| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Renton: My Lords, although the amendments introduced by my noble friend at first sight look rather technical, they are worthy of acceptance by the Government, especially Amendment No. 73. I sometimes feel that when legislating, we should pay particular attention to the need for the protection and treatment of children. That is what Amendment No. 73 aims at. It is really rather important.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, I am inspired to intervene simply because the comments of my noble friend on the Front Bench rang a bell regarding an experience that I had. I hope that it is reasonably relevant to the amendments under consideration, although I realise that it does not trespass upon matters dealing with the commissioner.
In the light of the story that my noble friend told about a person who went to the aid of the victim of an assault and was in turn assaulted, I emphasise that attention must be given, particularly in court proceedings, to the position of the victim who testifies at the trial of the accused. I went through a similar experience, so I can tell noble Lords that it can be very confusing if a victim turns up to give evidence at a trial, having been invited to do so by the prosecution, only to find himself or herself subjected to fairly heavy cross-examination. Certainly, in my case, that cross-examination made me feel that I was almost in the position of being the accused.
Where a victim goes forward to give evidence describing the circumstances of the incident—in this case, an assault had taken place—that person should not be treated as a hostile witness in the court. Touching obliquely on my own case, although I believe that the accused had been correctly identified in a video parade, and despite the fact that the detailed circumstances of the assault had been given very carefully under cross-examination, on two separate occasions the jury was not able to come to any conclusion.
There is also the case where the accused advises lawyers who are able to protract proceedings, extending them over more than one trial—at considerable inconvenience to the victim who is ready to give evidence. All those matters must be borne in
mind when considering the position of victims of crime. Courts would be well advised to take that into account.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we very much understand that. Regrettably, a victim is a victim not only when the incident occurs; he or she can sometimes feel victimised by the process, if it is not handled appropriately and well. For that reason, the Government have made strenuous efforts to ensure that victims are given the sort of support and preparation that may assist them to deal with the process. From the noble Lord's description, often the worry is that the victim does not know what will happen or what might happen.
We have created a website that victims and witnesses can access to look at the process. We are also providing, with the help of voluntary agencies including Victim Support, a support system that will take people through the system, from the very beginning when they report and afterwards. Sometimes the effect on the victim will last long after the case is over, sometimes well after the offender has served the sentence. I reassure the noble Lord that we very much understand that.
I welcome the opportunity provided by this amendment to state categorically that we too believe that the prevention of or, at the very least, the reduction of, secondary victimisation is likely to be high on the list of the commissioner's priorities. Too often—it is a matter of regret—agencies are insensitive to the needs of victims. We believe that we are tackling this through the terms of the code of practice with its key themes of information, advice, protection and support. But there are other areas, such as those highlighted by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, where clearly more still needs need to be done, and the commissioner will have an important role in promoting and spreading good practice and, quite frankly, rooting out bad practice.
However, we take the view that we do not need to specify this on the face of the Bill. Clauses 18(1)(a) and 18(1)(b) already refer to the commissioner's general duty to promote the interests of victims and witnesses and to take appropriate steps to encourage good practice. We believe that this is sufficient to enable the commissioner to address this issue actively.
I hope that this will be sufficient reassurance for the noble Viscount, and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 73, also spoken to by the noble Viscount, regarding the specific mention of victims of domestic abuse, child victims and witnesses. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right to say that matters regarding children will always excite the keenest attention among us all. I need to be clear that the intention of this legislation is to introduce rights for all victims of crime. We are not looking to create a hierarchy of victims, attaching greater importance to some types of victims than others. There is no doubt that victims of domestic violence and child victims are especially vulnerable but victims of sexual assault or
bereaved families can be seen as equally or, at times, more vulnerable. We see the commissioner's role as championing the cause of all victims. To introduce reference to victims of specific crimes is unnecessary and potentially divisive.I agree, as I acknowledged when the matter was raised at Second Reading, that the commissioner should establish effective links with the planned new children's commissioner and that remains the policy intention. Given that the victims' commissioner is likely to liaise with a number of bodies, and on the same principle as not wishing to identify particular groups of victims, we do not think it is necessary to refer specifically to the children's commissioner in the legislation.
As for the victims' commissioner reviewing the operation of legislation affecting victims and witnesses, this is a role that we anticipate that he or she will carry out but, again, we consider it unnecessary to spell this out on the face of the Bill. The functions of the commissioner are broadly set out in Clause 18(1) and (2), and we believe that this is sufficient detail to enable the commissioner to draw up an effective work plan when he takes office. We think that that breadth is helpful. We would not wish improperly to impede the proper investigation and comment that the victims' commissioner may choose to make. I reassure noble Lords that we want the victims' commissioner to be active. I am sure that whoever is appointed is bound to be vocal. We want to be very careful to listen to everything that is said by such a commissioner on behalf of all victims.
On these grounds, I must resist these amendments, if I have not made that absolutely clear.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the Minister for specifically saying that the Government are aware of the duty of the victims' commissioner to liaise with the children's commissioner. I shall read what the Minister said very carefully. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 73 to 75 not moved.]
Clause 23 [Disclosure of information]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 75A:
- Page 13, line 28, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 75A and 76A seek to remove subsection (7) and amend subsection (8) of Clause 23, about the disclosure of information between criminal justice agencies for the purposes of compliance with the victims' code of practice and other duties listed in subsection (2).
Subsection (7) was originally included as its intention was to override any common law duties of confidence which criminal justice agencies might owe to defendants and others. However, the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has criticised Clause 23 because it contains no explicit provision to state that the Human Rights Act 1998 is not being overridden. On the other hand, we have included subsection (8), which makes it clear that no exchange of information can take place which contravenes the Data Protection Act 1998.
Removing subsection (7) will prevent any ambiguity regarding the Human Rights Act. We have concluded that the existence of a statutory authority to disclose will be sufficient to override common law duties and we do not need to go as far as the provision in subsection (7), which also overrides statutory duties of confidence.
We think it best to retain the reference to the Data Protection Act because there is a good deal of confusion about its operation—we have spoken about that confusion in the past—and we want to make it clear that it continues to apply. The fact that information is disclosed in compliance with the code, and that Clause 23 provides a basis for the disclosure, will go a long way to meeting the requirements of the Data Protection Act. However, it is our policy that any future revisions of the code of practice should be compliant with the Data Protection Act, and that agencies should continue to comply with those of its requirements which are not met by virtue of disclosure taking place under a statutory authority.
I hope that noble Lords are content with that explanation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page