Draft Public Bodies (Abolition of
Victims' Advisory Panel) Order 2013
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Alexander, Heidi (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Cryer, John (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
† Evennett, Mr David (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Flello, Robert (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
† Grant, Mrs Helen (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice)
† Hemming, John (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
† Metcalfe, Stephen (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
† Mills, Nigel (Amber Valley) (Con)
† Morris, Anne Marie (Newton Abbot) (Con)
O'Donnell, Fiona (East Lothian) (Lab)
† Pincher, Christopher (Tamworth) (Con)
Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
† Scott, Mr Lee (Ilford North) (Con)
† Shannon, Jim (Strangford) (DUP)
† Skinner, Mr Dennis (Bolsover) (Lab)
† Wheeler, Heather (South Derbyshire) (Con)
† Williams, Stephen (Bristol West) (LD)
Farrah Bhatti, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 11 September 2013
[Sir Alan Meale in the Chair]
Draft Public Bodies (Abolition of Victims’ Advisory Panel) Order 2013
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Bodies (Abolition of Victims’ Advisory Panel) Order 2013.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.
The Victims’ Advisory Panel—the VAP—was set up in 2003 as a non-statutory panel to give the victims of crime the opportunity to have a say on both criminal justice system reform and any changes to services and support for victims of crime. The abolition of the panel was proposed as part of the Government’s 2010 review of all arm’s length bodies, given the significant overlap of the VAP’s functions with those of the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses, who is also known as the Victims’ Commissioner.
The Victims’ Commissioner has a statutory responsibility to promote the interests of victims and witnesses and to establish good practice in their treatment. We consider that the VAP’s work is no longer required as it duplicates the responsibilities now carried out by the commissioner. For that reason the VAP was included among the bodies specified in schedule 1 to the Public Bodies Act 2011. The Secretary of State has the power to abolish those bodies by order, such as the one that we are debating today.
Before I set out the case for the abolition of the VAP, I will summarise the process by which it was set up and give a brief overview of its activities between 2006 and 2009. Subsequent to the establishment of the VAP as a non-statutory panel in 2003, its functions were formally outlined in section 55 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. It was expected to advise the Government on victims’ views about the criminal justice system and agencies, and about the prevention of crime, to inform work to improve protection and to support victims. The Secretary of State was required to consult the panel on issues pertaining to victims and witnesses of criminal offences or antisocial behaviour. When the Secretary of State consulted the VAP in any particular year, it was expected to publish a report and lay it before Parliament.
The requirement for the Victims’ Commissioner to be appointed to the panel and act as its chair was added by the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which otherwise made no changes to the core responsibilities of the VAP. The panel was made up of ten volunteer members who had first-hand experience of crime themselves or had provided support to victims of crime. Of the original members in 2006, four extended their tenure beyond July 2009 to support the Government’s work, and that
of Sara Payne as the victims’ champion, until the appointment of Louise Casey as the first Victims’ Commissioner in May 2010.Given the arm’s length bodies review in 2010 and resulting uncertainties about the VAP’s future, the Government decided not to undertake any further recruitment to the panel. However, recruitment was not ruled out and no final decision was made regarding the abolition of the VAP until it became clear that a new Victims’ Commissioner would be appointed following Louise Casey’s resignation in October 2011. We considered that the future of the commissioner’s role should be settled before deciding about the future of the VAP.
The Government announced the appointment of Baroness Newlove as the new Victims’ Commissioner on 21 December 2012, and she took up the post on 4 March 2013. Following that appointment, we consider that the Victims’ Commissioner is better placed than the VAP, as a small advisory panel, to ensure that victims’ views are independently represented to the Government, given the commissioner’s statutory duty to promote the interests of victims and witnesses across England and Wales.
Since March, Baroness Newlove has travelled around the country to meet many victims and their families, hear about their experiences and listen to their views. She has also met criminal justice agencies and police and crime commissioners. Her review of the victim contact scheme was based on the input of victims and their families, which ultimately informed her recommendations to Government about the changes to the scheme.
Given the commissioner’s role in ensuring that victims’ voices are heard by Government, the abolition of the VAP will improve the exercise of public functions for the purposes of section 8(1) of the Public Bodies Act 2011, such that the making of this order is justified for the reasons of efficiency, effectiveness, economy and securing accountability to Ministers.
On efficiency, the abolition of the VAP will reduce the duplication of resource and activity with convening panels and their administration. The Victims’ Commissioner is already engaging directly with victims to hear their views, including through face-to-face meetings and by attending local victims’ forums. The commissioner’s approach allows her to gather a much greater breadth and depth of views, which she is expected to share with the Government and their agencies.
On effectiveness, the office of the Victims’ Commissioner ensures that victims’ views are represented to Government, so the abolition of the VAP will not reduce victims’ chances of having their say on criminal justice reform and on how to improve victims’ experiences in the criminal justice process. The first Victims’ Commissioner, Louise Casey, used feedback from her correspondence and meetings with victims to inform her advice to Government on issues including the needs of families bereaved by homicide. The current commissioner has used victims’ views to inform her recent review of the victim contact scheme.
On economy, the VAP has cost up to £50,000 a year and its abolition will mean that the Government will not need to put resources into the recruitment and running of a new panel. We consider that it is an unnecessary spend, given the duplication of the VAP’s work by the Victims’ Commissioner.
On securing appropriate accountability to Ministers, the Victims’ Commissioner is directly accountable to the Secretary of State for Justice, so accountability to Ministers on issues relating to victims and witnesses will not be lost with the abolition of the VAP. As the Minister with responsibility for victims, I have regular meetings with the commissioner to listen to her views and discuss her activities. Parliament is able to scrutinise her activities through her annual report, which is produced for the Secretary of State for Justice and is shared with the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary. That report must be published and laid before Parliament.
Further, we are satisfied that the abolition of the VAP, for the reasons already given, does not affect the exercise of any legal rights or freedoms, either directly or indirectly. Victims of crime will be able to have their voices heard through the Victims’ Commissioner, whose appointment removes the need for the panel. The Victims’ Commissioner has publicly stated that she supports the abolition of the VAP and considers that her office is best placed to promote the needs of victims and witnesses and to represent their views to Government.
Baroness Newlove’s appointment as the new Victims’ Commissioner at the end of last year was a key part of the Government’s wider commitment to strengthen the voice of victims and to improve the experience of victims and witnesses in the criminal justice system. That has been reflected in our work to improve the victims’ code and in our request that the Victims’ Commissioner reviews the victim contact scheme to ensure that it meets victims’ needs. We will be publishing the new victims’ code this autumn and plan to respond to the commissioner’s review of the scheme shortly.
The Victims’ Commissioner’s review of the victim contact scheme is an excellent example of the role that the commissioner plays in listening to victims’ views and using these views to inform, advise and challenge the Government. The Victims’ Commissioner is fulfilling that role effectively without the VAP, which is no longer needed.
2.39 pm
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab): It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.
While I will not press the order to a vote, it is nevertheless important to put on record a number of points. First, the Government would be well advised not to crow about what they claim to have achieved for victims, or to claim—falsely, some would say—that they are putting victims at the heart of what they seek to do. The reality, to take just a few examples, is that the criminal injuries compensation scheme has been slashed and the tokenistic hardship fund is so restrictive that it has hardly been accessed successfully. The introduction of police and crime commissioners will lead to a fragmentation of victims’ services, with some extremely good PCCs—for example, Vera Baird, up in the north-east—doing extremely good work, but others, sadly, not following that lead. However different PCCs react, there will be fragmentation and a different type of service, depending on where in the country someone lives, on the level of resources the PCC has available, and on the level of resources that the PCC wishes to give to victims’ services.
Another example is domestic and sexual violence charities, which are flagging up how the Government’s cuts are affecting the services they can deliver. The widespread use of police out-of-court disposals, particularly for serious violence and sexual assaults, is horrifying and shows how overstretched the police are in struggling to cope with the crimes before them. Attempts under the Public Bodies Act 2011 to scrap the chief coroner were successfully overturned, thanks to campaigning work by the likes of Royal British Legion and INQUEST, but what does that say about how victims and victims’ families are viewed by the Government?
The Minister referred to the Victims’ Commissioner, Baroness Newlove, at some length. She does an excellent job. She has shown that she is even prepared to criticise her own Government where it is warranted. For a Government who try to talk a good game on victims, why have the Victims’ Commissioner’s hours been reduced from a full-time role to only 10 days a month? Are victims at the heart of Government? Why has the Victims’ Commissioner seen her budget halved? How is that helping the commissioner to do the work that she is required to do? In reality, of course, she is doing far more than she is paid to do. Why are the Government so desperate to try to control the Victims’ Commissioner that she must operate from within the tower of the Ministry of Justice headquarters like a medieval prisoner of a wicked baron? Why must she share MOJ press officers, whose masters will clearly want to spin positive stories to disguise the harsh reality of the Government’s attitude to victims?
Lord Beecham discussed the proposal in the other place. He asked whether staffing and support for the commissioner—any commissioner; not just the present incumbent—should be a little further removed from the MOJ, which is responsible for many of the issues with which the commissioner will have to deal. The Minister in the other place responded:
“I appreciate the noble Lord’s point—it will be duly recorded and pondered upon”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 July 2013; Vol. 747, c. GC198.]
I hope it is being pondered upon, because I cannot see how having a commissioner reliant on civil servants under the control of the Minister gives that separation of challenge.
If the Victims’ Commissioner is to commission, she should be given the powers that she needs to do that. If she is to hold service providers to account, where are the legislative teeth? Indeed, where is the victims’ code? It seems to be an extremely long consultation for what is essentially an update and rewrite with a few changes to the existing code. Where is the victims’ law that her predecessor asked for and the Labour Government promised to introduce in a future Government? If the Minister takes advice, guidance and steers from Victims’ Commissioners, the previous Victims’ Commissioner was very clear.
As I said, I will not divide the Committee, but the Government are dividing to nothing the services that victims need and should be getting. The Government have shown that they pay lip service to victims: words, not actions, where actions are needed. Frankly, victims deserve better.
2.44 pm
Mrs Grant: I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate this afternoon. Before addressing the points made by the shadow Minister, I want to make some remarks as the Minister with responsibility for victims. I want to emphasise the importance that the Government place on listening to the views of victims and witnesses as we implement our reforms to the criminal justice system. We have already brought forward a range of measures designed to strengthen the voice of victims, including carrying out consultation on the new victims code that the shadow Minister mentioned. Among other things, the code entitles victims to give a victim personal statement, in which they can describe exactly how a crime made them feel and how it affected them. We will publish the new code in the autumn. We have also announced the piloting of pre-recorded cross-examination for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses and victims to help them give their best evidence in court. We have appointed Baroness Newlove as the new Victims’ Commissioner, who is the national voice for victims.
Robert Flello: The Minister said that the victims code will be available in the autumn, but last time I looked outside, the summer had passed and autumn was upon us. Will she clarify which autumn she means? If it is this autumn, when precisely will the code be published?
Mrs Grant: I will come to that. There has been a little delay, but for very good reasons, and if the hon. Gentleman gives me a moment, I will elaborate on the matter.
I was disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about “crowing”. I know that he has, as I do, deep interest in the sphere of victims, in which an awful lot of progress has been made. The Government are not complacent; we are absolutely determined to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system where they belong. From my work not only as a politician but as a legal aid practitioner in Croydon I know all too well that many victims have felt completely unsupported and overlooked by the criminal justice system, and I am absolutely determined to do everything I can to put that right. That is why I am glad that we are introducing reforms that truly help victims, such as raising more money for victims through the victim surcharge and through the commencement of the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996.
Our work in this area is not confined to the victims code and the appointment of Baroness Newlove, who I agree is doing a phenomenal job; we are constantly looking for new ways to protect victims and witnesses. We have created two new stalking offences. The hon. Gentleman referred to domestic violence, and we are piloting domestic violence disclosure schemes such as Clare’s law and changing the definition of domestic violence to include 16 and 17-year-olds. There is absolutely no complacency here, and good work is being done, but ultimately our success will be measured by an increase in the number of victims helped, abusers brought to justice and attitudes changed.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the hours worked by the Victims’ Commissioner. The Victims’ Commissioner has a part-time role—she works 11 days a month and is fairly and properly remunerated—and we feel that she
can make a significant contribution on that basis. The number of days worked is individual to each public appointment and, in my opinion and in the admission of the shadow Minister, is seemingly working very well in this case. The Victims’ Commissioner was chosen because of her strong empathy with victims and the work that she has done with local communities.With regard to the press office and the office of the Victims’ Commissioner, the hon. Gentleman, disappointingly, queried the independence of the Victims’ Commissioner. Of course she is independent. She is independent of Government, and she has a statutory duty to hold them to account, which she fulfils, and to promote the interests of victims and witnesses. She employs a dedicated press officer on a part-time basis to provide independent support.
Robert Flello: Does the Minister not see how the situation will appear to the public and to the victims of often horrendous crimes? The Government have replaced a full-time, supported and independently located Victims’ Commissioner with one who, although she does her best to be independent, works only 11 days a month. Baroness Newlove does more than that, but that is because she is a generous soul and feels that there is a huge amount to achieve. Onlookers will see a part-time Victims’ Commissioner at the heart of a Ministry of Justice that is supposedly victim-focused.
Mrs Grant: I do not accept what the shadow Minister says. The Victims’ Commissioner chose to locate herself at the MOJ, which was where the first Victims’ Commissioner was located. Both women were able to work economically and effectively. With regard to the contribution that Baroness Newlove makes on a part-time basis, I invite the shadow Minister to have a meeting with her. I am sure she would be happy to explain how she works and how comfortable she is in doing what she does.
The last couple of points I want to pick up relate to the victims code and victims law mentioned by the shadow Minister. In relation to the victims code, we received a very large number of responses and they all needed to be considered carefully. I was not prepared to rush. Victims are a priority and I wanted to take my time to ensure that we do a good job in producing a revised code that will be significant for victims and their families. I am sure the shadow Minister agrees that these things should not be rushed.
On the victims law, we believe that the revised victims code will be of considerable benefit to victims. Perhaps the shadow Minister should wait and have a look at the revised code before going on any more about the victims law. We are also looking into other mechanisms to ensure that agencies are made as accountable as possible to victims and witnesses.
As set out in my opening speech, we consider that the Victims’ Commissioner is best placed to promote the interests of victims and witnesses to Government. With her appointment the Victims’ Advisory Panel is no longer needed. I commend the order to the House.