---

Rights and Protection of Victims

The Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor made his point clear at the beginning. He might have been slightly concerned that there would be some kind of Division, but as far as I am concerned, there will be nothing of the kind. To me, this debate is about recognising the fact that this is an important issue. Furthermore, I view it as the job of the European Scrutiny Committee to recommend for debate matters of legal or political importance. Nobody is in any doubt that this is a matter of very considerable importance. The communication from the European Commission, ““Strengthening victims' rights in the EU””, starts with the question: ““Why do victims matter?”” Let me give a brief indication of what the European Commission states in this particular context. The communication talks about the many millions of people who fall victim to crime. It notes that about"““30 million crimes against persons or property are recorded annually””" in the EU. It continues:"““Crime often affects more than one victim…This leads to a qualified estimate that there is likely to be up to 75 million direct victims of crime every year.””" So in quantitative terms, we are talking about something in the order of 75 million people affected. Road accidents are also discussed, with a million across the EU mentioned, along with the loss of 30,700 lives in 2010. People are constantly travelling and moving across borders and it notes that about 11.3 million Europeans are residing"““permanently outside their own home country””." It mentions that"““10% of Europeans have lived and worked abroad during a period of their lives and 13% have gone abroad for education or training.””" The European Commission states:"““These numbers show the importance of ensuring proper, effective action on the rights of those who fall victim to crime or to road accidents, in their own country or while travelling or living abroad.””" It claims that that is"““both a cross-border and a domestic problem that calls for EU action.””" It also mentions the impact on women in the European Union. The Commission describes compensation as one of the basic needs of victims. In a section headed ““A specific focus on victims of crime—what do they need?””, it states:"““Many people fall victim to crime in the EU every year””," and refers to"““the need to be recognised and treated with respect and dignity””—" we say amen to that—"““to be protected and supported; to have access to justice; and to get compensation and restoration.””" On the subject of that compensation and restoration, it states:"““Persons who have suffered harm because of the acts of others often expect to get some form of financial compensation, whether from the State or the offender. Compensation aims at repairing immediate and longer-term financial damage. It may also act as a form of acknowledgement through a symbolic payment.””" It continues:"““Restorative justice, which is a relatively new concept in criminal proceedings, goes beyond purely financial compensation to focus on the recovery of the victim.””" As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I want to explain a little of the background to the four documents that are before us. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) for their contributions, to which I listened carefully. I was very moved by what the hon. Gentleman said about the difficulties experienced by the Dunne family. The documents comprise part of a package that is a recent initiative to bolster the rights afforded and support given to victims in criminal and civil legal proceedings throughout the European Union. Let me add to what the Minister has said by giving the House the European Scrutiny Committee's summary of each of the documents. The road map is a statement by member states of how far they intend to implement the Commission's victims' package, which is quite far. The draft directive, which is binding on member states when implemented, lays down comprehensive and far-reaching rules governing the rights of victims of crime. As I have said, the Commission's communication indicates that further legislation on victims' compensation, and on the law to be applied in cross-border traffic accidents, is in the pipeline. The draft regulation, which is automatically binding on member states once adopted in Brussels, provides for the automatic recognition in all member states of a civil protection order, such as a non-molestation order, granted by a civil court in one member state. A parallel proposal for protection orders granted by criminal courts is also being negotiated, but is not subject to this debate. As I think the Lord Chancellor will confirm, the Government have opted in to that provision. As we have heard, the draft directive and regulation are subject to the opt-in protocol referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), under which the UK is presumed not to want to be legally bound by them unless it notifies the Commission of the contrary within three months of the publication of the proposals. In the opinion of my Committee, the Government should take into account several factors when making their decision. First, the Government should consider whether the UK can influence negotiations more successfully once it has opted in, and should weigh that possibility against the chance that it could end up being bound by damaging legislation. Secondly—I think this equally important—they should consider the financial impact of the proposal. However much we may agree that there is a case for compensation in general terms, I am sure that the sheer range, extent and potential cost concern the Government particularly, given our current position. Lastly, I repeat that once these obligations are imposed on us, they will necessarily give rise to grave financial implications, and that will be the case across the range of the victims I have identified—as many as 75 million, a figure I put on the record earlier. There is also the question of whether the proposal will require legislative change in the United Kingdom. The Government's explanatory memorandum demonstrates that they are broadly in favour of the two legislative proposals but that they need to look at their resource and administrative implications. By contrast, the Government question the need for further legislation on compensating victims. The Secretary of State will, I hope, give us some indication in respect of that before the end of the debate. That is the Government's position, but I have already indicated the scale, range and extent of what needs to be done. The European Scrutiny Committee recommended holding this debate for the following reasons: the victims' package marks a significant changing up of gear in the EU's policy on victims; the resource and administrative implications for the UK will be substantial, especially with regard to the regulation, as can be seen from pages 27 to 31 of the relevant report; and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hove said, the rights of victims in the UK are currently a matter of concern and, at times, controversy. Finally, if this needs saying at all, we ask the Government to consider long and hard the views expressed in this debate before deciding whether to opt in.