Domestic Violence (Police Response)

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I apologise for the fact that I was not here for the start of the debate. I was at the dentist, but I got here as soon as I possibly could. I want to raise a particular issue in the context of a series of general issues on domestic violence and police investigation.

I start by congratulating Thames Valley police, which had a pretty decent showing in the recent report on the police response to domestic violence by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. That report shows the extent of domestic violence in the area that I am proud to represent. Domestic abuse in the Thames valley accounts for 7% of all recorded crime and for 12% of assaults with intent. One third of assaults with injuries are domestic violence related. More than half of harassment cases are domestic violence cases, as are 10% of sexual offences. Those figures are pretty enormous, and they show that it is important for police services to make tackling domestic violence a high priority. On the whole, I think, Thames Valley police does that. I was pleased when the new commander in Slough told the local newspapers that his priority was dealing with domestic violence. Making it a focus in such a way begins to help to make women safe.

The problem is that even where the police are reasonably effective, as I think they are in the area that I represent, victims are often not fully protected in practice. One reason for that is that the criminal justice system fails them. One of the recommendations in HMIC’s report is that Thames Valley force

“should develop further the investigative process for domestic abuse, to ensure that officers collect all available evidence, to help build strong cases against perpetrators.”

There is a real failing to secure effective convictions, and one of the reasons for that is a practice that I hope the Minister can ensure is changed.

When it prosecutes men for domestic violence, the Crown Prosecution Service does not automatically ask the victim whether she wants a non-molestation order. If the victim has to get a non-molestation order on her own, she has to do it through the civil court and has to pay for it. The civil courts in the Thames valley do not allow victims to have McKenzie friends or other non-solicitor people to argue their case. Consequently, vulnerable victims of domestic violence are trying to make the case that their abuser is liable for a non-molestation order without legal advice because, frankly, they cannot afford that.

The Home Secretary said that victims of domestic violence will qualify for legal aid, but what does that mean in practice? Let me tell Members about my constituent, Mrs Busse, who, fed up after years of domestic violence, phoned the police; she reached that point of bravery that victims so rarely manage to get to on their own. She was given the telephone number of the National Centre for Domestic Violence, which told her that a lawyer would be found for her. She was put in touch with a nearby solicitor, who got her emergency legal aid. She then had to get that legal aid extended, because the solicitor told her that it had to cover the cost of her husband’s interpreter. It turned out that the solicitor was wrong about that, but we will come to that later.

When her legal aid assessment came back, Mrs Busse was told that she had to pay £560 a month. Mrs Busse is a carer in a care home. She has two children who are older teenagers, but still in education. If she had paid the assessed amount, she would have been left with a monthly disposable income of £682.25 for herself and her two teenage sons. In my view, that is grossly unrealistic. What did she do? She had to pay the first instalment because otherwise she would not have been represented at all at the original case and her solicitor would have taken away all the papers. She borrowed the money from her employer to pay the first instalment, but then cancelled the legal aid certificate and represented herself. Luckily, in the civil court she got a sensible judge who said that it would be sufficient for her to interpret the documents for her partner. She now has a non-molestation order, but what happened is not tolerable for a victim of chronic domestic violence. It just is not acceptable.

The problem seems to be that, even where a police service is quite well organised in dealing with such matters, too often in our system actually getting the things that the victim needs to make themselves safe becomes a burden. One reason why women stay with violent partners for a long time is poverty: they are often financially dependent on the violent partner. We must ensure that women in such circumstances are not burdened with extra spending.

I would like the Minister to promise that he will talk to the CPS immediately about ensuring that in every prosecution the victim is asked whether she wants to proceed with a non-molestation order as part of the criminal prosecution. That does not automatically happen, but it should. I would also like the Minister to discuss how we can better inform women in such circumstances about the possibility of free representation. Independent domestic violence advocates have made a huge difference, but they are no good if the civil courts will not allow them to represent victims.

I want to follow up on the comments made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who rightly focused on how a culture of violence and violent pornography can make children feel that such behaviour is normal, and that they are disempowered and unable to say no. Victims of domestic violence talk about how hard it is to say no—it is a real struggle for them to give up and leave someone. We seem to be preparing children for becoming victims, which is just not acceptable. We should be giving them the resources, as children, to be more resilient. The issue is not just about getting effective prosecution and policing, although we need both; it is also about people being able to protect themselves more effectively.

One way for people to protect themselves from domestic violence is for them to know their rights, to know what is reasonable and to stop thinking that it is their fault when they are hit. That requires really good quality sex and relationships education for children. We have all been mimsy about that, but unless children have it, they will not know in every household what is right and wrong in relation to sex, because sex is this adult mystery. We must prepare them, as children, to protect themselves.

[Mary Macleod]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is also important to teach children about emotional abuse? On the physical side, in a way it is quite easy to say, “If you get hit, that is unacceptable”, but emotional abuse is much more complex, difficult and disruptive to any victim who goes through it.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

That is why relationships education is so important. It is important to tell children that if something makes them feel uncomfortable, it is their right to say, “Stop—I don’t like this.” Other European countries that have robust sex and relationships education teach children how to deal not just with violence as adults but with bullying. That is important. If we start by enabling children to know what is not appropriate, safe, right or kind, we give them the ammunition they need. I am sorry to use a warlike analogy, but in that way we will give children the skills that they need to protect themselves.

We would all like to reduce the number of victims. One way to do that is to improve prosecution and make victims safe, because so many are repeat victims—nearly half of those in Thames valley are. It seems that to help to prevent abuse in the first place through child education is utterly essential. If we dip out on that, we will have on our consciences more children who will become victims when they are adults.

One argument for educating children that might appeal to the Government is that it will save money. Protecting victims better saves money in a whole load of areas. First, it saves money for businesses; domestic violence costs them millions of pounds, as it affects the health of their employees. Baroness Scotland, who used to be a Home Office Minister, did a great deal of work with businesses on the cost of domestic violence.

Domestic violence also imposes imprisonment costs on the Government. I am chair of a charity called Commonweal. We set up a project called Re-Unite, which aims to house women who have left prison, so that they can reunite with their children. After independent assessment by criminologists from Oxford university, the evidence is that that makes a great deal of difference to those children’s futures. It also makes a great deal of difference to the women, as they are able to look after their children in secure housing.

To qualify for entering Re-Unite’s housing, women have to have been victims of domestic violence, and in our criminal justice system there is no shortage of such women. We know that a large number of women prisoners have mental health conditions, but we also need to address the fact that a large number are long-term victims of domestic violence; the emotional abuse and control that Government Members have been talking about form part of their history.

For those women to be able to become autonomous, positive, rehabilitated and contributing members of society—as some of the women who have been through the Re-Unite programme have been able to become—one of the things they need is the skills and resources to protect themselves and to be able to say no to their violent partner, who, frankly, is sitting outside the prison gate waiting for them to come out; he controls the home, he can beat her up again and he has been missing his punchbag.

It is essential that we try to ensure that every police force in the country recognises that domestic violence is a priority. We need much better prosecuting to bring the perpetrators to justice much more effectively. We need better prevention, through the education of children and victims; in that way, they can protect themselves more effectively. If these three things happened, this would be a much safer country for women to live in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I want to pick up on that point and approach it logically. Body-worn cameras, for example, have been an investment, but they are not being used as they ought to be, so there is also a matter about how the police deal with the technology that they are given. In addition, I confirm that the College of Policing—a good innovation introduced by the Government—will deliver better training in such matters within their resources. It is prioritising what it wants to do on domestic abuse, which is something that we are dealing with on a number of fronts, as I will explain.

Responding to domestic abuse is and must be seen as a core part of the police’s job. I want the priority to be in practice, not only on paper. HMIC has found that the coalition Government’s introduction of directly elected police and crime commissioners and the establishment of the College of Policing, which I have just mentioned, are two significant changes that will make a difference in supporting forces and in holding them to account. Change, however, must be driven by police at all levels. The report is an opportunity to make a real and lasting difference. Chief constables need to take personal oversight to ensure that things happen. We need leaders to recognise and reward officers who are working hard to improve the reality for victims of domestic abuse.

The Opposition spokesperson suggested—she said “gently”—that the Home Secretary should have made a statement as soon as the HMIC report came out. I want to put it on the record, however, perhaps as a Liberal Democrat rather than anything else, that the Home Secretary has been absolutely rigorous and determined to make progress on domestic violence since 2010—the whole House recognises that—and even more so subsequent to the report. On day one of the report’s publication she produced a written ministerial statement, she wrote to all colleagues in the House of Commons and she wrote to all chief constables and police force leads, making it clear that her expectation, in line with HMIC’s recommendations, was that each force will have a plan in place by September to improve its response to domestic violence and abuse.

The Home Secretary has committed to chairing a national oversight group to lead immediate improvement. She has not delegated that to me or to officials; she will lead it herself, and I will serve on that group with her. The group has a clear and specific mandate to monitor delivery against each of HMIC’s recommendations, so people’s feet are being held to the fire. The group will bring together the organisations that must make change with experts on domestic abuse, and it will sit for the first time shortly. The Home Secretary will issue quarterly reports on progress. The coalition Government will ensure that those important recommendations do not become yesterday’s news. They are live issues to be continually monitored, and progress must be pursued.

My officials are already working on delivering the actions for the Home Office that were identified by HMIC. The Home Secretary has advised chief constables that she will mandate the collection of performance statistics on domestic abuse by the police, which several colleagues mentioned, and work to build victim satisfaction into the picture so that we can meaningfully monitor progress to deliver improvements. We will also review the domestic homicide review process—a point that was also raised—to ensure that it provides the best possible opportunity for local areas to learn from individual tragedies.

Police action to address HMIC’s findings will build on work already being carried out by the coalition Government. We have introduced Clare’s law, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth mentioned, and we have introduced domestic violence protection orders to give the police a broader range of tools to break the cycle of abuse. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) referred to that issue in her speech, which was rather moving, when she said that a victim would sometimes be forced out of her house. It is precisely because of that problem that we have introduced domestic violence protection orders, which allow the victim to stay put and require the perpetrator to leave the premises. That puts the victim centre stage, rather than making them something of an add-on, as they have been in the past.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I raised the point about people being unable to have legal representation in getting such orders. If the orders exist, that is fantastic, but how can people get access to them if they cannot afford legal representation? The hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) and I are eager to hear that the Minister will do something to help on that.

[Norman Baker]

I have got notes, but I will respond to the specific points raised by the hon. Lady in a moment. I would expect the police to be helpful in ensuring that the protection orders are taken forward in such circumstances.

We have also been clear that changes to the law or new powers alone are not sufficient. The Home Secretary is determined to use the extra resource that the Government has injected into HMIC to continue to monitor performance on domestic abuse, and I join her in welcoming HMIC’s commitment to revisit those issues as part of its annual review. The HMIC report is clear that multi-agency approaches are vital to improving practice in the area. The Government has ring-fenced nearly £40 million of stable funding for specialist local domestic and sexual violence support services until 2015. That is used to part-fund 54 multi-agency risk assessment conference co-ordinators and 144 independent domestic violence advisers. Up to 60% of abuse victims report no further violence following intervention by independent advisers, so they appear to work.

The work that the police will undertake to improve their response must be supported by the wider response of the criminal justice system. On 10 December 2013 the coalition Government brought in a victims’ code that gives victims of crime clearer entitlements from criminal justice agencies so that they get the right support at the right time. The new code provides an enhanced level of service to vulnerable or intimidated victims.

We are piloting pre-trial cross-examination in three Crown courts, recognising that if we are to encourage victims to come forward we need to ensure that they are offered the support they need to go through the court process. The Director of Public Prosecutions is currently updating guidance for prosecutors to complement that work. I have also asked that we consider what guidance may be issued to juries. Juries are, of course, independent but some juries conclude, for example, that an inference can be drawn from the fact that someone is wearing certain clothes. Such attitudes must be challenged, and that work is ongoing.

Let me pick up some of the points that were raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) asked about non-molestation orders. The domestic violence protection orders that I have mentioned go a long way towards closing the gap, and they do so more quickly than a non-molestation order might. Police officers can issue a domestic violence protection order on first call-out. That is an immediate response, which does not involve going through the legal system. In the meantime, of course, during the period granted by the protection order, the victim can be referred to specialist services for support. Non-molestation orders do not add to the framework in the short term, but I will raise the issue with colleagues at the Ministry of Justice and the interministerial group on violence against women and girls, which I sit on with the Home Secretary. I hope that is helpful.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I thank the Minister for that. What struck me was that when my constituent phoned the police and was passed on to the solicitor, she was told that her contribution to legal aid would be around £40, which she could afford, but in the end it was more than £500. We must ensure that people are properly informed of the costs that they may incur in such cases. She was trying to make herself safe from her husband rather than prosecute him.

[Norman Baker]

I entirely understand that. The hon. Lady made the point about the cost of implementation very well. I was dealing with the non-molestation point in the sense that I was trying to ensure that someone who had been subject to domestic violence was secure from further attack or violence. The protection order that we have just introduced provides a period when the victim can stay in their home, the perpetrator is removed, and a specialist independent domestic violence advocate can give advice. IDVAs should be allowed to support victims throughout the criminal justice process. I am happy to take the matter up with the Ministry of Justice and to take it forward with the interministerial group that I mentioned.