Andrew George

I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward this raft of very important changes. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards). I would ask my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) to address the points raised—I am not qualified—but I imagine that the purpose of new clause 12 is to make technical changes so that the measures are even more effective, which, clearly, we would all support. In any case, my understanding is that it would require the Secretary of State to bring forward such changes rather than stipulating what those changes are in detail. Like others, I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) on a very impressive and powerful speech. I know that the Minister congratulated her in advance on the campaign she has run. Equally, the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) made a very powerful speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead made strong cases as well. I repeat the reminder of my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) that the primary purpose—this is certainly what I have always said—of custodial sentences must be public protection. It is on that issue that I wish to concentrate. My remarks are entirely informed by a case I have been pursuing on behalf of my constituent Tina Nash. The Minister is aware of this, because I have corresponded with her on the subject. Tina was horrifically attacked by her former partner in 2011 for a 12-hour period until she managed to escape. In that time she was battered and had her eyes gouged out and her jaw and nose broken. It was an appalling beating that she was lucky to survive—and a survivor she is. The following year her former partner was jailed for life with a minimum term of six years. However, earlier this year he was moved to a category D prison, with open conditions. My constituent was not consulted about this and was only informed about it after the decision had been taken. Bearing in mind that she is blind, it is understandable that she fears that, if she went out shopping, he could be in her company without her knowledge. She is incredibly scared as a result of the decision. She had no say in it, and nor was she consulted. I tabled new clause 17 to urge the Government to accept that victims have a right to a veto in reasonable circumstances for their own protection—not in all circumstances and not in every condition, but we should certainly ensure that they are properly consulted. As a result of this experience, I think there are a number of other failings in the system that require the Government to ensure belt-and-braces support for victims throughout the process. Tina wanted to pursue this matter with the Parole Board, but it did not respond to her until my intervention, and then there was an offer of a meeting. That is not good enough. It should not be down to a Member of Parliament to force a response. She was given the support of the victim contact scheme, which I will come to in a moment. My constituent was given the opportunity to complain—the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman provided her with a complaint form—but months after she had completed the complaint, she was informed that the ombudsman had assumed she was the prisoner, not the victim. Can that level of incompetence or her treatment throughout the process be believed? She was treated appallingly, while the process wasted her time and stressed her out. Her complaint was rejected as outside the PPO’s remit—that fact was not initially communicated to her—which caused her enormous distress and confusion. Despite circumstances in which she was blinded by her perpetrator, she still somehow has to navigate and overcome all these processes and problems. Of course, the PPO apologised for its error, but with a lack of empathy for my constituent in an officious response that directed her to the Victims’ Commissioner.