Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

What we have tried to do in what are tough times financially is centre the resource we have on those who have been most badly affected by crimes. The reforms put together by my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) were designed to ensure that those who had relatively minor injuries as a result of crime would not be where we focused our resource and would be excluded from the scheme. We have left in place discretionary funding so that in unexpected circumstances, where there is an unexpected impact, support can still be provided.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

T5. I warmly welcome the use of mental health diversion pilot schemes in police stations pre-arrest, but more work needs to be done to ensure that the number of people with mental health conditions in our prison system is as small as possible. Which steps does my right hon. Friend intend to take to deal with that vital issue?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. For me, this issue is the next priority for my Department beyond the current reforms. I believe that we need to make better provision for people with mental health problems in our prisons. It is the next big piece of work that needs to be done, and I hope and expect that we will have the opportunity to put in place real change in the future that can make a difference for those people.

Fatal Domestic Violence

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to secure a debate on this sensitive and important issue. I am grateful that the Minister is in is place to hear the case for peer support and advocacy services for the families of domestic homicide victims.

Our understanding of the full effects of domestic homicide is still emerging, but I will give my perspective. I was a criminal barrister for many years, and I dealt with homicide, murder and manslaughter cases. I thought that I had a deeper understanding than most people of the effects on the families of victims, but I realised after discussions with expert advocate services that the family’s journey does not end at the door of the court when the verdict is passed and the sentence is handed down. Often, that is only the first stage of a long, arduous process through which families have to go.

A domestic homicide, whether it is murder, manslaughter or another form of death, profoundly changes a family’s life in an instant. For example, the surviving children may have witnessed abuse or the killing, or they may have lost a sibling. They may have lost both parents if the perpetrator parent either committed suicide or is held securely. The family property immediately becomes a crime scene, the criminal justice system must be navigated and the health and financial costs of that need to be challenged. Information that is vital to the family may have to be held back so they are not compromised as witnesses. At the same time, they must deal with the grief that results from the loss of their loved ones and the private personal details of their lives will be made public. It is a self-evident truth that the aftermath of such a death is traumatic. It raises issues that nobody the family knows has ever had to deal with before, and thrusts the family into contact with agencies with which they never thought they would have to engage. In an instant, they are in a strange, troubling new world.

Specialist advocacy and support is desperately needed for those families. There is a real concern that the Government’s well-intentioned proposal to give a grant to one prime service provider while withdrawing direct grants to smaller specialist and expert providers will reduce the number of families who are provided with specialist expert and independent support after domestic homicide. The Government recognise that that sort of support helps families to cope with and recover from the trauma.

The organisation Advocacy After Fatal Domestic Abuse is directed by somebody whom I regard as a friend, Frank Mullane. It is an award-winning service that is funded from a number of sources, and for a number of years it has received welcome and helpful contributions from the Government. It provides specialist services to some categories of families—in particular, families who were bereaved before April 2010, for whom Victim Support’s homicide service currently has no responsibility and for whom the homicide service provider will not have responsibility from October 2014, and families whose tragedy attracts a section 9 domestic homicide review. The Government brought that important provision into force, and I warmly welcome their decision. However, a number of organisations already refer families to AAFDA for domestic homicide reviews, and Victim Support’s homicide service signposts families to the organisation. The word “signpost” is important, because Victim Support uses the word “refer” only for organisations that it directly commissions using its budget. AAFDA has an excellent relationship with Victim Support’s homicide service, and the two organisations collaborate effectively on behalf of many families.

Victim Support’s homicide service signposts families to AAFDA for help not only with that issue, but also with inquests, serious case reviews, mental health inquiries and other matters. Families also directly approach the organisation, and it has an input into Independent Police Complaints Commission inquiries. It does a range of work, and engages with local employers, service providers and other agencies to provide a full package of support.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. I entirely agree about the excellent work of Frank Mullane. As my hon. Friend is aware, the police must appoint a family liaison officer to support the families of victims on every occasion. However, a problem that has not been resolved is that in murder and killing cases, the perpetrator, until convicted, is treated as the next of kin of the deceased and the children.

[Mr Buckland]

That is right, and that relationship often leads to manipulation after the event. The intercession, the support and the advocacy service are vital if we are to prevent families from reliving the trauma, as has happened in many sad examples.

The Minister will be aware of the report that was completed in July 2011 by the former Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, Louise Casey. It was the largest survey of bereaved families ever undertaken; more than 400 families revealed the toll of bereavement. Louise Casey concluded that the devastating effects of homicide manifested in many ways. She rightly concluded:

“these effects persist for many years.”

That is why I said that the criminal trial is often only the beginning of the journey for the family.

Louise Casey identified the enduring needs of families after homicide, and she provided several important conclusions. First, many families who were bereaved before April 2010 still need the support of specialist agencies after October 2014. There is a concern that the funding for the homicide services for those families has not been dealt with adequately. Secondly, many families who were bereaved after April 2010 still require ongoing support. They already seek out AAFDA and other small specialist organisations during the time that the current national homicide service provider is engaged and afterwards.

From 1 October, the prime service provider will have to have an exit strategy with families, or its capacity will eventually be insufficient because of the numbers that will come to the service. For many families, the journey through the criminal justice system alone may take several years. For example, some domestic homicide reviews are necessarily suspended until the end of the criminal trial, and some inquests may not take place until several years after the tragedy. I know of an example of a family who are about to face an inquest that will last for several weeks, two and a half years after the homicides.

A further problem arises because families’ emotional and practical needs often do not emerge until years have passed since the homicide. It is then that the smaller specialist organisations such as AAFDA will be approached to help those families cope and recover. In reality, and as history shows, many families need help to cope and recover after the homicide service has exited the process. That is no reflection on the services provided by the homicide service, but it is simply a fact of life that the amount of time that people need to cope and recover often will not match the resources that are available. There is a concern that those families will not get the support that they need.

Although the Government’s aim is that from October this year, the prime homicide services provider will commission other services that families need, there is a worry that the expertise of small organisations such as AAFDA may be overlooked, and if it is not overlooked, that the funding available will be insufficient to make the service sustainable. That will result in fewer families getting the support that they need.

I cannot overemphasise the expertise and skill of AAFDA. It is a registered charity that was formed in 2008 and which has strong connections with Swindon, where my constituency is. It has become expert on domestic homicide, domestic violence and supporting families after these horrors, including support through the criminal justice system. It has been recognised by both the previous Government and this one as a leader in its field.

AAFDA has three specialist caseworkers, two of whom lost family members to homicide, and the other who has 30 years’ operational and strategic experience in the domestic violence sector. In addition, it has a volunteer criminologist and a volunteer barrister who give significant pro bono help. One of AAFDA’s caseworkers is considered to be a national expert on stalking, and the other two caseworkers, including the director, Frank Mullane, are Home Office accredited chairs of section 9 domestic homicide reviews. AAFDA is, of course, a member of the Home Office panel that quality assures those reviews.

Frank is rightly credited with being the driving force behind domestic homicide reviews becoming law in England and Wales and helped draft some parts of the statutory guidance. He has a now-growing academic expertise, being a visiting lecturer and assessor at the university of Gloucestershire, and he works closely with universities both at home and abroad. He is continually learning about developments in the sector. Having attended, for the past four years, the annual conference of AAFDA, held in Swindon, I too, have learnt a lot about this area. I have met some of the families being helped by the organisation and I have listened to speakers from as far afield as Sweden, Ireland and indeed, from many parts of England. AAFDA is also a member of key national forums, advising the College of Policing, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Crown Prosecution Service and those of us—me included—who are looking to develop legislation on domestic abuse.

In the brief time I have left, I want to give some case examples of the importance of the ability of the organisation to stand in the shoes of those who have been victims of domestic homicide. The fact that we are dealing with immeasurable grief almost goes without saying, but let me give an example of one family. A woman—a mother and sister—was killed by her husband. The family had to summon up the strength to clean the bloodstains from the house where the victim was killed—just imagine that for a moment. As one family member said to the media,

“it's like being told—it's not your mess, but you clean it up.”

That is a graphic, I accept, but important illustration of the ordeal that people have to go through, not only in losing somebody, but in physically dealing with the aftermath of a homicide.

That family are being helped and have been helped for more than three years. They have been given expert advice and guidance on which organisations they needed to go to to get the information that they needed, otherwise they would have been in isolation. That family have channelled their resilience into providing well thought through and skilful challenges to the various bodies in the system, and it is an important example of what can be achieved to the benefit of those who have suffered.

Another example is where uninformed advice had been given to a family about a domestic homicide review, and because of that uninformed advice, they had declined to participate. As a result of signposting to AAFDA, they were given proper, expert advice. The process was explained and the family changed their mind. They participated in the review, and the review itself has benefited hugely from the involvement of the family. It has given them an opportunity to participate and to explain from their point of view the challenges that the system posed to them.

It is all about identifying and achieving the objectives of the family while managing their expectations, because for many families, finding out the facts of the case and what happened can be a huge difficulty, for some of the reasons I outlined earlier. Helping families to acquire that information may serve at least two purposes. First, as the Prime Minister acknowledged when he gave evidence to the Liaison Committee in 2013 about the awful case of Jacintha Saldanha—the Bristol nurse who took her own life after the very sad hoax call from broadcasters in Australia—the family absolutely need the truth. They need the facts.

Secondly, and this is important, significant public resources may later be avoided as a result of the resumption of inquiries that have been justifiably sought by the families because the initial inquiry had been wholly inadequate. Many of these families cannot afford solicitors, but they need—this is undeniable—help from those who have considerable experience of the system. As I have said, the work that AAFDA does with regard to inquests is very significant. It is an advocacy service that helps a family to understand the process and how they can participate and prepare for the ordeal itself.

I have given a few family examples, but I want to give one further example of a family who talked with passion about the action plan that was set out by AAFDA. That action plan gave that family a sense of where to go and what to do and allowed them to move forward. AAFDA helped to make sense of the process to the family in a way that just was not happening for them without its input.

As I have said, AAFDA is influencing the practice of domestic homicide reviews to include family and friends. It first influenced the Government to ensure that that was stated clearly in the statutory guidance, and its caseworkers continue to advocate strongly on behalf of families, so that reviewers understand that the family is to be given space and to be integral to the reviews, rather than lip service just being given to their involvement. Without families being able to influence the reviews, frankly, they become meaningless. They become talking shops and they become ineffective.

As I said, there are concerns about the way in which funding will be configured from October this year. Although AAFDA is already working with police and crime commissioners such as Angus Macpherson in Wiltshire, there is a difficulty for them directly to fund the work because the incidence of domestic homicide in many police areas will be low. Therefore, the nature of that specialist work will, by dint of its relative rarity, have to be in a national framework. That is why, we understand, the funding is being administered centrally. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister could not only acknowledge the value of the work by organisations such as AAFDA, but look carefully again at the funding mechanism to make sure that this invaluable service and others like it are not lost to those families in real need.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when this streamlined procedure is adopted, pre-hearing consultations take place with defendants about their ability to pay a fine? A proper written means test would enable realistic fines to be imposed, and to be much easier to collect than fines imposed by means of an exercise that would be theoretical without such information.

[Chris Grayling]

That is a very good point, which we should certainly take on board.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

I agree with my hon. Friend that boundary disputes can often be bitter, protracted and indeed expensive. I can assure him that the Department is working at pace to come up with the conclusions of the scoping study, and we hope to report on that as soon as is practicable.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

13. What effect he expects the victims code to have on the experience of victims in the criminal justice system.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

15. What effect he expects the victims code to have on the experience of victims in the criminal justice system.

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)]

The victims code will have a positive effect on the experience of victims in the criminal justice system. The new code gives victims clearer entitlements; a louder voice, including a right to read a victim personal statement aloud; enhanced entitlements for victims of the most serious crime, and vulnerable or intimidated and persistently targeted victims; and a more effective means of redress.

[Mr Buckland]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. How will he make sure restorative justice measures are truly victim-led and that those who wish to seek restorative justice at a stage later than the sentencing process will be able to do so easily?

[Damian Green]

I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that of the money the police and crime commissioners will be using, up to £18 million is specifically ring-fenced for restorative justice services. That funding will help us to ensure that restorative justice is available at all stages of the process so that victims can make properly informed decisions about whether they want to participate in restorative justice at the point in the process that best serves their needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Lady will be aware that the Ministry of Justice, Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service and the Department for Work and Pensions have been working very closely to ensure that decisions by tribunals on social security and child support matters are passed on to the DWP. That is happening and, as a consequence, DWP decisions are being influenced and its decision-making guidelines have been changed.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

T9. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State knows my interest and that of other colleagues in the reform of the criminal law of child neglect. Will he update the House on the progress he is making with regard to reviewing that particular provision of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend is correct that this is an important area in which I have had fruitful discussions with Action for Children about the best way to make progress, and I hope to be able to report further on those discussions shortly.

Dangerous Driving

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore]

I am extremely glad that my hon. Friend has placed that on the record. A manslaughter charge could and should be considered as a way of toughening the law on dangerous driving and increasing sentences. I intend to look into the issue of disqualification. I am not a lawyer, but I think that when judges or barristers have to decide whether intent or lack of intent can be proved, manslaughter or murder should be considered. When it comes to cases in which there was a lack of intent but it is known that someone was driving dangerously in the first place, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) made an excellent point. The advantage of a manslaughter charge is that it is not necessary to prove a specific intent; what happened may have been the result of a reckless act. As my hon. Friend rightly said, sentencing powers are at large. Is not the issue the way in which we charge offenders? Are we not in danger of limiting the options of the courts by opting for charges such as causing death, which, although convenient and appropriate, may not fully reflect the gravity of the acts committed?

[Chris Skidmore]

I defer to my hon. Friend’s knowledge, given that he is a lawyer who, I am sure, has encountered plenty of cases of dangerous driving, and death by dangerous driving, in his time. All I know is that we and the Sentencing Council need to give the courts more tools to deal with these cases. The judge who presided over Lovell’s trial said that he wished that he could have imposed a tougher sentence. As it was, he could impose a sentence of no more than 10 years and six months, but if the necessary power had been vested in him by Parliament, he would have imposed that tougher sentence. It is our responsibility as legislators to make our voice heard to the Minister and the Sentencing Council in order to bring about a change in the law.

I am sure that, if we put ourselves in the shoes of the families involved, each one of us would be not only heartbroken by the loss of a relative, but aggrieved by the nature of the sentences handed down by the courts. The fact that the judge in the Lovell case wanted to impose a heavier sentence but was unable to do so simply rubs salt in the wounds.

A full year has passed since the deaths of Ross and Clare Simons, but the devastation remains. As Kelly Woodruff, Ross’s sister, explained:

“What the perpetrators don’t realise is the devastation they cause—people’s lives, like ours, are scarred forever. We will never live the way we should be living, all because of that man, my future has been stolen.”

During this period of unspeakable grief, however, Kelly has also commented:

“Over this year we’ve realised we are not alone. So many people have contacted us who have gone through the same thing all over the country.

The sentences some people have received for dangerous driving are awful—12 months for killing someone.”

Indeed, recent figures relating to convictions for death by dangerous driving offences speak for themselves. In 2011, 153 of the 408 people convicted of causing death or bodily harm while driving dangerously, or under the influence of drink or drugs, avoided jail altogether. Five were given fines, and 63 were given suspended prison sentences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Wright]

As I said at the outset, it is difficult for me to comment on particular cases, and it is for Crown prosecutors to decide what the appropriate charge should be. We would all expect, however, that where they feel they are able to prove that driving fell far below the required standard, dangerous driving would be the appropriate charge; or, indeed, as others have said, in cases of gross negligence manslaughter would be the appropriate charge. The difficulty is that where prosecutors believe that in their judgment it is not possible to prove that driving fell far below the required standard, were we to remove this offence from the statute book they would simply be left with the charge of careless driving, which, of course, has considerably lower penalties.

[Mr Buckland]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend could widen the issue. Prior to the change in the law in 1991, the old offence of reckless driving used to apply—the subjective test. There were a lot of problems with that test, which is why we went to an objective test, but does he think that there is any merit in looking again, 20 years on, at whether there are some merits in either what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West says, or looking again at a subjective test?

[Jeremy Wright]

There is merit in listening carefully to all that has been said in this excellent and thoughtful debate, and it is right that I consider many of the ideas and thoughts expressed in it, so I hear exactly what my hon. Friend says.

On ensuring that the law is effective, as the hon. Member for Hammersmith said, we have introduced a variety of new offences over the years to fill perceived gaps. We have created a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving, ensuring that dangerous drivers are punished appropriately when their actions have serious consequences short of death. The new offence fills the previous gap by specifically targeting cases in which dangerous driving results in serious injury. In addition, the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which received Royal Assent on 25 April, introduced the new offence of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of certain controlled drugs in excess of set limits. The new drug-driving offence will improve the law available for tackling the problem of drug-driving, which presents a significant road safety risk. That resulted from the campaigning of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and the death of one of his constituents. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith said, many of these changes come from such sources.

The Sentencing Council, which has been mentioned several times, has developed guidelines for the courts when dealing with these offences. It is important to recognise the distinction between the Sentencing Council’s guidelines and maximum sentences, the latter being for the Government and Parliament to set. The Sentencing Council sets guidelines for how courts ought to approach sentencing within those maximums, and has developed guidelines for the courts when dealing with this type of offence. Summary offences, including dangerous driving and careless driving, are dealt with within the magistrates courts sentencing guidelines—most recently updated in 2012—and the sentencing guidelines on causing death by driving were published by the then Sentencing Guidelines Council in 2008. The latter covers the offences of causing death by dangerous or careless driving as well as causing death by dangerous driving while under the influence of drink or drugs and causing death by driving unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured.

Several Members have referred to those sentencing guidelines, so it might be worth my drawing their attention to one or two specifics within them. First, on the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West, it is an additional aggravating factor—in fact, the first in the list—if a person has previous convictions for motoring offences, particularly offences that involve bad driving or the excessive consumption of alcohol or drugs before driving. Causing death by dangerous driving while disqualified, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood mentioned, is also on the list. On that list are offences committed at the same time such as driving other than in accordance with the terms of a valid licence, driving while disqualified, driving without insurance, taking a vehicle without consent and driving a stolen vehicle. These matters are in the existing guidelines.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for setting out the amendments in the group. These are a completely new set of provisions on child protection, which the House did not have the opportunity to deal with on Second Reading or in Committee, so we are grateful for the opportunity to discuss them this afternoon. The House has, however, had several excellent debates on child protection over the last year, which is testament to how seriously colleagues of all parties take these issues and want to engage with them.

The amendments before us are the result of hard work and concern across the House. I want to pay tribute in particular to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) for her sterling work. I pay tribute, too, to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), whose new clause appears in this grouping; to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who has done an enormous amount of work on this subject; and to my right hon. Friends the Members for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins).

Government new clause 8 is the lead amendment in the group. As the Minister has set out, it is designed to make a sensible addition to the offences that can lead to action being taken against those who commit them. As we know, this came out of the tragic case of Maria Stubbings, who was murdered by her ex-partner, Marc Chivers. The Independent Police Complaints Commission recognised that there were gaps in the law in respect of the supervision of offenders convicted overseas. The Opposition are pleased to support this sensible new clause.

Government new clause 14 deals with sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, while I understand Government new clause 15 deals mainly with saving and transitional provisions. Government new schedule 1 provides for the practical introduction of the new orders, alongside new clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon and 67 other hon. Members, as the Minister pointed out, which creates the new child sexual abuse prevention order.

The Opposition support the need to amend the current law. The sexual abuse and grooming cases that occurred in Oxford shocked the country, and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon has rightly gained huge respect from across the House for the serious way in which she has looked to address the issues with the Childhood Lost campaign. I know that she has worked with a number of charities, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Barnardo’s, the Children’s Society, ECPAT UK, Action for Children, and many others.

We are pleased that the Government have accepted the need for change, and have tabled their own amendments. We especially welcome the fact that the Government amendments extend the risk of sexual harm orders to adults as well as children. We should be interested to hear how the Minister intends to address the other key activities of the Childhood Lost campaign which are important in keeping our children safe.

Ten years on, it is right for us to think about what was done by the Sexual Offenders Act 2003 and what parts of it need to be updated. The Act was a milestone that played a crucial role in improving our legislation on sex offences in many key respects, for instance by outlawing grooming. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East for the key role that he played in introducing the legislation.

The sad truth is that sex offenders, more than any other group of offenders, are prone to reoffend. We must accept that most sex offenders continue to pose a threat to children after their initial offences. That does not, of course, mean that all offenders will reoffend, but it does mean that we should try to identify those who pose the greatest risks, and try to do everything possible to mitigate those risks. Labour introduced three distinct powers which were intended to control the risks posed by known sex offenders.

The Minister referred to the sexual offences prevention order, which was the first order that could be imposed on someone who had been convicted, and was to be applied at the time of conviction—or subsequently by the police—only if there was evidence of dangerous behaviour after offending. It covered both children and adults. The order allowed the courts to impose conditions on the offender that they considered to be necessary to reduce the risk of sexual harm. The risk of sexual harm order could be imposed without a conviction if a chief police officer had a reasonable belief that someone within his region had twice committed a sexual offence, and that an order was necessary to protect the public. That covered only children. The foreign travel order could be imposed only after conviction, but required evidence of post-conviction behaviour that gave cause for concern. An example was the order imposed on Paul Gadd, also known as Gary Glitter.

I think that all those measures were important, and demonstrated the commitment of the last Government to combating sex crime. However, it is clear that all three now need to be improved. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon has undertaken important work in that regard in considering how we can improve the operation of the orders. I pay tribute to the recent report by the Association of Chief Police Officers and Hugh Davies QC on the workings of the current regime. New clause 5, tabled by the hon. Lady, would reform the risk of sexual harm order and establish a child sexual abuse prevention order extending to children under 18 rather than 16. It also—importantly—covers children and young people both inside and outside the United Kingdom, and would remove the requirement for two contact offences to be considered before an order could be made.

The Government’s proposals create two new orders. New clause 14 creates the sexual harm prevention order, which can be applied to anyone who has been convicted or cautioned for a sexual violent offence, including offences committed overseas. It will replace the sexual offences prevention and foreign travel orders. The new order will be required for the purpose of protecting the public generally, or any particular member of the public, from sexual harm. I understand that the new clause removes the requirement for a risk of serious sexual harm, which takes it down one level. The Opposition welcome that. The court must be satisfied that the defendant’s behaviour makes it necessary for an order to be made. Again, only one contact offence is required, which means that more people can be included in the grouping.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is providing a very helpful summary of the changes. I think that the removal of the word “serious” is a very important change, because it significantly widens the ambit of police activity in this area. The word “serious” creates quite a high threshold, and far too many cases were slipping through the net because they did not meet that criterion.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I know that the hon. Gentleman speaks from a great deal of experience as a member of the Bar and so fully understands the implications of the removal of the word “serious” from this definition.

Sexual risk orders can be applied to any individual who poses a risk of sexual harm in the UK or abroad, even if they have never been convicted, and replace the risk of sexual harm orders—again, these orders will apply to both adults and children. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, the Minister confirmed that the sexual risk order could be applied to a child sex offender but did not deal with the other issue she raised about the rehabilitation of a child who was subject to one of these orders. Will he deal with that in his closing remarks and say what is being put in place to support those children and young people to rehabilitate them?

One key theme of these new orders is that both are equally committed to protecting children across the world. That is vital, because sex crimes are committed across the globe and, increasingly, paedophiles will cross borders to commit abuse. The global nature of sex crimes means that it is right that we make it easier to prevent foreign travel by known paedophiles and that we give equal prominence to crimes committed abroad when we are looking at the imposition of a civil order to protect children in the UK. We also need, however, to examine the issue of people who have not been convicted but pose a threat to children. I understand that the changes proposed today will also make it easier to impose an order when a criminal offence has not been committed. Such an example may be where an individual has attempted grooming on the net, for example, by impersonating a young person on social media, but has not actually, at that stage, committed a crime. Will the Minister explain whether the Government have any plans for introducing changes to legislation to make the grooming of a child on the internet an offence? I understand that it is only at the point when the person physically meets the child that an offence is committed.

One thing that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon has drawn attention to in the very good briefing she has provided is the fact that very few risk of sexual harm orders have been imposed each year. We hope that these new provisions will make it easier to acquire an equivalent restriction, by making orders applicable to cases where a crime was committed aboard or where the behaviour does not constitute an offence at this time. However, I wish to refer to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), which related to the standard of proof required.

One reason it is hard to impose a risk of sexual harm order is that such orders demand a criminal standard of proof, even though they are civil orders, and that difficulty may remain in respect of the future orders. The demand for a criminal standard of proof was not actually in the Sexual Offences Act and there was some confusion therefore about the standard of proof required. The Home Office did issue guidance, which suggested a civil standard of proof—the “reasonable belief” approach. However, the courts tended to take a different approach and it was only in 2012—[Interruption.] I can see that the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) is about to intervene. It was only in 2012 that the issue was settled by the courts in the case of Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v. Robert Ebanks, which established a binding precedent on the criminal standard.

[Mr Buckland]

The hon. Lady is making a very important point about the standard of proof. One key consideration is that breach is a criminal offence, and therefore there is a serious issue to consider as to the criminal consequences of a civil order that could be obtained by a civil standard of proof. That consideration was uppermost in the mind of the court considering that case and should be uppermost in our minds. As legislators, we need to get the balance right, and so the standard of proof should be a high one.

[Diana Johnson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Again, I know that he speaks from great experience. I simply ask why so few orders have been taken through the courts and whether we need to consider the whole issue of the standard of proof that is required. We support the Government’s new clauses and amendments, which we think have a lot of merit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their opening remarks. I will speak to new clause 5 and the Government amendments relating to prevention orders. I think that by now colleagues will be familiar with my reasons for tabling the new clause. The vast majority of children in this country grow up free from fear, but a vulnerable minority never know a safe or happy childhood. I will never forget sitting in the Old Bailey and listening to truly harrowing evidence of how a violent organised crime gang systematically groomed girls on Oxford’s streets to sell them for sex from as young as 11, plying them with hard drugs to make them more compliant to being repeatedly raped by strangers and conditioning them to believe that that was what real relationships were like. Too many colleagues in this House have had the same experience as me, as cases have emerged across the country. Every police force and local authority needs to take positive and proactive preventive action to root out this vile crime.

Patterns of grooming behaviour are now much better understood. We should be aiming to disrupt the process before it progresses to systematic sexual abuse, because the consequences of failing to intervene are both well documented and appallingly destructive. However, over the past few years case after case has emerged in which child protection agencies in possession of detailed intelligence have seemed unable to intervene.

In our inquiry into child sexual exploitation, the Home Affairs Committee came to a number of conclusions on why it was happening. The wider conclusions are for another day, but even leading forces, such as Lancashire police, who are proactive not only in innovative investigative techniques, but in disrupting grooming behaviour using methods such as abduction notices, licensing enforcement and dispersal orders, found that a key tool—civil prevention orders—just was not working. They have been on the statute book since 2003, as we have heard, and should be at the forefront of the fight against grooming, but instead they were found to be fundamentally flawed by a 2012 review commissioned by the Association of Chief Police Officers and written independently by Hugh Davies QC and a team of experts.

Since 2003 our understanding of patterns of sex offending and disruption techniques has progressed significantly. The purpose of new clause 5 is to reflect that progress and resolve the flaws in the existing orders. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the case for reform and tabled amendments today. Put simply, the reformed orders will protect more vulnerable children from sexual exploitation. That could not be more urgent, because the Children’s Commissioner estimated only this year that 16,500 children are at risk of sexual exploitation, but the prevention orders are still failing to protect them.

Before explaining how the proposed reforms will address that, let me explain why the current orders are not working. Three orders were legislated for in the Sexual Offences Act 2003: the sexual offences prevention order, the foreign travel order and the risk of sexual harm order. A SOPO can be sought on conviction, or on proof of relevant offending behaviour subsequent to that conviction, to protect a UK adult or child. An FTO can be sought on proof of offending behaviour subsequent to previous sexual conviction and can be sought to protect non-UK children. Despite some misleading coverage of this campaign, the ROSHO is already a pre-conviction order, and it can be sought on proof of two contact offences to prevent serious sexual harm to children under the age of 16. Neither new clause 5 nor the Government’s amendments would create a revolutionary pre-conviction order today. That has been an accepted necessity since 2003.

No one in this House would disagree with the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty, which is a fundamental principle of the rule of law, but in no way would that be compromised by these amendments. The case against a defendant would have to be proved to the criminal standard, and a defendant’s procedural rights under the proposals would be identical to those in place under the current provisions. The fact is that a criminal prosecution is not the only mechanism that is necessary to achieve an acceptable level of protection against the sexual abuse of children.

Criminal prosecution is not always possible. In some situations a prosecution is found not to be in the interests of a child victim, and therefore not in the public interest. In other situations there might be compelling evidence or some technical reason why the evidence is not found to be admissible. In other cases, as we have seen recently, a vulnerable witness might simply find the court process too traumatic and so the case collapses. Anyone who follows the progress of policing and the criminal justice system will recognise that uncomfortable reality. That is why this year there were more than 23,000 reported sexual crimes against children but only 4,051 of them were prosecuted.

[Mr Buckland]

I pay warm tribute to my hon. Friend for the outstanding work she is doing on this issue. I echo her point about the sometimes sad limitations of the criminal justice system, which I have worked in over many years, including dealing with this type of case. I support her case about the criminal standard of proof needed for obtaining the orders and then, if the order is breached, a further criminal procedure in which the criminal standard of proof would apply, so the necessary balances and safeguards are in place.

[Nicola Blackwood]

Absolutely. To answer the shadow Minister’s question about whether a civil standard would be appropriate, I think that it is important to ensure that we maintain the balance. The reason it was not possible to achieve ROSHOs previously was the combination of two contact offences plus a standard of serious sexual harm. I do not think that the necessary approach now is to lower that standard of proof.

Some have expressed concern that these orders are intended as an alternative to prosecution, but that is not the case; they are simply a practical necessity alongside prosecution. As a civil order they are no different in nature from other civil orders designed to protect children, such as injunctions or restraining orders in a family court or a barring order in respect of regulated activity.

If we fail to intervene and protect vulnerable people from foreseeable harm, even if prosecution is not possible, we are failing in our duty of care. The current orders are failing. The requirement to prove two contact offences for the ROSHO produces the absurd result that an offender who sexually touched a 15-year-old twice would be eligible for an order but an offender who raped a four-year-old once would not be—the police would have to wait for the offender to do it again. That is not a sensible way to assess risk.

Furthermore, given the existence of a specific form of order to prevent foreign travel, ROSHOs have never been used in practice to protect children abroad. The outcome is that non-UK children enjoy a materially lower level of protection than an equivalent child in the UK. I hope that the House will agree that there is absolutely no defence for that disparity. Today’s proposals put an end to that inequality, which must be welcomed.

There are other basic flaws in the existing regime. Application for all three orders can be made only by the local chief of police, but all too often an offender travels ahead of the evidence between force areas, especially in grooming and trafficking cases. The ROSHO applies only in relation to children up to the age of 16, meaning that 16 to 18-year-olds, who might have been caught up in abuse from a much younger age, can only be protected by a SOPO with a much higher threshold.

Meanwhile, the sexual abuse of children is big business in many destination countries. Hundreds of thousands of children are routinely trafficked for that purpose. Although offenders often have a clear record of offending in different jurisdictions, they can still escape prosecution in each, as many jurisdictions simply fail to prosecute due to different standards of children’s rights or pure corruption. In that context, the FTO threshold for offending behaviour subsequent to a conviction is entirely unworkable. It is unsurprising that since 2005 only 50 FTOs have been granted. In 2007, a year in which 70 British citizens sought consular assistance for child sexual offence arrests, not a single FTO was granted.

New clause 5 applies solely to children because that is the focus of my campaign, and it is intended to remedy these shortcomings: it abolishes the arbitrary requirement to prove two contact offences; it includes UK and foreign children, offering them equal protection; it allows a senior specialist officer from the National Crime Agency to apply for an order to plug the gap of itinerant offenders travelling ahead of the evidence and it raises the age limit to 18; and it introduces an interim provision to prevent itinerant offenders from fleeing the jurisdiction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Paul Beresford]

No, it does not. I am looking at changes to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, not to the Obscene Publications Act. Otherwise I would wander into deep mire, which I am sure that Liberal Members would help me wallow in further.

[Mr Buckland]

The Obscene Publications Act was very much on my mind as well. Very often this material is generated by the offenders themselves and is privately retained, so I think it would fall foul of some of the definitions in that rather elderly piece of legislation. The material that is obtained can sometimes be used as incriminating evidence to help prove the general character and intent of individuals with an interest in child abuse, who are sadly far too prevalent. Do the police find difficulty in using that material as incriminating evidence, or do they want more information?

[Sir Paul Beresford]

My hon. Friend goes halfway towards putting the case. He is right, but the police tell me that they do not really use that Act. They need this one tiny change in the legislation to add to the opportunities for prosecution and to use when they bring these individuals to court.

I was told that I needed to tweak the wording, so I did something absolutely outrageous: I invited the Attorney-General for a cup of coffee, not even a glass of wine, and he ran a cursory glance, if Attorney-Generals run cursory glances over anything, at the wording and seemed to feel that it was satisfactory. I am not going to hold him to that, as it would probably cost me a glass of wine.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am well aware of the strong feelings about that case, but we reached an agreement with Leicester university, which funded and carried out the dig, and I think we should stick to the agreements we reached.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend update the House about when he intends to publish the victims code?

[Damian Green]

I am aware of my hon. Friend’s long-standing interest in that important document. I urge patience, but reassure him that his patience will be rewarded very shortly.

Transforming Legal Aid

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

Of the 16,000 we received, the vast majority were single-template campaigns. We have not sought to add up pros and cons. What we have done is looked at the consultation responses in detail, and looked for sensible ideas. We have had constructive discussions with the professions who provided the most substantial responses, and we have brought forward what I think are the right proposals for the future.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the weight of opinion in particular relating to PCT and the need for quality representation at the police station. In the review of criminal process, will he make sure the rules relating to disclosure of criminal evidence are looked at very carefully, as it seems to me that considerable savings can be made, particularly in very high-cost cases?

[Chris Grayling]

I can certainly do that. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that when Sir Bill begins his work, I will pass those comments on to him. On PCT, it is worth reminding the House that the Labour party first came up with the idea.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We must ensure that every defendant, innocent or guilty, has access to a proper defence. We also need a system that is affordable at a time of great financial stringency. Our proposals are designed to find the right balance between those two things.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

The current graduated fee system is clearly broken and is costing a huge amount of money to administer. Will my right hon. Friend look carefully at constructive proposals to streamline the system and improve the system of criminal fees?

[Chris Grayling]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. I have been very clear in saying to both barristers and solicitors—to the whole legal profession—that this is a consultation. I have challenges to meet financially, but I am very open to means of improving the current system in a way that makes it affordable while maintaining the quality and effectiveness of provision.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Buckland Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We are determined to see fewer women offending and reoffending. We want to make appropriate provision for female offenders that addresses the root causes of their offending and their specific needs.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

2. What progress he has made on improving special educational needs provision within the youth custodial estate.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

The House will know of my hon. Friend’s interest and expertise in the subject, and he will know that a significant proportion of young offenders have some level of special educational needs, which might only be identified once they enter custody. Young people have an educational assessment on entry to custody, and anyone who shows signs of a learning difficulty or disability will be screened so that they can be directed for further assessment and can receive the provision they need. Through our consultation paper “Transforming Youth Custody,” we seek to improve further what we do in that area.

[Mr Buckland]

As my hon. Friend knows, the Children and Families Bill is currently making its way through the House, but it has no provision relating to young people in custody. Will he work closely with the Department for Education to ensure that there will be a co-ordinated approach to help young people in custody with SEN?

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, we certainly will do that; indeed we are doing it. My hon. Friend will be conscious of the fact that there are specific arrangements, whether educational or otherwise, that cannot be taken with the young person into a custodial environment, but that does not mean that we do not need to work hard to make sure that the transition into, and out of, a custodial setting is managed appropriately for young people.