Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree that dealing with this crime is about more than action by Government. That is why I am pleased that we have introduced into the Modern Slavery Bill a clause that requires larger businesses to show what they are doing to ensure that slavery is not taking place in their supply chains. We must all work together on this issue. I am pleased that we have been able to introduce that amendment, and I am sure that it will be supported throughout this House.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

The national referral mechanism, which is one of the ways of identifying victims, is flawed—as, indeed, the Home Secretary’s recent report implies. What is she going to do to make sure that victims, whatever their immigration status, are identified and effectively protected?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady is right. Concerns about the national referral mechanism have been raised for some time. That is why the Government had a review of the NRM undertaken. That review has now been published, and we will set out our response to it in the modern slavery strategy that will, as I said, soon be published by the Government. We recognise the issues that have been raised in the review of the NRM, and I am pleased that it has taken place. We will of course put support for victims at the heart of what we are doing.

Modern Slavery Bill

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Barclay]

Tesco has some serious questions to answer in terms of its supply chain and the way some of its operations have been conducted. I do not want to return to the earlier debate, but if one looks at some of the difficulties Tesco is having in terms of its profit warnings, one wonders how accurate some of its statements on its website might be, especially given its statements on other areas.

My point is we need to make it easier for the GLA, at a time when it is resource-constrained, to take enforcement action. One of those ways is to hit rogue gangmasters in the pocket, through civil fines. There is a lower evidential requirement for that and it is quicker and cheaper, and we should be facilitating that. I hope the move of the GLA from DEFRA into the Home Office gives more clout within Whitehall for this long-overdue change.

New clause 19 addresses what happens when a gangmaster is found abusing workers in one sector. The shadow Minister touched on that in his opening remarks. It is illogical that where someone is operating in one sector or industry illegally, we seem to assume that that sinner is suddenly a saint in another sector. The additional costs of the extra 1 million temporary workers currently within the unregulated sector would place a huge burden on the GLA, so I am sympathetic to the Minister in terms of the constraints on extending into the unregulated sector, but we need to make that easier. Where a gangmaster has been shown to be rogue in one sector, that is the gateway through which we can make a foray into the unregulated activity of that specific gangmaster, not of the whole unregulated industry.

This is a very good Bill that will make a huge difference in constituencies such as mine and it signals the Government’s intent in this area. When the Minister responds, I hope she will consider the operational difficulties faced by the police and the GLA in particular, and bring forward measures that make their job easier, quicker and cheaper, and therefore more likely to be achieved.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 6 and 7 and amendment 1, which have been tabled in my name. In doing so, I want to focus on an issue that is the driver of a great deal of the exploitation and human trafficking in Britain today. Before I do that, however, I want to thank the Minister for her relatively helpful letter on the issue of domestic servitude, which is one of the matters being addressed in the Bill. I drew to her attention the case of a young woman who had been forced to use employment law in order to be paid. I remain shocked that the police did not take notice of that case or prosecute her exploiter. The reality is that domestic servitude does not, on the whole, involve big organised gangs, although they are often the ones that bring the people to the UK in the first place. It is within domestic settings that people are grotesquely abused, and unless we help those victims to help themselves, as the new clause proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) would do, we will continue to see an increase in that kind of trafficking.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

I will come straight to that point, but let me go through the other organisations we have listened to: lawyers, human rights bodies such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and UN Aid, and even the women’s institute down in Hampshire—I warn hon. Members never to cross the women’s institute anywhere—as well as members of the Ipswich Safety First coalition who dealt with the deaths those years ago.

What is the consensus? It is that there is no evidence that criminalising clients as in the Swedish legislation reduces the number of either clients or sex workers. I could quote at length—time we have not got—from the Swedish Government’s report that demonstrates that there is no correlation between the legislation they introduced and a reduction in numbers of clients or sex workers.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

My hon. Friend said that the Swedish Government have no evidence for that, which is true, but they did have evidence that the number of men who pay for sex in Sweden has gone down significantly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt]

I shall take the remaining minute and a half simply to make the point that the authoritarian, moralistic and un-evidenced potential catastrophe that presents itself as new clause 6 must be opposed. In proposing these provisions, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) complained about the fact that she got on television programmes and then found that her statistics were under dispute. That is hardly surprising, because all the academic evidence is on the other side of the argument.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Crispin Blunt]

No, I will not. It takes the scion of a couple of baronetcies with the education of Cheltenham Ladies’ college to produce such a moralistic sense that can define sex work as exploitation—without ever having listened to the sex workers themselves. It is a pity, given the trouble the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) took to draw attention to this group of people, that the hon. Lady did not take the trouble to listen to them. Had she done so, I cannot believe that she would have come to this view because the unintended consequence of her proposal would be to put the people whom she is trying to help in peril. That is a serious mistake.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am not about to repeal the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which contains some important safeguards in respect of the way in which the police should conduct investigations. However, my hon. Friend’s overall point about the necessity of ensuring that the criminal justice system works smoothly, efficiently and effectively, not just for those who are investigating and prosecuting but for those who are brought to trial, is important. That is why the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice continue to do such work. The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims is continuing the work that was started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) when he was in that position to reduce the paperwork in the criminal justice system as much as possible so that we get the police doing what everybody wants them to be doing, which is preventing and cutting crime.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

In her reply to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), the Home Secretary said that the reduction in bureaucracy was the equivalent of 2,100 additional bobbies on the beat. How many bobbies were on the beat a couple of years ago and how many are on the beat now?

[Mrs May]

The purport of the hon. Lady’s question is that there has been a cut in the number of police officers over the past few years as police forces have dealt with the changes in their budgets. I am pleased to say that, despite that, the proportion of police officers on the front line has gone up over the past few years.

Modern Slavery Bill

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I will give way to the chair of the all-party group on human trafficking and modern-day slavery.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

If the commissioner is to help increase prosecutions, they need to help to provide witnesses, who are the evidence givers in those prosecutions. I therefore support the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) in her plea to give the commissioner some responsibility for victims, which will assist the Home Secretary greatly in her ambition to increase the number of prosecutions.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady and I have discussed this important matter before, and I will talk about what we can do to protect victims. The strategy that the Government will publish as the Bill progresses through Parliament will be important, because not everything is about legislation; many issues relating to the protection of victims are about some of the other ways we can ensure that support is provided. Yes, of course we need victims to be willing to come forward in order to prosecute, but one of the areas that I do not think has been given sufficient attention in the past is the question of law enforcement, prosecution and the need to ensure that the police and prosecutors are sufficiently aware of these crimes and have a sensible legislative framework and offences framework that means they will be more likely to bring perpetrators to justice. The more perpetrators who are brought to justice, the fewer victims there will be in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Getting elected as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking and modern slavery last July, with 332 votes to my opponent’s 196 votes, was a proud moment. I stood because I care passionately about this issue. Freedom from slavery is a fundamental human right protected by article 4 of the European convention on human rights. Up until that time, I had been excluded from contributing effectively to the main parliamentary vehicle for pursuing change to protect victims of a crime which, only a few years ago, we did not even believe was still being committed.

The founder of the all-party group was Anthony Steen. He deserves our praise for that work and for continuing his work, since leaving Parliament, through the Human Trafficking Foundation. It is thanks to its work and the efforts of many voluntary community organisations—not just the Centre for Social Justice, which the Home Secretary referred to—and campaigning groups, such as Croydon Community Against Human Trafficking and Justice for Domestic Workers, shelters run by the Medaille Trust and the Poppy Project, and research bodies such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the UK Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group, that people are becoming aware that we did not abolish slavery when we outlawed the transatlantic slave trade two centuries ago. The difference, as the Home Secretary said, is that instead of being in the public eye, slavery is now hidden.

The Bill should help to change that ignorance. I commend the Home Secretary for inviting a study of the issue, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), and allowing robust pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. I was glad to join that scrutiny. I am, however, disappointed that not enough notice has been taken of our unanimous recommendations. There is an international commitment to tackle modern slavery through three Ps: prevention, prosecution and protection. The Bill has mistaken those Ps and instead focused on another P—punishment—and felt that that will deliver the other three. Let me explain why it will not.

Part 1 of the Bill describes the offences. I recommend that Members read it. The language is intensely jargonish, which can and does confuse. How do I know that? These offences are exactly the same as offences currently on the statute book. Admittedly, they are in a number of different Acts at present—the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Clients, etc.) Act 2004, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 and the Coroners and Justice Act 2009—but, frankly, just bringing these offences together in one law and adding harbouring and receiving to transporting in the trafficking offence will not achieve the end we all want: to expand the number of cases covered. Everything else in the Bill is already explicitly in legislation or in case law.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) asked, on 24 June, how many successful prosecutions for trafficking offences there have been. The figures are rather disappointing. In 2008, 61 offenders were proceeded against, with 24 found guilty. The following year the figures were 47 and 25. In every year since, fewer have been found guilty: in 2010, only 16; in 2011, eight; in 2012, 12; and in 2013, 19. Were other laws being used? An additional offence was added in the Coroners and Justice Act, which came into force in 2010. That offence is translated in part 1, clause 1 of this Bill. That has not resulted in many prosecutions either. According to a question in the other place on 25 June, there were 15 prosecutions in 2011, 20 in 2012 and 18 last year.

In 2010, I secured a clause in the Police and Crime Act 2009, which criminalised men who pay for sexual service where the person they pay is subject to exploitative conduct. In the first year, only 49 people were proceeded against. I consoled myself with the fact that it was a new offence and only a part year, but in the next year only 17 people were proceeded against. In the next year, the figure was only nine. Police told me that they wanted to pursue the exploiters, but the other figures I quoted show that they are failing to failing to do that.

The Home Secretary has said that the reason she is pursuing the Bill is to lead the world. That can happen only if the architecture of the Bill works so that any police officer knows what these offences are. The plain fact is that they do not, and that is one reason why there have been so few prosecutions. However much we trumpet the Bill, it is unlikely to deliver more prosecutions. Although it claims to consolidate legislation, it actually just jams existing and often poorly drafted laws into one place. The Government claim that there are more prosecutions, but on the whole they are for rape and kidnapping, not slavery or trafficking. There is a reason for that, and it is not just the length of the sentences that the different offences attract: it is that every police officer knows what those offences look like.

The problem with the Bill is that the offences are not well constructed and that will make them relatively hard to prosecute. It is not because there are few such crimes. The tiny number of prosecutions happened at a time when 1,355 people were identified as trafficking victims by first responders and referred to the national referral mechanism, and 444 were confirmed as such by the NRM. We know that the NRM underestimates—that is one of the reasons why the Home Secretary has announced a welcome review. It concludes that 76% of UK nationals, 29% of EU nationals and only 12% of non-EU nationals referred to it are trafficked: just one hint that the system is more obsessed with immigration control than justice.

My biggest fear is that the failure to outline in simple language what slavery and trafficking is, will mean we still fail to prosecute a huge majority of cases. The Bill introduces a maximum life sentence akin to murder, but in Britain 80% of murderers are prosecuted. We should expect the same proportion for this heinous crime, but that will not happen unless we change the Bill.

In addition to the failure to describe the offences in a simple and straightforward way, one other reason why the Bill will not live up to the high hopes of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee to increase the number of successful prosecutions is that it fails to protect victims sufficiently. This is not rocket science. The annual report of the US Secretary of State into human trafficking around the world made a series of recommendations for the UK:

“Ensure that law enforcement priorities to combat organized crime are effectively balanced with a victim-centered response to protect trafficking victims; ensure that a greater number of victims of trafficking are identified and provided access to necessary services, regardless of their immigration status; consider introducing a ‘pre-reasonable grounds’ decision period in which potential victims can access services before having to engage with police and immigration officers; ensure that appropriate government officials interview all incoming domestic workers in private so they are familiar with their rights and protections in the UK;”—

that theoretically happens at the moment, but in practice it does not—

“develop secure and safe accommodations for child victims and establish a system of guardianship for unaccompanied foreign children; effectively engage with multiple agencies to ensure child victims’ needs are assessed and met; ensure child age assessments are completed”.

We have to read two thirds of the recommendations to get to measures that are in the Bill.

Good quality victim services are necessary so that witnesses to this horrible crime, who are overwhelmingly its victims, are available to help prosecutions. Present arrangements, which give them 45 days housing and then too often forget and abandon them, usually with no access to counselling or other support, means that many victims run away rather than give evidence. They do not trust the police and they are frightened that their exploiter will wreak revenge on their families.

We need to do more to improve the protection of victims. The Bill includes a welcome statutory defence for people forced to commit criminal acts while they are enslaved, but that has been Government and Crown Prosecution Service policy for a long time. That has had to be put into legislation only because the policy was not being put into practice. The Equality and Human Rights Commission concludes that

“As currently drafted, the effect of the Bill is that a victim’s failure to object to their exploitation by means of threat, force, coercion etc would be relevant to any decision as to whether they had been trafficked. This would erode the protection for victims seeking redress by opening debate about the nature and degree of the threats, force, coercion etc. to which they were subjected. It is not clear whether this omission is an oversight or intention”.

Protection for victims is what is most urgently needed. They need security, knowing that they will not be turfed out of a shelter on to the street where, under new regulations, they face quizzing from landlords about their immigration status and, if they are EU nationals, they will not have access to housing benefit. They need help to find employment other than prostitution or whatever other degrading acts they have been forced into. They need psychological help to deal with the trauma they have experienced and, above all, children need a guardian who can be there for them, protect them and ensure that we stop losing them. The Home Affairs Committee concluded that nearly two thirds of trafficked children go missing from care and that almost two thirds of those children are never found. Why? Because their trafficker is the person they know and have been groomed by. The Government are not yet providing a tough enough alternative in the Bill.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has been explicit about the responsibilities that Governments have to provide guardians for unaccompanied and separated migrant children. This approach to guardianship is reflected in a number of European countries, most notably Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. They have led us; we are not leading them. Children who have been protected and nurtured are more likely to give evidence. They will not be terrorised out of it through threats to their families. The failure to protect victims will add to the poor design of the offences and mean that more traffickers get away with it.

If the Home Office had followed the advice of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, there would have been clear offences based on the concept of exploitation; there would be strong advocates with the power of guardianship for children; there would be a separate child offence, because children cannot consent to their own exploitation; and the Anti-Slavery Commissioner would have a duty towards victims. These are areas where the weakness of the Bill will mean that, in future, we fail to catch and convict some of the perpetrators of this crime.

As well as protecting victims and prosecuting offenders, there is a responsibility to prevent the crime. Opportunities to do that have been lost too. The orders in this Bill are one strategy, but they will not have a broad effect. We know—and recommended in the pre legislative scrutiny Committee—measures that will have a broad effect. One is effective protection for migrant domestic workers. When they had a fair visa, which allowed them to change employers if they were exploited, most were at least paid. Now, Kalayaan, the wonderful organisation that assists them, reports that nearly two thirds do not get any pay. They have their passports taken away, they sleep on the floor and they cannot leave the house. In the tragic case referred to by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, someone returned to a situation of domestic servitude because, under the present immigration rules, she had no escape.

Other forms of enslavement at work could also have been prevented by widening the scope of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, and by requiring companies to ensure that their supply chain is free of exploitation. I moved a ten-minute rule Bill on this subject in 2012, and it is great to see the approach winning all-party support. But the Home Office needs to know that a measure that is supported by M&S, Sainsbury's and Tesco, because they do not want to have slavery in their supply chain and because they do not want to compete with companies that drive down prices by using slave labour, is a pro-business move. That is why California took action and why we should now.

The USA report sets out quite simply what we need to do in the UK. It also reminds us that the victims of slavery across the world are, overwhelmingly, women and children. They are more vulnerable and also easier to be turned into commodities, which is the essence of this crime. So whether it is children forced to cultivate cannabis or to beg, or women forced to have sex with men, it is about the exploitation of one human being by another.

I am glad that we have a Bill, but sad that after all of the thoughtful and non-partisan study of it, the Home Office has rejected so much of the advice it received and left us with a Bill that is too weak.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

This has been an excellent debate, which has shown the House at its best. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed, and I take their contributions and suggestions in the spirit in which they were intended. I also welcome the cross-party support for the Bill.

We all want the same thing: to stamp out slavery and make it clear that there is no place for anybody who wants to abuse human beings as slaves in this country. I hope that we can all work together to achieve that aim. The experiences of coming into contact with victims of modern slavery are always harrowing. I would describe my life before I took this job as the Minister with responsibility for modern slavery and organised crime as one of blissful ignorance. I had no idea about the scale of the problem, the extent of it, its depth or breadth, how it affects towns and cities across the country and how it affects all communities. The victims I have met and the stories I have heard have deeply affected me. Each one brings home just how difficult it is to tackle this crime.

Throughout debate on the Bill, we must remember the immense misery and trauma experienced by the victims of this crime. Held against their will, with no means of escape, they often endure rape, violence and psychological torture. That is why it is so unacceptable that slavery is still a fact of life in this country.

The Bill will make a real difference. It is critical to improving the law enforcement response to modern slavery. It will ensure that perpetrators can receive the sentences they deserve, including life imprisonment. It will strengthen our powers to recover their ill-gotten assets, and it will enhance protection for victims of this heinous crime. We cannot safeguard victims if we do not catch and convict the perpetrators. The actions that we are taking, both in the Bill and outside it—changes to policy, the trials and the reviews of existing mechanisms that we are undertaking—are all aimed at achieving that.

The Bill has the potential to be even more than a crucial step towards stamping out slavery in this country. It will send an important signal to the wider world that the time has come to take firm action to end global slavery. That message is even stronger after today’s debate because of the degree of cross-party support for the Bill and the commitment that right hon. and hon. Members have shown to the cause in their contributions. Today’s debate builds on the excellent work of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, which has helped to shape the Bill. I am grateful to the members of that Committee and welcome the important contributions today from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), my right hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) and for Hazel Grove (Sir Andrew Stunell), and the hon. Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty).

During the debate a large number of Members identified areas where the Bill might adopt a different approach. I understand hon. Members’ deep commitment to using the Bill to make a difference on a wide range of issues and I will continue to work on both the Bill and the non-legislative ways in which we can tackle this horrendous crime. However, I urge hon. Members not to endanger the passage of the Bill in a very short Session of Parliament by trying to widen its scope. The Bill is a crucial first step, which will make a real difference to the lives of the victims of the appalling crime of modern slavery. By focusing on the very serious offences of slavery and trafficking, it will give law enforcement the clearest possible signal that Parliament wants these crimes stamped out, but it is a first step and I am determined that we will deliver it in the short Session that we have available.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the Minister give way?

Passport Applications

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stephen McPartland]

If the hon. Gentleman is so confident about independence, I have no need to answer that question.

During my wonderful time in Liverpool, earning a bit of money to get myself through my university years, the staff did a good job. Many of the staff are still there, although there have been a number of reorganisations. One key thing is that there were backlogs in those days. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury made the key point that, between January and May, 99% of passports were processed in four weeks. I can tell hon. Members that that was not the case when I worked in the passport office in Liverpool. It took a lot longer than that, and we used to look at the passport applications, wondering why it had taken so long for them to reach us to be printed.

My brother and sister also worked in that passport office in Liverpool. There are many of us, and such things are often family affairs in the great city that I come from. They had different roles. My brother was one of the examiners responsible for identifying whether somebody had the status to be given a British passport.

Hon. Members may not appreciate that once somebody gets a British passport, they can use it as a gateway document to enable them to access a variety of benefits and services within the United Kingdom, so it is incredibly important. One issue with delays for a specific passport is that we may have to be very careful about the security of the application to ensure that the person who will get the passport has a right to services in the United Kingdom. Failure to do so or a knee-jerk reaction—

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen McPartland]

I will not give way again, because Madam Deputy Speaker wants us to make progress so that other Members can speak.

The passport is a key document. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury gave the important statistic that there were 565,000 documents in 1999. I should like to discuss my experience, because hon. Members will be shocked to discover that I was actually there when the work of the Passport Office was outsourced by the previous Government. In 1998, the Labour Government outsourced me to Siemens Business Services, which wanted to replace my dot-matrix computer with 125 passports on it with some high-falutin’ laser printer based in Manchester. We would examine the passports in Liverpool, and when we pressed “print” on our computers, they would be sent off to Manchester to be printed.

People will be shocked to discover that, during that period, there was complete and utter chaos. The roll-out was so poor that it was actually delayed in all the other passport offices in the United Kingdom. We had spoken to the unions, and to the Ministers involved, and they had been warned for more than 12 months that there would be utter chaos. I left the Passport Office in March 1999, and after it lost my services, there just happened to be a passport crisis that summer. I have no idea why that happened. I was beavering away doing the best I could, and when I left, there were problems.

There were huge problems in 1999. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury has mentioned the fact that £12.6 million was paid out. My brother and sister were working in the passport office at the time, and they remember that angry people from all over the country, with their umbrellas, were forming huge queues round the India buildings. They were having to pay out, and it was a huge problem. Every one of those cases was a personal tragedy.

I find it upsetting that some Opposition Members have tried to suggest that the situation today is similar. What has happened over the past few months has been difficult for the individuals involved, but it is nothing like what it was then. I worked there; I experienced it and I can assure every Member that the word “chaos” does not do it justice. Towards the end of 1998, it was so bad that I was paid treble time to work on Sundays, with an extra £10 an hour just to turn up to work. I left university with no debts as a result of that, for which I am grateful to the previous Government. I took advantage of that overtime as much as I could. The reality was, however, that there were huge problems. What the Home Secretary has done over the past few months has resulted in a huge step forward from what I experienced when I was there some years ago.

I would like to put on record my gratitude to the staff in the Passport Office who have helped me and my constituents to get the nine passports that we have contacted the office about over the past few weeks. I give the Passport Office warning now on the Floor of the House that I shall be contacting it in the next few hours about a further three cases, when I have received further details from my constituents, and I hope that they will be processed just as fast.

We have to remember that there are human beings involved, and that the staff who are doing the examining and the printing are all doing the best they can. I was a little disappointed that the shadow Home Secretary saw fit to mock someone who was working on the advice line. I have been in that position myself, and it was very difficult when people were ringing from different countries and I was constantly fielding their concerns. That person will no doubt be disappointed to hear what she said. I want to put on record my thanks to the Home Secretary for her action to try to deal with the situation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

I will try to be brief. Before I say anything else, in case I run out of time, I would like to add my compliments to the staff who are working so hard and to my own office staff, who have put in a great deal of work on the matter and dealt with some very distressed people over the past wee while. The Foreign Office warned nearly six months ago that closing overseas passport offices would lead to passport delays. In January this year, we on the Foreign Affairs Committee were informed of that by Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials. We all know now that the Government’s decision to shut down seven overseas offices has been identified as a key reason for the passport delays affecting thousands of our constituents, whatever the Minister says. Control of overseas applications for passports by British expats has been handed over to the Home Office, and that decision has meant that since January, British passport offices have had to deal with an extra 350,000 applications for travel documents.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sandra Osborne]

I will not give way, if my hon. Friend does not mind, so that other people can get in.

Hon. Members may be aware that the Foreign Affairs Committee is currently holding an inquiry into consular services. One of the most fundamental matters that expats expect, quite rightly, of the Government is an efficient and timely passport service. On passport applications, the FCO told the Committee:

“For most overseas customers the timescales for passport applications remain the same: four weeks for renewals and six weeks for first time applicants. In some countries this may take longer owing to the need for additional time required to complete checking procedures.”

Not surprisingly, it takes longer for officials in the UK to check details on applications from Britons overseas.

When former diplomats Sir Michael Arthur, former ambassador to Germany, and Mr Giles Paxman, former British ambassador to Spain and Mexico, gave public evidence to the Committee, I asked them whether the decision to transfer responsibility to the Home Office had been a good one. If people think that it is hard to get a straight answer to a straight question from a politician, they should try getting one from a diplomat. In typical diplomatic language, Sir Michael Arthur said:

“It was unpopular in Germany where it was felt that the distance made it more difficult to get a passport.”

Mr Paxman stated the obvious, saying:

“The need to transport the application back to the UK and then the final transport back out again is bound to add a little bit of time.”

That is an understatement, at best. However tactfully they put it, it was clear that they were acknowledging that the decision to transfer responsibility to the Home Office had led to a deterioration in service.

Does the Minister think that the transfer was a good decision, and why was no account seemingly taken of the totally predictable delays that it would cause? Are applications from people who live in Britain being delayed because of the need to process applications from expats? As late as 9 June, Mr Pugh stated that delays were due to an exceptional early summer demand for passports because of the improving economy and a rise in holiday bookings. That is not the case in Scotland, where it has been in the news this week that people are staying at home this year for their holidays.

The Minister did not even mention the key problem that has been caused by the change in the system. The Prime Minister has accused the Leader of the Opposition of trying to frighten people, but he does not need to do so because they are already terrified. Like so many other Members, I and my office staff have dealt with several tragic cases in the past few weeks, and I would like to highlight one. A constituent wrote to me:

“I am writing in tears and in desperation, both my son and I are waiting for our passports. I have tried for days to get information and find someone who can help us. My son is 18 and is now applying for his first passport, he was previously on my passport so I sent our applications away together on 13 May.”

They are having all sorts of problems getting their passports, and the woman has already put out £400 to get her son insured because he has a very serious illness that could cause sudden death. That is only part of the extra expense that they have incurred. I think we should all be ashamed that in this day and age, this is happening in our country. It brings shame on our country and on the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

I will speak as briefly as I can at the end of this long but important debate. Although a lot of statistics have been presented, each case is personal. As we heard during the debate, for anyone who needs to travel, waiting for a passport can be highly distressing.

I checked with my caseworkers how many people have got in touch with us, and the state of those applications. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), we had four cases that have been processed, including one where a new passport was sent to Nepal and arrived in time for the person to travel. One of my constituents was in China—there has been some debate about people in other countries getting documents. He was not able to receive his passport in time, but he has successfully contacted the British embassy in Beijing and has emergency travel documentation to allow him to make his journey.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Damian Collins]

I am afraid I have very little time, but if I finish early I will come back to the hon. Lady.

I had one case where, unfortunately, someone was not able to get their passport in time. That was not a straightforward case, as the Home Secretary set out—it was a first- time passport for a child, and travel plans had been made in a hurry because of a family situation, so the trip had not been planned for long. I am sorry that my constituent was not able to get the support they needed, but in my constituency that has been the only such case so far.

There has clearly been enormous demand for passports. The Home Secretary spoke about a 12-year high in the number of applications, and any organisation would find its resources strained by such a large increase in demand. A 10% increase in passport applications on the previous year will clearly put strain on the system. Quite properly, the debate is about whether the Passport Office should have anticipated that extra level of demand and put resources in place to cope with it. I am interested in the Passport Office’s recruitment levels, and whether such planning took place.

We said there was a 10% increase in applications, and the shadow Home Secretary asked—quite properly—whether that surge was due to applications from overseas, and what proportion of that 10% were overseas applications. The Home Secretary said that overseas applications made up less than half of applications, and we are waiting for further information on that. It may not be as straightforward as it seems, however, because some people previously living abroad may have applied for a passport in the UK, rather than through an overseas office, and the data may not be quite as straightforward.

Let us say for argument’s sake that around half of the increase in passport applications has come from overseas. I note that Passport Office staffing levels have risen by about 10% over the past two years, and are about 6% up on last year. If there was an increase in staff of about 6% from 2013-14, and if an uplift in overseas applications of about 5% was anticipated, it seems that reasonable preparation in terms of staffing levels was made. Therefore, the pressure has come not from the change in how passports are issued from the UK instead of from overseas, but because of an unanticipated level of normal applications. The 6% increase in staffing levels year on year in the Passport Office shows that preparations were made and put in place for anticipated extra demand, but that demand went far beyond what could have been reasonably expected.

I was pleased when the Home Secretary said that the permanent secretary is conducting a review into the workings of the Passport Office to see what lessons can be learned. There is clearly an issue this year that the Home Secretary and her team are working hard to address, and we do not want to be in this position in the future.

What drivers of passport applications should be fed into the system? Should we give more consideration to the impact of an economic uplift, which may lead to more travel? Should we look at birth rates, or at renewal rates so that we can more easily anticipate when extra passports are likely to be applied for and ensure that that is factored in? As the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) said, users are paying for this system; passports are not issued for free and people pay for them. It is, therefore, reasonable to expect the Passport Office to put in place the resources it needs to anticipate demand. Could we be cleverer at working out ways to anticipate demand?

As I said earlier, looking at the year-on-year figures and at the increase in recruitment to the Passport Office in the past year, it would certainly have coped with extra demand placed on it from overseas applications. We must ensure that we are ready for next year if there is a further surge in passport applications, particularly if that is driven by the economic confidence coming from the growing economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Mactaggart]

rose—

[Penny Mordaunt]

rose—

Immigration Bill

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Yes. My hon. Friend rightly points to article 15 of the universal declaration of human rights, which makes a point about protection against the arbitrary deprivation of nationality. We are very clear that the provision is not arbitrary. It is a very focused and proportionate power that meets not only those requirements, but our obligations under the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness of 1961, and the declaration made by the UK when it ratified that convention in 1966. We have considered our international obligations very carefully. We believe that the provision absolutely complies with the obligations that we have set for ourselves.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

All the examples that the Minister has used relate to cases in which he expects people to reacquire a nationality that they gave up to avoid having their British nationality taken away. If that is his intention, would it not have been better to table a much narrower amendment in which that was the circumstance in which the Home Secretary could consider withdrawing a person’s citizenship? That might have been more broadly welcomed in the House than amendment (a).

[James Brokenshire]

Amendment (a) was carefully framed and consideration was given to the comments of the Supreme Court in the al-Jedda case. Indeed, the amendment is more tightly framed than was suggested by the Supreme Court and is required by our obligations under the ratifying declaration that the UK signed in 1966. That speaks more widely about reserving the right in relation to statelessness, including where the person has conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK.

We have refined those broad terms in amendment (a) by requiring the Home Secretary to undertake the reasonableness test that I have highlighted. She must have reasonable grounds for believing that the individual whom we are seeking to use the powers on has the ability to obtain citizenship under the laws of another state. I argue that we have considered the matter carefully and framed the amendment appropriately to deal with the significant loophole that was created and that was highlighted by the al-Jedda judgment. We believe that it is important to close that off in the interests of national security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call anyone else to speak, let me say that we have a very short time in this part of the debate, so I urge Members to be brief in consideration of their colleagues.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I will be brief. I spoke in 1997 in the debate on the formation of SIAC, and I was wrong. I thought that the changes that were being made from the previous system were sufficient to protect people who are accused of terrorism. I reminded the House then that the previous arrangements had been used against not just people who wanted to blow up our country but journalists and others such as Mark Hosenball. One reason why we need to have a publicly accountable system, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd), is that, without it, there cannot be a guarantee that a Home Secretary will not end up doing the same again.

I said in the debate about the formation of SIAC that transparency is the most effective protection against terrorism. I am really concerned that this arrangement not only risks creating statelessness but depends on a grossly untransparent system. I think that we should adopt the route that the Lords has offered us: yes, it is kicking the can down the road, but it is stopping and thinking so that the can is not mashed, thus destroying the reputation of our country.

[Dr Huppert]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). I pay tribute to her for her acceptance that SIAC was an error and a big problem. Indeed, it is rare in this place for any of us to admit making a mistake. The encroachment of secret justice started with that commission and has continued in a number of other ways.

In the interests of time, I will not go through all my concerns. I have expressed them on a number of occasions in debates in the main Chamber and in the Home Affairs Committee and in discussions with the Minister. The reasons for my concerns remain the same, which is why I was proud to oppose the measure when we discussed it previously, and acted as a teller for the other side. It is a shame that more people did not join us, and I pay tribute to those who did, especially those Labour Members who braved the wrath of their Whips to fight their way into the Lobby, where we saw some interesting rows. It is also interesting to see people who voted for it on that occasion now opposing the principle. I still oppose the principle. There has been much more debate, both in the other place and on the Home Affairs Committee, which has helped to clarify how the measure might work. The Select Committee’s report on counter-terrorism is due out shortly, and I hope the Minister will look carefully at what it says. Obviously, I cannot presage its comments on anything, but I am sure that he will be interested to see it.

There are many issues relating to what happens if somebody is stateless in this country. If we end up leaving someone stateless because they cannot get the passport that we thought they could apply for, we have taken somebody who is apparently dangerous to us and prevented them from leaving the country. That does not seem a great success to me. There is also the issue about what happens if they are overseas. It also fosters the idea of two classes of citizen—people whose citizenship can be taken away without them being convicted of something and those who cannot have it taken away. It is about how the legal process works and much, much more.

In the interests of time, let me talk about the Government concessions, which I welcome. They are a step in the right direction, but they do not go far enough for me. There are two of them. I welcome the concession about the independent reviewer, and I was pleased to hear the Minister imply that it may be the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, for whom I have huge respect. I would be more encouraged if he, rather than others, was taking on the role. I understand that no decision has yet been made. Will the Minister clarify whether the reviewer will look at specific cases, or just the overall process? Will they be able to trigger a review if a particular case has gone wrong? Will they have full access to all the information that SIAC has? If the independent reviewer does not have all that information, it will be hard for them to make a proper judgment.

Let me turn to the other amendment about reasonable grounds for belief. I welcome this step, because it addresses the key issue of avoiding statelessness. We should all be very concerned to avoid anything that will leave people stateless. My concern is about how certain we are. It was helpful to hear the Minister say—I ask him to correct me if I misquote him—that if someone wanted to claim asylum from a country, that would be deemed to mean that the Home Secretary could not act. If it was not possible to get the citizenship without travelling and the person was stuck in this country, that would be an issue.

I am still concerned about the appeal rights and about what will happen if the Home Secretary makes an error. What will happen if she acts reasonably, but it turns out that she is wrong and someone cannot get citizenship? That would be very alarming and I hope that the Minister will consider the issue and perhaps even tighten this up in the other House.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise those who have made the case for this change for some considerable time, and I am pleased that the Government have been able to support these amendments in the other place. I hope that this House will be equally able to support them here. It is important to recognise that they have addressed an historical anomaly and now allow that opportunity to the individuals affected of a route to citizenship that was not available to them before.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The Minister rightly says that we are dealing with an historical anomaly, and that makes the case for introducing this part of the Bill and commencing it as early as possible. I hope that he can assure the House that he will put his foot on the accelerator to do that, because my constituent whose case prompted Lord Avebury to table these amendments is still stuck in limbo and, like other people, he would like to be able to remedy his situation.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that and I have certainly heard the points she has made.

I know that others wish to speak to their manuscript amendments, but let me just say that Lords amendment 19 clarifies that the Bill does not limit the duty regarding the welfare of children imposed on the Secretary of State or any other person by section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. Under section 55, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for ensuring that her functions in relation to immigration, asylum and nationality are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the UK. That duty continues to apply, and nothing in the Bill impinges on it.

Lords amendment 20 relates to some technical changes concerning the bank accounts measures. Lords amendments 21 to 23 respond to recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, ensuring that, where appropriate, affirmative procedure processes apply in respect of certain notices and certain aspects of the sham marriage provisions contained in part 4 of the Bill. I believe that the Lords amendments, with the exception of Lords amendments 16 and 24, improve the provisions, making them clearer and more workable in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hanson]

Imperative action is needed now. I have dealt with a number of Bills over the past few years and seen the Government bringing back amendments and amending their own legislation not six months after they introduced it. There is potential here today for a clear statement and clear action on the international trafficking of children. The pilots that the Minister brings forward can be undertaken.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Minister gave a commitment, which he has not done, that this comprehensive amendment, with all the powers for advocates included, would be in his proposed Modern Slavery Bill, we would not feel the need to press this to a vote? However, the Minister has not yet given that promise.

[Mr Hanson]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, correct. I have not yet had, following my intervention on the Minister, a closing date for his proposed pilot. We do not know what the outcome of that pilot will be. We have taken a principled position on the amendments from Baroness Butler-Sloss that there is scope for that to be done immediately. I am talking about not just us here, but UNICEF, Anti-Slavery International, Barnardo’s, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Amnesty International. An EU directive, which may not find favour with everyone in the House, says that we should consider that step. I understand that position, because 5.5 million children globally are trafficked each year. The UK Human Trafficking Centre identified 549 child victims in 2012. The national referral mechanism recognises 349 victims. A number of trafficked children face being sold into the sex trade and being exploited through work, cannabis farming, forced begging and sexual exploitation.

There is a need now to send out a strong signal that we want to take action on that in England and Wales. Trafficked children who arrive in Scotland value the care and support that they receive from their appointed guardians. That system works in Scotland, yet constituencies such as mine and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends still face real difficulties in that regard. Such a system operates not just in Scotland, but in many western European states, including the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany. There are templates for a system and it is time that we put in place a legislative framework for it. I wish to see that undertaken and supported today.

In passing, may I say that I welcome the changes on residential accommodation that the Government have accepted from the other place? In particular, I welcome the changes on student accommodation. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) is in his place today, as he has pressed over the past weeks and months, in Committee, to me personally and to the Minister, a very strong case to ensure that all student accommodation was included in the Bill. It is good that, following the discussions in Committee and the representations from members of Sheffield university’s students union whom my hon. Friend brought to London, the Minister has accepted that point. The Minister will have our support on those Lords amendments that have been accepted on residential landlords, students and other areas, because they are important issues.

I look forward to hearing what the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) has to say on her manuscript amendments. The Lords amendment has our support, and I hope that it will have the House’s support in due course.

Stop-and-Search

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree. We need to restore the public’s confidence in stop-and-search, but all the evidence —as we are already seeing from the steps taken by the Metropolitan police and one or two other forces—is that when the power is targeted and used effectively and well, not only is it more effective in its purpose of protecting the public, but the public have greater confidence in it.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

For many people, the critical issue is that if I am stopped by a police officer, I am treated as a nice middle-class, middle-aged lady and our relationship is very positive, but young people very often do not have that experience. What will the Home Secretary do to make sure that police officers share the experience of the communities they police so that there is not the tension that very often exists between police officers and young men, particularly young black men on the street?

[Mrs May]

We intend to introduce policies at a local level that will enable members of the public to apply to go on patrol with the police, and to talk to the police about what they are doing and their experience. Crucially, training not just of new police officers coming through, but of existing officers is of course key to this, which is why what I am asking the College of Policing to do is so important. As I have said, it should be clear that if police officers do not know how to use the power properly, they should not use it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am not able to give the right hon. Gentleman a date as to when I will be able to respond, but we are grateful to the Joint Committee for the detailed work it did and the commitment it showed in looking at this issue. That is why I want to look at it and to make absolutely sure that we respond to all the points the Committee raised.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I, too, had the privilege of serving on the Joint Committee, which concluded unanimously, across all the parties, that key to prevention of human trafficking is improved protection of its victims. In view of the 47% increase in the number of victims identified, can the Home Secretary assure us that she knows what happens to them when they leave shelters, often after 45 days, and whether there is continuing support and protection available to victims beyond that which is automatically provided?

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady refers to the Committee’s report and she is right to say that we want to ensure the protection of victims. Part of that is ensuring that the perpetrators can be caught, because if the victims have support and protection, they are more likely and willing to come forward to give evidence. In dealing with modern slavery and human trafficking, we must never take our focus away from dealing with the perpetrators. The Modern Slavery Bill will give us an enhanced ability to deal with those who are perpetrating this abhorrent crime.

The hon. Lady raises an important point. Many people will leave the refuge or protection they have been in after 45 days, but in many cases they will be able to go into a further form of protection that will have been discussed, and the charitable and voluntary sectors are working very well on that.

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Fiona Mactaggart Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that the £650 a year increase in the state pension resulting from the triple lock will hugely help women and men up and down the country with the cost of living—that is a wide range of people, from newly retired pensioners to those like my wonderful grandmother, who celebrates her 100th birthday today.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

When it comes to the pay gap and the cost of living, the people who are often under the most pressure are women between the age of 30 and retirement age, where the pay gap is biggest. What is the Minister doing to help older middle-aged women to carry those burdens?

[Jo Swinson]

I will not be drawn into giving exact descriptions of women at different stages of life, but I think that the hon. Lady is right to highlight the fact that there is a particular issue for women in that age group. Opportunity Now has recently been undertaking Project 28-40 to research the barriers that those women, in particular, face in the workplace—if Members want to contribute to the survey, I understand that it is open until Sunday. Obviously, the changes we are making for shared parental leave and flexible working will be particularly helpful for those women.