“The Secretary of State must develop proposals for a scheme to give victims of rape access to free, independent legal advice.”—

Brought up, and read the First time.

New Clause 14 seeks to introduce independent legal advocates for rape victims. Although it is always awful to be a victim of any crime, seeking justice after a rape is particularly traumatic, not just because of the desperately low chance of the offender being charged—it is currently just 1.6%—or because rape cases take the longest of all crimes to get to court, but because rape and other sexual offences are the only criminal offences in which the victim’s credibility can become the focal point of the police investigation and the trial.

In no other crime would the complainant’s lifestyle, online presence or sexual history be considered relevant to a jury. Coupled with the fact that victims have no right to their own legal support, that can mean that they find themselves trying to navigate a complex and opaque system on their own. That is why one of the things that survivors tell me time and again is that they feel the criminal justice system is working against them, compounding the trauma they have already suffered.

Given the pressures, it is no wonder that nearly 70% of survivors who report a rape drop out of the justice system. I recognise that the Minister has outlined the fact that he is looking at independent legal advice for rape victims, specifically in relation to disclosure. Although I welcome that, the remit needs to be much wider. Too often, the interests of rape victims are not properly protected in the criminal justice process. When that happens, rape survivors need somewhere to turn to get expert legal help, and that is where legal advocates come in.

The alleged offender has a defence lawyer acting and advocating in their interests, but the rape victim has no such support, and that causes many survivors to drop their cases. An independent scheme of legal advocates would help to tackle that. This proposal would not give victim survivors party status in legal proceedings, and would not conflict with fair trial rights and the duty of the Crown to act in the public interest.

It is important to note that independent legal advice schemes for victims already exist in many other jurisdictions, including many European countries, Australia, Japan, California and Ireland. The UK is an outlier in that respect. As it stands, the only specialist independent legal advice for rape survivors in the UK comes from the groups Centre for Women’s Justice and Rights of Women. They do brilliant work, but can assist only a very limited number of survivors. They cannot deliver the full service that survivors often require, so there is a significant level of unmet need.

A pilot scheme of legal advocates was trialled in Northumbria between 2018 and 2020. The survivors who took part gave positive feedback, as did most of the police and prosecutors directly involved with the lawyers in the scheme. One survivor, Susan, said that

“100% in all of this the saving grace has been” the lawyer,

“without a doubt, without a doubt my saving grace”.

Police and prosecutors were also clear that the accused’s right to a fair trial was not affected. Overall, the pilot found that the legal advocates substantially improved best practice in the police and CPS, and led to an improved victim experience.

Academic research by Dr Olivia Smith of Loughborough University shows that expanding the roll-out of the pilot to every police force in England and Wales would cost just over £4 million a year. The Home Office estimates that the emotional and wellbeing consequences alone of sexual offences, and the inadequate responses to those crimes, cost £9.8 billion. Given that, and the bulk of research showing that legal advocacy improves criminal justice satisfaction, health and employment outcomes, the cost of an independent legal advocate scheme is far from prohibitive, and would likely make huge savings elsewhere across the economy.

I turn to the remit of legal advocates. It is important to outline that, given the complexity and range of the legal issues that survivors encounter, legal advocates need to be trained lawyers, as opposed to independent sexual violence advocates. They need to be able to properly advise survivors on the issues they encounter, as well as conduct legal casework, such as reading police and CPS documents and preparing written representations. They have to be in an organisation entirely separate from any criminal justice bodies, to uphold their independence and, if necessary, liaise directly with the police and the CPS on the survivors’ behalf. However, we are not proposing that legal advocates assist victims at trial or represent them before the court. We are also not proposing that they play a role in the day-to-day communications between police and survivors. Rather, they would support the victim on specific issues that arise where legal expertise is required, from the moment they report their case to the police right through to trial. Importantly, they would be available free of charge.

One of the key legal issues that can arise is police and CPS requests for disclosure of survivors’ personal data. Because the Crown’s duty is to act in the public interest, rather than to protect the privacy rights of survivors, those requests are frequently excessive. We have talked about that a lot in Committee. One survivor, Emma, was asked by the CPS for her social services record. Emma stated that she had absolutely nothing to hide: however, she was a looked-after child, and the records contained her whole personal life history up to the age of 18. There was nothing relevant to the offence in those records, and it seems that the only reason that the CPS asked for them was because she had told it that she was a looked-after child. On questioning the CPS on what relevant evidence it thought those records might contain, it replied:

“That is a CPS decision, but it would be to review records and see if there is any material that would assist or undermine the case”.

That shows what survivors are up against. Many hand over excessive amounts of personal data in order to progress their case.

Other victims have told me that the demands to disclose all the data on their mobile phones going back years has made them feel like they were the ones on trial, and that they were unsure of their rights when it came to that. If legal advocates were in place, they would be able to help prevent those excesses. They would know when requests do not amount to a reasonable line of inquiry, and they would be able to liaise with the police and CPS to seek agreement on appropriate parameters to limit data requests.

I know that the Minister has tabled new clause 4, but my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff North and for Rotherham have already set out concerns with those provisions. In any event, the new clause does not provide a guarantee against the CPS or police going too far, so legal advocates would still be an extremely important safeguard.

One of the other areas where a survivor’s interests can be at odds with those of the police or CPS is the victims’ right to review scheme. That is because the survivor is directly challenging its decisions, but without legal advice survivors can struggle to challenge criminal justice agencies when errors are made. Ziva’s case outlines that challenge. She was a victim of oral rape by an acquaintance. Despite the police thinking that she had a strong case, the CPS did not bring charges. The police requested a review, but it still resulted in no further action. Ziva was lucky enough to have a lawyer who drafted legal representations for the victims right to review, but again the CPS upheld its decision not to charge. With the support of her legal adviser, Ziva requested an independent review, which resulted in the CPS’s decisions being overturned and a charge finally being brought.

That is the issue: so many cases are closed on the basis of rape myths and stereotypes, without important evidence being gathered, or on an incorrect application of the law. Without legal support, the odds are stacked against a survivor challenging that. As in Ziva’s case, a national scheme of legal advocates would help survivors obtain meaningful explanations for the reasons for a decision to take no further action, assess the validity of those and, if appropriate, draft legal representations in relation to a charging decision.

When it comes to complaints about the service a survivor has received, again there can be a clear divergence of interests. I fear that the lack of accountability in that area has allowed a culture of poor performance to set in. For example, His Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate found that in cases involving rape and serious sexual offences, nearly half of CPS letters lacked basic empathy, and only 19% of letters were of the right quality. That is shocking. If a trained lawyer was on the other end of those letters, I am sure very quickly standards would be driven up, and, if not, more procedurally correct complaints would inevitably be made, improving the accountability of the system and getting the voices of victims heard.

Compensation is another area where victims can be let down. The present victims code entitles complainants to be provided with information about the two-year limit for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority compensation claims. It also states that applicants should not delay their application. However, often victims of rape are not told or are told to wait until after the case concludes to apply. The time limit for applying for CICA runs from the date of the incident and may be extended by CICA in exceptional circumstances. Extensions of time are not always applied consistently. The current wait for rape cases to conclude means that CICA applications will nearly always conclude before criminal proceedings. An independent legal advocate could ensure that victims receive good advice on CICA.

Given the range of issues that victims of rape face—the uphill battle to get a case to court, the abysmal drop-out rates and the evidence that legal advocates work—it is clear that developing proposals for a national independent advocacy scheme could be a huge step forward for victims. That is why I have tabled new clause 14.

We must stop failing and retraumatising victims of rape within the criminal justice system. We must drive up standards within the system and do everything possible to drive up the appalling charge rate. The facts at present speak for themselves. Victims are let down at every stage of the process. An independent legal advocate scheme could finally fix some of the awful experiences of victims, reduce attrition rates and help to bring more offenders to justice. I hope those on the Benches opposite will support the proposed new clause.

I am grateful to the Shadow Minister for the new Clause, which would require the Secretary of State to develop proposals for a scheme to give victims of rape access to free and independent legal advice. I know that we agree on the importance of ensuring that victims have confidence that they will be treated with sensitivity and dignity they deserve when reporting crimes such as rape. Integral to building that confidence is ensuring that victims are adequately supported, their credibility is not questioned without good reason, they are informed of their rights and that those are protected.

The proposed new clause would mean the development of proposals for a scheme that would enable victims of rape to access free and independent legal advice. We have some drafting concerns, and I am grateful that some of those were clarified in the hon. Lady’s speech. She did not specify what the legal advice would relate to: my understanding is that it could cover a range of matters, including advice for victims to help them understand requests for personal information and, where needed, to question those requests. She elaborated more broadly on that point and approach in her remarks, which was helpful.

The Government continue to take action to improve the criminal justice system response to rape, through the rape review action plan, and through this Bill we are taking broader action to support victims of all crime. It is critical that we allow for those changes to take effect. For that reason, and one I will come to, we do not support the amendment as drafted at this time, but I will elaborate further on that in a moment. [Interruption.] It is an amendment introducing a new clause; I was seeking to be dextrous, but was quite rightly called out by the right hon. Member for Garston and Halewood on a point of terminology.

I do agree that victims being aware of their rights is an extremely important issue, particularly when supporting victims who are interacting with personal information requests, and preparing for trial. For rape victims in particular, I recognise that requests for personal information, and the trial itself, can be daunting and retraumatising experiences. That is why improving victim support, the court experience and requests for third-party material make up three of our eight key levers in the rape review action plan.

Yesterday, we published our fourth progress update, outlining the significant progress we have made in improving the criminal justice system response to rape, and better support for victims. It was only yesterday, though it feels longer. The sustained progress we are making to rebuild victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system should not be understated. We have already exceeded our initial ambition to return the volumes of adult rape cases reaching court to 2016 levels, but as everyone here would agree, although that is progress, it is not sufficient in and of itself.

Just before turning specifically to the new clause, she highlighted letter quality in this context, as an illustrative point. That is true of CICA as well. She was right to highlight the two years, but it can be extended in exceptional circumstances or for particular reasons. On quality of communication, I think it was 2018 when the hon. Member for Rotherham and I sat down with copies of the standard letters that CICA used to write to people, and basically rewrote them ourselves, suggesting there might be a better way to communicate. To the best of my knowledge, they still use our letters, but I might check that.

They do.

In the latest progress update, we also recognised that there is more to do. I want to be very clear on the record that I am not unsupportive of what the hon. Member for Lewisham West and Penge seeks to achieve with her Amendment. Indeed, to better understand whether independent legal advice and representation is required, and how it could work in practice alongside our wider reforms and in broader interactions with the system, we have asked the Law Commission to explore the merits of independent legal advice and representation, and how that would work in practice, recognising among other things the specific challenges in cases of rape and serious sexual offences, in terms of third-party material and similar. We also hope that the Law Commission will consider in the round why one particular set of cases should attract it while others would not, and whether that would be an equitable approach. There are very specific reasons in the case of RASSO cases, but we have asked the Law Commission to look at it carefully.

The Law Commission’s consultation on the use of evidence in sexual prosecutions was published on 23 May and will run until the end of September. I suspect that it will cover this matter and a wide range of other matters that we have discussed. I look forward to closely reviewing the Law Commission’s findings and, through gathering that additional evidence, arriving at a well-informed position on this important issue, and how it might be practical to deliver on such a commitment, subject to what the Law Commission says, and to decisions by the Lord Chancellor. To continue our improvements to third-party material requests through the Bill, we are also introducing duties on policing, which we debated when considering new Clause 4. In addition, the victims code will introduce an entitlement for adult victims of rape and serious sexual offences to be offered a meeting with the prosecution team once they have been notified that the case is proceeding to trial. That will give victims the opportunity to discuss what happens next and to ask any questions that they have about the process.

On supporting victims to access the right to review process, the CPS notifies victims by letter of decisions not to charge or to stop a case, and offers eligible victims the right to request a review and gives details on how to do that. I will suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General that she and the Director of Public Prosecutions undertake an exercise akin to the one that the hon. Member for Rotherham and I did to look at how—often standard—letters are worded and framed, to ensure that they are sensitive and communicate clearly. That would be a matter for the Attorney General’s office.

In our view, it is slightly premature at this stage to propose a specific approach to free legal advice without taking into account the findings, and the expert advice, of the Law Commission’s important work on these issues. In the light of that work, we will probably return to these questions when it reports.

I thank the Minister for his comments. I take some comfort from him saying that he is unable to support the new Clause “at this stage” and that it is premature rather than something that is not being looked at. It is an incredibly important issue. I note that the Law Commission is looking at it. I would not want to see the issue kicked into the long grass.

May I offer to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this in advance of the Law Commission work, so that the two of us can discuss it further, as Minister and Shadow Minister?

I would very much welcome that, and I am grateful for the offer. I will not press the new Clause to a vote in the light of what the Minister has said. He acknowledges on the rape review that came out yesterday that there is more to do. I gently suggest that this is one of the key things that could be done so that we start to see some real progress. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.