PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill - 5 July 2021 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), albeit after rather a long break. I declare my interest as a barrister.

I am pleased to contribute to the debate on Report. During and since my election campaign, and particularly during the recent election campaign for our new police and crime commissioner, I have had the opportunity to speak to many constituents in Derbyshire Dales about law and order generally. I am a firm believer in listening to my constituents: they are hard-working and law-abiding, and I respect what they are telling me. They tell me that they want to feel safe and feel protected in their own homes and in the areas in which they live. There is much to offer them in this excellent Bill.

Two aspects of the Bill particularly interest my constituents. First, they want to see tougher sentences for convicted criminals, and this Bill delivers that. I particularly support two proposals: tougher community sentences doubling the time for which offenders will be subject to overnight curfews, rising from 12 months to two years; and the ending of the automatic early release of dangerous criminals. I am pleased to say that the Bill firmly delivers on what my constituents are requesting—tougher sentences—and I wholeheartedly support it.

Secondly, I receive a lot of correspondence from constituents whose lives are disrupted by unauthorised and illegal encampments that cause alarm and distress to local residents. This Government are the first of many Governments to have the courage to address these long-standing issues. I welcome the provisions that will give the police the power to seize vehicles and arrest or fine trespassers who are intent on residing on private or public land without permission while ensuring that they will not be able to return for 12 months. This is long overdue. I have many constituents who write to me regularly in towns such as Matlock, Bakewell and Ashbourne whose lives have been very badly affected by illegal encampments, and this must stop. It is of course very important to make sure that local authorities fulfil their statutory duty to provide permanent sites for groups such as Travellers so that they can stay within the law and enjoy their traditional life, but illegal encampments must stop.

I commend the huge breadth of provisions in this Bill. I am so pleased that the Government have had the courage to address so many different areas in such a relatively short space of time.

Although I have grave concerns about many aspects of this Bill, I will limit my remarks to the amendments in my name, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), and new clause 102.

This Bill needlessly criminalises Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. It will turn civil offences into criminal ones and punish littering and inconvenience with prison and homelessness. The Bill does not target a problem; it targets minority and ethnic communities. It is driven by hatred and division and will serve only to fuel hatred and division. Only last month, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) demonstrated this by saying:

“The Travellers I am talking about are more likely to be seen leaving your garden shed at 3 o’clock in the morning, probably with your lawnmower and half of your tools.”––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 8 June 2021; c. 410.]

Those words racially stereotype Travellers and paint an entire community as criminals. They were racist and repugnant and show the bigotry that this Bill promotes.

On top of this, the draconian powers included in the Bill are being pushed upon police despite their insistence that they do not want or need them. The National Police Chiefs Council and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners have said that

“trespass is a civil offence and our view is that it should remain so”,

while 93.7% of police bodies support increased site provision as the solution to unauthorised encampments. Both the police and the travelling communities are in agreement on this. I urge the Government to listen and to support new clause 102 and the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby. The Government should be focused on improving society for everyone, yet they have become fixated on attacking an already much persecuted minority at the expense of many and to the benefit of none. In doing so, they are ignoring ready-made solutions. Organisations such as Friends, Families and Travellers have called for increased and improved site provision while highlighting the value of negotiated stopping, because the reality is that if Travellers cannot stop with authorisation, then they must stop without it.

I tabled my amendments because I believe that it is the role of politicians to protect minorities, not persecute them. New clause 51 seeks to address the racism that GRT communities face every day by forcing the Government to review the prevention, investigation and prosecution of crimes against these communities, while new clause 52 would require the Government to provide proper training for the relevant public bodies. Although valuable amendments to this dystopic Bill will undoubtedly fall today, I would like to reassure my constituents that the fight against legislation is not the end—

Order. I have to bring the hon. Lady’s remarks to a close because we are running very short of time.

I wish to address new clauses 55 and 42 and, if time permits, new clause 90. Hon. Members will agree that clarity is crucial when talking about the proper functioning of the House, particularly when we cover immensely sensitive subjects such as abortion and the ending of human life. I want to clarify something that was earlier in dispute, which is whether the decriminalisation of abortion, as sought by new clause 55, also means its deregulation and the loss of all legal safeguards. Changing the law means changing regulations. The central and implacable legal fact of new clause 55 is that repealing the relevant sections of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and relevant offences under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, will immediately undo all the safeguards provided by the Abortion Act 1967.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) so soberly and succinctly stated in the first part of this debate, new clause 55 would sweep away all current legal safeguards and protections, not only for the unborn child, but many that protect women. The 1967 Act would, in effect, be void, leaving England and Wales with one of the most extreme abortion laws in the world.

Let me briefly remind Members what those safeguards involve. They are not obstructions by opponents of abortion; they are crucial and vital protections against clear and present dangers. The safeguards prevent abortion simply on the basis of sex and because the baby will be born a girl, or indeed a boy. They ensure that the freedom of health professionals to conscientiously object is protected, and they prevent abortion right up until birth, even though many premature babies are born and survive and thrive, every week.

The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) failed to explain how any of those serious threats to our society and culture would remain illegal. Never once has she denied that her new clause would allow abortion up to birth—something many of my constituents have rallied against in recent days, as is true of constituents across the country. I have received more emails and calls about new clause 55 than I have about any other measure since I was elected to the House 11 years ago. The right hon. Lady may argue that abortion will remain regulated by different medical bodies in the country, but those bodies cannot make legislation. They cannot pass laws or send the crucial messages that our current abortion law sends, namely that sex selective abortion is wrong, that conscientious objection is valid, and that abortion without any time limit would be a gross injustice in a humane society. Abortion under the regulation of changeable medical bodies that issue only guidelines and never laws can never be recommended.

I am grateful to contribute to this debate. On Second Reading I highlighted that the Bill, large as it is, contains about five clauses that apply to Northern Ireland, and we are supportive of them. Considering that we just heard from the Health and Social Care Secretary, who outlined our roadmap to freedom, I am disappointed that after Committee, the Bill is not in a better place when it comes to protest. For a party that prides itself on libertarian values and freedom in our country to curtail protests because they are noisy, inconvenient or impact on those around them, shows that the right balance has not yet been struck.

I wish to speak in favour of new clauses 44 to 50, tabled by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). Indeed, I commend her for tabling them. The law has operated successfully in Northern Ireland for four years. Those important provisions were brought forward by my colleague in the other place, Lord Morrow. They are working in Northern Ireland, and I hope that after the conclusion of Report, they are brought forward again. I encourage the Minister to look at those provisions. I understand she is engaging with the right hon. Lady, and I hope we can pick up this conversation again.

I have mentioned to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North that I have considered some ire, having signed her new clauses on human trafficking and sexual exploitation, given the amendment that rests in new clause 55; she knows that I could never support new clause 55. I do see the dichotomy between bringing forward—[Interruption.] I wave back, Madam Deputy Speaker. New clauses 44 to 50 would take away the power from the powerful in support of the most vulnerable, and that is why I struggle with new clause 55: it would do the reverse.

Will my hon. Friend give way? [Interruption.]

I really shouldn’t, because Madam Deputy Speaker is waving too much at me.

I have given careful consideration to new clause 42. In principle, I am prepared to support the notion of buffer zones, but not as currently drafted. I know that that is not exactly where all my colleagues are, so I do not wish to abuse my position as spokesman, because my colleagues are not comfortable at all. There should be a discussion. I do not think that new clause 42 strikes the balance. If it was moved, I could not support it this evening.

This is such a massive Bill, in that it is going to impact on every facet of life. I fear that the Public Bill Committee has not had the desired effect and that it is not right yet, but we will consider the new clauses and amendments as they are brought forward this evening.

This Bill removes our fundamental right to peaceful protest. How? By putting power in the hands of the police to stop protests—not, as before, on the grounds of causing serious damage or unlawful behaviour, but instead on the grounds that it may cause “serious unease” or “distress” to bystanders. Those found guilty of even risking causing “serious annoyance” or “inconvenience” can get imprisoned for up to 10 years or face unlimited fines. This amounts to the removal of the right to peaceful protest as enshrined in our Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights.

We saw a taste of what that means in practice at the Clapham vigil and the Bristol protests in March. The parliamentary report into Clapham and Bristol, which was published last week and mentioned by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), found that the Metropolitan police told the Clapham vigil organisers that the vigil was illegal, when it was not, and that they faced thousands of pounds in fines, which they did not. The organisers withdrew and the vigil was disorganised, and then, at 6.30 pm, the police physically intervened to disperse the gathering, thereby increasing the public health risk of covid. In Bristol, yes, proportionate use of force by the police was justified, but batoning and blading protesters with shields on the ground certainly was not.

We have had a glimpse of what poorly drafted law can look like in practice. Instead, we must protect the right to peaceful protest by deleting clauses 55 to 61, which stop it, and introducing my new clause 85: a code that sets out the police’s duty to facilitate the right to peaceful protest, to return them to Robert Peel’s founding principle:

“The police are the public and the public are the police.”

This Bill is before us because people want to protest against climate change, as, by 2025, the 1.5°C Paris limit will be breached. Peaceful protesters—whether suffragettes or economic, social or environmental campaigners—enrich and inform our democracy between elections. This is essential to our fundamental values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

The Bill is an act of political treason. It is bad at its core. It will be seen in China, Russia and elsewhere as a green light to crush democracy and the right to peaceful protest, with unaccountable police power. The good people in this country should not rest until it is overturned and our rights reinstated, so that democracy can live, breathe and thrive again.

In the time available to me, I would like to speak in support of two amendments and comment on one.

New clause 24 in the name of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) calls for

“a review of how registered sex offenders are able to change their name or other aspects of their identity without the knowledge of the police”.

The UK has some of the toughest measures in the world to manage sex offenders, yet the system is being exploited and flouted by thousands of convicted offenders, if the figures are to be believed. More than 16,000 offenders in the last five years have not told the police of their whereabouts under their notification requirements, and it is estimated that around 900 have gone missing altogether. Some of them could possibly have changed their names. The amendment would review how sex offenders are able to change their names or identity, and ensure that the system is amended so that police are always made aware. I hope the Minister will respond to the amendment in her comments.

I will turn to two amendments on the issue of abortion. This debate has made it clear that the current position, and the inconsistency between the situations in Northern Ireland and in England and Wales, is very difficult to explain other than by the fact that in England and Wales, our law is underpinned by an Act of Parliament passed 50 years before women were even allowed to be part of the legislative process. There has been almost no change to the abortion laws in more than 50 years. It may be that the tradition of leaving these issues to Back-Bench Bills no longer works and the Government need to think more creatively.

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not give way—Madam Deputy Speaker would have my guts for garters.

The Government need to consider how we modernise the set of laws that this place has changed for Northern Ireland but has not had the opportunity to do so in a thoughtful way for England and Wales. The strong feeling on both sides of the House shows that there is an argument for thinking about this further, particularly with the two specific amendments.

I will turn to new clause 42. The Bill already recognises that protests should not stop others going about their daily business. Frankly, new clause 42 does similarly for individuals who want to access abortion advice and services. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the amendment in her summing up.

I do not support new clause 55 by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) because of the expansiveness in the way it is drawn. I have deep sympathy, however, and support her in her wish to see abortion decriminalised for women in England and Wales, as has been done in Northern Ireland. We in this House have to take the opportunity to have a thoughtful and thorough debate and to have it in the very near future.

I rise to speak as co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. There is an awful lot that I would like to say about this Bill, but unfortunately I have to restrict my comments to amendment 47.

The amendment seeks to correct an anomaly in the legislation brought by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) in his Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018, whereby the only members of prison staff included in the protected category of emergency workers are prison officers and some healthcare workers, while other prison workers, such as teachers or instructors, are not protected. That is simply unfair and increases the risks for those staff: it effectively paints a target on their backs because prisoners are well aware of the law and know that the penalties for attacking a prison officer are way more severe than those for attacking the teacher who might be standing next to them.

The 2019 “Safe Inside” survey conducted by the Joint Unions in Prisons Alliance showed that all prison staff—not just prison officers, but prison educators and teachers as well—are subjected to shocking levels of violence and are routinely exposed to harmful drugs. More than a quarter of staff reported having been a victim of physical violence in the last 12 months. Of those, 14% said that they had been assaulted more than 10 times in that period.

The youth estate, for example, often houses children who are locked up hundreds of miles from family and support. The resulting strain on mental health is a contributing factor towards violence against staff. Of course, in Wales, as education is devolved, things run differently so the Bill’s impact will be felt differently, which is something my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) will raise later.

Here is one horrific example from an educator in a young offender institution:

“I turned to press the radio and as I did so I felt the young offender’s arms around my neck and he put me in a headlock and began to strangle me, I managed to say “Assistance” on the radio, but before I could say my location, he had my arm above my head to stop me calling for help, he dragged me down to the ground, he continued to strangle me with his left arm and he hit me repeatedly in the head with the other. As he was doing so, he said he had mental health issues. It felt like longer but, I think the officers arrived in approximately five minutes after the incident began and physically removed him from me.”

No teacher, educator or instructor should be expected to work in an environment where terrifying assaults like those are not treated with the same severity as those against prison officers. For that reason, I urge all Members to show those brave front-line public servants that we prioritise their safety as emergency workers, too.

I call Steve Brine, who has 90 seconds.

There is much in this Bill that I welcome—I have spoken before about driving offences reform—but of course parts of it are controversial. That is what happens with legislation: some people do not agree with parts of it. However, on balance, it is a Bill worth backing, and that is why I did so on Second Reading.

New clause 90 seems entirely logical to me. I have been well lobbied on the subject, and I hope to hear something from the Minister. Being able to do their job without abuse is surely the least that our shop workers can expect.

On protest, we should be careful not to be misled about what is in the Bill and what is not. I actually agree with some of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said. The parts of the Bill on protest are not right just yet, and I predict that they will have a challenging time in the other place. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on that. Surely new clause 85, in respect of a code for the policing of protest, is worth a look.

I think that new clause 55, in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), is poorly drafted. I saw a tsunami of contacts this weekend from constituents who are against it. I wish it were going to a vote, if only so that I could vote against it and the House could show its will on the subject.

Finally, I oppose new clauses 51 and 52 in respect of illegal Traveller encampments. My constituents have an illegal encampment on the Cattle Market car park in the centre of Winchester just today, which is inconveniencing their lives. I oppose those two new clauses.

This Bill delivers on our promise to the British people to keep them safe and to crack down on criminals. This Bill backs the police, recognising the unique and enormous sacrifices they and their families make to protect us all. This Bill imposes a legal duty on local councils, the police, health services, schools and prisons to work together to prevent serious violence in their neighbourhoods.

This Bill balances the rights of protestors to demonstrate with the rights of residents to access hospitals, to go to work, to let their children sleep at night. And, despite some of the claims from the Opposition, this Bill includes measures that will help to protect women and girls, but that go further than that and protect the whole of society from some of the most dangerous offenders that are sentenced. This includes managing sex offenders before and after conviction and, importantly, providing clarity on the extraction of data from victims’ phones, in line with the rape review that the Government published only a few weeks ago.

Let me briefly address the Government amendments in this group. In Committee, I undertook to consider further whether the reporting duty in respect of the police covenant should be extended to apply to the British Transport police, the Ministry of Defence police and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. Having reflected further, we agree. We want the wider policing family to be included in the covenant, and amendment 34 does exactly that, covering not only these three forces but the National Crime Agency. They do essential work for us, and we want them and their families to be looked after.

Government amendments 35 to 45 standardise the traffic offences in clauses 4 and 5, and clauses in relation to serious violence reduction orders, for the British Transport police—again, consistency in how we deal with these important matters.

Let me turn to the non-Government amendments. I will not be able to deal with them all, but I will pick out the ones that have been talked about most frequently. First, I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and many other Members across the House for raising the issue of sexual harassment, not just in the context of this Bill but in our wider work.

The murders that, sadly, we have heard so much about in this Chamber—the murders of Nicole Smallman, Bibaa Henry, Sarah Everard and PCSO Julia James—have caused millions of women and girls to share their own experiences and fears of walking in our towns and cities. We have also heard girls’ stories about their experiences at school through the social media platform Everyone’s Invited.

We are listening to women and girls. In March, we reopened the survey on violence against women and girls and received more than 180,000 responses in terms of the survey as a whole. Each of those responses is helping to shape our work developing this vital strategy. We therefore recognise the shocking extent of street harassment and the strength of feeling concerning the need for a new offence.

While it is the case that there are already offences available to address sexual harassment behaviour, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham, whom I have met recently to discuss this, can rest assured that we remain open-minded on this issue and are continuing to examine the case for a bespoke offence. As part of the commitment, the new strategy on tackling violence against women and girls will focus on the need to educate and to change cultural attitudes. A new offence can do so much, but we need to go further than that, and that is our intention.

As I announced in Committee, I am pleased that as part of the cross-government work and work across agencies, the College of Policing intends to develop advice for police forces to assist them to use existing offences in the most effective way to address reports of sexual harassment, and the CPS will be updating its guidance to include specific material on sexual harassment.

Moving on, new clauses 26 and 27 have been tabled by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson)—indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) has spoken to me about this—and they come out of the very tragic circumstances of the rape and murder of Libby Squire. As a constituency MP near the Humber, I very much join both the right hon. Lady and my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Libby and her family.

Does my hon. Friend agree with me and my constituent Lisa Squire that it is vitally important that non-contact sexual offences are promptly reported so that the provisions can work?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend and, indeed, his constituent, Mrs Squire. We need please to get the message out from this Chamber to encourage victims, where non-contact sexual offences are being committed, and where they are able to and where they feel able to, to report those offences to the police, so that these escalating behaviours can create a pattern that the police can review. That is why I have great sympathy with the new clauses that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North has tabled. I am pleased to reassure her that we are very much taking the point on board when it comes to developing the strategy.

In terms of other matters relating to sex offenders, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke have pressed upon me the need for a review of how registered sex offenders can change their name without the police’s knowledge. We have some of the toughest rules in the world for the management of sex offenders, but we recognise those concerns.

We do not want any loopholes that can be exploited by sex offenders to enable offending and to evade detection by the changing of names. Indeed, only last week I met the Master of the Rolls and my counterpart Lord Wolfson in the Ministry of Justice to discuss this critical issue. I am pleased to advise the House that we are conducting a time-limited review of the enrolled and unenrolled processes for changing names to better understand the scale and nature of the issue, whether current processes are being or could be exploited to facilitate further offending and, if so, how that can be addressed.

Colleagues have expressed understandable concern regarding the treatment of key workers, particularly those who keep our shops and supermarkets open and stocked, those who keep our buses and trains running, and key workers such as refuse collectors, park staff, teachers and others who perform a vital duty at any time, but particularly in the very difficult 18 months we have all experienced. We are very conscious that when our constituents are serving the public and delivering key services, they must feel safe doing so. No one should feel unsafe in their workplace. We therefore all feel anguish about some of the stories we have heard in relation to retail and other workers over the past year.

The Lord Chancellor and, indeed, the Government, completely understand the sentiments behind the new clauses tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers), and I hope that Members have heard the indication that we gave earlier in the debate. There is a range of existing laws, with significant penalties, that cover assaults and abuse of all public-facing workers. Sentencing guidelines already require the courts to consider as an aggravating factor, meriting an increased sentence, an offence that has been committed against a person serving the public. However, I make it clear that we want to assure my hon. Friend and Members of all parties that we are not complacent about the matter and that we are actively considering tabling an amendment, if appropriate, in the Lords.

Our genuine concerns about the new clauses relate to technical issues with some of the drafting. There is vagueness about the nature of the assault offence. It overlaps with existing offences and there seems to be reference to Scottish provisions, which we believe to be unnecessary. I say to the House in an open-hearted, open-handed way that we are looking at the matter and that we want to work not only with hon. Members with but the retail sector to improve the reporting of those offences and the police response.

I turn now to the public order provisions. There has been much debate about those measures. Some of it has been informed by fact, but some has been informed by misunderstanding. The measures have been developed in consultation with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Metropolitan police to improve the police’s ability to better manage highly disruptive protests. Such protests have brought parts of London in particular, but also elsewhere, to a standstill. There have been instances of ambulances being obstructed. Protesters have disrupted the distribution of national newspapers and, given that we are discussing freedom of expression and freedom of speech, I hope that colleagues will understand why we are so concerned to ensure that newspapers can be produced.

Protests have prevented hard-working people from getting to work and drawn thousands of police officers away from the local communities they serve.

As the Member for Cities of London and Westminster—Westminster experiences 500 protests every year—I ask my hon. Friend whether she agrees that the human rights of protesters are absolutely important but so are those of local people who live just yards from this place?

That sums up the balancing exercise that the Government are drawing on the advice of the independent police inspectorate. The Bill does not stop the freedom to demonstrate; it balances it with the rights and liberties of others. The existing laws are 35 years old. We want to update them and also implement the recommendations of the independent Law Commission.

It will continue to be the case that the police attach conditions to only a small proportion of protests. To put that in context, in a three-month period earlier this year, the assessment of the National Police Chiefs’ Council was that of more than 2,500 protests, no more than a dozen had conditions attached to them: 12 out of 2,500.

Will the Minister give way?

I will not because I genuinely have other matters to address.

In deciding whether to attach conditions, including in respect of the generation of noise, the police will continue, as they do now, to take into consideration protesters’ freedom of speech and assembly.

I move on now to unauthorised encampments. Similarly, there seems to be misunderstanding about what the Bill is attempting to do. It is not an attack on the nomadic lifestyle. Proposed new section 60C(4) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 sets out conditions applicable if

“significant damage… significant disruption”

or

“significant distress has been caused or is likely to be caused”.

Will the Minister give way on that point?

I have one more minute.

We are trying to tackle harmful behaviour, and Opposition Members need to ask themselves just how much damage, disruption and distress is acceptable for their constituents to bear.

I will quickly deal with the extraction of information. This is an important part of the Bill, because we want to ensure that strong privacy safeguards are in place when dealing with people’s sensitive personal information. This Bill, coupled with the rape review, is an absolutely critical part of that effort.

Mindful that the House will want to vote on these matters, I will conclude. We promised our constituents that we would take measures to make our society safer and to crack down on crime. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) set out, that is the promise we all made to our constituents. We are delivering on promises made to the electorate and standing up for the decent members of society who do not commit the sorts of crimes that we in this Chamber have sadly had to hear about. I therefore have no hesitation in commending the Bill to the House.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

I understand that the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) does not wish to press new clause 90 to a Division.

Having received commitments from the Government that they will bring forward measures to tackle this issue during the passage of the Bill, I do not wish to press the new clause.

New Clause 91

Review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971

(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of the criminal offences in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

(2) In undertaking the review, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs;

(b) the Scottish Ministers;

(c) the Welsh Ministers;

(d) the Northern Ireland Department of Health, and

(e) any other person the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 9 months beginning with the day on which this Act comes into force, lay before Parliament a report on the review, including any proposals for legislative change.—(Anne McLaughlin.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the criminal offences set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

We come to group two. After I have called the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) to move new clause 3, there will be a four-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions.

New Clause 3

Restriction on evidence or questions about complainant's sexual history

‘(1) Section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) starting in paragraph (b) omit “in cross examination, by or on behalf of any accused at the trial,”;

(b) at end insert “with anyone other than the defendant”.

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) for “an accused” substitute “a party to the trial”;

(b) in paragraph (a) omit “or (5)”.

(4) For subsection (3) substitute—

“(3) This subsection applies if the evidence or question relates to a relevant issue in the case and that issue is not an issue of consent.”

(5) For subsection (5) substitute—

“(a) For the purposes of subsection (3) no evidence may be adduced or question asked unless the judge determines in accordance with the procedures in this subsection that the question or evidence has significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

(b) In determining that question the judge shall take into account—

(i) the interests of justice, including the right of the accused to make a full answer and defence;

(ii) the need to preserve the integrity of the trial process by removing from the fact-finding process any discriminatory belief or bias;

(iii) the risk that the evidence may unduly arouse sentiments of prejudice, sympathy or hostility in the jury;

(iv) the potential threat to the complainant’s personal dignity and right to privacy;

(v) the complainant’s right to personal security and to the full protection and benefit of the law;

(vi) the provisions of the Victims Code;

and any other factor that the judge considers relevant.”

(6) In subsection (6), for “subsections (3) and (5)” substitute “subsection (3)”.’

This new clause excludes the admission in evidence of any sexual behaviour of the complainant with a third party, whether by the prosecution or the defence, to show consent, whilst leaving it admissible if it is relevant to any other issue in the case. It sets out the additional requirement that to be admitted the material must be more probative than prejudicial and sets out the considerations the judge must have in regard to considering that extra requirement.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

New clause 4—Definition of “issue of consent”—

‘(1) Section 42 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.

(2) For paragraph (b) substitute—

“(b) “issue of consent” means any issue where the complainant in fact consented to the conduct constituting the offence with which the defendant is charged and any issue where the accused reasonably believed that the complainant so consented;”’

This new clause re-defines “issue of consent” for the purposes of section 41, including in the definition the defendant’s reasonable belief in consent, and thus removing it as a reason for the inclusion of a complainant’s sexual history or behaviour.

New clause 5—Admission of evidence or questions about complainant’s sexual history—

‘(1) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 43 insert—

“43A In any trial or contested hearing to which section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 applies, if no pre-trial application in accordance with Part 36 of the Criminal Procedure Rules has been made, or if such application has been made and refused in whole or in part, no further application may be made during the course of the trial or before its commencement to call such evidence or ask such question, and no judge may allow such application or admit any such questions or evidence.”’

This new clause would have the effect that no section 41 evidence or questions could be admitted by a judge at trial unless there had been an application before trial in accordance with the practice directions; and the amendment would ban applications from being made immediately before or during the trial.

New clause 6—Complainant’s right of representation and appeal on an application to adduce evidence or questions on sexual conduct—

‘(1) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 43 insert—

“43A In any trial to which section 41 applies, where notice is given that there will be an application under Part 36 of the Criminal Procedure Rules for leave to ask questions or to adduce evidence as to any sexual behaviour of the complainant—

(1) The complainant may not be compelled to give evidence at any hearing on the application.

(2) The complainant will be entitled to be served with the application and to be legally represented (with the assistance of legal aid if financially eligible) as “a party” within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure Rules in responding in writing to the application and in presenting their case at any hearing on the application.

(3) If the application succeeds in whole or in part, the complainant will have a right to appeal for a rehearing of the application to the Court of Appeal on notice within 7 days of the judgement being delivered.

(4) On any such appeal, the Court of Appeal will rehear the application in full and may grant or refuse it in whole or in part.

(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulation, set out rules of procedure relating to any hearing or appeal under this section.”’

This new clause would give the complainant a right of representation, with legal aid if they are financially eligible, to oppose any application to admit section 41 material about them. This new clause would also give complainants a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal if the application is allowed in whole or in part. The new clause also provides that the complainant is not compellable as witness at the application.

New clause 7—Collection of and reporting to Parliament on data and information relating to proceedings involving rape and sexual assault—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall collect and report to Parliament annually the following data and information—

(a) The time taken in every case of rape or sexual assault for the case to progress from complaint to charge, from charge to pre-trial plea and management hearing; and from then until trial.

(b) The number of applications to ask questions or adduce evidence of any sexual behaviour of the complainant under section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (“the 1999 Act”) made in the Magistrates and Crown Courts of England and Wales, irrespective of whether a trial was subsequently held.

(c) The number of cases which involved questions on or evidence of any sexual behaviour of the complainant in all rape, sexual abuse and other trials or contested hearings in the Magistrates and Crown courts in England and Wales, irrespective of whether an application was made to admit such questions or evidence in advance of the trial or hearing.

(d) In cases to which section 41 of the 1999 Act applies—

(i) whether Part 36 of the Criminal Procedure Rules was followed in each application and if it was not, how it was not;

(ii) the questions proposed to be asked;

(iii) the evidence proposed to be called;

(iv) whether the prosecution opposed the application and if so the content of their representations;

(v) whether evidence was called to support or oppose the application;

(vi) whether the application was allowed in whole or in part and a copy of the judgement made on the application;

and

(vii) any other material which might assist in an assessment of the frequency, basis and nature of applications for the use of such questions or evidence and the likely impact on any parties to any trial and the trial outcome.

(2) The data and information to be collected under subsection (1) shall include—

(a) all the material from any pre-trial application;

(b) the questions in fact asked and the evidence in fact called about any sexual behaviour of the complainant in the trial;

(c) any application at the start or during the course of the trial to vary or alter any judgement given in any earlier application or any further application to admit such questions or evidence;

(d) whether any material not previously authorised was used in the trial;

(e) whether the prosecution objected; and

(f) any ruling made or action taken by the judge on the further conduct of the trial as a consequence of the admission of questions or evidence under section 41 of the 1999 Act.

(3) The data and information to be collected under this section shall be collected from the date of Royal Assent to this Bill.’

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to collect and report to Parliament data and information on trial delay and section 41 matters.

New clause 8—Training for relevant public officials in relation to the conduct of cases of serious sexual offences—

‘(1) The Secretary of State shall, on this Act coming into force, publish and implement a strategy to provide training on the investigation of rape and alleged rape complainants, and the admissibility and cross-examination of complainants on their sexual history to—

(a) the Crown Prosecution Service;

(b) Police Forces;

(c) the Judiciary; and

(d) such other public bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(2) The Secretary of State shall ensure that any judge who is asked to hear a trial where the accused is charged with rape or any other serious sexual offence has attended and completed a training programme for such trials which has been accredited by the Judicial College.’

This new clause ensures that all criminal justice agencies shall be trained and that no judge can hear a sexual offence trial of any kind unless they have attended the Judicial College serious sexual offence course.

New clause 9—Requirement for a pre-sentence report when sentencing a primary carer—

‘(1) Section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020 is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (3) insert—

“(3A)A court must make inquiries to establish whether the offender is a primary carer for a child.

(3B) If the court establishes that the offender is a primary carer for a child, unless there are exceptional circumstances before sentencing the offender the court must obtain a pre-sentence report containing information to enable the court to make an assessment of the impact of a custodial sentence on the child.”

(3) After subsection (4) insert—

“(5) In this section—

(e) “child” means a person under the age of 18; and

(f) “primary carer” means a person who has primary or substantial care responsibilities for a child.”’

This new clause amends section 30 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to make clear the requirement for a sentencing judge to have a copy of a pre-sentence report, considering the impact of a custodial sentence on the dependent child, when sentencing a primary carer of a child.

New clause 10—Duty of the court to state how it has considered the consequences for the child when sentencing—

‘(1) Section 52 of the Sentencing Act 2020 is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (9) insert—

“Offenders who are primary carers

(10) A court sentencing a primary carer for a child must state how the best interests of the child were considered in determining the sentence (including, if appropriate, consideration of the views of the child).

(11) A court sentencing a pregnant woman must state how the best interests of the baby were considered in determining the sentence.

(12) In this section—

(a) “child” means a person under the age of 18; and

(b) “primary carer” means a person who has primary or substantial care

responsibilities for a child.”’

This new clause amends section 52 of the Sentencing Act 2020 to require a sentencing judge to state how the best interests of a child were considered when sentencing a primary carer of a dependent child.

New clause 11—Welfare of child to be a distinct consideration when sentencing a primary carer—

‘(1) After section 227 of the Sentencing Act 2020, insert—

“227A Restrictions on imposing imprisonment on a primary carer

(1) This section applies where a court is considering imposing a custodial sentence on—

(a) a primary carer for a child, or

(b) a pregnant woman.

(2) The sentencing court must—

(a) consider the impact of a custodial sentence on the child or unborn child, and

(b) presume (subject to victim impact and any other sentencing considerations) that a non-custodial sentence is in the best interests of the child or unborn child.

(3) In this section—

(a) “child” means a person under the age of 18, and

(b) “primary carer” means a person who has primary or substantial care responsibilities for a child.”’

This new clause would create a requirement for a sentencing judge to consider the impact of a custodial sentence on a child when sentencing a primary carer of a dependent child.

New clause 12—Welfare of child to be a distinct consideration when determining bail for a primary carer—

‘(1) Section 4 of the Bail Act 1976 is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (9) insert—

“(10) Where a court determines whether to grant bail in criminal proceedings to a person to whom this section applies who is a primary carer for a child or pregnant, the court must—

(a) consider the impact of not granting bail on the child or unborn child; and

(b) presume (subject to victim impact or other relevant considerations) that it is in the best interests of the child or unborn child for bail to be granted.

(11) In this section—

(a) “child” means a person under the age of 18, and

(b) “primary carer” means a person who has primary or substantial care responsibilities for a child.”’

This new clause would impose a requirement for the judge to consider the impact of not granting bail on a child when determining, in criminal proceedings, whether to grant bail to a primary carer of a dependent child.

New clause 13—Data collection in relation to prisoners who are primary carers—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must collect and publish annual data identifying—

(a) how many prisoners are the primary carers of a child,

(b) how many children have a primary carer in custody, and

(c) the ages of those children.

(2) In this section—

(a) “child” means a person under the age of 18, and

(b) “primary carer” means a person who has primary or substantial

care responsibilities for a child.’

This new clause would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to collect and publish data on the number of prisoners who are the primary carers of a child and the number of children who have a primary carer in custody.

New clause 17—Maximum sentences for causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to suffer serious injury or death—

‘(1) Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 is amended as follows—

(a) in subsection (7), for “a term not exceeding 14 years” substitute “life”, and

(b) in subsection (8), for “10” substitute “14”.

(2) Schedule 19 of the Sentencing Act 2020 is amended by the insertion of the following after paragraph 20—

“Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004

20A An offence to which section 5(7) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 applies.”’

This new clause seeks to increase sentencing levels under section 5 of the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004 (causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to suffer serious injury or death) by raising the death offence to life imprisonment, and the “serious injury” offence to 14 years.

New clause 18—Custody for own protection or own welfare—

‘(1) The Bail Act 1976 is amended as follows.

(2) In Part 1 of Schedule 1 (Defendants accused or convicted of imprisonable offences) omit paragraph 3.

(3) In Part 1A of Schedule 1 (Defendants accused or convicted of imprisonable offences to which Part 1 does not apply) omit paragraph 5.

(4) In Part 2 of Schedule 1 (Defendants accused or convicted of non-imprisonable offences) omit paragraph 3.’

This new clause would repeal the power of the criminal courts to remand a defendant into custody for their own protection (or in the case of a child, for their own welfare) pending trial or sentence.

New clause 19—Justice impact assessment for Wales—

‘(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must issue a justice impact assessment for any provision of this Act, or regulations made under this Act, which impacts on matters which are devolved to the Welsh Parliament / Senedd Cymru.

(2) The Secretary of State must, within one month of the date on which they are made, issue a justice impact assessment for any regulations made under this Act which are not included in the assessment required under subsection (1) which impact on matters which are devolved to the Welsh Parliament / Senedd Cymru.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue an assessment of the impact of the Bill on devolved policy and services in Wales within six months of it passing, and to issue such an assessment of any further changes to regulations under the Bill within one month of making them.

New clause 20—Failing to stop or report accidents involving actual or potential serious or fatal injury—

‘(1) After subsection 170(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, insert—

“(4A) A person who fails to comply with subsections 170(2) or 170(3) when he knew that the accident had caused serious or fatal personal injury, or where he ought reasonably to have realised that it might have done so, is guilty of an offence.”

(2) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offences: offences under the Traffic Acts), after the entry relating to an offence under RTA subsection 170(4), insert the following—

RTA Section 170(4A)

Failing to stop and give particulars after accident involving actual or potential serious or fatal injury or to report accident

On indictment

14 years

Obligatory

Obligatory

6-11

(3) After subsection 34(3)(d) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, insert—

“(e) section 4A (failing to stop and give particulars after accident involving actual or potential serious or fatal injury or to report accident)”’.

This new clause creates a new offence of failing to stop or report accidents where the driver knew that the accident had caused serious or fatal injury, or where he ought reasonably to have realised that it might have done so, with a maximum sentence of 14 years custody.

New clause 21—Definition of “exceptional hardship”

‘In the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, after subsection 35(4), insert—

“(4A) (a) In subsection (4)(b) above, the hardship that would be caused by an offender’s disqualification should be regarded as exceptional if and only if it is significantly greater than the hardship that would arise for a large majority of other drivers if the same disqualification were imposed on them.

(b) In assessing whether the hardship arising from the offender’s disqualification would be exceptional, a court may take account of—

(i) any circumstances relating to the offender’s economic circumstances or location of residence that would make it exceptionally hard for him to access key services such as grocery shops and postal, banking and healthcare facilities,

(ii) any hardship that would be incurred by the offender’s family or others who are disabled and who depend on the offender to provide care for them, and

(iii) any other circumstance which it believes would make the hardship genuinely exceptional.”’

This new clause provides a definition of “exceptional hardship” for the purpose of RTOA ss35(4)(b). It requires that a court should only regard hardship as “exceptional” if it is significantly greater than the hardship that would arise for a large majority of other drivers if the same disqualification were imposed on them.

New clause 22—Special measures access for eligible witnesses—

‘(1) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 19(2), omit paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

“(a) inform the witness of the special measures which are available to them by virtue of this Act; and

(b) give a direction under this section providing for whichever measure or measures as the witness may decide they wish to be applied to apply to evidence given by the witness.

Provided that a direction under paragraph (b) shall ensure that the measure or measures provided for do not inhibit the evidence of the witness being effectively tested by a party to the proceedings.”

(3) Omit section 19(3).’

This new clause would mean that once witnesses are determined as eligible for special measures they will be informed of all provisions and able to decide which option best suits them, rather than relying on the court to decide which measures would best improve the quality of evidence.

New clause 25—Restriction on evidence or questions about mental health counselling or treatment records relating to complainant or witness—

‘(1) The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 43 insert—

“43A Restriction on evidence or questions about mental health counselling or treatment records relating to complainant or witness

(1) If at a trial a person is charged with a sexual offence, then, except with the leave of the court—

(a) no evidence may be adduced, and

(b) no question may be asked in cross examination, by or on behalf of any accused at the trial, about any records made in relation to any mental health counselling or treatment which may have been undertaken by a complainant or witness.

(2) The records made include those made by—

(a) a counsellor,

(b) a therapist,

(c) an Independent Sexual Violence Adviser (ISVA), and

(d) any victim support services.

(3) The court may give leave in relation to any evidence or question only on an application made by or on behalf of a party to the trial, and may not give such leave unless it is satisfied that—

(a) the evidence or question relates to a relevant issue in the case which will include a specific instance (or specific instances) of alleged sexual behaviour on the part of the complainant,

(b) the evidence or question has significant probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice, and

(c) a refusal of leave might have the result of rendering unsafe a conclusion of the jury or (as the case may be) the court on any relevant issue in the case.

(4) For the purposes of making a determination under paragraph (3)(b) the judge shall take into account—

(a) the interests of justice, including the right of the accused to make a full answer and defence;

(b) the need to preserve the integrity of the trial process by removing from the fact-finding process any discriminatory belief or bias;

(c) the risk that the evidence may unduly arouse sentiments of prejudice, sympathy or hostility in the jury;

(d) the potential threat to the personal dignity and right to privacy of the complainant or witness;

(e) the complainant’s or witness’s right to personal security and to the full protection and benefit of the law;

(f) the provisions of the Victims Code; and

(g) any other factor that the judge considers relevant.

(5) Where this section applies in relation to a trial by virtue of the fact that one or more of a number of persons charged in the proceedings is or are charged with a sexual offence—

(a) it shall cease to apply in relation to the trial if the prosecutor decides not to proceed with the case against that person or those persons in respect of that charge; but

(b) it shall not cease to do so in the event of that person or those persons pleading guilty to, or being convicted of, that charge.

(6) Nothing in this section authorises any evidence to be adduced or any question to be asked which cannot be adduced or asked apart from this section.

(7) In relation to evidence or questions under this section, if no pre-trial application in accordance with Part 36 of the Criminal Procedure Rules has been made, or if such application has been made and refused in whole or in part, no further application may be made during the course of the trial or before its commencement to call such evidence or ask such question, and no judge may allow such application or admit any such questions or evidence.”’

This new clause would restrict evidence or questions about mental health counselling or treatment records relating to complainant or witness unless a defined threshold is met.

New clause 54—Equality Impact Analyses of provisions of this Act—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must review the equality impact of the provisions of this Act in accordance with this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passage of this Act.

(2) A review under this section must consider the impact of those provisions on—

(a) households at different levels of income,

(b) people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010),

(c) the Government’s compliance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and

(d) equality in different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England.

(3) A review under this section must include a separate analysis of each section of the Act, and must also consider the cumulative impact of the Act as a whole.’

New clause 73—Unduly lenient sentences: time limit—

‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 3, paragraph 1, after “within” leave out “28” and insert “56”.’

New clause 74—Reviews of sentencing: assaulting an emergency worker—

‘(1) Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Reviews of Sentencing) Order 2006 (descriptions of cases to which Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 is to apply) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 2, after sub-paragraph (i) insert—

“(ia) an offence under section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018.’

New clause 75—No automatic early release for prisoners who assault prison staff whilst in jail—

‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) In Section 244, after subsection (1A) insert—

“(1B) Subsection (1) does not apply if the prisoner has assaulted a member of prison staff whilst in prison and instead the prisoner must not be released until the end of his original sentence.’

New clause 76—Dangerous driving: increased penalties—

‘(1) Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offences: offences under the Traffic Acts) is amended as follows.

(2) In the entry relating to section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (dangerous driving), in column (4) (punishment), under (b) for “2 years” substitute “5 years”.’

New clause 77—Limitation of use of fixed-term recalls—

‘(1) Section 255A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Further release after recall: introductory) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection 4, insert—

“(4A) A person is not suitable for automatic release if—

(a) he is an extended sentence prisoner or a specified offence prisoner;

(b) in a case where paragraph (a) does not apply, he was recalled under section 254 before the normal entitlement date (having been released before that date under section 246 or 248); or

(c) in a case where neither of the preceding paragraphs applies, he has, during the same term of imprisonment, already been released under section 255B(1)(b) or (2) or section 255C(2).”’

New clause 78—Open prisons: murderers—

‘No prisoner serving a sentence for murder can be moved to a Category D prison.’

New clause 79—Resettlement licence: murderers—

‘No prisoner serving a sentence for murder will be eligible for resettlement licence.’

New clause 80—Open prisons: serious offenders—

‘No prisoner serving a sentence for an indictable only offence can be moved to a Category D prison.’

New clause 81—Open prisons: deportees—

‘No prisoner serving a sentence for which he is liable for deportation can be moved to a Category D prison.’

New clause 82—Resettlement licence: deportees—

‘No prisoner serving a sentence for which he is liable for deportation can be eligible for resettlement licence.’

New clause 83—No difference in sentencing between using a knife in a murder in a home compared to taking a knife to murder someone—

‘(1) The Sentencing Act 2020 is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 21 (Determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence for murder etc), after sub-paragraph 4(2), insert—

“(3) Sub-paragraph (2) above applies where the knife or weapon is taken to the scene from anywhere within the same premises.”’

New clause 86—Review of domestic homicide—

‘(1) Within 18 months of the commencement of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission a review and publish a report on the effectiveness of current legislation and sentencing policy surrounding domestic abuse, with a particular view to making policy recommendations to increase sentences for domestic homicide, and reduce the gap in sentence length between domestic homicide and other homicides.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must be conducted by a person who meets the criteria for qualification for appointment to the Supreme Court, as set out in section 25 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.

(3) A review under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) trends in the incidences and types of domestic abuse, with a focus on domestic homicide,

(b) sentencing policy as it applies to domestic abuse, with a focus on domestic homicide,

(c) current sentencing guidelines as they relate to domestic abuse, with a focus on domestic homicide, and

(d) the creation of new defences and/or mitigating circumstances to protect victims of domestic abuse who commit offences as a consequence of that abuse.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (1) domestic homicide is to be defined as circumstances in which the death of a person aged 16 or over has, or appears to have, resulted from violence, abuse or neglect by a person to whom they were related or with whom they were, or had been, in an intimate personal relationship, or a member of the same household as themselves.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.

(6) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than 3 months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.’

This new clause compels the Government to commission a review and publish a report on the effectiveness of current legislation and sentencing policy surrounding domestic abuse, with a particular focus on increasing sentences for domestic homicide. The review would also consider the creation of new protections to assist victims of domestic abuse who commit domestic homicide.

New clause 87—Maximum sentence for publishing the identity of a sexual offences complainant—

‘(1) Section 5 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), leave out “and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale”.

(3) After subsection (1), insert the following subsection—

“(1A) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both, or

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.”’

This new clause would give courts the power to hand down custodial sentences of up to 2 years to those convicted of naming a sexual offences complainant.

New clause 88—Law Commission consideration of the use of complainants’ sexual history in rape trials—

‘The Secretary of State must seek advice and information from the Law Commission under section (3)(1)(e) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 with proposals for the reform or amendment of the law relating to the use of complainants’ sexual history in rape trials.’

This new clause would compel the Government to seek a Law Commission review on the use of complainants’ sexual history in rape trials.

New clause 89—Minimum sentence for an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003—

‘(1) This section applies where—

(a) an individual is convicted of an offence under section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and

(b) the offence was committed after the commencement of this section and at a time when the individual was aged 18 or over.

(2) The court shall impose an appropriate custodial sentence (or order for detention) for a term of at least the required minimum term (with or without a fine) unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which justify its not doing so.

(3) In this section “appropriate custodial sentence (or order for detention)” means—

(a) in the case of an offender who is aged 18 or over when convicted, a sentence of imprisonment, and

(b) in the case of an offender who is aged under 18 at that time, a sentence of detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

(4) In this section “the required minimum term” means seven years.’

This new clause creates a statutory minimum sentence for rape of 7 years. A court must impose at least the statutory minimum unless it is of the opinion there are exceptional circumstances relating to the offence or to the offender which justify not doing so.

New clause 92—Sentencing escalator—

‘(1) Any person convicted of the same criminal offence on a second or subsequent occasion must receive—

(a) a longer custodial sentence than his longest previous custodial sentence for the same offence if a custodial sentence has previously been given; or

(b) a more severe sentence than his highest previous non-custodial sentence for the same offence if a custodial sentence has not already been given for a previous offence unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—

(i) relate to the offence or to the offender, and

(ii) justify not doing so.

(2) Where the sentencing options available for the current offence do not permit the court to increase the sentence under the provisions of subsection (1), the court must impose the maximum sentence available to it, unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which—

(a) relate to the offence or to the offender, and

(b) justify not doing so.

(3) In determining a sentence under subsection (1), a court is not bound by Section 59 (Sentencing guidelines: general duty of court) or Section 60 (Sentencing guidelines: determination of sentence) of the Sentencing Act 2020.’

New clause 93—Effect of remand on bail on time served in prison (amendment of Criminal Justice Act 2003)

‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1B)(c) of section 237 (Meaning of “fixed-term prisoner” etc), leave out “or section 240A”.

(3) In the italic heading before section 240 (Crediting of periods of remand in custody: terms of imprisonment and detention), after “custody”, leave out “or on bail subject to certain types of condition”.

(4) Omit section 240A (Time remanded on bail to count towards time served: terms of imprisonment and detention).’

This new clause, together with NC94 would remove tagged curfew from time on remand on bail which is deducted from time served in prison.

New clause 94—Effect of remand on bail time served in prison (amendment of Sentencing Act 2020—

‘Sections 325 (Time on bail under certain conditions: declaration by court) and 326 Section 325: interpretation) of the Sentencing Act 2020 are omitted.’

This new clause, together with NC93 would remove tagged curfew from time on remand on bail which is deducted from time served in prison.

New clause 95—Magistrates’ sentencing powers—

‘The following statutory provisions shall, notwithstanding any commencement provision in any Act, come into force—

(1) Section 154 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (General limit on magistrates’ court’s power to impose imprisonment).

(2) Section 282 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Increase in maximum term that may be imposed on summary conviction of offence triable either way).

(3) Paragraphs 24 and 25 of Part 5 of Schedule 22 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (Increase in magistrates’ court‘s power to impose imprisonment).’

This new clause would bring into force provisions which would increase magistrates’ sentencing powers from a maximum of 6 to a maximum of 12 months for one offence.

New clause 96—Power of police to stop vehicles—

‘(1) Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), after “vehicle” in the second place in which it occurs, insert “, and switch off the engine,”.’

This new clause to the Road Traffic Act 1988 would require a person to switch off their engine after being stopped by a constable in uniform or a traffic officer, and make it an offence not to do so.

New clause 97—Video recorded cross-examination or re-examination of complainants in respect of sexual offences and modern slavery offences—

‘(1) Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 comes into force in relation to proceedings to which subsection (2) applies on the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) This subsection applies where a witness is eligible for assistance by virtue of section 17(4) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (complainants in respect of a sexual offence or modern slavery offence who are witnesses in proceedings relating to that offence, or that offence and any other offences).

(3) This section has effect notwithstanding section 68(3) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.’

This new clause would bring section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, which provides for the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses to be recorded rather than undertaken in court, fully into force for victims of sexual offences and modern slavery offences.

Amendment 50, in clause 102, page 87, line 41, at end insert—

“(bb) the abduction, sexual assault, and murder of a person”.

This amendment would ensure those found guilty of abduction, sexual assault, and murder receive a Whole Life Order as a starting sentence.

Amendment 48, in clause 110, page 99, line 41, at beginning insert—

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

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

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

Amendment 49, page 99, line 41, at beginning insert—

‘(1) In subsection (4) of section 239 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (the Parole Board), at end insert “, including the views of the victim or victims of the crime to which the case relates.”’

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

Amendment 63, page 127, line 33, leave out clause 139.

Amendment 122, in clause 139, page 127, line 43, at end insert—

“(8) A secure 16 to 19 Academy will be subject to annual inspection by—

(a) Ofsted;

(b) Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons; and

(c) Care Quality Commission.”

This amendment would make secure 16 to 19 academies subject to annual inspection by Ofsted, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, and the Care Quality Commission.

Amendment 123, page 128, line 25, at the end insert—

“(5) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act coming into force, prepare and publish a report on the progress made towards opening the first 16 to 19 academies and must lay a copy before Parliament.

(6) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than four weeks after the report required by subsection (5) has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.

(7) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the opening of the first 16 to 19 academy, prepare and publish an impact assessment on the effectiveness of 16 to 19 academies and must lay a copy before Parliament.

(8) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than four weeks after the impact assessment required by subsection (7) has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the impact assessment.”

This amendment would ensure the Secretary of State lay a report and update Parliament on progress made towards opening secure academy facilities and lay an impact assessment before Parliament and provide a debate on the impact assessment.

Amendment 124, in clause 169, page 191, line 37, at end insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State may exercise the power in section 176(1) so as to bring this section (and part 3 of Schedule 19) into force only if the condition in subsection (5) is met.

(5) The condition in this subsection is that a review of the impact of the expansion of audio and video links in criminal proceedings has been conducted in accordance with subsection (6).

(6) The review mentioned in subsection (5) must—

(a) collect evidence of the impact of live audio and video links on—

(i) sentencing and remand decisions,

(ii) the effective participation of defendants,

(iii) the experience of victims and witnesses,

(iv) the cost to the wider justice system, including costs borne by the police and prison systems; and

(b) be undertaken by a person who is independent of the Secretary of State.

(7) The review mentioned in subsection (5) may also consider any other matter which the person conducting the review considers relevant.”

This amendment would ensure that the expansion in the use of audio and video links will not be undertaken until an independent review of its impact has been undertaken.

New clause 14—Offence of buying a pet for cash etc—

‘(1) A person “P” must not pay for a pet except—

(a) by a cheque which under section 81A of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 is not transferable, or

(b) by an electronic transfer of funds (authorised by credit or debit card or otherwise).

(2) The Secretary of State may by order amend subsection (1) to permit other methods of payment.

(3) In this section paying includes paying in kind (with goods or services).

(4) If P pays for a pet in breach of subsection (1), P is guilty of an offence.

(5) If P is guilty of an offence under this section, P is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(6) For the purposes of this section, “pet” means and animal which—

(a) provides companionship to any human being,

(b) provides assistance to any human being, or

(c) provides assistance to any human being in the course of their work.’

New clause 15—Offence of failing to scan a microchip—

‘(1) When a relevant animal is presented for a consultation with a veterinary surgeon (or registered veterinary nurse), the veterinary surgeon (or veterinary nurse) must—

(a) scan the microchip of the relevant animal,

(b) check that the microchip number is registered on a database by a database operator which meets current conditions set out in law,

(c) check that the person accompanying the relevant animal is either the registered keeper of the relevant animal or has, to the satisfaction of the veterinary surgeon (or veterinary nurse), the permission of the registered keeper of the relevant animal to accompany that animal, and

(d) if the condition in paragraph (c) is not met, report to the police the fact that the relevant animal is not accompanied by the registered keeper or a person authorised by the registered keeper.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a “relevant animal” means an animal which is required by law to be microchipped.

(3) If a veterinary surgeon (or veterinary nurse) is in breach of subsection (1), they are guilty of an offence.

(4) If a veterinary surgeon (or veterinary nurse) is guilty of an offence under this section, they are liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.’

New clause 16—Offence of pet theft—

‘(1) The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 2 (“protected animal”) insert—

“2A Definition of pet

A protected animal is a “pet” for the purposes of this Act if it—

(a) provides companionship to any human being,

(b) provides assistance to any human being, or

(c) provides assistance to any human being in the course of their work.”

(3) After section 8 (fighting etc.) insert—

“8A Pet theft

A person commits an offence if they dishonestly appropriate a pet belonging to another person.”

(4) In section 32 (imprisonment or fine) before subsection (1) insert—

“(A1) A person guilty of an offence under section 8A (pet theft) shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine, or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or to a fine, or both.

(A2) When the court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under section 8A it must consider the following as aggravating factors (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of the offence)—

(a) the theft caused fear, alarm or distress to the pet, the owner of the pet or another person associated with the pet;

(b) the theft was for the purposes of commercial gain.”

(5) In section 34(10) (disqualification) after “8,” insert “8A,”.’

New clause 98—Offence of pet theft—

‘(1) The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 2 (“protected animal”) insert—

“(2A) Definition of pet A protected animal is a “pet” for the purposes of this Act if it provides companionship or assistance to any human being.”

(3) After section 8 (fighting etc.) insert—

“8A Pet theft

A person commits an offence if they dishonestly appropriate a pet belonging to another person with the intention of permanently depriving that other person of it.”

(4) In section 32 (imprisonment or fine) before subsection (1) insert—

“(A1) A person guilty of an offence under section 8A (pet theft) shall be

liable—

(a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine, or to both;

(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years, or to a fine, or to both.

(A2) When the court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under section 8A it must consider the following as aggravating factors (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of the offence)—

(a) the theft caused fear, alarm or distress to the pet, the owner or the pet or another person associated with the pet;

(b) the theft was for the purposes of commercial gain.”

(5) In section 34(10) (disqualification) after “8,” insert “8A,”.’

New clause 99—Offence of pet theft (Scotland)—

‘(1) The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 17 (protected animals) insert—

“17A Definition of pet

A protected animal is a “pet” for the purposes of this Act if it provides companionship or assistance to any human being.”

(3) After section 23 (animal fights) insert—

“23A Pet theft

A person commits an offence if they dishonestly appropriate a pet belonging to another person with the intention of permanently depriving that other person of it.”

(4) In section 40 (disqualification orders) after subsection (13)(b) insert—

“(ba) an offence under section 23A,”.

(5) In section 46 (penalties for offences) after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) A person guilty of an offence under section 23A (pet theft) shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or a fine, or to both;

(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 4 years, or to a fine, or to both.

(1B) When the court is considering for the purposes of sentencing the seriousness of an offence under section 23A it must consider the following as aggravating factors (that is to say, a factor that increases the seriousness of the offence)—

(a) that theft caused fear, alarm or distress to the pet, the owner or the pet or another person associated with the pet;

(b) the theft was for the purposes of commercial gain.”

(6) In Schedule 1 (powers of inspectors and constables for Part 2) after paragraph 4(5)(a) insert—

“(aa) an offence under section 23A,”.’

New clause 100—Offence of pet theft: consequential amendments—

‘(1) The Police and Criminal Evidence Act is amended as follows.

(2) In section 17(1)(c)(v) (entry for purposes of arrest, etc in connection with offences relating to the prevention of harm to animals), for “and 8(1) and (2)” substitute “8(1) and (2) and 8A”.’

New clause 30—Voyeurism: breastfeeding—

‘(1) Section 67A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (Voyeurism: additional offences) is amended as set out in subsection (2).

(2) After subsection (2), insert—

“(2A) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a) A records an image of another person (B) while B is breastfeeding;

(b) A does so with the intention that A or another person (C) will look at the image for a purpose mentioned in subsection (3), and

(c) A does so—

(i) without B’s consent, and

(ii) without reasonably believing that B consents.”’

New clause 3 would deal with a problem that the Government have acknowledged: that on the question of rape, the justice system lets women down and lets men off the hook. There are many problems that contribute to that, but one that the Government have rightly identified is that the process focuses on the complainant rather than on the defendant. The investigation becomes an investigation of the complainant—her mobile phone, what she was doing, her attitudes—and not of the suspect. The trial becomes the trial of the complainant, not of the defendant, in one very material way: the use by the defendant of the complainant’s previous sexual history by bringing it into evidence.

It has been acknowledged since as long ago as 1999 that the complainant’s previous sexual history is not the issue, and it is wrong for the defendant to try to use it to deter her from supporting a prosecution for fear that all her dirty washing will be washed in public, in open court, or that it will undermine her standing and credibility in the eyes of the jury. That was supposed to be outlawed in 1999, but it has become clear that a loophole was left when we changed the law.

In a third of all rape cases now, one way or another, the defendant brings into court the complainant’s previous sexual history. When the Victims’ Commissioner was a police and crime commissioner, she conducted research that showed that in one third of rape trials observed, the previous sexual history of the complainant was brought into evidence. That research is backed up by work done by the Criminal Bar Association.

The Victims’ Commissioner gives the example of a complainant who had her parents in court to support her. They did not know that she had had an abortion, but the defendant brought that into evidence in order to undermine her and throw off her ability to give her evidence—there were her parents, sitting in court, and they did not even know that she had had an abortion. Another report was of a case in which the jury were told, “This is a woman who has had adulterous affairs,” thereby trying to undermine her. Of course, that is not relevant to the issue of whether or not a rape has been committed, so we need to tighten up the law.

I have drafted a perfectly good, watertight clause to tighten up the law so that where the question of previous sexual history is relevant, especially if it is with the same partner in respect of whom the rape is alleged, it is allowed in evidence with the permission of the judge, but where it is not relevant, it is not. However, our Front Bench and the Government in their rape review have said that they are minded to send it to the Law Commission to look at. I would have preferred the Government to legislate in the Bill, which is after all the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, but they have decided not to do that; they say that they will refer to the Law Commission the whole question of the focus on the complainant, so I make two requests in that respect.

First, I think that the Law Commission should sit with an independent reference group. I have a great deal of respect for the Law Commission, but quite frankly we cannot leave it to get on with it on its own. We need an expert, independent reference group that is steeped in understanding of the issue and that can help the Law Commission. I suggest that Rape Crisis England & Wales should be on that group, and so should the Victims’ Commissioner.

My second request is that there should be a time limit on the Law Commission’s work. The Law Commission goes into things very deeply, but we do not want this to go on and on for years—it has been a problem for years, so we do not want it to go into the long grass with a never-ending Law Commission investigation. We want the findings to be ready for when the Government are thinking of bringing forward their victims Bill, which they will consult on shortly and which arises out of the violence against women and girls consultation. If we are not going to accept this today, and the Government are not, let us have the Law Commission looking at it, with an independent reference group and with a time limit. Then, the Government will have done more than just apologise to rape victims for justice not being done; they will make sure that in future justice is done.

We now go to the Chair of the Justice Committee, Sir Robert Neill, and the four-minute time limit comes into force for Back Benchers at this point.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and to talk on these important matters. Although I understand the motives behind the series of amendments standing in her name, I must start by disagreeing with the fundamental approach in some respects. I think it is right that this does go to the Law Commission, because these are potentially very important changes and they affect, inevitably, the balance that must be achieved in a criminal trial between the proper protection of the interests of any witness and the right of any defendant to have a fair trial in which all relevant issues—I stress that—are ventilated. Frequently, the issue of consent would not be relevant to the defence, but there are circumstances in which it is and we should not be making substantive changes here without very careful consideration. The same applies in respect of a number of the other amendments that the right hon. and learned Lady and others have tabled. Again, I understand the reasoning, but, for example, changing the definition of “consent” in relation to recklessness would make a significant change to the substantive criminal law in this area, and that should not be undertaken via an addition to an already large Bill, with limited scrutiny.

There are significant arguments to be considered on both sides, and the Law Commission is the right route for all of these matters. In my experience, and that of the Select Committee, the Law Commission is well able to move swiftly given the resources and the support to do so. I hope that we can leave this on the basis of having a proper look at what are very significant matters, affecting not just the question of the protection of victims, but the right of any defendant to a proper airing of the evidence. Although I am clear that there are still areas where complainants in such cases do not receive the treatment that they should, the position both in the courts and in the investigation of such offences is very much improved from where it was. We can always continue to do more, but inevitably now cases of this kind are tried by highly experienced and senior judges. My experience of having both prosecuted and defended in many such cases is that the courts are robust and swift in dealing with such matters and in rejecting inappropriate applications to stray beyond the relevant issues.

In the time available, may I also touch on some of the other amendments? I would be troubled at anything that fetters the discretion of the courts in relation to minimum sentences. At the end of the day, all aggravating features can properly be set before the courts. The Government and this House have increased maximum sentences in a number of areas, and I have a concern in principle at the imposition of minimum sentences, which have the potential in certain circumstances to tie the hands of the courts. There is an amendment on the representation of families of the deceased at inquests in certain circumstances. I do not think this Bill is the right place for that, but I strongly commend to the Lord Chancellor, whom I am glad to see on the Treasury Bench, the Justice Committee’s report on this, and I hope that in his response we will be given a constructive way forward to deal with those matters.

It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Select Committee.

This Bill presented the Government with an opportunity to enact measures that would end violence against women and girls, but I am afraid that they blew it, instead filling the Bill with divisive nonsense such as locking up protestors who cause “annoyance.” Today the Government have a final opportunity to support Labour’s proposals—to show the public it cares about violence against women and girls, and wants to create a criminal justice system that works for them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I will just make some progress, if I may.

I think most people would be appalled to learn that rapists can be sentenced to as little as four years in prison—for one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. We presented the Government with research that showed that our sentences for rape were lower than other common law jurisdictions. The Australian Law Reform Commission said that its national penalty range was 12 years to life; in the state of Victoria, rape carries a standard sentence of 10 years; and in India the minimum sentence has just gone up to 10 years.

I wonder if the shadow Secretary of State has forgotten that when he was a Minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, Labour voted for rapists to serve less of their sentence in prison. In fact, section 244 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 now requires all prisoners to be released after just 50% of their sentence is served. Prior to that point, those sentenced to four years or more had to serve more than two thirds of their sentence.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is misreading what we did in office. The point is that today, he has an opportunity to vote for a minimum sentence. The question is: is he going to take it?

The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) helpfully indicated that 68% of those found guilty of rape are sentenced to more than seven years in prison, which means that about a third of rapists receive only four to seven years. How can that be right? My question to the Lord Chancellor is a simple one: does he believe that a rapist should ever conceivably receive a sentence of only four years in prison? The Government explained that one of their reasons for rejecting our amendment was because they did not agree with statutory minimum sentences, yet clause 100 of this Bill creates a statutory minimum sentence for repeat offenders of certain crimes, including drug offences and burglaries. Why does the Lord Chancellor feel that those crimes are serious enough to warrant a minimum sentence, but rape is not? A recent poll showed that almost 80% of the public would support our proposal, with only 7% opposed. I call on the Lord Chancellor to show that he believes the same.

The Government’s rape review specifically recognises that one of the reasons that almost half of victims of rape withdraw is the fear of giving evidence in court. We know that the pre-recording of evidence is hugely important in limiting the distress of already traumatised victims, and that rolling out section 28 would allow more rape victims to see justice done quicker. Why, then, are the Government re-piloting something that has already been piloted twice? The lack of ambition is staggering. This is typical, frankly, of a Department that is obsessed with endless reviews and utterly averse to radical action. The Government have already failed far too many victims of these horrific crimes; hopefully that will change tonight.

Following the tragic death of Sarah Everard, the Opposition tabled an amendment that would extend whole-life orders to someone guilty of a murder, abduction and sexual assault of a stranger. A whole-life order is a commitment that the offender will never be released from prison again. The Opposition believe that, for this crime, a whole-life order is the only appropriate sentence. Amendment 50 would mean that anyone found guilty of the murder, abduction and sexual assault of another person—crimes that are so reprehensible—would spend the rest of their lives in prison. I do not feel that that is a difficult point and I hope the Secretary of State will agree.

The Victims’ Commissioner and Domestic Abuse Commissioner have called out the culture of misogyny throughout the criminal justice system that is clearly demonstrated in the response to domestic homicides. A quick scan through recent data powerfully illustrates that point: according to a report by the Femicide Census, 62% of women killed by men were killed by a current or former partner, and 70% of all murders of a woman by a man took place either in a shared home or in the victim’s home.

Yet we know that there is a serious anomaly in the sentencing of homicide cases that results in murderers who kill in the home being treated far more leniently than those who kill outside the home. As Carol Gould put it so poignantly,

“Why should a life taken in the home by someone you know be valued less than a life taken by a stranger in the streets?”

It is clear to the Opposition that it should not, and that is why we have tabled new clause 86, which would require the Lord Chancellor to commission an independent review into that aspect of sentencing. In this country, a woman is killed by a man on average every three days. From 2017 to 2019, there were 357 domestic homicides. The perpetrators of those despicable crimes cannot expect to benefit from this sentencing anomaly any longer.

As the law currently stands, complainants of serious sexual offences are granted lifelong anonymity. Although in some cases, identifying a complainant could result in an offender being prosecuted for contempt of court, they will, more often than not, receive only a fine. During questions on this last month, I raised the case of Phillip Leece to show just how devastating revealing the identity of the complainant can be. For naming and humiliating his victim online, he received a pathetic fine of only £120. At the time, the Lord Chancellor seemed to agree with me that the law in this area must be strengthened. New clause 87 would do just that by giving judges the power to sentence offenders for up to two years. In Committee, the Minister indicated that the Government took that point seriously, but went on to vote against the Opposition’s new clause. The Government accept that work has to be done in this area, so let us see tonight what the action is.

May I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for raising the important issue of the use of sexual history in rape trials? The Opposition wholeheartedly agree that no victim of a sexual offence should have to feel victimised twice by experiencing a hugely traumatic experience in the courtroom. The last thing we want is for an alleged victim of rape to face the ordeal of their sexual history being discussed in court unless the strictest of criteria are met. If section 41 is not being used as intended, it is only right that it is reviewed and, if necessary, strengthened. That is the purpose of new clause 88, which would compel the Government to seek the advice of the Law Commission as to whether section 41 is fit for purpose. Yet again, this is too important an issue to be kicked into the long grass, and I would appreciate assurances that any review will be completed before a victims Bill comes before the House.

Amendment 124 would ensure that any expansion in the use of audio and video links in courts will not undermine access to justice or the efficiency of our justice system. As the Lord Chancellor will appreciate, the move towards jury members being able to sit remotely is a seismic shift that could have profound consequences. It is concerning therefore that the Government seem content to introduce clause 168 without any evidence base or consultation. In Committee, the Opposition tabled several amendments that would provide safeguards to clause 168, but the Government rejected them on the basis that they were unnecessary. The hypothetical benefits of remote juries are limited, but it is crucial that those limited benefits are not introduced at the expense of access to justice and the right to a fair trial. Amendment 124 would ensure that the expansion of audio and video links is not implemented until an independent review has been undertaken.

Pets are a much loved and integral part of all families, and certainly of our family—I am thinking of my dog, Silver, as I say that. They bring us support, comfort and happiness, and I am smiling already thinking of my beautiful dog at home. During the pandemic, the number of dog thefts has skyrocketed, and we are now at a point where at least five dogs are stolen in England every day. That is why the Opposition have tabled new clause 98. Pet owners up and down the country would be horrified to learn that while the law of theft caters for certain offences—for example, the theft of a bicycle, of scrap metal and of wild mushrooms—that is not the case for the theft of pets, and this must change.

I am pleased to see that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has tabled new clause 16, which is in effect a carbon copy of the new clause that we tabled in Committee. I am pleased to have the support of a Spurs supporter and a long-standing Member of the House, but I think we could do better. Since Committee, concerns have been raised about the two-year maximum tariff and we have listened to those concerns. As the Lord Chancellor will know, many of these thefts are being conducted not by petty criminals but by highly organised criminal gangs working across borders, and we are concerned that a two-year maximum penalty would not act as a sufficient deterrent to those people, so we have raised it to four years in our new clause 48. I hope that the Lord Chancellor can hear that the official Opposition are attempting to be reasonable, and that he will support some of the new clauses that we have put forward tonight.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), particularly as he referred to my new clauses—although not all of them, it has to be said. He referred to one of them, but there are two more. The new clauses are very clear, and I shall speak to them this evening. New clause 14 would require the cash sale of pets to be banned so that the only way for people to do those sales would be by cheque or bank transfer. That would mean that pet sellers could be tracked and the owners identified. This has become too easy a business.

New clause 15 would make it compulsory for pets that have to be microchipped to be scanned as well by vets, to check that the microchip number is registered on an approved database and that it confirms the correct registered keeper. New clause 16 would make the offence of pet theft a specific category of crime, as the right hon. Member for Tottenham said, carrying a much more significant set of fines and even incarceration.

Of course I share my right hon. Friend’s sentiment, but I was a bit concerned when I read his new clause about microchips. Is it really going to end up creating offences for vets? I would have thought they already had enough on their plates in often difficult and emotional circumstances.

That may be the case, but the reality is that, by law, dogs must be microchipped. It makes no sense to microchip a dog, only for some vets not to scan them. That would mean that people who had stolen dogs could simply take them to the vet of their choice, knowing that they would not be scanned. The point is that if we have an offence, we must follow it through. Those pets must be scanned; otherwise, they will get stolen and sold without redress.

Those were the three areas that were raised with me, and many of my colleagues and friends who have signed these new clauses have also faced the same concerns. There has been a staggering welling up of anger, concern and worry about what might happen to people’s pets. There are some who will not go on walks with their dogs at the moment for fear of what might happen. It is important for the Government to recognise that this is a major concern.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. The truth is that I have had a lot of discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor about this, and I feel that he is very sympathetic. I am sure that he can speak for himself, but I hope that he will give an undertaking that the Government will return to this matter in this Bill, at least by the time it is in the other place, and make whatever changes are necessary to the laws and regulations in terms of criminal justice. I have a high hope that that will be the case, but I will leave it to my right hon. and learned Friend to make his position clear when he gets to his feet.

I want to back up my right hon. Friend, having put my name to these amendments. The reason that this measure needs to be in this Bill is that we have seen such a huge rise in the number of pet owners during the pandemic. I have not seen the amount of casework on this issue in 11 years that I have seen in recent months.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right, and that is the point I was trying to make earlier. There has been a huge upwelling of anger and concern about the theft of dogs in particular, but pets in general. These three new clauses highlight that particular issue. It is not a simple thing or something that can be ignored, and it is quite interesting to look at what has happened to prosecutions.

Order. I have absolutely no problem with interventions, but it may be that we can get everybody in if people still stick to four minutes, even if they take interventions.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for his support.

I have 16 new clauses in this group that deal with issues such as extending the time limits for appealing unduly lenient sentences, including for assaulting an emergency worker, under the unduly lenient sentence scheme; limiting the use of fixed-term recalls, ensuring that there is no difference in sentencing between using a knife in a murder in a home compared with taking a knife to murder someone elsewhere; and a sentencing escalator ensuring that people who repeatedly commit the same offence must get a more severe penalty each time they do so, which has a huge amount of support from the public. I hope that the Secretary of State will write to me with his response to each of my new clauses.

In the limited time available, I want to focus on new clause 75, which would ensure that there was no automatic early release of prisoners who assault prison staff while in jail. I would like to see an end to all automatic early release, as alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings. However, as it seems that the Government are not quite with us on that just yet, my new clause would send a clear message to those who assault hard-working and dedicated prison officers and other staff in our prisons that they would have to serve the whole of their sentence in prison if they indulged in that kind of activity rather than, as at the moment, so many people being automatically released halfway through. If jailed criminals attack a prison officer, surely they should lose their right to automatic early release and serve their sentence in full.

Far too many prison officers are being assaulted. They do a very difficult job and we are not giving them sufficient support. We should be doing our bit to prevent these assaults from happening. Clearly, if people knew that they would have to serve the entirety of their sentence in prison, that would be a good deterrent. At the moment, they can assault prison officers and prison staff with near impunity because they know they are still going to be released halfway through their sentence. The number of extra days—I repeat, days—that are given to people when they commit the offence of assaulting a prison officer is derisory. We owe a duty of care to prison officers and should make sure that they are as well protected as possible when they are doing their public service.

That also ties in with the spirit of what the Government have been trying to achieve on attacks on emergency workers. I certainly agree with what the Government are doing in this Bill and I look forward to the Secretary of State bringing forward his proposals to deal with attacks on shopworkers when the Bill goes to another place. I think that showing we are on the side of prison officers, hard-working public servants, in this way would be a very welcome step forward. I imagine that most common-sense members of the public would be surprised to know that this is not the case already, to be perfectly honest.

I have not had any indication from the Government that they are planning to accept my new clause 75. I would love to hear from the Secretary of State why he thinks it is perfectly reasonable for criminals who assault a prison officer not to have their automatic early release stopped and why he thinks it is absolutely fine for them still be released early from their prison sentences. I am pretty sure that lots of prison officers would like to know the same, too. I would like to hear from him on that when he winds up, but I would prefer to hear that he was accepting my new clause 75, which I think the vast majority of people in this House would like to see, prison officers would like to see and the public would like to see.

This is a Bill that shows us that the Government have yet to understand the value of debate and discussion. As a result, they are missing out on some key amendments, many tabled for discussion in this debate and many for the earlier debate, that could have made the Bill a moment of progress on issues that many of us agree on. Instead, by the way in which the Attorney General, the Lord Chancellor and the Government are approaching the Bill, we see exactly where their priorities lie. Every single time proposals have been put forward to keep women safe, they get kicked into the long grass, with the suggestion that they go to the Law Commission. Yet the Government think it is simple and easy to define what is “annoying” when we all know that is a very difficult one. In the last few weeks alone, we have seen the value of deciding what the difference between protest and harassment is. Surely that should be something that went to the Law Commission.

Instead, in my short time this evening, I want to challenge the way in which the Government are approaching amendments that have come from across the House and which bring us many ideas on how we can improve confidence in our criminal justice system. I want to put on record my support for the amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who has been a diligent activist for human rights all her life and whose ideas about rape should not be let go again. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) spoke courageously to identify an anomaly in our law, where the women in Northern Ireland now enjoy better reproductive rights than women in England, Wales and Scotland. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) to help to support our children and keep our children safe are vital. There is cross-party support for action against assault on retail workers and for action to address pet offences, which have been coming up in the pandemic.

I urge the Government to listen to the message coming so clearly from women across the country about new clause 30, which has been tabled in my name but has been part of the work I have been doing with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith). I pay tribute to his constituent, Julia Cooper, a valiant woman who was simply feeding her baby in a park when a man decided it was acceptable to take photos of her breastfeeding without her consent. When she sought the support of the law, the law said it was perfectly legal for the man to do what he was doing. Take a moment to think about that. We can simply and easily decide that we want to protect statues, but on that most natural and beautiful thing for a mother to do to feed her child the Government are saying no to protecting those women. Again, they are kicking the issue into the long grass.

I served on the upskirting Bill. At the time, we raised concerns that, frankly, it only went below the knee, but we now need to make sure that the law ensures full coverage. I urge Ministers tonight: whether it is in the other place or now, please do not leave the women of this country feeling that you do not understand the lives they lead. We have the lowest rates of breastfeeding in Europe and it is not hard to understand why, if women feel they are going to be shamed or attacked in public.

As someone that this has happened to myself, I ask the Minister to think about what he would feel if it was happening to a member of his family: if somebody was taking photos or a video for their own gratification and he could not stop them. By resisting new clause 30 and saying that this has to go back to the Law Commission, when it is clear what could be done to make it a criminal offence, he is sending a very clear message to women, as he has done on rape, as he has done on domestic homicide reviews, as he has done on child protection, that their concerns are complicated and difficult, but statues and protests are not. I ask him to think again about the message that he is sending and to say, “We will make laws in this place that will support everyone to lead their lives without fear”, because it is fear that someone will feel if they think that somebody is following them with a camera when they just want to feed their baby. Minister, let us not just stick up for the unborn children; let us stick up for those who are newly born, too.

In my time as an MP, I have worked with too many victims and survivors who have been utterly let down by the criminal justice system. Their cases compel me to use this Bill as a vehicle to deliver long overdue changes for them. In the past year alone, I have had two survivors from Rotherham contact me to say that their abuser has been moved to an open prison and is therefore eligible for day release without their notification. That is despite the fact that both victims were signed up to the victim contact scheme and should have been able to provide evidence to the Parole Board in advance of the decisions being made.

In our home, pets are not property; they are members of the family. There is Geoffrey the tortoise, whose sole aim in life seems to be to find the most obscure and inaccessible corner of the room to sit in for the day. The back of the fireplace is his perennial favourite, and crawling in there to retrieve him has become an evening ritual in our house. We then have Florence, Vera and Coco. They are alpacas, although someone who happened to wander into their paddock with a handful of carrots could be forgiven for thinking they were dealing with a shoal of piranhas. Then there is the newest member, Sergeant Wilson the donkey, whose mission is to eat the world—even if it does involve getting his head stuck in the fence while trying to reach for the raspberry canes.

Many of my constituents have been in touch with me to express their concerns about pet theft over the pandemic, so I started a Rushcliffe pet theft survey to listen to people’s views: 96% of people told me that they were worried about pet theft; 30% said that they had been, or knew someone who had been personally affected by it; and 90% have taken extra precautions to ensure that their pet is not stolen. There was varying support for different measures to help to tackle pet theft: 44% wanted tougher sentences; 22% wanted to create a separate offence; 17% wanted more regulation on pet selling; and 15% wanted more support from the police. So I am pleased that the pet theft taskforce will be addressing all those points and considering the issue in its entirety, including causes, prevention, reporting, enforcement and prosecution.

There are a number of fundamental issues to think through. Should we be thinking of pet theft as theft at all, or is it close to abduction? So many contributions here tonight have talked about pets as members of the family. What about the animal cruelty element? At present, if someone causes an animal to suffer in the course of stealing it from the owner, they can be prosecuted under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. But are not all acts of wrenching a pet away from the family who love and care for it an act of animal cruelty? What about sentencing? We already have a maximum term of seven years, yet it rarely seems to be used in the case of pet theft.

So I welcome the opportunity to debate these issues tonight, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and other right hon. and hon. Members for the amendments they have tabled that have enabled us to discuss the matter. I will not be supporting any at this stage because I think we need to see the result of the pet theft taskforce first, so that we have the data that we need to make the best decisions and ensure that we have strongest tools we need to deal with the people who want to steal our pets. I look forward to seeing the results in a couple of weeks’ time and to Ministers taking strong action to implement the taskforce’s recommendations in this Bill in the autumn. We owe it to our pets to make sure that we get this right.

I wish to speak to new clauses 20 and 21 in my name, which refer to specific penalties for two road crimes.

Every year in this country, 1,700 people are killed and 26,000 seriously injured on our roads. It is the biggest killer of young people between the ages of five and 29 and there has been a feeling not just in this House, but particularly among the families of road crime victims that the penalties for road traffic offences often do not fit the crimes and that road crime is not treated like real crime.

The Government promised a full review of road traffic offences and penalties in 2014, but that has yet to happen. The Bill introduces small but welcome changes to the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving and a new offence of causing injury by careless driving, but it leaves a number of serious flaws in our traffic laws in place and my amendments would address two of the most glaring ones.

First, on the failure to stop and report an accident—more commonly known as hit and run—for which the maximum sentence is currently only six months, just one of the many cases raised by road safety and motoring organisations to Members of this House was that of the Cornish postman Ryan Saltern. He was killed by a hit-and-run driver, who received just a four-month sentence and a 12-month driving ban. My new clause 20 proposes a maximum sentence of 14 years where a driver fails to stop and exchange details or report the collision to the police in cases where they knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that a serious or fatal injury had occurred, or might have occurred.

New clause 21 addresses the issue of exceptional hardship. This is a plea that road criminals can often make to avoid losing their licence. From 2011 to 2020, there were 83,581 cases where drivers were let off a driving ban by pleading exceptional hardship. When Christopher Gard hit and killed cyclist Lee Martin in 2015, it was the ninth time in six years that he had been caught using a mobile phone while driving. He had been convicted and fined six times and sent on two driver retraining courses. He should have been disqualified, but magistrates had repeatedly accepted his plea that a ban would cause him exceptional hardship. He kept his licence, and Lee Martin was killed.

Courts have accepted a range of problems, such as not being able to do the school run or damage to a relationship, as exceptional, and as a plea against disqualification that has brought this cause into disrepute. My new clause requires that a court should regard hardship as exceptional if, and only if, it is significantly greater than the hardship that would arise if the same qualification were imposed on a large majority of other drivers. It is vital that the Government fulfil their seven-year promise of a full review of traffic offences. In the meantime, these are two modest improvements to two of the most egregious areas, where most reasonable people agree that all too often, the punishment does not fit the crime. I do not intend to push the amendments to a vote, but I hope the Government will accept them, if not here, then in the other place.

Keeping people safe and secure is a priority for any Government, particularly this one. That is why I am delighted to speak in this important debate. I am fortunate to live in Devon, which enjoys the second lowest crime rate in the country. Crime continues to fall, in no small part thanks to the excellent work of the Devon and Cornwall police, and our excellent police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez. However, even in my remote rural constituency, concerns about an increase in pet theft are growing. As a dog owner, indeed a pet lover, I can only imagine the distress of losing my four-legged best friend. This is not the first time I have raised this issue in the House, and I am delighted that the cross-Government pet theft taskforce has been launched, better to understand and tackle the issue.

While crime may be low in Devon and Cornwall, in the past three years there have been 256 reports of dog theft, yet just two people have been charged. I am pleased that the maximum sentence for dog theft is already seven years, but that is no deterrent if no one is prosecuted. Understanding that disjoint is vital, and I hope that the taskforce will come up with a solution to increase prosecution rates and deter further canine crimes. Locally, our police and crime commissioner has highlighted issues regarding how dog thefts are reported. Classing such thefts as merely theft of property is a contributory factor to low prosecution rates, but there are many others. Unfortunately, the taskforce will not report until later this summer, but I am delighted that its policy recommendations may be made in the Lords, before the Bill returns to the Commons, to ensure that it adequately reflects what is truly needed. We are a nation of animal lovers, and it is vital that our animal companions are as safe and secure as their owners.

We are also a nation of shopkeepers. Some of the reports I have heard about the abuse received by retail workers, particularly during the pandemic, are horrifying. It is unacceptable that key workers, who have gone to work throughout the pandemic to ensure that we could access the items we needed, have been treated in this way. I warmly welcome our review into this area, which found that not reporting offences, and wider concerns about how the police handled those reports, were and are important issues that need addressing. I understand that Lords amendments may be considered, if required, to ensure that such offences are treated with the seriousness they rightly deserve.

I support the detailed analysis of such issues by the Ministry of Justice, to ensure that amendments, if needed, are tabled when the data are fully available, rather than being like many of the knee-jerk Opposition amendments, which frequently are poorly thought through, and in many cases seek to reduce sentences for those who commit crimes, rather than ensure that criminals see the justice they deserve.

The Government say that this Bill will empower the police and courts to take more action against crime. However, much of it continues the failed approach of successive Governments. Legislating for longer and longer custodial sentences without any evidence that they deter people from committing crimes shows ignorance of the real drivers of crime. At its best, the Bill will be ineffective; at its worst, it is an assault on human rights and democracy.

There are some good elements of the Bill. Trauma-informed services, the strengthening of rehabilitation and the police covenant are all things that we Liberal Democrats support, but we argue that there is a need to go even further. It is a great shame that constructive debate about those important measures, which should really be at the centre of the Bill, is undermined by the elements of the Bill that are extremely concerning: serious violence reduction orders, which hand over stop-and-search powers; the increases in mandatory sentences that tie judges’ hands and do not even work to prevent crime; the proposals to criminalise trespass on unauthorised encampments, which discriminate against Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities; and the new restrictions on the right to protest, which are nothing short of an assault on our civil liberties.

I will speak briefly to new clause 98 on pet theft, but let me first say in general terms that I approve of the increased sentences that this Bill will introduce, including extending whole-life orders to premeditated murder of a child, ending the automatic early release of dangerous criminals, and increasing the maximum penalty for criminal damage of a memorial. I think that those measures will be widely welcomed by the public.

On new clause 98 specifically and the other new clauses regarding pet theft, I am very much sympathetic to what they seek to achieve. We have heard warm stories about the companionship that pets bring and the important role that they play in people’s lives. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) pointed out, there has been a lot of organised criminality around the reported rise in pet theft, and I have seen videos posted in local community Facebook groups that show groups of suspicious-looking men looking for dogs. Constituents have written to me to say how scared or worried they are when they go out to walk their dog during the day.

As I understand it, we saw the price of some breeds rise by up to 89% in the first lockdown, and Google searches for “buy a puppy” increased by 166% between March and August, after the start of the first lockdown, which may be one of the contributory factors to that increased criminality. I commend Nottinghamshire police for the appointment of Chief Inspector Amy Styles-Jones as a dog theft lead. I think it may be the first police force that has taken that step and it could be a model for others to follow. It will provide some reassurance to the public.

We should remember that pet theft is already an offence under the Theft Act 1968, for which there is a maximum sentence of seven years. As others have pointed out, there are further offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 if an animal suffers. If I have understood it correctly, new clause 98, as currently drafted, would introduce a lower sentence not exceeding four years. I am therefore not sure whether that would be progress.

I also believe that legislating now would ignore the work of the pet theft taskforce, which was launched in May. It will try to understand the factors behind the perceived rise in pet theft, recommend measures to tackle that and seek to learn the lessons from related specific thefts, including of mobile phones and metal.

We have heard some powerful arguments for tackling the issue. There is more to be done and primary legislation might well be necessary, but I would first like to see the outcome of the taskforce’s review and, if measures are necessary, for that to be backed up with appropriate sentencing.

New clause 19 would require the Government to issue impact assessments on the Bill’s effect on devolved policy and services in Wales. I am grateful for the support of Labour and SNP colleagues. My other amendments would require Welsh ministerial consent for the Secretary of State to exert direct control over devolved areas such as health and education in Wales.

The justice system in Wales is just that—a system. Changes to currently reserved England and Wales matters could have profound policy and cost implications for devolved services in Wales, for example, the Senedd’s powers on substance misuse, mental health, education, social services and more. Section 110A of the Government of Wales Act 2006, as inserted by section 11 of the Wales Act 2017, requires that all Welsh legislation include an assessment of any impact on the reserved justice system. There is no reciprocal requirement.

However, there is a growing divergence between the policies of the Ministry of Justice and those of the Welsh Government. In my view, the current arrangements are neither adequate nor sustainable. Indeed, the Minister told me in Committee:

“I accept that the Welsh Government take a wider view of those provisions that relate to devolved matters. I hope that we will be able to reach a common understanding on these issues, but it may well be that we have to accept that the UK and Welsh Governments have a different understanding of those measures in the Bill that engage the legislative consent process.”

There are sufficient differences to require specific assessments. Indeed, the Bill may well undermine Welsh legislation and policy, for example, the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 and the race equality action plan. A requirement for a Welsh-specific impact assessment could reveal such problems or dispel our concerns, but how will the people of Wales know unless we assess?

In Committee, the Minister also claimed that

“there should be no change to the current arrangements, which serve the people of Wales and England well.”—[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 24 June 2021; c. 807.]

Wales has the highest rate of imprisonment in western Europe. Black people are six times more likely to be imprisoned than their white counterparts. Nearly half of Welsh children who are imprisoned are detained in England, far from their homes. There is a chronic lack of community provision for women. Apparently, that is serving the “people of Wales well”.

Recently, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, formerly the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, led the Commission on Justice in Wales. He concluded:

“Justice should be determined and delivered in Wales so that it aligns with its distinct and developing social, health and education policy and services and the growing body of Welsh law.”

For me, the sensible solution would be, as with Scotland and Northern Ireland, to devolve justice.

However, in the meantime, we need to know the effects in Wales of changes to the law of England and Wales, through proper justice impact assessments.

I would like to speak to new clause 54 relating to equality impact assessments. Today, I will raise a part of the Bill that, although it has been mentioned, has never been considered in the light of what I am about to say. The proposed legislation will put a maximum 10-year sentence in place for those people who damage or attack statues, inserting into British law a significantly higher penalty for attacking a statue, which begs the question why. Why would a person be given a much more significant penalty for attacking a stone or iron statue compared with damaging a stone wall or an iron gate, especially because in their physical form, they are identical? Neither is alive. They cannot be injured or have their feelings hurt and they are made of the same elements, yet for one, there is much more of a significance. I simply ask why. It is because we recognise that statues symbolise the historical, cultural and social feelings of our nation and thus protecting feelings linked to such sensitivity is essential to preserve civil order. It is because, as the Justice Secretary told the Commons, this Bill ensures that

“our courts have sufficient sentencing powers to punish the emotional harm caused by this type of offending”.—[Official Report, 9 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 38WS.]

Yes, people can go out and debate, discuss, disagree and even respectfully and vehemently oppose any historical figure, but when they defame or vandalise in a mob-like fashion statues of people like Winston Churchill who mean so much to millions of Britons who hold his efforts during the second world war so close to their hearts, that does threaten the cohesive nature of our nation. We cannot pretend that a western liberal democracy like Britain does not consider feelings when it comes to such situations while at the same time today passing a law through Parliament giving such importance to protecting statues based upon commemorative feelings.

As a Muslim, for me and millions of Muslims across this country and a quarter of the world’s population who are Muslim too, with each day and each breath there is not a single thing in the world that we commemorate and honour more than our beloved Prophet, Mohammed, peace be upon him. But when bigots and racists defame, slander or abuse our Prophet, peace be upon him, just like some people do the likes of Churchill, the emotional harm caused upon our hearts is unbearable, because for 2 billion Muslims, he is the leader we commemorate in our hearts and honour in our lives, and he forms the basis of our identity and our very existence. In fact, the noted playwright George Bernard Shaw said about the Prophet, peace be upon him:

“He was by far the most remarkable man that ever set foot on this earth. He preached a religion, founded a state…laid down a moral code, initiated numerous social and political reforms, established a powerful and dynamic society to practice and represent his teachings and completely revolutionised the worlds of human thought and behaviour for all times to come.”

To those who say it is just a cartoon, I will not say, “It’s only a statue”, because I understand the strength of British feeling when it comes to our history, our culture and our identity. It is not just a cartoon and they are not just statues. They represent, symbolise and mean so much more to us as human beings.

In conclusion, while this law would now protect civil order and emotional harm when it comes to secular and political figures such as Oliver Cromwell and Churchill and does not necessarily put other figures that many people in modern Britain hold close to their hearts, such as Jesus, the Prophet Mohammed, peace be upon him, Moses, Ram, Buddha, Guru Nanak and many others, it does show that we recognise that there is such a thing as emotional harm. Finally, we must ask ourselves: when striking the careful balance to protect such emotional harms, can there and should there be a hierarchy of sentiments?

I am pleased to make a contribution on this very long, complex and deeply important Bill. Obviously, the ambition of the Bill is to put communities before crime and the omnibus of reforms in this legislation will undoubtedly make our country a much safer place to live, work and play. I commend my colleagues from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice for their deep commitment to the safety and security of our citizens.

It is quite right that we are considering extending whole life orders for the premeditated murder of a child as well as ending the automatic early release of dangerous criminals. In fact, by extending that position and increasing the tariff people will serve as their prison sentence, we are more than exceeding many of the principles laid out in the amendments before the House. One of the concerns I have about putting in minimum sentences for particular offences is the risk that the judiciary may interpret those as being not only the minimum, but possibly the guidance for the maximum sentence that should be applied. It is right that violent criminals should be punished and retained in prison for the duration of their sentences. Equally, it is right that if they attack prison warders or any other servant in their prisons, their right to automatic release should end. I think that is vital.

With apologies to the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe), who is about to speak, I am afraid that I have to reduce the time limit to three minutes. I will be a little lenient with the hon. Member, but it will certainly be three minutes after her. I call Claudia Webbe.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am gravely concerned by this legislation, which, frankly, would not look out of place in the world’s most authoritarian regimes. The fact that this legislation could introduce, for damaging a statue, a sentence that is twice the length of that for sexual assault reveals how utterly unserious this Government are about tackling gendered violence.

The legislation will have a disproportionate effect on African, African-Caribbean, Asian and minority ethnic communities. We know that black people already disproportionately suffer from police use of force in the UK, are more likely to be charged and are over-represented in the prison population. Human rights group Liberty has expressed concern about the provision to widen stop-and-search powers because they are used against communities of colour, especially black men, at staggeringly disproportionate rates. According to Roma rights group Friends of Romano Lav, the legislation will also have a devastating effect on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. This Bill therefore threatens to severely exacerbate an already unequal two-tier justice system in which UK residents are treated differently because of their background or the colour of their skin.

It is for that and many other equality reasons that I tabled new clause 54, which would introduce a statutory requirement for the equality impact analysis that is currently missing from the Bill. That would compel the Secretary of State to review the equality impact of the Bill and publish a full report to the House of Commons within six months. The review would include racial and ethnic disparities, income inequality, gender inequities, people with protected characteristics, public sector equality and regional inequality.

Given existing legislation, it is shocking that the Government do not already feel compelled to produce such a report. An equality impact analysis would ensure that it was not possible to ignore the severe inequalities in how the criminal justice system treats different groups of UK residents, and that would lay the groundwork for a fairer and more equitable criminal justice system. It is especially alarming that the Bill gives even more powers to the police to crack down on peaceful protests. Organised peaceful resistance is a force for change and deserving of our full support.

I sincerely hope that new clause 54, as well as all the amendments and new clauses I have highlighted and the many others that there has not been time to mention, will be adopted to curtail this deeply concerning, authoritarian Bill. I will end with this, Madam Deputy Speaker: if the Bill cannot be made considerably more equal, more transparent and more respectful of our democratic rights, it must not be brought into law. If it passes into law unchanged, I fear for the future of our civic life.

I am very pleased to speak to new clause 18 in the name of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), with whom I co-chair the all-party group on women in the penal system. The new clause seeks to amend the Bail Act 1976 so that prisons are not used as the care of last resort for vulnerable people. At present, courts can remand an adult into prison for their own protection without them having been convicted or sentenced, or when a criminal charge they face is unlikely to—or, in some cases, cannot—result in a prison sentence. I am afraid it is quite wrong for prisons to be used for secure protection in that way. If we believe in civil liberties and we believe that vulnerable people require support and not incarceration, the power must be repealed.

I will look for comfort from my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, who I am sure shares my sentiments and does not wish prison to be used in that way. Some of us might argue that, too often, vulnerable people who have been failed by the state end up in prison in any case. The new clause would repeal the power of criminal courts to remand a defendant in custody for their own protection. That, I would add, is entirely consistent with the direction of travel of Government policy in this area. I can attest to the fact that when I was Minister for mental health, we invested heavily in places of safety so that people undergoing a mental health crisis were not remanded in custody for their own protection. We also had the Mental Health Act review by Sir Simon Wessely, who has explicitly recommended the removal of the power.

May I reassure my hon. Friend that we are conducting a review into this issue and will report by the end of the year? I pay tribute to the work she did as a Minister jointly with me on mental health issues. She did a lot, particularly about those in custody, and she has been heard.

I am grateful for that contribution, but I am like a dog with a bone on this issue, because I do care that we are putting vulnerable people in the wrong place and, by doing so, doing them harm.

There is a real point that I would like to make about this provision. The advice I received from the Howard League is that it is most often used in respect of women with a mental health crisis. I am also advised of a case of a victim of trafficking who was remanded in custody for their own protection. This is another example of women not getting a fair crack of the whip when it comes to criminal justice. It is not really for the criminal justice system to absorb the consequences of failure by other areas of the state. It is up to local authorities to ensure adequate refuge provision for women in a vulnerable position and, of course, the NHS to ensure that there are enough facilities for crises. We have invested in places of safety, and we must make sure we do better on this. As we look at the wide variety of criminal justice issues—we have heard a lot today about violence against women and girls—I make a plea again to my right hon. and learned Friend that we make laws that centre women. When we talk about gender-neutral legislation, that is another way of centring men. Women have a unique set of vulnerabilities because of their biology, and we must make sure we do everything in our law to protect them. We have heard a lot about that in today’s debate. We have had a lot of commitments from the Government to take this more seriously, but I look forward to some positive work, and I know the Government are listening.

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, particularly having served on the Bill Committee. Law and order matters enormously to my constituents, as it probably does to all our constituents. One thing I hear all the time, from not just residents, but the police, is frustration with the sentencing system, because people want a system that puts victims and communities first. They want to see a criminal justice system that works for the law-abiding majority. It continues to concern me and local residents that some of the most violent offenders have been serving only half their sentence, so I strongly welcome clauses 105, 106 and 107, which will result in some of the worst offenders staying in prison for longer—violent offenders and child sex offenders. I also welcome clause 102, which introduces whole-life orders for the premeditated murder of a child. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) in wanting to see us get to a place eventually where no one is released midway through their sentence, be it halfway, or after two thirds or three quarters; a sentence should mean a sentence.

Given that I am short on time, I wish to cover one other thing that matters enormously to me and to many people across Burnley and Padiham—rape prosecutions. I am talking about new clause 89. We would all agree that rape prosecutions are at an unacceptable level. I have seen cases of constituents being failed by not just the police, but the CPS. However, this is not an issue that legislation alone will fix; it needs a fundamental change in how the police, the CPS and victims’ support all work together to support people who make a complaint —to support victims—and to ensure that we get a successful prosecution. The law needs to be firmly on the side of victims, and for too long it has not been.

I rise to speak to new clauses 89 and 97. Having spent 16 years in the criminal courts, I speak with some experience of how cases are proceeded with. My right hon. and learned Friend is here as Lord Chancellor and his responsibility is the courts system. So his responsibility is the imposition of appropriate sentencing powers for judges, to reflect public confidence in the justice system and the serious nature of offending. In line with his and his Department’s responsibilities, he has clearly done that. There is an increase in sentences for the most serious sexual offences, as has been outlined by my hon. Friends already, and he must be commended for that. I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham) on prosecutions, and we have spent a lot of time discussing this, in the Justice Committee and elsewhere. In the past year, 52,000 reported a rape to the police but only 1.6% of those led on to a charge or a summons. That is clearly not acceptable. When we are debating this section of the legislation, we must always remember that the justice system can work only if it is linked up with the police, the Courts Service and the probation service working together. Perhaps sometimes the disjointed nature of ministerial responsibilities for various parts of the system does not help in terms of conviction rates.

As somebody who has worked in this joined-up or not so joined-up system, may I ask the hon. Gentleman why he thinks that in the past five years there has been quite such a drop? Does he think it may be not just joined-upness or the lack of it, but a resources issue?

I am very glad that the hon. Lady raises that issue. When the Director of Public Prosecutions gave evidence to the Justice Committee on 15 June, he was very clear that his predecessors had failed: they had not put in place the policies and actions necessary to increase rape prosecutions. Clearly, that includes the Leader of the Opposition, who I have to say has an inglorious reputation for leadership of the Crown Prosecution Service during that period. I certainly will not accept any lectures from the Labour party concerning—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not.

I am rather curious. We have heard comments from Opposition Members that they support heavier sentences and further action being taken, quite rightly, to protect the victims of serious sexual violence, so why in Committee did they vote against what was then clause 106—the clause that will abolish the automatic halfway release for certain serious violent or sexual offenders? We have a Leader of the Opposition with a terrible record of leading the CPS, and we have an Opposition who have recently voted against more serious sentences and more deterrent sentences.

Not against rape sentences.

I have been absolutely amazed by the comments of some Opposition Members that deterrent sentences do not work. The point of the Bill—and the point of the responsibilities that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has—is to increase sentences and increase public confidence in the justice system. That is exactly what he is doing.

What about rape—

Order. Please do not shout.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No.

I support the Bill. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and thank him for bringing forward legislation to ensure that rapists are not released early in their sentences. That is what the public want, that is what we were elected on a manifesto to deliver, and that is what we are doing.

I am delighted to speak in this debate and to speak in favour of new clause 17, which is tabled in my name. I am delighted that many hon. Members on both sides have expressed their support for it.

I will not move the new clause this evening, because I am lucky to have had conversations with the Lord Chancellor, who I am delighted to see is in his place, about the nature of this particular crime. This crime is, I would argue, almost unique in that it is a complete betrayal. It is a complete betrayal because it is not just by a person, but by the parent of a child at its most vulnerable stage. It is a complete betrayal because it is a failure—yes, of those parents, but actually of our entire society—to protect the most vulnerable. It is a complete betrayal because it allows a crime to continue when it should have stopped days before, and in this case days are lifetimes.

I am talking, of course, about the terrible abuse of children like Tony Hudgell—children who, like Tony, are in the early stages of life. They are not able to give evidence to a court, because they are in their 40th or 50th day of life. They could not possibly stand up in a court and give testimony, and they could not possibly point the finger at their abuser, so they find themselves in the invidious position of not being able to get the full weight of the law brought against their aggressor, because they are too young, too innocent, too silent to be able to bring that action.

The Lord Chancellor has spoken to me privately—I hope that he will not mind my raising it publicly—about how we share the same horror of these crimes and these offences, but at the moment the law does not allow the same sentencing. I only ask that in the next few months, before the Bill gets to the Lords and the change comes that we all hope for, he looks at this legislation and realises that there is a small lacuna—a gap—in which the sentencing could be corrected. It does not require a complete redrafting of the law, but a small swish of his pen, as his quill hits the vellum to change the sentences and match them appropriately to the crimes—crimes that would have reached the same sentence had the child been able to point the finger and identify the criminal.

Other hon. Members have spoken eloquently about some of the amendments and new clauses that I strongly support: to protect shop workers from abuse; to protect people from harassment outside abortion clinics, as has happened in my constituency; and to protect the ability to meaningfully protest. I therefore want to confine my brief remarks to new clause 30, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). It is the same as a new clause that was tabled in Committee in her name and my own. I do not need to speak for long because she covered the issues very well in her excellent speech.

I want to pay tribute to my constituent Julia Cooper, who first approached me a few months ago to tell me about her experience at Sale Water Park, which is adjacent to my constituency. She had been out with a friend and was breastfeeding her baby when a stranger put on a telephoto lens and started taking photographs of her in the park without permission. She confronted the individual, but he refused to delete the pictures. She complained to the park authorities and then to the police, and was told that there was nothing that they could do. I was shocked for two reasons. First, I was shocked that a stranger would actually take long lens photos of someone breastfeeding without their consent. Secondly, I was equally shocked that the police said that there was nothing in the law that they could do to tackle the issue.

When I raised this issue previously in Women and Equalities questions in the Chamber, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), said:

“This is unacceptable and we will deal with it.”—[Official Report, 26 May 2021; Vol. 696, c. 364.]

It is therefore disappointing, having raised the issue in Committee and tabling the new clause today, that the Government seem to be kicking this into the long grass with a review by the Law Commission. This is a pretty simple issue that could be dealt with quickly and effectively today through new clause 30. We should accept the new clause, because the number of people who have contacted Julia, other campaigners and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow are testament to the number of times that this has happened around the country. It is now happening every week.

We ought to be taking action now. We should not be kicking this issue into the long grass. If this new clause is pushed to a vote this evening, and I hope that it may be, I urge hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to support it. If not, I do hope that the Lords will look at this issue and perhaps bring forward something similar when it is dealt with there. It is shocking and disgraceful behaviour, and we could take action today—now—to stop it.

I want to address new clause 76, which offers the Government an opportunity to save lives. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is not in his place, but I have let him know that I will mention him. On this occasion, he has been a bit soft. I think that is probably the first time that I have said that and it will probably be the last time that I do. The reason that I say it is that in his new clause 76, he proposes increasing the penalty for dangerous driving from two years’ to five years’ imprisonment. I have only had a cursory search and the Justice Secretary will probably correct me if I am wrong, but the problem with my hon. Friend’s suggestion is that the maximum penalty for possession of class A drugs is seven years and for possession of firearms 10 years.

I will touch on this matter briefly, because I am not sure whether it has been through the courts. I had occasion, through very nearly becoming a victim of a dangerous driver evading the police, to have various conversations with police drivers, and they seem to be of the opinion that miscreants know the various penalties for dangerous driving, possession of drugs and the possession of firearms, and they will evade the police and drive at enormous speed simply to make sure that they are not caught with firearms or drugs in the car, so there is a problem with the structure of incentives around dangerous driving. Elsewhere, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley tabled an amendment relating to a requirement to turn off the engine, but the point is that if police officers seek to stop someone who knows they are in possession of firearms or drugs, which would earn them a sentence greater than that for dangerous driving, then off they might well go. That can be a very dangerous thing indeed. I should not mention the speeds involved, but I know that people will find ways, with very high-performance cars, of outrunning the police.

My suggestion to the Government is to take advantage of this Bill and the section relating to driving offences, inspired by new clause 76, and do something to make sure that an offence is introduced for which the penalty, if someone refuses to stop for the police and then drives in an evasive manner, committing dangerous driving offences, is sufficient to deter even people who might have firearms or class A drugs in the vehicle. I encourage Ministers to consult police officers who drive with that in mind. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to raise this issue with my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary.

I welcome the Government’s recognition that we are facing a crisis in policing, the criminal justice system and the courts, because even before the pandemic, their austerity cuts over the past decade have brought the justice system to its knees, with the Ministry of Justice losing a quarter of its budget. I support new clauses 89, 97, 28, 31 and 32.

The Government voted against Labour’s proposals to increase minimum sentences for rapists and against toughening sentences for domestic abusers and murderers, but this Bill is full of divisive nonsense such as locking up protesters who cause annoyance or damage statues of slave owners for longer than those who rape women. This should have been a watershed moment to change the criminal justice system so that it works for women, not to try to divide the country.

The Conservatives’ Bill is not tough on crime. It is tough on the freedoms, rights and civil liberties that we all enjoy. The tragic death of Sarah Everard instigated a national demand for action to tackle violence against women. The last thing that the Government should be doing is rushing through poorly thought-out measures to impose disproportionate controls on freedoms of expression and the right to protest. Now is the time to unite the country and put in place long overdue protections for women against unacceptable violence, including action against domestic homicide, rape and street harassment, as well as tackling the misogynistic attitudes that underpin the abuse of women.

Just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister was forced to apologise to rape victims for the record low conviction and prosecution rates under his watch. That is a stain on our country, and I hope that all Members across the House agree that action must be taken to make it easier for rape victims from the moment they report the crime through to the conclusion of their case and beyond. I urge all Ministers to support Labour’s amendment that would help to make it easier for victims of rape and sexual assault to give evidence.

The Crown court backlog is now at a record high of 60,000 cases. Victims face wait times of up to four years, and many give up before the process has begun because they cannot face the extensive distress and trauma. Nearly 300 courts across England and Wales have been closed during the past decade of Tory rule, and there are 27,000 fewer sitting days than in 2016. According to Citizens Advice, the backlog of individual tribunal cases is likely to reach more than half a million by spring unless swift action is taken and serious funding committed.

The Bill is an opportunity to rebalance the scales of justice to ensure access for ordinary people and to tackle the systemic barriers and record backlog in our creaking and hollowed-out justice system. I call on Members across the House to support the amendments that the Labour party has tabled to help tackle some of the most difficult challenges faced by our criminal justice system.

It is something of a surprise to me that, as a great many people have suddenly removed their names from the list, the Members whom I had hoped to call—the hon. Members for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) and for Gloucester (Richard Graham)—are not here. [Interruption.] I appreciate the offer of help from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), but we will go straight to the Lord Chancellor.

The debate today has been stimulating and thought-provoking as Report stage merits. I would, however, challenge some of the narrative that we have heard from the Labour party, although in many respects we have shared the common goal of trying to reduce the threat and infliction of violence and abuse against women and girls. I think back to what we did with the Domestic Abuse Bill, and I see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) in her place. She was a champion of that Bill, and I am grateful to her; I always will be.

Let us just remind ourselves of how far we have come in the past 10 or 11 years. I was delighted to take part in a cross-party campaign to reform the law on stalking, which this Government have further strengthened through increases in maximum sentences. When I look back at the upskirting legislation, I am proud of the work that was led by this Government. We also brought in the offence of coercive control for the first time, to cover a wide range of criminal behaviour committed, in the main, against women and girls. Revenge porn has been outlawed. The rough sex defence has been ended, and we have already acted to end automatic early release for serious violent and sexual offenders. This Bill brings forward further welcome measures to protect the public, to build on our work to better protect women and girls, to increase sentences for the most serious sexual and violent offenders, and to support the police in their vital work in keeping our streets safe.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm his commitment to bring forward measures in the Bill to do justice for our retail workers and those who serve the public?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I look forward to working with him and other colleagues on bringing forward measures that will deal with the need to protect our valiant retail workers, who have given us so much in this pandemic and who serve our country with distinction.

I note that my hon. Friend has been joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), who, in a brief but excellent speech, made the most of his considerable experience as a criminal solicitor. He was right to say that when it comes to the dramatic drop in rape convictions—I readily acknowledge that; I have acknowledged it frankly and fully and set out plans to do something about it—the complexities surrounding the reasons for it are deep. Only those who have spent many years looking at these issues, and those who have experienced the ordeal of the investigative and trial process, can really give the strongest testimony about what needs to be done. Of course we recognise the devastating effect of sexual violence and the lifelong impact that it has on victims and survivors.

I listened with interest to the submissions made by the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), about new clause 89. I have to say—I will pick him up on this—that he was wrong to say that in clause 100, the Government were introducing minimum sentences for the first time. What we are doing there is tightening up the criterion by which the courts apply minimum sentences for certain repeat offences. The existence of a minimum term for only one offence is, I think, only evidenced in one aspect of the law, relating to the possession of a firearm.

Our concern about the Labour party’s proposals is that they do not reflect the reality of what has been happening with regard to rape sentencing. There has, over the past 10 years, been a welcome increase of 15% in the average length of sentences for rape, with two thirds of offenders now receiving a custodial sentence of over seven years. In fact, the average is nine years and nine and a half months, which reflects the evolution of sentencing guidelines and the welcome changes that have been made. We are working, in the rape review, to ensure that we can drive forward more early guilty pleas so that victims and survivors do not have to go through the ordeal of the trial process.

My genuine concern about Labour’s proposal is that it cuts across a lot of what Labour says needs to be done with the process and a lot of the work that we have set out in our rape review. What we should now be looking at is the number and proportion of prosecutions, and the overall outcome of ensuring that we increase convictions. That has to be the real focus of Government. That is what I have set out in the rape review, and that is what we will drive forward.

I noted with interest amendment 50 about the potential further expansion of the imposition of a whole-life order. We sympathise with the concerns that underpin the amendment, but the risk it poses is that it starts to create further anomalies and issues with regard to the ladder of sentencing that exists under schedule 21. There would be a dramatic difference between the murder of one person with evidence of a sexual assault, which would have a whole-life order starting point, and a murder in the absence of that assault, for which the starting point would be dramatically different at only 15 years. That is the sort of discrepancy that I am sure the Labour party would not want to seek, which is why I have been working to review the whole framework of homicide, and particularly domestic homicide.

It is important that when we seek to change schedule 21 in any way, we do not create further anomalies. Let us not forget that we are talking about starting points, which means that the judge has the discretion to move either up or down according to the evidence in each case.

I have undertaken to look in a broader way at domestic homicide sentencing in particular. In addressing the new clauses set out by the Labour party on a review of sentencing on domestic homicide, I just want to give assurance that, indeed, that work is under way—well under way. We are analysing recent cases to see what effect the current law and guidance are having, including explicitly looking at how cases involving a weapon are sentenced. I will update the House with more details as that progresses. I can also inform the House that I intend to appoint an independent expert to oversee the next stage of the review, which will consider initial findings and then make recommendations, and I will come back to the House and confirm the arrangements.

Just by happenstance, I wrote to the Justice Secretary this morning on this exact matter. Could he place in the Library of the House of Commons the terms of reference for the review that he is doing into domestic homicide? I spoke this morning with four of the families whose daughters have been murdered, and they are still without detail on that issue.

The hon. Lady would be interested to see the note that I have here—it says, “Remember the families.” I am grateful to her for reminding me of that, and, of course, I will undertake to put a suitably phrased letter in the Library of the House. I hope that assures hon. Members that I am taking the necessary steps. I absolutely recognise the importance of those concerns.

I listened with care to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who charted her own deeply distressing recent experience of when a photograph was entirely inappropriately taken of her without her consent and in circumstances that all of us would deeply deprecate and deplore. We all want to do something about this, which is why, some time ago, we asked the Law Commission to review the law around the taking, making and sharing of intimate images without consent to identify whether there are gaps in the scope of protection that is already offered to victims.

Importantly, we and the Law Commission are looking at whether recording and sharing images of events such as breastfeeding should be captured as intimate imagery for the purposes of any reformed criminal law. It has completed a public consultation and is developing final recommendations for the Government. It is certainly my intention to act. I want to make sure that the law is resilient and comprehensive and that, when it is drafted, we do not inadvertently create loopholes that people could take advantage of. I gently remind the hon. Lady that the public nuisance reforms are precisely those of the Law Commission, and it is in that tradition of careful consideration that we have already undertaken and started this work.

I am grateful to all hon. Members for their continued dedication to improving the way in which the system handles sexual offences cases, and that dedication is clearly behind the amendments concerning the use of evidence, including section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. However, we have to remind ourselves that section 41 already provides a very comprehensive prohibition on the defence adducing any evidence or any questions relating to previous sexual behaviour. The hon. Lady is right to refer to our undertaking in the rape review action plan to ask the Law Commission to examine the law, guidance and practice relating to the use of evidence in prosecutions. The Law Commission will be very happy to meet the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) about her concerns to take on board the proper observations she makes. Let us not forget that the wider issue about rape myths will also be part of its work.

On the issue of penalties for those who disclose the identity of anonymous complainants, I think we can go one better. There are a number of other offences—modern-day slavery and female genital mutilation come to mind—where anonymity is a legal requirement. When we redraft the legislation, it is essential that we cover all offences where anonymity is a requirement and also assess the interplay between the criminal offence and contempt of court. As a Law Officer, I police that particular divide regularly. Clearly, the Law Officers already have the power to pursue wrongdoers for contempt of court where serious wrongdoing has been evidenced. I am grateful that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has invited the Law Commission to undertake a thorough review of the law in this area with a view to strengthening it so as to meet the ambitions of all of us in this House.

I am grateful, as ever, to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for her steadfast and consistent work in the support of victims. We already, through the victims code, have a number of entitlements relating to parole. A root-and-branch review of the Parole Board is ongoing. The observations and concerns that she has outlined are being fully embraced by that, and further work will be done on victims law.

On pet theft, it is vital that the underlying seriousness of this type of criminality is fully reflected by the law. That is why, since its launch on 8 May, the pet theft taskforce has been working to look at the wider issues. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his work on this. As a pet owner myself, I understand the depth of feeling that exists. I am able to say in the strongest terms that we will act to drive out this pernicious crime. His new clauses address some of the issues at the heart of where we will take action. I give him, and others, the assurance that it is our intention to make any necessary changes to this Bill in the Lords before it returns to the Commons once we have finalised the detail of exactly what is needed, using a range of powers, including primary legislation. The effect of these changes will, I believe, help to achieve what he and other hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to achieve today.

On road traffic, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), who are working hard to raise awareness about these important issues. I can assure them, and the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), that my ministerial colleagues at the Department for Transport are working to explore options with my officials about how these offences will work in the wider context. I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) about the particular context in which people seek to evade the law and evade responsibility. While we have the common law offence of perverting the course of justice available, more work needs to be done to identify that class of driver who manipulates the system and evades responsibility in a way that clearly outrages the community and offends the wider public.

On the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), we both share a passion for the issue, and I have been proud to spearhead reforms on child cruelty in the past. I will work with him and, as he knows, we are looking at the issue more widely. Indeed, we hope to bring concrete reform forward as soon as possible.

As time reaches the witching hour, I simply say that tonight is an opportunity for hon. Members to unite in common cause to strengthen the fight against crime and to make our communities safer. The opportunity is there. The gauntlet is laid down to Labour Members. I ask them to take it up.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Order. Before I call the Home Secretary, it is obvious that there is very little time left for this part of the proceedings, so there will be a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of three minutes. However, I urge even greater brevity.

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

The Bill delivers on our promise to the British people to keep them safe. It backs our police with improved powers and more support for officers and their families in recognition of the unique and enormous sacrifices that they make. It introduces tougher sentences for the worst offenders and modernises the criminal justice system with an overhaul of the courts and tribunal processes.

The long-overdue police covenant represents our promise to the police and their families that we will do everything we can to honour and support them. That includes much more support for their health and wellbeing. As the House knows, the Bill requires the Home Secretary to report annually to Parliament on the covenant, and this will now cover the whole policing family.

We rely on the police for our public safety and protection. We have relied on them more than usual during the covid pandemic to enforce new laws and, of course, to keep us safe. The overwhelming majority of the country has responded with profound gratitude, but a thuggish minority has responded with abuse and violence. In the year from December 2019 to 2020, there was a big increase in assaults on police officers. Assaults on constables without injury increased by 21%—just over 25,000. Assaults on constables with injury went up by 2%, but that is still over 11,000 cases. It is despicable and it cannot and should not be tolerated, so the Bill doubles the maximum penalty for assaulting emergency workers, including those heroic NHS workers, to two years. Serious violence reduction orders will also give the police targeted stop-and-search powers for convicted knife and weapon carriers.

The police will be able to take a more proactive approach to managing protests. That is not about stifling freedom of expression. The right to protest peacefully is a cornerstone of our democracy, but there is a balance to be struck between the rights of the protester and the rights of others to go about their daily lives. The current legislation that the police use to manage protests, the Public Order Act 1986, was enacted over 30 years ago. Tactics such as blocking emergency vehicles, gluing oneself to a train, blocking airport runways and preventing the distribution of newspapers are unacceptable and illegitimate. They will be treated as such. By attempting to strike out those clauses, Labour has proved that it is on the side of the disruptive minority and not the hard-working majority.

Victims and witnesses need to know that they are safe, and of course the Bill reforms the pre-charge bail regime, which will bring much-needed reassurance, including in high-harm cases such as domestic abuse. People convicted of serious crimes will receive tougher sentences and spend longer in prison. Automatic halfway release from prison will end for another cohort of serious sexual and violent offenders. A whole life tariff order will be the starting point for the premediated murder of a child. The Government’s comprehensive rape review is soon to be followed by a comprehensive strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, and domestic abuse. These problems are complex and widespread, so we need to do much more to combat them. The Bill strengthens the management of sex offenders by, for example, enabling the courts to impose electronic monitoring requirements and behavioural change courses. There are new powers to manage terrorism risk offenders.

The Bill provides more agile and appropriate management of children in the justice system—something that we should never overlook—so that judges and magistrates can make decisions in the best interest of the child and the public. Secure schools will be trialled with a focus on excellent education, wellbeing and purposeful activity.

Because of covid, temporary provisions were made to allow people to participate in and follow court proceedings by video and audio technology. Those have worked well and will be made permanent. We will also make the courts more accessible for people with disabilities.

Our first responsibility as a Government is to keep the public safe. The vital provisions in the Bill will strengthen public safety and update the law. They will mean that the police can manage new and emerging threats and that the criminal justice system works for the British people, keeping our citizens and our communities safe.

As we prepare to vote, I urge Labour Members to ask themselves whose side they are on. The public whom they serve will notice. The measures are emphatically on the side of the police and the law-abiding majority of the British people, and I commend the Bill to the House.

I thank the Bill team, the Clerks and House staff and the Library staff for facilitating debate in the House. It is a great shame that a Bill that could have commanded wide support ended up being so divisive. Indeed, Labour Members, working with other parties, campaigned for elements of the Bill: on increasing sentences for causing death by dangerous driving; on reform of the disclosure and barring service; and on sexual offences perpetrated by those in positions of trust. Some elements of the review by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) have been included, though far too few. We also welcome the introduction of a police covenant, and great credit must go to the shadow Policing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), for securing the concession to include non-Home Office police forces. That important change will make a difference. We will hold the Government to account on the implementation of the covenant, to make sure it really does make a significant difference to frontline officers.

On behalf of the Opposition, I have tabled amendments in relation to the Hillsborough disaster, in the light of the collapse of the trial of three men on 26 May. Those proposals are based on the detailed work of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), and reflect her Public Advocate Bill, together with the work of the former Member for Leigh, with the introduction of a duty of candour and equality of arms for families in inquests. We think today, first and foremost, of the Hillsborough families and their remarkable courage and determination in seeking justice over decades. We owe a duty to seek to ensure that what happened to them can never happen again. The Opposition offer their full support to achieving that, which is the purpose of placing the proposals on the record. I hope that work can now be done to move things forward, with there no longer being an ongoing trial.

Sadly, this Bill has been made a divisive Bill, because of provisions put into it that are unconscionable and because of provisions not put into it that would have addressed the priorities of the British people, by dealing with the reasons why so many women and girls feel unsafe on our streets. This Bill showed a warped sense of priorities; it does more to protect statues than it does to protect women. It is a Bill that destroys the fine British tradition of protecting the right to protest. It allows the noise generated by persons taking part as a reason to curtail protest and criminalises people—mark this—who break a condition they “ought” to have known existed. Our laws of protest have always been a balance, and the way this proposed law disturbs it is wrong. I declare an interest: as a trade unionist, I refer to my relevant entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on support from the Unite union and the GMB. Whether it is our trade unions or another group that wants to make its views known loudly in the streets, we limit their ability to do so at our peril.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I will not, because we are very short of time. Media reports even suggest that the National Police Chiefs Council, the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services and the Metropolitan police have all stated that they did not request these noise clauses to be added to the Bill. Today, there is a piece in The Times where senior former police officers have written warning that this Bill is “dangerous” and has

“harmful implications for the ability of police officers to enforce the law and for the health of our democracy.”

Isn’t the truth that the mask has slipped? Ministers are not acting on legitimate concerns about keeping people safe; they are trying to clamp down on people’s legitimate and democratic right to protest. I wonder what it is about the appalling record of this Government that makes them so concerned about people organising protest against them. That the Government attack our democratic traditions in this way, limiting the rights of those whose beliefs are inconvenient to them, is dangerous and to their shame. The unauthorised encampments section of the Bill, clearly targeted at Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, will potentially breach the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act 2010. When Friends, Families and Travellers researched the consultation responses the Government received, it found that 84% of police responses did not support the criminalisation of unauthorised encampments. It is unconscionable and unworkable.

This Bill is also a missed opportunity. There should be wider measures to protect the pandemic heroes, extending the protections to shop workers as well as other frontline workers. I wrote this weekend, with the general secretary of Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers that during the pandemic we united as a country to clap for our frontline workers, such as shop workers. Now is the time to deliver on this. Instead the Government MPs voted against that today. [Interruption.] Well, it is true because the amendment was down today and MPs have voted it down. The Bill also continues to ignore the disproportionality that exists from start to finish in the criminal justice system. Black people have bravely stepped forward to share their testimony of structural racism and the impact it still has. This Government seem to want to deny that structural racism even exists. Meanwhile, while communities up and down the country suffer the consequences of antisocial behaviour, this Government prefer to waste more than £200 million on a pointless yacht. Labour would invest that money in tackling crime.

When it comes to addressing the appalling issue of violence against women and girls, this is an empty Bill. Labour even published a Green Paper with suggestions for the Government to act: a rape survivors support plan, victims having the right to support, cases of rape and serious sexual violence fast-tracked, and a Minister with specific responsibility for driving change. That 1.6% of reported rapes lead to a charge is a national scandal. The Lord Chancellor offered an apology, but not the resources we need, and the Prime Minister shamefully dismissed concerns as “jabber”.

This Bill was an opportunity to show that addressing violence against women and girls was a priority for this Government, but they have failed. Women and girls who feel unsafe on our streets should have been a priority in this Bill. It should have delivered on inadequate sentences for rape, stalking, and domestic homicide. It should have addressed unacceptable and intimidating street harassment. It should have delivered properly resourced domestic abuse services.

Whether it is our frontline workers, those who have suffered as a consequence of disproportionality, or victims of antisocial behaviour, we on these Benches will continue to campaign for them and put victims first.

This is an important Bill, and this debate is a reminder that an effective criminal justice system is all about balance—balance between the individual and the state, between the victim and the accused, and between the need to protect society with condign punishment where necessary and the duty to rehabilitate those who can genuinely turn their lives around. Despite some mischaracterisation, the Bill does achieve that.

Perhaps the Bill is also a reminder that an effective criminal justice system requires a holistic and calm approach that lasts beyond the lifetime of any one Parliament. We need to fund the system right the way through, ensuring that the police have enough funding and powers to do their job, that the courts have enough resource, powers and flexibility to achieve justice in a way that is credible and consistent, as our judges invariably endeavour to do, and that the Prison and Probation Service has the resources not only to keep dangerous people safe, but to support those who wish to make a better life for themselves having paid their debt to society. All three are important.

Not all reform necessarily requires primary legislation. Much of the objectives that have been talked about in this debate can be achieved through other means, such as policy initiatives and better use of laws we already have—I can think of several that have been touched on in this debate—and better use of the sentencing powers that already exist, which with support our judiciary is prepared to do. That is why the work of the Sentencing Council is so important. It is worth reminding right hon. and hon. Members that, on the House’s behalf, the Justice Committee is a statutory consultee in the work of the Sentencing Council, something which we take incredibly seriously. There is a power for elected representatives here to have an input into the process, and we ought to make full and proper use of it. The Committee is determined to do so.

I have a final word about the importance of the Law Commission, which has been mentioned much today. The Lord Chancellor has been firm in his support for it, and it is critical that the Law Commission continues to be properly and fully resourced. Its budgets are not large, and there has been no attempt to reduce them under the current Administration. There was once an ill-advised attempt to do so, but I am sure that there will not be another. We must ensure that the Law Commission continues to have the resources so that we have an objective, independent, authoritative voice to guide us in reforming desperately important elements of our law, criminal and civil, which will have a bearing on society beyond the lifetime of this Parliament and many more besides. The Law Commission’s long-term approach is vital, too, and I commend it to the House.

I was disappointed that 44 of the 66 speakers did not get in on Second Reading, and particularly disappointed that nobody from the SNP other than myself was able to speak. I kept my remarks to around five minutes to allow them and others to get in, but unfortunately that did not happen. However, I will be much briefer this time, partly because there is only so much time you can spend banging your head off a brick wall and also because, over the past few months, myself and colleagues have spoken at length on this topic and will continue to do so.

Let me reiterate the main issues for the SNP. The Bill will not achieve what the Government say they want to achieve. It will seriously curtail the right to protest, and it will disgracefully criminalise the way of life of Gypsy Travellers. I remind hon. Members that on Wednesday at 1 o’clock Gypsy Travellers will be spending two hours across the road from this place. They have invited us all to join them to hear more about their way of life, and how the Bill will impact on those lives.

The Bill is likely to have a disproportionately negative impact on ethnic minority communities and women. It will allow the ridiculous and unjust possibility of a tougher jail sentence for someone who topples over a statue than for someone who does the same thing to a living human being or animal. I assure the people of Scotland that this Bill would never happen in an independent Scotland. If there is a single person on these islands who is still wondering why we campaign for independence, I encourage them to read this Bill.

This Bill is so pernicious in parts that it chillingly removes some of our most precious freedoms. Indeed, on press freedom, the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 already allows for the identification of journalistic source information via a judicial process when that is required by the police. The Bill appears not only to relax, but to ride a coach and horses through the legal process, with no clear protection or processes for journalistic whistleblowers, and by extending the people who can access the information not only to police officers and constables, but to employees of the Court of Common Council of the City of London, and immigration officers.

The Bill is littered with instances of racial and other forms of discrimination, from the biased operation of serious violence reduction orders, to attacks on Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities through the criminalisation of their way of life. Then there are the Bill’s provisions on our right to protest. The Home Secretary will have unfettered powers to define what constitutes “serious disruption”, and protesters who simply cause a “serious annoyance”, which is not defined, can be subject to jail sentences of up to 10 years. Worryingly, Amnesty International has said:

“The Bill also gives Ministers further enhanced powers to issue further legally binding regulations around these highly subjective and vague thresholds, which raises the prospect that the current or any future government may misuse these powers to stifle criticism and views that it might find uncomfortable.”

I will finish with a warning. History is littered with examples of democracies sliding blindly into authoritarianism. It usually happens by stealth: undermining the judiciary one day, threatening the existence of public broadcasters the next, rigging electoral rules to make it much more difficult for Opposition parties to win elections and, of course, silencing dissent by restricting the right to protest. It all sounds chillingly familiar, does it not? If the Government believe in democracy, and I truly hope they do, let them prove it tonight. Drop the Bill, otherwise I will have no option but to determine that tonight, whether intentionally or accidentally, the Government begin their stealthy descent into authoritarianism.

It is fair to say that in this Parliament the Government have a strong majority, but they need to use it wisely and responsibly. I commend the Minister and the Lord Chancellor, both of whom have demonstrated this afternoon and evening a willingness to listen on some issues. They have given commitments that there will be resolutions in the other place. Earlier I expressed my disappointment that the Committee process did not get the Bill into the shape I believe it needed to be.

There are still profound concerns, not just for those who are likely to offer opposition, but for those, including myself, who have recognised and expounded on issues with what some of the Bill’s provisions say and with how they have been articulated. Even though the Minister indicated that perhaps there are some misconceptions or misperceptions about what it entails, sadly the House has not had the opportunity to consider the Bill in full. Time has been limited this afternoon and we are the worse for it, but I suspect that the other place will have much longer on the Bill and we may see significant opportunities for change.

I encourage Ministers to consider positively new clauses 44 to 50, which sought to mirror the provisions on human trafficking and sexual exploitation that already apply in Northern Ireland. I do hope that they will give them earnest consideration. We secured their passage in Northern Ireland some four years ago; they are important legislative changes.

On the basis of the four or five aspects of the Bill that apply in Northern Ireland—those on obtaining information from electronic devices, on assisting with samples and recovery of remains, on sexual offences and on some mutual recognition provisions across the United Kingdom —we will support Third Reading, while recognising that we have reservations to which no doubt we will return on another occasion.

I support all the comments that my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) made, particularly those about the right to legitimate protest, but I draw the House’s attention particularly to my amendments about air weapon safety, which I did not have the opportunity to speak to on Report.

As the Minister understands, I have been pursuing the issue for a number of years, following the tragic damage done to my young constituent by an air weapon. It caused life-changing injuries, and I have worked with many other hon. Members whose constituents have died because of those weapons. I will pursue the issue of the prohibition of air weapons on private land for those under the age of 18.

I would particularly like the Government to consider publishing the evidence that they have collected with regard to the air weapons review, following my Adjournment debate a few years ago. We need to understand how the Government have used the evidence to come to their conclusions, particularly with regard to the law as it operates in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and to the licensing of these dangerous weapons.

I hope that I will be able to pursue the issue with the Government in the coming months and years. I think there are hundreds of families across the country who would support us in looking at it more seriously again.

Having served on the Bill Committee for this landmark legislation, I wholeheartedly support how the Bill embeds the police covenant into law, a commitment that I made to my constituents of Blyth Valley back in 2019. The covenant is pivotal to ensuring that our police are supported and that they rightly receive the recognition and enhanced protection that they deserve in keeping us all safe. It is a hugely positive step that echoes the Government’s commitment to protect police officers and their families.

My promise to my constituency to do all I can to reduce crime and create safe communities is paramount. Blyth Valley has seen high levels of antisocial behaviour over recent years. On occasion, tragically, it has led to the loss of life. Only recently, a constituent and father of two was violently attacked on his way home. I would like to thank the Northumbria police in my constituency for all the work they have done in the wake of this shocking incident. Much to the horror of my constituents, the offenders were all teenagers aged between 16 and 18. Due to their actions, so many lives have been ruined. It is vital that we give our police every tool they need to protect both themselves and our communities. As well as strengthening police stop-and-search powers and targeting those people who are convicted of knife crime and weapon offences, we will reinforce the custody of young offenders.

Another part of the Bill that I particularly welcome is the increase in the maximum penalty for anyone who assaults or commits an offence against an emergency worker from 12 months to two years. I worked for the NHS for almost 25 years, but I am sure that everyone in this House will agree that any form of attack or assault against an emergency worker is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. Our emergency services have gone above and beyond over the past year during the pandemic to protect and save lives. They deserve to be treated with the utmost respect. Their bravery, selflessness, professionalism and unflinching diligence does not go unnoticed. I welcome the fact that the Bill will seek to ensure that everyone who commits an offence against such workers will be penalised.

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I will now suspend the House for two minutes to make arrangements for the next item of business.