Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

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

The new clause is similar to the one tabled in the other place by Viscount Bridgeman. It is an attempt to get on record the Minister's views on the use of new technology.

There are new initiatives under way on the better treatment of witnesses, which we hope will bring great benefits. I refer in particular to the ''no witness, no justice'' initiative, which will help to make sure that a witness's needs are taken into account early in criminal court proceedings. I know that the Minister is familiar with that initiative. The new clause is concerned with, among other things, victims of domestic violence. We want to develop procedures that will ensure that victims have more certainty about the process of going to court.

In the experience of Victim Support, most victims are terrified at the thought of seeing their abuser, as we can well imagine; they are even quite frightened by the thought of seeing relatives of the abuser, because of the effect that domestic abuse has had on them. It is possible for the court to direct that a victim can give evidence from behind a screen or from a television-link room. Those are special measures, but they are not always requested or, indeed, provided. The amendment aims to give victims some certainty by making it a rebuttable presumption that special measures such as screens or a TV link will be used when the victim gives evidence in court. That would mean that right at the start of the process, when the victim reports the abuse and the possibility of

prosecution is being considered, a support worker, advocate, the police, or whoever has contact with the victim is able to explain to her the protection that the court can grant if she wishes to use those measures.

In the other place, there was some discussion about the fact that every victim has individual views, but the amendment will give victims the option to change their mind. Some people will decide on the day of the court appearance that they have reached the point where they want the defendant to see them giving evidence. The amendment does not prevent them from giving evidence in the usual fashion; instead, it offers protection to everybody. Many victims will receive the information about special measures and be relieved that the court process will not be so much of an ordeal. Any fear or worry that they have about having to face the defendant in court will be eliminated at that point—they will not have to wait, for example, until the early stages of the prosecution process, or even until the day of the trial.

To summarise what one Victim Support witness service staff member said, victims can reap the benefit of forward planning from day one. I hope that the Minister will consider accepting this protection.

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

Since the 1998 publication of ''Speaking Up for Justice''—the Home Office sex offences review report—it has always been presumed to be likely that victims of domestic violence will automatically be entitled to special measures, in the same way that victims of offences of sexual violence have an automatic right to such measures unless they ask that they not to be given. That is largely because there is almost invariably a coincidence between physical domestic violence and sexual violence. Whether or not a prosecution is being brought for a sex offence, it is well known that there is a widespread connection between the two things. Therefore, if one category of person is deemed to be an vulnerable witness who merits such provisions, the other ought to be deemed to be the same.

The fact that that presumption is not in place—the amendment would introduce it—does not mean that women who come to court for domestic violence cases cannot apply through the Crown Prosecution Service for special measures. The way that the hon. Lady has set out is much less satisfactory, because it leaves the matter until, at the earliest, the pre-trial review, which is a business hearing to organise how the trial will continue. It might even be dealt with on the day of the trial. The woman concerned will not know from the outset whether she has to face the perpetrator of her misery in court while giving probably very delicate evidence. Women's groups, such as Refuge and Women's Aid, and so on, who have briefed all Committee members, say that that is likely to be part of a forest of things that tend to deter women not only from making complaints, but from going through with them. It is not just that they may have to give evidence: they may not know whether they have to do so without the protections.

The difficulty with the second tier of protection, under which a woman would apply later for the

discretion to be exercised in her favour, is that being able satisfactorily to accomplish that depends on having appropriate officers and CPS staff present, who will be sensitive to the requests of the woman, or who will, even without her asking, reach out and invite her to say whether she wants such measures. That will not necessarily happen. It is odd that such vulnerable witnesses should be left, as it were, at the mercy of the expertise of an individual officer in an individual case, which may or may not be strong.

However, there is something to be gained from giving that category of women the same support that the category of sex offence complainants already has. The provision will do that. I would be interested to hear if there are any powerful reasons against it. To speculate before the Minister responds, one of them might yet again be the difficulty to categorise what is an offence of domestic violence. The new clause is designed to circumvent the absence of a definition of domestic violence by merely referring to an offence that involves

''any form of molestation, including violence''.

That is wide enough for anybody who comes into this category to be adequately covered. I invite the Government to take a serious look at the new clause.

Mr David Heath (Shadow Minister (Home Affairs), Home Affairs; Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I do not need to add a great deal to what has been said by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird).

My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) and I have added our names to the new clause. We anticipate that the Government's response will be that it is unnecessary because what it does is already provided on the great bulk of occasions. I simply echo the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar: there is a world of difference between telling someone who might be fearful, confused and dubious about bringing matters before a court, ''You will probably have this protection,'' and saying to them, ''You will have that protection right from day one.'' We are trying to give the greatest possible encouragement to witnesses and victims to make their complaint and to be prepared to take it through the court process. There are enough obstacles in the way. The new clause would simply remove a perceived obstacle—even if it often is not one in practical terms—with no detriment to the process.

The witness or victim will not have a lawyer appearing on their behalf to make the application; that will be done by the prosecution. However, the prosecution acts on behalf of the Crown, not the victim. That is an important distinction. One hopes that the prosecution team will always bear in mind the best interests of the victim as witness, that they will ensure that they are aware of the needs and wishes of that individual, and that they will make the application to the court. However, that will not necessarily be the case. This amendment is sensible in that it provides a failsafe mechanism. It does not prevent somebody from confronting their alleged assailant in court, if that is what they wish to do,

but it provides them with an automatic failsafe position, which gives them the protection they may well want in every circumstance. I hope that the Minister will give this suggestion serious consideration.

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

All Committee members agree that it is imperative that where it is clear that a victim is too frightened or distressed to give evidence, special measures should be available to help them. Section 17 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 already enables victims of domestic violence to have access to special measures where the court decides that that is appropriate. It states that the court must take into account, among other things, such factors as the domestic circumstances of the witness, any behaviour towards the witness on the part of the accused, and the nature and alleged circumstances of the offence. The new clause would provide that the automatic access to special measures, which is given to victims of sexual offences and children under 17, is given also to victims of domestic violence. We have carefully considered these issues, and we have discussed them with representatives of Victim Support. We believe that the appropriate balance has been struck. The special nature of sexual offences and the sensitive nature of the evidence that is given mean that these cases are the only ones where special measures should be automatically available for adults.

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar that there is often overlap between domestic violence cases and cases of sexual offending. We recognise that overlap, and where there are sexual offences the automatic entitlement will apply. She is right to say that, on the whole, the range of sexual offences is narrower than the range of domestic violence offences. That is another issue that we have weighed in the balance.

I know that there are concerns that special measures are not always applied for and that the courts are not always willing to allow victims of domestic violence to have access to them, although special measures have yet to be fully rolled out. I am happy to confirm that we recognise the need to ensure better case preparation and the appropriate assessment of needs by the police and prosecution. So far, special measures have had limited availability in the magistrates courts, partly because of the need for the right kind of technological facilities and partly because of the need to pilot some of the new measures. On 21 June, we published the findings of an independent evaluation of special measures, which, I am pleased to say, showed that special measures work. For instance, one third of witnesses given special measures said that they would not have given evidence without them. Since 3 June, screens, giving evidence in private and communication aids have all been available in the magistrates court. I am sure that that wider availability and the evidence that the measures work will encourage more applications to be made and granted. We will, of course, monitor the situation carefully to ensure that full use is being made of the special measures available.

The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham mentioned the ''no witness, no justice'' initiative, and I am delighted that she spoke so supportively. That initiative will ensure that the needs of witnesses are assessed and met. Victims of domestic violence in need of special measures will be identified at an earlier stage and applications made at the pre-trial hearing. It is clearly very important that that decision should be made as early as possible.

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

My hon. Friend has referred to interesting research into the efficacy of special measures. Does it break down so that we know what proportion of special measures grants have been made to those who are automatically entitled to them, and what proportion have been made on application?

Mr Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wythenshawe & Sale East, Labour)

I shall have to get back to my hon. and learned Friend on that interesting question. I too would like to know the answer. I will get in touch with her in due course.

We need as much certainty as possible in the process so that victims approaching the ordeal that the trial process often is can do so in the knowledge that they are supported in every way. I hope that the Committee will see that the Government take special measures very seriously. We intend to make sure that they are available to victims of domestic violence when the court feels that that is appropriate. I expect the courts to be sensitive to the needs of victims of domestic violence and to grant special measures whenever they are necessary. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham will agree to withdraw the new clause.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Shadow Minister, Home, Constitutional & Legal Affairs; Chesham & Amersham, Conservative)

I am delighted that the Minister has felt able to put on record the needs of domestic violence victims and acknowledge that they fall into a category of victims that should be eligible for special measures when they are vulnerable. That concerns everybody on the Committee.

I appreciate that the availability of special measures—suites and the new technology—is a limiting and inhibiting factor, but in the light of the statistics that the Minister has revealed, I presume and hope that he will keep the issue under constant review. The common-sense view is that people should be able to opt out of the process, and should not have to try to obtain protection. That would set people's mind at rest much earlier in what is obviously a painful and traumatic procedure. However, I am grateful that we are moving in the right direction and that the Minister has put that on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.