Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Debate between Stella Creasy and Jeremy Browne

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jeremy Browne]

I will talk mainly about drug-driving because that has been the largest part of our debate, but I will pick up on the points that have been made in relation to other amendments.

On drug-driving, it is important that we consider carefully any extra burdens that we place on the police, the Crown prosecutors and the Courts Service when introducing a new offence. The Government published an impact assessment in May last year that considered those issues. It shows that removing the requirement to prove that a driver is impaired will make it easier to enforce the law against drug-drivers.

In 2010, about 40% of the proceedings in magistrates courts for driving while impaired through drugs were withdrawn or dismissed. The comparable figure for exceeding the drink-drive limit is just 3%. In addition, research for Sir Peter North’s review of drink and drug-driving law found that in one police force, only 35% of positive preliminary impairment tests led to findings of guilt at court in 2008 and 2009. It is clear, therefore, that the existing law on drug-driving is unsatisfactory, resulting in costs being incurred unnecessarily by the police, the CPS and the courts.

The new offence will reduce the wasted time, expense and effort involved when prosecutions under the existing impairment offence fail. It is not surprising, therefore, that the new offence is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers. ACPO has been fully involved in the development of the proposal and is fully aware of the resource implications for the police.

Depending on the level at which specified limits are set and on the drugs specified for the offence, it is possible that introducing the new offence, which does not require proof of impairment, will increase the number of proceedings against drug-drivers. However, based on the Government’s estimates, those costs will be more than offset by savings from fewer road deaths and serious injuries. Indeed, the impact assessment published in May 2012 records an overall net saving of some £86 million over a 10-year period.

I acknowledge that, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said, there is still work to be done and that getting the technical details right is difficult and important. Although she said that this work is being done at the last moment, we do not envisage the offence coming into effect until the later part of next year, so there is time to get the details right. The Department for Transport and, where relevant, the Home Office will be concerned to ensure that the details are in place.

The hon. Lady asked about police equipment and training to support the enforcement of the new offence. Equipment was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones). We have already granted type approval for the first station-based drug screening device for use in enforcing the existing impairment offence. We are also committed to type approving roadside devices for use in enforcing the new offence. Work on that will be taken forward once we have determined the drugs to be covered by the new offence and the specified limit for each drug. Our aim is to have approved roadside devices available as soon as practicable after the commencement of the new offence. As hon. Members will know, training on the use of new equipment is an operational matter for chief officers in consultation with roadside drug-testing device manufacturers. I acknowledge the validity of the observation made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow that the Government do not have the answers to every question, but I hope that I can reassure the House that the work is ongoing.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Minister respond to the question that I asked him about the expert panel, which has set out a series of substances that should be tested for? Will the Government accept its recommendations in full and ensure that every police force can test for all the substances that it has outlined?

[Mr Browne]

No final decision has been made on the precise list of what will be tested for. We are grateful for the contributions and representations that have been made, and when we are in a position to provide the details we will do so. We obviously want to ensure that a wide range of drugs whose consumption could lead to increased risk on our roads are covered, but the line will need to be drawn somewhere and there will be practical considerations to take into account. We will obviously want to ensure that we inform everybody once the deliberations have run their course.

On new clause 18 and amendment 120, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has explained that he is concerned about the penalty regimes for drink and drug-driving. That is the issue that has exercised people the most, so I think it will be helpful if I dwell on it for a while. The new drug-driving offence created in clause 41 will be subject to the same penalty regime as the existing drink-driving offence of driving or being in charge of a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration above the prescribed limit. The penalties available are mandatory disqualification from driving for at least a year, and a fine of up to £5,000, and/or imprisonment for up to six months. In addition, there is the offence in section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, which carries a penalty of up to 14 years’ imprisonment. It is necessary for the prosecution to show that a person’s driving was careless to secure a conviction for that offence.

Section 3ZB of the 1988 Act makes it a criminal offence to cause death by driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured. The maximum penalty is two years’ imprisonment, or a fine, or both. Amendment 120 would amend that section to include people who were driving with a specified controlled drug in their body in excess of a specified limit. Importantly for my hon. Friend, carelessness does not have to be proved to secure a conviction under that section. I know that he is concerned that requiring the prosecution to prove carelessness puts too great a burden on it, but the Government are not aware of any recent cases in which that has proved problematic. The hon. Member for Walthamstow made that point.

The test for carelessness is broad, and CPS guidance suggests that a wide variety of circumstances should be considered as carelessness. Indeed, in the case of Lillian Groves, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell)—although he is in another debate now, he has been extremely vigilant in pursuing the case on behalf of his constituents—the driver was convicted of causing death by careless driving. It therefore seems likely that if the new offence had been in force when the tragedy took place, the defendant would have been tried under the section 3A offence, provided that the prosecution could also show that he had a specified controlled drug in his body in excess of the specified limit.

However, if my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate or interested groups can provide evidence that prosecutors are failing to prosecute drivers for the section 3A offence because they cannot show that the driver was careless, the Department for Transport has undertaken to review the case for amending legislation. The changes in the Bill will make a difference, but the carelessness provision already stands and we have no reason to believe that it will prevent prosecutions, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow suggested. However, if evidence of that is brought to our attention we will of course consider it properly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate also proposed new clause 18 that would increase the maximum sentence for the prescribed limit drink-driving offence to two years’ imprisonment. The United Kingdom already has the toughest drink-driving penalties in Europe. Sir Peter North’s 2010 review of drink and drug-driving law examined the penalty regime and did not identify any evidence that would support that increase in the maximum sentence. The Government are not aware of any new evidence that has come to light since the North report was published.

The Government consider that the existing offence framework is sufficient and appropriate, and ensures that those who ought not to be on the roads are removed from them. Where more serious offences are committed—such as where others are hurt or killed—other relevant offences could be pursued. I do not want to suggest in any way that the Government are complacent about or insufficiently vigilant in the face of such matters. We want to make our roads as safe as possible, but it is worth noting that Britain has some of the safest roads anywhere in Europe and the western world. That is due to responsible social attitudes but also the fact that the legal framework in place has been shown to be effective. I understand, however, why people involved in each individual case and each individual tragedy would feel strongly about these matters.

Amendments 89 and 90 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) bring me to the subject of public order offences. I suggest that the amendments would limit the police’s ability to deal with those who can be shown to be intentionally provoking violence, causing others to fear violence, or causing harassment, alarm or distress to others. They would do that by removing the word “insulting” from the offences under sections 4 and 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.

My hon. Friend may see the amendments as a helpful intervention to bring those sections of the 1986 Act into line with the amendment to section 5 of that Act set out in clause 42, but that would be a mistake as it would ignore the thorough consideration, consultation and debate undertaken by the Government, both here and in the other place, before agreeing to reform section 5. It would also ignore the significant differences between the section 5 offence and the more serious offences described in sections 4 and 4A. This is not just a tidying-up exercise; sections 4 and 4A are materially different from section 5. Offences under sections 4 and 4A require proof of intent to cause harm to another person, and proof that harassment, alarm or distress was both intended and actually caused to another person. The intent and harm caused are the differentiating features of those offences, rather than the likely effect of the words used or behaviour involved.

Using insulting words that cause someone to fear violence against them, or that have the deliberate intention of causing harassment, alarm or distress, is a far more serious matter than the section 5 offence in which the perpetrator might not intend to cause harassment, alarm or distress, and indeed none might have been caused. In the Government’s view, using insulting words or behaviour in the context of sections 4 or 4A oversteps the line between freedom of speech and the freedom of someone to live in peace and safety. The line must be drawn somewhere, and the Government believe it right to draw it between sections 4A and 5.

Furthermore, during the long-running campaign that culminated in clause 42, one key argument put forward by those seeking to remove “insulting” from section 5 of the 1986 Act was that removal would not have a negative impact on minority groups. The reasoning behind that was that the police have more appropriate powers available to deal with such unacceptable behaviour under sections 4 and 4A of the 1986 Act. Having accepted that argument as part of the reasoning behind the removal of “insulting” from section 5, it seems perverse to remove the protections for minorities provided by the “insulting” limb in sections 4 and 4A.

In summary, for reasons that I hope I have explained to the satisfaction of the House, the Government are not persuaded of the case for making the same change to section 4 and 4A offences that clause 42 makes to the section 5 offence.

Finally, I ought to speak briefly to the single Government amendment in this group, amendment 84, which provides for the enhanced householder defence provisions in clause 30 to come into force on Royal Assent. Clause 30 is designed to give householders greater latitude to protect themselves in those terrifying circumstances when they are confronted by intruders in their homes. We recognise that it is unusual, although not unprecedented, to commence provisions of this nature on Royal Assent. We would usually allow a gap of at least two months between Royal Assent and commencement, to allow the enforcement agencies time to prepare. However, in this case we are anxious to avoid any unnecessary delay in delivering a coalition commitment and, more important, a tangible enhancement of the protection that householders have to defend themselves. The Government have discussed the amendment with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, which are content with clause 30 being commenced on Royal Assent. We think the public would find it difficult to understand why commencement had been delayed beyond Royal Assent, particularly if a householder was attacked by an intruder in the intervening period while acting to protect themselves or family members, but could not rely on the heightened householder defence.

For all the reasons I have set out, I would invite Opposition Members and my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Bury North not to press their amendments. I recognise that I cannot provide the House with all the practical details of the methods that police forces will use to test for drug-driving, but we are at the broad legislative phase, not the practical implementation phase. I can assure the House that we will no doubt discuss such practical considerations in due course, but they are not necessary to approve the proposed legislation before us.

[Stella Creasy]

Given the Minister’s open, earnest and welcome admission that he cannot answer the questions raised today and that the spirit of our amendment 2 is precisely to get at that information, will he tell the House when we will have that information about the implementation of the offence and the ability of our police forces and courts to deal with it? After all, our amendment calls for information one year after the introduction of the offence, which seems a reasonable amount of time to expect police forces to deal with it, so can he explicitly set out for the House when he expects to report back on these issues?

[Mr Browne]

The Government will publish a revised impact assessment alongside our consultation on the drugs to be covered by the new offence and the limit for each, and we will revise it again, if required, before the draft regulations are laid before Parliament. As the regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, they will need to be debated and approved by each House before they can be made and come into force. Given the requirement to consult on the draft regulations and then to have them approved, we are working on the basis that the new offence will come into force in the latter half of 2014, as I said a few moments ago.

On that basis, I would suggest that requiring a full evaluation of the impact of the new offence just 12 months after Royal Assent would be premature. However, I can assure the House that the Government will commission research to evaluate the effectiveness of the new offence once it is in operation. The research will take account of the impact of the new offence on the police, prosecutors and the courts. The results of such research will be published on the Department for Transport’s website. A lot of the responsibility sits with the Department for Transport rather than the Home Office, but I am not in a position to give the hon. Lady a definitive date when these matters can be considered in detail. All I can give is an assurance that this work is being undertaken and that opportunities will exist to consider such matters. I say this entirely in a spirit of openness, but I see no reason why we would not wish to give Members in all parts of the House an opportunity to consider the progress the Government have made when we are in a position to bring forward proposals that will stimulate a debate and consideration of that type.

With that, I hope that Members will see fit not to press their amendments, and I commend Government amendment 84 to the House.

Domestic Violence

Debate between Stella Creasy and Jeremy Browne

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Leigh, and it is a privilege to make my first contribution in the House in my capacity as a Minister in the Home Office on this hugely emotional and important subject, which rightly interests hon. Members from all parties.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), not only for giving us the opportunity to discuss domestic violence but for the detailed and passionate way that he has raised the issue in his campaigning and for his track record of taking action against it. I am more than happy to recognise the substantial contributions to the debate that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), by the hon. Members for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), and of course by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who is the Opposition spokesperson.

I welcome the opportunity to update the House on what the Government are doing to support victims of domestic violence, because I must say, in a spirit of bipartisanship, that substantial progress is being made on many fronts. That progress is not solely due to this Government’s efforts; I recognise the efforts that Ministers from all political parties have made during a number of years. Nevertheless, it is right that we should fully understand the considerable efforts that are being made to try to address a lot of the concerns that have been raised in this debate.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle for his campaign to amend the bail laws, so that victims of domestic violence have a right of appeal against bail decisions set by judges. He referred to that campaign in his opening speech. Of course, before his campaign and the changes that the Government have made, that was not the case. However, the Government accepted that there was a need to change the law, and he will know that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 has brought about that change. I am sure that all Members will recognise that that is a substantial benefit for the victims of domestic violence who find themselves in those circumstances, and it is much to the credit of my hon. Friend that he provided the political momentum for that change to be made.

I want to provide a context to my speech. Many hon. Members will already know that, in the past year alone, there were more than 1 million female victims of domestic abuse in England and Wales. Therefore, around two women every minute, or more than 25 women during my short speech this afternoon, will be the victims of domestic abuse. It is deplorable that more than a quarter of women will experience such abuse during their lifetimes. As has been touched upon by other hon. Members, it is a tragedy that so few of those women feel able to report that abuse to the authorities or that, if they do feel able, it takes many repeat circumstances of their being abused before they can take that step and go to the authorities.

The domestic violence statistics are shocking on their own; but in addition, more than 300,000 women have been sexually abused in the past year, and in the same period the Government’s forced marriage unit has provided advice or support on forced marriage in 1,468 cases.

The Government’s ambition is to end violence against women and girls. That is why, soon after coming to office, we set out a new strategy, followed by a supporting action plan in March 2011, which translated our overarching vision into specific cross-departmental actions. The actions were most recently refreshed in March 2012, importantly reaffirming our key themes of prevention, improved partnership working, justice outcomes and risk reduction, and the provision of good-quality services.

Work on these themes has been supported by the Government’s provision of nearly £40 million of stable funding up to 2015 for this discrete area, including for specialist local domestic and sexual violence support services, rape support centres, the national domestic violence helplines and the stalking helpline services, which have not been touched upon in the debate but are relevant here. For example, we have provided funding for multi-agency risk assessment conference—MARAC—co-ordinator posts and independent domestic violence adviser—IDVA—posts, which research suggests have produced a real impact for high-risk domestic violence victims. We have also granted funding towards 144 IDVA posts in the 2012-13 financial year, as well as providing funding for training. We now have MARACs in more than 250 areas across England and Wales and have granted MARAC funding towards 54 posts for the 2012-13 financial year. I realise that that information is perhaps a bit rich in statistics, but it is important that when the programmes are put in place the House is aware of them.

Meanwhile, other Departments have also demonstrated their commitment to tackling violence against women and girls. For example, the Department of Health launched a short film for the NHS Choices website in August 2012. It covers what female genital mutilation is, the range of long-lasting damage that it can cause, the legal obligation to safeguard children and where to go for help if anyone is worried or affected. There is, therefore, a broad body of work taking place, not just in the Home Office. The Foreign Office, where I previously served as a Minister, has done work on forced marriage, which relates mainly, but not exclusively, to girls. The girls are British nationals, but the forced marriages often take place in other countries.

On the role of local commissioners in tackling domestic violence, the Government feel strongly that the procurement and commissioning of services is rightly a matter for local authorities. Although the Government have made clear our belief that local authorities should attach importance to the sector, each council has some discretion about how it prioritises spending.

We are taking steps across the board to strengthen the provisions available for tackling domestic violence and supporting the victims, and I think that it will help if I use the remainder of my speech to talk about some of the initiatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle mentioned Clare’s law, and I am happy to update him on that. Following the consultation published by the Home Secretary, we have launched the domestic violence disclosure scheme, which is being piloted in four police forces across England and Wales. The pilots in Wiltshire and Gwent were launched in July, and those in Nottinghamshire and Greater Manchester started at the beginning of last week. The pilots form part of our efforts to tackle domestic violence by looking at new ways of protecting victims and putting tools in place to help and support them. The Government believe that disclosing information about the perpetrators of domestic violence will help to protect and support victims. Very early feedback on the pilots provisionally indicates that there are 24 live applications, and five disclosures have already been made to potential victims. The pilots will run until September 2013, and we will then decide whether to roll out the scheme nationally.

The Government were pleased to hear that Greater Manchester police, along with West Mercia and Wiltshire police force areas, will continue to use domestic violence protection orders until the Home Office evaluation completes next summer. Anecdotal feedback from the domestic violence protection order pilot indicates that women, and victims generally, welcome the protection, as it allows them the breathing space that they need to consider their options.

On 8 June, following a detailed consultation on forced marriage and having listened carefully to all views on the abhorrent practice, Members will recall that the Prime Minister announced that the Government will make forcing someone to marry a criminal offence for the first time. In doing so, we are sending out a clear message that the brutal practice is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated in the UK. We are aware, however, that legislation alone is not enough and will remain focused on prevention and on increasing support and protection for victims.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle asked about the proposals to change the definition of domestic violence. Our consultation, on whether the current cross-Government definition should be widened, closed on 30 March 2012. We sought views on whether the current definition should remain or be amended to include coercive control and extended to 16 and 17-year-olds or to everyone under the age of 18. We are considering the consultation responses and an announcement will be made shortly.

According to the latest figures, 21 men and 93 women were killed by a partner or ex-partner in 2010-11. For cases in which domestic violence results in the death of the victim, the Government have established domestic homicide reviews on a statutory basis under section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. Local areas are, importantly, required to undertake a multi-agency review following a domestic homicide, to identify the lessons that can be learned, with a view to preventing future homicides and violence. I appreciate that that is in the most extreme cases only, but the point was made in the debate about trying to co-ordinate different Government agencies. The provision also allows the Secretary of State, in particular cases, to direct that a specified reluctant person or body establish or participate in a review. Furthermore, the Government made a commitment in the refreshed violence against women and girls action plan, published in March 2012, to develop

“a training package for chairpersons of Domestic Homicide Reviews”,

and that will be extended later this year across England and Wales.

Contributors to the debate have made the point that, although the majority of victims of domestic violence are women, there are, of course, male victims as well. Domestic violence is one of those forms of violence that affect men, and many men are reluctant, perhaps in some cases for different reasons from women, to admit that they are victims. The Government take the issue seriously, and we support the Men’s Advice Line, which is for all men who experience violence from a current or ex-partner, and Broken Rainbow, which provides advice to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people affected by domestic violence. In 2011-12, we have allocated funding to the tune of £100,000 for a male victims and sexual violence fund, to support services that focus on male victims of sexual and domestic violence, and we have assigned a further £125,000 for continued support in 2012-13.

Time is short, so before I conclude, I want to thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. I am more than happy to take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow about the need to ensure that all features of Government contribute to what we are trying to achieve.

[Stella Creasy]

We have talked about universal credit, and there is a concern that is shared across the House. Will the Minister commit to going back to his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions and challenging them on the point about dual housing benefit and benefit being paid to the tenant for refuges, so that we can ensure that the refuge movement does not suffer further financial difficulties?

[Mr Browne]

I have seen that the refuges in my constituency are extremely successful, and I certainly want to ensure that they continue to do their work unimpeded, so if we can take action to ensure that outcome, I will certainly do my best to achieve it.