Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Nineteeth sitting)

Debate between Sarah Champion and Alex Cunningham

Committee stage
Thursday 24th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Cunningham]

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

As the law currently stands, complainants of sexual offences are granted lifelong anonymity by way of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. Section 1 of the Act prohibits the publication of any information in any place that could lead members of the public to identify a complainant of a sexual offence. Section 5 makes a breach of the prohibition a criminal offence, the maximum sentence for which is a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. In some cases, identifying a complainant could result in an offender being prosecuted for contempt of court, but in many situations, the facts of the case will not allow that course of action to be taken.

What that means in practice, as the law currently stands, is that someone who reveals online the identity of a complainant will more often than not receive only a simple fine. I hope that the Minister will agree with me that that seems to be a wholly inadequate sentencing power for a crime that can do so much irreparable psychological damage to victims of sexual offences.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for tabling the new clause, because I have dealt with survivors to whom this has happened and I think that the law needs to catch up with where we are, in that social media and the digital world are accessed much more now than they ever were before. The new clause makes complete sense in trying to bring the two back in line.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend is, of course, correct: technology is moving so quickly, and so many different things happen in so many different ways. People can even get pictures on their watches these days and talk to their family back home. The fact that that sort of technology exists can be exploited for all the wrong reasons as well. It is important that we act in this space.

During Justice questions last month, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) raised the case of Phillip Leece to illustrate just how horrific a crime this can be. For members of the Committee who may not have heard the question asked by the shadow Secretary of State for Justice in the Chamber, I will quote what he said:

“In 2019…Leece viciously raped a woman on her way home from a night out; she was 26 and soon to be married. Adding insult to injury, he published the name of his victim online”

and made disparaging remarks about her appearance, claiming that she was

“too fat and disgusting to rape.”—[Official Report, 18 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 522.]

For naming and humiliating his victim online, he received a pathetic and insulting fine of only £120. That in no way reflects the enormous trauma that his action caused the young girl he raped.

During Leece’s trial, his victim read out her impact statement to the court and spoke of the devastating impact that the attack and her subsequent naming had on her. She was once a happy young woman looking forward to getting married, but those events caused her to suffer severe psychological harm, which led to suicide attempts and incidents of self-harm. In her own words, she explained how her naming online changed the way she lived:

“The post made me feel incredibly insecure and sad for the days and weeks afterwards.

It increased my anxiety about leaving the house and it got to the point that I wouldn’t even go into the back garden whilst letting the dog out. I imagined that he would know where I lived and would be able to find me.

The post also led to me eating more and gaining even more weight…with the thought that the bigger I am, the less likely this will happen to me again.”

I am sure that all members of the Committee, regardless of political affiliation, will share my view that a fine in no way reflects the severity of Leece’s actions. I appreciate the Lord Chancellor’s sharing this view. In response to the shadow Justice Secretary’s question about Leece, the Lord Chancellor indicated that he was going to act in this area. Specifically, he said that the Government were

“already making preparations to see what can be done to improve and strengthen the law in this area, because, make no mistake, the naming of victims of sexual abuse—and other types of offending as well where anonymity is an essential part of the process—is not just wrong, it is criminal and we will do whatever it takes to help stamp it out.”—[Official Report, 18 May 2021; Vol. 695, c. 523.]

That view is shared wholeheartedly by the Opposition, and that is why we tabled new clause 31. It is another of those small but significant steps that we are asking the Government to take now, rather than waiting. It is clear to us that the current provisions of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 are simply no longer fit for purpose in the modern world. It is perhaps telling that the last time Parliament reviewed that Act was more than two decades ago, in 1999. I am sure that all of us would accept that since 1999 the world has changed a great deal—that was illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. Online publishing and social media mean that things written on the internet attract an audience far greater than they would have in 1999. Furthermore, things published on the internet have much greater longevity and potential exposure. For those reasons, we need an urgent review of how the Act is functioning.

New clause 31 is a simple amendment: it would give judges the power to sentence offenders who name complainants of sexual offences to a custodial sentence of up to two years. That would bring this sentence in line with the sentence for contempt of court. Given that the Lord Chancellor has previously expressed sympathy for reforming this area, we look forward to the Minister’s support for the new clause.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Twentieth sitting)

Debate between Sarah Champion and Alex Cunningham

Committee stage
Thursday 24th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Cunningham]

Before I speak to these clauses, I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) on his tireless work in bringing attention to the terrible crime of sex for rent, as well as on his work on the topic of criminal child exploitation, which I will come to in due course. As my hon. Friend wrote to the Lord Chancellor back in January, the Opposition believe that people must be able to live in a safe home, free from the risk of exploitation, yet today many vulnerable young people in particular are being coerced into engaging in sex simply to keep a roof over their head. They are forced into the horrific situation of giving sex for rent, something that, to most, is unthinkable, yet this is by no means rare or unusual. Research by the housing charity Shelter estimates that 30,000 young women have been propositioned with sex-for-rent offers since the beginning of the pandemic. Meanwhile, investigations by the Daily Mail have found lists of sex-for-rent advertisements on the website Craigslist, with telephone numbers of landlords included.

While offering sex for rent is technically incitement to prostitution and a crime under section 52 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, at present the legal framework requires the victim to self-define as a prostitute in order to secure a conviction. Not only is this morally wrong, it acts as a clear disincentive to victims of this repugnant crime coming forward to the police. It is little wonder, therefore, that despite up to 30,000 people being propositioned with sex-for-rent offers during the pandemic alone, only a handful of charges have ever been brought against offenders using existing legislation. Despite repeated warnings from campaigners and the Opposition, the Government have done little to halt the sex-for-rent phenomenon. In particular, they have failed to create a new specific offence of sex for rent. That is why the Opposition have tabled new clause 63, which would create a new specific offence of requiring or accepting sexual relations as a condition of accommodation.

[Sarah Champion]

I fully support the arguments that my hon. Friend is making and the new clauses that he has tabled. They lead into arguments that I have been making myself, in that I do not think one ought to be able to buy consent, and that is fundamentally what is happening in this situation.

[Alex Cunningham]

That is exactly the point. If people have actually undertaken that sexual relationship with a landlord, apparently, they are seen to have been doing so willingly, which most certainly should not be the case.

Unlike section 52 of the Sexual Offences Act, new clause 63 would not require a victim of sex for rent to self-identify as a prostitute in order to secure a conviction. Put simply, it would allow victims of this horrendous crime to come forward without any fear of retribution or damage to their reputation. Similarly, it would give the police the powers they need to pursue a prosecution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, because the courts are clogged up, such examples are likely to become more and more pronounced in the coming months and years?

[Alex Cunningham]

Indeed, yes. I know that the Government are working hard to clear the backlog, but the fact remains that the backlog is considerable, and it will impact on young people in the system. As a direct result of those problems, many young people will turn 18 before they have their trial and their case heard.

Our idea would mean that children who committed offences as children received a child’s spending period, which is a principle with which I would have thought all members of the Committee could agree. The criminal records system for children in England and Wales is already highly punitive compared with such systems in other countries. The Opposition are enthusiastically supportive of the Government’s direction of travel on criminal records, as shown with respect to our consideration of clause 163. None the less, as I said then and say again now, there is room to go further.

As Just for Kids Law notes, rehabilitation periods for those who turn 18 will generally remain more than double those for under 18s. For example, following custodial sentences of more than one year and up to four years, rehabilitation will be four years for those convicted over the age of 18, compared with two years for those convicted under 18, and that is regardless of the age of the person on the date the offence was committed. We know, and have discussed previously in Committee, the serious impact that disclosure of a criminal record can have on an individual’s access to employment, which in turn can have consequential impact on the individual’s ability to move on to a crime-free life.

That issue is especially pertinent to very young adults. In an excellent submission to the Committee, the Transition to Adulthood Alliance said:

“In young adulthood, there is a crucial window of opportunity where a pro-social identity and desistance from crime can be cultivated. The ‘plasticity’ of their brains means that it is a particularly good time for learning, personal growth and the development of pro-social identity… However, by virtue of their stage of development, young adults can quickly become disillusioned and disengaged from professionals if support is not forthcoming, appropriate or timely.”

It concludes:

“Young adults’ experiences of the justice system are therefore of utmost importance in determining their capacity to build a crime-free future, develop their potential, and contribute to society.”

The Transition to Adulthood Alliance is referring to young adults as those aged up to their mid-20s, and it bases its case on an irrefutable and growing body of evidence that the brain is not fully formed until at least the mid-20s, which means that young adults typically have more psychosocial similarities to children than to older adults in their reasoning and decision-making.

I have said throughout our consideration in Committee that the Bill does not do enough to recognise those maturity issues, but the injustice created by the Government’s lack of consideration of the issue of maturity is felt most keenly here—when we treat a child of 17 years and 364 days as a child, but treat the same person completely differently when only a day more has passed. Surely our intention is to support youth offenders to rebuild their lives far from patterns of offending, yet imposing longer rehabilitation periods on some child offenders—those unfortunate enough to have been convicted after they turned 18 because of some delay in court listing or a police investigative delay—will make it harder for them to do so, and indeed may even contribute further to their disengagement and disillusionment with the system.

I would be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that is something the Government could consider addressing. We are enthusiastic about the direction of travel on criminal records, and I hope that this proposal might be something he feels his Department could include in its ongoing work on criminal records reform.

Let me turn to new clause 67, which would put in law the advice at paragraph 6.3 of the guidelines on sentencing children and young people, which states:

“When any significant age threshold is passed it will rarely be appropriate that a more severe sentence than the maximum that the court could have imposed at the time the offence was committed should be imposed.”

That principle already has cross-party support, as well as wide support in the sector among lawyers and academics alike.

I recognise the great work that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) has done on the issue and acknowledge the wealth of professional experience and wisdom that he brings to it. If a child is convicted but turns 18 prior to sentence, they are entitled to receive a youth sentence. If they turn 18 before conviction, the youth court may retain sentence if crossing the age threshold would occur during proceedings, but if they turn 18 before proceedings start, they can no longer receive youth sentences even if they committed the offence as a child.

Just for Kids Law has pointed out what that means:

“Only adult disposals will be available to the court, despite the defendant being sentenced for offences committed as a child. As a result, they become subject to the purposes of adult sentences which include deterrence, punishment of the offender and protection of the public. This is a significant shift from the purposes of child sentences, which have the prevention of reoffending as the principal aim, and the welfare of the child as a central consideration.”

Surely sentences are meant to reflect the criminality of the offence, which is determined by the circumstances of that offence, not the random date on which the case was finalised.

I have mentioned this matter time and again—it needs to be addressed—but the overwhelming backlog of court cases further exacerbates such injustices. According to Crest Advisory, Ministry of Justice figures published this week show that at the end of March the number of outstanding cases in magistrates courts was 396,419—21% higher than in March 2020. Outstanding cases in Crown court at the end of March were up 45% and at their highest since records have been compiled in such a way, with 59,532 cases still not completed.

It is particularly relevant to our discussion that timeliness has got much worse. It is taking far longer for cases to be resolved. In magistrates court, at the start of this year the average period from an offence being committed to a case being completed was 200 days—nearly seven months. Even at the start of 2020 it took 175 days. In Crown court it is even worse, and the median period for a case to go from offence to completion is 363 days—almost a year. That is a long time in which a child may turn 18. That would be no fault of their own, but it would be the fault of the Government with respect to tackling the backlog. Turning 18 during that time has significant impact on the outcome of children’s cases: they are prosecuted in adult courts, so the opportunity to benefit from the youth justice system is lost.

Does the Minister think that the aims of the youth justice system—preventing reoffending and protecting the welfare of children—should expire because of his backlog? He and I have butted heads over the backlog many times, and he often points towards the impact that covid has had on the justice system. I agree that that has been significant, although there were serious issues before the pandemic. Does he think the aims of the youth justice system should be allowed to expire because of the pandemic? Is that a reasonable justification for denying children who later move officially into adulthood the benefits of the youth justice system? I hope he agrees that it is not and that he will support the aim of the new clause, which would provide a consistent approach to childhood offending and ensure that those who turned 18 between the offence being committed and sentencing were not subject to more severe sentences than the maximum the court could have imposed when the offence was committed, unless there were exceptional reasons to do so.

[Sarah Champion]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the point of our justice system is to be seen to be acting without fear or favour in a fair way, and that for a child this would not be considered fair?

[Alex Cunningham]

Exactly that. I am sure that young people will be confused by a system in which, all of a sudden, they find themselves appearing in adult court instead of youth court, particularly if they have previous convictions. They will be bamboozled by it all and frightened by the process.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has been clear:

“Child justice systems should also extend protection to children who were below the age of 18 at the time of the commission of the offence but who turn 18 during the trial or sentencing process.”

Children who offend as children should feel the benefit of the youth justice system and should be afforded access to the same sentencing framework. That would give those children a better opportunity to be diverted from a cycle of reoffending and help them to rebuild their lives, which is something I am sure every member of the Committee thinks is worth aspiring to. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Debate between Sarah Champion and Alex Cunningham

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Cunningham]

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

The Opposition think that this excellent new clause makes up for the missed opportunity in the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who are the co-chairs of the all-part parliamentary group on women in the penal system. I also thank the Howard League, which acts as the secretariat to the APPG, for its continued energetic work on this issue.

Under the Bail Act 1976, the courts can remand an adult to prison for their own protection, or a child for their own welfare, without being convicted or sentenced, and when the criminal charge they face is unlikely to—or in some cases cannot—result in a prison sentence. The new clause would repeal the power of the criminal courts to remand a defendant into custody for their own protection—or in the case of a child, for their own welfare—pending trial or sentence. Last year, the Howard League published a briefing from the APPG that looked at those provisions and their use. The briefing concludes:

“The case for abolishing the power of the courts to remand for ‘own protection’ or ‘own welfare’ is overwhelming. The use of prison to secure protection and welfare is wrong in principle and ineffective, even damaging, in practice.”

It goes on to say:

“Repealing the provisions in their entirety would be in-keeping with the direction of other recent and proposed reforms. In particular it is in line with, and is a necessary and urgently required extension of, the reforms to the use of police cells as a ‘place of safety’ under the Policing and Crime Act 2017.”

Professor Sir Simon Wessely’s 2018 review “Modernising the Mental Health Act” recommended the removal of the power of the courts to remand defendants for their own protection and own welfare on mental health grounds. The Ministry of Justice has already indicated that it will act on that recommendation. The Government’s sentencing White Paper suggested there would be forthcoming reforms to remand for own protection but, disappointingly, that was not included in the Bill. On page 58 of the White Paper, the Government notes:

“The Independent Review of the Mental Health Act highlighted that there are still cases where sentencers appear to make decisions that prison is the safest option for some people who are mentally unwell, under current legislation in the Bail Act 1976 or the Mental Health Act 1983.”

It goes on to say:

“Prisons should be places where offenders are punished and rehabilitated, not a holding pen for people whose primary issue is related to mental health.”

The White Paper mentions a project by Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service on these cases. Could the Minister provide an update on the work in that area? In the Lord Chancellor’s letter responding to the APPG’s report, he said,

“we are determined to ensure that remand to prison is not considered as an option when seeking a place of safety for a person in crisis. However, it is vital that the operational mechanisms are in place before any legislative reforms are made in order to ensure that the system can work smoothly and effectively to deliver this objective.”

Could the Minister please share an update on the operational mechanisms that the Lord Chancellor refers to? Are they in place yet? How much longer should we expect to wait for them to be so?

The provisions in the Bail Act are already out of step with the aims of our justice system, but the implementation of the proposals in the Bill will make them look even more outdated. Since there will now be a requirement to consider welfare before remanding a child, as we know how damaging even short stints in custody are for children, how does it make sense to keep a provision on the statute book to put a child into custody to protect their welfare? The ability to remand women and children for their own protection is, as Dr Laura Janes of the Howard League put it in one of our evidence sessions, “rather Dickensian”. The Opposition agree that this power in the Bail Act is completely outdated, and that it has no place in a modern justice system. We urge the Government to support the new clause so that we can do away with it.

[Sarah Champion]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I am fully supportive of new clause 3, because I think it addresses a rather patriarchal approach that is going on and needs flushing out. The all-party parliamentary group on women in the penal system recently released its third briefing report, “Arresting the entry of women into the criminal justice system”, and its key finding was that 40% of women arrested resulted in no further action. That figure is even higher for women who are arrested for alleged violence.

That shows to me that women are being arrested and put into custody disproportionately, without the necessary due process in terms of what the outcome is likely to be. This creates a drain on police resources and, to be quite honest, is a waste of time, as arrest is not an appropriate response to women showing challenging behaviour. We need a more nuanced approach. Many officers arrested women for fear of criticism from more senior officers if they did not, and black women are two and a half times more likely to be arrested than white women, which raises concerns. Officers need to realise that turning up in a uniform can actually make a situation much more tense, and many women are arrested due to their response to the police turning up, not necessarily because of what the police were called in for. Frances Crook of the Howard League put it very well when she said that these women are annoying, but not necessarily dangerous.

I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on Lancashire police, who have started a pilot through which they bring independent domestic violence advisers to the scene where domestic altercations are going on. Officers are reporting that they have found that incredibly useful in de-escalating the situation, rather than just going straight to charging or bringing the woman in for their own protection. The new clause raises the points that first, there is a problem with the system, and secondly, more creative approaches can be used, so I am very interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

I am grateful for that clarification.

I am also heartened by the Minister’s response to new clause 4. I will not take anything away from the Government for the tremendous progress that they have made in this area. However, there have been many pilots and I believe that those have already proved that the system is working. I suspect that if it were not working, he would be looking to do something else, rather than extending the pilot. I hope that we can make some more progress sooner rather than later.

The Minister talked about the various recommendations in the rape review. I do not think that we need to wait for the Government to roll out their actions from the rape review. We could take some action now. I see the new clause as another opportunity to take another small step, but it is a significant step, to protect victims and even to improve the quality of evidence that is given in court. Who knows, that, too, might improve some of those abysmal conviction rates that we suffer as a country—suffered by victims who do not receive justice.

[Sarah Champion]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fear of giving evidence as the system stands, prevents any justice from happening? Any movement that the Government can make that is sensitive to the needs of victims and survivors would be hugely beneficial.

[Alex Cunningham]

That is very much the case. Yesterday, following the statement from the Lord Chancellor, there were various discussions of the statistics around cases. For some people, the case does not get beyond the police investigation; it never reaches the CPS. That is because of some of the issues outlined by my hon. Friend. We believe that it is time to start taking action. I say gently that it is great to have warm words from Ministers, but we actually need to make real progress. I will therefore press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

We now turn our attention to quite a different subject. New clauses 6 to 8 would work as a package to create a new specific offence of pet theft, punishable by a custodial sentence of up to two years. As the Minister is aware, the theft of pets is currently an offence under the Theft Act 1968. However, although the law of theft caters for certain specific offences—for example, bicycles, scrap metals and even wild mushrooms, unbelievably—that is not the case for pets. That matters because the Theft Act does not consider a pet’s intrinsic value as a much-loved member of the family. Instead, it takes into account only its monetary or sale value.

I am sure that, like me, the Minister gets a regular flow of emails from animal lovers and owners who want tougher laws to deal with those who would deprive them of their pets. They value their pets way beyond many things in their lives and even make sacrifices to ensure they get the expensive vet treatment that they need. It seems absurd to us that the theft of a much-loved pet is currently regarded in law as the same as the theft of a mobile phone or a handbag.

Pets are living, sentient beings that come into our lives and become irreplaceable members of our families. I do not mind saying that it broke my heart when my dog, Lady, died. It was the same when KT the cat died. He was called KT after we discovered that we had a male cat, which had previously been named Katie by one of my sons.

We believe that legislation and sentencing must reflect reality, and that is why Labour tabled new clause 6. It would create a specific offence of pet theft that would enable courts to deliver sentences for pet theft offences that properly reflect the attitudes of modern society. I know the Minister will remind us that the Government are looking to reform this area of the law, but that was due to happen last year.

Fewer than 1% of pet thefts lead to charges being brought. Although the Theft Act allows for a minimum custodial sentence of up to seven years’ imprisonment, the evidence shows us that someone found guilty of pet theft is far more likely to be handed a caution than a custodial sentence. That is because the vast majority of cases involving pet theft will be handled by the magistrates courts, rather than the Crown court. That is exactly why we need a change in the law. Creating a specific offence of pet theft, rather than leaving offences to be prosecuted under the Theft Act, would mean that judges are able to sentence acts of pet theft in accordance with the huge emotional damage that the offence causes.

The change is as important as it is timely. As the Minister is aware, the number of pet thefts—dog thefts in particular—has skyrocketed during the pandemic. Five police forces across England and Wales reported more acts of dog theft in the past seven months than during the whole of the previous year. Indeed, the number of dog thefts has been increasing year on year for the best part of the past decade, and we are now at the point where, on average, at least five dogs are stolen in England and Wales each and every day. That is a staggering and horrifying figure. I have heard of pets actually snatched from their owners in the street, as criminals steal them to order.

What is even more worrying is that, while the number of dog thefts increases with each year, the number of court charges relating to dog theft has gone down. In 2015, only 62 court charges were brought. In 2016, that had decreased to 48, and by 2017 the number was only 37. By failing to take decisive action as pet thefts rocket and successful prosecutions fall, the Government are sending a dangerous message to criminals—that they can continue to break the hearts of families up and down the country with complete impunity.

Given that the Government have taken no action, the Opposition feel that we must step in and offer them an opportunity for change with a specific offence of pet theft, punishable with a custodial sentence of up to two years. Again, that would allow judges to hand down sentences that properly reflect the emotional family value of a pet, rather than simply its value as an object. That seems to us a wholly sensible response to the current crisis of pet thefts that we see today. Pets are not simply objects; they are invaluable members of our family, within our homes. They provide emotional comfort, support and happiness to families across the country.

It is not just the Opposition who recognise that. The Minister will be aware that many animal welfare groups support a change in legislation, as do members of his own party and the vast majority of the public. The current system does not work and it is the country’s 12 million households that have pets who are being let down. I hope that the Minister, rather than saying that the Government will sort this issue out some other time, will take decisive action and support the new clauses today.

[Sarah Champion]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North for tabling these new clauses, because during the pandemic in particular the rate of dog theft has gone through the roof, as the cost of puppies, dogs and all other pets has also skyrocketed.

These animals are worth so much more than their monetary value; they are valued members of our households. And we have seen some very high-profile cases that demonstrate the impact when pets are stolen. The law needs to catch up and I really urge the Minister to take this opportunity to do that.

In March, DogLost—a UK charity that helps victims of dog theft—recorded a 170% increase in the rate of this crime between 2019 and 2020. It is very welcome that in May the Government announced a taskforce that will consider the factors contributing to the rise in dognapping and recommend solutions to tackle the problem, but we do not need just another consultation. What we actually need is action and the Bill provides the perfect opportunity for the Government to take that action.

Campaigners against dog theft have called for pet theft to be made a specific offence and they are right to do so. That crime needs more robust punishment than just being covered by theft of property; treating pets just as “property” does not recognise the emotional attachment that people place on them.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Eighteenth sitting)

Debate between Sarah Champion and Alex Cunningham

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Champion]

My frustration is that we always promised jam tomorrow. It is always a report, a review or a consultation. All I want—and I believe the House wants—is for the justice system to be victim-centred rather than causing damage to victims of crime. I heard what the Minister said, and I am content to withdraw the new clause.

[Alex Cunningham]

I do not intend to press new clause 42 to a vote, but I hope that the Government’s future plans will recognise the need for a provision to better serve victims. Similarly, I was mindful of pressing new clause 68, but I am delighted by the clear statement from the Minister quoting, I believe, from the document referred to the Commission. I am satisfied that these issues will be looked at. I hope that it is not just an internal review by the Law Commission but will listen to the views of people outside, including me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman).

[Sarah Champion]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 16

Threshold for imposing discretionary custodial sentence

“Section 230 of the Sentencing Act 2020 is amended as follows—

‘(2A) If the court finds that the offence is so serious that neither a fine alone or a community sentence can be justified for the offence, it must state its reasons for being satisfied that the offence is so serious (having regard to the principles in subsection (2B), and, in particular, why a community order with appropriate requirements could not be justified).

(2B) When forming an opinion under subsection (2), the court should take account of the following principles—

(a) Passing the custody threshold does not mean that a custodial sentence should be deemed inevitable. Custody should not be imposed where a community order could provide sufficient restriction on an offender’s liberty (by way of punishment) while addressing the rehabilitation of the offender to prevent future crime.

(b) Sentences should not necessarily escalate from one community order range to the next at each sentencing occasion. The decision as to the appropriate range of community order should be based upon the seriousness of the new offence, or offences.

(c) Section 65 of the Sentencing Code (a relevant previous conviction to be treated as an aggravating factor) should not be interpreted so as to push over the custody threshold the sentence for one or more offences that would not themselves justify custody.

(d) Where the offender being sentenced is a primary carer, imprisonment should not be imposed except for reason of public safety.’”—(Alex Cunningham.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Alex Cunningham]

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

I begin by thanking the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies for its work on this new clause. Its considered and thoughtful approach to reform in this area has been utterly invaluable.

This new clause amends the Sentencing Act 2020 to strengthen the custody threshold by making provision for sentencers to state their reasons when imposing a custodial sentence. We have tabled this new clause with a view to encouraging sentencers to use community-based sentences rather than short prison sentences. The benefit of community disposals has been discussed at length in the Committee, especially in our discussion on part 6, and I do not propose to go over those issues again in full.

The Opposition are interested in reforming the sentencing regime to guard in some way against short sentences, which evidence suggests may be associated with higher levels of reoffending than sentences served in the community, and during which there is little time to address the offender’s needs. The Lord Chancellor’s predecessor was acutely interested in reform in this area. In fact, while we are on the topic, I would be interested to hear an update from the Minister on the Ministry of Justice’s unpublished Green Paper that features sentencing proposals to reduce the use of short-term custody. I recognise that his Department’s position has moved on somewhat since then, but the paper may contain an evidence base that is helpful for legislators across the House as we seek to better our criminal justice system. Perhaps he can share some of its findings.

But the current Lord Chancellor is not as enthusiastic about radical reform in this area as his predecessor, so we have tabled a new clause that is a principled starting point for reform on this issue, which we hope the Government can adopt and build on. The aim of the new clause is to reduce the use of custody for less serious offending, for which there are better and more appropriate responses in the community sentencing framework.

The premise of reserving imprisonment for serious offences is already established in statutory terms in the Sentencing Act 2020, section 230 of which states:

“The court must not pass a custodial sentence unless it is of the opinion that — the offence, or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence.”

However, it notes that the threshold is generally not applicable

“where a mandatory sentence requirement applies”.

But even though we already have statutory provision that should guard against it, HM Inspectorate of Probation’s 2019 inspection on “Post-release supervision for short-term prisoners” recognises that, in reality, people continue to go on an “expensive merry-go-round” of multiple wasteful short prison sentences.

The report noted that within the cohort of offenders on short prison sentences, women are disproportionally serving such sentences, with 15% of all female prisoners on them as compared with 6% of male prisoners, and that many in the cohort

“go in and out of prison for acquisitive crime associated with the dual diagnosis of mental health and addiction needs, but specific data are not available for this group.”

Even the Government’s sentencing White Paper shows little enthusiasm for the efficacy of short sentences in our current framework, describing them as offering

“temporary respite from offending behaviour”

and

“at best providing limited public protection, as most offenders continue to reoffend following release.”

Outside the strengthening of the threshold for remand for children, however, the Bill as we have it does not make reforms to improve our regime with regard to short sentences or custodial periods.

The new clause would address that missed opportunity in the Bill and build on principles already accepted in sentencing guidelines, enshrining them into legislation to better clarify the currently rather opaque statutory custodial threshold. Specifically, it aims to better ensure that sentencers are appropriately reserving custody for serious offences by better clarifying the assessment that sentencers are required to make, and that the impact of imprisonment on dependent children is considered in the sentencing of primary carers. The latter point is an important one, and we will discuss it more fully when we get to new clause 26.

The clause also limits the relevance of previous convictions in determining custodial sentences. For the principle of reserving imprisonment for serious offences to be met in practice, it would be helpful to separate the issue of persistent low-level offending from that of serious offending. There is a range of low-level offending behaviour that is exacerbated rather that eliminated by short sentences, and which would be much better addressed by appropriately severe community sentences. Importantly for the current Lord Chancellor, perhaps, the clause as it stands does not eliminate short sentences. Speaking to the Justice Committee in 2019, he explained he did not believe abolishing short sentences was the right way forward, and said:

“My own experience as a recorder teaches me that there are times when, however reluctantly,”

short term prison sentences

“should be available to judges and magistrates. For example, repeat offenders who fail to comply with community orders ultimately need the sanction of custody”.

The clause does not prohibit short sentences altogether; indeed the Opposition would have several reservations with that proposal, including the fact that it has been shown to lead to sentence creep.

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend is making powerful points. Does he agree that the new clause would prevent the expensive merry-go-round of short-term wasteful prison sentences that do not ever address the nub of the problem? We are not trying to prevent short-term prison sentences, but to deal with the situation of the repeat offender going round and round, which costs so much and blocks up the system.

[Alex Cunningham]

That is most certainly the case. This is not just about cost, yet the cost to the Prison Service of accommodating people in prison even for very short periods is absolutely huge. The real effect, however, is not monetary; money is not the only factor. There is the whole issue of the effect on the family, and, as my hon. Friend said, the effect on the prospect of reoffending.

In Western Australia a ban on prison sentences of up to six months resulted in an increase in prison sentences over six months for law breaking that would previously had received a shorter prison sentence. It does not even go as far as introducing a presumption against short prison sentences, though this is an approach with something to be said for it and which has had some success in other countries, including my homeland, Scotland. Instead, the clause simply requires the court to explain why it believes a custodial sentence is appropriate and a community sentence cannot be justified. This will focus the mind of the court to ensure that custody is being used as the most appropriate option, not the simplest one. It also has the added benefit of improving accountability and understanding of sentencing decisions, which is important for public confidence in the criminal justice system.

As Adrian Crossley of the Centre for Social Justice said in one of our evidence sessions:

“We need to be much bolder about the amount of people we keep out of prison and deal with in the community. We can see clearly that in treating alcohol, drug addiction, mental health problems, literacy and numeracy, you are far more likely to have an effect on those key drivers of crime if you deal with people in the community than if you put them in prison. We could be much bolder in dealing with community disposals. There is a real risk of sentencing inflation here, of a prison population growing out of control and, in my view, of brutalising people who might otherwise be able to reform.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 42, Q58.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

Will my hon. Friend comment on Nottinghamshire police’s pilot on misogyny as a hate crime? They thought it worked exceptionally well in challenging behaviour. That is the sort of thing that we need rolled out across the country.

[Alex Cunningham]

As I said earlier, we have evidence that things are working in some areas and that there is a real need to do much more across the country. For that reason, we should be strong enough to accept with confidence that we can examine the Law Commission’s recommendations later in the year and commit the decision making to a legislative Committee. On that basis, I shall press new clause 19.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I support the new clauses, because I have yet to see a positive reason for women going into prisons. As my hon. Friend is saying, the impact on children is dramatic, but it is not only the fact that children are more likely to themselves face criminal actions; it is also that, on every measure, children going into care fail to achieve their potential. We really are damning children by doing this to their mothers.

[Alex Cunningham]

We certainly are. I quoted the figure earlier; some 95% of children end up leaving their home when their principal carer goes to prison, which bears out what my hon. Friend says.

The 2017 Farmer review found that family ties are a factor in reducing reoffending, which has attendant benefits for all our communities. The Government’s own 2018 female offender strategy acknowledges that

“custody results in significant disruptions to family life”

and that many women

“could be more successfully supported in the community, where reoffending outcomes are better.”

Sentencers are already expected to consider the impact on child dependants, but it seems that in reality the current guidelines are not applied rigorously or consistently across all cases.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights found in its 2019 inquiry “The right to family life: Children whose mothers are in prison” that despite the fact that the Sentencing Council had strengthened its guidance to judges and magistrates about the need to consider dependent children,

“evidence to the inquiry clearly indicated that this guidance is not being satisfactorily adhered to in practice and the question remains whether these steps go fast or far enough to guarantee children’s rights.”

Taken together these clauses will strengthen sentencers’ existing duties to ensure that they are applied consistently across all cases and that, as a result, children’s rights are guaranteed.

I will now consider the new clauses that deal with sentencing provisions. New clause 32 amends section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to make clear the requirement for a sentencing judge to have a copy of a pre-sentence report, considering the impact of a custodial sentence on the dependent child, when sentencing a primary carer of a child. The Joint Committee has raised concerns about the current quality and use of pre-sentence reports and in its inquiry was told that pre-sentence reports were

“vitally important in ensuring that courts have all the information necessary about dependent children before sentencing a primary carer,”

but written evidence from Dr Natalie Booth noted that they were used

“inconsistently and ineffectively in many cases”.

New clause 33 amends section 52 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to require a sentencing judge to state how the best interests of a child were considered when sentencing a primary carer of a dependent child. New clause 34 would create a requirement for a sentencing judge to consider the impact of a custodial sentence on a child when sentencing a primary carer of a dependent child.

The Opposition believe that these new clauses can help address the current inconsistency that I previously referred to by explicitly requiring sentencers to give due regard to the impact of a sentence on any dependent children and their welfare. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights notes:

“These new clauses merely reflect what ought to, but sadly often does not, happen—to consider and respect the rights of the child when a primary carer is sentenced”.

As Dr Paradine of Women in Prison told the Committee in one of our evidence sessions:

“It is completely unacceptable that the measures up until now have not resulted in the change needed. This is an opportunity to make that small change. It does not require anything different, but it will make sure, hopefully, that the things that should be happening in court do happen, that imprisonment is not having a disproportionate impact on children and that their best interests are safeguarded.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2021; c. 150, Q255.]

I think Dr Paradine puts it very compellingly; these are things that are already meant to happen in the court, yet in many cases they still do not.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Sarah Champion and Alex Cunningham

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Cunningham]

[Sarah Champion]

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

[Sarah Champion]

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Sarah Champion and Alex Cunningham

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Cunningham]

I thank the Minister very much for that—it will, of course, be on the record, which I am very pleased to note. Before I get into my speech, I would like to thank Transform Justice and the Alliance for Youth Justice for the extremely helpful work they have done on this part of the Bill. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), the former shadow Justice Minister, who worked extremely hard on these particular issues. I am grateful to him.

Clause 131 amends the legislative threshold for remanding a child to custody. It will mean that remand to youth detention accommodation can be imposed only in the most serious cases, where a custodial sentence is the only option and the risk posed by the child cannot be safely managed within the community. It will introduce a statutory duty which states that courts must consider the interests and welfare of the child before deciding whether to remand them to youth detention. It also imposes a statutory requirement for the courts to record the reasons for the decision.

First, let me say that we are pleased with the direction of travel that this clause indicates, and we are keen for the Government’s work in this area to succeed. We are in complete agreement with the Government that custodial remand should be used only as a last resort for children. However, we do think that there is scope for these proposals to go further in tightening the threshold for remanding a child into custody. I will speak more on that when we discuss our amendments.

The current youth remand provisions were introduced in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 and I well remember the Public Bill Committee, where I had the privilege of serving as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Sadiq Khan, now our excellent Mayor of London, and also my good friend. By 2019, the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse noted a significant increase in the use of custodial remand for children. The Opposition warmly welcomes measures which aim to reduce the number of children remanded into custody, especially in light of the fact that in 2018/19 only a third of children remanded to custody or local authority accommodation later received a custodial sentence.

Our concerns about the use of custodial remands for children are compounded by the extreme racial disproportionality on remand, and the record proportion of children in custody who have not yet been tried in court.

Against the backdrop of the record court backlog and the waiting times for trial, there could not be a more opportune moment to address these issues. We particularly welcome the introduction of the statutory duty to consider the welfare and best interests of the child. We believe that, while these proposals can go further—I know that the Minister will listen carefully to our proposals shortly—these changes will help to reduce the number of children who are unnecessarily remanded to custody, so we are pleased to support them.



However, there are a couple of points on which I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts. Has he any further information to share with the Committee on his Department’s considerations of the impact that police remand has on custodial remand? Are there any plans to address that? Research by Transform Justice shows that police remand, where the child is detained by the police until court either in a police cell or in a local authority PACE bed—under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—is a driver of custodial remand. Transform Justice explains that point:

“This is because any child remanded by the police has to be presented in court within 24 hours, meaning Youth Offending Team staff often don’t have enough time to develop a bail package that will satisfy the court. Children who appear from police custody also usually appear in the secure dock, which can bias courts to view the child as more ‘dangerous’ and therefore more suitable for custodial remand.”

The criteria for police remand are spelled out in section 38 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and are very different from those used by the court for remand. In fact, the criteria for police remand of children are almost identical to those for adults, unlike the child-first approach taken in so many other areas of the justice system.

We know that the police remand more children than the courts. Of the 4,500 children who appeared in court from police custody in 2019, only 12% went on to be remanded by the court. Some 31% of those remanded by the police went on to be discharged, dismissed or have their case withdrawn, while 37% went on to get a fine or community sentence. The figures illustrate that police use of remand is seriously out of synch with the courts already. This clause may further widen that gap.

Is the Minister not concerned that the police may continue to overuse post-charge detention, undermining the positive efforts of the clause to reduce unnecessary custodial remand for children? Will the Government consider updating the police remand criteria, so they are in line with the new court remand criteria, to ensure consistent decision making across the whole criminal justice system?

I am greatly supportive of the provision in the clause that requires courts to record their reasons for remanding a child, not least because it will provide valuable data on the use of remand, which will enable us to continue to make improvements in this area. For that to be most effective in informing future policy decisions, we would need to have some sort of centralised monitoring system. Will we have such a system? It would mean that the need to record reasons would not only focus the mind of the court in a specific case; it would also benefit the system as a whole, as each case can inform our ongoing learning process about the use of remand and its effectiveness. Has the Minister considered the possibility of such a centralised monitoring system?

It has been suggested that the obligation on the court to record reasons would be most effective if courts had to specify why non-custodial alternatives were deemed unsuitable and how each of the custodial remand conditions has been met. Is that the kind of detail that the Minister envisages the obligation should entail? I am sure we all agree that it would be helpful for that level of information to be provided, so I am interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts.

Turning to the amendments, as I said earlier, the reforms to the threshold for remanding a child in custody are welcome, but there are a couple of areas where we believe they should go further. The Opposition amendments, if adopted, would get us closer to the goal of custodial remand being used only as a truly last resort.

Amendment 128 seeks to tighten the history test by defining a recent history of breaching bail or offending while on bail as having been committed within the last six weeks. The clause currently makes provision to amend the history condition so that the previous instances of breach or offending while on bail must be “significant”, “relevant” and “recent”. In order to reduce the number of children held unnecessarily on remand, it would be helpful to amend the clause so that there is a clear definition of “recent”.

In defining recent, we have to be mindful of what that means to a child. As the Alliance for Youth Justice notes:

“If we are to take a child-centred approach, we must consider how children experience time, and recognise the well-established principle that children change and develop in a shorter time than adults.”

The Youth Justice Board for England and Wales has recommended that “recent” be no longer than within a six-week period. I hope that the Minister will agree that clarity on that point would be of great assistance to the courts. I would be interested to hear from him what discussions his Ministry of Justice colleagues have had regarding defining a time limit for this condition.

Amendment 129 is a straightforward amendment to the necessity condition that would again help achieve the aim of using custodial remand for children only as a last resort. Although we welcome the strengthened wording of the necessity condition included in the Bill, which would require remand to be used only when the risk posed by a child cannot be safely managed in the community, we share the concerns of the sector that the benefits arising from this change may be undermined by its drafting. The amendment would therefore tighten and strengthen the wording. Transform Justice says that these benefits of the current proposed change to the necessity condition

“will be undermined by the loose wording of one of the other necessity conditions: that remand to YDA is necessary to prevent further imprisonable offences. This condition is highly subjective and casts a wide net, which may be widened further by youth sentencing provisions elsewhere in the bill.”

We share the concern expressed by the Alliance for Youth Justice that

“the latter part of the condition (to prevent the commission of an imprisonable offence) sets such a low threshold for meeting the Condition as to render the first threshold (to protect the public from death or serious personal injury) somewhat redundant.”

The amendment would tighten the latter part of the condition by ensuring that it applies only to serious imprisonable offences, which we think better reflects the intention of the clause.

Finally, amendment 130 would compel the court to record the age, gender and ethnicity of a child remanded in custody in order to provide better data on remand, particularly on disproportionality. We believe that this could be a helpful tool in addressing the deeply concerning and increasing levels of disproportionality at this point in our justice system. The numbers beggar belief. Nine out of 10 London children who are remanded are from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. A deeply comprehensive report that was published by the Youth Justice Board in January shows that race alone is a factor in remand outcomes for children. The researchers gathered data on thousands of English and Welsh cases, and information provided in practitioner assessments. Even when other related factors were controlled for mixed ethnicity black children, they were, as the Youth Justice Board notes,

“still more likely to be remanded in custody and, if not remanded, more likely to be subject to restrictions on bail.”

This is a serious injustice in our system that needs to be urgently addressed. More needs to be done than this amendment makes provision for, but it would be a helpful tool in breaking down the disproportionate outcomes that we are seeing. The amendment would at the very least provide accurate data to help understand this disparity, in line with the “explain or reform” principle outlined in the Lammy review, which I think is an eminently sensible step in the right direction. I hope that the Minister agrees and look forward to hearing his thoughts. I would also be grateful if he could share with the Committee any other initiatives his Department is working on to address this flagrant disproportionality in youth remand.

[Sarah Champion]

I fully support the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North on the amendments. I have a fundamental concern about remanding children. It impacts on them disproportionately in terms of their future outlook, opportunities and potential. We see within the remand youth justice system some of the highest levels of disproportionality in the criminal justice system. Although Labour Members welcome the measures in the Bill to tighten the tests that the courts must satisfy to decide whether to remand a child in custody, we still have concerns about this section of the Bill.

We agree with the policy to encourage the courts to impose a custodial remand only when absolutely necessary while ensuring the public remain safe, but as my hon. Friend stated, there are real concerns about the overrepresentation of black, Asian and minority ethnic people, who make up only 12% of the UK population but half the youth prison population. I would be much more comfortable if we were using the Bill to look at the reasons for that disproportionate make-up, rather than at further punitive measures. We have to take steps to ensure that all people, particularly all children, can reach their potential. I am very mindful of the fact that the literacy rate of the prison population is so much lower than that of the rest of the population. Why are we not investing more to address those underlying issues?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

Secure children’s homes accommodate boys and girls aged 10 to 17 assessed as particularly vulnerable. As well as children held on justice grounds, secure children’s homes accommodate children detained on welfare grounds for their protection or the protection of others. The explanatory notes state that they

“currently rely on inherent powers to make arrangements for the ‘mobility’ of children detained in such accommodation to help address their offending behaviour and to support the integration of children back into the community at the end of their sentence. Clause 137 would provide a statutory power for the temporary release of children detained in SCHs. The Secretary of State or the registered manager of the home would be able to temporarily release a child to whom the clause applies. Temporary release under this clause could be granted under conditions. The Secretary of State and registered managers would have concurrent powers to recall children temporarily released…If the period for which the child is temporarily released expires or if the child has been recalled, the child would be deemed to be unlawfully at large.”

Overall, we are supportive of the Government’s proposals in this area and recognise that a good balance has to be struck between allowing temporary release of children from secure children’s homes to support their reintegration into society, and close monitoring of children on temporary release for risk management purposes.

The Opposition understand that temporary release is an important part of the rehabilitation process for children sentenced to custody, and that some child sentence plan objectives will require them to attend meetings or participate in activities outside the secure establishment. As the Youth Justice Board notes in its briefing,

“Allowing children to be released temporarily supports their constructive resettlement into their community both in maintaining family ties and allowing children to start or maintain education placements.”

While the clause is effectively just putting into statute practice that is already in place, we are pleased to see the Government conferring authority for these decisions and processes to the secure school provider, as they will be best placed to support the child in question.

Research published by the Department for Education comparing children on justice placements and those on welfare placements in secure children’s homes concluded that children on justice and welfare placements are fundamentally the same children. The research found that the level of risk posed by individual children was not related to whether they were on a justice or welfare pathway. The report examined whether there was a need to separate children on justice and welfare placements, but concluded that, rather than separating them, if anything the children would benefit from greater integration. While secure children’s homes managers already have powers under section 25 of the Children Act 1989 to consider and approve temporary release for children on welfare placements, we are pleased that the new provisions will put those managers in the same position for sentenced children on justice placements.

We note the concerns of the Howard League, however, that the clause applies only to children who have been sentenced and therefore excludes children who are held in secure children’s homes on remand from being able to access temporary release. The Howard League points out that this change will therefore create a disparity between children who are in secure children’s homes and children who are in secure training centres. Rule 5 of the Secure Training Centre Rules allows children who are on remand to be temporarily released. It explains that unless temporary release also applies to children on remand in secure children’s homes and schools,

“there is a risk that this will undermine the ‘seamless service’ between custody and the community which the Government envisions for secure schools”

We agree with the Howard League that all children remanded to custody should have access to temporary release where appropriate, as they do in secure training centres.

The Bill’s fact sheet on this provision says temporary release is “not a relevant factor” for children on remand. I find this surprising given that we know that, as a result of court delays, children are sometimes subject to quite lengthy custodial remands. The Alliance for Youth Justice further points out:

“introducing new legislation which restricts temporary release in Secure Children’s Homes to sentenced children would be detrimental, particularly to the development of Secure Schools, which we know have ambitious plans for transitions into the community.”

I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this and wonder why this distinction has been maintained. Will he consider including children on remand in these provisions? It would be helpful to be reassured on that point, but on the whole we are pleased with the proposal and will offer it our support.

As we have heard, clause 138 would amend the Academies Act 2010 so that 16-to-19 academies can provide secure accommodation for the purpose of restricting liberty but only if approved to do so by the Secretary of State. On the whole, the Opposition support the principle of secure academies and we do not strongly object to these academies being run by charitable entities. But, as ever, there are some areas in which I seek the Minister’s reassurances, especially with this clause, as comprehensive information is not available from the Government.

The Alliance for Youth Justice briefing on this clause says:

“We are aware of concerns that have been prompted by this section of the Bill around the lack of clarity on the status of Secure Schools, in particular what legislation, regulation and guidance will govern and oversee their activities. It has been confirmed to the AYJ by the Youth Custody Service and Oasis Charitable Trust, that Oasis Restore, the first Secure School pilot, will be registered as a Secure Children’s Home and regulated by Ofsted. It has also been confirmed that 12-to-18-year-olds may be placed in Oasis Restore.”

There is clear discomfort in the sector about the limited information available on the plans for Oasis Restore and how the model will operate in practice. Can the Minister confirm that his Department will publish more information on this? Can he provide a timeframe for publication?

Another issue raised by the sector is that it is unclear how the introduction of secure schools fits into the long-term strategy for the youth secure estate. I understand that it is the Government’s stated intention for secure schools to replace young offender institutions and secure training centres, but we have not yet seen any proposed timeline for such changes. Can the Minister provide more information on his Department’s intended timeline for the changeover to secure schools for the Committee today?

The first secure school is being established in Medway, but I understand that children from across the UK can be sent there. Hazel Williamson put it very well in our evidence session when she said:

“As an association of YOT managers, we believe that children in custody…should be placed in small, secure units close to their homes. We do not advocate large custodial establishments where children are placed far away from their home; we would advocate small custodial units.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 20 May 2021; c. 133, Q212.]

Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s timetable for delivering secure schools will not entail children being detained hundreds of miles from their homes while still only a small number of these establishments are available?

The Youth Justice Board has shared its concerns about the links to children entering the youth justice system from practices such as off-rolling children. Indeed, there is a high prevalence of expelled children in the children’s secure estate. For instance, in 2018 in HMYOI Feltham, 89% of children had been excluded from school.

Can the Minister confirm that any academy trusts selected through the tendering process to open or run a secure school have got, as the Youth Justice Board put it

“the necessary skills, expertise, structures and ethos to support children in a secure setting”?

I know that the Howard League wrote to the Secretary of State on this issue last year, and its briefing says:

“This clause provides a legal basis for the ‘secure school’ model of youth custody: it allows academies to provide secure accommodation for their pupils if they have been approved to do so and establishes that running a secure academy is to be treated as fulfilling the charitable purpose of ‘advancement of education’ under s3(1) of the Charities Act 2011. In April 2020, the Charity Commission noted that ‘the proposed purposes of secure schools, as we understand them, do not wholly fall within the descriptions of purpose in s3(1) of the Charities Act 2011’ and that ‘we do not think the operation of a secure school can be exclusively charitable’. In November 2020, the Howard League wrote to the Secretary of State outlining the concerns that locking children up does not fall within charitable objectives. The proposal compounds this issue.”

It would be helpful if the Minister could share with the Committee his discussions with the Charity Commission, so that we all better understand the position that has been reached on this knotty issue.

Amendments 123 and 133 both relate to the inspection regime for secure 16-to-19 academies. Amendment 123 would make secure 16-to-19 academies subject to annual inspection by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, and amendment 133 would make them subject to annual inspection by Ofsted. I understand that the current inspection framework will come from Ofsted. However, I am sure the Government would agree that a secure school is a very different entity from a standard school. We therefore believe that such schools would benefit from a different inspection regime, to ensure that no aspects of their running are overlooked. Although it is true that it is not a prison, a secure school is still part of the secure estate, so there is expertise that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons can provide. Indeed, when Ofsted does inspections on the secure estate, HMIP is part of the broader inspection team. We think the inclusion of HMIP is important and should be put on a statutory footing. I hope the Government agree that it would add value to the monitoring and running of the secure school system as it is rolled out, so I hope they will be able to support our amendment 123.

As I outlined in my earlier speech, there is still much that is unknown and has yet to be decided in relation to secure schools. For that reason, we think it would be important for there to be regular inspections, especially in the early years of operation. That is why our amendment 133 provides for annual inspection by Ofsted, to ensure that nothing slips through the cracks. Furthermore, we are entrusting such schools with the care of some of our most vulnerable children at a point in their lives when positive and engaged care can have the most impact, so it is only right that the schools are subject to the most rigorous monitoring while they do so. I hope that the Government agree and can support amendment 133.

Amendment 146, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, allows for local authorities to establish and maintain a secure 16-to-19 academy, and to exclude profit-making bodies from doing likewise. I am sure she will address her amendment in detail, but she has our support.

[Sarah Champion]

My amendment 146 is designed to ensure that local authorities are able to run secure 16-to-19 academies, either alone or in consortia, and to prevent such establishments from being run for profit. I will go into the detail of why, but, fundamentally, I do not think profit should be made from keeping our children safe. We are seeing some pretty gross examples of that at the moment.

In December 2016, the Government committed to phase out child prisons—by that, I mean juvenile young offenders institutions and secure training centres—and to replace them with a network of secure schools and children’s homes. I hope that this is not just the Government playing semantics and that they really are going to get rid of these institutions, because it is very clear, and the Youth Justice Board concedes, that secure training centres are not fit for purpose.

The Government must speed up the phasing out of secure training centres. When introducing secure schools and academies, they must ensure that they will meet high standards of care. We must ensure that secure children’s homes take an approach that fulfils all of a child’s needs and that they are not seen as cash cows for the private firms who run them to make huge profits.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Sarah Champion and Alex Cunningham

Committee stage
Tuesday 15th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Champion]

I beg to move amendment 145, in clause 109, page 98, line 41, at beginning insert—

‘(1) In subsection (3) of section 239 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (the Parole Board), after 3(b) insert—

“(c) the views of the victim or victims of the crime to which the case relates””

This amendment would amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to ensure victims/survivors are consulted in parole decisions which will affect them.

I have tabled the amendment because two survivors have raised this as an issue with me this year. I have briefly spoken to the Minister because I am not sure that the amendment will achieve the job I hope it will. By raising it, I hope the Minister will work with me to come up with a solution, because we have a real problem here.

The amendment aims to amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003, to ensure that victims and survivors are consulted on parole decisions that affect them. Currently, victims of crime, such as child abuse, can submit a victim impact statement before it is decided whether the abuser will receive parole. Victims should be informed when their abuser is released from prison or is on parole. However, too often that process is not carried out and victims are unaware that their abuser has been released from prison, or has been moved to a different category of prison.

The all-party parliamentary group for adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse found in its survey that as many as 75% of victims are not informed about their perpetrator being released on parole. One survivor who contributed to the report said:

“I found out my abuser was living nearby. In a town I visited regularly with my children for their sports club. And nobody bothered to inform me. I found this completely unacceptable.”

The shock and fear of finding out unexpectedly can be incredibly distressing for victims. Another survivor said:

“I was petrified because they gave him my name and all he’s got to do is look on the electoral roll and he could find me.”

Including victims and survivors in the parole decision-making process would let them understand how and why decisions are made. In discussion of the previous clause, the Minister presented an argument around the word “dangerous” and what makes an offender dangerous. Who better to feed in that information to the Parole Board’s decisions or the Lord Chancellor’s decisions than the victims and survivors themselves? Furthermore, allowing survivors to contribute to the process would ensure their voice is heard and the terror they have experienced in the past will not be relived—if they are listened to.

My amendment would ensure the Parole Board must consult with the victim during any decisions that would give recommendations resulting in parole for the offender. It would amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003, so the Parole Board must take account of the views of the person to whom the case is related. If it becomes a legal necessity for the Parole Board to consult with the victim, the potential for them to not be informed would not be an issue.

In 2019, the Government pledged to allow victims into parole hearings and, in 2020, they also consulted on making some parole hearings open to victims. Both of those followed the Worboys case, which exposed the failures of the parole process. At the time, the Government said they wanted to increase survivors’ ability to challenge release decisions if they felt the decision was flawed. That would save time and resources by consulting with the victim before the decision is made. The current system is not working for victims. We need a justice system that puts victims at the heart of its decisions.

This is not me just making a speech. As I said earlier, this is because I have two cases at the moment where the parole process has completely failed. Both relate to Rotherham survivors of past historic child sexual exploitation, and the first case is a survivor who I will call Elizabeth. The perpetrator was sentenced to nine years for two counts of rape of a girl under 16 in 2018. They were transferred after two and a half years to a category D prison, which we would view as an open prison. They were also told they could have day release but for covid-19.

The victim had signed up to the victim contact scheme, which should have ensured she was notified and provided with information about key stages in the offender’s sentence, including for those cases where release falls to the Parole Board. She should have been consulted on the timing of the Parole Board’s review and whether the offender was released or moved to open conditions. All of that should have been relayed to her. The victim should have been notified that the transfer to open conditions was being considered, and then she should have been told of the outcome. At the moment, victims have only a right of notification, and notification took place, in this case, after the decision was made.

I raised the issue with the Minister, who responded, explaining the legal position that, in accordance with legislation at the time, the offender is required to serve half of the sentence in custody, with the remaining period served in the community on licence and subject to supervision by the National Probation Service. During the custodial period, offenders must be held in the lowest security conditions necessary to manage the safety of their identified risk of escape or absconding, the risk of harm to the public and the risk of any serious disorder. Those are the considerations, not the impact on the victims.

The errors in the case, as identified by the Minister, were that the prison is responsible for managing a case. The prison offender manager should have contacted the victim liaison officer directly to let them know that the move to open conditions was under consideration, but they failed to do so. The senior manager has spoken to the staff at the prison, and a reminder has been sent to all of the staff reminding them to follow the correct procedure. The requirement has been raised with the National Probation Service regional implementation managers to take forward and ensure other prisons follow the correct process.

I will quote from the letter from the Solicitor General dated 21 October 2020.

“The reason for informing victims before the decision is taken, is to ensure that victims are kept updated with developments, so that a move to open conditions does not come as a total shock, and also to ensure the prison is aware of any exclusion zones which the victim has requested. This can help to inform which open prison an offender is moved to. I should like to underline that the Government shares the concerns about offenders who commit very serious crimes, and yet are released automatically at the halfway point in their sentence. We have taken action to address this through legislation we introduced earlier this year. We are committed to ensure that serious offenders spend the time in prison that reflects the gravity of their crimes and intend to bring forward proposals to further strengthen the law in this area”—

the Bill that we are all serving on.

So we got an apology, commitments and managers and staff spoken to. It was never going to happen again, and then, lo and behold, two months later, I got a near identical case—case B. The perpetrator was sentenced to nine years on three counts of sexual activity with a child in 2018. The offender was transferred to a category D prison in February 2021—again, two and a half years after the sentence—but the victim was not notified until April, three months after the offender was moved to a category D prison. Again, the victim was signed up to the victim contact scheme, but was not notified until after the transfer had taken place.

Again, I contacted the Minister, and in January 2021 the prison offender manager told the victim liaison officer that the offender had been assessed as suitable for open conditions in October and that an open prison had confirmed they would accept the offender, but the date of transfer had not been finalised. The POM should then have informed the victim liaison officer when the open conditions were considered, not just about the decision. Once the victim liaison officer was notified, the victim should have been notified, but that did not happen. The victim liaison officer asked to be notified when the transfer had taken place, but the prison, whose responsibility this was, failed to inform her. The victim liaison officer became aware themselves only in April when the community offender manager made inquiries about the conditions that the victim would wish to request for temporary release of the prisoner who raped her three times when she was a child.

Something is going horribly wrong. We have a system in which, twice in six months, victims of the most serious crime have been let down by the state. The system that the Minister currently has in place is not working, so how can we make sure that this does not keep on happening again and again? I am one MP and I have had two cases in the past six months, so it concerns me that this is happening all over the country, but survivors would not think to go to their MP to get it raised. The transfer of offenders guilty of serious offences to open conditions after just a quarter of their sentence is deeply wrong. The thought of an offender being back in the community is deeply traumatising for victims who have already been through both the crime and also the ordeal of a trial only comparatively recently. Notification is vital, as should be consultation. However, consultation is not offered and the system for notification is clearly dysfunctional.

As I said to the Minister, I am not sure that my amendment is the correct amendment, but I really need some reassurances to make sure that victims are both notified and consulted. To refer back to the previous clause, how are we meant to know whether an offender is dangerous and a risk unless we actually hear from the people who have been subjected to the horror that that person can wreak?

[Alex Cunningham]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham on tabling amendment 145, which has been crafted with her characteristic care and has won support from colleagues across the House. Contrary to what she might think, I think it is the right amendment. The Opposition fully support the principle behind amendment 145 that victims and survivors deserve to be at the heart of criminal justice and, in this case, to be consulted on decisions made by the Parole Board that affect them. The amendment is a simple one, and I will not detain the Committee by repeating the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham on the technical aspects of how it would work

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Sarah Champion and Alex Cunningham

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th June 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Champion]

It is very obvious that this is a contentious topic, and the one that has gained the most media attention for this Bill. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate for making a very persuasive case. I must challenge my friend the hon. Member for Ashfield because I think his criticism was unjust, but it does highlight that what one person thinks is nonsense can be a very passionate thing for another, and we all deserve the right to protest.

I would like to start by making the argument, again, that the police already have wide powers to impose conditions on both static assemblies and marches, as well as broad discretion in how those powers are applied. Let me quote from the Liberty briefing:

“The cumulative effect of these measures—which target the tools that make protest rights meaningful – constitute an attack on a fundamental building block of our democracy.”

Liberty say that the clauses are fundamental block on our democracy. They say that these are draconian measures that impose disproportionate controls on free expression and the right to protest; measures that will have an unfair impact on black, Asian and ethnic minority people.

It is unfortunate that the amendments tabled by Labour have not been selected. I would like to state that Labour is very supportive of the measures that allow access for emergency services, but overall I personally think that the clauses go far too far, and I support my honourable colleagues in wanting to vote against this clause. It should not be in this Bill.

I am interested to hear from the Minister whether she agrees with the witnesses we heard from that the police already have sufficient powers to deal with protests. In the evidence session, Matt Parr said,

“there is quite a stark difference between London, which obviously gets a disproportionately large number of protests, and elsewhere.”

He said that senior police officers outside London

“tended to think they had sufficient powers”—[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 53, Q77.]

Again, I would be very interested to hear from the Minister if she thinks that these measures are actually London-centric, and not needed in places like Rotherham—I see the Minister grimace, and I share that—or if they are needed across the country. Furthermore, how will she make sure that police forces across the country handle them at the same level, and will there be training and support to enable them to understand exactly where to apply them?

I ask that because in Rotherham, after the scale of the child abuse in the town became known, the far right would come and basically put the town into lockdown every month. It was incredibly intimidating. It stopped businesses being able to trade and basically drove people off the streets and out of the town centre because they were too scared to go in. We then had a change in the police officer in control of the protests. He swiftly applied different measures on the route they could take—they could not meet in the centre of town—the level of planning and the level of security that the protestors had to put in place, and quickly the protests started to diminish to the point at which they stopped. It was clear to me at that point that the police do have the powers; it is about whether they know about them and have the ability and indeed the resources to enforce them.

Rotherham has a long and proud but also bloody history of protest. I think in particular of the battle of Orgreave, which was a pivotal event in the UK miners’ strike and has been described as a brutal example of legalised state violence. That was just one event of many in the mid-1980s that led to the Public Order Act 1986. Why has it taken from 1986 until now for Ministers to feel that we need new legislation? I also raise that because the brutal way in which the police dealt with those protestors has led to mistrust and suspicion towards our police forces and I really do not want to see this legislation, if it goes forward, building on that level of mistrust not just in Rotherham but across the country, because once trust is lost it is almost impossible to bring it back.

I turn to some of the key organisations that submitted written evidence or were witnesses and spoke against these measures. Liberty has said that

“the Bill drastically limits the right to protest.”

The Good Law Project said:

“The provisions threaten to neuter protests in ways that would render them ineffective—effectively taking away one of the only ways in which people can express their dissatisfaction in a democratic society.”

It went on to say:

“The Bill renders the UK an outlier when it comes to international human rights norms around the right to peaceful assembly.”

I find it really disturbing—not least as Chair of the International Development Committee—that we are stepping away from our international obligations and doing so on the right to protest, which I know the Foreign Secretary is really keen to uphold internationally. The movement we see in the Bill is disturbing.

Rights of Women said:

“The Bill is a further dangerous extension to police powers that exemplifies the rolling back of our human rights and ignores a history of violence against women at the hands of the police.”

A petition entitled “Do not restrict our rights to peaceful protest” in response to the Bill has more than 250,000 signatures. Two hundred and forty-five organisations signed a letter co-ordinated by Liberty and Friends of the Earth to the Government on 15 March, which said that the Government’s proposals were cause for “profound concern”. The organisations highlighted “draconian…police powers” to restrict protest. Organisations who signed the letter include Amnesty International, Greenpeace, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Unite, Rights of Women, Inquest and the Northern Police Monitoring Project.

The Bar Council said:

“There are clear tensions between this section and the freedom of protest and expression (both protected under the European Convention on Human Rights). It gives expansive powers to the police, which encompass the arrest of one individual who is independently protesting. There are legitimate concerns that it would allow the Government to prevent protests with which it does not agree.”

That is one of my biggest concerns. Let us look at former and current Government Ministers who are against the proposals.

[Alex Cunningham]

The written evidence from Leeds for Europe quotes Mr Justice Laws saying that a margin must be given to protests. He also said:

“Rights worth having are unruly things. Demonstrations and protests are liable to be a nuisance. They are liable to be inconvenient and tiresome, or at least perceived as such by others who are out of sympathy with them.”

However, under the new powers in the Bill, if the Home Secretary is out of sympathy with a particular protest or protest group, she could ban them from protesting. Surely that is an affront to our democracy.

[Sarah Champion]

It absolutely is. My hon. Friend lays a very startling future before us. It might not even get to the Home Secretary—it might be an individual police officer who makes the call, or a chief constable or a police and crime commissioner. That is what concerns me.

By their very nature, protests are designed to be annoying, to be loud, to raise their views. When we look back at our history, where would we be without protest? It is inconceivable. This country has a proud history of protest—however annoying, however much of a nuisance protests are. That is what moves us forward as a democracy. To lose that, or to have it chipped away, is a very disturbing position.

That view is echoed by former and current Government Ministers. On 7 September 2020, the Minister for Crime and Policing, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), affirmed:

“The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental tool of civic expression”

and promised that protest

“will never be curtailed by the Government.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 384.]

What has changed in the intervening nine months?

The former Attorney General, Dominic Grieve QC, said that

“no new laws were required if the police used the substantial powers they already have”.

On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead said:

“I do have some concerns about some of the aspects of the public order provisions in the Bill. I absolutely accept that the police have certain challenges...but freedom of speech is an important right in our democracy, however annoying or uncomfortable that might sometimes be…Protests have to be under the rule of law, but the law has to be proportionate.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 78.]

We would all agree that protests have to be under the rule of law, but I think we would disagree on the proportionality.

Also on Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said:

“Is the Bill perfect? No, it is by no means perfect. I hope that it will be corrected as it goes through. Will that happen? Certainly. I accept that there are issues around freedom of speech and the right to assemble, and I think that these will be dealt with during the course of the debate.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2021; Vol. 691, c. 90.]

I hope that that is true.

Let us turn to the ambiguities in the proposed legislation. Evidence given by witnesses in the Joint Committee on Human Rights session on the proposed police powers showed that the terms

“serious unease, alarm and distress”

are not sufficiently clear for protesters to predict when conditions might be imposed on demonstrations. I reiterate the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate: the Minister needs to set out exactly what serious unease, alarm and distress is, as well as what serious noise is. Jules Carey from Bindmans LLP said the terms are

“too vague in law to have any meaningful impact or sensible interpretation. They also create a threshold that is too low.”

The Good Law Project says of the clauses that,

“the cumulative effect is likely to be deeply damaging”

because of their ambiguity, and because the police

“will have considerable scope to test the limits of their own powers.”

The Bar Council said:

“The present drafting is also vague and will require interpretation by the senior courts before the precise meaning of the law becomes settled. We consider this to be undesirable in legislation which limits fundamental civic rights.”

The Good Law Project, the Bar Council and witnesses from evidence sessions for the Bill Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights say the wording is too vague for protesters to interpret. How will the Minister ensure protesters will not get arrested at peaceful protests due to their understanding of current legislation?

In our evidence sessions, Matt Parr, Her Majesty’s inspector of constabulary, said:

“We were very clear in what we said that any reset should be modest.”

We seem to have drifted a long way from modest—most organisations who have given evidence have argued that the changes in this part of the Bill are not modest. He continued:

“We also said that, because of article 10 and article 11 rights, some degree of disruption is not just an inevitable by-product, it is sometimes the whole point of the exercise of protest, and on that basis, it has to be encouraged.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 52, Q77.]

Councillor Caliskan, from the Local Government Association, said:

“In my experience, from having spoken to council leaders from across the country, the best way that peaceful protest is facilitated is planning in advance. That means the community and organisers having a good relationship with the police, and local forces working closely with local authorities”.––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 60, Q92.]

That is another concern—that these parts of the Bill will undermine the good working relationships and trust, and that will go on to make it even more difficult to organise peaceful protests.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Sarah Champion and Alex Cunningham

Committee stage
Thursday 27th May 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Cunningham]

My mum is a wise older woman who will be 88 on 1 August. She has offered me many a statement, and sometimes direction, that has given me food for thought and helped me form opinions or even take action to work for change. One expression she would use in the past was, “We all come into the world the same way, and we all leave it the same way.” She knew, as we all do, that opportunities between and birth and death vary tremendously for our people. We need to work for equality wherever we can, particularly for our children and young people. We need to apply that work on equality to this Bill, to ensure that all young people are protected from adults in a position of trust over them and, where they are exploited, to ensure that the full weight of the law is felt by those who have betrayed that position and possibly ruined young persons’ lives.

The Opposition have worked for months with the police and policing and justice stakeholders from across the field in drawing together our various amendments. It has been extremely heartening that Ministers have already shown a great willingness to work together to improve the Bill. That has been extremely welcome thus far, and I hope it will extend to our discussion on clause 45.

This matter has strong cross-party support, and I am sure hon. Members join me in giving wholehearted thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham and those she paid tribute to earlier—the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford and Baroness Grey-Thompson—for their tireless work prosecuting the case and campaigning for wider protections for our children.

The proposed extension to the definition of “position of trust” is very much welcomed by the Opposition, but it is vital that we do not miss this opportunity to introduce a comprehensive solution that protects children from potentially abusive adults in positions of influence over them in all activities and settings. It is time to Close the Loophole, as the NSPCC has called its campaign.

Before I discuss the excellent amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, on which she made an outstanding and meaningful speech, I would like to seek some clarity about who is covered by the definition currently in the Bill, to eliminate confusion. Can the Minister confirm that, with regard to sports, the current wording covers those adults who are instructing and training children in recreational physical activity that is not directly leading to a specific competitive event or display—for example, swimming lessons or dance classes? Can he also confirm that, with regard to religion, the current wording covers adults who are leading activities that have a religious ethos, or who are operating under the auspices of a specific religious organisation or denomination, but where the activities are not directly related to religious practice—for instance, a temple youth group, a church camp or outdoor activities? What happens there? I would welcome clarity on all those points. The possible confusion in the current wording, which has been pointed out by the NSPCC, means that the clause as it stands may not cover all sporting and religious activity.

The lack of clarity about the Government’s proposals goes to illustrate the issue at hand. Why are we excluding children from the protections of this clause in some settings, but not in others? I will repeat that point a few times. Why have the Government chosen to draw the line here? Why are some children being safeguarded and others left at risk? As it stands, the Government will be excluding children from this new protection in many settings, such as music, creative and performing arts, tutoring, cadets, driving lessons and youth clubs.

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend is making a very strong point. I am thinking about this from a parent’s point of view. At the moment, they assume that everybody in a position of trust over their child, as they would see it, is covered by this legislation. It seems ridiculous that, when we are talking about a child in school—I will stay with the example of the maths teacher—the maths teacher would be convicted if they had sex with a 16-year-old, but if the child leaves school and goes to a maths tutor, the maths tutor could have sex with them and would not be prosecuted. The issue is just about getting clarity for everyone on this.

[Alex Cunningham]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It illustrates exactly what we are about here, which is that everybody should be treated the same. Incidentally, I had an excellent maths teacher; I do not remember his first name, but he was Mr Fielding, and he was a first-class maths teacher.

I am sure that we all agree that extracurricular activities such as those that I have outlined are vital for children’s development. They provide opportunities for children to learn new skills, make new friends and develop self-confidence. But why should those young people not be afforded the same level of protection when doing them?

I discussed this issue recently with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and she shared with me a number of horrendous cases of abuse by adults in positions of trust that have arisen in her constituency, yet the definition proposed by the Government would not cover these horrific abuses. I understand that she discussed one particular case in meetings with Justice and Home Office Ministers, so she was surprised, as I am, that no action was taken in this legislation to deal with people in similar situations in the future.

I am sharing details of the case here with my hon. Friend’s permission. She said:

“With regard to tutors, we had a dreadful case of grooming and then assault on a teenager who was a music student, by her private tutor.

She was groomed from the age of 14, was a rising talent, which he nurtured and there came a relationship of dependency in the light of this.

He then raped her when she turned 16.

The case went to the CPS but they did not proceed with the case despite the support of the local police.

It destroyed her.

Music lessons were conducted in private. He held her future career in his hands.

He was in a position of trust and abused that trust.”

Can the Government explain why they have chosen not to extend the positions of trust laws to cover all situations like this, where the adult holds the power to influence a young person’s future and is in close contact with the child? If we fail to close this loophole, we will fail young victims like the young woman in the case I just described.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

Like my hon. Friend, I am somewhat perplexed. He is right: subsection (2) suggests that the Government recognise that additional careers may need to come under the legislation, now or in the future, so why are they closing the door now when they recognise that they will need to open it again in a year or in 10 years? NSPCC research on the cases it already knows have been prosecuted identifies—as well as the teaching professions, faith and sport—transport, youth work, scouts, cadets, charities and the performing arts as the most prevalent careers for cases. We know that there are more cases.

[Alex Cunningham]

Yes, and that seems so obvious. The briefings we have received from different organisations outline that the fact that this is the case across all the activity that my hon. Friend describes. How will the Minister determine what is to be added or removed in future? What criteria will be used to determine which child should be protected and which should not?

No doubt a robust mechanism will be required to monitor the implementation and to ensure that no child is placed at unnecessary risk, but the legal framework makes it difficult to collect comprehensive data on the scale of abuse by those in positions of trust. We have insight to the scale of the problem, and I thank the NSPCC for providing these figures and pay tribute to it. The NSPCC is probably one of the clearest about what it is trying to achieve; when it sends me a brief, I know exactly what it wants, and I trust it tremendously when it tells me things.

The NSPCC tells me that the Office for National Statistics has analysed child sexual abuse data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales, which asks people over 16 to report on their experiences of abuse in childhood. It found that in 9.7% of all contact child abuse cases, and in 4.4% of all non-contact child abuse cases, the perpetrator was an adult in a position of trust or authority over the child. For males—this actually surprised me—19% of contact abuse was by a person in a position of trust or authority.

In the data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales, the definition of a person in a position of trust or authority included positions currently included in the definition of positions of trust, such as teachers and social workers, and persons included within the Government’s proposals in clause 45, such as sports coaches and religious leaders, as well as positions that remain outside the Government’s proposals, including private tutors, youth workers and those leading music and creative activities, which we have covered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

Indeed I do. People say, “It doesn’t matter what laws you pass; people will find a way.” That is one of the terrible things in our society.

Having heard what both my hon. Friends have said, I reflect on the parents and the trauma that parents face when they realise that they have allowed their child—their daughter—to be tutored by a particular person to learn the piano, or entrusted them to a sports coach working with 20 children, who goes on to abuse them. The parents have that guilt—guilt they have to live with. It is not their fault, but they still have to live with the guilt.

We must strengthen the law as much as possible, so that if such cases come to light the perpetrators face the full force of the law, and we must not allow any loopholes whatever to protect any of those people.

The figures from the NSPCC that I mentioned come from a series of freedom of information requests on all local authority children’s services in England and Wales between 2014 and 2018. The NSPCC found that over a four-year period there were 653 complaints about adults who were not covered by the criminal law having sex with 16 and 17-year-olds in their care. That compares to 1,025 criminal offences of abuse of a position of trust of a sexual nature in the same period.

The NSPCC also asked local authorities to provide information about the fields of work of the referrals: 26% were cases in sport and leisure settings; 12% were in religious group settings; 11% were cases involving transport or involving drivers—my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central referred to cases involving driving instructors; 5.7% were in settings of voluntary or charity work; and another 5.7% were in cadet organisations. That is 653 cases where our law did not protect vulnerable young people.

We have a chance to extend that provision to protect children in those settings future and I urge the Government to take it—please do not lose the opportunity. Those figures are deeply disturbing, but statistics alone do not convey the impact that abuse of a position of trust has on children and young people, including the truly devastating impact when someone is told that what happened to them is not a criminal offence and nothing can be done about it. Too many young victims are being given the message that the adult who abused their position did nothing wrong and that to have prevented it from happening the young person should not have consented.

With support from the NSPCC, “Hannah”, whose name has been changed, and two other brave young women directly affected by that form of abuse wrote directly to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. “Hannah” told the NSPCC, “When I turned 16, ‘Jeff’, my swimming coach, began to comment on my appearance. He would tell me that I looked nice or that clothes looked good on me. No one had ever said these things to me before, and I wasn’t sure how to feel. Soon he started pushing the boundaries. Initially he would just give me a hug. Then one day he gave me a hug and put his hand on my bottom. ‘Jeff’ spent a long time making me feel comfortable. I remember the first time we kissed. After training, we started to be intimate in that way a couple would. After some time, we started having sex. This was my first sexual experience. ‘Jeff’ told me to keep this a secret. I was under the impression when ‘Jeff’ told me not to tell anyone that it would be for the best for my swimming, and this would develop into a proper relationship and we could tell everyone. I wanted to tell my friends, but I knew I couldn’t. When this relationship came tumbling down, I changed with it. I was left feeling really angry, I was a difficult person to be around. It took me a long time to trust friends and family, to let them hug me again.”

Hearing the devastating impact of that horrific abuse is absolutely heartrending. I want to put on record the great debt of gratitude that we as parliamentarians owe to the courageous young people, such as “Hannah”, who work with the NSPCC to lobby the Government on the issue. Their civic-mindedness in the wake of such dreadful abuse is so very admirable, and because of their work, alongside others, the law will be improved to protect more young people.

In the event that the Government do not support my hon. Friend’s excellent amendment, will the Minister say how the risks associated with positions that remain outside the definition—for example, private music tutor or cadet leader—will be monitored? The consistent collection and monitoring of data relating to the implementation and effectiveness of clause 45 are vital if it is to protect the full range of young people who may come into contact with personal abusers. If the Minister will not do what the Opposition consider the right thing, will he please provide clarity on the review mechanisms the Government will put in place to decide whether further extensions of the definition of “positions of trust” in clause 45(2) should take place?

I want to consider some of the Government’s previous objections to the extension of the ambit of the “positions of trust” definition. In March 2020, during a Westminster Hall debate on sports coaches in positions of trust, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), said:

“What is at stake here is a need to balance the legal right, as prescribed by Parliament, for young persons aged 16 and over to consent to sexual activity, with the proper desire to protect vulnerable young people from manipulation.”

Although I agree that it is not our place to deny age-appropriate rights as prescribed by Parliament, this is not an attempt to raise the age of consent by stealth. It is an attempt to offer extra protection to young people when they are specifically in a context where there is a disproportionate power imbalance.

[Sarah Champion]

I hear that the Government use that excuse a lot, and my rebuttal is always that it has not been an issue for the past 18 years when it has been in place for teachers, so why would it suddenly be an issue with different professions?

[Alex Cunningham]

Again, my hon. Friend makes it very clear that we are bamboozled by the approach that the Government are taking. Surely the figures that I mentioned earlier show that there is significant prevalence of abuse in such settings, and that Parliament should step in and offer protections to our young people. Later today, we will be talking about memorials. Apparently, the law could be changed, and one person extra might go to prison as a result of the new legislation, yet here is a serious situation whereby many people could be sent to prison for the abuse of young people, but the Government are not making the necessary changes. We hope that the Minister is actually listening.

In Westminster Hall, the hon. Member for Cheltenham said:

“Another complicating feature is the evolving case law in the area. In certain situations, the criminal division of the Court of Appeal has already been clear that supposed consent may be vitiated or even negated, thereby creating a criminal offence in any event… That is important because, as the Crown Prosecution Service now indicates in its charging decisions, in certain circumstances that ruling could apply where perpetrators were in a position of power in which they could abuse their trust over a victim. If we look at the CPS charging decision—in other words, when making a decision about whether there truly was consent in a relationship—one of the matters that has to be considered is:

‘Where the suspect was in a position of power where they could abuse their trust, especially because of their position or status’”—

including, as he said himself—

“‘a family member, teacher, religious leader, employer, gang member, carer, doctor.’”

He continued:

“The point is that it is no longer necessarily automatically good enough for the defendant to say, ‘Look, she consented’, if in fact that will was suborned in some way. That might well be a very proper reason why the CPS could conclude that there had been no consent.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2020; Vol. 672, c. 304WH.]

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Sarah Champion and Alex Cunningham

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th May 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Cunningham]

I am just reflecting on the attitude of the professionals who do not actually understand or do not have a clear enough definition with which to work. What changes do they want to ensure clarity and that they can better protect people?

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. I am going off on a slight tangent, but The Times is tomorrow coming out with an article about child sexual exploitation. One of the key indicators of that is children going missing, and it cites the case of one girl who went missing 197 times, each time being reported to the police—this is recently—but the police still did not act. Just having the definition is not enough. This is about the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central described. It is about the training, public awareness, and all the agencies working together when they see that child. What I have found with the CSE definition is that having that hook does really sharpen and focus professionals’ minds around it. We have taken huge strides when it comes to child sexual exploitation, because we have that definition in place and because there is a level playing field when talking about it.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Sarah Champion and Alex Cunningham

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th May 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend knows the issues intimately and has tried to address them in the past. She speaks with a great deal of experience and she is absolutely right. I was speaking to my district commander about the clause on Friday. He said, “The biggest problem we have is that the culture in the force is basically to deal with it, and we are weak if we try to raise concerns.” My response to him was that in the armed forces, particularly in the last 10 years, they have completely turned that culture around because there was the will and impetus to do that. I am incredibly impressed by the level of self-awareness, recognition and support that the armed forces have when people start to feel the impact of trauma.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood said, the number of police officers who are off sick as a direct result of trauma and related activity demonstrates that the problem is huge. The evidence is there for the change that we propose.

[Sarah Champion]

This is what I do not understand: throughout my career in Parliament I have tried to focus on prevention, because it is cheaper. The bottom line shows that it is much better at the beginning to teach police officers or back room office staff how to identify trauma, how to deal with it and how to get help. That is why I say to the Minister that, within the covenant and with the opportunities she is given to follow through on her own’s party’s commitment to produce the covenant, we need trauma training and the necessary support in black and white in the police covenant.

Police forces have an organisational responsibility to support the wellbeing of their workforce. The College of Policing published a wellbeing framework, which outlines standards to benchmark their wellbeing services, but that is voluntary. The college has also issued specific guidance on responding to trauma in policing and psychological risk management. Let me offer some more facts and stats—people who know me know that I love a statistic. The 2019 police wellbeing survey identified some really worrying mental health data, finding that 67.1% of police officers responding reported post-traumatic stress symptoms that would warrant an evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder. That is two thirds of the police. A Police Federation survey of 18,000 members found that

“Attending traumatic and/or distressing incidents”

was one of the top 10 reasons why respondents were having psychological difficulties at work.

Let me pick up on the phrase “psychological difficulties at work”. Such difficulties have an impact on the individual, their colleagues, and the public. I have done an awful lot of work with survivors, predominantly of child abuse but of abuse in general as well. The level of response and empathy that they get from that first police officer tends to dictate how the rest of that process goes and, ultimately, whether they are able to secure the conviction of the perpetrator. If that police officer has undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and is unable to access support, what will that first interaction with the victim be? It will be poor. That is not the officer’s fault; it is our fault for not putting the support in place to enable them to identify the issue at the time.

[Sarah Champion]

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. GCHQ has a large footprint in his constituency, so he has seen at first hand that correct identification and the provision of early intervention and support prevent these issues arising. Unfortunately, in the police force that is a voluntary duty. The police covenant gives us the opportunity to put in the Bill that that needs to be addressed. It is simple, it is cheap, and it involves an hour’s training and signposting to existing resources.

Some 23% of respondents to the Police Federation survey had sought help for their feelings of stress, low mood, anxiety and other difficulties. Let us contrast that with the 67% who were recognised as having undiagnosed PTSD: just 23% of the nearly 70% who had those symptoms sought help.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend will remember that when she was questioning Assistant Commissioner Hewitt about the availability of support, he said:

“An issue that we undoubtedly have around wellbeing and the occupational health service provision is the restricted amount of capacity… In all circumstances, where we want to refer officers or staff for support, one of our frustrations is that it often takes quite a while to access that support.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 6, Q3.]

Does she agree that if we had proper training up front, so that people were trained almost to expect traumatic experiences, the pressure on the system when they undergo them would be all the less?

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is what I mean when I talk about recognition, a change of culture and early intervention. Members probably do not know that I trained and qualified as a psychodynamic counsellor. My very first client was a miner who had been buried alive—he was stuck underground. I was in my early 20s and he was in his mid-50s, and we looked at one another and both went, “Oh my God. This is what I have to deal with,” but as it was a post-traumatic stress disorder and he had come very soon after the event had happened, we managed to resolve the issue within four sessions.

With post-traumatic stress disorder, early intervention is key. If it is left for years—decades, in some cases—it becomes so embedded and ingrained in someone’s psychological make-up that it becomes a really big issue that affects every single aspect of life. It is important to recognise the early signs, which could be covered at the very beginning of training; it could even be an hour-long online training course. We need the police to be able to recognise it themselves. That is where we need to get to, and that is what the police covenant could do.

Returning to the survey, of those police officers who sought help 34% reported that they were poorly or very poorly supported by the police service. Of those with line management responsibility, only 21.8% could remember being given any training on how to support the staff in health and wellbeing.

Members of the National Association of Retired Police Officers have supplied me with examples of the sorts of incidents that they have to deal with. I apologise as they are shocking, but not unnecessarily so, I hope. This is the first case study:

“I served as a traffic sergeant. Part of the role was as a road death scene manager. I attended the scene of many deaths on the roads. I then went to a child abuse investigation, where I got promoted to DI. Whilst a temporary DI, my wife’s best friend and our neighbour hanged herself and I cut the body down. I got symptoms in relation to this straight away and things didn’t get better.

Now 11 years down the line, I have chronic PTSD, the side effects of which are severe depression, anxiety attacks and extreme mood swings. Now, it’s always at the back of my mind that if I’d had early intervention when I asked for it, maybe things would have been different.”

The following is case study 2:

“Operational experiences include attending suicides. For example, within my first few weeks of returning from training school, I attended a suicide where the victim lay on the railway tracks and was hit by a train. I assisted in the recovery of the remains of the victim.

Also, a man jumped off a tall office building and landed headfirst. I was the first on the scene to see the massive head trauma he had suffered.

They were all extremely distressing sights and I have difficulty getting them out of my head, even now.

These are just a few examples where I wasn’t offered any psychological support. I wasn’t even asked if I was okay. It was just seen by everybody as part of the job: suck it up and get on to the next thing.

I retired medically in 1999 as a result of injuries received on duty. I have suffered with complex PTSD and health issues ever since. I am currently waiting to receive further treatment from the NHS. I have received nothing from the police by way of support, even at the time of my retirement.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

Another example comes from my personal experience. When I worked for the gas industry, I went to a gas explosion to handle the associated public relations. As went towards the building where the explosion had taken place, a fireman coming out the door said to me, “It’s not very pleasant in there.” I went in—I had to find out exactly what had happened—and there was the torso of a woman. That was 30-odd years ago, and it lives with me to this day. I got no support whatsoever—I did not even think about it. Perhaps that is all the more reason why we need to ensure that at least our emergency workers are getting the support they need as soon as possible.

[Sarah Champion]

Exactly. My hon. Friend used the phrase, “I did not even think about it” and that is what we have to change. The police covenant gives us the opportunity to turn that around and have a culture in which, if someone sees something traumatic, it will be automatic to check in on them to see if they are okay. If they are okay, that is good, and they can move on. Our police are suffering the most extreme trauma day in, day out. They do not know it when they get up in the morning but they have no idea what they will face when they open that door. Think of the stress that puts on their bodies—stress that can be alleviated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I completely agree. Now is the perfect time for those reasons, and also because hopefully we are coming out of the pandemic. The service that the police gave during the pandemic was exceptional. We should recognise the personal trauma that caused to them, by ensuring that the need for trauma support is recognised in the police covenant. That would be the greatest respect we can show.

[Alex Cunningham]

When my hon. Friend questioned John Apter, the national chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales, she asked whether he supported this measure. He said:

“Absolutely, it needs to be meaningful and tangible, and it needs to have a benefit for those it is there to support—not only officers, but staff, volunteers and retired colleagues.”

He went on to say about training:

“I have had this conversation with the College of Policing, and part of that is the lack of ability or willingness to mandate particular aspects of training and support.”

The most important part of his evidence was:

“The covenant gives us a great opportunity to put in place mandated levels of psychological support and training from the start of somebody’s service to its conclusion and beyond.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 18 May 2021; c. 20, Q30.]

I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that the Police Federation is fully behind the amendment.

[Sarah Champion]

I do welcome it, but it is not just the Police Federation, NARPO or the College of Policing that are saying that; it is what I hear when I speak to serving officers. I had a long conversation with my district commander about this on Friday, and he cited case after case of officers entering a building, having a traumatic experience, and then him trying to give them support. However, what tends to happen is that the support is not in place, the waiting list is too long and they then go off on long-term sick leave. While off on long-term sick leave, the issue is compounded so it becomes even more of an issue. I paraphrase, but basically he said to me: “When we are able to offer early intervention, the officer comes back and carries on serving. When we are not, we know that they are going to be off for a very long time, if indeed they come back at all.”

I say to the Minister that this amendment is a common-sense courtesy. It is a way for the House and the Minister to make a clear commitment to recognising mental health and trauma, and showing the respect and duty that we have to our police force.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Sarah Champion and Alex Cunningham

Committee stage
Tuesday 18th May 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Champion]

That is very reassuring.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Q I have a number of questions across different areas, so short answers would be appreciated. First, Phil touched on the disproportionate impact on specific communities of minimum custodial sentences. Do you think the Government have given enough consideration to this aspect of the criminal justice system?

Phil Bowen: Very quickly, I think the proposal in clause 100, which reduces judicial discretion about imposing minimum custodial sentences, is a regrettable step. I have seen no evidence to suggest that that discretion has been misused. I am not sure on what basis that clause was proposed, and we have been arguing for its removal from the Bill. I see a place for minimum custodial sentencing, but I tend to be against anything that fetters the discretion of judges.

Adrian Crossley: Statutory minimums can have a function when we want to give a standard approach to the severity with which society regards a certain offence. My view, though, is that over a decade or two, judicial discretion right across the board—not just in this clause—has been steadily eroded, and I do not find that particularly helpful in criminal justice. Judges are well equipped to make decisions about what is in front of them, and they are well advised. No guidelines can ever foresee the variety that life can bring you, and my view is that the more judicial discretion there is, the better our criminal justice system is likely to be.