Category: Speeches

  • Yvette Cooper – 2020 Speech on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Yvette Cooper – 2020 Speech on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Labour MP for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, in the House of Commons on 28 April 2020.

    It is a pleasure to follow my fellow Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). When the Domestic Abuse Bill was first proposed, none of us could have imagined debating it in circumstances such as this: when there is evidence that the number of women and children killed as a result of domestic abuse in a few short weeks has increased sharply and at its highest level for over a decade; when the calls to helplines are up by 50% and visits to some support websites are up sevenfold; and when some victims are feeling more trapped than ever because perpetrators of abuse are exploiting the coronavirus crisis to increase control and to commit crimes. Those perpetrators are taking advantage of the fact that it is harder for their victims to seek help: the social worker is not dropping by, the bruises will not be visible at the school gate the next morning; and the GP will not be asking questions at the next appointment. This is not just about lockdowns; the period afterwards may be much higher risk for victims, too. In the face of this deadly virus, we know that staying home to save lives is important, but that it is also why we have a responsibility to help those for whom home is not a safe place to be.

    All those reasons show why this Bill is so important, but also why it is not enough. I welcome the Bill, the new powers and the new statutory duty of support for victims, which the Home Affairs Committee called for, although I would want it to go wider. I welcome the creation of the domestic abuse commissioner, which I first raised with the then Home Secretary seven years ago, but I press the Government to go further, including on a stalking and serial abuse register and on making stronger reference to children.

    There are things in the Bill that we should be doing better and faster now, as we set out in our Home Affairs Committee report yesterday. First, if we believe in a statutory duty of support, let us start delivering it now. In many areas, refuges are full yet at the same time their funding has dropped, so the Government should ring-fence the new charity funds now and get them urgently to refuges and domestic abuse support groups. They should talk to the national hotel and hostel chains to provide supplementary housing and get a national guarantee of safe housing in straightaway.

    Secondly, the Bill is about using the criminal justice system to protect victims and prosecute criminals, but the system faces new challenges. We recommended extending the time limit for domestic abuse-related summary offences, and we should do that now in this Bill.

    Thirdly, if we believe in having a domestic abuse commissioner, let us listen to what she says now, because Nicole Jacobs has been appointed already, even if her powers are not fully in place. She told our Committee that a lot of things are in the way of getting people support in a crisis. She raised issues around housing, support services and perpetrator programmes and called for a cross-governmental working group and an action plan to sort things out. The Victims’ Commissioner told us that we should adopt a French programme that would provide emergency contacts in pharmacies and supermarkets. I heard from a police officer in the north-west trying to do that, but they need national intervention with the supermarkets to make it work. The Children’s Commissioner warned us about vulnerable children ​whom no one is visiting and no one has seen since the crisis began and the need for face-to-face contact. We need national action to make that possible.

    Some of those important things are not happening because, bluntly, we need more leadership and drive from the centre, and that is why the Committee has called for an urgent action plan to be drawn up by the Home Secretary with the domestic abuse commissioner and others as part of the Cobra planning process.

    This Bill is important, but if we are serious about the sentiments behind it that we are all expressing, we should see it as a chance to do more. If we do not, we will be dealing with the consequences of the surge in domestic abuse that we are seeing now for very many years to come.

  • Bob Neill – 2020 Speech on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Bob Neill – 2020 Speech on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Bob Neill, the Conservative MP for Bromley and Chislehurst, in the House of Commons on 28 April 2020.

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), and to see the Lord Chancellor be supported, albeit at some distance on the Front Bench, by the Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk), who is the Minister responsible for the Ministry of Justice victims strategy. He is a former member of the Justice Committee, and we are delighted to see him on the Treasury Bench.

    This is an important Bill that deals with a real and pressing social evil. The Lord Chancellor was right to bring it forward as swiftly as he has, and I welcome the tone of his remarks. May I concentrate in particular on the provisions that relate to legal proceedings and court procedures, starting with part 5? The prohibition on cross-examination by litigants in person in family cases is to be welcomed as a very important advance. It is something for which lawyers and the judiciary involved in family cases have been calling for a considerable time, and it is good to see it in the Bill. What I hope that Ministers will take away is the detail of how we actually make that work in practice.

    The first point that I hope the Government will take on board is that those advocates who are appointed to carry out that often sensitive and difficult cross-examination in often very sensitive and fraught cases must be properly remunerated in order to be prepared for that work. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor ​will know, one of the first things that we were taught at Bar school was that the key to good cross-examination is preparation. To do that, the lawyers have to be appointed in a timely fashion. They must be paid properly to ensure that they are of adequate experience and seniority to deal with these matters, and they must have time to access the material and be rewarded for doing so.

    One issue in the family jurisdiction is that there is not the extent of disclosure that we see in criminal cases and therefore preparatory work may be harder in those cases. Perhaps we need to look therefore at what stage those advocates are appointed to carry out that work. It seems to me that, in order to have the ability to cross-examine properly, it may well be necessary for them to be able to read all of the papers in the case. They probably also need the ability to seek a conference in order to get from the person on whose behalf they are appointed the necessary detail to do justice in the case. That cannot be done on the cheap. I am sure the Government will not want to do that, but it is important that that is not missed out, as both the Bar Council and the Law Society have pointed out. It may also be important, as the professional bodies have pointed out, to consider extending that to instructions to carry out examination-in-chief as well. The example that is given is where an alleged perpetrator of abuse seeks to call a child in the family as a relevant witness to some of the proceedings before the court. It seems to me that the same risks of intimidation would be transferred under those circumstances.

    It is also important to consider the nature of the proceedings. It may well be that the allegation of abuse relates to one part of the family proceedings, but the coercive behaviour would have an impact on that perpetrator cross-examining the victim under any part of the proceedings. If someone has a history of coercive control over another, it would be just as difficult for the victim to be cross-examined by them about financial provisions as it would in relation to the actual incidents of assault and abuse, or in relation to custody. I hope that we will be generous in carrying out the legal support that is made available. I hope, too, that we will recognise the need to use the review of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to look at the re-introduction, as soon as possible, of early legal advice in these matters, so that the necessary issues are flagged up at the earliest opportunity.

    I am glad to see that the Lord Chancellor is proposing to bring forward the report of the specialist panel. I hope that he will do that as soon as possible, not least because there has been concern that provision around special measures has never been as consistent or as advanced in the family jurisdiction as it has been in criminal courts. That is not because I think family practitioners and judges do not want it, but because the infrastructure has not been there. I hope that that will give us an opportunity to address that.

    I am pleased that the Lord Chancellor is proposing to pilot the domestic abuse protection orders and prevention notices rather than going in immediately. We do need to see how those will integrate— [time limit of speech reached]

  • Joanna Cherry – 2020 Speech on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Joanna Cherry – 2020 Speech on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Joanna Cherry, the SNP MP for Edinburgh South West, in the House of Commons on 28 April 2020.

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). Whatever our political differences, I know that this is an area where she cares passionately and has made a difference. Before I address the Bill, I would like to welcome to his place the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds). I congratulate him on his appointment as shadow Home Secretary, and I pay tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).

    With some important caveats, the Scottish National party welcomes this Bill. Most of its provisions will apply only to England and Wales; domestic abuse is a devolved matter, and Scotland passed its own consolidating legislation two years ago. The UK Government should look to the Scottish Government’s groundbreaking Equally Safe strategy, which has been hailed as one of the best strategies in Europe for tackling violence against women.

    In the current covid crisis, there is ample evidence that social isolation is adding pressure to those who live in abusive domestic situations. There may be women and children watching this debate at home today who are in that position, and the Scottish Government have moved to reassure anyone experiencing domestic abuse that support is available to them during these difficult times. Scotland’s 24-hour domestic abuse and forced marriage helpline is available on 0800 027 1234, and I know that similar help is available in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Of course, if anyone feels threatened or in fear of harm, they should call the police.

    There is much to welcome in this Bill. The inclusion of non-physical abuse in the statutory definition of “domestic abuse”, the inclusion of children aged 16 and 17, and the appointment of the domestic abuse commissioner are all to be applauded. Like others, I pay tribute to the work she has done already. However, I regret that this Bill is a lost opportunity to tackle a number of important matters—these are reserved matters and therefore can be addressed only by the UK ​Government. For example, I would like the Minister, in her summing up, to explain why the Government have failed to take the opportunity to ensure that this Bill helps all women in the UK, regardless of their immigration status. I would also like her to address why, despite years of lobbying from the SNP, the Government have not used this Bill to address two important matters relating to the payment of universal credit. This Bill is a missed opportunity to introduce a system whereby UC is paid separately by default. The current system of single-household payments makes it even easier for abusers to perpetrate economic abuse. The Scottish Government have legislated to introduce separate payments, but are dependent on the Department for Work and Pensions’ information technology infrastructure to make this happen. I know that the Minister is likely to respond by saying that victims of domestic abuse can apply for separate payments, but she will be well aware that a survey carried out by Women’s Aid some time ago said that 85% of domestic abuse survivors would not dare to apply as an exceptional measure, because it would attract further abuse. That is why this needs to happen automatically. This Bill was the perfect opportunity to change the system, so why not just do it?

    Likewise, when domestic abuse survivors leave their partner and apply for UC, the five-week wait leaves many in abject poverty, at a time when they are attempting to rebuild their lives and replace essential belongings. SNP MPs have repeatedly explained to the UK Government why it is vital that UC advances are paid as grants to survivors, yet, once more, the opportunity to achieve that, which this Bill afforded, has not been taken. I do not understand why, and I await the Minister’s explanation with interest.

    I will devote the rest of my remarks to the provisions omitted from this Bill, which mean that it will continue to be impossible for the United Kingdom to ratify the Istanbul convention. In 2017, Dr Eilidh Whiteford, then the SNP Member of Parliament for Banff and Buchan, led a successful campaign to pass a law that required the UK Government to ratify the Istanbul convention. That was the first time an SNP MP had managed to get a private Member’s Bill into law, so it is particularly frustrating that three years later the United Kingdom has yet to ratify the Istanbul convention. It is also rather shameful that the UK is one of only six states in Europe to have failed to ratify it.

    The Istanbul convention is based on the understanding that violence against women is committed against women because they are women. It makes clear that it is the state’s obligation to address fully violence against women in all its forms, and that the state must introduce measures to protect all women from violence, to protect all victims, and to prosecute perpetrators. Parties to the convention are encouraged to apply the protective framework that it creates to men who may also be exposed to violence in the domestic unit. However, it should not be overlooked that the majority of victims of domestic violence and abuse are women, and that domestic abuse is perpetrated against women as part of a wider pattern of discrimination and inequality based on their sex.

    The Scottish Parliament has passed all the measures that are necessary and within its competence to enable ratification of the convention to proceed, but the UK Government are holding things up. The Bill before us ​introduces certain provisions regarding extraterritorial effect, which are necessary for ratification, but it falls short in the key area of provision of services to migrant women.

    As others have said, some migrant women find it impossible to access emergency protection because of the no recourse to public funds condition. Two weeks ago, the Home Affairs Committee took evidence about that condition from the Victims Commissioner, the domestic abuse commissioner designate, and the Children’s Commissioner, all of whom were clear that the no recourse to public funds provision should be scrapped, not just during this crisis, but for good. The cross-party joint parliamentary scrutiny committee that proceeded the first iteration of this Bill also recommended that the Bill should include proper protections for migrant women, yet all those recommendations have been ignored. I would like an explanation from the Minister of why they have been ignored.

    I have no doubt that amendments will be tabled in Committee to rectify those omissions and enable all migrant women to access vital protections from abuse. Will the Minister accept those amendments? Will she look favourably on amendments that address the payment of universal credit, which I mentioned earlier? I look forward to hearing about that point later this afternoon, because if the UK Government do not address the matters I have raised, protection for victims of domestic abuse will not be universal. Gaps in provision will remain, particularly for migrant women, and the UK Government will continue to be unable to ratify the Istanbul convention.

  • Theresa May – 2020 Speech on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Theresa May – 2020 Speech on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Theresa May, the Conservative MP for Maidenhead, in the House of Commons on 28 April 2020.

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

    May I add my thanks to all those who have made this hybrid debate possible, because this Bill is hugely important? Domestic abuse damages lives. It can cost lives and it ​can scar adults and children for the rest of their lives. Of course, it also costs our society and economy dear. We all owe a debt of gratitude to those who have had courage to speak out about their experiences. I would also like particularly to commend the hon. Members for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and for Bradford West (Naz Shah) for their contributions to the debate on 2 October.

    This Bill is an incredibly important opportunity for us to ensure that we improve the legislative environment for dealing with domestic abuse and that, by doing so, we improve the response of Government and other agencies. If we get it right, it will not only improve people’s lives; it will save lives.

    It is important, as those on the Front Benches have said, that we are debating this Bill during the covid-19 crisis, because as covid-19 has required people to stay at home, to be locked down in their homes, it has set an environment where perpetrators have greater freedom to act, where victims find it harder to leave an abusive situation. The figures are clear: domestic abuse increases during lockdown.

    We know, as the Justice Secretary told us, that the services are still there. The police are still there to respond to reports of domestic violence. We must reiterate today that the lockdown legislation specifically allows people to leave home to escape the risk of harm, so those who are in a domestic abuse situation can leave and seek the support they need. What we must also recognise, however, is that it is much harder for them to leave and to report domestic abuse, because perpetrators have been given greater control of them in the lockdown situation. They can take their mobiles away and stop them walking out of that front door.

    I urge police officers and local authorities to look at the past experience of the New York Police Department, and to consider, as I know some already are, the random contact with or visiting of homes where there are known perpetrators or where there have been reports of domestic violence. It must be done carefully to ensure that it does not exacerbate a situation, but it can help those victims.

    I also urge Government, as they consider the exit strategy from lockdown, to think of the impact that lockdown has had on domestic abuse. I want Government to look not just at the impact of relaxing restrictions on capacity in the national health service, although we must all have a concern for our wonderful NHS staff and care workers and for those who contract the disease, but at the impact of lockdown on our overall health and wellbeing as a nation. That of course includes the economy, but it must also include the impact on domestic abuse and mental health. We cannot have a situation where the cure for the disease does more damage than the disease itself. When it is in place, this Bill will help victims and improve the criminal justice response, but as lockdown is eased the Government also need to ensure that the criminal justice system and services for victims can cope with what could be a significant increase in reports of domestic abuse.

    On the detail of the Bill, I welcome the important step of setting a clear definition of domestic abuse. I just want to touch on three quick points. We need to ensure that the Bill properly recognises the impact of domestic abuse on children. Just because they are in a different room from the abuse does not mean that they will not be affected by it.​
    The role of employers is important. A good employer can set the scenario where their employees are able to report and speak about the domestic abuse that they are the victims of and to know that they will be supported. I commend the work of Elizabeth Filkin and the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse. I have tried to find a way of recognising employers’ work in the Bill. I am not sure it is possible, but I hope the Minister will be able to recognise it in winding up.

    Thirdly, as well as supporting victims, we need to stop perpetrators. We need to ensure that perpetrator programmes can be properly accredited. It is a difficult area, but we need to give it far more attention than we have in the past. So this is a hugely important piece of legislation. Too many lives are damaged and too many lives are lost because of domestic abuse. If we get this Bill right, it can help to achieve our ultimate goal, which is eradicating domestic abuse.

  • Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Speech on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Nick Thomas-Symonds – 2020 Speech on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Labour MP for Torfaen, in the House of Commons on 28 April 2020.

    I would like to put on record my thanks to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Speaker, the House authorities and all staff for facilitating the sitting of the House in these most unusual circumstances.

    I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for his welcome. He and I have debated many times at the Dispatch Box in various roles, and I look forward to continuing to do so in future. I also look forward to debating with the Home Secretary when she is next in Parliament.

    The Lord Chancellor was absolutely right to pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) and for Bradford West (Naz Shah) for their very moving speeches in October, when the Bill was last before the House.

    I welcome the Bill’s return to us today, in these extraordinary circumstances. The Opposition support it, and it is entirely right that, even in the midst of this crisis, we send the strongest possible message that tackling the appalling crime of domestic abuse remains a priority and that some of the urgently needed provisions in the Bill can progress.

    However, it is not without bitter irony that we face the prospect of pushing forward with the Bill in such a constrained timeframe. After all, it was as far back as March 2018 when the Lord Chancellor’s predecessor but one, who no longer sits in this House, announced the initial consultation for the Bill, and it was promised long before that. The wait has been too long for those desperately needed provisions, and many others besides, that should be included in the Bill. I will come back to that.

    The lockdown has changed patterns of crime. Over the weekend, the National Crime Agency announced that it had alerted the police to 1,300 potential child sexual abuse cases and that it had also recently arrested a British man possessing indecent images of children who was attempting to re-enter the UK from the Philippines. That paints a worrying picture and we must do all in our power to stop such abuses and prevent them from ever taking place. I pay tribute to the NCA, particularly its director general, Lynne Owens, who is leading the fight to tackle those heinous crimes.

    Isolating victims from the support of others is what the perpetrators of domestic abuse often seek to do, so it is sadly no surprise that the coronavirus crisis and the lockdown required to deal with it have produced the conditions in which domestic abuse has sharply increased. At the end of last week, the Metropolitan police reported that in the six weeks up to 19 April, officers across London had made 14,093 arrests for domestic abuse offences—nearly 100 a day on average—and domestic abuse calls had risen by around a third. At the same time, the national domestic abuse helpline has experienced a 25% increase in calls and online requests for help.

    Clearly, the warning signals of abuse are flashing red. We have been seeing and hearing those warnings from the domestic abuse sector since the start of the crisis. Asking people to stay at home when home might not be a safe place is clearly a huge challenge. Add to that the massive operational challenge that the need for social distancing creates for refuges and related services and the drop-off in charity funding, and it is clear that services for some of the most at-risk people face ​extraordinary difficulty. That is why I have been clear since becoming the shadow Home Secretary that the Government must take action on tackling domestic abuse and supporting the wider sector that deals with violence against women and girls.

    Government action, such as the £2 million of funding for a helpline, is welcome, as is the You Are Not Alone public campaign, but it is not enough to provide the emergency support necessary. For a start, that £2 million needs to reach the frontline. We will work constructively and responsibly, and we have repeated the offer to discuss what can be done to fast-track that support.

    One of my first priorities was to meet representatives from the sector with the shadow Domestic Violence and Safeguarding Minister. Many of those women have put themselves in harm’s way throughout their working lives to stand up for people who are facing abuse, and that is even more true in the middle of the current crisis. The message they gave me was absolutely clear: not only does the coronavirus crisis seem to be pushing up the rate of domestic abuse, but it is putting extraordinary pressure on the services that people turn to for help. Refuges face a massive challenge in keeping their doors open while sticking to the social distancing rules. We are asking people to do the right thing and stay at home, so it is only right that the country is there to support the people put at direct risk by those measures.

    The Government have yet to engage fully, and the action does remain too slow. It is our intention to try to set out in Committee amendments that would guarantee rapid support for the domestic abuse charities from the £750 million fund that the Chancellor announced to support charity work. I would like to say from the outset that that in itself is an inadequate amount, and I urge the Chancellor to think again. The Lord Chancellor mentioned making allocations, but let me make this suggestion to him. First, a dedicated proportion of the £750 million should be ring-fenced for domestic abuse and the wider violence against women and girls sector. We say 10%, which is not unreasonable and would keep services going. Secondly, a system should be in place to fast-track that investment to the frontline before charities have to close their doors for being oversubscribed or unable to pay their staff. Thirdly, an element of support should be earmarked for specialist services such as BAME services run with and for migrant women, men who are at risk of or suffering domestic abuse, and specialist LGBTQ services.

    I do not want to stand here and criticise the Government. I want the Minister to show the grip and urgency that the challenge requires and needs urgently. It cannot be right that vital services for the most at-risk people are in the position of turning people away because of a lack of funding. As I set out in my recent letter to the Home Secretary, there are a range of ways that the Government can help the sector, such as co-ordinating access to under-used existing accommodation; ensuring that support workers have access to PPE; providing technological support; and ensuring that women are not trapped in abusive situations because they have no recourse to public funds. That requires grip and a more joined-up cross-Government approach. We have seen that happening in the devolved Administrations, such as the £1.2 million fund created by the Welsh Government to purchase community accommodation for victims, to enable move-on ​accommodation and prevent lack of bed spaces in refuges or, indeed, to provide other accommodation when a refuge is not the right answer. In London, the Mayor has dedicated £4 million to the London community response fund, taking the total to £16 million to help the capital’s community and voluntary organisations. The lesson is that, with political will, these changes can be made. The need is now and the Government must respond to that challenge.

    I turn to the Bill itself. It clearly is, as the Lord Chancellor set out, a step forward to have a statutory definition in the first clause of the Bill that also includes, in addition to violent and sexually threatening behaviour, controlling and coercive behaviour and other forms of abuse, including economic, psychological and emotional. I welcome the appointment of a domestic abuse commissioner and pay tribute to the work that Nicole Jacobs is doing as designate commissioner, alongside the work of the Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird, and indeed the children’s commissioners across the UK. I welcome the domestic abuse protection orders and the notices, although I hope that they will be accompanied by support, training and resources our officers need. On the family courts, I agree with the Lord Chancellor that the prohibition of cross-examination of victims by perpetrators in person is welcome and long overdue, and I remember speaking on it myself in the Prisons and Courts Bill, which fell before the 2017 general election. I am glad the wait will not be even more protracted.

    We will look to improve the Bill in Committee, and the sector must have its full say in giving evidence to the Committee. That process of scrutiny would be far more effective if we had more information before us. The Home Office has undertaken a review of how migrant women, especially those with no recourse to public funds, interact with domestic abuse provision. Having that review available to members of the Committee is very important.

    The second issue on which there is a currently unpublished review is the family courts. Prior to the coronavirus crisis, it was thought that the family justice review panel would report this spring on how the family courts protect children and parents in cases of domestic abuse and other serious offences. Again, having that available would greatly enhance the Committee stage.

    A victim is a victim. We will press the Government on protections for disabled victims. We cannot tolerate a situation where victims with insecure migrant status are not only prevented by that from coming forward, but actually have it used against them by someone abusing them. That is why, as I have argued, the Government should suspend the system of no recourse to public funds during the coronavirus crisis, so that victims can get the support they need, not only in their interests but in all our interests in this public health emergency.

    In Committee, we will also press the Government on a clear statutory duty on public authorities in England and Wales to commission specialist domestic abuse support and services for all people affected by domestic abuse, regardless of status. That should include a duty on the Secretary of State to provide sufficient funding. The duty should be to all who are affected by domestic abuse, including those with insecure immigration status, ​children and young people. Let us make sure, too, that there are perpetrator programmes with proper quality assurance as to their standard.

    We will also push the Government on measures on post-separation abuse. In fact, it is often the case that when perpetrators lose control of the situation, their behaviour becomes even more extreme and the victims require greater protection. I say to the Lord Chancellor that although there are existing laws, such as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, more is required to be done to tackle the threat to people even after the particular relationship has ended. We will press that in Committee.

    The Bill contains a series of measures that will clearly have wide support across the House. I pay tribute to all those people who worked on it, particularly in the last Parliament, including, on these Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who pushed it forward with her characteristic passion and determination. She is not sat in the House today, but I am sure she will be watching at home. She should have our thanks for the way that she conducted herself.

    I implore the Government to keep an open mind in Committee as to how the Bill can be improved. If they decide that they want to ignore all the suggestions for improvement, that will be an extraordinarily grave mistake. The Bill is a real opportunity to consensually make vital changes in the interests of victims and potential victims up and down the country.

    We should remember, too, that many services that we rely on to respond to the crisis, and to support women and girls at risk of violence, have faced a toxic cocktail of cuts to policing and preventive services for a decade. We did not go into the crisis with the resilience that we would all have hoped for.

    I conclude by giving my deepest thanks to the frontline workers who are doing so much to keep our communities safe and who are working especially hard to protect those most at risk. They deserve all our gratitude and respect for all that they do, putting themselves at risk to keep us all safe.

    Desperate as these circumstances are, I say to anyone who is at home and afraid that they are not alone. Since taking up this role, I have made it my priority to speak to senior and frontline officers, who all assured me that tackling domestic abuse remains exactly where it should be—right at the top of their priority list—and that anyone who feels that they need their support should reach out. The message that should go out from this House today is that they are not alone.

  • Robert Buckland – 2020 Statement on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Robert Buckland – 2020 Statement on the Domestic Abuse Bill

    Below is the text of the statement made by Robert Buckland, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 28 April 2020.

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

    It is a great pleasure to open this Second Reading debate, albeit with a sense of déjà vu. Those of us who had the privilege of being in the House on 2 October last year will not have failed to be moved by the many powerful contributions we heard, including from the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who recounted her own very personal and heart-wrenching experience of domestic abuse. She was not alone in showing great courage by bringing home to this House the devastating impact of domestic abuse on the lives of survivors, as this Bill has also brought forth very personal accounts from, among others, the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris). On that occasion, I was able to share my own personal experiences, as a young barrister, of domestic abuse. I will not repeat them today, because I have no doubt that we will hear some memorable speeches in this debate—more testimony, adding power to what has already been said.

    After the last debate, some Members approached me privately to share with me their own domestic abuse experiences—stories that are still raw and still cannot be told. For many of us, the sounds and sights witnessed in our homes, often as children, still haunt us many years on. The experiences we have heard recounted by Members are, sadly, all too frequently repeated across the country. I have heard no more harrowing account recently than that of Claire Throssell, whom I had the privilege to meet last October. Claire’s young sons, Jack and Paul, were killed at the hands of her abusive partner. No one can imagine the pain and suffering that she has had to endure, but we owe her a debt of gratitude for giving such a powerful voice to the survivors of domestic abuse.

    Gratitude is also due to Tracy Graham, a victim of controlling and violent domestic abuse who this year chose to speak out, go public and share her experiences with my local community in Swindon via the new Swindon domestic abuse support service, which I helped ​to launch just before lockdown, seven weeks ago. Tracy is not only a domestic abuse ambassador for the service, but is volunteering with the local police as well, to help to support domestic abuse victims who are going through what she went through. She truly is an inspirational young woman—one of many who are standing up, stepping forward and sharing their harrowing experiences, to the benefit of current and future survivors and victims.

    It is right, in this time of covid-19, to dwell a little on the impact that this pandemic is having on victims of domestic abuse and their families. We are seeing evidence of it in the increased calls to domestic abuse helplines. My local refuge had an increase in referrals of 80% in one week, and the helpline in my local area had an increase in the number of calls of nearly 30%. People are speaking up and speaking out about domestic abuse, but it is happening even at this time of great crisis.

    The phrase “Stay at home”, which we so associate with the directions to deal with covid-19, should be words of reassurance and comfort. The home should be a place of safety, both physical and mental. The concept of the home as a refuge is such a strong one, yet for too many people it is not a refuge. At this time of lockdown, that fear, distress and suffering is multiplied. I assure all victims that help is available. The police continue to respond to incidents of domestic abuse, and anyone in immediate danger should not hesitate to call 999 and the emergency services. Where necessary, the existing civil order framework can be used to remove a perpetrator from the family home in order to protect victims of abuse.

    We are working with and listening carefully to domestic abuse and victims organisations to make sure that we understand what their most pressing needs and priorities are, and we are committed to ensuring that victims have a comprehensive package of support available. We have launched a new campaign to signpost victims to the support services available and provided an additional £2.6 million to ensure that the national helplines have the capacity to respond to increased demand.

    In addition, we are working with the domestic abuse commissioner to ensure that refuges and other organisations that provide frontline support to victims will be able to access the £750 million fund set aside by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to bolster charities that are responding directly to the pandemic. I am happy to say to the House that allocations under the charities package will be made very shortly indeed. The Home Secretary and I have together been very much engaged in tailoring the requests to ensure that help is targeted where it will make the most difference. Having spoken to police and crime commissioners, I know that many are making available extra resources for safe accommodation.

    I am grateful to the Home Affairs Committee for the report that it published yesterday on the pandemic’s impact on victims of domestic abuse. I welcome the Committee’s support for our public information campaign and the additional funding. We will of course respond promptly to the Committee’s recommendations.

    In short, this is a concerted period of direct action being taken by the Government. Measures are being taken to address directly the concerns that I know the shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), whom I welcome to his post, will raise in due course.​

    Let me turn to the Bill, which is necessarily about strengthening protection and support for victims in the longer term. I share the frustration of Members from all parties that we are having to repeat a number of stages of this Bill, which was initially championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). All parties want to see this Bill on the statute book, but we have to put to good use the time available to us since the election to make it an even stronger Bill than the one that came before the House last October.

    The aims of the Bill are fourfold: first, to raise awareness of this insidious crime; secondly, to better protect and support victims and their children; thirdly, to transform the response to the criminal, civil and family justice systems; and, fourthly, to improve performance across all national and local agencies. I shall take those objectives in turn.

    If we are to tackle domestic abuse effectively, it is vital that the nature of that abuse is properly understood and recognised. Part 1 of the Bill sets out a statutory definition of domestic abuse. It will apply for the purposes of the whole Bill, but we also expect it to be adopted across all agencies that have a shared responsibility for combating this crime and for helping survivors to rebuild their lives. The definition makes it clear that domestic abuse is not confined to violent or sexual abuse, but includes controlling or coercive behaviour, psychological abuse and economic abuse, too. Identifying and calling out domestic abuse in all its manifestations is just a first step. We then need to protect and support victims. In terms of protection, a number of civil orders are already available to help to safeguard survivors, but the existing landscape of occupation orders, non-molestation orders and domestic violence protection orders is complex, and none are, arguably, wholly adequate to the task.

    The new domestic abuse protection order—DAPO—will bring together the best elements of the existing civil order regimes. It will be available in the civil, criminal and family courts. It will be flexible, in that the court will determine the length of an order and decide what prohibitions, and positive requirements too, are appropriate to attach to it, including conditions that may compel the respondent to attend perpetrator programmes or require them to wear an electronic tag. The new DAPO will also have teeth, with a breach of conditions being a criminal offence punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both.

    We want to get these new orders right so that they work for victims and their children, the police, the courts and others who will have to operate them. We will therefore be piloting these new orders in a small number of areas before rolling them out nationally.

    But protecting victims from abuse is never enough on its own. We also need to ensure that they are effectively supported as they reset their lives. The Bill, as reintroduced, includes a significant new measure to that end. When a victim of abuse has to flee their home and seek sanctuary in a refuge or other safe accommodation, it is not enough simply to provide that person with a safe place to sleep. In such circumstances, victims and their children need access to counselling and mental health support, advice about follow-on housing, help in enrolling children in a new school, or specialist support, such as translation services or access to immigration advice. We know that ​refuges and other providers of safe accommodation struggle to provide such support so, to plug that gap, the Bill will place new duties on tier 1 local authorities in England. Under part 4 of the Bill, such local authorities will be required to assess the need for accommodation-based support for all victims of domestic abuse and their children in the area. Having identified that need, the relevant local authorities will then be required to develop, publish and give effect to a strategy for the provision of such support in their locality.

    Of course, these new duties will come at a cost—some £90 million a year, we estimate. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Housing Secretary is committed to ensuring that local authorities are appropriately resourced as part of the spending review.

    I know from my own experience of the legal system that appearing as a witness in criminal, civil or family proceedings can be—shall we say—a daunting experience, so we need to make sure that the victims of domestic abuse can give their best evidence in court. In the criminal courts, that often means being able to give evidence hidden from view of the alleged perpetrator or via a video link. The Bill provides that these and other so-called special measures will be automatically available to victims. In the family courts, for a long time, there have been calls for a bar on the practice of perpetrators being able to cross-examine in person the victims of domestic abuse. Such an experience is bound to be traumatising for victims—it must stop. We have listened to the views of the Joint Committee that examined the draft Bill. Indeed, the Bill as reintroduced now extends the circumstances in which the automatic prohibition on cross-examination in person applies, which is a welcome further step to safeguard and prevent the perpetuation of abuse through the courts.

    I know that there are wider concerns about the experiences of victims of domestic abuse in the family courts, which was why we established last year a specialist panel to examine how effectively the family courts respond to allegations of domestic abuse and other harms in private law proceedings, including around the provision of special measures. I aim to publish very shortly the panel’s recommendations, together with the Government’s response. One way we can improve the experiences of victims is by better integrating domestic abuse-related proceedings right across the various jurisdictions in our courts.

    With that in mind, we committed in our manifesto to pilot integrated family and crime domestic abuse courts. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set aside £5 million in his March Budget to allow that important pilot to progress. Again, I expect to be able to inform the House soon as to how the trial of these new integrated domestic abuse courts will be taken forward. I will take a close personal interest, to make sure that there is a genuine bringing together of the jurisdictions around the victim, around the family—around those people who need the support and benefit of any orders and sanctions that the court might impose.

    It is not only the courts where there is room for improvement. The new independent domestic abuse commissioner will help drive consistency and better performance in the response to domestic abuse right across the relevant local and national agencies. The relevant agencies will be under a statutory duty to co-operate with the commissioner, and will be required to respond within 56 days to any recommendations that the ​commissioner makes. We are lucky to have Nicole Jacobs, who brings a wealth of experience to the role, and I fully expect her to perform her functions without fear or favour.

    I know that, on the previous Second Reading, a number of hon. Members argued for the post to be full time. We reviewed—with Nicole Jacobs—the appropriate time commitment for this role and have now extended it from three to four days per week. The Minister for safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), will keep this matter under review as we transition to the statutory arrangements provided for in part 2 of the Bill.

    We did not want to wait until the Bill became law to make that appointment, and I am very glad we did not, because Nicole Jacobs is already making a huge difference. One area where we want to draw on her experience is in the provision of community-based support. As I described, the provisions in part 4 of the Bill will make sure that victims of domestic abuse in safe accommodation receive the support they need, but of course most victims of abuse remain in their own home, and they need to be able to access appropriate support while doing so.

    Victim support services are provided in the community by police and crime commissioners, local authorities and other agencies, but the landscape is, frankly, complex, and there are undoubtedly gaps in the current provision. In order to determine what action needs to be taken, we must better understand the existing routes by which these services are commissioned and funded. To that end, the domestic abuse commissioner has agreed to undertake an in-depth exploration of the current community-based landscape of support. Once we have her findings and recommendations, we will work with her to understand the needs identified and to develop the right options for how best to address them.

    Finally, I will say a few words about the amendments put forward in the last Session by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). It is absolutely right that we reinforce current case law that a person cannot consent to violence that leads to serious injury or death. To be clear, there is no such thing as the rough sex defence. I had a productive meeting with both Members to discuss the issue, and, as I made clear to them, we are looking at how best to address it. It is a complex area of criminal law, and we need to ensure that any statutory provisions have the desired effect and do not have any unintended consequences; we do not want to inadvertently create loopholes or uncertainties in the law that can then be exploited by those who perpetrate crimes. I am confident that we will be able to set out our approach in time for Report, and I am grateful for the continuing constructive engagement on this important and sensitive issue.

    Domestic abuse is one of the most prevalent crimes in our society—let us be honest and frank about that. It is staggering that some 2.4 million people experience domestic abuse each year, and unforgivable that, on average, more than two individuals, the majority of whom are women, are killed each and every week in a domestic homicide.

    Tackling domestic abuse needs to be everyone’s business, from prevention to protection to prosecution to support. Legislation alone can never have all the answers, but I believe that this landmark Bill will make a significant contribution and I commend it to the House.

  • Nicola Sturgeon – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus (23/04/2020)

    Nicola Sturgeon – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus (23/04/2020)

    Below is the text of the statement made by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, at St Andrew’s House in Edinburgh on 23 April 2020.

    Good afternoon everyone. Thank you for joining us for today’s briefing as usual.

    Today I’m going to focus quite a lot on the paper we’ve just published about how we might, at the right time and in the right way, begin to restore some normality to our lives, while still containing the COVID-19 virus.

    But before I do that, I will start as usual with an update on some of the key statistics in relation to the virus in Scotland.

    As at 9 o’clock this morning, there have been 9,409 positive cases confirmed – which is an increase of 371 from yesterday.

    A total of 1,748 confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients are in hospital – and that is a decrease of 28 from yesterday.

    And a total of 148 people last night were in intensive care with confirmed or suspected cases of the virus. And that is a decrease of seven since yesterday. Let me say again as I did yesterday, these figures on hospital admissions and admissions in to intensive care are very encouraging and do give us real optimism at this stage.

    However in the last 24 hours, I am very sorry to have to report that 58 deaths have been registered of patients who had been confirmed through a test as having the virus – and that takes the total number of deaths in Scotland, under that measurement, to 1,120.

    Once again, it’s really important for all of us to remember that each of these deaths represents a unique, loved and irreplaceable individual. And I want to again extend my deepest condolences to everyone who has lost a loved one.

    I also want again to thank all of our health and care workers right across the country. This evening many thousands of us will, yet again applaud your efforts – we are all so deeply grateful to you for the extraordinary work you are doing.

    So let me turn now to the paper we have published just a few moments ago about the decisions we will need to take as we seek to contain this virus while also restoring a semblance of normality to our lives.

    And I want to be very clear with you at the outset – what we are publishing at this stage today is, by necessity, a first cut.

    I am seeking today really, to start a grown up conversation with you, the public.

    The decisions that lie ahead of us, of all of us, are really complex.

    We will – as we have done all along – seek to inform those decisions with the best scientific advice possible.

    But the science will never be exact, so we will also require to make very careful judgments.

    And we are in uncharted territory – it’s impossible to know with absolute certainty what the impact of our decisions will be in advance.

    That means we must also be prepared to adapt and change course as we go. We want to ease restrictions, of course we do, but we cannot absolutely rule out having to reapply some of them in future should we have evidence that the virus is again running out of control.

    And I want to be frank with you every single step of the way about all of these complexities and uncertainties.

    So while today’s paper is still quite high level, it is the start of a process.

    It sets out the objectives and the principles that will guide us, the different factors that we will need to take into account, the framework in which we will take decisions, and the preparations we need to make now.

    In the days and the weeks ahead, evidence, data and modelling will allow us to take firmer decisions.

    As that happens, this paper will evolve into a detailed plan with metrics, actions, milestones and measurements attached to it.

    And I give an assurance today that as we go through this process, we will share our thinking on an ongoing, iterative basis.

    But let me briefly set out some of the key points today.

    Firstly, and this is an obvious point, this virus causes real harm. And we see that every day in the statistics that we report, especially in the numbers of people who have died.

    But the lockdown measures we are taking to contain the virus are also doing damage.

    They’re doing harm to the economy and to living standards, to children’s education, to other aspects of our physical health, and to mental health and wellbeing. And the toll of all of that may also, in time, be measured in poorer health outcomes and lives lost.

    So we must try to find a better balance than the one we have right now.

    But my second point is that, as we do so, we cannot and we must not take our eye off the need to suppress the virus and minimise the damage that it does.

    And let me be very clear about this, continuing to suppress COVID-19 is the central objective that we set out in this paper today.

    Obviously, we cannot guarantee that no one will get this virus in the future – far from it – but an assumption that it is somehow safe to allow a certain proportion or a certain section of the population to get the virus is not part of the approach we will be taking.

    Third, we are increasingly confident that measures we are taking now are suppressing the virus.

    The key factor – and you may have heard this before – is what is known as the reproduction rate – the R number. And that needs be as far below one as possible.

    Now before lockdown that R number was very likely above three. And that means everyone with the virus was infecting three more people, each of them was infecting three more people and so on and on. That is what is exponential growth.

    Our best estimate now is that the R number is somewhere between 0.6 and one – though I should say that it is probably still higher in certain settings, such as care homes.

    But we can’t yet be absolutely sure about any of that. That’s why we need more time to monitor the statistics we report every day – like case numbers, hospital and ICU admissions, and numbers of deaths. And we need to develop further our data through ongoing surveillance.

    It’s only when we are sure that the virus is under control that we can even start to ease any of the restrictions.

    And it’s my next point really that takes us to the hard part.

    When we do reach that stage, the virus will be under control only because of the severity of the restrictions we are all living with just now. But the virus will not have gone away.

    So as we start to lift the restrictions, the real risk – and it is a very real risk – is that COVID-19 runs rampant again.

    So a return to normal as we knew it is not on the cards in the near future. And it’s really important that I am upfront with you right now about that.

    What we will be seeking to do is find a new normal – a way of living alongside this virus, but in a form that keeps it under control and stops it taking the toll that we know it can do.

    Social distancing and limiting our contacts with others will be a fact of life for a long time to come – certainly until treatments and ultimately a vaccine offer different solutions. So that means possibly for the rest of this year and maybe even beyond.

    And that’s why talk of lifting the lockdown – as if it’s a flick of a switch moment – is misguided.

    Our steps – when we take them – will need to be careful, gradual, incremental and probably quite small to start with.

    We will need to assess them in advance and monitor them in action. Sometimes, as I said a moment ago, we may even need to reverse things.

    As we go, we will apply our judgment to the best scientific advice possible, we will continue to collaborate closely with the other governments across the UK, and we will learn from international experience. The fact is that different countries are at different stages of this pandemic – but none of us are anywhere near through it yet and we all face the same challenges.

    So as we make these decisions here, careful balances will have to be struck.

    For example, it may be that be that certain business in certain sectors can re-open – but only if they can change how they work to keep employees and customers two metres distant from each other.

    Similarly with schools – classrooms may have to be redesigned to allow social distancing, so maybe not all children can go back to or be at school at the same times.

    Some limited outdoor activity might be able to restart earlier than indoor activity. But let me be clear, big gatherings and events are likely to be off for some months to come.

    We will also consider whether different approaches would make sense for different areas – though our preference, not least for ease of understanding, will be for as much consistency as possible.

    And of course given how severely this virus is affecting older people and those with other health vulnerabilities, some form of shielding will almost certainly be required for the foreseeable future.

    Now let me stress that what I have just set out there are not firm decisions – but they do illustrate the kind of options we will be assessing.

    And as we do so, we will consider not just the health imperatives, but also issues of practicality, sustainability, fairness and equity, ethics and human rights.

    And lastly, as well as changes to how we live, we will use public health interventions and technology to the maximum possible to help us control this virus.

    In the next phase, extensive testing, tracing of those who test positive and the isolation of symptomatic people to break the chain of transmission will be a central part of the approach that we will take. And the preparations to make that possible are already under way.

    We will also discuss with the UK government – for this is a reserved responsibility – the need for stronger surveillance measures for those coming into the country from elsewhere.

    So in short, this paper sets out the difficult decisions we face and the way in which we will go about preparing for them, making them and also assessing their impact.

    I want to stress again because it’s important that I am frank. The path ahead is not an easy one – it is paved with complexity and uncertainty. But with openness, transparency and frankness along the way, I believe that together we will be able to navigate it. It is for me and for government to work through and lead that process. But this is about all of us – hence this discussion that we are opening up with all of you today.

    The paper we have published is available on the Scottish Government website. I will post a link to it on Twitter, later this afternoon.

    So, please, even if – like I suspect most of the population – you are not in the habit of reading government documents, have a look at it. And if you have views on it please let us know. These views are important and will be helpful.

    As I said earlier, I will continue to share our thinking with you as it develops.

    But let me now end now on a vital point and one that you have become used to hearing me make each day. Moving on from where we are now as all of us want to do as quickly as it is safe to do will only be possible if and when we do get this virus properly under control.

    And that means sticking with the current rules that are in place just now.

    Stay at home except for essential purposes.

    Stay two metres apart from others when you have to be out.

    Do not meet up with people from other households.

    And isolate completely if you or anyone in your household has symptoms.

    This is tough, this is the toughest set of circumstances that the vast majority of us have ever lived through – and I can’t stand here and promise you it is going to get a whole lot easier soon.

    But as I hope we have started to set out today, if we keep doing the right things, and if we consider all of the options carefully and with the right objectives in mind, I do believe there will be a way through.

    And we will find that way through. So thank you for all you are doing to help. And please if you can, engage with this discussion as we go through the days and weeks to come.

    Thank you very much for your patience right now in allowing me to go through that in detail.

  • George Eustice – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    George Eustice – 2020 Statement on the Coronavirus

    Below is the text of the statement made by George Eustice, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on 26 April 2020.

    Good afternoon, and welcome to today’s Downing Street Press Conference. I’m pleased to be joined today by Stephen Powis, the National Medical Director of NHS England.

    Before I update you on the latest developments in the food supply chain, let me first give you an update on the latest data from the COBR coronavirus data file. Through the government’s ongoing monitoring and testing programme, as of today:

    669,850 tests for coronavirus have now been carried out in the UK, including 29,058 tests carried out yesterday;

    152,840 people have tested positive, that’s an increase of 4,463 cases since yesterday;

    15,953 people are currently in hospital with the coronavirus in the UK, down from 16,411 on 25 April.

    And sadly, of those hospitalised with the virus, 20,732 have now died. That is an increase of 413 fatalities since yesterday.

    We express our deepest condolences to the families and friends of these victims.

    At the beginning of the outbreak of this virus we saw significant problems in panic buying. That episode quickly subsided and food availability now is back to normal levels and has been for several weeks. All supermarkets have introduced social distancing measures to protect both their staff and their customers and it is essential that shoppers respect these measures.

    The food supply chain has also seen a significant reduction in staff absence over recent weeks. As staff who had been self-isolating through suspected coronavirus symptoms have returned to work. So absence levels are down from a peak of typically 20% in food businesses three weeks ago to less than 10% at the end of last week and in some cases individual companies reporting absences as low as 6%.

    We have put in place measures to support the clinically vulnerable. So far 500,000 food parcels have been delivered to the shielded group, that is those who cannot leave home at all due to a clinical condition that they have. In addition, the major supermarkets have agreed to prioritise delivery slots for those in this shielded group. So far over 300,000 such deliveries have been made, enabling people to shop normally and choose the goods that they want to buy.

    We recognise that there are others who are not clinically vulnerable and therefore are not in that shielded group but who may also be in need of help. Perhaps through having a disability or another type of medical condition, or indeed, being unable to draw on family and neighbours to help them. We have been working with local authorities to ensure that those people can be allocated a volunteer shopper to help them get their food needs. Charities such as Age UK and others can now also make also direct referrals on the Good Samaritan App to locate volunteers for those in need.

    Many supermarkets have taken steps to increase the number of delivery slots that they have. At the beginning of this virus outbreak there were typically 2.1 million delivery slots in the entire supermarket chain. That has now increased to 2.6 million, and over the next couple of weeks we anticipate that that will grow further to 2.9 million. So supermarkets have taken steps to increase their capacity but while this capacity has expanded, it will still not be enough to meet all of the demand that is out there.

    Some supermarkets have already chosen to prioritise some vulnerable customers with a proportion of the delivers slots that they have and others have offered to work with us and also local authorities to help establish a referral system so that when somebody is in desperate need, a local authority is able to make a referral to make sure that they can get a priority slot.

    As we look forward more generally towards the next stage in our battle against this virus, there are encouraging signs of progress, but before we consider it safe to adjust any of the current social distancing measures, we must be satisfied that we have met the five tests set out last week by the First Secretary.

    Those tests mean that the NHS can continue to cope;

    that the daily death rate falls sustainably and consistently;

    that the rate of infection is decreasing; and operational challenges have been met;

    and, most important of all, that there is no risk of a second peak.

    For now, the most important thing we can all do to stop the spread of the coronavirus is to stay at home, to protect the NHS and save lives.

    I want to pay tribute to all those who are working throughout the food supply chain from farmers, manufacturers and retailers. The response of this industry to ensure that we have the food that we need has been truly phenomenal.

    Thank you.

  • David Howell – 1978 Speech on the Home Office

    David Howell – 1978 Speech on the Home Office

    Below is the text of the speech made by David Howell, the then Conservative MP for Guildford, in the House of Commons on 6 November 1978.

    I begin by reassuring the Home Secretary of one thing. He may sometimes feel that events are moving against him on every side, especially when he reads the newspapers, but let me make it clear that we fully back all firm steps that he and his Department take to tackle crime and uphold the law. In particular, we back every step that he now feels necessary to maintain order in the prisons and safeguard the proper administration of the law against any threats from the current industrial action. I shall make more comments on the prisons later, but I thought that I should make that clear now.

    We have also supported all along the approach through the Edmund-Davies committee inquiry. Indeed, we urged it on the Home Secretary and thought that it should have come earlier. On Thursday my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) said that he welcomed the prisons inquiry, although some of us have criticised it for being a bit belated. We were glad to learn about the Home Secretary’s conference on vandalism and were glad of the message of concern about vandalism on the part of not only the right hon. Gentleman but the Prime Minister.
    We are glad that that matter has been taken on board, although I must say that the Central Policy Review Staff, the Think Tank in the Cabinet Office, still has something to learn about the dangers of producing sketchy reports—or illustrative and rapid reviews, as I think it calls them—on issues as sensitive as this. I am not sure that that is the right role for the CPRS to play, and I do not think that its report added much to our understanding of matters.

    We have followed the Home Secretary’s efforts and support the moves that we believe are firm and right in tackling this matter. Naturally, we hope to push him a little further or at any rate to lay the foundations for the reforms that we plan to carry out under the next Conservative Government. Meanwhile, we are glad to ​ see that the Home Secretary recognises the importance of the law and order issue, not always with quite the support from behind him that one would like to see. We shall back his constructive efforts.

    The second preliminary point that I want to make is addressed to those who believe strongly and sincerely in penal reform, and who in a sense have had all the running in the past 20 years in our penal policy. The impulse for penal reform is a very fine thing, of course, but unless and until society is more reassured than it is now that violence is being con tamed and dealt with, and particularly violence by violent young people, believe that it will be virtually impossible to carry forward sensible penal reform or to tackle prison overcrowding, which the Home Secretary mentioned.

    We believe that the public are entitled to more protection than they have had and even than they are now getting, and that vigorous action is required at all stages in the cycle of crime control and the system of criminal justice. It is not good enough to react to crises as they develop or to blame each development on nameless forces. There is a need for action at every stage in the process of administering the law, right from policing and prevention at one end through the whole problem of the powers and procedures of the courts, up to the structure of punishment and penalties and the organisation of penal institutions at the other end.

    We recognise that that is an enormous programme. It will demand the calling out of major resources of energy. It is not correct to say that we are doing all we can, as has been suggested. Without a doubt there is much more to be done, and it should be done.

    I come to some of the areas that the Home Secretary touched upon, beginning with policing and crime prevention. As I said, we strongly welcome the Edmund Davies conclusions. We on the Conservative Benches are convinced that it would have been much better to pay the increase all at once and not to have phased it. There we are echoing the conclusions of the report, which made it quite clear in paragraph 206 that that was what the committee recommended.

    Clearly, what the Home Secretary says about recruitment is welcome. I should ​ like to know how that spreads over the regions. Is the increase only in London, where there is the additional London weighting, or can the right hon. Gentleman tell us good news all over the country? Are the resignation rates really down? Has the bleeding stopped? That is the real problem—not just raising the number of recruits by increasing pay rates, but stopping the experienced men going. Can the right hon. Gentleman bring us good news about that?

    We have always said, and the right hon. Gentleman himself has said, that those questions are vital, but they are not the only questions when it comes to improving policing. There is, first, the whole problem of easing the administrative burden on the police. I was interested to see in the Edmund-Davies report a list of no fewer than 98 laws passed since 1960 by this House that have added to the administrative and paper work falling on the police. It must be possible to reduce some of the enormous administrative burden and to release more manpower and womanpower for policing on the beat and in the housing estates. I am sure that there are gains to be made here.

    Then there is the question of traffic. Over the past 10 years there has been an increase in traffic offences—not just parking tickets, but offences involving the police—from about 1½ million to well over 2½ million. It must be right to consider the idea of simplifying the traffic laws and of having ticket offences. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) has said a certain amount about that in recent days. It is an area to which the Home Office and the right hon. Gentleman should be applying their minds.

    That is the first point—the burden must be eased to release more manpower so that it can go on the beat. The second need, which the Home Secretary touched on, is to encourage the public to be not only law-abiding but law-assisting. That means a number of things.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) referred to co-operation with the schools, and the Home Secretary added to her point. It is a very valuable one. It is not merely a question of expecting chief ​ constables and police forces to make the first approach. I should like to see the education authorities suggest that it would be a good idea to welcome the police into the schools, for two reasons. One is that there could perhaps be fitted into the curriculum some basic and interesting tuition on how the legal system works and how the system of criminal justice operates. The second is that the school authorities and police authorities in a particular locality could keep closely in touch and that in general the police in the locality could have the firm support of the school authorities, local trades people, local public service officials and all the rest.

    I think and hope that the Home Secretary recognises that the need is to give the police firm and unstinted support. But that applies not only at the local level, in the village, in the street, in the city centre, but all the way up—in Whitehall as much as at the town hall and in the village. I am not saying that we want, and we would certainly be against, any development towards a national police force. But it is disturbing to find that it is clear that some chief constables—they are the people who have to run the police forces—feel and give expression to a lack of support from the top and from Whitehall. I believe that improvements could be made in co-ordination and in the regular contact that those with the difficult job of managing our police forces have with Whitehall and with Ministers.

    Mr. Merlyn Rees

    I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can help me. Can he tell me which chief constable said that? I have met the chief constables recently, and they have not put that matter to me.

    Mr. Howell

    I shall certainly provide the Home Secretary with a number of comments, both published and in papers circulated to hon. Members, about worries expressed by chief constables that they are not receiving enough support from the Government and the highest authorities. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman asked me about this, because a number of these matters have been published in the press. There is a great deal of worry that Ministers have not been showing sufficient support for the forces of law and order, [HON. MEMBERS: “Where”?] If hon. Members want ​ examples, they know them. They do not need to ask.

    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John)

    Name one.

    Mr. Howell

    Perhaps the Minister of State remembers that some of his Cabinet colleagues went on the picket lines at Grunwick.

    I have said that I shall provide the Home Secretary with details—

    Mr. Peter Hardy (Rother Valley)

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not sufficient for him to give this important information to my right hon. Friend? He should give it to the House. He has suggested to the House that the information is available. We suggest to him that he should present it to the House now.

    Mr. Howell

    I have made it clear that a number of chief constables have expressed their worries about the lack of support from on high for the forces of law and order. I shall certainly provide details to the Home Secretary. I am very willing to do that, and there is no problem about doing so. What is more, hon. Members know that this view is quite widespread.

    From the problem of policing, I now move one stage along the cycle of law enforcement to the area of arrest and police interrogation, which is a very difficult one.

    I do not agree with all that Sir Robert Mark, the former Commissioner, has had to say recently. But I thought that he was hitting the nail on the head when he wrote the following in his book:

    “The surest and quickest way to reduce crime and to achieve a more humane and enlightened penal system is to increase the likelihood that the guilty will be convicted.”

    I think that that is profoundly true. I know that these are matters at which the Royal Commission is looking. But this matter has been debated for a very long time, as the Home Secretary knows. In 1972 the Criminal Law Revision Committee, under Lord Justice Edmund-Davies, as he was then, recommended that

    “adverse inferences may be properly drawn from the silence of the accused”

    —a matter about which the police are very concerned. I do not know when the Royal Commission will reach its conclusion—I hope that it is soon—but on the present time scale it could be as late as 1982 before much begins to happen in this area.

    Let us at least agree that the Royal Commission needs to get on with its work with all speed, because these matters have been debated for a very long time and they are very important in the campaign against crime.

    I come next to the courts and their powers. Here the Opposition have a straight disagreement with the Home Secretary.

    The right hon. Gentleman now believes that the powers of the courts are adequate. I have tried to check this, but I think that he said it last to the Bromley Rotarians. On that occasion he said precisely that. His words were:

    “Some people think the powers of the courts are inadequate to deal with crime. I do not believe this to be true.”

    So he is now satisfied that the courts have all the powers that they need. The Opposition disagree with that view, especially in the case of juvenile courts, but also in one respect for the courts generally and for the Crown courts. I deal first with the juvenile courts. We in this House have all seen enough of the Children and Young Persons Act, which has been in partial operation since 1971, to realise that it is profoundly unsatisfactory to magistrates and social workers alike. The Opposition’s belief is that magistrates should have restored to them the power to make secure care orders, both when making care orders and when renewing them. In our view, it is unsatisfactory that at present the juvenile courts have no say in how care orders are discharged. It is true that under the Criminal Law Act 1977 they can attach some conditions to supervision orders, but in the case of care orders they have no say. We think that that is wrong and that it would be desirable for magistrates to be able to make care orders specifying secure accommodation.

    Of course, it is obvious that that means more places for secure accommodation. As I understand it, there are now only 223 places—[Interruption.] That was the information supplied in a parliamentary Answer which one of my hon. Friends received in July. Another 217 are being built, but there are only 223 now.

    Mr. Merlyn Rees

    July was four months ago.

    Mr. Howell

    Presumably more have come into operation. That is progress. But clearly the need is for more secure accommodation. If we do not have it and magistrates feel that a care order cannot be under the control of the courts, it leads to overloading of detention centres, and I am not sure that that is a healthy development. Certainly I shall have a great deal more to say in a moment about the results of what is happening in detention centres.

    Mr. Kilroy-Silk

    I appreciate the hon. Member’s concern, and it is one which is expressed on both sides of the House and outside it. However, there is no point in giving magistrates or courts powers to make secure care orders unless and until the facilities to hold juveniles are built. The hon. Member will know that that is not a criticism of the philosophy of the Children and Young Persons Act. It is in fact an indictment of successive Governments of both parties for not providing sufficient resources to build community homes and the secure units in community homes to hold these children.

    Unless and until it is done, no amount of additional powers given to magistrates will remedy this very difficult problem.

    Mr. Howell

    I am not sure that the hon. Member is right, although I know that he follows these matters very closely. It is a question of who has the powers. After all, the 1969 Act actually reduced the powers of magistrates and reduced their involvement. It put the social workers in the front line of dealing with juvenile crime and placed on them what in some areas is an impossible load. I think that it is right to start redistributing that load back in favour of the magistrates.

    I now come to detention centres and detention centre orders. Here, too, the Opposition think that the situation is profoundly unsatisfactory. In the case of junior detention centres, the present average sentence comes out at about 42 days —six weeks. It is really three months, but there is almost automatic remission so that it is about 42 days. We think that six weeks is a useless length. In some senses it is too short, in others it is too long.

    Let me explain that. For many youngsters, what is needed is a shorter and sharper sentence, especially for young criminals early in their careers. Anyone in a junior detention centre will explain that six weeks is unnecessarily long in some cases and that it could be much shorter provided that it was sharper. For other youngsters, six weeks is a hopelessly inadequate length of time because there is no time to begin training for a new skill and to build up proper rehabilitation. That is what I mean when I say that it is both too short and too long. It satisfies neither criterion. It does not help in either way. It is clear that change is needed.

    The Opposition do not want to tell the courts their business. That is not our proper role. However, I think that in this area three changes are required and that the Home Secretary should apply his mind to them and, I suggest, move away from the view which he expressed in September that the powers of the courts are adequate to deal with these matters I do not think that they are.

    First, I should like to see the pattern established by which young offenders are sent to detention earlier in their criminal careers. There is nothing more depressing than talking to some of these young people who have committed their fifth, sixth or seventh offence and are veterans of every kind of caution, care order and supervision order. It is much too late then, and the detention centre is doing them no good. They should go earlier. There should be powers vested in magistrates to give shorter and more flexible sentences generally—possibly down to 14 days—and they should be of a more rigorous and sharper kind. Two new centres should be provided for these shorter sentences to be served. The Opposition think that that is a development worth trying, and we regret the attitude so far—it may change; we have managed to get the Home Secretary to change his mind—that this is not a serious proposal or a serious intention. It is.

    We believe that it could be tried, that it would get the support of some of the staff, and that above all it is greatly preferable to waiting until young thugs become totally iured and hardened veterans of endless care orders and are sent to overcrowded detention centres, often arriving at the gates ​ without adequate documentation, when it is really too late.

    Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

    Does my hon. Friend agree that the same concept of the short, sharp early prison shock should be applied to adult offenders as well as to juvenile offenders?

    Mr. Howell

    I should like to see the first development in the case of juvenile offenders, but it may be that the same philosophy, which after all was the original philosophy of the detention centres when they were first set up under the 1948 Act, should be applied at the senior level as well. That is the way that the Opposition would like the system now to develop.

    As for the 17 to 21-year-old offenders —my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) has just mentioned older offenders—we should like to see senior attendance centres also expanded. We cannot understand the objection of the Home Secretary to this development. He told us last April that 18-year-olds would be admitted to some junior detention centres. He mentioned that again today. But what are the arguments against the expansion of senior attendance centres? We see that as a valuable development, and we should like an explanation of what the Home Office thinks about it.

    We should like to see the repeal of section 3 of the 1961 Criminal Justice Act which restricts sentences for those young offenders who have not already served a sentence to either less than six months or more than three years. I know that there were reasons why it was felt that that restriction was desirable, but we believe that it should be changed. That is another change that we should like to see in the courts’ powers. Our broad aim is to have a fitting range of penalties, which we lack at present, with prison as the final penalty in the range.

    Mr. Rees-Davies

    Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is plenty of room in the senior attendance centres and other places for weekend attenders, particularly as many of the older offenders are in work? Does he not think it would be best if they attended only for the weekends, when they could be directed to do appropriate work?

    Mr. Howell

    I recognise that there are arguments in favour of such a suggestion.

    ​Mr. Eldon Griffiths

    My hon. Friend has made some constructive suggestions. Can he say clearly that it would be his intention to see that any juvenile offender who, while in the care of a local authority, committed a second violent offence must be removed from the care of that local authority and at least be eligible to suffer a more severe penalty?

    Mr. Howell

    My hon. Friend would not expect me to commit myself precisely on that matter. I am sure that his suggestion is worth examining.

    I turn to the question of prisons, which is a topical matter. I have already reminded the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border has welcomed the inquiry. It has been set up with such speed that we do not yet know its terms of reference, its chairman or the form that it will take. On Thursday the Home Secretary appeared to indicate that hon. Members would have an opportunity to submit evidence to it. It will be a wide inquiry. I do not know how that will be reconciled with the urgency of it. I should like to know the form of the inquiry as soon as possible. There has been criticism of the Home Secretary and of Ministers for the delay in setting up an inquiry. It is right that we should at least take note of the comments of the distinguished home affairs correspondent of The Times.

    On Friday he wrote:

    “the worsening crisis has not been treated with the urgency it deserves…warnings have not been heeded or they have been dismissed as sensationalism, and action has been delayed until violence has made it impossible for the authorities to ignore it any longer.”

    That quotation is from a reasonably independent source. That is not partisan criticism but is a correspondent making a point which is shared widely outside the House. It is right that I should quote it.

    The Home Secretary cannot say that he was not warned about these matters. We have had the all-party Expenditure Committee’s report on prisons. There was a debate in the House in March 1977. The all-party Committee was chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), and the Committee warned about the need for an inquiry into prison conditions. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Royal Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Mayhew) ​ led the debate in the House. There has been plenty of warning that something needed to be done.

    The inquiry comes at a time when pay disputes and the question of meal times are aggravating the issue. The inquiry will be made no easier as a result. Two separate and equally difficult issues will be mixed—the problems of pay and of the whole organisation of the prison service.

    First, I wish to deal with the question of organisation. The prison officers want a service of their own. They feel that their organisation is lost in the upper reaches of Home Office bureaucracy. In saying that, I make no criticism of existing officials or the director-general of the prison service, whom I know and respect. But the officers are worried because the service is not distinct and its upper echelons are too closely bound in with the departmental processes.

    In some cases there seems to be ill feeling between the prison officer and governor grades. Rigid norms have played havoc with differentials. The Prison Officers’ Association has behaved responsibly. I firmly endorse what the Home Secretary said about that. But it is not in control of all its branches. I am not sure that I go all the way with the Home Secretary’s belief that he and his colleagues have done everything possible to encourage a more coherent approach, at least over the last few years.

    The probable need—the inquiry will have to decide this—is for an autonomous service under a commissioner who is responsible to the Home Secretary. That is my bet on what will come out of the inquiry.

    I turn to the question of overcrowding. I find it difficult to see how the inquiry will be able to deal comprehensively with overcrowding because it extends far beyond the prisons into the whole penal system. We must be careful about bending sentencing arrangements and penal policy to suit the accommodation available. That is the wrong way round.

    The protection of the public must come first. There is a hard core, ruthless element in our prisons from whom society must be protected for a long time. I hope that I am not being too pessimistic ​ when I say that I expect its numbers to rise.

    There is a case for shorter sentences for the lower categories of prisoners. Some of my hon. Friends have produced a useful report entitled “The proper use of prisons.” We believe that it is the first impact that counts. That is a change that should be introduced for its own sake and not a desperate expedient to try to ease the pressure on our prisons. That is the wrong way.

    There are several hundred psychiatric cases who should be in secure hospitals. However, the Home Secretary would say rightly that they must first be built. More places are required in secure mental hospitals.

    There are also a few hundred alcoholics and inadequates. Some might be better treated outside, but we must remember that alcoholics are usually in prison for having committed violent crimes. That must be borne in mind.

    It will take a long time for any of these changes to have any significant impact. There is no avoiding the need to build new prisons. They must be prisons from which it is hard to escape. That is the most expensive type. There is no avoiding the need for a programme which goes beyond the programme of new places built since 1970 or that are in the pipeline. We must face the situation. There is no easy way round by juggling with penal policy.

    I have been speaking about crime itself and the response to it. I make no apology for that. The balance has gone too far towards seeking excuses for crime in deeper and more vague causes. Often one tends to address oneself to anything but crime when dealing with the problems of law and order.

    Wider influences are a vital part of the problem. Many of our troubles begin in the home. There is a need to give parents more support when they are trying to bring up their children in a disciplined manner. Many of the troubles begin in the schools. There should be an all-out campaign for better standards. Many of our troubles come from poor public example by leading figures in authority who might and should know better. I know that this is controversial, but some of our troubles also come from the nightly ​ television message that violence is a good way to settle an argument.

    The need in all these areas is to pursue policies which make it profitable for people and families to think and act responsible rather than policies which constantly take responsibility away and imply that everything will be handled elsewhere at some loftier or official level. This approach that I urge is needed not only in respect of discipline of upbringing and law observance. It extends to policies far outside the traditional Home Office area of preoccupation. It extends to matters such as taxation, education, housing, the social security system and even attitudes to pay bargaining.

    Some will say, and no doubt it will be said in the debate today, that it is impossible in an era of State domination and bureaucratised welfare to move in this new direction. I do not agree. In the past two years there has been a resurgence of public demand in all parts of the country not merely for government to come to grips with lawlessness but for policies which reinforce personal and family responsibility and the standards of conduct upon which a settled society rests. That demand is coming from supporters of all parties. We are receiving the pressure and we recognise it, and in that sense I think that there is a turning point in the public mood.

    In our view, the politicians’ response should be to stop blaming the situation on the media, the Opposition or anyone else and to start giving a vigorous lead from the top on all questions of law and order. Frankly, we do not see that approach from these Ministers. In my view, therefore, the task will fall to the next Conservative Government.

  • Merlyn Rees – 1978 Statement on the Home Office

    Merlyn Rees – 1978 Statement on the Home Office

    Below is the text of the statement made by Merlyn Rees, the then Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 6 November 1978.

    I understand that the subject for today’s debate is Home Office affairs. The Home Office covers an enormous variety of topics. There is not only the police, the prisons and the criminal law; there is also immigration and race relations, the fire service and broadcasting. There is even more: electoral law, liquor licensing, relations with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and betting and gambling. But I understand that the Opposition intend to place the main weight of their speeches on law and order, and I, too, will be concentrating on this aspect in my speech today—though my hon. Friend the Minister of State—as is always the case in the Home Office—will be ready to deal with anything at the end of the debate.

    Before I come to law and order, however, I want to say something about another major Home Office concern—immigration and race relations. Earlier this year there was a great deal of public discussion on immigration, much of which was sadly misinformed. There was talk of our being swamped—at a time when immigration from the Commonwealth and Pakistan is largely confined to the wives and children of people who are already here. I made the Government’s position clear in my statement to the House on 6th April and again in the White Paper published in July, commenting on the report of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration.

    The Government have three principal aims in immigration. First, we affirm our determination to honour our commitments to the close dependants of those who are settled here. It is only right that wives and children should be enabled to join their husbands settled in this country as quickly as possible.

    The second objective of our immigration policy—bearing in mind the commitment to which I have referred—is to continue with strict limits on future immigration. We are a small and densely populated island. There have to be restrictions on the number of people we can accept. Undoubtedly that has a bearing on the harmony which exists among the people of this country.

    The third objective of the Government is to prevent evasion and abuse of the immigration control. We are determined to take firm action against illegal immigration. The number of prosecutions and convictions for overstaying, the number of illegal entrants removed and the number of people ordered to be deported have, because of the change in 1973, all more than doubled since the last full year of the Conservative Government. We are concerned about this problem. But the recent controversy about immigration numbers has diverted attention from the real problem—that of racial discrimination and racial disadvantage within our society. The Government are committed to equal opportunity for all our people and we will settle for nothing less.

    The Gracious Speech reflects this commitment in the proposals that it makes for the replacement of section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966. This section made provision for paying a grant to local authorities to meet the special needs of Commonwealth immigrants. It is proving increasingly defective and there is an urgent need to replace it. A consultative document setting out the Government’s proposals is being issued to a wide range of organisations and individuals today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

    The provisions of section 11 would be replaced by a broad enabling provision giving authority for grants to be paid to local authorities in respect of programmes designed (a) to meet the special needs of ​ ethnic minorities, or (b) to promote racial harmony. Local authorities will be encouraged to review systematically and comprehensively the impact of the whole range of services they provide on ethnic minority communities. Comments on the consultative document have been asked for by the end of January 1979. Subject to the outcome of these consultations the Government propose to introduce legislation as soon as possible in the new year.

    The Government recognise that the wider scope of the proposed new grant should be matched by a significant increase in the resources made available for expenditure on ethnic minorities. Details of this increase will be published in the White Paper on public expenditure. This new form of grant-aid will be separate from, and in addition to, the urban programme. There will be close and detailed discussions with local authority associations—not just on the principles of the proposals but on the sort of machinery necessary to advise the Government in the best ways of making use of the grant. The proposals for the new grant envisage that in the course of devising their programmes, and before submitting claims for grant, local authorities would consult the ethnic minority communities in their areas.

    I turn now to the main theme of my speech—law and order—for the preservation of law and order must be the major preoccupation of any Home Secretary and Government. During the summer, many claims were made about the relative rate of increase in crime during various periods. Of course, statistics can be used—out of context—to show that crime has risen faster under this Government—or any other—than under their predecessor—25 per cent. overall in 1974–77, as compared with 6 per cent. in 1970–73.

    But different statistics can be used to prove precisely the opposite. Violence against the person increased by 49 per cent. in 1970–73 compared with 29 per cent. in 1975–77, and criminal damage increased twice as fast in the earlier period under a Conservative Government as in the later one. I fear that, as usual, it depends on what one is trying to prove and on what statistics one wants to use. Innumerate people in public relations and advertising will be able to prove whatever they wish, and what they say will have no bearing whatever on the problem of law and order.

    The truth is that crime has risen relentlessly, under both Labour and Conservative Governments, for over 20 years. During that time there have been only two years, 1967 and 1973—one Labour and one Conservative—when the number of indictable offences recorded has gone down. In recent years the rate of increase, although subject to wide fluctuations, has seemed to be slowing down.

    The 15 per cent. increase of last year must be seen in the context of a 1 per cent. increase in 1976 and 7 per cent. in 1975; while the first two quarters of this year showed increases of 3 per cent. and 1 per cent. respectively compared with the same quarters last year. But one quarter’s figures—even one year’s figures—by themselves do not tell the whole story.

    The Government are determined to deal firmly with this rise in crime. One determination, but only one, is reflected in the tougher penalties that were provided in the Criminal Law Act 1977 and the greater powers which that Act gave to the courts to deal with younger offenders.

    Since 17th July of this year, magistrates have been able to impose a maximum fine of £1,000 on offenders convicted of theft, burglary, violent offences, criminal damage and many others. The amount of compensation which an offender may be ordered to pay—on summary conviction—has been increased from £400 to £1,000. The Criminal Law Act enables the Home Secretary to increase by order the maximum fine on summary conviction of most serious offences, should this be thought necessary following a change in the value of money.

    The Criminal Law Act strengthens the supervision orders for juveniles. It enables the courts to prescribe additional requirements and contains powers to deal with breaches of any requirement by fines or an attendance centre order. Under the Act, juvenile fines are increased to £50 for the under-14-year-olds and to £200 for the 14 to 16-year-olds.
    Magistrates’ courts have new powers to enforce fines on juveniles. Within that legislation I am glad that we were able to do something for the victims of crime ​ This is an aspect which is of increasing concern to us.

    The Government’s determination to deal effectively with crime is also reflected in the high priority that we have given to spending on law and order, even in times of financial stringency. This year the Government will spend over £2,000 million on law, order and protective services, of which over half is on police.

    In the 1977 public expenditure survey about £50 million a year in real terms was added to previously planned expenditure from 1978–79 onwards. This included a special law and order package of about £9 million announced in November 1977. Additionally, about £5 million was provided for law and order capital expenditure from the construction industry package.

    More recently has come the Budget package of April of this year, which provided about £10 million, of which £5 million was for the police, £2 million for the prisons, £2 million for the courts and £600,000 for the probation services. In real terms we are now spending over £300 million a year more on law, order and protective services than in 1974.

    Mrs. Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

    Will this expenditure encompass the question of getting the police into the schools for lecture courses as was envisaged in the Scottish recommendations? That seems to be an excellent idea.

    Mr. Rees

    It does seem a good idea, but it is a matter for the chief constable, or the commissioner in London. I know from my visits to police forces in different parts of the country that this sort of thing is done. It is valuable particularly in that it introduces the community constable for an area to the schools, particularly the primary schools.

    I turn to the question of police manpower and premature retirement, which is particularly important. An adequately manned and equipped police service is of central importance in sustaining the fight against crime.

    We made clear in the Gracious Speech that the Government are firmly committed to support strengthening the police. That is why we accepted without hesitation the recommendations of the Edmund-Davies committee on pay.

    We were right to have a deep investigation into Edmund-Davies, giving the very big increases this year. To have given 10 per cent. plus something last year, which would have made people feel that a victory had been achieved, would not have given the deep-seated investigation which was so necessary since the report of 1960.

    What will be the effect of Edmund-Davies? It would be wrong at this moment to be more than cautiously optimistic. There has already been a noticeable effect on wastage rates. The overall rate in the September quarter was 25 per cent. below average. Premature wastage dropped by 17 per cent. and retirements on pension by 37 per cent. As a result, the total strength showed a net gain of 241 in the September quarter, compared with losses of 371 in the June quarter and 31 in the January quarter.

    Metropolitan Police recruitment showed a rise of 27 per cent. above the average for the first six months of the year, and wastage fell by 30 per cent. As a result, the force showed a net gain in strength for the September quarter of 44, compared with losses of 228 in the June quarter and 153 in the March quarter. The strength now stands at 21,675. When I asked in the Metropolitan Police about these figures the other day, it was pointed out to me that it was impossible to show a figure that was meaningful until the end of the year because one must take account of the time it takes people to apply and go for tests.

    The Edmund-Davies committee is now taking evidence on the third part of its inquiry—the rights, duties and conditions of the police representative bodies—and it hopes to submit its report next spring. The Government and the House await the report with interest.

    This Government believe that the most effective way of dealing with crime must lie in improved methods of prevention. It is not enough, as someone has put it, to suppress the bad, although that is important; we must also activate and liberate the good in society. Everyone agrees that there is considerable scope for minimising criminal behaviour through practical steps.

    Vandalism is a good example. I held a conference only last week with a number of interested bodies to investigate the ​ action being taken to tackle vandalism and to exchange information. All kinds of interests were represented—the police, local authorities, people involved in education, planners, architects, and voluntary bodies.

    What clearly emerged from our discussions was that vandalism has to be tackled in the localities where it occurs. The advantage of a conference of this kind is to swap information, and I want to take further steps of circulating information from the local authorities on what is being done in other areas.

    Many groups have a part to play in this. The police, of course, have a primary responsibility for preventing crime. But they need information. Wherever there is vandalism—in a housing estate, in a park, or in a shopping precinct—the police must be told so that their expertise can be used in planning counter-measures. But local action to counter vandalism must be joint action. The police cannot do this job alone. Local authorities have a very important role to play, as do others in the schools and in voluntary bodies. Joint local action has to identify where the vandalism is happening, what is being done, what counter-measures can be taken, how a plan of action must be implemented, and how the results can be monitored.

    Following the conference, I hope that this can be done in three ways—through the police, local authorities, and voluntary bodies. There are some very interesting experiments taking place with the aid of social workers, for example, in Widnes and Wythenshawe, in Manchester. The result of those experiments are very valuable. Because of my responsibility for broadcasting, I am very interested in the possibility of a good local station bringing together people to discuss this matter with very good practical results.

    In my constituency last Saturday I went around a small and fairly new housing estate. It was clear to me that the police were not informed enough about what was going on. One suggestion that I put, which should be looked at, was that a local authority should have a centre in the council offices where people can telephone about the problem of vandalism in their area. There is a lack of ​ knowledge about this and there is sometimes exaggeration about what is going on. In a couple of hours on Saturday evening, when I went around with a police inspector to people’s houses, I found that I, as a constituency Member, had made the beginning of an effort to stimulate interest in these matters. There is no simple solution to the problem; it is a question of responding to local problems with local measures.

    There are those who have suggested particular panaceas, and I should like to look at them. One suggestion is for anti-vandalism patrols. I have checked with the police and they have told me that they already carry out such patrols. But they have also told me that they must decide to do it. Anti-vandalism patrols are a matter for the chief constable. The question of how they use their resources is a matter for them. They must decide these questions in the light of the needs in their own areas.

    In other areas the primary need will not be for such patrols, but for different housing policies or for special efforts in a school. Again on Saturday evening, the children who came up to me made it clear that a lot had been done on the estate but there was no provision for open space.

    Where prevention fails, those responsible for breaking the law must be caught and dealt with appropriately. In some cases there is the problem of penalties, and I should like to take up this point in more detail. Some people say that harsher punishments are needed. It is, of course, entirely right that offenders, whether they be young or old, should receive appropriate punishment for the offences they have committed.

    But I do not think we can afford to underestimate the rigour of the punishment inflicted by a simple act of imprisonment. The very fact of being uprooted from one’s normal life and placed instead in a Prison Department establishment—whether it be a detention centre or a borstal, or a prison—is a shock, and, indeed, a sharp shock. We cannot afford to underestimate that fact. To add to the shock of incarceration a regime that is designed to be oppressive and punitive would, in my view, go beyond the limits of what society would accept as reasonable. I say this, having visited prison ​ establishments recently, because they are not holiday camps or places where life is easy. When people talk about a system that is more oppressive, they do not take into account the existing system.

    We must provide firm discipline in our establishments and I believe that we do, but it would be a mistake to assume that an excessively rigorous discipline for short sentences would be able to overcome the effects of any previous indiscipline in the offender’s life. When I discussed this with the prison staffs they did not agree that it was necessary.

    They said “Look what is happening here already.”

    It is far more profitable, sensible and humane to provide a firm framework of discipline in our young offender establishments and to concentrate on our positive efforts, rather than on adding to the rigorous aspects of the discipline. They are there. We need to add to the offender’s capacity to conduct himself properly in society after his release and I think that not sufficient people know about the positive work done in these establishments through education and industrial training.

    Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Thanet, West)

    Does the Home Secretary recognise that there has been an increase of more than one-third in criminal damage in the past year and will he pay attention to the paragraph in the report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary that says that many agencies other than the police have a responsibility and a part to play in a concerted effort on a broad front?

    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if one could bring in the special constabulary and local volunteers to assist, they might be able to help with the detention of people over the weekend, particularly on Saturday afternoons? This would have a very much better effect than having to incarcerate them in prison. If their efforts were directed towards work over the weekend, it would not interfere—

    Mr. Speaker

    Order. This is almost a speech rather than an intervention.

    Mr. Rees

    It is not the view of the police that the hon. and learned Gentleman’s suggestion is the way to do it. I was going to deal with attendance centres.

    There are 70 junior attendance centres and plans are in hand for another 10 or so during the next 12 months. The increase of the past 12 months is a very great achievement. We recognise the arguments for extending the range of these junior attendance centres, though that was not the general advice that I received from those involved when I first looked at the matter.

    Eight of these centres have been extended for an experimental period to take offenders aged 17 and 18 and we shall be studying the experiment carefully to see what lessons it provides. It is important that it should be an experiment. It is far too easy for all of us to say that something should be done. Sometimes we set up something and let it go on for a long period when it is not doing what we originally thought it ought to do.

    Mr. Roger Sims (Chislehurst)

    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the two original senior attendance centres in Greenwich and Manchester were set up on an experimental basis and ran for years without the Home Office even observing what was going on? Are we to have a repeat of the same thing?

    Mr. Rees

    I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I hope that he will not suggest that what came out of those experiments was clear. The reason why I have authorised the new experiment is that there has been a feeling on both sides of the House that it should be done. I have not set it up in the knowledge that it will be a success. Let us see. People have said that it should be done, so let us see what happens.

    Some people argue that the courts do not have sufficient power to impose effective fines on children whose offences do not merit their being sent to attendance or detention centres. We have already acted on this aspect. The Criminal Law Act 1977 increased maximum fines for children and young persons and provided for parents to be made liable, in certain circumstances, for their children’s fines. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) asked that this should be done. It is being done under the 1977 Act.

    The courts have new powers to enforce fines, to make attendance centre orders, to require the offender’s parents or guardians to enter into recognisances to ensure ​ payment and, subject to certain safeguards, power to order that any sum remaining unpaid should be transferred to the parents or guardians.

    The Government are concerned about the problem of vandalism, but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his message to the vandalism conference last week, unless we can create a caring, sharing society which will make outcasts of vandalism and violence, we shall all, as individuals, be failing our children and jeopardising the future of this country.

    Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that part of the problem, though only a part, is caused by the packs of youngsters who collectively commit violence and attack people, including the police? Has he set in motion any experimental work to examine the role of the gangs, which are often a problem?

    Mr. Rees

    I have spoken to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector about this matter and I know that the police are giving attention to it. There is no doubt that group action is important, but, as I know from correspondence and from what I learned last week, individual action also matters.

    I yield to no one in my concern about the problem of unemployment. I was brought up among unemployment, and those experiences will never leave me. In discussions about law and order, I have found a number of people who have said that they wished that others did not claim that vandalism and violence were caused by unemployment. People who are unemployed are not necessarily those who are involved in these matters. Often it is people with plenty of money who are involved, as is seen in some instances of football hooliganism. I have no doubt that there is a link, but it is not as clear as is sometimes suggested.

    Turning to the prison service, I do not accept that the service is being starved of resources. This year, we are spending £23 million on new construction and £8 million on repairs and maintenance of existing premises. Present plans are expected to produce about 4,500 additional inmate places—to use the jargon —over the next four years, and some improvements to essential services.

    The new big prison will not be started until 1981–82. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border and I shared experience of problems in Northern Ireland, though perhaps I had more practical experience of this matter. When I went to the Northern Ireland Office and we were concerned about getting people into prison through the courts and doing away with detention in open prisons, I asked for the plans of new prisons. There were no plans. After obtaining planning permission west of Belfast, we set about building a new prison, based on the new prison that is to be started here in 1981–82, but that prison in Northern Ireland, also, will not be started until 1981–82. Anyone with ideas of building a proper new prison of that nature should know that it takes eight or nine years. In Northern Ireland, we were able to get new buildings put up in the Maze for the short term, but nothing could have been done in the past four years to bring new prisons on to the stocks now. They take time.

    Mr. Mark Carlisle (Runcorn)

    I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but can he explain why his Government cut £80 million from the prison building programme in 1974–75? This money would have been coming on stream in 1977–78 and 1978–79.

    Mr. Rees

    I am pleased to debate public expenditure and £300 million extra, in real terms, is being spent. We did rather well overall in the Home Office. It is no good Conservative Members calling for cuts in public expenditure and then weeping about them whenever something in particular is affected.

    Mr. Carlisle

    Now answer the question.

    Mr. Rees

    It was cut because every budget had to take a knock. We in the Home Office did better than did other Departments. By the end of 1981–82, total capacity in the prisons is expected to reach 41,700 and the daily average population for that year to be 43,800. On the existing plans, our view is that the level of overcrowding may then be reduced by up to one-third.

    In regard to industrial action in the prison service, members of the Prison Officers’ Association came to see me today, and to say that they were upset is ​ to put it mildly. The action in the prison service is unofficial; it is not being carried out by the POA. Some parts of the press have been talking as if it were the association. Certain people have been flaunted on television and in the press as being important. It has been put to me that this sort of thing does great harm to those working responsibly in these matters.

    I will give the House the position as it was at 11 o’clock this morning. A total of 26 out of 113 prison service establishments are taking industrial action of some kind in pursuit of their claim for continuous duty credits—that is, meal breaks. We must be clear about the situation. A further four establishments are considering their positions. This figure does not include Parkhurst, where staff have been taking industrial action for some time in support of their claim for special allowance. Of the establishments taking action, 14 are located in the South-East region, seven in the South-West region, five in the Midland region, and none in the Northern region.

    There are 13 establishments in which the action being taken in some ways restricts the regime—for example, education classes, industrial training, and so on—and one establishment where prisoners are not being accepted from magistrates’ courts. That establishment is in London. The situation is different in the case of the Crown courts.

    The position is still very fluid, and full information about what is happening and, in particular, about how police holding facilities are likely to be affected will not be available until late this evening. If I learn anything further before close of play today, as it were, my hon. Friend the Minister of State can bring it to the House.

    Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk (Ormskirk)

    On Thursday my right hon. Friend made a statement on the prison officers’ dispute. He said that the action of certain prison officers is clearly illegal in preventing prisoners appearing at court or probation officers, social workers, relatives and lawyers having access to their clients or relatives. He said that this situation “cannot be allowed”. What action is he taking?

    Mr. Rees

    On that matter, can we wait to see what happens today? What is ​ quite clear is that if the disciplinary code were broken action would have to be taken. I have only been able to convey to the House the position as it was at 11 o’clock this morning. It may be different before the evening is out, and I would rather wait to see what the true picture is.

    I turn now to the claim for continuous duty credits—the meal breaks claim. Reference was made to this last Thursday, when I made my statement. It has been suggested in the press that the Prison Department has made an offer to certain branches of the POA which have been taking action. This is completely untrue. I make it clear that on such matters the Prison Department deals only with the national executive committee of the POA and with nobody else. We are in daily contact with the NEC, and I met the chairman and general secretary only this morning.

    They have assured me that the action now being taken by these branches is contrary to the policy of the NEC. The NEC has throughout been acting entirely responsibly in this matter and, as I made clear in my statement last Thursday, it is mainly in consequence of the points put to me by the NEC in recent weeks that the Government decided that an inquiry should be held. It is vital to the prison service that these proper channels of communication with the NEC of the POA should be preserved.

    There has been comment in the press on the question whether the inquiry would cover continuous duty credits. The terms of reference are being discussed with the staff associations, but the POA has already made it clear to me that it will expect this matter to be included in the inquiry’s review of pay and conditions of service, and that retrospection must also be considered in the light of the inquiry on the principle of the matter. I can say now, in advance of the drawing up of the precise terms of reference, that I see no objection to these proposals, and I have so informed the POA.

    It is essential that the inquiry should proceed as fast as possible. I am hoping for a report as early as possible and I shall impress this upon the chairman of the inquiry.

    Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)

    I welcome the last remarks of the Secretary ​ of State. Does he appreciate that there is evidence that prison officers in many parts of the country seem to have lost confidence in their association? That is why staff in a number of prisons are carrying out this action. Is he prepared to say, here and now, that the Government will accept the inquiry’s findings on these claims?

    Mr. Rees

    It would be one thing for me to say that I would accept the findings but it would also be necessary for other bodies to say that they would accept the findings. We had better wait until we have the terms of reference.

    Mr. Kilroy-Silk

    How long it is going to take?

    Mr. Rees

    I have said that it will be done as fast as possible.

    Mr. Kilroy-Silk

    Weeks? Months?

    Mr. Rees

    It is a matter of months. I hope that it will not go long into next year.

    The national executive committee of the association is an elected body. That is the case with trade unionism as a whole. [Interruption.] That is not true, but if there are people who feel it to be so they have the remedy in their own hands. The committee is the elected body. The NEC has been responsible and I understand that some of those who appear on television are speaking without the full authority of those in the prisons from which they come.

    In this situation, therefore, it is important that I, and, I believe, the House, should speak up for the POA, with which I have been in contact for some time now about industrial relations and the running of the prisons. It is not part of the wider problem of the prisons. It has made clear to me the particular things that it wants looked at; so have the governors and others.

    Mr. David Price (Eastleigh)

    The right hon. Gentleman has had experience of difficulties with firemen, police and now prison officers. Is there not a case for having a permanent independent review body available to look at special cases in the public sector, irrespective of whether the Government have a formal incomes policy?

    ​Mr. Rees

    It is quite surprising how many special cases there are. The hon. Gentleman had better consult his Front Bench, who want a free-for-all on the matter.

    Mr. William Whitelaw (Penrith and The Border)

    No, we do not.

    Mr. Rees

    The right hon. Gentleman says that they do not, but certain Front Bench speakers go round saying the opposite.

    I turn now to the Official Secrets Act. The Gracious Speech states the Government’s policy. We intend to push ahead with proposals also in the related area of open government. I know that it is very important to replace section 2 of the Official Secrets Act by an up-to-date provision.

    Broadcasting loomed large in the last Session. We have explained our proposals in the White Paper, and there is the passage in the Gracious Speech. A number of the proposals require detailed discussion with the organisations concerned. Those discussions have already begun and legislation is promised in the Gracious Speech, possibly in the next year. But some of our proposals need not await legislation. The House will have noted the proposals for the expansion of local radio. The stations have been announced, and I hope that, before we come to the General Election towards the end of next year, I shall be able to make an announcement also for further local radio stations.

    The Government recognise the depths of the concern felt at all levels of our society about crime. The Government share that concern. But resources alone will not win the day. There is only one way in this, as there is in aspects of incomes policy or pay policy, or whatever it is called—we will only win through if the people of the country as a whole help. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border and I both learnt this lesson in Northern Ireland. Civilised life depends on the support of the community for the forces of law and order.

    The Government give their support to the forces of law and order, and I am sure that the House as a whole does. But over-simplification on the hoardings only means that those involved with preserving law and order laugh and say “Is this ​ what politicians provide?” Such oversimplifications are nonsense. This House supports the forces of law and order in dealing with a very complicated matter.