—a point that was also raised—to ensure that it provides the best possible opportunity for local areas to learn from individual tragedies.

Police action to address HMIC’s findings will build on work already being carried out by the coalition Government. We have introduced Clare’s law, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth mentioned, and we have introduced domestic violence protection orders to give the police a broader range of tools to break the cycle of abuse. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) referred to that issue in her speech, which was rather moving, when she said that a victim would sometimes be forced out of her house. It is precisely because of that problem that we have introduced domestic violence protection orders, which allow the victim to stay put and require the perpetrator to leave the premises. That puts the victim centre stage, rather than making them something of an add-on, as they have been in the past.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I raised the point about people being unable to have legal representation in getting such orders. If the orders exist, that is fantastic, but how can people get access to them if they cannot afford legal representation? The hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) and I are eager to hear that the Minister will do something to help on that.

[Norman Baker]

I have got notes, but I will respond to the specific points raised by the hon. Lady in a moment. I would expect the police to be helpful in ensuring that the protection orders are taken forward in such circumstances.

We have also been clear that changes to the law or new powers alone are not sufficient. The Home Secretary is determined to use the extra resource that the Government has injected into HMIC to continue to monitor performance on domestic abuse, and I join her in welcoming HMIC’s commitment to revisit those issues as part of its annual review. The HMIC report is clear that multi-agency approaches are vital to improving practice in the area. The Government has ring-fenced nearly £40 million of stable funding for specialist local domestic and sexual violence support services until 2015. That is used to part-fund 54 multi-agency risk assessment conference co-ordinators and 144 independent domestic violence advisers. Up to 60% of abuse victims report no further violence following intervention by independent advisers, so they appear to work.

The work that the police will undertake to improve their response must be supported by the wider response of the criminal justice system. On 10 December 2013 the coalition Government brought in a victims’ code that gives victims of crime clearer entitlements from criminal justice agencies so that they get the right support at the right time. The new code provides an enhanced level of service to vulnerable or intimidated victims.

We are piloting pre-trial cross-examination in three Crown courts, recognising that if we are to encourage victims to come forward we need to ensure that they are offered the support they need to go through the court process. The Director of Public Prosecutions is currently updating guidance for prosecutors to complement that work. I have also asked that we consider what guidance may be issued to juries. Juries are, of course, independent but some juries conclude, for example, that an inference can be drawn from the fact that someone is wearing certain clothes. Such attitudes must be challenged, and that work is ongoing.

Let me pick up some of the points that were raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) asked about non-molestation orders. The domestic violence protection orders that I have mentioned go a long way towards closing the gap, and they do so more quickly than a non-molestation order might. Police officers can issue a domestic violence protection order on first call-out. That is an immediate response, which does not involve going through the legal system. In the meantime, of course, during the period granted by the protection order, the victim can be referred to specialist services for support. Non-molestation orders do not add to the framework in the short term, but I will raise the issue with colleagues at the Ministry of Justice and the interministerial group on violence against women and girls, which I sit on with the Home Secretary. I hope that is helpful.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I thank the Minister for that. What struck me was that when my constituent phoned the police and was passed on to the solicitor, she was told that her contribution to legal aid would be around £40, which she could afford, but in the end it was more than £500. We must ensure that people are properly informed of the costs that they may incur in such cases. She was trying to make herself safe from her husband rather than prosecute him.

[Norman Baker]

I entirely understand that. The hon. Lady made the point about the cost of implementation very well. I was dealing with the non-molestation point in the sense that I was trying to ensure that someone who had been subject to domestic violence was secure from further attack or violence. The protection order that we have just introduced provides a period when the victim can stay in their home, the perpetrator is removed, and a specialist independent domestic violence advocate can give advice. IDVAs should be allowed to support victims throughout the criminal justice process. I am happy to take the matter up with the Ministry of Justice and to take it forward with the interministerial group that I mentioned.

[Dame Angela Watkinson]

I am doing my best to follow the change in policy. Will the Minister clarify whether the sort of harassment charges that we have been talking about are now criminal and not civil? That seems to be the crucial point. If it is a civil matter, the victim is liable for the cost of obtaining a non-molestation order. If it is a criminal matter, will it be free of charge?

[Norman Baker]

I will write to my hon. Friend on that specific point. However, the protection order is an alternative that is immediate—it immediately protects the victim. I will write to hon. Members here about the nature of the non-molestation order so that the information is more widely available.

When introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth asked for an assurance that the work that is under way will focus on effective outcomes and not simply on the production of endless statistics and reports. I am happy to give her that assurance. We need culture change and that is certainly central to the work that the Home Secretary and I are taking forward. We are not simply interested in statistics; we want to see real change on the ground to benefit the people who are adversely affected by this terrible crime.

My hon. Friend asked what could be done to encourage greater reporting of domestic violence incidents. I am happy to tell her that domestic violence reporting is on the rise and although the figures from the crime survey for England and Wales suggest that the level of domestic abuse and violence is roughly flat, the number of incidents reported to the police has risen, which suggests that more people are confident about reporting such incidents to the police. More of the incidents that are occurring are being formally reported. That is good, and shows that sometimes when crime is officially rising, it may be because more people are coming forward to report crimes that hitherto were hidden. That must be helpful.

My hon. Friend asked whether the Home Office would review the priorities set by police and crime commissioners to check whether domestic abuse is included. The Home Secretary has already taken these matters up with each PCC, and I think PCCs throughout the country now understand not only that this is an important issue for the Government, which it certainly is, but that their own populations are drawing it to their attention rather more. I am confident that more and more attention will be given, in a more structured way, to taking that issue forward in local police plans. The challenge, as I have mentioned, is not simply getting PCCs to include it in their plans; it is to make sure that police follow it through in a way that is effective to protect victims of domestic violence. As a general point, the national oversight group, which the Home Secretary has set up and will chair, and which I sit on, will make sure that domestic abuse is a priority for all areas. If there are any areas where it is not taken seriously, that will change, because we intend to make sure of that.

As to how we would ensure that guidance from the College of Policing will be fully integrated in day-to-day policing operations, the Home Secretary and I expect that all chief constables will have plans in place by September, as I have mentioned, to drive a culture change in front-line policing and, again, a national oversight group will bring together the College of Policing and police leadership to ensure that training is effective and that it is rolled out across the UK.

The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who is not in his place, and one or two other hon. Members referred to domestic violence affecting men. Figures were quoted to suggest that a large number of men are affected. I have asked for that to be dug into more, because I want to make sure that we compare like with like. I suspect that female victims of domestic violence are, overwhelmingly, those in a relationship with a man who commits domestic violence or abuse against them. I want to make sure that male victims represent the same thing. The figures may include male-on-male cases such as fathers and sons, or brothers. I want to make sure that the figures do not misrepresent the situation. Vera Baird, the PCC for the north-east—I cannot remember what the area is called—mentioned that to me. There is, of course, some domestic violence against men, and that needs to be factored in. I was asked whether there are refuges for men, and I am aware of at least one, which opened in Berkshire in 2012, which accommodates males, including those with children, who have had to flee domestic abuse. There may be others that I am not aware of.

The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) asked what we were doing to deal with religious groups that ostracise victims. That is of course a difficult matter to deal with, but the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), and I have met religious leaders to talk about female genital mutilation in particular, and to try to engage their help in tackling that version of domestic violence—or violence against women, anyway. I am keen to go further with that, so I shall be looking to make more progress with religious leaders in that regard. I think that the hon. Gentleman also asked whether there was any guidance for police on same-sex couples when there is violence. The current police guidance on investigating domestic abuse, which was issued in 2008, covers same-sex relationships. The intention is that it will be updated to build into it the findings from the HMIC report.

The hon. Member for Braintree raised the issue of coercive behaviour and asked whether a pattern of such behaviour can constitute domestic abuse. The answer is yes. He also asked whether there are problems in proving that, and the answer is yes. We believe, and the HMIC report suggests, that police forces do not keep good data on repeat victims, which makes it hard to prove a pattern. It is not, however, impossible. The situation must change, and that will be a focus of the national oversight group, which, as I mentioned, the Home Secretary chairs. I do not think that it is a question of the law, because domestic abuse is a crime, and coercive behaviour is part of the definition, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, when she referred to the change that we made. Indeed, the hon. Member for Warrington North also mentioned the change in the definition of domestic abuse. The issue is ensuring that the evidence is collected in order to enable a successful prosecution to be carried through, rather than necessarily finding a new law. The law to deal with coercive behaviour and repeat patterns is already there. However, it is of course an important matter and I fully accept that it is easier to deal with isolated incidents than ongoing, what might be called low-level, domestic abuse. I am sure that that will also be covered by the work of the national oversight group.

[Mr Newmark]

From speaking to women’s groups, my impression is that the problem is that there is no legislative framework. Simply saying that it will be taken into account does not deal with the substantive issue. The Minister said that it is low-level, but coercive abuse can sometimes be far more pernicious because of the psychological damage that it does. One should not say that physical violence is somehow that much worse than coercive behaviour. The Government should at least be looking at trying to find some form of legislative framework to encompass coercive behaviour.

[Norman Baker]

When I said low-level, I was referring to perhaps each individual instance, but I very much accept that the accumulation of such instances may, of course, have a result that is worse than an instance of violence. I am sorry for giving the wrong impression.

As I said, we think that the behaviour we are discussing is already covered by the law; the issue is that the data are not being collected and the evidence accumulated in a way that leads to successful prosecutions in many cases. Nevertheless, we do believe that it is possible to deal with such behaviour under existing laws. I am reluctant to move towards having narrowly defined, specific laws, because the thrust of the Government’s intention has been to move away from that. Narrowly defined law can lead to people finding loopholes, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Warrington North. An example of our intention is that we have amended the antisocial behaviour legislation to make general offences easier to deal with, because exemptions have been found that made prosecutions unsuccessful. I believe that a general definition that can include coercive behaviour will be a more successful way forward, provided that the police are collecting the evidence and a system is in place to enable that to be successfully followed through to a prosecution.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned the provisions of the Children Act 1989. He made an important point and, as he said, it has not been given sufficient attention in the past. I will undertake to see what we might do to tie the Department for Education rather more into these matters—he will be aware of my wish to do so—and to ensure that legislation that is specifically children-orientated is given proper attention. He is right to say that children are not necessarily attacked physically, but can suffer significantly, as he very eloquently outlined, as a result of being in a place where domestic violence occurs, particularly when it occurs over a long time. That will be very damaging to children.

The hon. Member for Warrington North was right to refer to the work on gangs, because the work by the Deputy Children’s Commissioner in the harrowing report on gangs demonstrated how teenage girls in particular are often subject to appalling violence. That is one reason why we have been running the “This is Abuse” campaign, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth referred. That is also why it is targeted particularly at boys, why the message is very clear that no means no, and why we are trying to educate young boys in particular about what consent is. Clearly, there is an issue about people understanding consent, and that needs to be rectified.

We are also using role models who will be effective in getting these messages across, so that it is not Ministers or police officers who are communicating the messages to young boys; it is, for example, pop stars. We have used the band The Wanted, Jason Derulo and people like that, and we have also used outlets such as MTV. We have tried to use the outlets and the people who will be effective in getting the messages across, and I think that we have been quite successful in doing that.

The HMIC report states that an

“HMIC inspection on child protection is currently underway. It will review how effective the police are at keeping children safe.”

The Department for Education believes that it is important that police advise children’s social care when children are in an abusive environment. In the most severe cases, children at immediate risk should be immediately protected by being removed if necessary. If there is further work to do to link up the police and children’s services, I hope that will be considered by the oversight group as well.

[Mary Macleod]

One of the important points that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) talked about was the impact that domestic violence has on children in the long term. It is almost as though it is subconscious, learned behaviour that could affect them. Although yes, the issue is absolutely about immediate safety, it is also about ongoing support, counselling and mentoring to support those children, so that they can get over some of the experiences that they have been through—the learned behaviour can sometimes be very much in the subconscious—so that they do not go on and repeat such behaviour later on in their own lives.

[Norman Baker]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a clear generational pattern, in that those who have been abused are more likely to abuse others in future, or to allow themselves to be abused in the future, than those who have not suffered such abuse in their formative years. Therefore, cutting the generational link is very important, so she is absolutely right to draw attention to that.

I want to mention Cumbria constabulary, which is currently running a pilot in one area of the force. For medium and high-risk cases involving children, the force will make contact with a nominated person at the child’s school to alert them that the child has been at home when a domestic abuse incident took place, so there may be a risk. That seems to be a very good example of the police working sensibly with those who have responsibility for caring for children. Leicestershire police is also piloting a similar approach with a number of schools in Leicester, where the force notifies the school if the child has witnessed a domestic violence or abuse incident.

I have mentioned one or two matters to which the hon. Member for Warrington North referred, but I will pick up one or two other points to try and be comprehensive in my response. She referred to police IT systems. I mentioned the digitisation that is going on in the police, which is both making the police more effective and saving money. The other steps that are being taken through technology are doing those two things as well. Police IT will be discussed with police leadership as part of the agenda for the national oversight group that the Home Secretary has established. I had not yet addressed that point of the hon. Lady’s.

The last point I wanted to make was about saving money. The hon. Lady referred to the fact that dealing with domestic abuse will save money, as though that were a motivation for the Government. It will save money; she is right in the analysis that doing the right thing and reducing the number of cases of domestic abuse will end up benefiting the public purse, but I want to be absolutely clear to all Members today that that is not a motivation that is driving the Government. What is driving the Government today is our horror at domestic abuse and domestic violence, and our determination to stamp it out. If it saves money, that is a beneficial side effect, but it will not be the driver either way. Even if it costs money, we will be taking action on this front.

[Helen Jones]

For clarity, before the Minister sits down, I said that it was a moral disgrace. I do not want him to attribute to me something that I clearly have not said, even if accidentally.

[Norman Baker]

I do not wish to have a dispute about that particular point, but the impression I gained from the hon. Lady’s contribution was that she was suggesting that a motivation for the Government to do more might be that we might save money. I want to put it plainly on the record that that is not a consideration in taking forward the agenda. Our consideration in taking forward the agenda is to do the right thing by those who are victims of this appalling crime.

I think we have made a good start and that the Home Secretary has made a good start following the HMIC report, to add on to all her previous work. We will take the matter very seriously and it will be subject to very close scrutiny by myself and by the Home Secretary. We are determined to do all we can to eliminate this appalling crime.

Question put and agreed to.

Public Administration Select Committee

Norman Baker Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jenkin]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his compliments, but I am not sure that that is quite what Sir Andrew said. What the Office for National Statistics has said is that crime may not be falling quite as fast as police recorded crime suggests, but the crime survey for England and Wales, which is a survey not a recording system, does corroborate the fact that crime is falling. That is the figure the Labour party relied on when in government and it is the figure the Government of any party are entitled to rely upon.

On the substantive point that we need to improve the auditing of police recorded crime statistics in order to make them a more reliable source of data, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

May I, on behalf of the Home Office, thank my hon. Friend and his Committee for the serious work they have done? We will, of course, give a proper response in due course to his recommendations. Would he accept that some, but not all, of the issues he has raised are, fortunately, slightly historical in nature? We have taken action to discourage central targets. We have also taken action to ensure that the independent Office for National Statistics is responsible for crime statistics, and we asked Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary last June to carry out an audit of the quality of crime recording, so we are taking action at the Home Office.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. Yes, this is historical, but I am afraid that makes all the more damning the fact that police recorded crime is still being misrecorded in this country. Yes, the Home Office has handed this over to the ONS and the UK Statistics Authority, and the Home Office has ceased to set its own targets, but the Committee does recommend that the Home Office, which collects the data and gives them to the ONS, has an obligation to ensure that those data are recorded correctly. We lament the fact that HMIC has not been doing regular audits. Where a regular audit was done in the Kent polices there was an immediate increase in police recorded crime. We probably need to look forward to increases in certain categories of crime, as that would confirm that such crimes are now being recorded correctly. That should be regarded as a good thing, so long as we can corroborate that with the crime survey in England and Wales still showing a fall in crime. The Home Office has overall accountability to this House for the quality of police recorded crime statistics. So the Home Office, along with the Crime Statistics Advisory Committee, the UK Statistics Authority and the ONS, has a responsibility to ensure that the police recording of crime is improved, and overall the Home Office is accountable to this House for ensuring that the police recording of crime is of better quality than it is now.

Antisocial Behaviour (Stag and Hen Parties)

Norman Baker Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

Mr Sanders, may I first apologise both to you and to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) for being a minute or two adrift at the beginning of the debate?

It is very helpful that my hon. Friend has raised this particular matter, and I congratulate him on doing so. It is a relatively new phenomenon but it can affect people and communities in quite profound ways, as he has indicated. Consequently, as well as listening to his informed contribution today, I have seen his letter to the Home Secretary on behalf of Councillor May Haines of Poole borough council, in which he highlighted the issue of houses being rented out for hen and stag parties, and their effect on the community in the Canford Cliffs ward.

Current noise regulation is complex and can be difficult for councils to deploy, but the new powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 will help councils to prevent and stop noise nuisance quickly and simply. I will expand on that shortly.

By way of giving some background, it is worth saying that the coalition Government has, of course, overseen a fall in crime of more than 10% since 2010, according to the independent crime survey, and that fall is mirrored by and large by the fall in the police’s recorded crime figures. Alongside that reduction, there has been a significant drop in the number of antisocial behaviour incidents reported to the police, from 3.2 million in 2010-11 to 2.2 million last year. However, that figure is still far too high, and is probably only the tip of the iceberg. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to one particular manifestation in his speech.

We know that the police, councils and others are there to help, but it is also clear from the hundreds of responses to our consultation on antisocial behaviour in 2011 that those agencies can feel constrained by the tools currently available to them. Many of those tools are overly bureaucratic and costly to apply for, and others are so behaviour-specific that they are inappropriate in all but the most straightforward cases. Nowhere is that starker than in the example raised in this debate, which is one reason why we have moved away from behaviour-specific offences to more general offences that give councils, the police and others more flexibility.

Tackling noise nuisance can be challenging and time-consuming, but some powers are available to local authorities. The Noise Act 1996 gives councils powers specifically to tackle noise from houses at night. If noise exceeds a certain level between 11 pm and 7 am, an officer can serve a warning notice on the person responsible for the noise. The notice requires them to reduce the noise within a specified time. If that does not happen, the officer can issue an on-the-spot fine of up to £100, seize any equipment used to make the offending noise, such as music systems or televisions, or choose to prosecute the person. If convicted, the person can be fined up to £1,000 by a magistrate.

Local authorities also have power to tackle noise nuisance under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. If the noise is emitted from premises, is unreasonably loud and substantially interferes with neighbours’ enjoyment of their property, it can be classed as a statutory nuisance and local authorities can serve an abatement notice requiring those making the noise to stop. In fact, local authorities have a duty to serve an abatement notice where they find a statutory nuisance. The abatement notice is served on the person responsible for the nuisance, but if the person responsible cannot be found—for example, because they have left the premises—it can be served on the owner of the premises. The notice relates to noise emitted from the premises. Environmental health officers have wide discretion about what they include in the notice to ensure that the noise nuisance stops and does not recur. The notice remains in place on the property until the council decides to withdraw it. Breaching an abatement notice can lead to prosecution and large fines.

Too often, though, police and councils are prevented from taking swift and effective action by the limitations of the powers. In particular, in the case of so-called party houses, it can be difficult to apply the noise nuisance legislation in every situation. For example, noise from people inside a premises might not exceed the specified level in the Noise Act 1996. Serious noise nuisance from people in the street who are causing harm to others—in other words, outside a premises—is not covered by current noise legislation. In addition, the notices can impose only requirements that are reasonable, and ultimately, breaching an abatement notice is subject to a defence of reasonable excuse, so an owner may argue successfully that it is not reasonable to expect them to control the behaviour of everyone in the property, particularly when they are staying for only one or two nights.

My hon. Friend and I had a brief conversation yesterday in which I promised to look into planning matters for him to see whether there were any planning controls. I am advised that where landlords allow such behaviour to occur, it can be difficult to hold them to account. Some areas look to planning rules to address the issue, but except in a few specific areas, planning cannot control the short-term letting of a property because that does not amount to development as defined in planning legislation. I am advised that the only trigger for planning legislation is if the use of the house falls within the “different use” class, for example if it is used as a house in multiple occupation or a bed and breakfast. However, I have asked my officials further to investigate whether, if a house is used regularly over a period of weeks so that that it becomes a standard feature for that house to be used, that might qualify for a change of use. Effectively, it is being used as a business, particularly if the person renting out the property receives a financial reward for doing so. That is a matter on which we have not yet had an answer from my colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government, but I have asked officials to take it further, and I will write to my hon. Friend about it specifically.

It is clear that the current system is fragmented, complex and sometimes inadequate, and is not working for communities in Poole and many other places, not because agencies do not want to help but because it is difficult for them to find a way to do so. Obviously, we want that to change. The impact of antisocial behaviour on victims and communities must become central to their response. My hon. Friend referred to fields—although I caution him that raves in fields sometimes generate opposition—as an example that what might be considered antisocial in one situation might be perfectly acceptable in another, and that location is therefore important in such matters.

We must give professionals tools that are flexible enough to adapt to each situation where antisocial behaviour is being committed. That is what we have done in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and I hope to make some comments that are helpful to my hon. Friend in that regard. As a member of the Public Bill Committee, he will be more aware than most of the reforms introduced by the coalition Government in the Act. The specific form of antisocial behaviour that he has raised today was not discussed in Committee, but I assure him and the House that there is, in my view, sufficient flexibility in the new powers to allow the council to deal quickly with the situation he described. In fact, such is the flexibility that not just one but two powers might be used, so the council and the police would be able to design their response to any situation on reasonable grounds.

First, there is a new closure power, which is the one that is likely to bring victims swift respite and to be most effective. The current closure powers can be effective in some cases, but they have never made it possible to close non-licensed premises quickly out of court, acting preventively on the likelihood of antisocial behaviour. Police and councils have been limited in what they could do. The new closure power will deal with that loophole. If a police or council officer has reason to believe that the use of premises has resulted in nuisance to members of the public, or that that could happen if a notice is not issued—an important distinction—or that there has been disorder near the premises, or could be if a notice is not issued, the premises can be closed immediately.

Those who habitually reside in the premises cannot be excluded for the first 48 hours, but members of the stag or hen party would not fall within that definition and so could be excluded completely from the property. Because the power can be used preventively, it means that the local community need not suffer while waiting for action, so the harm caused by the party could be prevented altogether. Moreover, where the issue persists, the council or police force could apply to the local magistrates court to have the closure extended for up to a maximum of six months, ensuring that the local community would be properly protected from serious nuisance and disorderly, offensive or criminal behaviour.

I mentioned another power that might be used: the community protection notice. That out-of-court notice is available to councils, the police, and in some instances social landlords to deal with persistent, unreasonable behaviour that has a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality. The kind of behaviour that has been discussed today, from noise to drunkenness, could fall within the definition in the test. What is more, the definition of “persistent” is open to the interpretation of the council or police officer. For instance, if the issue is loud music accompanying a barbeque in the garden, it would be perfectly reasonable, if the officer had asked people to turn it down and they had not done so, to consider that persistent. First, a written warning has to be issued to someone who can reasonably be expected to control or affect the behaviour, explaining what the issue is. Once they have been given sufficient time to change the behaviour, which could be minutes in the case of turning down loud music, a community protection notice can be issued forcing them to comply with the request. If they do not, they commit an offence and can be arrested.

Successful prosecution involves not only a criminal record but also the potential for a £2,500 fine. Furthermore, the community protection notice could be used against the home owner who was allowing the people attending a stag or hen do to act antisocially. My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the people who facilitate the holding of such parties, as well as those who turn up for them, and I agree that that is an important distinction. The community protection notice could involve any requirements that the council or police thought appropriate to prevent the antisocial behaviour, such as passing on to local agencies the details of those attending, so that the situation could be monitored, or requiring the home owner to warn those attending the party that acting antisocially could result in the premises being closed.

Currently, councils are the lead force in dealing with such cases, even though victims regularly turn to the police. That is why the new powers will be not just for council officers, but also for the police and, in the case of the community protection notice, even police community support officers, so that the right person can act every time without needing to refer victims from one agency to the next, which is inefficient and time-consuming. Councils and police forces have the same objective—to ensure that the communities they serve are protected and safe—and by working effectively together they can achieve that. The new powers that we are introducing encourage agencies to solve problems together to ensure that victims and communities get the best results.

I believe that the new powers being introduced later this year will allow councils and the police to deal with the kinds of situations that my hon. Friend described this morning. However, I want to make it clear that the kind of short-term renting arrangements we have been considering do not always result in antisocial behaviour. The additional tourism boost to the local economy from holidaymakers looking for short-term lets can be positive for areas and communities and should be encouraged. That is why the powers are flexible and enable people to make a judgment based on what happens.

[Mr Syms]

I thank the Minister for the constructive and helpful way in which he is replying to this debate. Some of these ideas will be very well taken by my constituents, and give us something to work on.

[Norman Baker]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend; I am glad that he feels that way. I will be interested to see how the situation develops, particularly when the new powers are in force.

In conclusion, I make it clear that when people’s behaviour goes beyond what is acceptable and the result is harm, misery and discomfort to innocent parties, local agencies should be able to act and act fast. I believe that the new powers that the coalition Government will introduce later this year under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 will encourage those agencies and deliver on our promise to simplify the existing powers available to front-line professionals by putting victims at the heart of the response to antisocial behaviour.

Oral Answers to Questions

Norman Baker Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

7. What assessment she has made of the proportion of reported rapes which resulted in prosecution or conviction in the last two years.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

Rape is a devastating and under-reported crime. However, the coalition Government is committed to improving the response to rape at every point in the criminal justice system, which includes improving referrals from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service.

[Mrs Moon]

Whatever the rate of civilian success in prosecuting and investigating rape, it is higher than that in the Ministry of Defence system. Will the Minister agree to work with the MOD to improve joint police investigation and service prosecution of rape in the military justice system?

[Norman Baker]

We are, of course, aware of one particular instance, of which the hon. Lady is doubtless also aware. I know that the Ministry of Defence has apologised to the family concerned for the failures that the coroner identified in that case. I shall be happy to work with my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to ensure that all the help that we can give them is available.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Successful prosecutions and help for victims have increased significantly in recent years. That is great, but does the Minister agree that rape is one of those crimes which are often not reported, particularly in certain communities in the United Kingdom, because of perceived shame or reticence? Could we not do more to encourage victims to discard that shame and be prepared to come forward and report the crime to the police?

[Norman Baker]

I entirely agree. It is important for victims to come forward and to have confidence in the police. Indeed, I believe that that is the trend we are now seeing. Although, according to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, there has been a decrease in the number of sexual assaults, there has been a significant increase in the number of rapes reported to the police. That suggests that more people are confident about coming forward, which I welcome.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister admit that, while on his watch the number of reported rapes is increasing, the number of files passed to the Crown Prosecution Service has fallen by a third, and in the Met the number of referrals is down by 43%? When will he accept responsibility for that, and admit that the Government’s decisions to remove suspected rapists from the DNA database and to cut the police force have let victims down and are allowing criminals to get away with it?

[Norman Baker]

I did expect a very authoritarian question from a Labour Member. I wonder what the Labour party’s supporters in Islington and Hampstead make of its approach to Home Office questions.

The serious issue is that the CPS is currently involved in discussions with the police about rape referral levels in a number of forces. The Ministry of Justice and others are implementing the six-point plan to which the Attorney-General referred last year. The hon. Lady may also be aware that, along with the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, I have written to all chief constables and police and crime commissioners urging them to take rape even more seriously than they do already.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

8. What assessment she has made of the effect of reductions in funding to local authorities on police forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

14. What recent steps she has taken to reduce antisocial behaviour.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

We are introducing measures through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill that put victims at the heart of the response to tackling and reducing antisocial behaviour. Front-line professionals will have faster, more effective powers better to protect the public, and people will have a voice in how agencies tackle their problems through the community trigger and the community remedy.

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer, but he knows that antisocial behaviour remains a major concern. Constituents stress to me that agencies need to work together more quickly, and especially more effectively, to tackle it. What more can the Minister do to make that happen?

[Norman Baker]

I recognise that the hon. Lady thinks this is a problem in her constituency and has done some work on it. I acknowledge that. The measures we are taking through the new range of powers will not only give more flexibility to agencies. The community remedy will encourage agencies to work together, as I mentioned a moment ago, and the fact that perpetrators will have to take responsibility for their actions—dealing with them that way, through the new powers—will help to drive down antisocial behaviour.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

18. Will the Minister join me in welcoming proposals from students at York university to establish a Street Angels-style initiative? The aim is to combat antisocial behaviour and to prevent alcohol and drug-related tragedies for those who find themselves in particularly vulnerable situations.

[Norman Baker]

I very much welcome that sort of local initiative and I congratulate those involved in the York university activity. That is why we have done away with the old top-down approach and given the agencies the freedom and flexibility that they need to make a difference locally.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

T3. Trading standards officers and local police have seized more than 189,000 illegal cigarettes and more than 16 kg of illicit tobacco from shops in my constituency in the past 12 months. All of that is untaxed and much of it is counterfeit, but the existing penalties do little to stem the flow of this harmful trade. Does the Home Secretary share my view that trading standards officers should be given the power to shut down these shops where all other enforcement methods have failed?

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

I agree that Trading Standards needs to take that issue seriously, as I believe it does. Of course, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is responsible for criminal investigation of fiscal offences, is well aware of the loss of money to the Treasury as a consequence of that activity. The good news is that the UK Border Force is successfully active on this front. The Crown Prosecution Service will decide whether to charge and prosecute in particular cases.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

T2. Two women a week die at the hands of their partners or former partners. In Oldham, between October 2012 and September 2013, more than 5,300 women were subject to abuse, a third of whom were abused in front of children. With 13% fewer domestic violence cases being prosecuted, what are the implications for justice for these women?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

When a retired police officer says that senior officers briefed him to report a fight involving alcohol as just drunk and disorderly rather than as a public order offence, I am concerned. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that targets do not lead to the massaging of crime figures?

[Norman Baker]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take alcohol issues very seriously indeed, including the way in which they are recorded by the police. There is a great deal of alcohol harm in this country: £21 billion is the cost to the public purse from antisocial behaviour, damage to the health service and lost productivity. As Ministers, we all expect the police to record crime accurately.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

T5. One consequence of an unfettered free movement directive is that illegal gangmasters from the European Union operating in the fens are linked to antisocial behaviour and human trafficking. What action is the Minister taking to end that phenomenon?

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

T6. Does the Secretary of State agree that alongside the police, the public and social services have a vital role to play in helping to identify the victims of domestic abuse and, importantly, ensuring that they are signposted to the right services that will help them?

[Norman Baker]

Yes, I wholly agree. If we are to end violence against women and girls, all front-line services have to play a crucial role. A multi-agency approach is vital, as indeed is a cross-departmental approach, and that is reflected in the updated action plan that we published at the weekend.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Ministers will be aware of how upset and repelled the community is that the self-same police force that was supposed to be finding Doreen and Neville’s son’s killers was actually engaged in spying on them to undermine their campaign. Inquiries are all very well, and reforms are all very well, but can we be given an assurance that we will know who authorised the spying on Doreen and Neville Lawrence?

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary accept that, with regard to the despicable crime of FGM, her announcement earlier about the involvement of hospitals in helping to bring people to justice will be widely welcomed? Does she also accept that, if it is not already being done, there is also surely a role for GPs in being able to report where they come across instances of this terrible crime?

[Norman Baker]

I entirely agree that it is very important that the NHS plays a particularly good role. The public health Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), has been very active on this front and has made great steps forward. She is looking at how the whole NHS can help the cross-departmental effort to tackle this appalling crime.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

In my constituency, many fairly young couples are struggling with the new rules on being able to marry someone from outside this country. They feel that they are being made to pay the price of the Government’s failure to keep to its migration targets. Has the Home Secretary now decided how to respond to the various reports on this or on whether any changes are going to be made?

Female Genital Mutilation

Norman Baker Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

I begin by welcoming the fact that this debate is taking place. As the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), pointed out, it is the first such debate since 2003, which is not a very good record for the House; it is a long, long time since the last debate.

There has been interest in the issue of FGM for almost 30 years, since the first law was passed in 1985, if not before that. I agree that we need to make more progress as a nation than we have to date, and I welcome the fact that there is renewed interest. We are making progress now as a nation in a way that we were not even a year or two ago, but there is much more to do. This debate is part of that.

I pay particular tribute to Leyla Hussein, who started the petition that has been the stimulus for tonight’s debate. It is as a result of her campaign and petition that we are here discussing in depth how we can tackle what we all agree, across all three parties, is an horrific procedure. I agree that it is child abuse. The Government has been very plain that that is the case and has regularly made that point very clear. Leyla is an extraordinary woman, whom I have met on a couple of occasions. She has been very brave in speaking out in the way she has, and we all owe her a debt for doing so.

I also welcome the fact that the Home Affairs Committee is conducting an inquiry into this matter. That is wholly welcome. I, for one, will be very pleased to give evidence to it. I look forward to the conclusions of its work and undertake to give proper and thorough consideration to any recommendations that come forward. It is wholly welcome that that debate and inquiry are taking place.

To answer one other point that the Committee Chairman made, I should say that I do sometimes read from a script, but one that I have altered after being given it by my officials. I just want to make that plain.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am not quite sure what the protocol is for Ministers from other Departments giving evidence to a particular Select Committee. I know that the Home Affairs Committee was set up to scrutinise the work of this Minister’s Department, but does he agree with me that, given that this is such a cross-cutting issue—cutting across public health, the Attorney-General’s Department and, particularly, the Department for Education—it would be good if all that could be brought together in the scope of one inquiry?

[Norman Baker]

I will touch on what other Departments are doing as part of my response to the debate today. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, I am not sure what the protocol is either. However, if the Chairman and members of the Select Committee wanted to invite other Ministers, I would have no problem with that; if those Ministers wished to give evidence, they would. I am, for example, giving evidence to a Select Committee about crime figures, which is largely a Ministry of Justice issue.

[Keith Vaz]

To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) through the Minister, yes, we will call Ministers from other Departments: Health, Education and the Attorney-General’s Department. We try to share Ministers around as much as we can, as that is best for our recommendations.

[Norman Baker]

There we are; there is an answer to that question. Although the Home Office is the lead Department on this issue—I am very pleased to be leading on it—because of its importance, other Departments have an input into it. The reality is that if Departments do not work more closely together, across departmental boundaries, we will not get the full result that we want. It is also the case, of course, that if the Government does not work properly with councils, the voluntary sector and communities in our own country and abroad, we will not get the result that we want. An important aspect is the need for a joined-up approach, both in Government and outside.

Of course, it is also important to work with the campaigners, who have done so much. I have mentioned Leyla Hussein. It is also thanks to Nimko Ali, Lisa Zimmermann, Efua Dorkenoo, Janet Fyle, Naana Otoo-Oyortey and others that FGM now has the prominence that it does.

I join colleagues in thanking the media, because they have been responsible and helpful on this issue. I am thinking particularly of the Evening Standard, which has been very resolute in how it has approached this matter; and latterly there has been The Guardian as well. They are running excellent campaigns and show the value of the free press in this country. It is partly as a consequence of that and, I hope, what the Government has been doing, that data released last week revealed that the number of tip-offs to the Metropolitan police about FGM has more than doubled in the past year. That is partly down to increased publicity, but is also due to the greater understanding that there now is of what this barbaric practice involves.

[Ms Abbott]

The Minister says that the number of tip-offs has doubled. How many is that altogether?

[Norman Baker]

I do not have a figure in my notes, but if officials have got it, I will give it to the hon. Lady before the end of the debate. Actually, I do have the figure: 69 reports involving either direct allegations about FGM or other information on this practice have been received by the Met since the start of April last year, so it is still a relatively small number, although it is moving in the right direction.

Since I have joined the Home Office, my concerns about FGM have intensified. Although I have always been aware of and opposed FGM, the more I have learned about the practice, the more concerned I have become and the more determined to do something about it. It is one of my top priorities as a Minister in the Department. I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), whose speech I very much welcomed. I think that the root of this is about male control of women—as a man, I find that rather shameful—so there are reasons for men, as well as women, to be involved in addressing this matter.

What has struck me about the practice is that it is one of the most horrible and unnecessary forms of violence against women in the world. It is an extreme manifestation of patriarchal control. As everyone knows, there are severe and long-term consequences for any girls or women who undergo it. There are not simply physical consequences, although there are plenty of those; there are also psychological consequences. That needs to be dealt with.

I also agree with the hon. Lady when she says that some parents—some mothers—will believe that they are doing the right thing. I accept that. It is a tragedy, of course, because it is totally wrong; it is totally the wrong thing to do for their children. Without getting too personal, I could not bear to think of my daughter undergoing this practice. It is an abhorrent act, and we all need to ensure that we are challenging it.

A culture change is necessary, as hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have accepted this afternoon. That needs to be taken forward. As the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington said, that is not simple, but it is necessary and we have to work out how best to do so. Some of the campaigners are in a better position to convince public opinion than perhaps Ministers, shadow Ministers or anyone else is, although we have our role to play, I hope, not least when it comes to the law. I will come to the issue of prosecutions and so on later.

We have to challenge the assumptions—the lazy assumptions, perhaps—that do exist in some areas, in some communities. FGM does not make women pure or clean. It does not increase fertility. It does not assure faithfulness. It is child abuse and needs to be tackled head on. I am clear that Government action to stop FGM is vital, not just to comply with our international human rights obligations—although it does do that—but, more importantly, to protect and safeguard girls and women from this hopelessly outdated and archaic practice. It has no place in the 21st century or, indeed, in any century.

I have mentioned that the Home Office has the lead responsibility on this issue, but we are working with other Departments. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), asked what was happening in that regard. I am happy to tell her. I think she may know, but just for the record I point out that on 6 February I brought Ministers from other Departments, from across Government, together for the international day of zero tolerance to female genital mutilation, and the Ministers from all the Departments who were there signed—this is probably unique or certainly very rare in Government—a document that made this statement:

“There is no justification for FGM—it is child abuse and it is illegal.

This government is absolutely committed to preventing and ending this extremely harmful form of violence.

The government is clear that political or cultural sensitivities must not get in the way of uncovering and stopping this terrible form of abuse. The law in this country applies to absolutely everyone.”

In the document, we go on to make a number of statements that I am sure hon. Members would agree with. Let me say for the record that it was not signed simply by me on behalf of the Home Office—it was also signed by the Under-Secretary of State for Health; the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who is responsible for public health; the Solicitor-General; my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development; the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who is responsible for children and families; and the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims.

Subsequently, the document was signed by a senior Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and by a Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government. It was also signed by the DPP. We are determined to work cross-departmentally on this matter and we take it very seriously.

[Helen Jones]

No one would disagree with what is enshrined in that agreement, but how will it operate on the ground? Will we now see a requirement on teachers to identify those who are at risk of FGM or have undergone it and to put in place a safeguarding plan? Will we see a requirement on health workers to treat anyone who has undergone FGM as a victim of a crime and report it accordingly?

[Norman Baker]

I will give, I hope, reasonably full answers to all those questions as I work through my response. We have plenty of time. This is a serious issue, and I will address those points as I come to them, including how we will deal with the matter within Government, which is also important. I am delighted that the Minister responsible for public health has joined us for this debate.

On Saturday, we published the updated “Violence against Women and Girls Action Plan”, which contains more than 100 actions that different Departments have agreed to carry out to tackle violence against women and girls. Every three months, the Home Secretary chairs an inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, which I attend as a relevant Minister, to monitor progress on the action plan. This year’s action plan has a strong focus on FGM and will be the vehicle for the Home Office to drive the work forward. I also chair separate, specific cross-Government meetings on FGM, in recognition of the need to work together.

Declarations and cross-departmental working can take us only so far, however. My colleague the Minister with responsibility for public health, who did so much to raise the profile of FGM in her role as chair of the all-party group on female genital mutilation, announced that all acute hospitals would report information about the prevalence of FGM among their patient population each month. The full report from that data return will be available from the autumn. That is an enormous step forward in understanding the extent of FGM in this country.

Linked to that, the Home Office is part-funding a prevalence study on FGM, which is designed to update the figures from the 2007 study. Even the new study based on 2011 census data will provide only an estimate of prevalence, but the data from the NHS will give us a real insight into the incidence and distribution of FGM. Those data will provide local areas with the information that they need to prioritise tackling FGM, and in time they will give us a benchmark against which to monitor the effectiveness of our actions and interventions.

[Ms Abbott]

Does the Minister accept that the prevalence data based on census data are particularly unreliable for establishing the prevalence of something among ethnic minority communities? Apart from the problem of getting people to respond to the census, there is the issue of people who are British, and who correctly describe themselves as such, but who come from the countries that I listed earlier as having a high prevalence of FGM.

[Norman Baker]

That is a fair point, which I am sure the NHS and my colleague the Minister with responsibility for public health will take on board. That is only one element of the work being done by the Department of Health to improve how the NHS responds to, follows up and supports the prevention of FGM.

The Department also liaises closely with other Departments and agencies, such as the royal colleges, voluntary organisations, arm’s-length bodies and others, to make sure that they get a comprehensive take on the matter across the NHS. NHS bodies have a duty to assist and provide information in support of child protection inquiries under section 47 of the Children Act 1989. The Government recognises that for the existing legislative framework to succeed, health professionals must report both actual and suspected cases of FGM.

A lot of the debate has focused on prosecution. We all feel deep frustration that 28 years on there has not been a successful prosecution. Nobody welcomes that fact, and we must try to understand why it is and what we can do to change it. There are many barriers to prosecution if we rely solely on a victim’s testimony for evidence, as hon. Members have said. At the time of mutilation, victims may be too young and vulnerable or too afraid to report offences, or they may be reluctant to implicate family members who might be prosecuted as a consequence. Those barriers to prosecution cannot easily be overcome, so it is important to find ways of building a case that do not necessarily rely on the testimony of child victims, and that focus particularly on those who facilitate and perform FGM.

The Government strongly supports the action plan that the Director of Public Prosecutions has published with a view to bringing successful prosecutions for FGM. I am heartened and encouraged by statements from the former DPP, Keir Starmer, and his excellent successor, Alison Saunders, to the effect that it is only a matter of time before we see a prosecution. Having met the DPP on more than one occasion, I think that she is an extremely good appointment and that she is utterly committed to taking the matter forward.

The Crown Prosecution Service is currently considering, or advising the police on, 11 cases of alleged FGM. Four cases that have previously been considered, in which the police or prosecutors decided to take no further action, are being re-reviewed. The CPS is also looking at three new cases, and it has had preliminary discussions with police in relation to their investigations into four further cases that are at an early stage.

A joint CPS and police training event was held at CPS headquarters on 10 February this year, which was attended by prosecutors and police officers from across England and Wales. That was the first time such an event had been held, and it was used to raise awareness of relevant investigation and prosecution strategies by working on hypothetical case studies. It is being seen as a model for further CPS and police training events on FGM.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Minister for the detail that he has given us. As has already been mentioned, we are talking about a crime of which there is obvious evidence; that is not the same as an allegation of child sex abuse, where the case often relies on a child’s word that something has happened to them. I fail to understand, when such cases have been referred to the system, where they are falling down. Is it because it is not possible to identify exactly who the perpetrator is? It is obviously possible to identify that a crime has been committed. Can the Minister give us more of an explanation?

[Norman Baker]

That leads me to the next section of my response, which concerns the law. It may help to answer that question if I spend one or two minutes talking about that. The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee might also want to consider that question in his investigations and see whether there are better answers than I will give this afternoon. The hon. Lady has asked a perfectly valid, rational, sensible and appropriate question.

The CPS action plan commits to raising any issues about the current law with the Ministry of Justice. The DPP wrote to Ministers on 3 February with a paper identifying possible ways in which the criminal law could be strengthened to make prosecutions for FGM not only more likely, but more likely to succeed. Those include clarifying the law in relation to re-infibulation and relaxing the definition of “permanent UK resident”—that is part of the problem—in the context of extra-territorial offences. Ministerial colleagues and I are giving careful consideration to the areas identified.

[Helen Jones]

Has the Minister considered whether, as I suggested earlier, there ought to be a law that prohibits offences preparatory to FGM or that criminalises a failure to prevent FGM? Under such a law, the presumption —to be rebutted in law, if necessary—would be that those with care of a child were the people who ought to prevent the practice from happening.

[Norman Baker]

There are other offences under domestic violence legislation that may be appropriate in this case, and we must not fall into the trap—an attractive one for parliamentarians—of thinking we need only to change the law to improve matters. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington made the point that the law has been there for 28 years. Ensuring that prosecutions are successful is about not only the law but the cultural situations that we are dealing with.

[Ms Abbott]

It is a question not only of the law but of implementing the law. I do not see why we cannot prosecute someone who is an accomplice or an accessory, or who has conspired in the practice. If someone has care of a child and has knowingly sent them overseas to be cut, it is not at all clear to me why that person cannot be prosecuted.

[Norman Baker]

The DPP is looking at those sorts of issues as part of her work on the matter. That is why a training event was held to look at cases and work through scenarios to see what the problems were. In answer to the shadow Minister’s suggestion that there should be legislation on offences preparatory to FGM, we are open-minded about the matter and we will look at sensible suggestions that may help the situation. I simply made the point that we should not fall into the trap of assuming that a law will do our work for us when it has not done so in 28 years.

[Lyn Brown]

That is exactly the point that I wanted to make: the law has not worked so far, because nobody has been prosecuted. Perhaps the House needs to make a different law or amend the existing law to enable prosecution. It is not good enough to say that Members have a knee-jerk reaction of thinking that a law will make a difference. The existing law has made no difference, so let us amend it.

[Norman Baker]

We have to be clear about whether the law is faulty, whether there is a reluctance to use it or whether other obstacles are preventing it from being used successfully. I am not ruling out looking at the law; I am merely saying that we have to look at all possible avenues to find out exactly what the problem is. The DPP is doing that through her work with the police, and I am sure that the Home Affairs Committee will do the same in its investigations.

[Keith Vaz]

The points raised by Members are important in answering the question why; however, we must look forensically at why there has not been a prosecution. A change to the law, or how we implement it, might be required, but we must not rush to judgment. Although we need to act quickly, we must get it right for the future.

[Norman Baker]

The Home Office is looking at what has happened to date. We are looking at whether there are sufficient referrals, or whether there is a hold-up elsewhere, and we welcome comments from anywhere in the House about how matters might be improved. We are open-minded.

The Ministry of Justice is considering whether a civil law remedy might provide an additional tool with which to tackle FGM. The idea is that those afraid of being subjected to FGM, or friends or family of those at risk, could apply for an order so as to put the potential victim under the protection of the courts. That would be a proactive rather than reactive step. The MOJ is also seeking views from key stakeholders about the merits of a civil law measure and how that might work alongside criminal legislation. That aspect is already being considered in Government.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that the Queen’s Speech is coming up. If the Select Committee is able to offer suggestions on how the law should be strengthened, will there be opportunities to make legislative changes before the next general election?

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

As I say, we will be looking very carefully and seriously at any suggestions that the Select Committee makes on the issue. As for whether there is legislative time, that is not a matter for me; it is for the Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), to allocate time. All I would say is that we are now approaching the last Session of this Parliament, which is already pretty crowded—

[Ms Abbott]

indicated dissent.

[Lyn Brown]

Hardly!

[Norman Baker]

With respect, the hon. Lady has not yet seen what will be in it.

[Lyn Brown]

Even the Daily Mail has noticed.

[Norman Baker]

Members who are making comments from sedentary positions have not yet seen what will be in the next Session. It also ends before the general election in May 2015, so there is limited time for legislation, but we will look at suggestions. Given the fact that there is unanimity across all three parties on trying to deal with FGM, if legislative change is necessary, whatever the result of the general election, I am confident that whatever Government we have will try to move the issue forward.

[Helen Jones]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. From what he said earlier—perhaps I misheard, or missed it—I am not clear whether the Government accept the recommendations in the joint royal colleges’ report on tackling FGM. If they do not accept any, what are they?

[Norman Baker]

We will wrap up our response to that report when we look at what the Select Committee says, because I think the two are linked.

[Ms Abbott]

They are not linked.

[Norman Baker]

They are linked in terms of our overall response to dealing with FGM.

I welcome the step taken by the Secretary of State for Education—to whom I wrote—who, after meeting Fahma Mohamed, the young woman whose campaign has featured in The Guardian, committed to send to all schools guidance on keeping children safe. His Department expects to publish revised safeguarding in education guidance shortly. The statutory guidance, which replaces the 2007 guidance, will be clearer and simpler, and will direct schools to the latest expert advice on subjects such as FGM.

Over two years, the DFE is also providing more than £700,000, split between the Victoria Climbié Foundation and the Africans Unite Against Child Abuse NGO, for safeguarding work with black and minority ethnic communities. Such work of course includes FGM. Also, DFE funding for the charity Children and Families Across Borders has enabled it to produce a training app on FGM.

Along with my colleagues, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), and the Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), I met head teacher and teaching unions in mid-January to discuss how to raise awareness in schools of FGM and gender-based violence. After a constructive meeting, we will be working further with the unions on the issue.

As has been mentioned, following a successful bid to the European Union progress funding stream, the Home Office was awarded approximately €300,000 in November 2013 for work to raise awareness of FGM in the UK. As part of that work, we are launching a communications campaign aimed at parents and carers of young girls at risk of FGM. The campaign will include online advertising and posters in changing rooms and shopping centres. Materials will also be produced and provided to communities to run their own educational events and workshops in order to open up the debate on FGM. Research is currently being undertaken to test messages and campaign materials with parents, professionals and partners.

The Government has committed to developing an e-learning tool so that all practitioners—social workers, teachers, health care professionals, police and the like—will be able to undertake an introduction to FGM. We will raise awareness of the new e-learning tool by carrying out a national outreach programme with local safeguarding children boards.

We recognise that the long-term and systematic eradication of FGM in the UK will of course require practising communities to abandon the practice themselves. We have launched a £100,000 FGM community engagement initiative. Charities have been invited to bid for up to £10,000 to carry out community work to raise awareness of FGM, and we are now assessing the bids.

The Government also recognises that religious leaders can also play a role in dispelling myths about FGM. It is important to make the point that no major religion condones or requires FGM. In January, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development and I met faith groups to look for opportunities to work together to raise awareness of FGM. I was heartened by the strength of the groups’ condemnation of FGM, across all religions. I am committed to pursuing that dialogue with them and seeking their advice on how they can help us to take the campaign forward.

Despite one or two comments to the contrary by elements of our so-called popular press, it is of course vital that we spend money overseas to tackle FGM, and that we persuade those communities that adhere to the practice to stop. In my view, that is the most effective way to influence the diaspora from such countries here in the UK. The practice is not going to end in the UK before it ends in Africa.

[Ms Abbott]

The Minister just said something striking: that the practice will not end here until it ends in Africa. Are we going to have to depend on the rate of change in other societies to protect British girls?

[Norman Baker]

No. We are going to do our very best to protect British girls. I share the hon. Lady’s objective of an FGM-free zone—she used that phrase and I absolutely agree with her. Nevertheless, it is not realistic to assume that we can reach zero while diaspora communities here are linked with communities elsewhere in the world where FGM continues. We must approach the issue from both ends—both here in the UK, as I have indicated by what we are currently doing, and through the money we spend abroad in other communities, on which DFID is leading.

Last March, DFID announced a new £35 million flagship programme to support the Africa-led movement to end FGM—such a movement is important. That is the largest donor investment in ending FGM ever, and the programme is under way. It includes support to the UN—through UNICEF and the United Nations Population Fund—for targeted work with communities and leaders and for work at a national level on policies and legislation in 17 countries.

The programme will also include a global social change campaign, which has just been contracted to a consortium that includes leading anti-FGM campaigners. The campaign will work with communities to support them to abandon FGM, support national and Africa-regional initiatives, and galvanise a global movement to raise political and financial commitment. It will also include up to £1 million to support UK-based diaspora organisations for efforts to end the practice in their countries of origin.

This year, DFID will be launching the research component of the overall programme, in order to improve understanding of what works to end FGM. In addition, DFID has committed a separate £12 million for a programme to support efforts to end FGM in Sudan, working with the UN. At the weekend, the Prime Minister announced that he will be hosting a major event on 22 July to tackle forced marriage and FGM both internationally and here in the UK. He has set out his personal commitment to demand better rights for women and girls worldwide and to tackle these terrible practices.

Three or four Members referred to what happens in France. I am advised that FGM is not a specific criminal offence in France; instead, the French choose to prosecute under a range of general criminal offences, such as exercising violence against or seriously assaulting a child under the age of 15. It is true that, as Members mentioned, all girls in France undergo an annual health check that includes genital examination by a medical professional. The Minister responsible for public health is present and will have heard that Members have expressed interest in that approach.

It is also important to put it on the record that there are significant differences between the criminal justice systems in France and England and Wales. There is a lower standard of proof and less corroboration is required to support prosecutions in France than in England and Wales. In practice, an incriminating statement by the accused or a third person suffices for a conviction. That would not be sufficient to bring a criminal prosecution in England and Wales. The two legal systems are not comparable in that sense, which may explain some of the differences.

I was taken by the suggestion from the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee that I might speak to my opposite number in France. That is a good idea and I will ask my officials to take that forward.

[Ms Abbott]

The Minister said that under the British legal system, we need corroboration. If someone’s vagina is sewn up, what further corroboration does he imagine the legal system would need to say that FGM has occurred?

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I do not think any corroboration is needed to prove that FGM has occurred, but we might need corroboration to demonstrate who was responsible in law. That is a different matter entirely.

[Lyn Brown]

But if a child’s vagina is sewn up, the responsibility of who actually did the cutting is subsidiary to the fact that her parents allowed it to happen—the parents who have care of the child—so there is de facto an offence that has occurred that can be prosecuted.

[Norman Baker]

If it were as simple as that, we would have seen prosecutions over the past 28 years. It is not a case of whether it is the mother, the father or the grandparents. It is not as simple as that. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady is rightly frustrated by the fact that there have been no prosecutions. So am I. I do not want to stand here today defending the fact that for 28 years there have been no prosecutions. It is not defensible. However, I can assure the hon. Lady, as I have assured others, that the Home Office takes the matter seriously. The CPS and the police are taking it seriously. At the moment, 11 cases are being considered. I agree that if we can get a successful prosecution, that would be helpful as part of the strategy to try to minimise and hopefully end FGM in this country.

In conclusion, the Government takes FGM very seriously and it is high on our list of priorities, particularly mine. The Home Office co-ordinates and leads the work on FGM, but we recognise that tackling FGM and all forms of violence against women and girls needs a robust, sustained and dynamic cross-Government approach in which every Government Department—criminal justice, education, health and international development—works with the others to identify, protect and support victims and bring those responsible to justice. We believe that by implementing this approach and working together, we can end FGM and all forms of violence against women and girls. That is our aim.

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate today for the cross-party commitment. I look forward to working with others in other parties to drive the matter forward.

[Mr Dai Havard (in the Chair)]

Thank you, Mr Baker. Before I conclude, I shall offer Mr Vaz the opportunity to say a few words. I will also offer an imaginative opportunity to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), if she wishes to intervene on Mr Vaz, to put something formal on the record. However, there is no obligation to accept it.