Second Report - Pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Victims Bill

The government acknowledged the impact of anti-social behaviour but stated it would continue to support those affected outside of the Bill and Code, referencing existing plans and funding instead.

The government rejects the recommendation for an immediate end to data sharing between police and the Home Office for immigration enforcement and the introduction of a complete firewall, citing a Home Office review that found such restrictions inoperable. It notes existing police discretion and specific protocols for domestic abuse victims but considers no broader changes necessary.

The government will ensure Parliament receives sufficient information but explicitly rejects the recommendation for the regulations to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, stating that public consultation and laying the revised Code in Parliament provide appropriate scrutiny.

The government rejects the recommendation to give further consideration to agencies' non-compliance with the Code, stating that existing safeguards and new oversight provisions in Clause 5 will encourage compliance, making further changes unnecessary.

The government committed to making information about restorative justice more consistently available but explicitly rejected a legislative right to access restorative justice, deeming it impractical or inappropriate due to its voluntary nature.

The government rejects making free transcripts of judge's sentencing remarks a universal Code right, citing existing fees and appropriateness, and states bereaved families can already receive Coroner's findings free of charge.

The government rejected monitoring IDVA and ISVA access to court, stating it's a matter for the judiciary and unnecessary given existing legal provisions for court access. However, they will clearly set out in statutory guidance that victims have the right to be supported by ISVAs and IDVAs.

The government rejected defining CHIDVAs and CHISVAs in legislation, stating these roles are less established. They will carefully consider how statutory guidance might clarify how ISVAs and IDVAs should support the needs of children and young people.

The government acknowledges the committee's points but rejects the premise that changes are needed to create a firewall between police and immigration enforcement, stating that data sharing restrictions are not considered operable. It notes existing police discretion and specific protocols being developed for domestic abuse victims.

The government rejects the conclusion that the Bill's principles lack significant legal purpose, asserting they protect the Code's underlying purpose and, combined with existing safeguards and new oversight, will encourage desired culture change.

The government rejects the conclusion that the overarching principles are not strong enough to drive cultural change, stating they protect the Code's purpose and, combined with existing safeguards and new oversight provisions, will ensure compliance without needing changes.

The government rejects extending the statutory obligation to consult other Secretaries of State and Commissioners in legislation. It states consultation with the Home Secretary will occur by convention and it is usual practice to consult key stakeholders, but does not consider it necessary to list them in the Bill.

The government rejected strengthening the Bill to require new needs assessments, arguing that existing processes and the Bill's current wording on using existing assessments are sufficient and new requirements would be duplicative. They will, however, consider how statutory guidance can support commissioners.

The government believes its Bill of Rights will strengthen victim protection and states that no changes to either the Victims Bill or the Bill of Rights are necessary as a result of the Committee's concerns.