‘(1) The Secretary of State shall—

(a) issue mandatory codes of practice to ensure that safe addresses and other confidential contact information which would otherwise be subject to disclosure during court proceedings, is provided only to relevant court officials in cases involving victims of domestic and sexual violence or abuse; and

(b) by order bring such codes into effect as soon as reasonably practicable.

(2) Court officials in receipt of confidential information under subsection (1)(a) have a duty to prevent the unauthorised disclosure of such information.

(3) The codes of practice shall apply to all courts.’.—(Dan Jarvis.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

The new clause seeks to close a small legal anomaly and make our criminal justice system work better for victims of domestic and sexual abuse. Before I go further, I will set out the context. I am particularly conscious of the report on domestic violence published today by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which was covered on several front pages this morning. I am sure the report will have some bearing on this debate.

The report makes it clear that much more needs to be done to improve how both the police and the criminal justice system respond to domestic abuse. It concludes that, although domestic violence is listed as a priority by most police forces and police and crime commissioners, that is not currently being translated into reality. The report also identifies unacceptable weaknesses in the quality of police investigations into domestic abuse and deficiencies in the skills and supervision of officers responsible for that core policing activity. That makes for a deeply worrying picture, especially when combined with other evidence published earlier this month by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the Shadow Home Secretary.

Members of the Committee may already be aware of the statistics that expose serious shortcomings in how the criminal justice system has dealt with cases of domestic abuse since 2010. According to the latest available figures, there were more than 838,000 reports of domestic abuse in 2012-13. Although reports of abuse have risen by 11%, the number of prosecutions has fallen by 13%, and only 6% of all prosecutions result in a conviction. In summary, that presents us with two particular issues: first, how police forces investigate and deal with domestic violence on the front line, and  secondly, how the criminal justice system treats those victims who take the courageous decision to come forward. Our new clause focuses on the second issue. It is important to put both on the record, however, as they relate to each other. If we ultimately want to encourage more victims to come forward and report these crimes, they need to have confidence that the system is on their side.

One of those victims was Eve Thomas, a remarkable woman whose equally remarkable story was the genesis for this proposal. I will share her story with the Committee. She hails from Greater Manchester, and for more than 20 years she had to endure horrific mental and physical abuse at the hands of her husband. Eventually, she found the strength to escape. With the support of the police, she pursued a prosecution against her husband. He was convicted of battery and placed under a restraining order. Free from the threat of abuse at last, Eve finally obtained a safe house address, which she kept a closely guarded secret to ensure that her ex-husband would never find her and harass her again.

Eve was beginning a new life and learning to live without fear. She was then taken to court on a civil matter, unrelated to the legal battle she had been through with her former husband. During proceedings, the judge asked her to state her name and safe address in open court. That completely threw Eve. If she had answered, her details would have become a matter of public record and potentially compromised both her and her daughters’ safety. Eve refused to state those details. She offered to provide the address in a sealed envelope to the judge, but that was refused. She was warned that she would be held in contempt of court and risked being sent to prison, but she was prepared to do that to protect her daughters and herself. Thankfully, a friend stepped in and saved her from that decision. Eve should never have been put in the position of having to make such a choice; no one should.

That example raises serious questions on how courts and all public bodies handle the confidential information of victims. Eve soon found that she was not alone, uncovering numerous cases where other victims were faced with that impossible situation. That is why she has campaigned ever since to change the legal anomaly that put her in that situation.

I am listening with great care and I am aware of that awful case. I have a lot of sympathy. In the courts, particularly the criminal courts, practitioners are all enjoined not to ask witnesses to produce their full home address details. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that does not go far enough and we need an even firmer framework?

I will go on to explain in more detail precisely what we are looking to achieve. The specific case relating to Eve Thomas happened in a civil court. The Government have brought forward a proposal on how the matter could be resolved, and the purpose of the new Clause is to tease out some more detail on that proposal. I am looking forward to what the Minister has to say, although I am grateful for the Intervention of the hon. Member for South Swindon at this stage.

Eve Thomas has taken her message across the country. She has raised awareness of the issue among thousands of people and she has brought her campaign here to Parliament. In fact, her visit to Parliament was the first time she had ever been to London. Just a few months ago, the Opposition were proud to lend our support to her efforts to close the legal loophole, which can still require domestic violence victims to release their confidential information when in court on matters unrelated to their abuse. A subsequently tabled early-day motion has been signed by some 90 Members and has attracted strong cross-party support. The Government have also expressed sympathy for Eve’s campaign. In a letter mentioning the early-day motion, the Deputy prime minister states that the EDM has been supported by the Liberal Democrats. I hope that means that we will have the support of the hon. Member for Cambridge on this matter.

Earlier this year, I raised the issue with the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), and requested his support. In his reply last month, he acknowledged that much more needed to be done in this area and promised further consultation to explore possible policy options. Then, quite suddenly, an announcement was made on international women’s day, earlier this month, and the Home Secretary issued a statement saying that a new code of practice would be issued to ensure that victims’ safe addresses would be protected. That positive step was welcome and Eve and her supporters took great heart from it. However, no further detail has been forthcoming since that commitment was made in the final paragraph of a press release issued some three weeks ago. In particular, the form that the code of practice will take is not yet confirmed. The Minister hinted to me in his letter of 14 February that he was exploring a voluntary code of practice, so it is not clear how much of a binding effect that will have.

Let me mention the specifics of the Amendment. New clause 16 would require the Secretary of State to issue mandatory codes of practice to protect the safe addresses and other confidential information of domestic and sexual violence victims. Unlike the voluntary codes of practice that the Government appear to be proposing, our amendment would underpin those in statute and would apply to all court settings, closing the loophole that exposed Eve to such an impossible situation. That would protect victims of domestic abuse by ensuring that the data would never be disclosed, unless exceptional circumstances demanded it. It would also help prevent dangerous mistakes from occurring, such as the release of refuge addresses.

The amendment would still grant a degree of flexibility to the Government. They would still be able to bring forward the code of practice that they said they are exploring. The amendment would simply strengthen that code by underwriting it in law. The amendment specifies that the loophole on disclosure in courts be closed, which I am sure most people would agree is sensible. However, Ministers would still have room to go further, if they wished. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues look kindly on a relatively minor amendment.

Domestic abuse has often been treated in the past as a hidden crime that takes place behind net curtains. However, thinking of it as a marginal crime could not be further from the truth. Domestic abuse accounts for 20% of  violent crime and one in 10 incidences of all crime. We know that the Majority of domestic abuse incidents go unreported: victims will be abused 35 times, on average, before they report the matter to the police. There are many different things that we need to do to change that and we propose to start today, with the amendment. I hope that we have the Committee’s support.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments on this important issue. I hope that I am able to give him some comfort about what the Government are doing.

There already exists a range of statutory and non-statutory obligations on courts and other bodies that together provide a high level of protection of an individual’s personal information. All individuals, but especially victims of domestic and sexual abuse, will have a genuine reason for wishing to avoid information such as their address from being disclosed unnecessarily and inappropriately. The need to disclose must be and is balanced with the need for courts to have essential information to administer justice and enable effective enforcement of judgments and orders.

Committee members will be aware of a campaign by Eve Thomas for Eve’s law and a marker to protect against disclosure of the personal information of victims of domestic violence. That stems from experience of civil enforcement proceedings to which Ms Thomas was a party. I am very grateful to her for raising this important issue.

Parties in civil proceedings are under a basic obligation to reveal their residential addresses, as must those providing witness statements in support of a party. Understandably, that may give rise to legitimate concerns from victims of abuse about the risk of disclosure to perpetrators. To guard against that, civil procedure rules already protect against the disclosure of confidential information in court, and in general, the courts are sensitive to those with a genuine reason for wishing to avoid disclosing their whereabouts and find ways to accommodate that. In family proceedings, including applications for protective injunctions and orders, contact details must be given but rules provide that they will not be disclosed other than by order of the court. I assure hon. Members that this Government take the issues of domestic and sexual violence and abuse very seriously. We have established cross-Government work programmes to improve the response and provide greater protection to victims of such forms of violence.

The Government carefully considered the issues raised by the Eve’s Law campaign. We were not persuaded that a new law or statutory marker, in court proceedings or more broadly across the many areas where a victim of abuse may interact with the state and other agencies, is a necessary and appropriate response. We are looking at whether we might strengthen the civil procedure rules to make the protection in civil court proceedings more explicit. That will involve discussions with victims groups and the judiciary.

We are also considering, through engagement with victims groups, how our enforcement system does everything it can to offer protection to victims while ensuring that creditors can access justice to enforce civil judgments where necessary. Moreover, we concluded that more could be done to raise awareness and ensure that proper  attention was given to the protection of personal information of victims of abuse, in accordance with existing legal and other obligations. We have already incorporated a commitment in the call to end violence against women and girls action plan 2014, published in March, to develop a new non-statutory code of practice by April 2015.

I hope that hon. Members are assured that the Government are already committed to comprehensive actions and work in relation to the protection of personal information by courts, and more widely. For these reasons, we see no need for a statutory requirement for codes of practice for courts, and I respectfully invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment.

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. Clearly, the Government accept that there is an issue here, hence the announcement made a couple of weeks ago by the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims. I am content to look carefully at the detail of what the Minister has said. I am reassured by his response that he understands the excellent campaigning work of Eve Thomas. Given his response, I do not feel the requirement to press the matter to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.