|
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 16. New Clause 16
Provision of explanations to victims—
'(1) In any case since the revision of the Victims Charter in 1996 where a prosecuting authority decides—
(a) not to charge a person with a criminal offence,
(b) not to proceed with a criminal charge, or
(c) to charge a person with a lesser offence,
it shall provide the victim with an explanation.
(2) The provisions of subsection (1) have effect notwithstanding any other enactment, any claim to legal professional privilege or the provisions of any code issued under section 21.
(3) An authority which fails to comply with subsection (1) shall be liable to civil proceedings.'.
Mrs. Gillan: I may be moving the new clause inadequately, because I am pleased to do so on behalf of the—
Column Number: 226
The Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Lady that she cannot move new clause 16 at this stage. The new clause would come further on in the Bill; when we reach that point, it can be moved. We are currently considering whether clause 21 should stand part of the Bill, with which we are also debating new clause 16.
Mrs. Gillan: I stand corrected. I chose the wrong words, Dame Marion.
In speaking to new clause 16, I refer to a conversation that I had with the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) yesterday. He asked me whether I could speak to the new clause on his behalf. He has been assiduous in backing the provision of explanations to victims—the title of the proposed new clause—not only by tabling early-day motion 1259, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar, but by having the ingenuity to raise the matter in business questions on 10 June. The hon. Gentleman feels particularly strongly about the issue. I know that he has been provided with a written explanation, but I hope that the Solicitor-General will put on the record in the Committee the reasons why the Government resist a provision, which, at first sight, appears eminently sensible. I would also like to know whether the proposed new clause could be applied to lay witnesses. I will listen to what the Minister has to say before I comment further on that.
I shall raise a couple of points on clause stand part debate. Having looked at the indicative draft of the code of practice for victims, I should like to know how the Minister envisages the geographical coverage of that code of practice. For example, if a Glasgow woman were mugged in Carlisle, would she be covered by the code of practice? A Carlisle woman mugged in Glasgow would not be covered by the code. What provisions are there for cross-border co-operation? We have heard about the code of practice for victims in Northern Ireland, but what is there in Scotland, and how will cross-border provisions be dealt with?
I also notice that the indicative draft of breaches of the code includes the opportunity to raise issues with an MP and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. I do not want to get into a discussion on the indicative draft—you would not allow me to, Dame Marion—but because MPs are envisaged as part of the equation, I should like to know what impact assessment has been carried out on the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Notwithstanding that, I am currently filling in a questionnaire, as I believe all MPs are, in connection with the work of various commissioners. I hope that the Minister can address those points.
The Solicitor-General: Clause 21 would require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice that would be binding on the criminal justice and other organisations that deal with victims of crime and are named in the code. The code will list the services that victims should receive from those organisations. It will build considerably on the current victims charter, creating clear rights for all victims, in terms of information, advice, personal support and protection.
Column Number: 227
I will have to get back to the hon. Lady on cross-border issues, but I hope that there will be a sensible outcome on those matters.
Under the current indicative draft, the offence has to be committed in England or Wales, and the person providing the service under the code also has to be in England or Wales. However, we hope that the code will be followed as a matter of good practice in cross-border cases; that would make sense. There has been extensive debate with the parliamentary ombudsman about the regulatory impact issues.
In many parts of the country, excellent standards of service are already being delivered to victims by criminal justice agencies and organisations. We want the code to set the minimum consistent standard of service that victims can expect to receive, wherever they live. Clause 21(2) and (4) allows victims of certain crimes or victims with specific characteristics to be treated differently under the code. That reflects the fact that certain victims, such as victims of rape or domestic violence, may require an enhanced service.
Subsection (3) ensures that services can be provided to people other than victims, such as relatives of victims of homicide or parents of child victims. Subsection (6) ensures that it is not necessary for an offender to be charged or convicted before the victim is entitled to receive services under the code. The test for whether the code should apply in a particular case will therefore depend on a judgment, usually of a police officer, regarding the conduct reported or complained about. The clause is drafted to ensure maximum flexibility for the types of services, organisations and local structures covered by the code of practice.
Lady Hermon: Will the Solicitor-General bear in mind a phrase used by Baroness Scotland in the other place during the consideration of the Bill? It struck me very deeply. She said:
''I need to be clear that the intention of this legislation is to introduce rights for all victims of crime. We are not looking to create a hierarchy of victims, attaching greater importance to some types of victims than others.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 March 2004; Vol. 658, c. 1452.]
I could not agree more. That is a wonderful sentiment. The Northern Ireland code of practice on victims of crime is now six years old. What in heaven's name is the justification for not extending clause 21 to the people of Northern Ireland today? Why do we have a two-tier system, and why is there a hierarchy of victims? There are those in Northern Ireland to whom the new code of practice will not apply, and those in England and Wales to whom it will.
The Solicitor-General: The noble Baroness was quite right to say that we do not want a hierarchy of victims. Of course, we have to recognise that some victims have greater needs than others, and some offences create greater vulnerability because of the difficulty that the victims face in coming to court. We must have a wide range of services and recognise that different sorts of victims have different needs.
Column Number: 228
We want to reflect and promote best practice in victim care in the criminal justice system and to encourage positive developments for the future. The victims group and the vulnerable or intimidated witnesses working group in Northern Ireland have created a sub-group to focus specifically on the provision of information to victims. Part of its remit is to review the existing code of practice. I am sure that the hon. Member for North Down will need to discuss that further with our colleagues at the Northern Ireland Office.
Lady Hermon: I bring to the attention of the Solicitor-General and all Committee members a recent leaflet, published in 2002 by the Northern Ireland Office, called ''Information for Victims of Crime''. It gives a series of telephone numbers on the back page. For example, under the heading ''Personal Distress'' it states:
''If you are distressed or going through a personal crisis and need a sympathetic ear, telephone The Samaritans.''
That is deplorable. What the Solicitor-General has said is inconsistent with the information that was given to victims of crime in Northern Ireland. It is unacceptable that clause 21 does not extend to the good people of Northern Ireland—of whatever political background. It is awful.
5 pm
The Solicitor-General: The hon. Lady made her points clearly and with some force; no doubt they will need to be examined.
The debate on new clause 16 has shown an example of the cross-party nature of the issues. The clause seeks to ensure that victims are given explanations in cases where no charges are brought against a suspect, where charges are not proceeded with or where the original charge is substituted with a lesser one. Where no such explanation is given, the organisation concerned will be liable for civil proceedings.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire for tabling the proposal, and I agree with the sentiment behind what he is seeking to achieve. I apologise to Committee members if they are fed up with my saying that we agree with the sentiment. We must get the sentiment right but we must also get the legislation right. Part of the discussion in Committee is about airing more widely the issues; the lessons will be learned. We must get the legislation in the correct form. I agree with the sentiment, because victims can be left perplexed and angry when they have been led to believe that the charges were to be brought against a particular suspect only to be told, sometimes, as has happened in the past, without further explanation, that charges have been dropped or that they will not be proceeded with. It might be even worse if they are told that a defendant is to be charged with a serious offence and they later learn that the charge has been reduced to what seems like a relatively minor one. It is important that, wherever possible, victims are given an explanation for such decisions.
We think that the new code will achieve that. In the draft code, a copy of which is available in the House Library, the Crown Prosecution Service has just such
Column Number: 229
an obligation and the police have a similar one in so far as they still have a decision-making role in relation to charging. It is extraordinary to think that it used quite often to be the case that a victim would learn that a charge had been dropped when they read about it in a newspaper. That is the background to all this. People can remember that until quite recently, charges would be dropped or downgraded, and the victim would never be told. To some extent, progress of substance has been made. The CPS has a programme on direct communication with victims and witnesses, and it must now explain to the victim why it is downgrading or dropping a charge.
|
