(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling violence against women and girls in London.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. Violence against women and girls remains one of the most prevalent and pervasive human rights violations in the world. The statistics are stark and frightening: according to Refuge, there were more than 159,000 reports of domestic abuse crimes in Greater London in 2024 alone, and globally almost one in three women have been subjected to physical or sexual intimate partner violence at least once in their life. As an ongoing survivor of domestic abuse, and as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse, I know that it can affect women at all stages and in all aspects of their life. It damages health and wellbeing and undermines democratic freedom and our pursuit of equality. Urgent and immediate action is overdue.
Survivors are complex and multifaceted beings, and we are being let down by systems, structures, institutions and processes. Today, I aim to set out why there continues to be a need for a multifaceted approach and for a strategy that is both comprehensive and cross-departmental, going beyond criminal justice to social security, employment, housing and so on, to address perpetrators while empowering survivors. The Minister has been deeply committed to this area, and I will continue to engage constructively with her work, including through the work of the APPG on domestic violence and abuse, in the interests of victims and survivors in London and far beyond. This debate aims to further our mutual interests and our commitments to survivors, regionally and nationally, in anticipation of the upcoming new VAWG strategy, which I understand may be published very soon.
Parts of my speech, like much of my work over the past year, will be about responses to this problem beyond the criminal justice system, but I want to be clear that there can be no question but that the criminal justice system woefully lets down survivors. I continue to be concerned about perpetrators being released too early from prison, as well as the abysmal prosecution and conviction rates. The lack of independent and high-quality legal advice for survivors is concerning, as is the lack of available legal aid funding. That sits alongside the postcode lottery of who is able to receive support from an independent domestic or sexual violence advocate. The importance of funding, to enable frontline workers to help survivors navigate the complexity of the criminal justice system and access lifesaving legal advice, cannot be overstated.
Distrust of the police continues to be at an all-time high. Not dealing properly with abusers in their own ranks undermines trust. The Casey review, in the wake of the murder of Sarah Everard, was a damning indictment of the Metropolitan Police Service: it found the force to be institutionally sexist, racist and homophobic. This is also reflected in the abhorrent behaviour shown in the recent “Panorama” documentary. Survivors in London simply need to be given the confidence to come forward and report abuse when it occurs, without the fear of not being believed or the prospect of facing penalising consequences themselves.
During last year’s debate, I spoke about the London Victims’ Commissioner’s stalking review, which found that 45% of stalking victims withdrew from the justice process and a further 41% saw no further police action on their complaints. The review evidenced the disastrous consequences of the confusion and lack of awareness among police and prosecutors: that police continue to treat incidents as single events, meaning that stalking goes unrecognised and patterns of behaviour are not properly understood.
In my own experience, the current stalking legislation allows stalkers to be colluded with and encourages repeat behaviour, punishing victims who resist and reject their stalker’s behaviour. As the review detailed, the phenomenon of “moving forward” or “threat management” strategies is well recognised in research, but is in practice too often weaponised against victims, who are blamed for not being the “perfect” victim. I know this all too well. I was pleased to learn that the Home Office is now carrying out a review on stalking legislation. It is my hope that the outcome will be to pivot stalking investigations and prosecutions towards a suspect-focused lens that does not place the onus on the victim to prove that their stalker has achieved their aim.
As of November last year, domestic abuse protection orders had been piloted by the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice in parts of south London, including Croydon, Bromley and Sutton, and in Greater Manchester, with the intention of providing victims with the option of being protected from non-physical abuse and controlling or coercive behaviour, with immediate protection following an incident of abuse. This is a civil order that can span different courts, as I understand it. It would be helpful to understand whether the Minister believes that that has been a success, and whether there is any intention of a wider and more permanent roll-out.
It is imperative to end impunity by holding perpetrators accountable, with support and consideration at every stage of the criminal justice system. Not only do the law and the court systems let us down, but they are even being used by our abusers, including through stalking by way of the courts—in other words, lawfare. It is striking that my and other women’s experiences of vexatious litigation continue to be commonplace in the court system, including in family courts, where some of the gravest injustices and harms are reproduced.
The momentous decision to remove the dangerous presumption that all parents, even abusive ones, should have involvement in their children’s lives is therefore incredibly welcome. I have no doubt that hon. Members will be discussing that in this week’s Backbench Business debate, but I highlight it today because I note that it was made possible through cross-departmental working between the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. I look forward to seeing the process of placing it on the statute book.
Just as the impact of violence against women and girls is vast and far-reaching, so must the solution be. As I have mentioned, a whole-system approach is vital. Indeed, I understand that the upcoming VAWG strategy aims to distinguish itself from VAWG strategies of previous Governments in that way.
Since last year, I have been campaigning for greater protections for survivors in the workplace. Unexplained absences, lateness and negative impacts on performance can feature in an individual’s working life. For many survivors, abuse continues in the workplace: often, their partner turns up at the workplace or stalks them outside it—something I know at first hand. For some, the workplace is the only safe environment to seek help. In debates on the Employment Rights Bill, I called for measures such as flexible working, paid leave and domestic abuse policies in every workplace, like many other hon. Members in this House. I know that that continues to gain support across the House and in the other place.
I believe that being a member of a trade union is the best way for workers to ensure that their rights are upheld. That is certainly the case for survivors. Indeed, many trade unions have been pioneers in this area, such as USDAW, which has ensured alternative payment arrangements, and facilitated one-off payments and flexible working in a number of retail stores across the UK. That is just one example of the work being done by trade unions. The End Not Defend campaign, led by trade unions, trade union activists and workers, is also seeking to bring sexual harassment at work within the scope of the Health and Safety Executive. I reflect on the statutory guidance for the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which reminds us how pivotal the role of an employer can be. Strengthening survivors’ rights at work is the crucial next step towards realising the commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.
Safe and affordable housing, including social homes, for women and girls escaping is an urgent necessity, and protection from eviction for survivors is essential, including in London. Domestic abuse is a housing issue. There is a reason that my ex-husband and his supporters continue to focus on my living arrangements and regularly try to use the media, and even spur on the far right, in this regard after all these years of attempting to pursue a vexatious case against me about my housing. I want to be clear that I will not be hounded out of my home.
There is no doubt about it: the funding crisis for domestic abuse services and other support continues to be catastrophic. Ringfenced investment for refuge provision would recognise refuges as specialist, trauma-informed services and would reflect the expertise required to deliver them. I understand that there is a London-wide grassroots support fund for specialist “by and for” services. Funding is ringfenced for specialist services, but I believe that it must fully recognise that many “by and for” services, such as Southall Black Sisters, are well established and experienced at working with a range of communities across intersectionalities. They should never be left at risk of losing funding.
The cost of living crisis is exacerbating economic and financial abuse, with low incomes, rising poverty and soaring rents leaving people feeling trapped in a relationship even when they need to leave. It is therefore no coincidence that the ongoing violence against women and girls crisis comes after more than a decade of attacks on social security. I have never been more alarmed at the risk at which women and girls are being placed by the proposed cuts to welfare. It is well evidenced that they are more reliant on social security and public services, which means that they are more severely impacted when public services and social security nets are cut. I am particularly alarmed by the cuts to disabled people’s benefits, including the health component of universal credit, given that disabled women are twice as likely to experience abuse. That is why it is crucial for disabled people to be the sharpest focus of investment, not cuts.
The current political climate has created a toxic and dangerous atmosphere for migrant women, with immigration status and the fear of deportation being used as control tactics by perpetrators. I am therefore reiterating my calls for a firewall between all public services and the Home Office, so that every survivor can report abuse and so that perpetrators cannot evade justice by weaponising immigration status in order to silence, abuse and control. That is something for which the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, I and many others have long campaigned—and, yes, it also remains a matter of urgency that the no recourse to public funds rule be scrapped and that there be an end to the hostile environment.
Globally, we know that violence against women and girls continues to be exacerbated by conflicts. In Haiti, women continue to face gang violence, including pervasive sexual violence. In Sudan, the continued reports of mass rapes are incredibly horrific. In Gaza, women and girls are being killed, starved and expected to survive with absolutely nothing, so tackling violence against women and girls must include a ceasefire and stopping all UK arms being sent to Israel or anywhere else to kill women.
At home, we must acknowledge that in London and beyond, targeting refugees and anti-migrant scaremongering will not benefit the majority of people. Traumatising already traumatised people, including women seeking asylum in the UK because of violence that they are fleeing, will set back the progress being made to eliminate violence from our society. Most importantly of all, it will harm the very victims and survivors who need support. Systemic discrimination is making it harder for individuals to seek help. Fears of discrimination or bias, such as racism, Islamophobia, homophobia or transphobia, are exacerbated by instances of people being denied assistance and access to public frontline services.
When speaking about my own experiences, I have been particularly anxious not to participate in perpetuating tired, racist tropes against Muslims, because we all need to be clear that that does nothing to empower women and girls. Rather, racism is a driver and facilitator of abuse, leading to the voices and lives of ethnic minority women being overlooked and devalued. It is so fundamental that the VAWG strategy is actively anti-racist. I am pleased that a definition of honour-based abuse is now being committed to, and that the Home Office is working with “by and for” services to develop the definition accordingly.
It is impossible to cover all the types of violence against women and girls in the time I have today, but I have tried to set out examples to illustrate that violence against women and girls is not a side or separate issue. At its core, it is a question of equality and of the type of world we want to live in. It is intrinsically connected to structural discrimination, exploitation and the intersection of different oppressions, so it requires joined-up thinking and bold and brave initiatives. That is what I hope the next VAWG strategy will have at its heart.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that even if they are on the list, those who are able to should bob at the end of speeches if they want to catch my eye.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for leading today’s debate and for her strength of character as well. I have had talks with the hon. Lady and I understand there are things in her own life that she has dealt with. She shows a character and a courage that I admire and that many others in this House admire as well, so I thank her for bringing the debate forward.
This problem is a huge issue across the world, particularly in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so I am pleased to take part in the debate, first to support the hon. Lady in highlighting the issues and, secondly, to represent the people of Northern Ireland, in solidarity, about the problems that we have back home. I listened intently to the hon. Lady’s comments. The statistics and stories are shocking and saddening. She has undertaken great work on the APPG on domestic violence and abuse, and I am aware that she has opened up previously on her own experiences of that—things that we really need to take note of. We must do more, of course.
It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. None of us will be disappointed with her response at the end of this debate, because she has lived all of these stories. Many moons ago, way back when we first got to know each other in the House, she brought all those personal stories from her own constituency—they were raw stories, I remember. I used to get quite upset sometimes when she told us about things that had happened. I am pleased to see her in her place, because I am sure she will be able to speak out for every woman and girl not just in London, but further afield. As the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse outlined, this occurs not just in London but across the world, and she gave examples as well.
The Met police conclude that the crime of violence against women and girls in London has increased significantly; it rose by 37% between 2018 and 2023. According to the London Assembly, in the year up to January 2025, recorded sexual offences rose by 7.4% compared with the previous year, so we are unfortunately seeing a trend—I suspect that it is a trend in society. I am going to give some of the stats for the Northern Ireland; the Minister will know them. They are incredibly worrying and disturb me greatly. We should note that that figure of 7.4% is only what is recorded. We know that often women do not feel confident to come forward for numerous reasons, so that figure could be the tip of the iceberg.
Although the debate is centred on London, I would not feel right if I did not mention Northern Ireland, and others would think it wrong of me, especially since the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse mentioned problems elsewhere. I want to give some stats about Northern Ireland just to put things into perspective. I raise this subject continually and will continue to do so to increase awareness of the dire situation. According to a report by our own Ulster University, almost 98% of women in Northern Ireland report experiencing at least one form of violence or abuse in their lifetime. Can Members imagine that? Of every 100 women we see in Northern Ireland, 98 have experienced abuse of some sort.
Domestic abuse instances are very high. For example, in the year ending 31 March 2025, almost 30,000 domestic abuse incidents were recorded by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Furthermore, in the 12 months to this date, there were six domestic abuse homicides in which all victims were females. Since 2019, PSNI data indicates that some 30 women and girls have been murdered by men. We have the worst stats in the whole of the United Kingdom. The Minister has spoken about that and has answered questions in the Chamber. I have asked her questions and she has responded. The figures are shocking, but this is a reality for thousands of women on a daily basis. Violence against women and girls is not rare; it is about walking with keys between the fingers, checking a friend gets home safe, or hearing a bang next door and thinking, “Should I intervene? Should I go and see if everything’s all right?” It is worrying, but unfortunately, the experience of so many has become normalised—and it can never be normal.
Everyone in this place has a role to play, and we must ensure that our services are approachable so that women feel they can come forward and, more importantly, be believed. When they go to report such behaviour, they should know that someone is there with a listening ear, prepared to take their story on board and do something. Behind every story that has been heard today or in the past stands a brave individual who, perhaps at one time, was not sure that she would escape and seek help. Those stories are testament to what support is available.
To conclude, we do not talk about this topic lightly. It is heavy—it is supposed to be, to help people understand the seriousness and scale of the problem. Statistically, the situation has gotten worse, and I want to do more to encourage people to be part of the conversation. We all need to praise those strong and brave women and girls who have told their story. Let us remind those who are afraid to speak out that they are not alone, and that we will all do our best in this place to ensure that they can safely access the help they need. I look to the Minister, as I always do, to commit to that. I understand that she will give us a response on London and the mainland, but I know that she has an interest in Northern Ireland because of what is happening there, so I look forward to her response. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse again for sharing her story.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
There are seven people bobbing and 38 minutes left, so the arithmetic is relatively simple: just over five minutes each. I will not impose a time limit, unless somebody abuses the situation.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing the debate. Since she has come to Parliament, she has been a tireless campaigner on this issue and a real credit to her community and any victim of violence against women and girls.
The damning statistics are so well reported and have been well noted in the debate so far. Although this is a national challenge, in London specifically, almost 160,000 domestic abuse crimes and more than 25,000 sexual offences were reported to the police last year. We know that those figures actually underestimate of the scale of the problem, because so much goes unreported. Silence is not consent; it is the result of a system that fails to empower survivors.
As we all know, the effects of violence against women and girls are often too deadly. Across the UK, a woman is killed, on average, every three days. Just think about that for a moment. Behind those numbers are mothers, daughters and sisters—precious lives cut short too soon by a death that was entirely avoidable. Their names and stories must never be forgotten, and today is our opportunity to honour each and every one of them.
When instances of violence against women and girls occur, victims should be able to turn to the police, but, too often, women lack trust and faith in our police—and their concerns are not without merit. Reports of misogyny and sexism in police forces remain commonplace and continue to undermine confidence in policing. Just last week, former Met police officer David Carrick received another life sentence for sexual offences. Let us be very clear: today, on our streets, purporting to keep our young women safe, are police officers. When one of Carrick’s victims attended hospital following being assaulted, she was warned that it would be difficult to seek justice as the law protects its own. That is emblematic of a view held by many that officers close ranks and protect their own rather than listening the voices of survivors. The only way for the Met to rebuild trust is to take action when officers fail to meet the high standards that we all rightly expect of them. I know that the Met and its leaders have promised action, and I am sure that any changes will be well supported by us all.
No one should have to plan their route home, clutch their keys, or second-guess whether a street is too dark or too quiet to walk down. As a mother of two girls, I should not be having to think about when the right time is to tell them what side of the road they should walk on or how they should seek help, or to take them to learn Muay Thai and boxing at a local gym, because I feel that that is the only way I can protect them in this day and age.
In my constituency of Tooting, I launched my Safe Space campaign, signing local businesses up to offer a place of safety to anyone on local streets. The situation is critical, but there is cause for hope, and I welcome work done in London to create our city’s own violence against women and girls strategy, which champions prevention and education while placing responsibility squarely on perpetrators to change their behaviour. I know that our Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, cares deeply about this, and with over £17.7 million invested in specialist support, the strategy recognises that harm often begins with words and attitudes, and it seeks to restore trust in justice.
In Wandsworth, our Labour-run council has been proactive in addressing violence against women and girls. It has doubled investment to address violence against women and girls, which has allowed for the employment of a domestic abuse specialist in the housing team and the creation of an advocacy service to help women to navigate the system. These measures will go a long way to supporting those in desperate need of help.
While this work is much needed and welcome, we surely all see that there is much more to be done. Violence against women and girls does not occur in a vacuum. It is born out of misogyny. It is born out of the sexism that goes unaddressed on our streets, in our workplaces and in our schools. We need a continued focus on early intervention and education to address the root causes of the violence that impacts too many women and girls. The online world has become a breeding ground for extreme misogyny, targeted at young boys and often glorifying violence against women. Finally, survivors must feel empowered to come forward. That can only be done by driving up standards in our police forces and fixing our justice system, so that all victims are believed.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and I thank and salute the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for her bravery and determination in bringing this debate to this Chamber. That we are discussing violence against women and girls in 2025 is a sad indictment of our society, but, simultaneously, it is really encouraging to see so many people determined to take the scourge head on.
I have four points to address. The first concerns the cultural stigma and cultural sensitivity that some societies still hold on to. Violence against women has never been acceptable, is unacceptable and will never be acceptable, and we must engage with communities to address and tackle the issue head on. Many eastern cultures—I am going to demarcate them by religion—revere women to the utmost level. Hinduism, the oldest religion in the world, has millions and millions of men bowing down to goddesses every single day. Sikhism was founded on the principle of parity between the souls of both males and females. In Islam, women are revered to such a degree that the way of salvation and paradise is that, in such a strong monotheistic religion, if prostration was allowed to anybody but God, it would be to a woman—their mother.
We must overcome cultural insensitivities, and I commend the work done in my constituency of Leicester South by Sharma Women’s Centre, Wesley Hall and Zinthiya Trust, which all provide education and a support network for all women but particularly for those from minority communities. I am really concerned about this year’s cuts to the victims core grant, which may leave victims of rape, domestic violence or stalking with even fewer resources. Will the Minister ensure that private charity organisations on the frontline are funded appropriately by the Government?
Secondly, there is education. We are breeding a generation for whom sexual violence—consensual or not—is the norm. In a 2025 YouGov poll of teachers, almost 80% of respondents said that that was a huge problem across British schools. Nearly two in every five secondary school teachers who responded said they hear misogynistic remarks every day. Staff are not immune either. A Unison and UK Feminista survey found that 10% of female support staff in secondary schools have experienced sexual harassment, mostly from male pupils. More than half of teachers say that misogyny in school has worsened. What is the Minister’s Department doing to ensure that classrooms are safe for both women and girls—both staff and pupils?
Thirdly, there is the criminal justice system. Sexual abuse trials in London have an average waiting time of 18 months, but in my city of Leicester it is three whole years. Recently I met a constituent who, after years of being a victim of sexual abuse, finally summoned up the courage to leave her partner and bring forward a case against him, only to find that her case was postponed not once, not twice, but three times, while her abuser walks freely in her neighbourhood. Such long delays exacerbate anxiety and trauma, so much so that Jasmine House in my constituency, a Rape Crisis centre, tells me that many victims simply drop their cases. They want to get on with their lives—they want to get married, they want to have children; they cannot wait for five or six years to explain to their family members that they have to go to court for a case. In the past year alone, over 280 rape prosecutions collapsed because the victim withdrew.
Finally, in the real world misogyny does not just stop at schools; it is invading our digital spaces. According to Amnesty, 85% of women who spend time online have witnessed online violence and 38% have been the target of such violence. Reports from Ofcom show that black women and girls are more likely to be targeted with toxic, dehumanising and misogynistic content.
With the Online Safety Act 2023 taking effect, social media platforms have now signed up to voluntary guidelines to ensure that they combat misogynistic abuse, coercive control and the sharing of intimate images without consent on their services. Ofcom has been tasked with enforcing those new rules, but without any mechanism for enforcement. Given the voluntary nature of the guidelines, the companies might just ignore the key mechanisms to tackle violence against women and girls. Will the Minister’s Department work closely with Ofcom and other Government Departments to ensure that digital space can be better protected for all our women and girls?
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this debate. I admire her courage and her continued fight for a better future when it comes to tackling violence against women and girls. I support her quest to make the lives of women and girls safer.
In 2023, the Metropolitan police recorded 8,800 cases of rape, which translates to a staggering 24 reported rapes per day. However, when we consider that recorded rapes make up only about 20% of cases of sexual violence, we realise that the true extent of this crime is—shamefully—much larger. Nearly every woman in London has a story to tell. Hundreds of thousands of women carry around the hurt and trauma of sexual violence, even if their stories never make it on to the front pages.
Since becoming an MP, I have received many distressing emails from constituents, some as young as 14, who have recounted their experience of sexual violence and harassment: women and girls who told me that this time they had escaped, but they dreaded to think what might have happened if they had not. Women and girls should not have to live their lives as a series of lucky escapes, constantly feeling relieved that on this occasion they were not assaulted. To be able to walk around safely without fear is a bare minimum—it is a basic human right. Yet the lived reality of so many women and girls in London and across the UK is a cycle of fear and relief, with their terror assuaged only by a sense of gratitude that they are safe—this time, at least.
Women and girls who do experience sexual harassment or violence are blamed for it: blamed for walking alone at night, for wearing the wrong item of clothing or for sending the wrong signal. In my constituency of Ilford South, a young woman called Zara Aleena was walking home. CCTV footage showed another young woman running into a shop because she saw the horrible monster who was following her; she felt threatened and went into the shop for safety. A second woman on the same journey, on the same fateful night, ran to her home. She was on the main road, Cranbrook Road, and she lived very close. She ran home, and she too was safe. That meant that the monster moved on to Zara, who was tragically killed. She was only walking home—that was her crime; she was simply walking home. What gives anybody the right to sexually assault, rape and then kill somebody simply walking home? A young law graduate with a career in front of her was taken in her prime.
Sadly, there is a new form of sexual violence that shows these rape myths for the empty victim-blaming narratives that they are. The growing prevalence of technology facilitates the creation of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfakes. Recently, there have been growing reports of boys as young as 12 using nudification apps to create deepfake nudes of their classmates and teachers. Girls are seeing realistic images of their faces superimposed on to a naked body that they do not recognise. Such images are then often sent to their friends, classmates and even family members, shattering girls’ self-esteem, body confidence and trust in others for years to come.
This debate is about sexual violence in London, but this type of technology-facilitated abuse transcends borders and regions. With these technologies, the perpetrators do not even need to be in the presence of those who they choose to victimise. Ten years ago, we could not have conceived of this type of crime; now teachers have to tackle a crime that did not even exist when they were growing up, unequipped with guidance to support pupils, parents or themselves. That scares me. I think about the constituents who have written to me. This is a new type of crime that they will have to hope that they are safe from. This is a new way in which men can assert power, control and entitlement over women and women’s bodies.
I know that the Government are working hard to tackle the growing prevalence of such gender-based abuse, including by criminalising the creation and sharing of intimate images and deepfakes through the Online Safety Act, but we must do more. First, we need a joined-up approach between the Home Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure that women and girls are protected from technology-facilitated abuse and that the advancement of AI technology does not come at the cost of women. I desperately urge the Government to enforce an outright ban on nudification apps, as recommended in Baroness Bertin’s pornography review. Many such nudification apps are widely available and advertised specifically to appeal to young men and boys, operating on a premium business model and encouraging users to share the app with others. A few weeks ago, the Government announced an updated curriculum—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I draw the hon. Member’s attention to the time. He is beginning to run into that allotted to other hon. Members. I assume he will draw his remarks to a conclusion.
Jas Athwal
My questions to the Minister are: why do the majority of women not report crime? Why is the prosecution rate so low? Why do men feel it is okay to inflict pain on women and girls?
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this important debate and making such a great contribution, drawing on her personal experiences before widening it out to London, the country and the world. This issue does not have borders and is not limited to a single socioeconomic class, religion or area of the country.
I congratulate the Minister on the success of her domestic abuse protection orders, which hit 1,000 this week, in keeping survivors protected while they are at their most vulnerable. I thank Treasury Ministers for their financial inclusion strategy, which is starting to address economic abuse, and Ministry of Justice Ministers for tackling the ongoing abuse in family courts. We are all looking forward to the VAWG strategy: its publication and its ambition to halve violence against women and girls. That is a goal we can all get behind.
Although it is the UN’s International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, we in Milton Keynes call it White Ribbon Day. I will focus on why that is and on prevention. Milton Keynes is the first White Ribbon city. White Ribbon is very close to my heart because it was started by men in Canada after the shooting at an École Polytechnique. A man went in and shot women engineering students because he had not got a place at engineering school. Like many of us here today, those men in Canada were sick and tired of the rhetoric that women were somehow at fault—maybe they should have locked the door of the classroom; maybe they should have behaved differently. They recognised that the problem was started by men and needed to be solved by men.
What does it mean for Milton Keynes to be a White Ribbon city? It means that more than 160 companies, organisations and charities have become White Ribbon accredited: from the YMCA to the MK Dons; from big corporations to small, niche ones; from voluntary groups to the city council; and from the police to the fire service. Thousands of individuals have also signed up, together making the pledge to never commit, excuse or remain silent about male violence against women.
We all know that this is not all men; the difficulty is that too often the majority of men, who would never consider committing or excusing such abuse, remain silent. The issue is about empowering them to be active bystanders and to know how to comfortably walk into a situation that does not feel right and call out their friends’ behaviours in pubs, changing rooms and other places. Alternatively, it is about empowering them to talk to a co-worker who used to be a fantastic, performing female colleague, but who has all of a sudden gone quiet: to know that there is a reason why and what to do with the answers.
We need to do this not only in Milton Keynes, but right across the country. MPs from across the House have signed up to White Ribbon. I thank Mr Speaker and the Madam Deputy Speakers for their commitment to making us the first White Ribbon Parliament in the world, setting an example for the country. I know they are progressing on that as quickly as they can. Parliament is a workplace, not a lifestyle. We have seen incidents right across this Estate that, unfortunately, do not bring it pride. The catering staff, the MPs and everyone else who works on the Estate need to feel safe, as do the visitors who have meetings and tours here. Members of Parliament must be held to the highest standards because we are setting the example against the misogyny promoted online.
I conclude by talking about the Online Safety Act 2023. There is a huge campaign against the Act, but it is making real progress. It does need to make further progress in some areas—not just releasing guidance on how platforms can help protect women, but also making it mandatory, doing work on deepfakes, addressing the 850,000 consumers of child sexual abuse imagery and tackling the grooming of children on gaming platforms and on end-to-end encrypted sites.
We can and must do more, and this is the moment. We have the Government commitment, we have personal ministerial commitments in different Departments and we have the cross-party commitment. We have the commitment and demand from voluntary groups, mums and dads, and our sisters and daughters. Today is the day we make that change.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this crucial debate and for the incredible work that she has always done to shine a light on this issue.
I want to be absolutely clear that we are discussing specifically male violence against women and girls. The word “male” is often omitted, giving us the neat acronym VAWG, but when we leave it out in discussion, we remove the perpetrators from the conversation and the focus shifts solely to victims. While the protection of survivors must always be a priority, we cannot treat this as a women-only issue. This is not a female issue at all—we are not the problem. It is and always has been a male issue. There is no action that a woman can take that will ever justify her harassment, assault, rape, abuse, femicide, mutilation or any other of the horrific crimes committed by men against women and girls.
Violence against women and girls is not inevitable; it is the predictable outcome of a society that still treats women’s safety as optional rather than fundamental. If we are serious about ending violence against women and girls, we have to start with prevention, and that means embedding consent and healthy relationships in education in every single school. Our focus has to be addressing the culture that raises some men and boys to believe that such behaviour is acceptable. We must confront the gaps in our criminal justice system that in practice decriminalise these offences, signalling time and again that they can be committed with little fear of consequence.
I am a London MP and violence against women and girls is definitely a city-wide problem. We have heard and will continue to hear statistics that show its scale. For most women, this violence can occur anywhere—at home, at school, at work, on a night out, walking in a public space and even when travelling on public transport. Most women and girls in London will have a story about harassment on the capital’s public transport network. The data suggests it is harder to find a woman who has not experienced such harassment, although we know it is rarely reported.
Of the incidents that are reported, the figures paint a very stark picture. Last year, more than 120,000 crimes of violence against women and girls were reported to the Met, with alarming levels on public transport. In the first half of 2025, 907 sexual offences were reported across Transport for London services, up from 879 in the same period the previous year. On the Elizabeth line, there was a 247.8% increase from 2023 to 2024, followed by a further rise this year. On the underground, offences rose to 856 cases from 745 the previous year, and on the bus network, reports rose by 28.6%. Again, we know these figures represent only a fraction of the true scale of offending.
Surveys have found that more than half of women in London have experienced sexual harassment on buses, the tube or trains. A significant proportion of women who have experienced this harassment and assault never report it. Transport-related incidents are no exception. Too many women who do come forward are not believed, are treated as though they are the problem rather than the victim, or witness at first hand the shortcomings of investigations. They are told that the perpetrator could not be identified because the carriage was too busy, that the CCTV was not working, or that nothing can be done on this occasion but they should report it if it happens again. Those responses erode confidence that the police are willing or equipped to deal with such cases, and they add to the wider crisis of trust in policing that women and girls feel acutely.
Perpetrators are effectively given the green light. They know their victim may not report, and that even if she does, the chances of being caught, let alone prosecuted, are slim. This creates a vicious cycle. Fewer reports lead to fewer prosecutions, fewer prosecutions remove any meaningful deterrent, offending escalates, men become emboldened, and women feel increasingly unsafe on the city’s transport networks.
I recognise that the Mayor of London and TfL have expanded poster campaigns to encourage reporting and bystander intervention. It is important that these things are done to improve our culture, but we need more. We need far stronger co-ordination between TfL and the British Transport Police to identify and catch offenders. We need concrete, measurable action to improve conviction rates. We need every institution involved—TfL, the British Transport Police, the Met, City Hall—working together with absolute clarity and purpose to tackle harassment, protect victims and hold perpetrators to account. Women and girls should be able to travel across our city without fear for their safety. We urgently need to get a grip on this issue.
As I come to the end of my speech, I want to make sure to make the point that, as well as prevention, we need to ensure that when women speak out, they have somewhere safe to go. Too many specialist support services are still struggling to keep their doors open, and the services that do exist are often inaccessible to black women, migrant women and women with insecure immigration status. A refuge that a refugee woman cannot access is no refuge at all.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mr Stringer. Just before the debate started, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) light-heartedly said, “You do know this is a London debate?” He was right to ask the question, because my constituency is about 120 miles away from this room, but I am here today to talk about one perpetrator: a man who is responsible for raping and sexually assaulting hundreds of women, and used his money and power to escape justice right here in our nation’s capital. The man is Mohammed Fayed, the former owner of Harrods and various other businesses. For years, he was known as a flamboyant businessman marked by personal tragedies. He was the father of Dodi Fayed, who died in the car crash that killed Princess Diana.
Today, though, Mohammed Fayed is more rightly remembered as something else entirely: a prolific sexual predator. The scale of his crimes is staggering. Despite the excellent reporting that has blown the scandal open in the last eight months, it remains too little known. There are more than 400 known survivors of Fayed—I am proud that we are joined by some of them in the Public Gallery—and still more women are coming forward; the Met police is currently investigating almost 150 allegations against him. As well as numerous accounts of rape and sexual assault, he is accused of drugging women he planned to assault and trafficking women across international borders. His crimes are now rightly seen as one of the worst ever corporate sexual abuse scandals. This was abuse on an industrial scale.
Fayed died in August 2023 aged 94. He escaped justice. However, he did not act alone, and his network of enablers can still be held to account. Who were the people who helped this billionaire to abuse hundreds of women? There was a security team led by John Macnamara, a former Metropolitan police detective who tailed and threatened women Fayed had abused to enforce their silence. There were lawyers who churned out non-disclosure agreement after non-disclosure agreement and failed to sound the alarm. There were doctors hired to carry out invasive medical exams, including sexually transmitted infection testing, without informing the women what they were being tested for; the results were delivered directly to Fayed, not to survivors. There were senior Harrods staff who at best turned a blind eye and at worst groomed young girls for their boss.
The scale of these crimes raises serious questions about the Met and the Crown Prosecution Service. More than 20 women approached the Met with allegations against Fayed during his life. Survivors say that their concerns were brushed under the carpet. The force is now investigating its own conduct under the direction of the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Meanwhile, the CPS has admitted that it was twice handed evidence against Fayed by the Met and failed to prosecute him.
Survivors need answers. They have already waited far too long for justice; the earliest known allegation against Fayed dates back to 1977—almost 50 years ago—and significantly predates my existence. Their wait must end. That is why I and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) formed the all-party parliamentary group for survivors of Fayed and Harrods. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)—I am glad she is in her place today—for serving as officers for the APPG.
My co-chair, the hon. Member for North East Fife, and I came to this appalling scandal in different ways. For me, it was through my constituent Keaton Stone, who is in the Public Gallery. He is the man whose research underpinned the documentary on Fayed’s abuse that blew open the story last year. Keaton, whose wife Sophia is a survivor, has spent years meticulously gathering evidence against Fayed. He has asked me to champion the cause in Parliament on behalf of all survivors. My co-chair is a former police officer with sexual offences training—the only woman in the Commons with that experience. She has used her platform to advocate for women and girls, making Parliament a safer place to work, and to oppose corruption in the police. She was approached separately to become a parliamentary champion. We are eager to work together with other Members to drive this agenda forwards.
The first priority will be the Met’s ongoing investigation. It is an opportunity to pursue all those who enabled Fayed, and the force must cast the net as widely as possible. Given the trafficking allegations, and because some alleged offences were committed at his estate in Scotland, we urge Police Scotland to look again at this issue and ask that our forces work with international partners where appropriate. After decades of delay, that needs to happen fast; officers must bring charges swiftly. Survivors are understandably wary, given that they have been let down by the Met in the past. We will help to keep tabs on the investigation and ensure those questions are answered.
Civil claims against Harrods are also important, with hundreds of women seeking compensation for the abuse they suffered. For survivors, though, this is not about money—no amount of money could make up for the trauma they underwent at this man’s hands. It is about recognition that their employer could and should have kept them safe, and failed to do so. Those cases should be being dealt with much more swiftly.
Fayed’s businesses, the Met and the Crown Prosecution Service are all implicated in this scandal. That is why, ultimately, we must have a full inquiry. Survivors deserve answers and the public should know the whole truth. We must learn the lessons so that crimes like this can never happen again.
Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) on securing the debate. I am honoured to work with her on the all-party parliamentary group on domestic violence and abuse.
I also want to pay tribute to the Minister. Her determined and courageous leadership has seen sweeping changes, including the news today that domestic abuse protection orders have protected 1,000 victims since their introduction last year. She has pioneered a new national centre for violence against women and girls, putting VAWG on a similar footing to counter-terrorism for the first time. Raneem’s law has embedded the first domestic abuse specialists in 999 control rooms. Following years of campaigning, honour-based abuse will have a statutory definition.
I want to focus on healthcare. Health services are too often overlooked in efforts to tackle domestic abuse and VAWG, despite domestic abuse costing the UK healthcare system £2.3 billion. Investing in healthcare-based responses reduces missed opportunities to support victims, ultimately saving money and lives. In my previous life, I worked on the SafeLives report “We only do bones here”. It was titled after a survivor who gave evidence, who said that when she disclosed to her A&E doctor that she was experiencing domestic abuse, he told her:
“We only do bones here, not that relationship, mental health stuff.”
He then sent her away, without even referring her to a specialist service.
The report found that four out of five victims never go to the police, yet in the most extreme cases, victims reported attending A&E up to 15 times. That demonstrates the urgent need for specialist domestic abuse support in healthcare settings. Independent domestic violence advisers, co-located in A&E or maternity units, can identify victims earlier and ensure that women are supported to be safe, ending the awful process of patching up victims, only for them to return a few weeks later, beaten further.
We know that victims are far more likely to disclose abuse in health settings. Research found that hospital-based IDVAs generate a net saving of £2,000 per victim in health costs. Embedding IDVAs in hospitals is key to improving referrals and outcomes, with nine in 10 victims reporting improved safety after hospital-based IDVA support. Support at primary care level, through brilliant evidence-based interventions such as IRIS—identification and referral to improve safety—is also crucial.
Time after time, we read domestic homicide reviews calling on health professionals to share information that could have saved the victim’s life, but cultural change in health is stubborn. I remember meeting a senior doctor and asking why information sharing was proving so difficult. I will never forget his answer:
“I will be honest. I fear a letter thudding on the doormat with the GMC’s logo more than hearing that one of my patients has been murdered.”
Where is “first do no harm”? I know the Minister will agree that the role of health will be crucial in the VAWG strategy.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the clear funding crisis facing specialist women’s charities. That is not new, but the rapid closure of services is. Just as we approach a once-in-a-generation VAWG strategy with an incredible commitment to halve VAWG in a decade, there is a real fear that the expertise we will need to rely on may not exist unless an emergency funding package is issued quickly. I hope that the Government will consider amendments I tabled to the Victims and Courts Bill, which will soon move to the Lords, including one that would create a statutory duty to commission specialist services for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence—women and children. It is absurd that support for the most traumatised and vulnerable victims is not even a postcode lottery; no one anywhere has an actionable right to say, “I deserve specialist support.” We will never truly protect women and girls when the spaces that heal and rebuild them are so easily dismissed.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for securing this important debate and sharing her tragic experiences for the benefit of others. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on launching the APPG for the survivors of Fayed in Harrods, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain)—a huge scandal that affects women across the country.
There has been lots of talk in recent years, and indeed in the Chamber today, about changing social attitudes—educating men to stamp out violence against women and girls at its root. We have all heard the terrifying statistics that seven out of 10 women have experienced some form of sexual harassment in public. Each London borough faces more than 2,000 domestic abuse offences and 4,000 incidents annually. Even in the context of known under-reporting, the Metropolitan police recorded an average of 24 reports of domestic violence per day in 2023. It is important that we also bring into sharper focus the crucial fact that we have a role—not just as legislators gathered here today, but in the wider public sector and its various arms of governance and jurisprudence—and a responsibility to lead from the front. I echo the call by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) for us to become the first White Ribbon Parliament, which would make a small step in that direction.
Although it is true that, far too often, changes in this place happen because of a changing world beyond our gates, it is also true that, in many ways, society looks to the state to take the moral lead on the fundamental issues of equality and justice. When the state is failing in its duty to take that moral leadership, we do not just compound the problems; we actively undermine efforts happening across society to tackle them. Sadly, in the case of violence against women and girls, I fear that that is exactly what we are at risk of doing, if we do not redouble our efforts to stamp it out.
Perhaps nowhere is that more pressing and concerning a matter than with the Metropolitan police. It can no longer be denied or ignored that there are elements in the force who hold views entirely incompatible with the state taking this issue seriously. Although commendable work has been done by Commissioner Rowley, who I have met and I trust is treating the historic mission with the gravity required of it, recent events have underlined that this is still a serious, systemic problem. The recent revelations broadcast by the BBC’s excellent and sobering “Panorama” investigation about officers based at Charing Cross station, leading to the dismissal of four officers, was shocking and profoundly depressing. To reference just one particularly demonstrative example of the unacceptable behaviour that was uncovered, Police Sergeant Joe McIlvenny, an officer with nearly 20 years’ service in the Met, was dismissive about a pregnant woman’s allegation of rape and domestic violence after a colleague raised concerns about the decision to release the accused man on bail. He replied, “That’s what she says.”
The station had been the focus of an investigation by the police watchdog—the Independent Office for Police Conduct—into bullying and discrimination nearly four years ago. It found that some officers had discussed hitting their girlfriends, shared offensive and discriminatory comments, and joked about rape in a private group chat, and yet nothing changed. Those are not isolated incidents, nor am I latching on to the most recent example for ease. We know there is a systemic problem in the Met: the Casey review in 2023 told us that one in three female officers had experienced sexism at work, and that around one in ten had experienced sexual harassment or assault. Four years on from the death of Sarah Everard, we are left asking whether work is really happening at the pace required to root out those men from the force.
Fundamentally, this is about trust. We would always encourage any woman fleeing violence, or looking to report an assault or harassment, to find a police officer and seek their protection. That is a fundamental tenet of a free and fair society. However, like many men across London, I simply cannot provide them the total guarantee that doing so will mean they are met with the support of someone who understands and respects the problem they are facing or, more importantly, who understands and respects women themselves and all the manifold challenges they face. That is an awful place for society to be.
The uniform of the Met should be a symbol of trust, not a shield for misogyny, hatred and racism, but too many officers have broken that trust. Policing is done by consent, and trust in the police is essential for the safety of Londoners. Incidents such as the ones I have mentioned undermine that trust.
The Home Secretary has a responsibility to intervene and work with the Met to tackle this behaviour, owing to their unique role in its governance. I invite the Minister to tell us in more detail what the Government are doing not only to tackle the misogyny that spurs violence against women and girls across society but, crucially, to address it closer to home—in the arms of the state directly under the purview of the Home Office.
It is not just in policing that these issues rear their ugly heads, but across other arms of the state too. The Crown Prosecution Service, perhaps most notably, is failing victims of violence against women and girls so frequently that it undermines the confidence of women everywhere that they can ever truly seek justice. I know this quite vividly. When I met Claire Waxman in her role as Victims’ Commissioner for London, I heard about women left waiting for months, even years, with their lives on hold while cases crawl through the CPS. I have also listened to the stories of many of my constituents who have had to retreat from seeking justice, despite the awful things that have happened to them.
One constituent was kept waiting for two years while her abuser was released on bail, only to be told that, even though what had happened to her constituted common assault, a charge of actual bodily harm could not be pursued due to the time that had elapsed since the incident. That is despite the fact that several lawyers, during that period—while she was waiting powerlessly for the CPS to move forward—agreed that the incident met the threshold for ABH.
Colleagues, I sincerely invite you to consider the scale of that Orwellian, Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare: the powerlessness, anxiety and exhaustion it wrought on my constituent, and the distance we have allowed ourselves to travel as a society from the promise of justice for all by allowing the CPS to become so gridlocked. It is so backed up and broken that it is telling female victims of crime that they cannot seek justice through the state system because of the system’s own failings.
In case anyone doubts that those failings are not serious or speak to a lack of evidence, let me tell the House about another constituent of mine who was assaulted in broad daylight on public transport during rush hour, in full view of CCTV cameras, and who is still waiting now, two years later, for the CPS to move forward with charges. The situation beggars belief. It is utterly unacceptable.
I ask the Minister to outline in significant detail—and I strongly underline the word significant—what exactly the Government will do to sort this mess out. To return to the point on which I began these remarks, just as the state often looks to society for guidance on social change and progress, so too—and perhaps more powerfully, or at least more meaningfully for those of us in this place with our hands on the levers—does society look to the state for an exemplification of the kind of society we want to live in. We have a moral obligation to lead from the front.
The state will never be the active, positive player in the field that it ought to be—an ally to all those who seek to root out the misogyny that plagues us and sprouts the poison of violence against women and girls—until it is absolutely committed, acting seriously and with pace, to getting its own house in order.
The vaccine against the epidemic of violence and abuse that women face in our society will be administered in our schools, our youth centres and the hubs that remain, in our homes and community groups, in the mass media, but critically, too, on social media. It will also need to be inculcated in our police stations, court rooms, hospitals and many arms of the modern state—and, indeed, here in this Palace, which sits at the heart of the state. Only then will we see the revolution in safety that is needed for women and girls in London, and put an end to the horrifying statistics and stories that we have heard today.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) for bringing forward this vitally important debate. She spoke bravely of her own experiences.
It is foundationally important that everyone in this country is able to go about their lives in the knowledge that they will be kept safe. That includes being kept safe from the powerful—be that crooked and despicable police officers, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), or wealthy and successful businessmen such as Mohamed Al-Fayed, protected by a network of expensive lawyers. I am proud to join the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) as an officer of the newly launched all-party parliamentary group for survivors of Fayed and Harrods.
Given the particular physical threats that women and girls can face, both in the home and at the hands of strangers, we must pay particular attention to the threats posed specifically to that group. The previous Government took steps towards recognising those unique threats, including by, for example, launching the grooming gangs taskforce. In its first year alone, that taskforce arrested more than 550 suspects, and it extended protection to more than 4,000 victims and survivors of grooming and rape gangs, the vast majority of whom are women and girls.
In their manifesto, this Government promised to take further action, with a view to halving violence against women and girls over the next decade. In March this year, the then permanent secretary of the Home Office promised that the strategy would be published before Parliament’s summer recess. In July, the Minister promised that the Government intended to publish the strategy in September. In October, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) wrote to the Minster for an update. Last week, as I am sure the Minister will remember, I asked her again in the House of Commons Chamber. Today, we are still waiting for the Government’s strategy to be published. It is complex, cross-departmental work, but victims, survivors and their advocates are concerned at the delay.
When the strategy does arrive, the Government must be absolutely sure that it covers the full breadth of risks to women and girls. We must not shy away if identifying those risks might create uncomfortable conversations, including around subjects such as immigration.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse and the hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) shared their views on the relevance of migration to victims and survivors. It is also relevant to conversations about perpetrators. The Government refuse to publish full information, but the indicative data that we have suggests significant variations in crime rates by nationality and immigration status. According to data obtained from the Ministry of Justice, foreign nationals made up a third of all convictions for sexual assaults against women. For context, foreign nationals make up between 11% and 12% of the population. In London, where foreign nationals account for roughly a quarter of the population, foreign nationals were responsible for up to 47% of sexual offence charges last year. That suggests that foreign nationals are disproportionately likely to be the perpetrators of sexual assaults against women.
Each and every case of sexual assault is wrong. Perpetrators must face the full force of the law, regardless of their nationality, and it remains the case that statistically, the most dangerous place for a woman is her own home. However, we should be able to have an informed debate about whether mass migration is making the problem worse, particularly when a large number of recent migrants come from countries where attitudes to women are very different from our own. That means publishing the full official data on criminals’ nationalities, including for offences that disproportionately affect women and girls. It also means fully engaging with the impact of mass migration as part of any strategy designed to tackle the problem.
Over the past few decades, we have seen, in the starkest terms, the results of failing to address difficult questions head on. It is exactly that aversion to uncomfortable truths that led so many in the British state to cover up the rape and grooming gangs that have devastated thousands of victims, mostly young girls, across the country. In London alone, we have heard in recent months that many historical cases of sexual abuse across the capital feature the tell-tale red flags of grooming gang abuse.
Will the Minister please assure us that the Government’s proposed national inquiry into grooming gangs will properly investigate historical cases in London? Will the Minister also please tell us whether the Government collect data on the nationality and immigration status of those who commit violent crimes against women and girls? If so, will the Government make it available to the public, and if not, why not? Will the Minister also tell us whether the Government’s strategy to tackle violence against women and girls will address any potential implications of mass migration for the safety of women and girls, no matter how uncomfortable those discussions might be? The aim to halve violence against women and girls in a decade is laudable. What metric will be used to determine whether the Government have succeeded in halving violence against women and girls, and what are the start and end dates? Did the decade start on the date of the last general election? If not, when did it start? Will the Minister tell us when the Government’s strategy will be published? I know that many people in London and across the country would appreciate the certainty and clarity that a concrete date would provide.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer.
First, as everybody else has done, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) who, at some personal cost to herself, always speaks up on these issues, and does so with clarity, brilliance and bravery. She always approaches the issues with solutions in mind. People across the political divide want to see solutions and to work with the Government, and that is what we should seek to do. I will go through every one of the issues raised by my hon. Friend, and then cover as many of the others as I can. I cannot promise to be completely detailed, but I can follow up with a level of detail.
I suppose I should start with the criticism that has come to me around the delay to the violence against women and girls strategy. Last week, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) asked me in the main Chamber about the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) writing to me to ask when the strategy will be published. My answer is simple: it will be out imminently. About now, I am satisfied that the strategy is as good as it could possibly be. That has taken lots of detailed work across every Government Department. It is not just tokenistically saying, “Enough is enough.”
But I did not need to wait for a piece of paper or something to be published on a Government website. Since I have been in this position, and since this Government have been in power, we have announced that we are providing £53 million in funding over four years to roll out the Drive project across England and Wales. We are introducing a range of measures on sex offender management and stalking through the Crime and Policing Bill. We are investing £13.1 million in a new policing centre for VAWG and public protection.
We have launched the new domestic abuse protection orders—raised by a number of Members—on which the previous Government passed the legislation then did nothing for four years. We are investing nearly £20 million for frontline support to victims and in other projects, including increasing investment to organisations such as Southall Black Sisters, who have been mentioned, and specific increases to ensure that women can remain in refuge if no recourse to public funds is an issue.
In 2024, we announced a funding increase of £30 million, making a total investment of £160 million for the domestic abuse safe accommodation grant. As others have said, we have also banned strangulation in pornography and made fundamental changes to the family court—something that many in this Chamber, including myself, campaigned for a decade to get across the line. I apologise for the delay in ensuring that every Government Department was doing absolutely everything it possibly could to get to where it needs to, but that did not stop me from cracking on with as much as I possibly could in the meantime.
When I had the job of the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, I spent my time, almost week in, week out, with the then safeguarding Minister—the previous Government did not call it VAWG—looking at solutions and at different places. As I said in my letter back to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford—and I say this to the hon. Member for Weald of Kent now—my door is always open. Not once since I have been in this role has anyone from the Opposition Front-Bench team come to talk to me about possible solutions or things we could work on together, but I absolutely send out that message.
I have met with Lib Dems and Conservative Back Benchers. I feel like I see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) more than my husband, such is our life in this place. I have met Members of every different political hue on my own side. On this we are united. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent is welcome in my office with solutions, ideas about the frontline and detail. I extend that offer with great respect, and I truly mean it. I had great relations with my counterpart before, and I never ever sought to make headlines rather than helping the frontline. As someone who has been in her position, I offer that advice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse spoke clearly about the need to go beyond the criminal justice system. She and other Members, including the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), mentioned the Charing Cross incidents. What can I say? It was absolutely horrifying. I do want to speak up for some, though: a female officer featured in that documentary was trying to fight for the remand of a violent offender. It is easy to forget that some brilliant people were shown in that documentary—brilliant police officers who were trying to fight for the right thing. We need to make sure that those are the people who rise to the top of the ranks in our police forces.
To do that, the Government plan to lay out, I think at the beginning of next year, a whole-systems reform of policing. Much of that will be about violence against women and girls because, for example, for the last 10 years or however long the police have never been asked to have any performance framework on violence against women and girls. We can talk about collecting data and which metrics we will use; well, based on the last decade the starting point is zero. We will take an overarching measure from the crime survey, which has been undertaken for the first time this year. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent might know that the data on which we will measure the metric was released earlier in the year.
On stalking, my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse talked about the review by Richard Wright, who I met this week. He was the prosecuting barrister in the case of Alice Ruggles—a very tragic and famous stalking case. I very much look forward to his work in respect of the legislation, which I imagine will be relatively quick. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and I have spoken before about what is currently wrong with the legislation for a section 2A stalking charge. I very much hope to come back and talk about that.
Domestic abuse protection orders have been hailed today in the newspapers—the photo they used of me made me realise I need to get a haircut. I cannot stress enough how I am often a bit cynical, including when we were writing domestic abuse protection orders into the law under the previous Government, who wrote nice words on goat skin. I have been a cynic about all protection orders, as a person who has them, and as a person who has worked with them and watched breaches not be followed up by policing. That leads to some of the issues everybody has spoken about in terms of confidence in policing. If an order is breached and no one does anything, you do not call the police the next time, and that might be the time you get murdered.
So I went into it trepidatiously when we came into government. The orders are now used in both the Metropolitan police area and in Greater Manchester, and they have already started to roll out to three other police forces. The plan is absolutely to roll them out across every area—I certainly want them for the women where I live. I am seeing cases of a breach of an order leading to nine months’ imprisonment within a week of the incident happening, and with the woman never having to step inside a courtroom. That is what I want to see from an order regime.
Luke Taylor
The feedback from the local police force in Sutton, which is part of the trial, is that they find them incredibly helpful. There is a ringing endorsement for the orders and we look forward to seeing them rolled out more broadly.
Jess Phillips
Honestly, police officers in the Met and in Greater Manchester, where I have visited them undertaking these orders, are so very grateful. Some tweaks have come out of the pilot, which is the reason for doing a pilot. Some of them are legislative, some are about resources and some are about offender management. The fundamental thing is that they allow the police to do proper, good old-fashioned policing. It means they are responding. We are not waiting on a victim to say, “This person breached it.” They are going out, talking to them and finding out if the order has been breached. I really want to see the state taking the administration off the woman.
It was shared with me that in just one part of the Greater Manchester pilot—I will definitely get the colloquial thing wrong if I say which bit of Greater Manchester—there had been a 76% reduction in repeat offences just in the cohort that had been given domestic abuse protection orders. Anyone who looks at the Government’s mission and who knows anything about domestic abuse and violence against women and girls will know that we cannot halve anything unless we stop the repeat. The repeat is a massive problem, so seeing a 76% reduction in that cohort already is very good.
People have spoken about employers and the need to make sure that they are included in the strategy. There was a great mention of the brilliant work done by USDAW, and organisations such as Lloyds giving staff two weeks’ paid leave. There are brilliant examples. We cannot keep saying that this is everyone’s business and not expect employers to take part. I have to say, actually, that there is quite a lot of enthusiasm—my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington) said that the businesses in her area really want to take part.
On the ringfences in respect of refuge accommodation, part 4 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 created a ringfence for housing-related statutory support. This Government have increased the amount of money in the last year by £30 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse gave a good example of it being done well in London, and some of the money being used for specialist “by and for” services. She identified the fact that we really need to bottom out where services are commissioned well and where they are not. It is a different story across the country, so it is nice in this debate about London to be able to say that I have seen good practice undertaken in London in this regard, through the Mayor’s office working with local councils. I have seen bad practice elsewhere. We need to make sure that there is a standard in the country, no matter where someone is. It is the same for policing and for the CPS.
As I said, I see the hon. Member for Strangford more than my husband; I feel like he has always been in the room. I have a special place in my heart for Northern Ireland and will continue to work with the devolved Administrations over there.
Many people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) very clearly, mentioned the issue of David Carrick, and other issues of trust in the Metropolitan police. The first part of the Angiolini review has already reported, and reporting on the second part is imminent. The Metropolitan police promised to follow up on the Louise Casey review. I speak to Mark Rowley many times—he is actually from Birmingham—and the Home Office is making sure that the Metropolitan police is following up on all those things. More broadly, we need to change the regime and reform police vetting and standards, and disqualify people when they commit some of these crimes.
Apologies that I did not respond to everybody, but I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse her minute to wind up. I promise I will answer all questions in writing—to which everyone behind me thinks, “I wish she had not said that!”
Apsana Begum
I thank the Minister for her comments and her commitments. I look forward to the much-anticipated VAWG strategy—hopefully as a nice gift for everyone to read over Christmas—and to working constructively with her in the interests of all survivors, regardless of their backgrounds.
I am very grateful for all the contributions today, which touched on not only a wide range of issues but the various local contexts. It is all very valuable and I hope that, over the next 16 days and beyond, we can all speak to our colleagues and make sure we are speaking to everyone in our areas about how we can continue to engage in the 16 days of activities.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling violence against women and girls in London.